EFF's Election Report ·
Gonzales Letter ·
Welfare Reform ·
Boeing Contract ·
Budget & Taxes ·
Business Climate ·
K-12 Fact Sheet ·
EFF Health Study ·
Paycheck Protection ·
Transportation ·
Unemployment Ins. ·
Receive Updates ·
Bookmark EFF ·
Contribute ·
EFF in the News ·
How Can I Help? ·
Join EFF ·
Media Center ·
PRESS RELEASE
 May 21, 2002
Contact: Marsha Richards, Communications Director WEA orders teachers and their representatives to be quiet, or else . . . After an annual arbitration hearing last week, the Washington Education Association (WEA) drafted a retroactive “gag order” for staff of the Evergreen Freedom Foundation (EFF) and several other individuals. The order, signed by attorneys from the WEA and an American Arbitration Association arbitrator, attempts to prohibit teachers and their representatives from ever talking about what took place at the union’s hearing. “The WEA cannot intimidate us or the teachers we represent into being quiet,” said Bob Williams, president of EFF. “We will not comply with such an unlawful and capricious order.” In an editorial last November, WEA president Charles Hasse stated that teachers have “full and open access to the minutest detail of our budget.” The union’s annual arbitration hearing is designed for teachers who want to challenge the union’s statements about how much money officials spend on politics and other non-union activities. But teachers and their representatives who have attended the arbitration say the process is not teacher-friendly. The hearing takes place on a school day, during class time, and teachers who want to attend must pay for their own substitute and take time away from their students. In addition, the WEA’s books are difficult to understand, even for the professional accountants and lawyers who have represented teachers in the past. Jim Dugan, a Kirkland CPA, was asked by a Tacoma teacher to attend the arbitration hearing on her behalf. "Nonunion teachers wishing to challenge the union's calculation of agency fees are facing an uphill battle," said Dugan. "The whole process is stacked in the union's favor, making the teacher the decided underdog."
“I have serious doubts about the union’s calculations when it comes to political activity, but there was no way I could have mounted an effective challenge to the union’s claims,” said Sue Hoffman, a computer instructor at the West Seattle High School. The arbitrator is chosen from a pool previously approved by union officials, and he is paid by the union--$1,100 per day this year--from teachers’ mandatory dues and fees. Teachers have found the WEA’s arbitration process impossible to negotiate in the past, so this year more than two dozen teachers granted powers-of-attorney to EFF and other experts familiar with accounting and union activity so they could have experienced representation. Representatives included Ken Eikenberry (former state attorney general), two certified public accountants, Bob Williams (EFF president and former CPA), Jami Lund (EFF project manager), and Jeanne Brown (attorney). A few hours into the hearing, union attorneys informed everyone present, including a former journalist, that they would have to leave immediately or sign an agreement stating they and the teachers they represented would never discuss any information “concerning, or in any way related to” the arbitration hearing. “Never is a long time, so we chose to leave,” said Bob Williams, EFF’s president. “We understand the need for reasonable terms of confidentiality, but we will not allow ourselves to be gagged in all matters for all time.” The union later drafted an order that would apply the gag retroactively to all portions of the hearing. After going through the process, Sue Hoffman says the union’s arbitration is a sham. “It’s an insult to teachers,” Hoffman said. “WEA officials
like to tell the press and my colleagues that they are open to us, but that’s
not true.” TEACHER CONTACTS: ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: Fast Facts about WEA's arbitration process
|
1 Part Honesty; 2 Parts Arrogance 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]?" - Rep. Jim McIntire (D - 46) Despite the arrogance of some state officials, Washington's constitution is clear: "All political power is inherent in the people..." |
