FINAL BILL REPORT

 

 

                                   SHB 1889

 

 

                                 PARTIAL VETO

 

                                  C 413 L 89

 

 

BYHouse Committee on Judiciary (originally sponsored by Representatives Appelwick, Sayan, Locke and Brekke)

 

 

Providing immunity for certain public employees.

 

 

House Committe on Judiciary

 

 

Senate Committee on Law & Justice

 

 

                              SYNOPSIS AS ENACTED

 

BACKGROUND:

 

Concern has been expressed about protection of public employees who are sued for acts or omissions within the scope of the employee's official duties.  Under current statutes, a state official, employee, or volunteer who is sued for damages may request the Attorney General to defend the action at the state's expense if the suit arises from the person's acts or omissions while performing, or in good faith purporting to perform, official duties.  If the Attorney General finds that the person's acts or omissions were in good faith, or were purported to be in good faith, and were within the scope of the person's official duties, the Attorney General will defend the suit.  Expenses for the defense will be paid by the department to which the employee is attached.

 

Another statute provides for defense of state employees charged with criminal offenses.  If a state officer or employee is charged with a criminal offense arising out of the performance of an official act, the employing agency may request the Attorney General to defend the employee.  The Attorney General will defend the employee and the defense cost will be borne by the employing agency if the agency and the Attorney General agree that (1) the employee's conduct was fully in accordance with established written rules, policies and guidelines of the state or a state agency, and (2) the act was performed within the scope of employment. If a court finds that the employee was performing an official act or was acting within the scope of employment, and also finds that his actions were in conformity with established rules and policies, monetary fines which are assessed will be paid from the tort claims revolving fund.

 

SUMMARY:

 

If a civil action for damages is brought against a state officer, employee or volunteer arising from good faith acts or omissions within the scope of the person's official duties, or alleging a violation of federal civil rights law, the Attorney General is directed to defend the suit and the expenses must be paid by the department to which the employee is attached.

 

If a criminal proceeding or action is instituted against a state employee, officer, or volunteer arising from acts or omissions within the scope of official duties and in conformity with established state policies, the Attorney General will defend the action and expenses will be paid by the employee's department.

 

If a judgment is entered against an employee who has been defended by the Attorney General, and the body presiding over the action finds that the acts or omissions were within the scope of official duties, the judgment creditor can only seek satisfaction of the judgment from the state.  The judgment cannot become a lien on the employee's property.

 

The state will indemnify employees in the amount of judgments, fines, or settlements against them if their acts or omissions were in good faith and occurred while they were acting within the scope of their employment, and they are being represented by the Attorney General.

 

 

VOTES ON FINAL PASSAGE:

 

      House 98   0

      Senate    42     0 (Senate amended)

      House 97   0 (House concurred)

 

EFFECTIVE:July 23, 1989

 

Partial Veto Summary:  Section 1 was vetoed because it eliminated existing authority of the Attorney General to make a finding regarding whether the employees acts or omissions were in good faith and within the scope of official duties, and because it inappropriately expanded the state's duty to represent officers, employees or volunteers charged with criminal violations.  Section 4, listing the sections repealed by the bill, was also vetoed.  RCW 4.92.060, regarding a request for defense, and RCW 10.01.150, regarding defense in criminal actions, are not repealed.  (See VETO MESSAGE)