Contact: Marsha Richards, Communications Director
(360) 956-3482
EFF faces sanctions in NEA
case
OLYMPIA, WAIn a decision this morning, Thurston County
Superior Court Judge Berschauer granted a motion by the National Education
Association (NEA) requesting that the Evergreen Freedom Foundation pay the
unions attorney fees for what he called an improper use of the judicial
process.
The NEAs motion was filed after EFF issued a press release in July
announcing an $800,000 default
judgment against the union. The story generated widespread press coverage,
which NEA attorneys say harmed the unions reputation.
The default judgment was requested by EFF and granted by Judge Berschauer
on July 1 after the NEA failed to meet a court deadline to respond to a
lawsuit filed by the Foundation.
The NEA and its state affiliate, the Washington Education Association,
originally claimed that EFF filed fraudulent papers in court to deceive
the court into issuing the judgment.
Judge Berschauer said no, EFF did not commit fraud. Further, he made it
clear the Foundation may have complied with the technical aspects of the
law, but he felt EFF acted in "bad faith" and violated the spirit
of a default judgment by using it to embarrass the NEA, when it is intended
as a tool to get opposing parties into court.
"Under no circumstances would we compromise our integrity or our work
to protect teachers rights by misrepresenting the facts or capriciously
using the courts," said Jami Lund, a project manager for EFF. "The
NEA and WEA have a long history of denying, delaying, countersuing, and
earning sanctions for stonewalling in the courts and we wanted to make sure
the union couldnt just brush this off."
Judge Berschauer, while noting that EFF had every right to publish the
story, believed the Foundations willingness to do so was an improper
use of the default procedure in this case.
"We understand the judges concerns and concur that the courts
should not be used frivolously," said Lund. "But it does leave
us wondering how to avoid this problem when the verdict is based on a perception
of our motives."
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]?"