Dear

As President of the Evergreen Freedom Foundation (EFF) I am writing to you as Board Chair/President concerning the recent Washington Supreme Court decision (Washington Supreme Court, Case Number 67126-5, May 18, 2000) interpreting employer’s liability under RCW 42.17.680, the "paycheck protection" statute. EFF has been directly involved in promoting free and fair elections and protecting paychecks of public school employees in the state of Washington. An assurance of that goal is to prevent misuse of collective bargaining dues to unauthorized political committees and/or candidates.

It is unfortunate that the court has excused the Washington Education Association (WEA) from any liability under the statute for its use of collective bargaining dues as unauthorized political contributions, and we certainly sympathize with the precarious position this places school district employers in. However, as an employer we believe you have a legal obligation to protect your employees from having portions of their salaries and wages that you deduct from being used for political contributions without each employee’s annual written authorization. We urge you to discuss your legal obligations with your attorney. It is incumbent upon us, in our continuing role as a government watchdog, to inform you of the liability we believe you face under the law as well as to ensure teachers are not being forced to contribute to political campaigns they oppose.

The majority opinion states that "general membership dues of a labor organization may be used as a source for political contributions." However, "[w]hen an employer has notice that the funds deducted are for the use of a political committee or candidate, the employer may not then make that deduction without specific annual authorization." [Emphasis added.] The majority opinion has affirmed an employer’s duty to protect its employees.

Justice Alexander writes when a district has been informed by an employee that "withheld money is being used for the benefit of political candidates or committees," then "the district has actual notice, or that, at the very least, it must assume a burden to make further inquiries." Thus, Justice Alexander’s concurring opinion coupled with the majority opinion make it clear the school district has an affirmative duty to protect employees from the unauthorized use of their (employees) wages or salaries for political contributions. We concur with Justice Alexander’s opinion that to conclude otherwise, "would be rendering the statute, which was passed by the people, a nullity, and would be placing too great a premium on the district’s right to turn a blind eye to information it receives from an employee who claims he or she is affected by the deduction."

Similarly, Justice Madsen states that the notice standard adopted by the court brings an affirmative duty for the school districts to obtain authorization forms prior to deducting from wages for collective bargaining dues.

The majority says that where the employer has notice that the deducted funds are for the use of a political committee or candidate, the employer must have the employee’s written annual consent.

Justice Sanders states the obvious that WEA has, is and will continue to use members’ dues for political purposes.

First, these employers do not even deny knowledge about the ultimate political destination of these funds.

...

Second, the WEA makes no bones about its continued and historical involvement in political campaigns.

...

Now, if not then, (1996 election cycle) it is patently obvious to anyone of educable age that the WEA will continue to use dues money for political purposes in the future just as it has in the past. Therefore future unauthorized deductions from employee salaries for political use cannot be justified under the pretense that the employer did not know what was going on, at least short of some overt change in WEA policy.

Justice Sanders’ opinion reinforces the majority’s opinion that the employer has an affirmative duty to protect its employees. Further, we agree with Justice Sanders that it is now public knowledge that WEA uses dues for political contributions.

Also of significance to all employers is RCW 42.17.390, the civil remedies and sanctions provision. An employer who violates RCW 42.17.680(3) may be subject to a civil penalty of up to $10,000 for each violation under RCW 42.17.390. Thus, it is imperative that employers, (school districts) understand their liability under 680(3) and implement a policy which assures compliance with the same.

It is our purpose in this letter to point out to you that the WEA is continuing in its prior path of using general membership dues for political contributions without the necessary annual written authorization forms. Although we sympathize with your position that the WEA is benefitting from the use of your employees’ funds, the court and the law have declared that ultimate responsibility to protect each employee from unauthorized use for political contributions of employee wages is with the employer not the union. We know you will want to ensure that all your employees annually consent to the use of their hard-earned dollars for political contributions.

To comply with RCW 42.17.680 we believe you must obtain written authorization from all members annually before deducting WEA dues. Your payroll department is usually provided an accounting of the dues to be collected for the WEA each July that references the amount of dues taken from WEA members for both certificated and classified employees.

We expect you will want to comply with the law to protect your employees’ paychecks from the unauthorized use of WEA dues for political contributions and obtain the authorization before making further deductions. We see no reason why you cannot obtain the written authorization from your employees prior to collecting the August 2000 WEA deductions.

As your payroll department knows each school district collects agency fees from non-objecting agency fee payers who pay full dues less the COP (Community Outreach Program) assessment. As to the deductions of agency shop fees we believe you have an independent duty to protect non-objecting agency fee payers’ wages under RCW 42.17.760.

Attached hereto are documents that establish the WEA is using member dues and agency fees for political contributions:

Attachment A: Action Newsletter articles, WEA President Lee Ann Prielipp speech to the May 2000 address to the Representative Assembly and other WEA documents regarding political expenditures.

Attachment B: Campaign Finance Reports filed with the Public Disclosure Commission (PDC) for Initiatives 708 and 732 Citizens for Quality Educators

Attachment C: Campaign Finance Reports filed with the PDC for Initiative 728 K-12 2000

Attachment D: L3C Reports filed by the WEA as a lobbyist employer with the PDC

Attachment E: L3 reports filed by WEA (lobbyist employer summary)

Attachment F: Documents showing agency fees used for political contributions.

Enclosed are the above referenced documents. At the beginning of each attachment is a summary of the referenced documents and how each relates to your duty to comply with RCW 42.17.680 and RCW 42.17.760.

Where you have both constructive and actual notice, as you do here, you must get authorization prior to collecting the WEA dues. We believe if you continue to collect dues without the authorizations you are putting the WEA’s interests ahead of your employees and the law.

In light of the Supreme Court decision and the evidence presented here, once again I urge you to contact your attorney and determine your legal liability, obligations and duties to your employees. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

Bob Williams

President, Evergreen Freedom Foundation

cc: Superintendent
Steven T. O’Ban

Enc.