Other LanguagesIn the light of the recent approval by the voters of King county of an initiative prohibiting the construction of that county's proposed multi-purpose stadium at the Seattle Center site, you have asked for our opinion on several questions pertaining to the present status of the Washington State Stadium Commission and to the legal ability of the county in question to proceed with the stadium project. As you have pointed out, the site which was the subject of this initiative was selected as the location of the stadium in 1968 by the board of county commissioners (then the governing body of King county) based upon recommendations submitted to it by the aforesaid stadium commission.
We acknowledge receipt of your letter dated May 22, 1970, requesting our opinion as to the capacity of certain county elected officials to serve, simultaneously, as state elected officials.
By letter previously acknowledged you have requested the opinion of this office regarding the constitutionally permissible use of a certain $50,000 appropriation made by the legislature at its 1971 session. The appropriation consists of the following proviso in the appropriation for the Eastern Washington State Historical Society: "PROVIDED, That $50,000 of this appropriation shall be allocated to the Pacific Northwest Indian Center in Spokane."
By letter previously acknowledged you requested an opinion from this office on a question which we paraphrase as follows: Does an agency head have the authority under RCW 42.18.270 to allow a former state employee, as defined in RCW 42.18.130, to appear before his agency within two years of such employee's separation from that agency?
By letter previously acknowledged, you have requested an opinion of this office on a question regarding the authority of a port district to borrow funds on a short-term temporary basis. You have specifically identified your request as pertaining to the Port of Seattle, and have asked:
By letter previously acknowledged you have requested the opinion of this office concerning the responsibility of justice court judges to account for certain funds collected by their courts under the 1961 justice court act, as amended by chapter 73, Laws of 1971. Specifically, your question is: To what extent has that responsibility, as defined by our supreme court in King Cy. v. United Pac. Ins. Co., 72 Wn.2d 604, 434 P.2d 554 (1967), been modified by this 1971 amendatory act.
This is written in response to your recent request for our opinion on the question of whether any portion of the revenues (fees, fines, forfeitures and penalties) assessed and collected by a justice court located in a county not operating under the 1969 justice court act, as amended (chapter 299, Laws of 1961) may be used to defray the costs of operation of such courts in the manner set forth in RCW 3.62.050.
This is written in response to your recent letter requesting our opinion on a question pertaining to the selection of hospital district commissioners under the provisions of chapter 77, Laws of 1967 (RCW 70.44.051-70.44.057).
By letter previously acknowledged you have requested an opinion of this office on several questions relating to certain amendments to the laws governing the public employees' retirement system which are contained in chapter 271, Laws of 1971, Ex. Sess. (Senate Bill No. 522) [[S.B. 522]]. For the purpose of presenting your questions, and our responses, in a logical order related to the sequence in which the subject amendatory sections appear in the act, we have rearranged them from the order in which they appear in your letter. Moreover, due to the number of questions posed, we have further determined it to be more appropriate, for the purposes of this opinion, to set them forth within the body rather listing them all at the outset.
This is written in response to your recent letter concerning the payment of per diem and expenses to newly elected members of the state senate. With regard to these individuals you have advised us as follows: "Newly-elected members to the Senate have been called upon to attend organizational meetings, and for the first time have been appointed to both the Committee on Committees and Senate Employment Committee. They will be called upon to attend frequent meetings before they are sworn into office next January."