FINAL BILL REPORT

SHB 1254

PARTIAL VETO

                                  C 234 L 89

BYHouse Committee on Judiciary (originally sponsored by Representatives H. Myers, Beck, Morris, R. Meyers, G. Fisher, Peery, Winsley, Wang, May, Jones, P. King, R. Fisher, Sayan, O'Brien, Locke, Crane, Heavey, Inslee, Rector, Brough, Cooper and Brumsickle; by request of Governor Gardner and Attorney General)

Providing immunity from civil liability.

House Committe on Judiciary

Senate Committee on Law & Justice

SYNOPSIS AS ENACTED

BACKGROUND:

There exists concern regarding the civil liability of individuals who report violations of local, state, or federal law to governmental officials.  Under current law, state employees are protected from retaliatory action if, in good faith, they report other state employees' violations of state law or report improper governmental actions.  Citizens who make good faith reports of potential wrongdoing to appropriate governmental bodies are not afforded similar protection under Washington law.

SUMMARY:

Two immunity defenses are created.  A person who, in good faith, communicates a complaint or information to a federal, state, or local governmental agency of a matter reasonably of concern to the agency is immune from civil liability (1) based on the communication to the agency, or (2) on claims arising from the communication of such complaint for information which the person genuinely and reasonably believed to be true.  Individuals who prevail with either immunity defense are entitled to recover costs and attorneys' fees incurred in establishing the defense.

The agency receiving the complaint or information may intervene in and defend against any suit based on the first immunity defense.  The agency's discretion to intervene in a suit does not extend to suits arising under the second immunity defense; suits arising from the communication of a complaint or information which the person genuinely and reasonably believed to be true are not subject to agency intervention.  If the agency intervenes in or defends against the suit and prevails, the agency is entitled to recover costs and attorneys' fees.  If the agency fails to establish the immunity defense, the party bringing the action is entitled to recover costs and attorneys' fees incurred in proving the defense invalid or inapplicable.  If a local governmental agency chooses not to intervene in and defend against a suit, the Office of the Attorney General may do so.

VOTES ON FINAL PASSAGE:

      House 96   0

      Senate    44     0 (Senate amended)

      House             (House refused to concur)

Free Conference Committee

      Senate    48     0

      House 97   0

EFFECTIVE:July 23, 1989

Partial Veto Summary:  The intent of section 3 was to ensure that good faith citizen complaints are acted upon by governmental agencies by providing immunity from suit to people who may choose to go public with their concerns.  The language of section 3 was not subject to thorough legislative discussion and review.  Section 3 was vetoed because the language could be interpreted to inappropriately broaden the immunity conferred under SHB 1254.  (See VETO MESSAGE)