Pierce County Schools Join Legal Battle Over Public Education Funds

I realize this law blog is supposed to be about Washington real estate, business, and construction, but today education takes priority, because its important too. The (Tacoma) New Tribune posted an update story today on the McCleary v. State of Washington case, link here, story by Debbie Cafazzo.

This case is about a family from Chimacum, WA (the McClearys), who have successfully sued the State regarding adequate public funding for education. The case went to trial last year in King County and lasted 8 weeks. Judge John Erlick ultimately agreed with the McClearys and held that the State funding for education is neither "ample","stable", or "dependable".

So, perhaps you are wondering, what power does a judge have ruling that the legislature or the State is not adequately funding public education??? Well it actually comes down to an interpretation of our State's Constitution.

Article IX of the Washington State Constitution deals entirely with Education. Section 1 of Article IX reads as follows: "It is the paramount duty of the state to make ample provision for the education of all children residing within its borders, without distinction or preference on account of race, color, caste, or sex." Well clearly, for the McClearys and Judge Erlick education was not made a "paramount duty of the state", hence the finding that more needs to be done.

The McCleary case is currently before the WA Supreme Court, briefing and filings can be found here. The McCleary case is not the first time the WA Supreme Court has looked at public funding for education. In 1978, Seattle School District v. State of WA, went before the court and the ruling was that the legislature must define and fully fund "basic education" with "dependable and regular tax sources." However, the court also held that although the State had a constitutional duty to fund education, it also found that the Legislature had authority to relieve itself of such duties. The McCleary case should make for an interesting revisit of the Seattle School Dist. decision.

As also posted in the TNT article it appears other school districts are joining in the McClearys fight and the latest are from Pierce County: Tacoma, University Place, and Sumner.

Overhaul of Washington State Workers Compensation

Workers Compensation in Washington State is essentially medical insurance to cover work related injuries to most employers and workers in Washington. Washington State remains one of just a few states that maintains public insurance for workers, rather than private insurance. Being in the minority on this issue can be challenging and often draws criticism from supporters of privatization.

In fact, just last fall Initiative I-1082 sought to overturn this longstanding public measure, by allowing privatization of employers/workers insurance. However, voters were not keen on the idea and it was rejected. Then, not-so-coincidentally, just after the ballot measure failed in 2010, Washington State Department of Labor and Industries raised rates by nearly 12% for 2011. This has caused some significant criticism amongst the backers of I-1082.

These actions have also caused further review by lawmakers in Olympia dealing with budget shortfalls and in their attempts to balance the budget. Hence, just the other day lawmakers reached a compromise on an overhaul of Workers Compensation laws. As reported by The (Tacoma) News Tribune, story by Jordan Schrader and Brad Shannon, the bill will hopefully cut over $1.1 Billion in costs over the next four years.

Some of the debate surrounding the compromise centered on attempts to cut lifetime pensions to injured workers. In the deal to cut the skyrocketing costs of workers compensation, lawmakers did approve a one-year freeze on cost-of-living-adjustments for current lifetime pensioners. It also appears that under the new law, workers will be given an option to come back to work on a limited basis, as well as an offer for structured settlements to older workers. Additional details about the new law should be unfolding shortly, but for current additional commentary check out this article by Curtis Cartier and the always informative Douglas Reiser on his Builder's Counsel Blog.

UPDATE: Here is a good rundown from the AGC on the overhaul.

A Quick Look into the Grounds for Evictions or Unlawful Detainer Actions in Washington State

Either as a landlord or a tenant, the most important thing to remember in Washington State is that there are not any “self help” evictions, for any reason. This means a landlord cannot force a tenant out by their own means, either physically or by threat or intimidation tactics, regardless of the circumstances. To properly evict a tenant and regain possession of the property, a landlord must petition the courts through what is called an unlawful detainer proceeding.

Unlawful detainer proceedings are codified under Washington State statute RCW 59.12. For residential tenancies, unlawful detainer proceedings are also subject to the Residential Landlord Tenant Act (“RLTA”) under RCW 59.18. These statutory measures for unlawful detainer proceedings are supposed to be summary or expedited proceedings to determine whether a landlord is entitled to possession. Unlawful detainer proceedings may also include additional fees for damages, rent, costs, and potentially attorney’s fees, but additional claims are generally not to be included in the action. Additional claims are usually outside the subject matter jurisdiction of the court on unlawful detainer proceedings.

The grounds for an unlawful detainer action are categorized under RCW 59.12.030. These grounds serve as the general basis to begin the eviction process. However, before commencing any unlawful detainer action, a landlord must provide notice of the basis to evict the tenant pursuant to RCW 59.12.040. A quick summary of the grounds and the notice requirements are as follows:

1. Holding over after a lease for definite period.

No notice, unless required under lease: RCW 59.12.030(1);

2. Holding over after a month to month tenancy.

20 days notice (prior to month or rental period): RCW 59.12.030(2);

3. Non-payment or failure to pay rent

Three days notice (pay rent or vacate): RCW 59.12.030(3);

4. Breach of covenant under terms of agreement or lease.

10 days notice: RCW 59.12.030(4);

5. Waste (damage to property), Nuisance.

Three days notice: RCW 59.12.030(5);

6. Trespassing.

Three days notice: RCW 59.12.030(6);

7. Gang Related Activities.

Three days notice: RCW 59.12.030(7);

Once the notice of these grounds is provided pursuant to RCW 59.12.040, and provided the tenant fails to comply with certain notices (e.g. pay rent, comply with lease terms), then the landlord may proceed with the unlawful detainer action. As an owner you may proceed pro se (on your own) in handling the eviction with the courts, but if you have not done this before you should really consider letting an attorney handle this for you. Most eviction lawyers are reasonably priced and should know how to expedite the process for you. After all, the sooner you can get a new tenant in the better.

This post is just a glimpse into grounds for evictions in Washington State. If you are a landlord or a tenant and facing a potential eviction action you should contact a local attorney in your city or county to review your specific situation before moving forward. As a tenant if you would like more information or assistance regarding your tenancy or an unlawful detainer action contact an attorney or contact a local bar association. There are also potential pro bono services available to tenants through the Housing Justice Project.

In Pierce County, WA, get information by clicking this link: Tacoma Pierce County Housing Justice Project.

In King County, WA, get information by clicking this link: King County Housing Justice Project.