Court protects offender and punishes whistleblower
After being denied a $1,000,000 claim for legal fees against the Evergreen Freedom Foundation, the WEA sought $169,734.67 to pay for the costs of defending one charge in the overall lawsuit. Today the judge awarded the WEA what will likely be less than 5 percent of its original million dollar claim.
But the real story is the chilling effect of the judge’s ruling on whistleblowers for future public disclosure cases.
"Our research uncovered violations so glaring that the WEA was found guilty of the largest campaign finance violations in state history, said Bob Williams, EFF’s president. And one of the central persons behind WEA’s political shenanigans is NEA political operative Kristeen Hanselman. To get socked with paying her legal bill is unconscionable."
In the motion considered today, the WEA claimed $169,734.67 was spent to defend against the charge that political organizer Kristeen Hanselman under-reported her time as an in-kind contribution to the No 173/177 campaign in 1996. So who is Kristeen Hanselman, and why is the judge’s ruling so ominous? Hanselman is the the NEA Political Operative sent to Washington to organize the union’s election campaign activities. She:
coordinated the initiative campaign to oppose Initiative 177 and 173 and hired and fired key political campaign staff and consultants.
approved key WEA campaign expenditures.
received a $2,300 fine from the Public Disclosure Commission for twenty-three monthly reporting violations—hiding the fact that she was a paid employee of the NEA.
amended her 1996 PDC reports several months prior to the trial which was established to determine if she was guilty of under-reporting campaign work.
Additionally, the WEA was fined $15,000 because they failed to provide Hanselman’s calendar as ordered by the court.
So why did the judge decide to throw this particular bone to the WEA? We don’t know, and we certainly plan to appeal his decision.
"This is a clear-cut case of retaliation against whistle-blowers, and anyone who dares expose WEA violations" said Williams.
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]?"