WSR 16-07-088

ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE

[Filed March 18, 2016, 8:31 a.m.]

NOTICE OF REQUEST FOR ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OPINION

WASHINGTON ATTORNEY GENERAL

The Washington attorney general issues formal published opinions in response to requests by the heads of state agencies, state legislators, and county prosecuting attorneys. When it appears that individuals outside the attorney general's office have information or expertise that will assist in the preparation of a particular opinion, a summary of that opinion request will be published in the state register. If you are interested in commenting on a request listed in this volume of the register, you should notify the attorney general's office of your interest by April 13, 2016. This is not the due date by which comments must be received. However, if you do not notify the attorney general's office of your interest in commenting on an opinion request by this date, the opinion may be issued before your comments have been received. You may notify the attorney general's office of your intention to comment by e-mail to jeff.even@atg.wa.gov or by writing to the Office of the Attorney General, Solicitor General Division, Attention Jeff Even, Deputy Solicitor General, P.O. Box 40100, Olympia, WA 98504-0100. When you notify the office of your intention to comment, you may be provided with a copy of the opinion request in which you are interested, information about the attorney general's opinion process, information on how to submit your comments, and a due date by which your comments must be received to ensure that they are fully considered.

If you are interested in receiving notice of new formal opinion requests via e-mail, you may visit the attorney general's web site at www.atg.wa.gov/AGOOpinions/default.aspx for more information on how to join our AGO Opinions List.

The attorney general's office seeks public input on the following opinion request(s):

Opinion Docket No. 16-03-01

Request by James Nagel, Walla Walla Prosecuting Attorney

QUESTION(S):

1.	Does RCW 41.14.140 apply to the unclassified service (exempt) positions in RCW 41.14.070?
2.	Does the Board of County Commissioners have the authority pursuant to RCW 36.16.070 or RCW 41.14.140 to "consent" (or not consent) to the creation of new offices authorized as unclassified service (exempt) positions by RCW 41.14.070?
3.	Does the Board of County Commissioners have the authority to "consent" (or not consent) to the selection of specific positions authorized as unclassified service (exempt) under RCW 41.14.070?
4.	If the Sheriff, with the consent of the Civil Service Commission, makes changes to the job titles and job descriptions of one or more of the already existing unclassified service positions authorized by RCW 41.14.070, are such new job titles and job descriptions subject to the "consent" of the Board of County Commissioners under RCW 36.16.070 or RCW 41.14.140?
5.	Does the answer to number 4 depend on whether the change in position title or job description may result in a salary adjustment to the position(s)?
6.	If an adjustment to salary is required, is the board still required to "fix the compensation" pursuant to RCW 36.16.070?
7.	If the creation, selection or job title or job description change does require the "consent" of the Board of County Commissioners, what factors may the Board consider, in light of the holdings of Osborn v. Grant County, 130 Wn. 2d 615 (1996), and Crossler v. Hille, 136 Wn. 2d 287 (1998)? t In Osborn, the Court interpreted the "consent" term in RCW 36.16.070, holding that, "It is clear from this paragraph that the board has the power to create and fund employee positions in county offices." Osborn at 622-623. In the case of Crossler v. Hille, the Court held that, "The commissioners have the ability to authorize and fund a position, but this authority does not extend to specific personnel decisions." Crossler at 294. However, the Court also held that, "In the present case, the County Commissioners have no authority to impose employment policies on a district court judge." Id. The Court further held that, "We have recognized the limited authority of county commissioners in the past and there is no reason to change our position in this case." Id. at 295.
8.	If the Board has set compensation for a position previously, may the Sheriff pay an individual less than the compensation the Board has set?
9.	Are there any "deputy" positions in any of the county elected offices that RCW 36.16.070 would not apply to?
10.	Does the holdin in Crossler v. Hille, 136 Wn. 2d 287 (1998) change the analysis in AGO 1982 No. 8 9
11.	Is the Board of County Commissioners required by statute to fund an unclassified service position in the Sheriff's Office created by RCW 41.14.070?
12.	Does the Board of County Commissioners or the Civil Service Commission have the authority to review job descriptions for unclassified service positions in the Sheriff's Office created by RCW 41.14.070 before they can be filled?

Reviser's note: The typographical errors in the above material occurred in the copy filed by the Attorney General's Office and appear in the Register pursuant to the requirements of RCW 34.08.040.