Yesterday, two local unions—UFCW 21 and Machinists Lodge 751—sent 34th District state rep candidate Mike Heavey an angry letter alleging that wrote provided contradictory answers on candidate questionnaires. (It depended on what group he was talking to, they complained.)  Does Heavey support initiative 1098, or does he support lowering taxes? Does he support expansion of unemployment benefits or not?

Later in the afternoon, Heavey responded with a polite letter that nonetheless said the union's missive "might be cynically perceived as an attempt to boost [fellow 34th rep. candidate Joe Fitzgibbon's] chances by embarrassing me so close to the ballot drop this week" and that his answers were being taken out of context.

The unions blasted back today, acknowledging their support for 34th district candidate Joe Fitzgibbon and arguing that the whole mess arose because Heavey wouldn't sit down with them for an endorsement interview.

"We would have enjoyed meeting you this spring during our endorsement process and having a positive discussion about your opinions and the future of Washington State," writes Karen Deal of UFCW 21. "However, because you chose not to participate in the endorsement process outlined in our questionnaire, you were ineligible for an interview at that time."

With regard to Heavey's argument that his statement on unemployment benefits was taken out of context (he clarified yesterday that he only thinks the benefits should be withheld if a person voluntarily quit their job), Deal wrote: "A plain reading shows that this question is asking about 'expanding benefits,' including, but not limited to [emphasis theirs], people who voluntarily quit their jobs. This is very explicit in the questionnaire so I am surprised you overlooked this point in your response," wrote Deal.

Heavey couldn't be reached for comment.

The full letter is below.

October 13, 2010

Dear Mr. Heavey,

Thank you for your prompt and thoughtful response to our inquiries on Tuesday. I appreciate you taking the time to respond at the height of campaign season.

It is true that UFCW 21, the largest private sector union in Washington, has joined the consensus of progressive organizations backing Joe Fitzgibbon for state legislature. While we believe Joe would be a true leader for working families in the 34th District, we are always seeking an open dialogue with candidates about the best ways to create jobs and promote economic prosperity in Washington.

When I became aware of your conflicting responses to questionnaires last week, I felt it was important to raise these issues with you as soon as possible so there would be a clear record of where you stand as voting begins. In addition, since you raised several points about UFCW 21 in your response, I also want to clear up any confusion about these important issues.

We would have enjoyed meeting you this spring during our endorsement process and having a positive discussion about your opinions and the future of Washington State. However, because you chose not to participate in the endorsement process outlined in our questionnaire, you were ineligible for an interview at that time.

I am somewhat confused about the explanation of your response to the question from Enterprise Washington regarding unemployment benefits. Question 11 from Enterprise Washington asks:

“Some legislators have proposed expanding benefits to cover more of unemployed workers, including workers who voluntarily quit their jobs, which would lead to even higher employer rates. Do you favor or
oppose benefit expansion?”

A plain reading shows that this question is asking about “expanding benefits," including, but not limited to, people who voluntarily quit their jobs. This is very explicit in the questionnaire so I am surprised you overlooked this point in your response. If you do support expanding unemployment benefits except for people who quit their jobs, I am

not sure why you did not make this important point clear to Enterprise Washington. Instead, you responded by saying, "I would definitely opposed [sic] such an expansion", which includes all unemployment insurance. This seems difficult to reconcile with both your WSLC response and your own website, where you claim to “support measures that expand the number of eligible unemployed workers.”

As part of our mutual goal to provide voters with straight answers from candidates, I would appreciate clarification of your responses. Thank you for your candor and forthrightness in discussing your positions on this issue for the people of the 34th District.

Sincerely,

Karen Deal
Political Director
UFCW 21