Gregoire Has 45 Days to Decide if She’ll Help Teachers
The Evergreen Freedom Foundation sent notice today asking Attorney General Christine Gregoire and state county prosecutors to uphold teachers’ rights by taking legal action to enforce Washington’s paycheck protection law according to the recent high court ruling.
The state Supreme Court ruled last June in Evergreen Freedom Foundation and Teachers v. Washington Education Association that school districts must have teachers’ permission before collecting dues they know will be spent for political purposes.
"WEA officials are justified in wanting to represent teachers in the political arena," says Lynn Harsh, EFF’s executive director. "But it isn’t true representation if teachers don’t contribute voluntarily. If union officials are having trouble getting teacher support for their political activity, they need to ask themselves why."
EFF notified school districts in July of their legal obligation to protect teachers and provided extensive documentation proving that the WEA is spending mandatory dues and agency fees on behalf of candidates and campaigns in this election cycle.
"There is no indication that public school employers have taken any steps toward obtaining the written authorizations required by [law]," says EFF attorney Steven T. O’Ban.
The case has now been presented to Gregoire. According to Washington’s campaign finance law, she has 45 days to decide if she will act on the request. If she declines, the case can be taken to court by citizens.
"When the union asks school districts to withhold political deductions from unwilling teachers’ paychecks, they are asking districts to violate the law," says Harsh. "Until WEA officials demonstrate integrity and stop putting schools in this difficult position, districts should just say ‘no’."
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]?"