Tag Archives: Sen. Mike Padden

Mass release of convicted felons violates state constitution, Senate Republicans warn

Republicans ask Inslee to rethink plan – improper release of more than 1,100 inmates makes state liable for new crimes

To see a copy of this letter, click here.

Senate Republicans today formally asked Gov. Jay Inslee to rethink his plan to deal with the coronavirus crisis by releasing 1,167 prison inmates onto the streets. For one thing, they point out that it’s illegal.

Inslee is responding to a state Supreme Court order that the state take “all necessary steps” to protect prison inmates from the spread of COVID-19. The court didn’t tell Inslee how to do it, however, and the mass release of prisoners is the governor’s idea.

With a formal letter to the governor Friday, Senate Republicans are alerting the governor’s office that the plan violates the state constitution. They warn that the state could be on the hook for any new crimes committed by inmates who are improperly released. They also note that the state has other options that do not threaten public safety. The letter was signed by all 21 members of the Senate Republican Caucus.

“The governor’s office is trying to tell us this public health emergency requires us to throw open the doors of our state prisons,” said Sen. Jeff Holy, R-Spokane, a retired law enforcement officer and attorney. “Of course it doesn’t. In fact, the constitution forbids it.

“The governor’s office no doubt overlooked this constitutional problem when it decided a mass release of convicted felons was a good idea. That’s why we thought it would be helpful to remind the governor of this issue. The governor’s office needs to be aware that the plan violates state law, and that Washington taxpayers could face millions of dollars in liability for new crimes committed by felons who should have been behind bars.”

The letter notes that Inslee is planning to release prisoners without notifying crime victims or their families, meaning that they will have no opportunity to protest. This violates a provision of the Washington constitution passed by an overwhelming 78 percent vote of the people in 1989. Article I, Section 35 of the constitution, known as the “Crime Victims’ Bill of Rights,” requires that crime victims be notified of every proceeding relevant to their case, and that they be given the opportunity to speak when inmate releases are considered.

The letter asks Inslee to explain the legal authority under which he proposes to ignore the requirements of the Washington Constitution.

It also observes that the state has other options that do not require the release of prison inmates. These include the expansion of work-release programs, the use of portable facilities, and the transfer of prisoners to the Maple Lane facility in Thurston County. Maple Lane is particularly well-suited for isolation and quarantine, because it has the capacity, and because Corrections’ central pharmacy is located at the site.

Under ordinary circumstances, a third of inmates are arrested for new felonies within three years of their release from prison. The state already has learned the hard way that it is liable for new crimes committed by felons who are improperly released. In 2015, the inadvertent release of some 3,000 prisoners due to a programming error led to two deaths, numerous other violent crimes, and millions of dollars of lawsuits from crime victims and their families. The letter notes that the earlier releases were accidental. “In this case, the releases will be deliberate, and the state’s responsibility for any new crimes is all the more clear.”

Sen. Mike Padden, R-Spokane Valley, ranking member on the Senate Law and Justice Committee, said Republicans recognize Inslee’s office is under pressure to do something to address concerns about coronavirus in the state’s prison system. “We have many ways to deal with this problem that do not require us to turn inmates loose,” Padden said. “Unfortunately, many in Olympia are pursuing an agenda to relax our laws, shorten sentences and release inmates before their time is up. So these better options are being ignored.

“We appreciate the challenges the governor’s office has faced in dealing with the coronavirus crisis. But we shouldn’t use it as an excuse to turn more than a thousand criminals onto the streets, ignore the state constitution, and create an even more difficult situation for the more than 7 million Washington residents who respect our laws.”

 

A concrete pumper

Eastern Washington senators sponsor bill to end tax chaos for concrete pumpers

Three state senators from eastern Washington – 6th District Sen. Jeff Holy, 4th District Sen. Mike Padden and 7th District Sen. Shelly Short – are leading a legislative effort to fix a problem caused by the state Department of Revenue that affects how concrete pumpers are taxed.

Senate Bill 6317, introduced by Holy and co-sponsored by Short and Padden, would define concrete pumping services for the purposes of the retailing business and occupation and retail sales taxes. The bill received a public hearing Tuesday in the Senate Ways and Means Committee.

Concrete pumping is a construction service needed to safely move concrete to places where a concrete mixer cannot access. Without legislative or stakeholder input, DOR last October changed its guidance on Rule 211, so that contractors could no longer use a reseller permit for stand-alone concrete-pumping services but could still use it for concrete-pumping services sold with other goods or services.

“This rule change would have created an unfair disadvantage for concrete-pumping companies that do not have a primary purpose of selling other goods or services,” said Caleb Thompson with Champion Concrete Pumping, which operates across the Pacific Northwest. “As a concrete-pumping company, we would have been required to charge tax to contractors, who then also charge tax to the final buyer.”

The department’s sudden rule change last fall caused confusion and double taxation, disrupting businesses, said Holy, R-Cheney.

“It was unfair of the Department of Revenue to make a change of this magnitude that affects our concrete pumpers in such a negative way,” he said. “Fortunately, DOR was willing to delay implementing this policy change and let the Legislature address it. We now have a bill to do just that.”

Under SB 6317, “concrete pumping services” is defined as the service of delivering a concrete pump to a job site that includes an individual to control the operation of the pump and the output of concrete. The term does not include the sale of tangible personal property, including concrete. Holy, Padden and Short testified in favor of the bill during its public hearing.

“What the Department of Revenue wanted to do was a huge problem for the concrete pumpers, and that impacted everyone else,” said Padden, R-Spokane Valley. “For example, it would have added $50,000 to the cost of the Amazon project in Spokane for the cost of the concrete alone. This bill addresses what would be a serious problem for concrete pumpers and many others.”

“What the Department of Revenue was going to do amounts to double taxation, which is outrageous,” said Short, R-Addy. “It was very clear that DOR did not seek external input, resulting in unfair treatment and burdensome costs on the construction industry. This bill would ensure our concrete pumpers are taxed fairly.”

Padden, Short and Senate Republican Leader Mark Schoesler, R-Ritzville, along with Reps. Tom Dent, R-Moses Lake, Brian Blake, D-Aberdeen and Mike Chapman, D-Port Angeles, worked with the building industry to voice opposition to both the guidance change and the process used to make the change.

In a letter to DOR Director Vikki Smith, the lawmakers wrote last fall, “With the stroke of a pen, DOR has managed to create chaos, disadvantage hard-working, small businesses who provide needed services in the construction industry and sanction double-taxation. …It is incredibly troublesome that DOR chose to change long-standing policy in such a secretive, non-inclusive manner.”

That same week, Smith responded to the lawmakers, announcing the delay in implementation. She wrote, “We want to be transparent on our reading of the law and delaying the interim guidance’s effective date accomplishes this objective while affording the Legislature time to make changes and for stakeholders to provide additional feedback.”

Lawmakers applauded the move, calling it an example of how government should be responsive to the needs of the community.