drycleaning2
Lawmakers are able to get taxpayer-covered compensation for what the Legislature deems legitimate business expenses tied to the job, including dry cleaning. (AP Photo/file)

APNewsBreak: Tax dollars go to dry cleaning, art

January 29, 2013 @ 4:50 pm

Associated Press

OLYMPIA, Wash. (AP) - A few days after Washington lawmakers approved a budget deal to lower state spending last year, small-government Rep. Gary Alexander got $40.60 worth of dry cleaning done.

Then he made sure taxpayers paid the bill.

Alexander, the Republican budget writer in the state House, billed more than $500 worth of dry-cleaning fees to the state over the past two years, according to an Associated Press analysis of thousands of expense reimbursements. He wasn't alone: Seven Democrats and 12 Republicans in the Legislature requested and received compensation totaling more than $5,600 for dry cleaning since the start of 2011.

Lawmakers are able to get taxpayer-covered compensation for what the Legislature deems legitimate business expenses tied to the job. That includes common costs of being a lawmaker, such as travel around the district to meet with constituents, parking fees for meetings, office supplies and rent for district offices.

It also includes a variety of expenses with less-explicit benefits for taxpayers, including iPhones, picture frames, artwork, expenses for meetings with lobbyists and dues to professional organizations like the conservative American Legislative Exchange Council.

Alexander said he only submits dry cleaning receipts that are above and beyond the expenses he has outside of his legislative work. He said the job, especially when the Legislature is meeting, requires him to use a lot more dress shirts and sport coats.

"I don't think that's an unreasonable expense to be reimbursed for," Alexander said.

After an AP reporter questioned him about how it aligns with a limited-government message, Alexander said he would explore ways to keep his expenses down.

"I'm always looking for ways that we can do it by example," said Alexander, who is from Olympia.

Stephen Ellis, vice president of the group Taxpayers for Common Sense, said the idea that lawmakers should spend public money to decorate their office or keep their clothes clean is beyond the pale. He said that while the amount of money may be small in comparison to the budget at large, the expenses offer a chance for taxpayers to get a glimpse at how lawmakers operate.

"We see it as a lens into how they approach the budget," Ellis said. "If they're profligate with their own spending in offices, it stands to reason that they're not going to be too frugal with the state or the federal budget."

Democratic Sen. Rodney Tom, who lives in the wealthy enclave of Medina and recently built a coalition with Republicans to install himself as majority leader, purchased various books from Amazon.com and got reimbursement for a Bose headset that cost $164.20. Senate Democratic Leader Ed Murray got coverage for his home Internet ($50 per month) and home office telephone ($50 per month), in addition to the cellphone that he and many other lawmakers expense.

House Republican Leader Richard DeBolt, of Chehalis, meanwhile, filed for only about $100 in total expenses over two years _ all tied to travel. House Speaker Frank Chopp, D-Seattle, used his account mostly to expense costs related to his district office.

Rep. Larry Haler, R-Richland, expensed more than $600 in membership dues for business organizations in the Tri Cities. Rep. Jamie Pedersen, D-Seattle, purchased $383.25 in artwork for his office in March of last year, also when lawmakers were struggling to balance the budget.

Pederson said the art _ a painting of the Montlake Bridge done by a Seattle artist _ was like other furniture that lawmakers need to make their offices comfortable and inviting. He noted that he doesn't typically use his full allotment for reimbursable expenses, which has been $6,500 in recent years.

Murray, the top Democrat in the state Senate, said he uses his own money to cover a number of expenses related to his legislative work. He bemoaned the focus on reimbursements.

"It's why we have trouble recruiting candidates who aren't rich, old and retired," said Murray, who is from Seattle.

Haler said he wouldn't be part of the business organization if it wasn't for his work in the Legislature. Tom said his expenses were all important to his legislative work, such as books on policy and a headset for phone conversations.

