"WEA puts teachers at risk of violating campaign finance laws"
In clear violation of state law and Public Disclosure Commission (PDC) guidelines, the Washington Education Association (WEA) is instructing members they can promote ballot initiatives using school district facilities. The WEA website directs members to a flyer that outlines what it considers acceptable practices:RCW 42.17.130 specifically prohibits this activity. Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at August 23, 2005 02:30 PM | Email This“[Teachers can use] school mailboxes or e-mail to distribute information regarding levy, bond or initiative campaigns only if school mailboxes and/or e-mail may be used for other personal communications.”
Queen Christine aint gonna enforce that law.
Posted by: BananaLand (aka Iguana) on August 23, 2005 03:05 PMPerhaps the WEA would be so kind as to show us that exception in RCW 42.17.130.
Posted by: SouthernRoots on August 23, 2005 03:35 PMThe Legislature receives thousands of phone calls, e-mails (and prior to e-mail) faxes from teachers demanding pay raises, opposition to charter schools and any number of educational issues under debate every week during session. And these calls, e-mails and faxes come directly from the school (.edu) accounts, phone numbers and fax machines. (love the faxes, btw. Originating call number listed right at the top of the sheet. Main fax number to the school.)
And just try pointing out to one that what they're doing is illegal and see what you get. Some of the most vicious letters, calls and responses come from our wonderful, loving teachers.
Nope. This is old hat. And unlike other state employees who get popped by the PDC doing illegal activities, nothing will be done. Again.
Move along. Nothing to see here.
Posted by: jimg on August 23, 2005 03:49 PMFunny how moral superiority means you don't have to follow the spirit, let alone the letter, of the law.
WEA/NEA...proud propaganda arm of the looney left.
Posted by: scott158 on August 23, 2005 04:09 PM1. Expand WEA power by keeping Democrats in control of state government
2. Expand the WEA membership
3. Reduce teacher workload to increase demand for teachers
4. Enforce collection of union dues/campaign contributions (closed shop works great here)
5. Strengthen the taxpayer funded public education monopoly.
6. Keep WEA members marginally satisfied with pay and benefits
No, I did NOT forget the children. Children are not on the WEA's agenda. They are just the excuse for the aggregation of power.
Posted by: JC Bob on August 23, 2005 07:29 PMI think you are reading too much into the statement they provided.
Posted by: Doug on August 23, 2005 07:49 PMI love teachers but dispise the WEA. However, this is what they do!!! I am sure they had it run by lawyers and everything is legal ok.
Should the law be changed? absolutley. Is the WEA setting up its members though ambiguity? most likely.
On a side not, I do know a teacher who was told she had to remove her Dino Rossi sticker while on school grounds. I am glad the WEA has come to her defense.
Posted by: T.J. on August 23, 2005 10:20 PMMy sister is a teacher, and a darn good one. But she quit the NEA and even sued the California Teachers Association for unfair dues-charging practices. (and WON). Many teachers out there know what the NEA is up to and want no part of it.
Posted by: Michele on August 23, 2005 10:26 PMI do not know of a situation where the Democrat employers of public employees are not in bed with the unions; do not look to the unions as one of their primary sources of campaign funds. There may be a few Conservative Democrats who think that the collusion between government employers and the public employee unions is not the right thing but they are VERY few and far between.
And don't you love it when the employer jams a closed shop (as Fraudiore just did) down the throats of state employees. For practical purposes, Fraudiore just forced state employees to write her campaign checks.
Posted by: JC Bob on August 24, 2005 08:54 AMWell, how about matching the percent of union members in a given community? If the district is 21% union, then no more than 21% of the teachers can be union members.
Posted by: Huey on August 24, 2005 08:59 AMIf "everyone knows" that the WEA hides behind kids, why have the voters of Washington turned down ever charter school initiative opposed by the WEA and supported every reduce class size/increase teacher compensation initiative supported by the WEA.
Posted by: JC Bob on August 24, 2005 09:11 AMThe WEA portrays this decision in a positive light as if the same should be allowed here in the United States. In doing so, they disparage the necessity of our government remaining neutral in political decisions.
The flyer the WEA links to says teachers can use school facilities for political purposes if they are allowed such use school facilities for personal use. This is true, but I do not know of a school district that allows teachers unlimited personal use of school facilities.
Schools generally allow only de minimus use of school facilities for personal purposes. De minimus is not clearly defined, but has been described as short emails saying, “I’m working late” or “pick up some milk on the way home.” It basically means, “Don’t exceed reasonable use.” Political campaigning may exceed reasonable use.
The union will argue that to prohibit political expression during de minimus personal use violates teachers First Amendment rights. However, the government has a compelling interest in remaining neutral on political issues. Imagine the influence an email has when it originates from a school district email address. It basically has the endorsement of the school. This is inappropriate.
In the end, the article and flyer can easily confuse innocent teachers and cause them to violate the law. The WEA should care more for their members. The Public Disclosure Commission has expressed frustration over the annual violations by the WEA of campaigning laws and they should clarify the law and prohibit the WEA from making ambiguous and misleading statements.
The web page: http://www.washingtonea.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=424&Itemid=1
The flyer: http://www.washingtonea.org/wea/pubs/action/02-03/Oct-02/Action10_02-p8.pdf
The quote is from the WEA recommendation, "distribute information regarding levy, bond or initiative campaigns". The law is how you state, clearly it allows school districts and employees, if given proper authority, to use district assets and finances to distribute information contained in a M&O levy as long as it reasonably cannot be construed as being done to influence the outcome of the election.
There are some great "iffy" examples of this happening. How many times have you received a 'report' from your state representative before primary election or general election, stating what they have accomplished? Most of those do not violate the law even though they are clearly meant to be a means to use government money instead of campaign money to get the incumbent's name out there.
School districts such as ours, routinely pay dollars to put the highlights of M&O levy issues in local papers. We carefully craft these so it is only dissemination of information without any hint of campaigning. I would guess that it would be legal for the district and it's employees if properly authorized, to send out emails containing the same type of information to residents of the district. I don't even believe there is a need at all for the district to previously allow minor personal use of the email system, in the case of an M&O levy.
Clearly, the law allows for the dissemination of the information so as long as it is just that and not any more.
Posted by: Doug on August 24, 2005 07:03 PMSo, if you don't like it, go beat up your local school board member. Glad I am no longer on the board of education, but one of my big issues as a state association leader (WSSDA) was that board members were trained largely by superintendents, and that training was reflective of the interests of the superintendents, which is to keep the peace, so that they can continue to draw their large salaries.
The Geezer
Posted by: The Geezer on August 24, 2005 09:47 PM