State agency partially corrects misinterpretation
of law
OLYMPIAResponding 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."
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]?"