The Washington Health Benefit Exchange call center in Spokane is so busy that staffing has been quadrupled, with the center receiving up to 10,000 calls a day. The problem is not enough of those callers are actually signing up for insurance.
The state has enrolled 160,000 paying customers in ObamaCare exchange health plans but that's more than 50,000 short of goal, which has led to an extension of the enrollment deadline and a request that the Washington State Legislature fork over $125 million to fund the exchange.
Republicans are angry because they were told the exchange would be self-sufficient by the end of this year.
Read more at Fox News
Read More......
Showing posts with label Washington State. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Washington State. Show all posts
Thursday, March 12, 2015
Monday, February 17, 2014
State to same-sex domestic partners: You’re about to be married
On June 30, the state of Washington will convert to marriage the domestic partnerships of thousands of gay and lesbian couples who have not gotten married on their own or not gotten a legal dissolution. Thousands of gay and lesbian domestic partners who have not married or legally dissolved their unions by the end of June will have their relationships automatically converted to marriage — courtesy of the state.
Read more at The Seattle Times Read More......
Read more at The Seattle Times Read More......
Friday, September 9, 2011
Longshoremen storm Wash. state port, damage RR
LONGVIEW, Wash. (AP) — Hundreds of Longshoremen stormed the Port of Longview early Thursday, overpowered and held security guards, damaged railroad cars, and dumped grain that is the center of a labor dispute, said Longview Police Chief Jim Duscha. ✧ Six guards were held hostage for a couple of hours after 500 or more Longshoremen broke down gates about 4:30 a.m. and smashed windows in the guard shack, he said. Read more at Yahoo News...
Read More......
Tuesday, June 14, 2011
Reince Priebus comments on the NLRB's action against Boeing
For Barack Obama and His Union Bosses, Not All Jobs Are Created Equal. Today, June 14, Republican National Committee (RNC) Chairman, Reince Priebus, posted his position on the Obama Administrtions' National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) targeting Boeing's plan to open a Dreamliner plant in South Carolina, a Right-to-Work state.
- [Snip] It is nothing short of hypocritical for President Obama to travel the country telling businesses to start “betting on American workers” while his Administration squashes thousands of good paying American jobs solely for political reasons.
Friday, June 3, 2011
The Right to Work: A Fundamental Freedom
HILLSDALE COLLEGE, "IMPRIMIS," May/June 2011 by Mark Mix, President, National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation - The following is adapted from a lecture delivered at Hillsdale College on January 31, 2011, during a conference co-sponsored by the Center for Constructive Alternatives and the Ludwig von Mises Lecture Series.
BOEING IS A GREAT AMERICAN COMPANY. Recently it has built a second production line—its other is in Washington State—in South Carolina for its 787 Dreamliner airplane, creating 1,000 jobs there so far. Who knows what factors led to its decision to do this? As with all such business decisions, there were many. But the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB)—a five-member agency created in 1935 by the Wagner Act (about which I will speak momentarily)—has taken exception to this decision, ultimately based on the fact that South Carolina is a right-to-work state. That is, South Carolina, like 21 other states today, protects a worker’s right not only to join a union, but also to make the choice not to join or financially support a union. Washington State does not. The general counsel of the NLRB, on behalf of the International Association of Machinists union, has issued a complaint against Boeing, which, if successful, would require it to move its South Carolina operation back to Washington State. This would represent an unprecedented act of intervention by the federal government that appears, on its face, un-American. But it is an act long in the making, and boils down to a fundamental misunderstanding of freedom.
Where does this story begin?
The Wagner Act and Taft-Hartley
In 1935, Congress passed and President Franklin Roosevelt signed into law the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), commonly referred to as the Wagner Act after its Senate sponsor, New York Democrat Robert Wagner. Section 7 of the Wagner Act states:
Employees shall have the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.
Union officials such as William Green, president of the American Federation of Labor (AFL), and John L. Lewis, principal founder of the Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO), hailed this legislation at the time as the “Magna Carta of Labor.” But in fact it was far from a charter of liberty for working Americans.
Section 8(3) of the Wagner Act allowed for “agreements” between employers and officers of a union requiring union membership “as a condition of employment” if the union was certified or recognized as the employees’ “exclusive” bargaining agent on matters of pay, benefits, and work rules. On its face, this violates the clear principle that the freedom to associate necessarily includes the freedom not to associate. In other words, the Wagner Act didn’t protect the freedom of workers because it didn’t allow for them to decide against union membership. To be sure, the Wagner Act left states the prerogative to protect employees from compulsory union membership. But federal law was decidedly one-sided: Firing or refusing to hire a worker because he or she had joined a union was a federal crime, whereas firing or refusing to hire a worker for not joining a union with “exclusive” bargaining privileges was federally protected. The National Labor Relations Board was created by the Wagner Act to enforce these policies.