Each lawmaker typically totals between $10,000 and $25,000 in expenses each year, including per diems during the session, postage, printing, travel and the more generic category of office expenses. Legislators earn a salary of between about $42,000 and $50,000, and many maintain external jobs.

Washington lawmakers are currently looking to fill a roughly $1 billion shortfall and looking to add another $1 billion to education in the coming legislative session.

___

Follow Associated Press writer Mike Baker on Facebook: http://on.fb.me/HiPpEV


(Copyright 2013 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.)
More Local News
Top Stories
MyNorthwest.com - Purpose of Comments statement
Bonneville Media encourages site users to express their opinions by posting comments. Our goal is to maintain a civil dialogue in which readers feel comfortable. At times, the comments can descend to personal attacks. Please do not engage in such behavior. We encourage your thoughtful comments which: have a positive and constructive tone, are on topic, are respectful toward others and their opinions. Bonneville reserves the right to remove comments which do not conform to these criteria.

Comments (9)


  • Add A Comment

  • HPD 5-0 wrote...
    Royalty.
    January 29, 2013 10:15 am
    They all think they deserve it.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Citizen of Krazy Town wrote...
    When I was a suit in the private sector, ties were required and sport coats were not allowed
    January 29, 2013 10:59 am
    I had to buy all my clothes and pay for all my dry cleaning and laundering. It's unreasonable for a public employee to have a different standard.

    In the private sector, I got an office redecoration budget along with my promotion. This was a perk tied to performance and retention. An elected official should never have a retention incentive but I would be willing to entertain performance-based awards tied to data-backed tax-payer savings that showed a significant reduction of a pre-approved base-line.

    In the private sector as a manager (exempt employee), I was required to work via cell-phone, or from home, and be on call 24x7 as my business required. I wanted compensation for those things but did not get them since they were expectations of the position that I applied and campaigned for. I knew (or should have known) what the duties and expectations of the position were. Elected officials should be held to the same standard. If they are not willing to invest in their job, then they probably aren't the right person for that role.

    In the private sector, I was held to very strict policy WRT travel expenses. We had to fly coach, and book in advance using the corporate-approved agency whenever possible. Employees traveling together were expected to share a hotel room (same-sex) and rental car (as many in the group who would fit) and to assess whether a rental car even would be needed. There were conservative caps placed on meal allowances scaled per meal and hosting meals for clients or co-workers needed to be pre-planned.

    As a non-revenue division, our culture was to contribute to bottom line through operational savings and we were very proud of our ability to deliver high-quality results at 95% of budget, year over year. ALL public employees and organizations should develop and maintain the same type of culture, if not for personal respect, then for the respect of the tax-payers who fund their individual businesses.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • CH wrote...
    taxpayers going to the cleaners
    January 29, 2013 11:59 am
    Seattle Arena.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • HPD 5-0 wrote...
    taxpayers going to the cleaners
    January 29, 2013 1:44 pm
    suporting low life dope smoking scumb like CH.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • bora wrote...
    Cheap and greedy
    January 29, 2013 1:17 pm
    When you don't do anything, you get stink much faster. That's what happens here. you need dry-clean assistance
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Lillyrose125 wrote...
    Expenses
    January 29, 2013 2:11 pm
    They should all be ashamed. Who is approving these expenses? They shouldn't get past the approver. I don't get to expense my suits for work.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Snout wrote...
    The only people deserving of a clothing/cleaning allowance
    January 29, 2013 4:00 pm
    are members of the military. They have uniforms essential to their jobs. My old company didn't pay for me to have my suits and ties cleaned just as they didn't pay for soap and shampoo to keep the rest of me clean. What a joke and a rip off.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • imanegro wrote...
    Government and our money
    January 29, 2013 5:14 pm
    The knuckleheads are now managing our healthcare dollars. Now I know how they will use it. Thank you, democrats.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • CH wrote...
    suporting low life dope smoking scumb like CH
    January 29, 2013 6:29 pm
    let know when you want to cut me a check HPD 5-0 and I will give you my PO address.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }