Other LanguagesThis is written in response to your recent letter requesting our opinion on the following question: "In your opinion, are the provisions of RCW 29.79.490 (6) applicable to a Washington corporation with its principal office in this state, if the sole stockholder of the corporation is another corporation having its principal place of business here, and qualified to do business here, but organized in a state other than Washington and with a majority of its stockholders residents of states other than Washington?"
You have recently asked for our opinion on two questions which, with your approval, we have paraphrased as follows: (1) May a legislator who is a director of a nonprofit housing development corporation participate in the consideration of and vote on any bill pertaining to housing authorities at the state or local level without having a conflict of interest?
This is written in response to your recent letter requesting our opinion with regard to the following questions pertaining to the powers of municipalities employing law enforcement officers of fire fighters who are covered by the provisions of the Washington law enforcement officers' and fire fighters' retirement system, chapter 41.26 RCW: "Does a municipality have the authority as a condition of employment to require the employee to sign a 'hold harmless' agreement with a municipality that the employee will not seek redress of any medical expenses pursuant to the Chapter (a) while engaged in outside employment, or (b) participating in certain hazardous activities such as auto racing, sky diving, motorcycle racing?"
By recent letter you made reference to the establishment of a board of review under the provisions of RCW 47.52.150 ". . . to resolve the pending dispute between the City of Seattle and the Washington State Highway Department as to the precise manner in which Interstate Highway No. 90 will terminate within the confines of the City of Seattle. . . ." You then stated that this board is desirous of obtaining our opinion ". . . as to the applicability [to its proceedings] of the Open Public Meeting Act of 1971 to the Board of Review." By way of a refinement of this request you concluded by indicating that:
0This is written in response to your recent letter requesting our opinion as to whether the various veterans' organizations having representative members on the state veterans' rehabilitation council, as provided for in RCW 43.61.010, as amended by § 31, chapter 18, Laws of 1970, may, by virtue of the amendments contained in this act, have the council purchase all of their office supplies through the state division of purchasing.
On the evening of May 10, 1971, during the 60th consecutive day of the 1971 legislature's first extraordinary session, it is reported that several bills (including the major 1971-73 appropriations act and related revenue measures, together with bills relating to workmen's compensation and pensions) were passed by one or the other of the two houses during a period of approximately four hours occurring after 12 o'clock midnight, following which it adjourned sine die ‑ although the observable clocks located in each of the two chambers showed it to be only 11:55 P.M. at the time of passage of these measures. You have asked for our advice regarding the legal consequences of this reported factual situation.
By letter previously acknowledged you have requested an opinion of this office on certain questions regarding the use of powers of attorney in connection with applications for Viet Nam veterans' bonuses under chapter 154, Laws of 1972, 1st Ex. Sess. We have paraphrased your questions as follows: (1) May a person holding a general or appropriately special power of attorney executed by a person qualified for a bonus under chapter 154, supra, make application for and receive such a bonus "on behalf of this person"? (2) Assuming an affirmative answer to question (1), is that answer applicable in a case where the person who has executed the power of attorney is known to be a prisoner of war or missing in action?
This is written in response to your recent request for our opinion with regard to the legality of payment of the salary of Whatcom County Superior Court Judge Hobart S. Dawson, who is currently serving in that capacity pursuant to an appointment made by the governor in accordance with the following provision of Article IV, § 5 of the state Constitution: ". . . If a vacancy occurs in the office of judge of the superior court, the governor shall appoint a person to hold the office until the election and qualification of a judge to fill the vacancy, which election shall be at the next succeeding general election, and the judge so elected shall hold office for the remainder of the unexpired term."
We acknowledge receipt of your letter dated April 30, 1970, requesting our advice as to the authority of a county to levy an excise tax in the nature of a business and occupation tax.
You have requested an opinion of this office on the following question: "Are any of the members of the 42nd legislature currently eligible for appointment to the Forest Tax Committee to be established pursuant to § 18 of Substitute Senate Bill No. 849?"