WAC 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).
96-22-029, § 292-110-030, filed 10/30/96, effective 11/30/96.]