Los Angeles Unified School District (PERB 0335E)

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
DEC IS ION 	OF THE
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
HOWARD 	O. 	WATTS ,
Complainant,
v.
LOS 	ANGELES 	UNIFIED SCHOOL 	DISTRICT,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
__________________ )
Case 	No. 	LA-PN-38
PERB 	Decision 	No. 	335
August 	18, 	1983
Appearances: 	Howard 	o. 	Watts 	representing 	himself.
Before 	Gluck, 	Chairperson; 	Jaeger 	and 	Morgenstern, 	Members.
DECISION
MORGENSTERN, 	Member: 	This 	case 	is 	before 	the 	Public
Employment 	Relations 	Board 	(PERB 	or 	Board) 	based 	on 	an 	appeal
by Howard o. 	Watts 	to 	the 	Los Angeles 	regional 	director's
dismissal 	without 	leave 	to 	amend 	of 	certain 	portions 	of 	a
public 	notice 	complaint. 	The 	regional 	director 	determined 	that
four 	parts 	of 	the 	complaint 	concerned 	alleged 	violations 	of 	the
Los 	Angeles 	Unified 	School 	District's 	(District) 	own
administrative 	regulations 	and 	were 	thus 	beyond 	PERB's
jurisdiction.
In 	his 	appeal 	of 	the 	dismissal 	of 	portions 	of 	his 	public
notice 	complaint, 	Watts 	outlined 	what 	he 	perceived 	to 	be
relevant 	background 	to 	the 	instant 	case . 	According 	to Watts,
settlement 	of 	a 	prior 	charge 	prompted 	the District 	in October

1981 	to 	issue 	local 	public 	notice 	complaint 	resolution
procedures. 	The District 	has 	failed 	to 	comply 	with 	these
rules, 	and 	Watts 	asks 	PERB 	to 	enforce 	the 	District's 	local
policies.
In 	his 	appeal 	of 	the 	dismssal 	of 	his 	public 	notice
complaint, 	Watts 	alleges 	that 	the 	District 	has 	failed 	to
resolve 	the 	issues 	and 	has 	subverted 	the 	local 	complaint
process. 	Citing 	to 	section 	6 of 	the 	public 	notice 	complaint
form, 	which 	asks 	complainants 	about 	local 	District 	procedures,
Watts 	asks 	that 	PERB 	enforce 	the 	District's 	policy.
DISCUSSION
Allegation No. 	2 of 	the 	original 	complaint 	charged 	that,
contrary 	to 	Administrative 	Regulation 	Bulletin No. 	18, 	section
V-B, 	the 	District 	failed 	to 	send Watts, 	as 	a member 	of 	the
Sunshine 	Committee, 	a 	copy 	of 	the 	negotiation 	summary.l
lThe 	text 	of 	the 	local 	policy 	rule 	provides:
The 	Sunshine Committee 	shall 	receive
certificated 	negotiation 	summaries
prepared 	by 	the 	Public 	Information
Office 	and 	have 	access 	to 	any 	written
material 	distributed 	at 	negotiations 	by
the 	District 	or 	the 	certificated
exclusive 	representative. 	Said
summaries 	shall 	be 	sent 	to 	all 	Sunshine
Committee 	members 	within 	24-48 	hours 	of
each 	negotiation 	session 	and 	will
identify 	any 	and 	all 	written 	material
distributed 	at 	the 	session. 	The
Sunshine Committee 	chairoerson 	shall
receive 	copies 	of 	all 	written 	material
distributed 	at 	certificated
2

negotiations 	with 	the 	negotiations
summary. 	When 	feasible 	all 	Sunshine
Committee 	members 	shall 	receive 	written
material 	distributed 	at 	certificated
negotiations. 	The 	Sunshine 	Committee
shall 	report 	to 	the 	Personnel 	and
Schools 	Committee 	once 	a 	month 	or 	as
needed. 	The 	Sunshine Committee 	also
may 	make 	periodic 	reports 	to 	the 	Board
of 	Education.
Allegation No. 	3 charged 	that 	the 	District 	failed 	to 	comply
with 	the 	local 	policy's 	requirement 	that 	the 	Sunshine 	Committee
chairman 	be 	provided 	with 	copies 	of 	all 	written materials
distributed 	at 	negotiation 	sessions.
In Allegation No. 	4 of 	the 	original 	charge, 	Watts 	claims
that 	the 	District 	contravened 	local 	policy 	section VI-A-1 	which
requires 	public 	inspection 	of 	all 	initial 	and 	subsequent 	new
proposals 	on 	the 	day 	following 	presentation 	of 	the 	proposals.2
Allegation No. 	5 	refers 	to 	local 	policy 	section 	III-C 	which
requires 	the 	District 	to 	use 	its 	best 	efforts 	to 	insure 	that
initial 	proposals 	are 	presented 	to 	the 	public 	before 	8:00 	p.m.
2The 	local 	rule 	provides:
The 	Public 	Information Unit 	and 	the 	Office
of 	Staff 	Relations 	shall 	maintain 	a 	file 	of
all 	initial 	and 	subsequent 	new 	proposals,
each 	of 	which 	shall 	be 	available 	for 	public
inspection 	during 	regular 	working 	hours 	on
the 	day 	following 	presentation. 	The 	Staff
Relations 	Office 	will 	respond 	to 	questions
of 	the 	public 	on 	collective 	bargaining
issues.
3

