OLYMPIA – A Thurston County Superior Court judge ruled this morning that the Washington Education Association (WEA) is bound by the confession it made last September when union officials admitted to breaking the law by spending nonmember fees on politics.
That the WEA admitted illegally spending nonmember fees during the 1999-2000 fiscal year is "pretty much a given for this court as to violations," said Judge Gary Tabor.
WEA attorneys tried, a few weeks ago, to recant their admission of guilt, claiming the law they admitted violating was "unconstitutionally vague."
In earlier court arguments, these same attorneys showed a clear understanding of the law governing agency fees.
In addition to enforcing the WEA’s stipulation of guilt, Judge Tabor denied union attorneys the right to make arguments about whether the violations they admitted to are vague or unconstitutional. That decision applies to the specific year included in the stipulation. The AG is investigating possible violations for a total of five years.
As Tom Wendel, Assistant Attorney General pointed out, "If you plead guilty, if you admit to a violation, then you waive [the right to challenge the law’s constitutionality]."
"Their council entered this stipulation voluntarily, knowingly," Wendel added. "It was preferable to WEA to have the Attorney General litigating against them, instead of the EFF (Evergreen Freedom Foundation). They were trying to escape the operation of their own stipulation."
The WEA’s trial is scheduled for May.
"WEA hasn’t run out of maneuvers," said Jami Lund, project manager for the Evergreen Freedom Foundation. "To save face with its own members, we expect WEA officials to try to cut a deal before they go to trial."
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]?"