Last week the Washington Education Association was hit with yet another campaign finance penalty, this time a $400,000 fine for once again abusing its power and running roughshod over the law and teachers’ free speech rights.
WEA officials were sued by the Attorney General for illegally spending money taken from non-member (agency fee payer) teachers on politics without their consent. Many of the thousands of teachers affected by the union’s law-breaking had given up their union membership (and their right to vote on their own contracts) because they did not want to be forced to support the political and/or ideological agenda advanced by WEA officials.
As the facts of the lawsuit show, WEA officials care less about respecting the law and the interests of the union’s members than they do about exercising their own individual political power.
WEA officials do not respect the law.
After the Evergreen Freedom Foundation blew the whistle on WEA’s illegal activity last year, WEA officials admitted their guilt in a written stipulation with the state Public Disclosure Commission . . . but not because they regretted their activities. They were shopping for the prosecutor they wanted. As union officials stated in a PDC hearing, they knew if they admitted their violations the Attorney General would prosecute them instead of EFF.
WEA thought the AG would go easy on them. They were wrong. When Gregoire’s office began a serious and thorough investigation, WEA officials tried to recant their earlier admission of guilt and pull the rug out from under the investigators. When the judge wouldn’t let them, they changed tactics, claiming the law was unclear and unconstitutional. (In an earlier court case, WEA demonstrated clear understanding of the law governing agency fees. It suited the union’s purpose then.)
Is the law is unclear? The judge didn’t think so. Here it is in full:
A labor organization may not use agency shop fees paid by an individual who is not a member of the organization to make contributions or expenditures to influence an election or to operate a political committee, unless affirmatively authorized by the individual." (RCW 42.17.760 Agency shop fees as contributions.)
The judge doubled his base fine of $200,000 because he said the WEA’s violations were clearly intentional. The judge also awarded attorney and court fees to the AG’s office, making the total penalty approximately $500,000.
Last week’s penalty wasn’t the WEA’s first. The union currently holds the record for the next highest campaign finance penalty in state history — $430,000 levied against them in 1998.
WEA officials do not respect teachers.
Actions speak louder than words. WEA officials are in trouble for spending money taken from teachers who aren’t even members of the union to advance political and ideological causes with which many of those teachers disagree.
WEA has no qualms about forcing teachers to bear the consequences of its officials’ own illegal actions. Officials will personally face no consequences. Many of the officials in the union today took part in the law-breaking that led the Attorney General to sue in 1998. In the 1998 case, officials paid the $430,000 penalty with teachers’ dues money. They will do the same with last week’s penalty. It’s no skin off their nose... .
WEA officials admitted they were breaking the law in September 2000, but continued to deduct money for politics from non-members’ paychecks anyway.
WEA officials had to be ordered by the judge to come up with a plan to make sure they do not violate teachers’ rights in the future. They did not willingly undertake the task in the best interest of those they claim to represent.
WEA officials have no intention of reimbursing even one teacher for the money they wrongly took and spent, even after they were found guilty of breaking the law. That’s why a group of teachers has filed a class action lawsuit against the union to recover their wages.
The bottom line.
WEA officials should willingly refund teachers for the fees they admit they spent illegally. But they won’t. Why should teachers have to tolerate this kind of disrespect?
The facts of this case prove that for WEA officials, ends justify means. The union’s ends are less about the best interests of teachers, and more about amassing political power and influence for themselves.
Note: The judge also took the Public Disclosure Commission to task for failing to act on the initial evidence filed by the Evergreen Freedom Foundation last year. The PDC did not undertake enforcement procedures until forced to do so by the threat of court action.
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]?"