The following letter was written by the President of the Washington Public Employees Association (WPEA), Amanda Hacker. In it, Hacker outlines what has transpired between WPEA and Highline College. This letter was originally sent for distribution in the beginning of July, alongside WPEA’s invite to a Solidarity BBQ which took place on July 17. While information for that event was distributed, this letter was left out of the email. The ThunderWord received a copy for publication in hopes that it will reach classified staff and allies across campus. 

I’m writing to give you a full and transparent account of what has happened regarding the lump sum payment that you were promised in July – and to explain why WPEA is both disappointed and deeply frustrated by how Highline College has handled this situation. 

As you may know, after the Legislature failed to fund our 2025–27 contract, Highline College made the right decision: the Executive Cabinet sent an email to members on May 2, 2025, stating in part that they “…Executive Cabinet is beyond disappointed by this decision and understands the devastating economic impacts this has on our classified staff…While Highline College does not have the authority to grant COLAs, Executive Cabinet is fully committed to providing each classified staff member with the $1,200 contract incentive, as well as the additional personal days we agreed upon during our local negotiations…To our classified staff – please know that we hear you and stand with you.” 

Based on that email, WPEA publicly praised the College for standing up for its employees and taking steps to mitigate the harm caused by the state’s inaction. We believed their actions reflected a commitment to equity and respect. 

It was also the right thing to do. While Highline was not directly responsible for the lack of funding, they certainly were not actively taking steps to ensure that the agreement was funded. They essentially did nothing and relied on [the Office of Financial Management (OFM)] to situate the funding, which clearly did not work out for anyone’s benefit. When the contract was not funded, the moral and ethical obligation that the College had was to implement every contract provision that they could outside of the 3% COLA that needed to be approved by the Legislature. 

But by early June, that commitment began to unravel quietly, without transparency, and under pressure from outside agencies. 

On June 10, Highline’s [Vice President of Human Resources, Melanie Lawson] told me that their attorney would be contacting us because there were “issues” with the lump sum. She could not say what the issues were but said I should hear from their attorney soon. 

[Six days later], Highline’s attorney reached out and said that the [OFM] was now advising the College that paying the lump sum — or implementing any part of the unfunded agreement — was “illegal.” He stated: “Putting aside whether I agree with that or not, we are not in a position to fight with the State.” 

I pushed back firmly. I asked him to provide the specific statute that OFM or the Attorney General’s Office was relying on. I shared with him that WPEA was happy to get a legal analysis on the statute once he provides it as well as providing the relevant PERC decisions showing that this kind of payment is not illegal when funded with local dollars. We agreed to exchange this information, and he said that he would need a few days because the information from the AGOs is privileged. That is a silly argument because while there is attorney/client privilege around legal advice, a statute or law citation isn’t legal advice or protected by that privilege. I never heard back from him with the legal citation. 

At the same time that this was going on, Grays Harbor College (GHC), another one of WPEA’s bargaining units, was also getting pressured by OFM to not provide a similar lump sum to classified employees on their campus. During a meeting with GHC, we were quoted a statute that was being used by the state to justify their position: RCW 28B.52.035. We immediately reached out to our attorney for an analysis of that statute and what we learned is that it is not relevant because it does not apply to classified members at community colleges. 

Then came a calendar invite from Dr. Mosby for a meeting with WPEA stewards on Thursday, June 26. The meeting invitation was only sent to WPEA stewards and did not include me or anyone else on staff at WPEA. No context or explanation, or asking if it worked for our schedules, just a calendar invite. After asking multiple times what the meeting was for, Dr. Pham responded that “The primary purpose of the meeting is for Dr Mosby to check in with everyone and for us to provide information about the contract stipend (as far as what we have learned from OFM and AG’s Office).” 

WPEA stewards asked me to attend the meeting with them. During that meeting, Dr. Pham shared that the College intended to follow the advice they received that providing any provisions from the ratified agreement was not legal. Once again, we challenged the statement that the lump sum was prohibited. We specifically asked for the legal citation that was being used to justify that belief. We were provided with the same RCW 28B that GHC had quoted as justification. Fortunately, WPEA already had a legal analysis of that citation because of our discussions with GHC. 

We were able to tell them that it does not apply to our members and requested five times to review this language with them so that we could show them the section that illustrates that we are not subject to that citation. Despite our multiple requests, both Dr. Mosby and Dr. Pham refused to even review the law with us that they were using to justify this. We provided them with PERC decisions that reference similar issues, and they committed to sending to their AG and responding to us about those decisions and our belief that the RCW they were quoting did not apply to us. 

