The Public Works Board lacks the statutory authority to hire, supervise, evaluate, transfer, and fire staff assigned to it by the Department of Community, Trade, and Economic Development.
1. Generally, a visiting judge should hold a proceeding in the county in which they are visiting. However, there are some exceptions. Parties in a civil action may consent to a visiting judge holding a court proceeding in the visiting judge’s home county, and a criminal defendant can waive their right to a jury comprised of citizens of the county in which the offense is alleged to have been committed. In addition, a visiting judge may appear remotely during certain court proceedings.
2. Yes, with the parties’ consent. RCW 2.08.190 recognizes that any visiting judge may hear a matter in their home county with the parties’ consent; RCW 2.08.190’s language shows that the legislature intended for the statute to apply to all judicial districts in the state, including single-county judicial districts.
3. The superior court clerk for the visited county is responsible for keeping a record of the proceedings over which a visiting judge presides. By statute, a superior court clerk is required to keep a record of the proceedings for only the court or courts in which they are a clerk.
4. A visiting judge may delegate authority to an appointed court commissioner of the county in which the judge is visiting. A visiting judge may not independently appoint a regular court commissioner or a temporary pro tem court commissioner for the county in which the judge is visiting unless the visiting judge is also designated as the presiding judge pro tem for the visited county.
School districts do not, under current state law, have authority to operate adolescent health care clinics, or to provide public funds or school facilities for such clinics.
Irrigation districts have the statutory
authority to enter into contracts with the United States Bureau of Reclamation,
but lack the statutory authority to indemnify the United States through such
contracts.
The Legislature’s repeal of statutes authorizing the formation of water distribution districts for irrigation and governing their operation, without making provision for existing districts, resulted in the dissolution of existing districts. Existing water distribution districts for irrigation were not reclassified as irrigation districts or water-sewer districts.
RCW 43.135.055(1), as most recently amended by Initiative 1185 and previously by Initiatives 960 and 1053, does not amend or repeal approval the legislature has granted in other statutes for the imposition or increase of fees, and makes no distinction as to when legislative approval must take place.