Contact:
PO Box 40100
Olympia, WA 98504-0100
E-mail
The Government Compliance and Enforcement Division is comprised of 25 attorneys and 16 professional staff. The division provides legal advice to the State Auditor, the State Insurance Commissioner, Department of Financial Institutions, Gambling Commission, Horse Racing Commission, Human Rights Commission, Office of Minority and Women’s Business Enterprises, and Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee. It also handles the enforcement and forfeiture litigation for the Washington State Patrol, Public Disclosure Commission, Gambling Commission, Lottery Commission, Liquor Control Board, Department of Financial Institutions, Human Rights Commission, Horse Racing Commission, Executive Ethics Board, and Legislative Ethics Board. The division is responsible for the professional licensing litigation for the Department of Health. Finally, the division acts as the statutory Counsel for the Environment.
Back to top
The division is divided into three sections:
The Advice and Compliance Section provides legal advice to eight state agencies. It also provides two elected officials with a wide range of advice regarding issues that are uniquely within the scope of their constitutional and statutory responsibilities. Legal advice requested often relates to general issues affecting government agencies such as administrative law, federal preemption of state laws and regulations, investments, contracts, finance, public records, and ethics in government service. In addition, advice is often sought regarding the specific statutes establishing the agency's programs and responsibilities. Attorneys for the Insurance Commissioner also handle enforcement proceedings, rate hearings, insolvency proceedings, public disclosure requests, and health care litigation. Attorneys for the Auditor’s Office provide advice on legal compliance issues related to state and local government financial audits and state whistleblower investigations, monitor recovery efforts when fraud is reported, and handle enforcement actions that may arise from the audit process. Two attorneys from the section also are appointed as members of the State Records Committee and Local Records Committee, which are charged with approval of public record retention schedules establishing how long public records must be retained prior to destruction.
The Enforcement/Forfeiture Section prosecutes cases at the administrative level and on appeal of violations of campaign, discrimination, minority contracting, banking and securities, liquor, gambling, lottery, cigarette tax, and ethics laws. The section also handles Indian Gaming Compact advice and litigation, drug seizure litigation, and RICO/money laundering cases. Finally, section attorneys act as the Counsel for the Environment on all matters related to the siting of energy facilities.
The Health Licensing Section prosecutes health care providers for allegations of misconduct and violations of the Uniform Disciplinary Act.
Back to top
Public Safety Enforcement Actions: For fiscal year 2006, the division opened 565
cases that involved violations of the state liquor and tobacco, gambling, horse racing, lottery, financial institutions, insurance, and health care provider licensing laws.
State Auditor: The division began providing legal advice to the Auditor’s Office related to the new performance audit laws. The division assisted with 25 whistleblower investigations involving assertions of improper governmental action. The division also received and monitored eight cases involving reported audit findings of fraud in state and local government. Additionally, significant attorney time was devoted to resolving a wide variety of legal compliance issues that arose during legal/financial compliance audits of state and local government agencies, minimizing the resources necessary to follow-up and enforce audit findings.
Washington State Patrol: The division opened 24 matters for the State Patrol in fiscal year 2006, related to client advice, vehicle impound challenges, terminal audits, vehicle identification cases, and drug forfeiture actions. More than $115,775 in cash, real property and vehicles was forfeited as a direct result of drug forfeiture actions by the state.
Division Appellate Work: The division has seen a marked increase in the number of requests for judicial review and appeals in cases related to the licensing of health care providers as well as campaign finance, tobacco tax enforcement and insurance law. The division opened 44 such new cases in fiscal year 2006 compared with 29 in fiscal year 2005. The division has also been actively involved in submitting amicus briefs on behalf of a number of clients, including the Department of Financial Institutions on issues related to securities law, the Human Rights Commission related to a Supreme Court decision invalidating the commission’s definition of a “disability” and the Insurance Commissioner related to whether an insurance carrier could, as part of its contract, require health care providers to enter into mandatory arbitration over disputes.
Back to top
Voters Education Committee v. Washington State Public Disclosure Commission, U.S. Supreme Court No. 07-1153, involved a constitutional challenge to the state law requiring “political committees” to report their contributors and expenditures when acting in “support of” or “in opposition to” a candidate. The VEC asserted that its ads in the 2004 election were not “in opposition to” a candidate as they were “issue advocacy” and thus protected from state disclosure requirements under the First Amendment. The Washington Supreme Court upheld the Public Disclosure Commission’s contention that the VEC must disclose its contibutors and expenditures, and the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the VEC’s petition for certiorari.
Western United Life Assurance involved the bankruptcy of Western United’s parent company, Metropolitan Mortgage. The sale of the company occurred in June 2008 and was the culmination of a four year receivership of the company following the Metropolitan bankruptcy. The sale provided $54 million in assets to Metropolitan’s creditors and will keep the company in Spokane as a viable insurance company.
Rousso v. State of Washington involved the question of whether Washington’s criminal prohibition against Internet gambling violates the limitations of the Dormant Commerce Clause. The State argued that the Internet gambling ban was a legitimate exercise of the State’s police powers under the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and, in the alternative, that the law did not discriminate between in-state and out-of-state commerce and that any impact on interstate commerce was incidental. Following argument on May 15th, the court granted the State’s cross-motion for summary judgment and dismissed the case with prejudice at oral argument. Rousso filed an appeal, which is pending in the state court of appeals.
Kittitas Valley Wind Power Project (KV) involves the siting of a wind power plant proposed for north of Ellensburg. Following an EFSEC recommendation of approval, the Governor remanded the matter back to EFSEC to determine whether greater setbacks from non-participating neighboring residences could be achieved while maintaining economic viability of the project. Public hearings were held, and EFSEC returned an amended draft certification agreement to the Governor that included a reference that the applicant will work closely with EFSEC staff to “micro site” turbines as far away from non-participating residences as reasonably possible. Following Governor’s approval of the amended site certification agreement, Kittitas County and Residents Opposed to Kittitas Turbines (ROKT) sought judicial review of the approval. The case has been argued in the Washington Supreme Court and the decision is pending.
Lang & Paxton v. Department of Health, Medical Quality Assurance Commission involved the sanctioning of two dentists who allowed non-licensed personnel in their clinic to administer anesthesia. The Court of Appeals affirmed that such behavior violated the professional standards for the dentists.
Back to top
Energy Siting Projects: The Counsel for the Environment (CFE) is appointed by the Attorney General for energy facility applications filed under the jurisdiction of the Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council (EFSEC). The role of the CFE is to represent “the public and its interest in protecting the quality of the environment.” Currently, the CFE is involved in several energy facility siting determinations pending before the EFSEC. These proposals include a wind generation facility in Kittitas County, the Kittitas Valley Wind Power Project and a coal/coke gasification project in Kalama.
Back to top