We asked multiple questions that the College was unable to respond to. They refused to answer what possible negative outcomes would come from this “illegal” action. They refused to in any way justify this decision and just stated repeatedly that this was the advice of their “AG.” We asked them if they had gotten the AG’s advice prior to taking the board action to provide the lump sum, they clarified that they did but it was a different AG than the one that they are talking to now. When we pressed further about what that meant, they essentially acknowledged that this interpretation of the law came from OFM’s AG, not the College’s AG. 

At that point, we had given them every opportunity to correct course and push back on this false narrative that it was somehow “illegal” to use local funds for this purpose. We offered to collaborate on the next steps. We asked for a timeline. We asked whether they intended to notify members before responding to us. We were told no communication had yet been drafted. No timeline was provided. They assured us that they would review the cases we provided and get back to us. We pointed out that they had been aware of this for weeks and now we have essentially one and a half business days to resolve this issue. They assured us that they would review the information and get back to us. 

Before leaving that meeting, we asked Dr. Mosby if he had considered the impact this would have on the campus and our members – he said that he had and that he believed it would be “devastating and catastrophic.” Your stewards explained that, if he knows it is incredibly harmful, then he knows that he needs to assure that it is illegal before taking that action. I begged him to do his due diligence and not make this decision without making sure that the statute was relevant. I pointed out that we did not want to file an unfair labor practice against a college that had tried to do the right thing and support our members, but without some legal authority that actually applies to our members, we would be left with no other choice. We left that meeting expecting to hear back from Dr. Mosby or Dr. Pham either Friday, June 27, or Monday, June 30. 

Then, on Monday, without any notice or further contact with WPEA, Highline College sent a message to all classified staff stating that the lump sum would not be paid. They never responded to the information we provided. They never explained their legal position. They simply made a unilateral decision — and left the union and its members to deal with the fallout. They didn’t even send a courtesy email to the stewards who met with them letting them know that they were moving forward with notice to the members. 

Let me be very clear: this is not simply about the loss of the lump sum. It is about whether leadership tells the truth, engages in good faith, and stands by its workers when it counts. Highline had the chance to do the right thing — and they did, initially. But when faced with pressure from other state agencies, they backed down without a fight, excluded the union from the conversation, and misled us about their intentions to honestly engage on this before sending notice to members. 

WPEA is preparing a formal legal response and will return to the bargaining table as requested. WPEA is not in agreement with the college that a lump sum from local funds is not something they have the authority to do. Unless the college is able to provide some legal authority or reason for their decision, we will continue to demand that this commitment be met. While we know that Dr. Mosby and Dr. Pham have no intention of doing this today, that doesn’t prevent them from changing their mind tomorrow and rectifying this wrong, because, again, they have the authority to do so with local funds. 

I have worked with Highline on and off for over ten years and am truly shocked that they are doing this. It is one thing to say that OFM pressured them to not do this because it sets a standard for other colleges (which is true – it does and it should) and makes it harder for them to say “no” when our fellow WPEA members request the same thing from their local leadership – that is not justification to go back on your commitment, it is one more reason to honor that commitment. This experience has changed the relationship that WPEA has with Highline Leadership. Until they are able to rectify this wrong (which they can do at any point in the next year), I don’t see how we can move forward in a productive way. If we can’t trust them to follow through on decisions that they broadly announce, and then back out of absent legal justification, why would we think they will honor any other commitments to staff?

Vague statements and words of support are no longer enough. Respect must be earned through action, especially when it is inconvenient or unpopular. It is no longer good enough to state that you are supportive of classified staff when your actions show otherwise. We will continue to fight for transparency, accountability, and the compensation you deserve. If you have any questions, or want to discuss next steps, you can reach me directly at (360) 489-2315 or amanda@wpea.org or any one of the WPEA Shop Stewards. 

In solidarity, 

Amanda Hacker 

President 

Washington Public Employees Association

The ThunderWord reached out to Dr. John Mosby to clarify why this letter was not included in the original email. He said, “In compliance with Collective Bargaining Agreement Section 38.5D, Highline College can only distribute notifications limited to date, time, and location of union sponsored informational meetings. Any other information distributed beyond those listed may violate Washington ethics standards, as the WPEA union is an independent entity from the College. The WPEA union however can contact their members on their own to distribute materials as they see fit.”

**Mavrie has been serving as editor for the ThunderWord since 2024. She is also the founding president of Highline’s Non-fiction Writers Circle.**