Court Opinion

ID: 9853158
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 05:43:34.05351+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:41.714368
License: Public Domain

Hill, J.
(concurring in the result) — I concur in the majority opinion and I think it reaches a desirable result, attaching proper importance to the expertise of the personnel board.
However, I am far from sure that it reaches the result which the legislature intended with reference to the extent and character of the review on an appeal from that board. It seems to me equally likely that the superior court correctly interpreted RCW 41.06.200(1) (b), and RCW 41.06-.210(1) and did just what the legislature intended the superior court to do on an appeal raising the issue that the evidence in the entire record preponderates against the findings of the board.
Conceding the prima facie correctness of the personnel board’s findings and conclusions, it seems impossible for a reviewing court (in this instance the superior court) to determine whether or not the evidence preponderates against the findings of that board without weighing that evidence as the superior court did in this case.
In any event, the important thing is to get this opinion filed while the legislature is still in session, which will give *10it the opportunity to take such action as it may desire, if we have not correctly interpreted its intention relative to superior court review.
Denney, J. Pro Tern., concurs with Hill, J.
July 3, 1967. Petition for rehearing denied.