Other LanguagesLast month, during the 1971 special legislative session, the two of you jointly wrote us requesting an opinion outlining the permissible limits within which tax exemptions may be granted by the legislature under our state constitution. In addition, you asked for our advice regarding the constitutionality of then pending House Bills Nos. 1, 82 and 757 in the light of these constitutional guidelines.
By letter previously acknowledged, you requested the opinion of this office on questions we paraphrase as follows: 1. What procedures must be followed before a ninth to twelfth grade student may transfer to a public school not situated in the district in which he resides, when grades nine through twelve are offered in the district in which the student resides, and when the transfer is not pursuant to a special program? 2. If a ninth to twelfth grade student is allowed to transfer from his resident district to another school district when his own school district offers grades nine through twelve and when the transfer is not pursuant to a special program, must the transferring student pay tuition to the school district he attends and, if so, how much? We conclude that under the conditions stated in the first question a student may transfer school districts but only if the boards of directors of the school district in which the student resides and of the district to which the student wishes to transfer mutually agree to the transfer and further agree that the transferring student will best be accommodated in the receiving district. In answer to the second question we conclude that unless the board of directors of the resident school district and the receiving school district make arrangements in lieu of tuition which are approved by the State Superintendent of Public Instruction, the transferring student must pay to the receiving school district a reasonable tuition charge as set by the state superintendent.
This is written in response to your recent request for an opinion of this office with regard to the distribution of interest earned on certain short-term investments or deposits of surplus funds of the Washington public employees' retirement system and the Washington state teachers' retirement system. Your essential question is whether this interest should all be credited to the particular retirement fund whose monies earned it ‑ as is apparently required by RCW 41.40.080 in the case of the employees' retirement system and by RCW 41.32.203 with respect to the teachers' retirement system ‑ or whether an amount equal to twenty percent of this interest is to be set aside in a "reserve account" as provided for in RCW 43.84.090.
By letter previously acknowledged you have requested an opinion of this office on a question which we paraphrase as follows: Would a member of the Law Enforcement Officers' and Fire Fighters' Retirement System who separated from service on March 31, 1970, and whose retirement was effective April 1, 1970, be entitled to receive the adjustment contemplated by RCW 41.26.240 on April 1, 1971?
We are in receipt of your letter dated October 17, 1972, requesting our advice with regard to the scope of RCW 41.14.190.
By letter previously acknowledged, you have requested the advice of this office on a question concerning the appropriation in chapter 282, Laws of 1969, 1st Ex. Sess., for salary improvements for school district employees. This appropriation reads, in material part, as follows:
By letter previously acknowledged you have requested the advice of this office concerning the general authority of a noncharter code city, operating under the mayor-council form of government, to adopt a code of ethics for the conduct of its officers. Secondly, you have also asked that we consider the validity of several specific regulatory provisions of such a code which you have described as follows: 1. Elected and appointed officials, ethics and conflicts of interest 2. Additional qualifications for elected officials
This is in response to your request for legal assistance from this office on the four questions which we have paraphrased as follows: 1. Are fringe benefits which constitute a part of the compensation of county commissioners, such as insurance and similar benefits, payable in whole or in part from county road funds? 2. Is it lawful for a county under chapter 25, Laws of 1971, 1st Ex. Sess., to use any part of its road fund millage for the purpose of paying the salaries and/or fringe benefits of its county commissioners? 3. May the expenses of county commissioners, such as automobiles, convention expenses, travel, and other types of expenses, be payable from the county road fund? 4. Are such expenses, or any of them, payable from the millage diverted from the county road fund pursuant to chapter 25, Laws of 1971, 1st Ex. Sess.
This is written in response to your recent letter requesting our opinion on a question pertaining to the investment of funds of the Washington public employees' retirement system. Your question reads as follows:
This will acknowledge receipt of your letter of June 7, 1971, requesting our opinion on the following questions regarding initiative measures under Article II, § 1 (Amendment 7) of our state constitution: "1. Can two or more subjects be incorporated into one initiative to the people or to the legislature? 2. If the answer to question #1 is in the negative, by what methods or standards are the limits of a single subject measured? 3. Can the initiative method be used to prohibit subdivisions of the State Legislature (such as committees, interim committees, and councils) from holding meetings closed to the public? 4. Can the initiative method be used to establish a limitation on the length of time any person may serve in an elective office? 5. Would it be legally permissible to circulate an initiative petition for signatures by publishing it as a portion of a newspaper?"