Section 292-110-030. Measurable expenditure.

(1) RCW 42.52.180(1) provides that no state officer or state employee may use or authorize the use of facilities of an agency, directly or indirectly, for the purpose of assisting a campaign for election of a person to an office or for the promotion of or opposition to a ballot proposition. Facilities of an agency include, but are not limited to, use of stationery, postage, machines and equipment, use of state employees during working hours, vehicles, office space, publications of the agency, and clientele lists of persons served by the agency.

(2) RCW 42.52.180(2) sets forth exceptions to the prohibition in RCW 42.52.180(1). The exceptions include a statement by an elected official in support of or in opposition to any ballot proposition at an open press conference or in response to a specific inquiry without an actual measurable expenditure of public funds (RCW 42.52.180 (2)(b)); activities that are part of the normal and regular conduct of the office (RCW 42.52.180 (2)(c)); and de minimis use of public facilities by statewide elected officials incidental to the preparation or delivery of permissible communications initiated by the official regarding the official's views on a ballot proposition that may foreseeably affect a matter that falls within the official's constitutional or statutory responsibilities (RCW 42.52.180 (2)(d)).

(3) Elected officials regularly expend public funds to respond to inquiries from the media, constituents and other persons on matters unrelated to ballot propositions. RCW 42.52.180 (2)(b) permits elected officials to respond to such inquiries regarding ballot propositions without an actual measurable expenditure of public funds. For purposes of RCW 42.52.180 (2)(b) measurable expenditure means an expenditure or separately identifiable cost or specific portion of a cost incurred by the agency beyond the normal and regular expenditures or costs incurred by the agency in responding to inquiries from the media, constituents and other persons on matters unrelated to ballot propositions.

Example 1: A statewide elected official conducts a press conference in state office space. During the conference the official is asked about a ballot proposition. The subject of the ballot proposition does not fall within the normal and regular conduct of the official's agency nor within the official's constitutional or statutory responsibilities. The official replies to the question explaining his or her opinion on the ballot proposition and the reason for the opinion. It is not an ethical violation to reply to such an inquiry. The use of state office space, during the time the official answers the question about the ballot proposition, does not result in a measurable expenditure of public funds. This is because the expenditure or cost of the office space during this period is not a separately identifiable cost.

Example 2: A statewide elected official receives a letter from a constituent asking for the official's position on a ballot proposition. The subject of the ballot proposition does not fall within the normal and regular conduct of the official's agency nor within the official's constitutional or statutory responsibilities. The official replies by letter explaining his or her opinion on the ballot proposition and the reason for the opinion. In the course of preparing the reply the official has the assistance of staff and uses office space, equipment, stationery and postage. It is not an ethical violation to reply to such an inquiry. There is no measurable expenditure of public funds because the agency has not incurred a cost beyond the normal and regular costs incurred by the agency in responding to inquiries from the media, constituents and other persons on matters unrelated to ballot propositions.

Example 3: A statewide elected official received a letter from a constituent asking for the official's position on a ballot proposition. The subject of the ballot proposition does not fall within the normal and regular conduct of the official's agency nor within the official's constitutional or statutory responsibilities. The official replies by letter explaining his or her opinion on the ballot proposition and the reason for the opinion. In the course of preparing the reply the official has the assistance of staff and uses office space, equipment, stationery and postage. The official sends copies of the reply to other individuals on the agency mailing list. This is an ethical violation. While it is permissible to reply to the constituent who inquired about the official's position (Example 1), it is improper to send copies of the response to others. There is a measurable expenditure of public funds because the cost of the paper and postage for the additional copies is a separate identifiable cost beyond the normal and regular costs incurred by the agency in responding to inquiries from the media, constituents and other persons on matters unrelated to ballot propositions.

Example 4: A statewide elected official writes a letter to the editor of a newspaper stating the official's position on a ballot proposition. The subject of the ballot proposition does not fall within the normal and regular conduct of the official's agency nor within the official's constitutional or statutory responsibilities. In the course of preparing the letter the official has the assistance of staff and uses office space, equipment, stationery and postage. This is an ethical violation. The official has used the facilities of the agency and the exception in RCW 42.52.180 (2)(b) does not apply because the official is not responding to an inquiry.

[Statutory Authority: RCW 42.52.180 (2)(b) and 42.52.360 (2)(b). WSR 96-22-029, § 292-110-030, filed 10/30/96, effective 11/30/96.]

RCW 42.52.180 (2)(b) and 42.52.360 (2)(b). WSR 96-22-029, § 292-110-030, filed 10/30/96, effective 11/30/96.