Washington Education Association officials sure change their minds a lot. The teachers’ union was hit with a $400,000 fine July 31st for breaking this state law:
RCW 42.17.760 Agency shop fees as contributions.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.
The judge ruled that the law is clear and the union’s law-breaking was intentional.
WEA officials plan to appeal the ruling, and are now attacking a class action lawsuit filed by the teachers of whom they took advantage. Read what officials have said/are saying about a few key trial issues.
On the clarity of the law . . .
July 1999
RCW 42.17.760 relieves non-member agency fee payers of the need to object to the use of their agency fees for political purposes. Instead, it prohibits unions from using any representation fees from non-member agency fee payers, regardless of whether any objection has been submitted. – Court brief filed by WEA on July 9, 1999 in EFF v. WEA
April 2001
Moreover, contrary to the PDC’s allegation, WEA has never asserted that it "knows what is required by the statute." Rather, it has consistently maintained that the statute is so vague that it is impossible to know either what conduct on its part is prohibited by the statute or what affirmative conduct is required in order to comply with the statute. – [WEA’s] response to [AG’s] motion for partial summary judgement, April 23, 2001
May 2001
Well, I think you have clarified at least for the defendant’s point of view what we thought all along would be the issue that needed to be tried because the statute is very clear. – Judith Lonnquist, WEA attorney, Thurston Co. Superior Court hearing, May 4, 2001
August 2001
How can it be said that we intentionally violated a statute that is unclear? – Judith Lonnquist, WEA attorney, WEA press release August 1, 2001
On violating the law . . .
September 2000
[WEA] deposited into its general fund agency fee money from 4,194 individuals. [WEA’s] general fund money was used to make contributions and expenditures to influence an election and to operate a political committee. [WEA] did not have affirmative authorization from agency fee payers to use their money for these purposes. . . . [WEA] and [PDC] agree that [WEA] committed multiple violations of [the law governing agency fees]. – Written stipulation of facts and violations signed by WEA and state Public Disclosure Commission, September 25, 2000.
Upon accepting the Stipulation, the [PDC] voted unanimously to refer the case to the Attorney General’s Office because it found apparent violation of RCW 42.17.760, based on the actual violations agreed to by the WEA. The Commission also found that its penalty authority was insufficient given the stipulated facts in this case and that a referral was warranted." – Lawsuit filed October 9, 2000 by Attorney General Christine Gregoire
April 2001
[The Attorney General] has offered no evidence to prove that WEA actually used agency fees for purposes prohibited by RCW 42.17.760.
– [WEA’s] response to [AG’s] motion for partial summary judgement, April 23, 2001
On the rights of agency fee payers . . .
July 1999
[RCW 42.17.760 specifically prohibits unions from using agency fees for specific political purposes. [EFF has] provided no reason why RCW 42.17.760 does not fully protect the rights of the employees about whom they profess concern. – Court brief filed by WEA on July 9, 1999 in EFF v. WEA
July 2001
The [teachers] herein have no right to possess the funds that they allege to belong to them. WEA has the statutory right to charge fee payers an amount of fees equivalent to the amount of dues charged to members. Once WEA receives the funds, the funds belong to the union.
There is no "common law fiduciary duty" owed by unions to the persons whom they represent.
As a matter of law, state law does not impose an affirmative duty of the union to disclose its use of agency shop fees.
– WEA’s motion to have teachers’ class action lawsuit dismissed, filed July 27, 2001
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]?"