Other LanguagesThis is written in response to your letter previously acknowledged in which you requested the advice of this office on a matter relating to the scope and effect of certain amendments made by the legislature to the school district budget law by the enactment of chapter 119, Laws of 1969, Ex. Sess. We paraphrase your inquiry as follows:
This is written in response to your recent letter requesting our opinion regarding the applicability of the cumulative voting provisions of RCW 23A.08.300 to a state bank or trust company which is subject to the provisions of RCW 30.12.010. As you have noted, RCW 30.12.010, in dealing with meetings of the stockholders of a bank or trust company which is subject to this statute, provides that:
We acknowledge receipt of your letters dated July 1, 1971, requesting our opinion on two questions pertaining to chapter 308, Laws of 1971, Ex. Sess. (Second Substitute Senate Bill No. 146), an act relating to "controlled substances"; enacting the "uniform control substances act"; and repealing a number of previous statutes dealing with drugs and drug control in this state.
This is written in response to your recent letter requesting our opinion on the following question: "Is an appointed member of a boundary review board a county officer as contemplated by RCW 84.64.080 relating to persons prohibited to purchase at tax foreclosure sales?"
By letter previously acknowledged, you requested an opinion of this office on a question which, based on further conversations with you, we paraphrase as follows:
This is written in response to your recent letter requesting our opinion on a problem arising from the dual amendment of RCW 46.68.030 by two separate acts passed by the recently concluded 1971 legislative session.
In your previous correspondence you requested an opinion on the question of whether or not a director of a cemetery district can legally serve also as secretary for the district.
"It has come to my attention that a question exists relating to the salary level for newly appointed or elected judges of the state. Would you please issue an opinion advising this office as paymaster for the Court of Appeals and one‑half of the Superior Court judges' salaries, whether or not such newly elected or appointed judges are entitled to the statutory amount set by the 1972 session of the legislature, or whether they should be paid at the same level as judges presently serving the courts of the state of Washington."
This is written in response to your recent request for our opinion on several questions pertaining to the potential tort liability of the officers and employees of an irrigation district, together with the authority of such a district to indemnify these personnel, either directly or through the purchase of liability insurance, against the possibility of such liability.
This is written in response to your recent letter requesting our opinion on the following two questions regarding expense reimbursement for superior court judges: "1. A Superior Court Judge, in furtherance of his office, attends meetings at county seat which are breakfast, lunch or dinner meetings. Typical meetings are of the new Law Library Board, Juvenile Advisory Committee or with Juvenile Staff. Are claims against the county for the cost of such meals an allowable expense? 2. Are claims for reimbursement for such meals subject to audit by the County Auditor and examination and allowance under RCW 36.22.040?"