Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Katrick Summary Judgment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Judge C.J. Martin puts Katrick matter on the record as staff urges summary judgment, respondent absent
Summary
At the May 8, 2026 Executive Ethics Board meeting, Assistant Attorney General Julia Eisentraut urged the board to grant summary judgment and impose a $1,500 penalty in the Michael Katrick case, arguing extensive use of state computer and state cell phone for personal purposes; the respondent failed to appear and the board took the matter under advisement.
The Executive Ethics Board heard oral argument on May 8 in the case against Department of Corrections employee Michael Katrick as board staff urged the board to grant summary judgment and assess a $1,500 penalty. Administrative Law Judge C.J. Martin convened the oral argument, confirmed the docket (OAH 11-2025-AGOD-00078; agency 2024-023), and noted the respondent was not present.
Assistant Attorney General Julia Eisentraut, speaking for board staff, asked the board to grant summary judgment because, she said, the record contained no genuine dispute of material fact. She told members that the investigation showed Katrick used a DOC computer and a DOC-issued cell phone for personal browsing, streaming and communications. "Michael Katrick's browsing of the internet for personal reasons... as well as using a DOC cell phone to send and exchange personal text messages and photos, qualifies as use that violates the statute," Eisentraut said, citing RCW 42.52 and relevant WAC guidance on de minimis personal use.
Staff described multiple Google searches, numerous visits to unrelated websites and admitted streaming of music through YouTube while at work; staff also reported about 50 conservatively counted site visits in the declaration and additional records in exhibit 3. Eisentraut told the board staff recommended a $1,500 civil penalty after reviewing aggravating and mitigating factors and comparing similar cases.
Board members pressed staff on technical evidence and comparability. A member asked whether the 50-visit figure was conservative; staff answered yes and explained how multiple forensic records can be generated for a single visit (thumbnails, downloads, clicks) and how the review compiles unique visits using date-and-time stamps. Members also questioned whether the presence of 200-plus non-work-related photos and roughly 400 personal texts influenced the penalty comparables; staff said the penalty recommendation accounted for both computer and cell-phone use but noted the comparables selected were drawn primarily from computer-usage facts and not identical in every respect.
Judge Martin explained the standard for summary judgment in this context: if the board finds a genuine dispute of material fact warrants an evidentiary hearing, staff's motion should be denied and the matter proceed to the previously scheduled fact-finding hearing. He reminded the board that an evidentiary hearing was set for Sept. 10 at 9 a.m. if the board denies summary judgment; otherwise, the board could grant the motion. The ALJ then turned the matter back to the board for deliberation, and the board took the matter under advisement.
Because the respondent did not appear, no live testimony rebutted staff's presentation; the record contains staff's declaration and exhibits as summarized on the record. The board will record its deliberations and any subsequent decision on the public docket and file the resulting order.
The meeting record shows the matter remains unresolved pending board deliberation; if the board determines there are factual disputes, the Sept. 10 fact-finding hearing will proceed as scheduled.