During World War II, FDR’s War Labor Board aggressively promoted compulsory union membership. By the end of the war, the vast majority of unionized workers in America were covered by contracts requiring them to belong to a union in order to keep their jobs. But Americans were coming to see compulsory union membership—euphemistically referred to as “union security”—as a violation of the freedom of association. Furthermore, the nonchalance with which union bosses like John L. Lewis paralyzed the economy by calling employees out on strike in 1946 hardened public support for the right to work as opposed to compulsory unionism. As Gilbert J. Gall, a staunch proponent of the latter, acknowledged in a monograph chronicling legislative battles over this issue from the 1940s on, “the huge post-war strike wave and other problems of reconversion gave an added impetus to right-to-work proposals.”
When dozens of senators and congressmen who backed compulsory unionism were ousted in the 1946 election, the new Republican leaders of Congress had a clear opportunity to curb the legal power of union bosses to force workers to join unions. Instead, they opted for a compromise that they thought would have enough congressional support to override a presidential veto by President Truman. Thus Section 7 of the revised National Labor Relations Act of 1947—commonly referred to as the Taft-Hartley Act—only appears at first to represent an improvement over Section 7 of the Wagner Act. It begins:
Employees shall have the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, and shall also have the right to refrain from any and all such activities. . . .
Had this sentence ended there, forced union membership would have been prohibited, and at the same time voluntary union membership would have remained protected. Unfortunately, the sentence continued:
...except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment as authorized in section 158(a)(3) of this title.
This qualification, placing federal policy firmly on the side of compulsory union membership, left workers little better off than they were under the Wagner Act. Elsewhere, Taft-Hartley did, for the most part, prohibit “closed shop” arrangements that forced workers to join a union before being hired. But they could still be forced to join, on threat of being fired, within a few weeks after starting on the job.
Boeing’s Interest, and Ours
It cannot be overemphasized that compulsory unionism violates the first principle of the original labor union movement in America. Samuel Gompers, founder and first president of the AFL, wrote that the labor movement was “based upon the recognition of the sovereignty of the worker.” Officers of the AFL, he explained in the American Federationist, can “suggest” or “recommend,” but they “cannot command one man in America to do anything.” He continued: “Under no circumstances can they say, ‘you must do so and so, or, ‘you must desist from doing so and so.’” In a series of Federationist editorials published during World War I, Gompers opposed various government mandate measures being considered in the capitals of industrial states like Massachusetts and New York that would have mandated certain provisions for manual laborers and other select groups of workers:
The workers of America adhere to voluntary institutions in preference to compulsory systems which are held to be not only impractical but a menace to their rights, welfare and their liberty.
This argument applies as much to compulsory unionism—or “union security”—as to the opposite idea that unions should be prohibited. And in a December 1918 address before the Council on Foreign Relations, Gompers made this point explicitly:
There may be here and there a worker who for certain reasons unexplainable to us does not join a union of labor. This is his right no matter how morally wrong he may be. It is his legal right and no one can dare question his exercise of that legal right.
Compare Gompers’s traditional American view of freedom to the contemptuous view toward workers of labor leaders today. Here is United Food and Commercial Workers union strategist Joe Crump advising union organizers in a 1991 trade journal article: “Employees are complex and unpredictable. Employers are simple and predictable. Organize employers, not employees.” And in 2005, Mike Fishman, head of the Service Employees International Union, was even more blunt. When it comes to union organizing campaigns, he told the Wall Street Journal, “We don’t do elections.”
Under a decades-old political compromise, federal labor policies promoting compulsory unionism persist side by side with the ability of states to curb such compulsion with right-to-work laws. So far, as I said, 22 states have done so. And when we compare and contrast the economic performance in these 22 states against the others, we find interesting things. For example, from 1999 to 2009 (the last such year for which data are available), the aggregate real all-industry GDP of the 22 right-to-work states grew by 24.2 percent, nearly 40 percent more than the gain registered by the other 28 states as a group.
Even more dramatic is the contrast if we look at personal income growth. From 2000 to 2010, real personal incomes grew by an average of 24.3 percent in the 22 right-to-work states, more than double the rate for the other 28 as a group. But the strongest indicator is the migration of young adults. In 2009, there were 20 percent more 25- to 34-year-olds in right-to-work states than in 1999. In the compulsory union states, the increase was only 3.3 percent—barely one-sixth as much.
In this context, the decision by Boeing to open a plant in South Carolina may be not only in its own best interest, but in ours as well. So in whose interest is the National Labor Relations Board acting? And more importantly, with a view to what understanding of freedom?
Public Sector Unionism
As more and more workers and businesses have obtained refuge from compulsory unionism in right-to-work states in recent decades, the rationality of the free market has been showing itself. But the public sector is another and a grimmer story.
