Other LanguagesThis is written in response to your recent request for our opinion with regard to the constitutionality of a proposal to place the following section in the 1971-73 omnibus appropriations bill:
We are writing in response to your recent letter requesting our opinion on a question which we paraphrase as follows: Are the meetings of the state purchasing advisory committee, as provided for in RCW 43.19.1902, subject to the provisions of the open public meetings act of 1971 (chapter 250, Laws of 1971, Ex. Sess.)?
By letter previously acknowledged you have requested an opinion of this office on a question relating to the administration of flood control zone districts under chapter 86.15 RCW. We paraphrase your question as follows: Is the "county engineer" as that term is used in RCW 86.15.060 the same person as the "county road engineer" referred to in RCW 36.80.010?
We acknowledge receipt of your letter dated March 24, 1970, requesting our opinion on a question pertaining to the platting and subdivision of land under the provisions of chapter 271, Laws of 1969, Ex. Sess. (now codified as chapter 58.17 RCW).
This is written in response to your recent letter requesting our opinion on a number of questions involving the constitutionality of a student loan program such as would be provided for by Senate Bill No. 840. Your questions are as follows:
This is in response to your recent request on behalf of the Washington State Bar Association, a state agency, for our opinion on the following question: "Does the appearance of a nonattorney in a representative capacity at 'all conferences and hearings' as authorized by a new rule, WAC 263-12-020, reportedly adopted by the state board of industrial insurance appeals constitute the unauthorized practice of law?"
By letter previously acknowledged you have requested an opinion of this office on a question which we have paraphrased as follows:
Where a law enforcement officer or fire fighter who is a member of the Washington law enforcement officers' and fire fighters' retirement system is injured in the performance of his duties in consequence of tortious conduct on the part of the county, city or district by which he is employed, including its officials or employees, does the fact that his disability is also compensable under the provisions of chapter 41.26 RCW, governing the aforesaid retirement system, constitute a defense to liability on the part of the employer?
We are in receipt of your letter dated June 16, 1972, requesting our opinion with regard to the authority of the department of social and health services to refuse to disclose certain information.
This is written in response to your recent letter requesting our opinion on a question pertaining to the exemption of certain property from taxation under the provisions of chapter 55, Laws of 1970 (Senate Bill No. 144). As we understand it from your letter (and enclosures thereto) the issue raised by your question may be paraphrased as follows: