EFF's Election Report ·
Gonzales Letter ·
Welfare Reform ·
Boeing Contract ·
Budget & Taxes ·
Business Climate ·
K-12 Fact Sheet ·
EFF Health Study ·
Paycheck Protection ·
Transportation ·
Unemployment Ins. ·
Receive Updates ·
Bookmark EFF ·
Contribute ·
EFF in the News ·
How Can I Help? ·
Join EFF ·
Media Center ·
|
OPEN LETTER June 25, 2003 Urgent call to action! Our State Appeals Court yesterday decided that the "State's interest in facilitating collective bargaining and preventing free riders" justifies union leaders use of non-member teachers mandatory fees for political purposes, even if the those same teachers do not authorize money to be removed from their paychecks for such purposes. The Appeals Court ruling overturns a key provision in I-134, our state's campaign finance initiative, as well an earlier court ruling that protects teachers' paychecks and free speech rights. EFF originally brought this case to the Public Disclosure Commission (PDC), claiming that union leaders were violating our state's campaign finance laws by mingling non-member funds into accounts from which they made political expenditures. The PDC concurred with our findings against the union and turned the case over to the Attorney General's office for prosecution. The WEA lost in court and was assessed a $400,000 fine for "willful" violation and was ordered to repay teachers who had money wrongfully spent. The Appeals Court ruling overturns this decision, meaning the Attorney General now will need to consult with its client, the Public Disclosure Commission to determine if they will appeal. We believe they must appeal! First, the Appellate Court cites the U.S. Constitution as the basis for protecting union rights over teacher rights; judges use as part of their ruling a new finding, that somehow the State has a compelling interest in "facilitating collective bargaining." Second, if the AG does not successfully appeal, taxpayers will have to pay the court costs for both sides, and the $570,000 fine will not be paid by the WEA to the state. This is unacceptable! Please send a message to both the PDC and the AG immediately asking them to appeal the Tabor Decision to the State Supreme Court. The clock has already started ticking. The AG has 30 days from June 24, to decide if she will appeal. Attorney General's office Click here to see the Court of Appeals Division II ruling. Click here to read EFF's press release. Contact: Marsha
Richards, Communications Director
|
1 Part Honesty; 2 Parts Arrogance At a March 23, 2005, House Appropriations hearing on a bill to gut the voter-approved I-601 spending limit, Rep. Jim McIntire (D) asked a supporter of I-601’s two-third supermajority requirement for the legislature to raise taxes the following question: "Can you name a time when we [legislators] have actually not just set it [supermajority requirement] aside by majority vote? I mean, this is in many respects a procedural motion that has no bearing. It’s a statutory constraint that cannot constrain any legislature that chooses as a majority to set it aside . . . have we ever used a supermajority [to raise taxes]?" - Rep. Jim McIntire (D - 46) Despite the arrogance of some state officials, Washington's constitution is clear: "All political power is inherent in the people..." |