The National Labor Relations Act affects only private-sector workers. Since the 1960s, however, 21 states have enacted laws authorizing the collection of forced union dues from at least some state and local public employees. More than a dozen additional states have granted union officials the monopoly power to speak for all government workers whether they consent to this or not. Thus today, government workers are more than five times as likely to be unionized as private sector workers. This represents a great danger for taxpayers and consumers of government services. For as Victor Gotbaum, head of the Manhattan-based District 37 of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees union, said 36 years ago: “We have the ability, in a sense, to elect our own boss.”
How this works is simple, and explains the inordinate power of union officials in so many states that have not adopted right-to-work laws. Union officials funnel a huge portion of the compulsory dues and fees they collect into efforts to influence the outcomes of elections. In return, elected officials are afraid to anger them even in the face of financial crisis. This explains why states with the heaviest tax burdens and the greatest long-term fiscal imbalances (in many cases due to bloated public employee pension funds) are those with the most unionized government workforces. California, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Ohio and Wisconsin represent the worst default risks among the 50 states. In 2010, an average of 59.2 percent of the public employees in these nine worst default-risk states were unionized, 19.2 percentage points higher than the national average of 40 percent. All of these states except Nevada authorize compulsory union dues and fees in the public sector.
* * *
Fortunately, there are signs that taxpayers are recognizing the negative consequences of compulsory unionism in the public sector. Just this March, legislatures in Wisconsin and Ohio revoked compulsory powers of government union bosses, and similar efforts are underway in several other states. Furthermore, the NLRB’s blatantly political and un-constitutional power play with regard to Boeing’s South Carolina production line is sure to strike fair-minded Americans as beyond the pale. Now more than ever, it is time to push home the point that all American workers in all 50 states should be granted the full freedom of association—which includes the freedom not to associate—in the area of union membership.
MARK MIX is president of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, as well as of the National Right to Work Committee, a 2.2 million member public policy organization. He holds a B.A. in finance from James Madison University and an associate’s degree in marketing from the State University of New York. His writings have appeared in such newspapers and magazines as the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Times, the Detroit Free Press, the San Antonio Express-News, the Orange County Register and National Review.
Copyright © 2010 Hillsdale College. The opinions expressed in Imprimis are not necessarily the views of Hillsdale College. “Reprinted by permission from Imprimis, a publication of Hillsdale College.” Read More......
BOEING IS A GREAT AMERICAN COMPANY. Recently it has built a second production line—its other is in Washington State—in South Carolina for its 787 Dreamliner airplane, creating 1,000 jobs there so far. Who knows what factors led to its decision to do this? As with all such business decisions, there were many. But the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB)—a five-member agency created in 1935 by the Wagner Act (about which I will speak momentarily)—has taken exception to this decision, ultimately based on the fact that South Carolina is a right-to-work state. That is, South Carolina, like 21 other states today, protects a worker’s right not only to join a union, but also to make the choice not to join or financially support a union. Washington State does not. The general counsel of the NLRB, on behalf of the International Association of Machinists union, has issued a complaint against Boeing, which, if successful, would require it to move its South Carolina operation back to Washington State. This would represent an unprecedented act of intervention by the federal government that appears, on its face, un-American. But it is an act long in the making, and boils down to a fundamental misunderstanding of freedom.
Where does this story begin?
The Wagner Act and Taft-Hartley
In 1935, Congress passed and President Franklin Roosevelt signed into law the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), commonly referred to as the Wagner Act after its Senate sponsor, New York Democrat Robert Wagner. Section 7 of the Wagner Act states:
Employees shall have the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.
Union officials such as William Green, president of the American Federation of Labor (AFL), and John L. Lewis, principal founder of the Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO), hailed this legislation at the time as the “Magna Carta of Labor.” But in fact it was far from a charter of liberty for working Americans.
Section 8(3) of the Wagner Act allowed for “agreements” between employers and officers of a union requiring union membership “as a condition of employment” if the union was certified or recognized as the employees’ “exclusive” bargaining agent on matters of pay, benefits, and work rules. On its face, this violates the clear principle that the freedom to associate necessarily includes the freedom not to associate. In other words, the Wagner Act didn’t protect the freedom of workers because it didn’t allow for them to decide against union membership. To be sure, the Wagner Act left states the prerogative to protect employees from compulsory union membership. But federal law was decidedly one-sided: Firing or refusing to hire a worker because he or she had joined a union was a federal crime, whereas firing or refusing to hire a worker for not joining a union with “exclusive” bargaining privileges was federally protected. The National Labor Relations Board was created by the Wagner Act to enforce these policies.
During World War II, FDR’s War Labor Board aggressively promoted compulsory union membership. By the end of the war, the vast majority of unionized workers in America were covered by contracts requiring them to belong to a union in order to keep their jobs. But Americans were coming to see compulsory union membership—euphemistically referred to as “union security”—as a violation of the freedom of association. Furthermore, the nonchalance with which union bosses like John L. Lewis paralyzed the economy by calling employees out on strike in 1946 hardened public support for the right to work as opposed to compulsory unionism. As Gilbert J. Gall, a staunch proponent of the latter, acknowledged in a monograph chronicling legislative battles over this issue from the 1940s on, “the huge post-war strike wave and other problems of reconversion gave an added impetus to right-to-work proposals.”
