Coalition for the Homeless v DSHS :: 133 Wn2d 894
Category: Bureaucracy and Documents
The majority of the Supreme Court has decided that a policy set forth by the Legislature will become a mandate. RCW 74.13.031(1) states that DSHS shall “Develop, administer, supervise, and monitor a coordinated and comprehensive plan that establishes, aids, and strengthens services for the protection and care of homeless, runaway, dependent, or neglected children.” Somehow the majority has interpreted this wording to mean that DSHS will provide funding to homeless children--and their families--for housing. The Court discussed the intent of the Legislature to determine the meaning of this statute, however, nowhere in the opinion does the subject of funding come up. If they were serious to determine whether this statute that ordered the department to devise a plan was, in fact, a mandate to fund homeless families they would have to look no further than the line-by-line budget the Legislature passed for the department. As pointed out in dissent, this is a massive diversion of tax dollars. [Sanders at 933].
Justice Sanders, in his dissent, points out that the statute orders DSHS, not the recipient and not the courts to determine what will be in the plan and how to carry it out. [at 933]. Justice Durham, in her dissent, reminds the majority that the statute “is a general policy statement that does not give rise to enforceable rights.” [at 943]. “Because the Legislature did not authorize the department to undertake the tasks the majority has assigned.” [Sanders at 943], it strikes clear that the majority has violated the Separation of Powers as mandated by the Constitution. [conclusion ours]. They are trampling on the Legislative Branch, who wrote the law, and the Executive Branch, who must carry out the statute as written.
What makes this layman observer uneasy about the condition of our court is their “Facts.” The facts of the case as presented by the majority [at 901-02] begins with this statement: “It is undisputed by the parties that homelessness is a serious, widespread problem in our state and that it has a devastating effect on children.” They then list homeless statistics without foundation and enforce them with this claim: “These figures estimating the number of homeless persons in Washington are conservative.” This is our highest State Court. Not only are their “facts” without grounds and unsubstantiated, they have nothing to do with the case before them. The legitimate facts of the case should have addressed: 1) the plaintiff organization’s relationship to the law that gives them standing to bring this issue before the court; 2) whether the Legislature has specified an intent--or what wording leads them to believe that this statute was clearly not a policy issue but, rather, a directive; 3) what events, actions or inaction by the department demonstrate they violated their directive; and 4) who has been harmed by the failure of the department.
On several cases we have documented the unprofessional approach to law that has been displayed by this court. One wonders if a high school graduate, who can read, could occupy the position with better results.
Rating the Usual Suspects:
| pass | Collins, Michael | |
| pass | Durham, Barbara | |
| pass | Gregoire, Christine | |
| pass | Madsen, Barbara | |
| pass | McArdle, Trisha | |
| pass | Sanders, Richard | |
| pass | Talmadge, Phil | |
| fail | Alexander, Gerry | |
| fail | Dolliver, James | |
| fail | Guy, Richard | |
| fail | Johnson, Charles | |
| fail | Mirra, Michael | |
| fail | Rees, Anne | |
| fail | Reinmuth, Jill | |
| fail | Salzarulo, Lori | |
| fail | Schindler, Ann | |
| fail | Smith, Charles | |
| fail | Vaughn, Carol |