during 	regular 	meetings 	of 	the 	Board 	of 	Education.3 	Watts
claims 	that 	this 	provision 	is 	out 	of 	date 	because 	board
meetings 	start 	at 	3:00 	or 	3:30 	p.m. 	rather 	than 	4:00 	p.m. 	He
urges 	revision 	of 	the 	policy 	to 	require 	that 	all 	initial
amended 	and 	new 	proposals 	be 	presented 	to 	the 	public 	before
5:00 	p.m.
The 	question 	before 	the 	Board 	is 	whether 	the 	dismissal 	was
appropriate 	because 	the 	allegations 	included 	in Watts'
complaint 	fail 	to 	establish 	a 	prima 	facie 	case.
We 	conclude 	that 	the 	regional 	director 	erred 	when 	she
dismissed 	Watts' 	complaint 	based 	specifically on 	the 	fact 	that
he 	alleged 	violations 	of 	the 	District's 	own 	public 	notice
rules. 	In 	Los 	Angeles 	Community College 	District 	(4/29/81)
PERB 	Decision No. 	150a, 	the 	Board 	examined Watts' 	complaint
that 	the 	District's 	rule 	limiting 	speakers 	to 	five-minute
presentations 	at 	the 	school 	board 	meetings 	was 	unlawful. 	And
see 	Los 	Angeles 	Unified 	School 	District 	(12/30/80) 	PERB
Decision No. 	152. 	Whether 	or 	not 	the 	complaint 	asserts
violation 	of 	local 	rules 	is 	not 	determinative. 	In 	such 	cases,
3The 	local 	rule 	provides:
The 	District 	will 	use 	its 	best 	efforts 	to
insure 	that 	its 	initial 	proposals 	are
presented 	to 	the 	public 	before 	8:00 	p.m.
during 	regular 	meetings 	of 	its 	Board 	of
Education. 	The 	public 	shall 	thereafter 	have
an 	opportunity 	to 	express 	its 	views 	on 	such
proposals.
4

the 	Board 	must 	determine 	whether 	the 	statutory 	public 	notice
provisions 	have 	been 	violated. 	If 	the 	locally 	adopted 	rules
facially 	conflict 	with 	a 	public 	notice 	requirement, 	the 	Board
will 	necessarily 	intercede. 	Where 	the 	application 	of 	local
rules 	results 	in 	deprivation 	of 	statutory 	rights, 	we 	will
likewise 	entertain 	the 	complaint. 	In 	this 	case, 	the 	alleged
violations 	involve 	District 	public 	notice 	requirements 	beyond
those 	minimumly 	mandated 	by 	the 	Educational Employment
Relations 	Act 	(EERA 	or 	Act). 	For 	example, 	the 	Sunshine
Committee 	and 	the 	information 	furnished 	thereto 	are 	creations
of 	local 	policy 	and 	not 	statutorily 	required.
None 	of 	the 	dismissed 	allegations 	assert 	violations 	of
specific EERA 	provisions 	nor 	do 	Watts' 	allegations 	include
sufficient 	factual 	information 	from 	which 	we 	can 	find 	that
application 	of 	the 	local 	rule 	resulted 	in 	harm.
Thus, 	while 	the 	Board 	is 	required 	to 	assume 	that 	the
essential 	factual 	allegations 	are 	true 	when 	reviewing 	the
dismissal 	of 	this 	complaint 	(San 	Juan 	Unified 	School 	District
(3/10/77) 	EERB 	Decision 	No. 	124 ), 	broadly 	worded 	allegations
that 	the 	District 	violated 	the 	statutory 	requirements 	are
insufficient; 	specific 	facts 	must 	be 	alleged 	to 	support 	the
4Prior 	to 	January 	1, 	1978, 	PERB 	was 	known 	as 	the
Educational 	Employment 	Relations 	Board.
5

issuance 	of 	a 	complaint. 	Mountain View 	School 	District
(5/17/77) 	EERB 	Decision No. 	17. 	We 	find 	none 	here.
ORDER
Therefore, 	based 	on 	the 	rationale 	expressed 	above, 	we 	AFFIRM
the 	dismissal 	of Watts' 	complaint 	without 	leave 	to 	amend.
Chairperson 	Gluck 	and 	Member 	Jaeger 	joined 	in 	this 	Decision.
6

