Search EFFWA Site:

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

December 23, 2003

State agency partially corrects misinterpretation of law

OLYMPIA—Responding to legislative criticism, Washington's Employment Security Department (ESD) has amended draft rules to correctly reflect the new maximum weekly eligibility period for unemployment insurance (UI) benefits.

Among other UI reforms adopted this year, legislators permanently reduced the length of time a claimant can collect benefits from 30 weeks to the standard 26 weeks. Instead of complying with the legislature's intent, ESD officials drafted rules that would have made the reduction fluid and impermanent.

The new limits are triggered when the state's unemployment rate drops to 6.8 percent or less. Officials in ESD admit they consulted labor union officials but not legislative bill reports when they originally decided the reduction in UI eligibility was temporary and would revert to 30 weeks anytime the state unemployment rate rose beyond 6.8 percent.

When the Evergreen Freedom Foundation exposed ESD's misinterpretation in a November 12 commentary, Sen. Jim Honeyford (R-Sunnyside), sponsor of the UI reforms, wrote to the Department clarifying the legislature's intent.

"I wish to emphasize that my intent as the prime sponsor of the legislation and chair of the Senate Commerce and Trade committee was for the benefit week to be permanently reduced to twenty-six weeks," wrote Honeyford. "There was never any debate or discussion here in the Legislature that the intent was otherwise. The proposed rules change this legislation."

ESD has revised its position and will now implement the permanent reduction.

However, new questions have arisen regarding ESD's interpretation of when the new limit takes effect. The law states that ". . . immediately following the month in which the commissioner finds that the state unemployment rate is 6.8% or less, benefits shall be payable to any eligible individual during the individual's benefit year in a maximum amount equal to the lesser of 26 times the weekly benefit amount . . ."

Under the plain reading of the law, the 26-week maximum took effect this month when ESD announced a November unemployment rate of 6.8 percent. But the Department instead claims implementation is based on a three-month unemployment average. This conflicts with legislative intent and delays implementation of the reforms.

Responding to this development, Sen. Honeyford wrote: "I oppose ESD's three-month average interpretation. It appears that they are allowing business and labor to interpret legislative intent. That is not how legislative intent is determined."

"Sen. Honeyford is making it clear legislators mean what they say and expect the law to be enforced and interpreted as written," said Jason Mercier, EFF's budget research analyst. "State agencies can't just interpret the law however they please."

Additional information
UI reforms and unaccountable agencies

Senator Honeyford's letters to ESD:
November 12 (text version)
November 12 (PDF)
November 13 (text version)
November 13 (PDF)
November 25 (text version)
November 25 (PDF)

Contact: Marsha Richards | Communications Director | 360.956.3482


Evergreen Freedom Foundation
P.O. Box 552, Olympia, WA 98507
Phone: (360) 956-3482, Fax: (360) 352-1874
Email: effwa@effwa.org


Election Reform


Grassroots Washington

Performance Audit Pledge
View pledge results

Health Plan 4 Life

Ten-Minute Citizen

WashingtonVotes.org

ChoosingLiberty.org

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)
(360) 786-7886

Despite the arrogance of some state officials, Washington's constitution is clear: "All political power is inherent in the people..."

Court of Appeals Ruling AG's WEA Appeal What is the WEA Hiding? Determining Government's Core Functions Priorities of Government Stewardship Series School Directors' Handbook Professional Choices For WA Educators Congressional Testimony (6/20/02) Agency Rule Change Request Social Security Calculator Tax Dividend Calculator Public Records Requests