Judge finds reasonable basis for claim against WEA
Judge William T. McPhee refused a request today, Oct. 8, by the Washington Education Association and UniServs for legal fees they incurred as defendants in a recent lawsuit saying that the Evergreen Freedom Foundation brought its case against the teachers’ union "with reasonable cause."
He granted legal fees to Kristeen Hanselman, a small portion of the WEA’s request.
EFF’s suit named Hanselman for her under reporting of political activities during the 1996 elections.
In declining the WEA request for legal fees, Judge McPhee stated there was "significant public interest" in EFF’s pursuit of WEA’s political activities.
In 1997, Evergreen Freedom Foundation and Teachers for a Responsible Union brought suit seeking enforcement of the Washington state Public Disclosure Act. EFF and TRU’s lawsuit came to trial in May 1999. A judge’s ruling in the case found that the WEA did not have to report to the public as a political committee.
The union filed a request in mid-September for legal fees it incurred as a result of the Foundation’s 1997 lawsuit. Union leaders claim they spent $1 million in legal fees to defend themselves against charges that the union operated as a political committee in 1996.
"Past investigations by Evergreen Freedom Foundation have shown that the union has been involved in illegal political campaigning, and the judge’s statements today vindicate our watchdog activities," said Lea Conner, director of communications for EFF. "Without full and complete reporting by political committees, we cannot have free and fair elections in this state or in any other state. Our lawsuit was founded in fact not supposition, and we are pleased the judge affirmed the rights of whistle-blowers to act on the public’s behalf."
The EFF’s appeal of a second part of its lawsuit against the union will be heard by the Washington State Supreme Court at 1:30 p.m. Nov. 18. That appeal addresses whether unions may withhold fees or dues monies for political purposes under Washington paycheck-protection law.
"We look to our November appeal with the hope of protecting the free-speech rights of Washington state workers," EFF’s Conner said. "The teachers who asked us to bring suit on their behalf watch and await this appeal, too, and we hold out much optimism that Washington citizens will finally see their voter-approved state law enforced."
The Evergreen Freedom Foundation’s research has exposed violations and misdeeds which have resulted in the following:
NEA paid $37,000 fines and costs for concealing that it contributed $410,000 in the 1996 election to defeat school choice initiatives.
WEA repaid $330,000 to teachers because the money was wrongfully collected for political purposes in a mandatory assessment.
WEA paid $59,000 fines and costs for not disclosing $285,304 in political expenditures.
WEA’s PAC paid $4,000 fine for not properly disclosing $342,255 in contributions.
WEA paid $15,000 fine plus costs for concealing its 1996 political plan in the EFF vs. WEA litigation.
Kristeen Hanselman, NEA political operative who was fined $2,300 for twenty-three monthly reporting violations—hiding the fact that she was a paid employee of the NEA, not the WEA.
James Seibert, WEA executive director, who was fined $6,000 for 60 reporting violations, filing 108 false monthly reports, and failing to timely report 4 personal political donations.
Karen Davis, WEA lobbyist who was given an administrative warning for failing to report over $220,000 in political contributions by the WEA and failing to report a personal political donation.
State Attorney General fined $33,110 for attempting to conceal the complicity evident in the settlement with the WEA.
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]?"