When dozens of senators and congressmen who backed compulsory unionism were ousted in the 1946 election, the new Republican leaders of Congress had a clear opportunity to curb the legal power of union bosses to force workers to join unions. Instead, they opted for a compromise that they thought would have enough congressional support to override a presidential veto by President Truman. Thus Section 7 of the revised National Labor Relations Act of 1947—commonly referred to as the Taft-Hartley Act—only appears at first to represent an improvement over Section 7 of the Wagner Act. It begins:
Employees shall have the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, and shall also have the right to refrain from any and all such activities. . . .
Had this sentence ended there, forced union membership would have been prohibited, and at the same time voluntary union membership would have remained protected. Unfortunately, the sentence continued:
...except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment as authorized in section 158(a)(3) of this title.
This qualification, placing federal policy firmly on the side of compulsory union membership, left workers little better off than they were under the Wagner Act. Elsewhere, Taft-Hartley did, for the most part, prohibit “closed shop” arrangements that forced workers to join a union before being hired. But they could still be forced to join, on threat of being fired, within a few weeks after starting on the job.
Boeing’s Interest, and Ours
It cannot be overemphasized that compulsory unionism violates the first principle of the original labor union movement in America. Samuel Gompers, founder and first president of the AFL, wrote that the labor movement was “based upon the recognition of the sovereignty of the worker.” Officers of the AFL, he explained in the American Federationist, can “suggest” or “recommend,” but they “cannot command one man in America to do anything.” He continued: “Under no circumstances can they say, ‘you must do so and so, or, ‘you must desist from doing so and so.’” In a series of Federationist editorials published during World War I, Gompers opposed various government mandate measures being considered in the capitals of industrial states like Massachusetts and New York that would have mandated certain provisions for manual laborers and other select groups of workers:
The workers of America adhere to voluntary institutions in preference to compulsory systems which are held to be not only impractical but a menace to their rights, welfare and their liberty.
This argument applies as much to compulsory unionism—or “union security”—as to the opposite idea that unions should be prohibited. And in a December 1918 address before the Council on Foreign Relations, Gompers made this point explicitly:
There may be here and there a worker who for certain reasons unexplainable to us does not join a union of labor. This is his right no matter how morally wrong he may be. It is his legal right and no one can dare question his exercise of that legal right.
Compare Gompers’s traditional American view of freedom to the contemptuous view toward workers of labor leaders today. Here is United Food and Commercial Workers union strategist Joe Crump advising union organizers in a 1991 trade journal article: “Employees are complex and unpredictable. Employers are simple and predictable. Organize employers, not employees.” And in 2005, Mike Fishman, head of the Service Employees International Union, was even more blunt. When it comes to union organizing campaigns, he told the Wall Street Journal, “We don’t do elections.”
Under a decades-old political compromise, federal labor policies promoting compulsory unionism persist side by side with the ability of states to curb such compulsion with right-to-work laws. So far, as I said, 22 states have done so. And when we compare and contrast the economic performance in these 22 states against the others, we find interesting things. For example, from 1999 to 2009 (the last such year for which data are available), the aggregate real all-industry GDP of the 22 right-to-work states grew by 24.2 percent, nearly 40 percent more than the gain registered by the other 28 states as a group.
Even more dramatic is the contrast if we look at personal income growth. From 2000 to 2010, real personal incomes grew by an average of 24.3 percent in the 22 right-to-work states, more than double the rate for the other 28 as a group. But the strongest indicator is the migration of young adults. In 2009, there were 20 percent more 25- to 34-year-olds in right-to-work states than in 1999. In the compulsory union states, the increase was only 3.3 percent—barely one-sixth as much.
In this context, the decision by Boeing to open a plant in South Carolina may be not only in its own best interest, but in ours as well. So in whose interest is the National Labor Relations Board acting? And more importantly, with a view to what understanding of freedom?
Public Sector Unionism
As more and more workers and businesses have obtained refuge from compulsory unionism in right-to-work states in recent decades, the rationality of the free market has been showing itself. But the public sector is another and a grimmer story.
The National Labor Relations Act affects only private-sector workers. Since the 1960s, however, 21 states have enacted laws authorizing the collection of forced union dues from at least some state and local public employees. More than a dozen additional states have granted union officials the monopoly power to speak for all government workers whether they consent to this or not. Thus today, government workers are more than five times as likely to be unionized as private sector workers. This represents a great danger for taxpayers and consumers of government services. For as Victor Gotbaum, head of the Manhattan-based District 37 of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees union, said 36 years ago: “We have the ability, in a sense, to elect our own boss.”
