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 ·
|
NEWS ADVISORY January 24, 2005 PDC to hold hearing on use of public facilities in support of statewide referendum OLYMPIA—On January 25, 2005, the Public Disclosure Commission will hold three enforcement hearings to determine if local union representatives (school district employees) violated RCW 42.17.130 by using public facilities to overturn a charter school law and promote a tax increase for education (Referendum 55 and Initiative 884). The PDC alleges that employees in the Monroe School District and the Seattle School District No. 1 violated RCW 42.17.130 by using school district mailboxes and e-mail systems to distribute information in support of placing R-55 and I-884 on the November 2, 2004, ballot. These district employees served as union building representatives for each district’s local teachers’ union. RCW 42.17.130 states: “No...person appointed to or employed by any public office or agency may use or authorize the use of any of the facilities of a public office or agency, directly or indirectly, for the purpose of assisting a campaign for election of any person to any office or for the promotion of or opposition to any ballot proposition.” In 2000, the PDC released Interpretation 00-05, “Guidelines for Local Government Agencies, Including School Districts, in Election Campaigns,” which cited an earlier declaratory ruling that distribution of materials supporting or opposing a ballot measure using a local agency’s internal mailing systems would violate RCW 42.17.130. Additional Information Contact: Michael Reitz | Legal Research Analyst | 360.956.3482
|
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..." |
