References: RCW 42.52.180. Use of public resources for political campaigns.

Is there a violation of RCW 42.52.180(1) if a state officer or employee uses his or her title when supporting or opposing a candidate for office or a ballot proposition?

The answer is no. State officers’ or employee’s titles are not a facility of their agency, so long as any use of the title is accompanied by a disclaimer that the officers or employees are speaking for themselves and not their agencies.

This opinion deals with whether a state officer or employee may use his or her title when supporting or opposing the election of a person to office or a ballot proposition. This support or opposition might take a number of forms. For example, a state officer or employee might write a letter to the editor. The author might use his or her title in the body of the letter or the editor might supply the title as a means of identifying the author. Another way of expressing support or opposition is by speaking at a community forum. Once again, speakers might identify themselves by their state titles or a third party might use the titles in an introduction. Finally, a state officer or employee might add his or her name to an endorsement related to a candidate or ballot proposition. The endorsement might also include the officer’s or employee’s title. The question is whether the use of the title violates RCW 42.52.180(1).

RCW 42.52.180(1) provides that:

RCW 42.52.180(1) does not prohibit state officers and employees from "assisting a campaign for election of a person to an office or for the promotion of or opposition to a ballot proposition". Rather, it prohibits them from using or authorizing the use of the facilities of an agency for that purpose.

The term "facilities of an agency" includes, but is not limited to:

RCW 42.52.180(1). The issue is whether an officer’s or employee’s title is one of the "facilities of an agency".

In our opinion, an officer’s or employee’s title is not a facility of an agency. The definition of "facilities of an agency" includes tangible things such as equipment, supplies, the time of the officer or employee, and client lists maintained by the agency. Although the list in the definition of "facilities of an agency" is not exclusive, we concluded that is limited to the same kinds of tangible things that are included in the list.

A title is not a tangible facility of an agency. Rather it is the identity of an officer or employee at work, and the use of the title will not impose any costs on the state. Thus, we concluded that the use of an officer’s or employee’s title is not a facility of an agency. This conclusion comes with one important caveat.

Any use of a title must be accompanied by a disclaimer that the officers or employees are speaking only for themselves and not for the their agencies. Under RCW 42.52.180(1), state agencies may not support or oppose a candidate or a ballot proposition. Even though the use of a title imposes no cost on the state, there would be a violation of RCW 42.52.180(1) if use of a title led voters to believe that a state agency was supporting or opposing a candidate or ballot proposition.

Thus, state officers or employees, on their own time with their own equipment, paper, and postage, may write a letter to the editor and use their titles so long as it is clear the views expressed in the letter are their own and do not represent the opinion their agencies. This is also the case if officers or employees use their titles in connection with a speech or endorsement. Under these circumstances, the title is not a facility of an agency, and the use of the title will not violate RCW 42.52.180(1).

Approved by the Executive Ethics Board, this __________ day of __________________, 2000.

_____________________________

William B. Collins

Board Counsel