How this works is simple, and explains the inordinate power of union officials in so many states that have not adopted right-to-work laws. Union officials funnel a huge portion of the compulsory dues and fees they collect into efforts to influence the outcomes of elections. In return, elected officials are afraid to anger them even in the face of financial crisis. This explains why states with the heaviest tax burdens and the greatest long-term fiscal imbalances (in many cases due to bloated public employee pension funds) are those with the most unionized government workforces. California, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Ohio and Wisconsin represent the worst default risks among the 50 states. In 2010, an average of 59.2 percent of the public employees in these nine worst default-risk states were unionized, 19.2 percentage points higher than the national average of 40 percent. All of these states except Nevada authorize compulsory union dues and fees in the public sector.
* * *
Fortunately, there are signs that taxpayers are recognizing the negative consequences of compulsory unionism in the public sector. Just this March, legislatures in Wisconsin and Ohio revoked compulsory powers of government union bosses, and similar efforts are underway in several other states. Furthermore, the NLRB’s blatantly political and un-constitutional power play with regard to Boeing’s South Carolina production line is sure to strike fair-minded Americans as beyond the pale. Now more than ever, it is time to push home the point that all American workers in all 50 states should be granted the full freedom of association—which includes the freedom not to associate—in the area of union membership.
MARK MIX is president of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, as well as of the National Right to Work Committee, a 2.2 million member public policy organization. He holds a B.A. in finance from James Madison University and an associate’s degree in marketing from the State University of New York. His writings have appeared in such newspapers and magazines as the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Times, the Detroit Free Press, the San Antonio Express-News, the Orange County Register and National Review.
Copyright © 2010 Hillsdale College. The opinions expressed in Imprimis are not necessarily the views of Hillsdale College. “Reprinted by permission from Imprimis, a publication of Hillsdale College.” Read More......
Monday, January 3, 2011
A fight for liberty in Leavenworth, WA
We The People – Wenatchee;
Today, December 10, 2010, I filed a Notice of Appeal of Judge Bridges’ rulings from the June 29, 2006, August 10, 2006, and November 12, 2010 hearings on my Chelan County Superior Court Case #05-2 00587 9. This is my case against the City of Leavenworth on their 2005 flag code which was enacted in response to me wanting to erect an 80’ H flagpole to display a large American flag (their 2005 flag code actually required a building permit to display any new flag of any size and to erect any new flagpole of any height).
I have also upped the ante and filed a new lawsuit today, again against the City of Leavenworth (Chelan County Superior Court Case #10-2 01364 9), on other code sections of their Flag Code, primarily centered on (excessive) civil fines and criminal penalties for violations of their flag code.
Since the City’s 2009 Flag Code revision, flags no longer directly require a permit (thankfully), and neither (now) do flagpoles under 15’ H any longer require a permit (I count such concessions by the City as partial victory in my 5-year legal battle). Flags, however, are nevertheless still subjected to Leavenworth’s Municipal Code regulations, including LMC 14.17.110, which states that flags of government should be displayed in an approved manner pursuant to the U.S. Flag Code (Title 4 of the United States Code, Chapter 1).
At first glance, this requirement may perhaps even seem laudatory (to show proper respect for an American flag), but, coupled with Leavenworth’s compliance statute (see LMC 14.17.170), exposes even patriotic Americans with every intention of properly honoring the American flag to excessive fines, criminal punishments, liens, and even foreclosure. It should be noted that the U.S. Flag Code has no enforcement provisions, so Americans (at least outside of Leavenworth), are free to ignore its recommendations (within their First Amendment Free Speech rights).
Leavenworth’s civil fine statute (LMC 21.13.090) allows for civil penalties of $250 per day per violation, with each separate day, event, action or occurrence constituting a separate violation. Since each new day is a new violation, and each violation adds $250 per day, on day two there would be $750 fine, day seven $7,000, day fifteen, $30,000 and day thirty, $116,250.00.
Worse, because of Leavenworth’s unique “interpretation” of U.S. Flag Code (4 U.S.C. 8(i)) and its direction that the American flag “should never be used for advertising purposes in any manner whatsoever”, and because the City has already stated for the record that they thought I intended to display the American flag (objectively, otherwise in full conformance with the U.S. Flag Code) as a “locational device” to advertise my Foundation For Liberty organization, the City can still powerfully and improperly deny free speech.
In other words, even though the First Amendment acknowledges that Americans have the inherent right to speak freely (an objective and observable action, mind you), the City argues, in essence, that they have the power to question even my subjective motives to “speak” (in this case, through the displaying of a flag).
Never mind for the moment that the City confuses the means I intended to use (a flag, and the Foundation) for the end itself (as if the Foundation For Liberty was to exist for its own end, rather than itself and the flag being but vehicles to encourage others to reflect on liberty and limited government under the Constitution), the City behaves as if they have the power to examine someone’s reasons for wanting to speak even before the person spoke! If an official deemed the reason to speak insufficient, then the person would be denied the opportunity! Such power has never been allowed in any government of these United States of America, and scarcely any thuggish government on earth (evidently the idea of a “thought police” has found a way out of the sci-fi novels and into the Bavarian-themed village of Leavenworth, Washington.
