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 January 25, 2005 PDC: Use of school district facilities for ballot campaign activity is prohibited OLYMPIA—Today the Public Disclosure Commission (PDC) unanimously ruled that two Seattle Education Association building representatives violated state law by using the Seattle School District’s internal mail and e-mail system to distribute campaign-related materials. Based on a complaint submitted by the Evergreen Freedom Foundation (EFF), the PDC investigated the local union representatives, who are also school district employees, for using public school facilities in support of placing Referendum 55 and Initiative 884 on the November 2, 2004, ballot. The union representatives distributed information on R-55 and I-884 by using school district mailboxes and e-mail systems, in clear violation of state law. 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.” Each SEA representative was fined $500 ($450 suspended pending future compliance). “The law is very clear that state employees cannot use public facilities for political purposes,” said Bob Williams, president of EFF. “The PDC has ruled once again that public facilities are just that, and not campaign offices for the union’s political agenda.” The PDC also held two brief enforcement hearings for similar violations by school district employees in Battleground and Monroe School Districts. Each received a $500 fine ($450 suspended). 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..." |
