OLYMPIA — In closing trial arguments today, the Attorney General’s office called for the tripling of a suggested $200,000 fine against the Washington Education Association for intentional violations of state law.
The AG filed a lawsuit against the WEA last October after union officials admitted to illegally spending the money of non-member "agency fee payers" for politics without their permission.
"We have shown WEA was aware of the [law] since 1992 when Initiative 134 was passed," said Assistant Attorney General Tom Wendel. "Even to this day, despite a stipulation of having violated [the law], nothing has been done to comply."
The lawsuit was sparked after a complaint was filed last summer by the Evergreen Freedom Foundation, an Olympia-based policy research organization.
Teachers who opt-out of the union, often for political or ideological reasons, become agency fee payers. They are required to pay a fee equal to 100% of regular member dues, but are entitled to a refund of the portion not spent for traditional union activities like collective bargaining. State law specifically prohibits spending their fees on politics without "affirmative authorization."
The AG’s office estimates that 8,000 teachers statewide have been affected by the WEA’s law-breaking during the last five years.
WEA attorneys argued that any attempt to limit their spending of teachers’ money for politics is an abridgement of the union’s right to free speech.
"The WEA’s idea of free speech is that union officials can say whatever they want at the expense of teachers," said Bob Williams, president of EFF. "It doesn’t matter to them whether teachers agree or disagree."
Since the AG is not seeking repayment for teachers, a group of non-member teachers filed a class action lawsuit in March to recover wrongly spent fees from the WEA. A trial date in the case has not yet been scheduled.
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]?"