The City’s sign code (at LMC 14.10.070(C)) also reflects the “approved manner” of display for government flags (exempting only those flags flown “in an approved manner” from the sign code regulations), so I also am now attacking Leavenworth’s sign code for its restrictions on Free Speech as well. In attacking one part of the sign code, I figured I may as well attack other speech-related aspects of the sign code also.
The interesting thing about Leavenworth’s sign code (Chapter 14.10) is that it is written quite plainly for the express purposes of supporting Leavenworth’s Old World Bavarian Design Theme (with very little thought of protecting free speech).
When the City was working on their drafts of the Flag Code in April of 2005, I wrote the City a nine-page letter outlining some of my problems with their glaring favoritism to Bavarian “festival flags” in relation to much harsher treatment of American flags. This presented the City with their first opportunity to make their new flag code appear less biased against all non-Bavarian flags, by cleaning up the language of their proposed flag code before it was ever enacted (their 2009 flag code revisions were their next opportunity, both of which made it more difficult for me to win my 2005 flag case at the lower court level).
The City’s Sign Code, however, has not been “properly cleaned up” to make it appear less biased against non-Bavarian signs, and it is overtly pro-Bavarian throughout. I should thus have an easier time winning my 2010 flag/sign case at the lower court level (or again, at least Leavenworth will hopefully clean up their old sign code, so it doesn’t at least appear so unconstitutional on its face [and in doing so, Leavenworth citizens will undoubtedly regain at least some of their lost speech]).
Of course, my 2005 flag case, the appeal of my 2005 flag case, and my new 2010 flag/sign case information are all available on the Foundation’s website at www.FoundationForLiberty.org (click on the “Lawsuits” tab and follow the Leavenworth case to the appropriate information) for anyone wanting more information.
I have also requested from the City a formal “Code Interpretation” November 24, 2010 regarding LMC 14.17.130—their “grandfather clause”—I expect to hear back from them by Christmas. Though LMC 14.17.130 specifically allows normal “maintenance and repair” of existing non-conforming structures (of structures which were legally erected prior to the 2005 flag, flagpole and tower code which began regulating such structures, even though such structures do not conform to the new regulations in some fashion), LMC 14.17.130 specifically provides that “no modification, alteration or replacement shall be made to a non-conforming structures unless the structure thereafter conforms to the provisions of this chapter”.
This regulation now puts the City in an interesting position of having to defend the City’s flag, flagpole and tower regulations, while yet protecting their 95’ H Bavarian Maypole, which was, prior to the spring of 2010, a legally-vested, non-conforming structure, but is no longer.
During the spring of 2010, after I pointed out to the City in an Interrogatory that their Maypole leaned off-center (some 4 degrees), the City (or someone at their direction) loosened the bolts which held the Maypole, and “repaired” the Maypole from its 4 degree list off-plumb and re-tightened the bolts after the Maypole was brought back to plumb. This perhaps routine procedure (due to expansion and contraction of wood fibers with the seasonal changes in humidity) was allowed by their grandfather clause.
Then, however, to keep the Maypole from again slipping off-plumb, the Maypole was modified and altered and new lateral support jaws were made and installed, which now likely prevent the Maypole from slipping off-plumb in the future, but nevertheless voided the structure’s legal vesting due to the express prohibition within the City’s grandfather clause from any alteration or modification without conformance.
I maintain that the City now has three choices, since the Maypole has been altered and modified (and thus is no longer is an allowed, non-conforming structure): 1) the City can remove the Maypole; 2) they can cut the Maypole in half so it doesn’t exceed their height limitations, while yet obtaining full engineering studies and obtaining a tower/tower structure permit as required by LMC 14.17; or 3) they can get full engineering studies and a tower/tower structure permit and seek a variance from their height limitation, again as required and allowed by LMC 14.17 (and if their variance is approved, keep it over-height).
Of course, as the City stated in my flag case at the November 12, 2010 hearing, a variance application would have to show “specific undue hardship to (them) or specific unique circumstances that would kind of separate (them) from the general public in terms of getting what (they) want”, to show why their Maypole structure should be allowed to twice the allowed height of neighboring structures, even though it would violate the Bavarian “scale and proportionality” which they stated in my case was so important to their Old World Bavarian Design Theme. It should be an interesting exercise for the city, in that four emergency ordinances were enacted when I sought to display a large American flag atop an 80’H flagpole.
Though I never went looking for a battle with the City of Leavenworth, one came to me nonetheless, and I intend to see this battle to be able to freely display an American flag through to the end. It is perhaps less important that I win, than that I fight for liberty, at least to the best of my ability within my limited means.
God Bless America!
