Judges: CHRISTINE O. GREGOIRE, Attorney General JEFFREY T. EVEN, Assistant Attorney General
Filed Date: 5/21/1998
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 7/6/2016
Honorable Lisa Brown State Senator, 3rd District P.O. Box 40482 Olympia, WA 98504-0482
Dear Senator Brown:
By letter previously acknowledged, you have requested our opinion on the following paraphrased questions:
When an air pollution control authority is comprised of a single county, is the board member representing the largest city in the county required to be an elected official or employee of the city?
When an air pollution control authority is comprised of a single county, is the city selection committee required to appoint, as the member representing the largest city in the county, the designee of that city's council and mayor?
With regard to the particular appointment in question, the city council and mayor expressed a preference that the city selection committee appoint a specific city council member to serve as Spokane's representative on SCAPCA. The council member designated was, in fact, already serving on SCAPCA pursuant to a previous appointment, and had been selected by the SCAPCA board to serve as chair during the following year. The city selection committee, however, declined to appoint the designee of the council and mayor for an additional term. It instead voted to appoint a former Spokane city council member, who resides in Spokane but does not currently hold elective office, effective with the beginning of the new term.
The governing body of an air pollution control authority consists of members appointed by various local government bodies. In the case of an authority comprised of a single county, state law provides that:
[T]he board shall be comprised of two appointees of the city selection committee, at least one of whom shall represent the city having the most population in the county, and two representatives to be designated by the board of county commissioners.
RCW
The city selection committee consists of the mayors of each incorporated city and town within the county. RCW
When an air pollution control authority is comprised of a single county, is the board member representing the largest city in the county required to be an elected official or employee of the city?
The statute does not expressly provide that election to another office, or city employment, is a necessary qualification for membership on the board of an air pollution control authority. It seems reasonable to conclude that if the Legislature had intended that only officers or employees of a city be qualified for board membership, it would have said so directly. The Legislature has, in fact, done so in at least one other context. See RCW
The legislative history of RCW
After the 1967 amendment, therefore, the statute described the appointees of the city selection committee differently than the appointees of the county commissioners. It provided that at least one member appointed by the city selection committee must "represent" the largest city, but described the commissioners' appointees as actually being elected county commissioners. Id. When the Legislature uses different language within the same statute to describe similar subjects, it must be presumed that it intended a different result. Cazzanigi v. General Electric Credit Corp.,
Later developments underscore this conclusion. The Legislature amended RCW
Since that amendment, the statute has referred to both the appointees of the city selection committee and of the county commissioners as "representatives." Since it is clear that the Legislature intended the word "representatives," when used to describe the commissioners' appointees, to permit the appointment of individuals who are not elected county commissioners, it is reasonable to conclude that the Legislature also intended that the word "represent," when used to describe the representative of the largest city, might be a person who is not an elected official of the city. It is presumed that when the Legislature uses the same language to describe similar terms, that it intends the same meaning to apply to both. In re Hopkins,
For these reasons, we conclude that the city selection committee is not required to appoint an elected official or city employee as the representative of the largest city in the county. We therefore answer your first question in the negative.
Your second question, repeated for ease of reference, inquired:
When an air pollution control authority is comprised of a single county, is the city selection committee required to appoint, as the member representing the largest city in the county, the designee of that city's council and mayor?
We also answer your second question in the negative. The statute vests the authority to appoint city representatives on the board in the city selection committee. As to an authority comprised of a single county, it makes no reference to the governments of the individual cities, except to the extent that their mayors serve on the selection committee. RCW
The only limitation that the statute places upon the committee's discretion is that one member must "represent" the largest city. In the case of an authority comprising a single county, the statute does not refer to the mayor and council of the largest city as having any role in the appointment of board members. The statute does, however, vest appointing power for multiple county authorities in the mayor and council. In the case of an authority comprising from two to five counties, "the board shall be comprised of one appointee from each county, who shall represent the city having the most population in such county, to bedesignated by the mayor and city council of such city, and one representative from each county to be designated by the board of county commissioners. . . ." RCW
The Legislature has therefore phrased the statute differently depending upon the number of counties comprising the authority. The appointment of members by a city selection committee, composed of all the mayors of incorporated cities and towns, is used only for authorities comprising a single county. In all other cases, the council and mayor of each city entitled to representation selects the board member to represent their city. Id.
This difference in drafting must be presumed to reflect a legislative intent to reach different results. Cazzanigi,
The statute suggests no reason to conclude that the real discretion as to whom to appoint belongs to a different body than the one the Legislature designated by statute. While we recognize that this determination leads to the awkward result that someone other than the city selects the city's representative, our review of the statute and its legislative history compels this conclusion. We must therefore answer your second question in the negative.
We hope that this opinion will be of assistance.
Very truly yours,
CHRISTINE O. GREGOIRE Attorney General
JEFFREY T. EVEN Assistant Attorney General