sr ..s.. re. or ('~ u; o??N JA
• M 	·• •
PU3LlC EMPLOYMENT ~ELATIONS aoA~D
Los A n; e!es Regional Office
3470 \;\fi !shire Blvd., Su ite 1001
Los P..n;~ l es . Califo rnia 90010
(213 ) 733-3127
-~---
•~.:~ .
,(:..~ ·
November 	10, 1981
&. 	Howard 0. 	Watts
1021 N". ~.a.~iposa Avenue, 	Apt. 	3 1/2
tos Angeles, C.~ 	90029
Hr. 	Williar:i J. 	Sharp
tos Angeles Onified School District
450 North Grand Avenu~
tos Angeles, C.~ 	90012
Mrs. Judy Sol~ovits
Onite~ Teachers of tos Ang~les
2511 West Third Street
tos A.~geles, CA 	90012
R~: 	U..-PN-38
Di.!'.' ~i ~::;:1 1 i r. Pa.ct t7i.:hout Lea•1e :::o A.mend
Cear Interes;ed Part:es:
!:i: abov~ referenced co:a?laint was received 	in this office on Septemb-ec 	15,
198 1. 	A dismis s al 	i:l part without leave to amend i s he::ewit:, issued "by th-e
R!:!giot".al Di.cector pur~;uant to PE~ Regulation 3 70:..0 (c).
Pursuant to P:::RB Regulation 37030(e) 	certain portions of Public Notice
Complaint: LA-PN-38 against the Los Angeles Unified School District and tha
United Taac~~rs of L-0s Angeles are hereby dismissed as follo-~s:
(l) 	All=gations No. 	2 and No . 	3 are dismissed in their 	entire.ty.
(2) 	Allegat i ons No. 	4 ana No. 	5 .:i.re dismissed in tr:eir 	er:..tirety .
Discussion
(1) 	Alle gations 	(2} 	and 	(3)
The com:;ilai:i:: 	alleges th at 	the District violat=d 	i'::s ow:-i
;..~-:1i.r.istrati•1-e R~gulations by faili ng to p:::o·:ic-= t~~
Dis~rict's s~~shine Co!t'T.littee mern~ er s with ce:tif ic ateq
e rn ~ loyee nego tia ti on s p roposals ~it h in 2~ -48 ~o~rs.

November 	10, 	1181
Dismissal in Part Witno'..!': Leave 	to A.11end
Ll.-PN-38
:?age 	2
Furthermore, 	the complaint alleges 	that the District 	failed
to provide the Chairman of the Sunshine Coc::nittee with
copies of the zY~lusive Representative's and the District's
contract proposals. 	Since these alleged violations 	relate
to the Los A.~geles Unified School District's Administrative
Regulations, 	?E..'=IB does not have 	jurisdiction. 	Allegations
(2) 	and 	(3) 	are 	therefore dismissed without 	lea·.re to amend.
(2} 	Allegation3 	(4) 	and 	(5)
The complaint alleges 	that the District violated its own
Administrative 2.egulations by failing to make new proposals
a,,ailaole 	for 	public 	inspection during regular wot'king
hours on the day following presentation. 	Also, 	t~e
complaint alleges 	that the District's Administrative
Regulation Section 3C p~rtaihing to proposals being
presented to the Board before 8:00 p.m., 	is out of date.
Since 	these alleged violations 	relate 	to the District',,;
Administrativ~ Regulations, 	as do allegations 	(2) 	and 	(3),
t.'.'lis agency does not have 	jurisdk':ior:. 	Allegations 	(4)
a!'l.d 	(5) 	a::e therefore di.smis~ed wi.thout ::.e~11e to nra~;1d_
The Regional Director has determined that 	the 	following 	portions oE
the complaint state a pri~a facie viol~tion of Government Code
s-=ction 3547(d):
Allagations 	(1) 	and 	(6): 	The contention that 	the Distri~~ and
the Teachers Assc:ciation negotiated new bargaining proposals
without making them public within 24 hours.
Accordingly, 	this portion only of the complaint will be prccsssed
further.
Pursuant 	to PERB Regulation 37050, 	Respondents are required to file
an answer 	to only allegations 	(1) 	and 	(6) 	of the complaint 	indicated
above. 	The a."'lswer mus': be 	recei~red by this office not 	later 	that
No72rnber 	25, 	1981. 	Enclosed for 	Respondents 	are CO?ies of th:
initial complaint filed on September 15, 	1981.
Cow:,lainant o.ay appeal t:-iis dismissal in part without 	leave 	to amend
to the Board 	itself at 	the headquarters of:i~e 	in accordance with
the 	provisions cf Di 11isicn 1, Chapter 	4, 	Article 2 of the PEBB
Regulati::ms. 	Any ap:;,e=.l must be filed within 10 caLend<::r: d:1ys

Nove~b e r 	:c . 	1931
Dism i ss~: 	i:, ? =.r:: ';{i::::::,~:: Leave to .?\.-r.erid
LA-P::-i-38
Page 3
following 	the date of ser•Tice of this letter, 	i.e. on er: :::iefore
Hovernbe?:" 	2.0, 	198 1. 	Please con tact this office 	if y o ;.i h~•te any
qu es tion s .
Very truly you =s,
Frances A. 	Kr~:i ing
Regional Director
ZJ
FAK:bw
Enclosur:es