In liberty,
Matt Erickson
Foundation For Liberty
1227 N. Western Ave., Apt. 103
Wenatchee, WA 98801
(509) 387-6235
President@FoundationForLiberty.org
www.FoundationForLiberty.org
(Hat tip: Charles & Jean Nelson) Read More......
Today, December 10, 2010, I filed a Notice of Appeal of Judge Bridges’ rulings from the June 29, 2006, August 10, 2006, and November 12, 2010 hearings on my Chelan County Superior Court Case #05-2 00587 9. This is my case against the City of Leavenworth on their 2005 flag code which was enacted in response to me wanting to erect an 80’ H flagpole to display a large American flag (their 2005 flag code actually required a building permit to display any new flag of any size and to erect any new flagpole of any height).
I have also upped the ante and filed a new lawsuit today, again against the City of Leavenworth (Chelan County Superior Court Case #10-2 01364 9), on other code sections of their Flag Code, primarily centered on (excessive) civil fines and criminal penalties for violations of their flag code.
Since the City’s 2009 Flag Code revision, flags no longer directly require a permit (thankfully), and neither (now) do flagpoles under 15’ H any longer require a permit (I count such concessions by the City as partial victory in my 5-year legal battle). Flags, however, are nevertheless still subjected to Leavenworth’s Municipal Code regulations, including LMC 14.17.110, which states that flags of government should be displayed in an approved manner pursuant to the U.S. Flag Code (Title 4 of the United States Code, Chapter 1).
At first glance, this requirement may perhaps even seem laudatory (to show proper respect for an American flag), but, coupled with Leavenworth’s compliance statute (see LMC 14.17.170), exposes even patriotic Americans with every intention of properly honoring the American flag to excessive fines, criminal punishments, liens, and even foreclosure. It should be noted that the U.S. Flag Code has no enforcement provisions, so Americans (at least outside of Leavenworth), are free to ignore its recommendations (within their First Amendment Free Speech rights).
Leavenworth’s civil fine statute (LMC 21.13.090) allows for civil penalties of $250 per day per violation, with each separate day, event, action or occurrence constituting a separate violation. Since each new day is a new violation, and each violation adds $250 per day, on day two there would be $750 fine, day seven $7,000, day fifteen, $30,000 and day thirty, $116,250.00.
Worse, because of Leavenworth’s unique “interpretation” of U.S. Flag Code (4 U.S.C. 8(i)) and its direction that the American flag “should never be used for advertising purposes in any manner whatsoever”, and because the City has already stated for the record that they thought I intended to display the American flag (objectively, otherwise in full conformance with the U.S. Flag Code) as a “locational device” to advertise my Foundation For Liberty organization, the City can still powerfully and improperly deny free speech.
In other words, even though the First Amendment acknowledges that Americans have the inherent right to speak freely (an objective and observable action, mind you), the City argues, in essence, that they have the power to question even my subjective motives to “speak” (in this case, through the displaying of a flag).
Never mind for the moment that the City confuses the means I intended to use (a flag, and the Foundation) for the end itself (as if the Foundation For Liberty was to exist for its own end, rather than itself and the flag being but vehicles to encourage others to reflect on liberty and limited government under the Constitution), the City behaves as if they have the power to examine someone’s reasons for wanting to speak even before the person spoke! If an official deemed the reason to speak insufficient, then the person would be denied the opportunity! Such power has never been allowed in any government of these United States of America, and scarcely any thuggish government on earth (evidently the idea of a “thought police” has found a way out of the sci-fi novels and into the Bavarian-themed village of Leavenworth, Washington.
The City’s sign code (at LMC 14.10.070(C)) also reflects the “approved manner” of display for government flags (exempting only those flags flown “in an approved manner” from the sign code regulations), so I also am now attacking Leavenworth’s sign code for its restrictions on Free Speech as well. In attacking one part of the sign code, I figured I may as well attack other speech-related aspects of the sign code also.
The interesting thing about Leavenworth’s sign code (Chapter 14.10) is that it is written quite plainly for the express purposes of supporting Leavenworth’s Old World Bavarian Design Theme (with very little thought of protecting free speech).
When the City was working on their drafts of the Flag Code in April of 2005, I wrote the City a nine-page letter outlining some of my problems with their glaring favoritism to Bavarian “festival flags” in relation to much harsher treatment of American flags. This presented the City with their first opportunity to make their new flag code appear less biased against all non-Bavarian flags, by cleaning up the language of their proposed flag code before it was ever enacted (their 2009 flag code revisions were their next opportunity, both of which made it more difficult for me to win my 2005 flag case at the lower court level).
The City’s Sign Code, however, has not been “properly cleaned up” to make it appear less biased against non-Bavarian signs, and it is overtly pro-Bavarian throughout. I should thus have an easier time winning my 2010 flag/sign case at the lower court level (or again, at least Leavenworth will hopefully clean up their old sign code, so it doesn’t at least appear so unconstitutional on its face [and in doing so, Leavenworth citizens will undoubtedly regain at least some of their lost speech]).
Of course, my 2005 flag case, the appeal of my 2005 flag case, and my new 2010 flag/sign case information are all available on the Foundation’s website at www.FoundationForLiberty.org (click on the “Lawsuits” tab and follow the Leavenworth case to the appropriate information) for anyone wanting more information.
I have also requested from the City a formal “Code Interpretation” November 24, 2010 regarding LMC 14.17.130—their “grandfather clause”—I expect to hear back from them by Christmas. Though LMC 14.17.130 specifically allows normal “maintenance and repair” of existing non-conforming structures (of structures which were legally erected prior to the 2005 flag, flagpole and tower code which began regulating such structures, even though such structures do not conform to the new regulations in some fashion), LMC 14.17.130 specifically provides that “no modification, alteration or replacement shall be made to a non-conforming structures unless the structure thereafter conforms to the provisions of this chapter”.
This regulation now puts the City in an interesting position of having to defend the City’s flag, flagpole and tower regulations, while yet protecting their 95’ H Bavarian Maypole, which was, prior to the spring of 2010, a legally-vested, non-conforming structure, but is no longer.
During the spring of 2010, after I pointed out to the City in an Interrogatory that their Maypole leaned off-center (some 4 degrees), the City (or someone at their direction) loosened the bolts which held the Maypole, and “repaired” the Maypole from its 4 degree list off-plumb and re-tightened the bolts after the Maypole was brought back to plumb. This perhaps routine procedure (due to expansion and contraction of wood fibers with the seasonal changes in humidity) was allowed by their grandfather clause.
Then, however, to keep the Maypole from again slipping off-plumb, the Maypole was modified and altered and new lateral support jaws were made and installed, which now likely prevent the Maypole from slipping off-plumb in the future, but nevertheless voided the structure’s legal vesting due to the express prohibition within the City’s grandfather clause from any alteration or modification without conformance.
I maintain that the City now has three choices, since the Maypole has been altered and modified (and thus is no longer is an allowed, non-conforming structure): 1) the City can remove the Maypole; 2) they can cut the Maypole in half so it doesn’t exceed their height limitations, while yet obtaining full engineering studies and obtaining a tower/tower structure permit as required by LMC 14.17; or 3) they can get full engineering studies and a tower/tower structure permit and seek a variance from their height limitation, again as required and allowed by LMC 14.17 (and if their variance is approved, keep it over-height).
Of course, as the City stated in my flag case at the November 12, 2010 hearing, a variance application would have to show “specific undue hardship to (them) or specific unique circumstances that would kind of separate (them) from the general public in terms of getting what (they) want”, to show why their Maypole structure should be allowed to twice the allowed height of neighboring structures, even though it would violate the Bavarian “scale and proportionality” which they stated in my case was so important to their Old World Bavarian Design Theme. It should be an interesting exercise for the city, in that four emergency ordinances were enacted when I sought to display a large American flag atop an 80’H flagpole.
Though I never went looking for a battle with the City of Leavenworth, one came to me nonetheless, and I intend to see this battle to be able to freely display an American flag through to the end. It is perhaps less important that I win, than that I fight for liberty, at least to the best of my ability within my limited means.
God Bless America!
In liberty,
Matt Erickson
Foundation For Liberty
1227 N. Western Ave., Apt. 103
Wenatchee, WA 98801
(509) 387-6235
President@FoundationForLiberty.org
www.FoundationForLiberty.org
(Hat tip: Charles & Jean Nelson) Read More......
Thursday, December 18, 2008
WA: State Court upholds teachers' Right to Restitution'
National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, Inc. NEWS RELEASE: Washington State Appeals Court Upholds Teachers’ Right to Restitution for Dues Illegally Spent By WEA Union Officials - After securing U.S. Supreme Court victory, National Right to Work attorneys pick up the pieces of an otherwise impotent campaign finance regulation
Seattle, WA (December 17, 2008) — A recent decision by a Washington State Court of Appeals, Division 2, has ruled union officials can be held liable for illegally spending teachers’ forced union dues under a now-effectively defunct campaign finance regulation.
The ruling means that thousands of Washington State teachers may receive restitution for the amount Washington Education Association (WEA) union officials illegally docked their paychecks to pay for union political expenditures. The ineffective campaign finance law at issue had been adopted in 1992 and has since been voided by the Washington State Legislature. Read more at NRTW.org... Read More......
Seattle, WA (December 17, 2008) — A recent decision by a Washington State Court of Appeals, Division 2, has ruled union officials can be held liable for illegally spending teachers’ forced union dues under a now-effectively defunct campaign finance regulation.
The ruling means that thousands of Washington State teachers may receive restitution for the amount Washington Education Association (WEA) union officials illegally docked their paychecks to pay for union political expenditures. The ineffective campaign finance law at issue had been adopted in 1992 and has since been voided by the Washington State Legislature. Read more at NRTW.org... Read More......
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
