California State University (Watts) (PERB 0456H)

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
HOWARD O. WATTS,
Complainant. 	Case No. LA-PN-50-H
v. 	PERB Decision No. 456-H
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, 	December 10, 1984
Respondent.
Appearance: 	Howard O. Watts, on his own behalf.
Before Hesse, Chairperson; Tovar and Jaeger, Members.
DECISION
HESSE, Chairperson: This case is before the Public
Employment Relations Board (Board) on an appeal by Howard O.
Watts of the Board agent's dismissal, attached hereto, of his
public notice complaint alleging that the California State
University violated section 3595(a) and (b) of the Higher
Education Employer-Employee Relations Act (Government Code
section 3560 et seq. ) .
We have reviewed the Board agent's dismissal in light of
the Complainant's appeal and the entire record in this matter
and adopt that dismissal as the decision of the Board itself.
ORDER
The public notice complaint in Case No. LA-PN-50-H is
DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.
Members Tovar and Jaeger joined in this Decision.
STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF 	THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
HOWARD 0. 	WATTS,
Complainant,
v.
CALIFORNIA 	STATE 	UNIVERSITY,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
_____________________ )
Case No. 	LA-PN-50-H
PERB 	Decision No. 	456-H
December 	10, 	1984
Appearance: 	Howard 	o. 	Watts, 	on 	his 	own 	behalf.
Before 	Hesse, 	Chairperson; 	Tovar 	and 	Jaeger, 	Members.
DECISION
HESSE, 	Chairperson: 	This 	case 	is 	before 	the 	Public
Employment 	Relations 	Board 	(Board) 	on 	an 	appeal 	by Howard 	o.
Watts 	of 	the 	Board 	agent's 	dismissal, 	attached 	hereto, 	of 	his
public 	notice 	complaint 	alleging 	that 	the 	California 	State
University 	violated 	section 	3595(a) 	and 	(b) 	of 	the 	Higher
Education Employer-Employee 	Relations 	Act 	(Government 	Code
section 	3560 	et 	seq.).
We 	have 	reviewed 	the 	Board 	agent's 	dismissal 	in 	light 	of
the 	Complainant's 	appeal 	and 	the 	entire 	record 	in 	this 	matter
and 	adopt 	that 	dismissal 	as 	the 	decision 	of 	the 	Board 	itself.
ORDER
The 	public 	notice 	complaint 	in 	Case 	No. 	LA-PN-50-H 	is
DISMISSED WITHOUT 	LEAVE 	TO AMEND.
Members 	Tovar 	and 	Jaeger 	joined 	in 	this 	Decision.

S: .:-·.TE OF CALIFORNIA 	GEORGE DEUKMf:JIAN, Governor
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
I.OS M-lGELES REGlONAL OFFICE
3470 WILSHIRE BLVD., SUITE 1001
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 	90010
(213) 736--3127
March 	21, 	1984
Mr. 	Howard 	o. 	Watts
1021 North 	Mariposa Avenue, 	Apt. 	3 	1/2
Los 	Angeles, 	CA 	90029
Mr. 	Caesar 	J. 	Naples, 	Assistant 	Vice
Relations
California 	State 	University
400 	Golden 	Shore
Long Beach, 	CA 	90802
Chancellor, 	Employee
Re: 	NOT!CE 	OF 	DISMISSAL
Watts 	v. 	California 	State 	Univers~ty:;_ LA-PN-50-H
Dear 	Parties:
The 	above-referenced 	Public 	Notice 	Complaint 	(Complaint) 	was
filed 	with 	our 	office 	on March 	7, 	1983. 	A First Amended
Complaint 	was 	filed 	February 14, 	1984, 	subsequent 	to 	a 	December
28, 	1993 	personal meeting 	I 	had 	with Mr. 	Watts.I 	The
amendment 	make~ 	new 	legal 	argument 	but 	fails 	to 	allege 	any 	new
facts. 	For 	the 	reasons 	which 	follow, 	all 	allegations 	in 	the
Complaint 	fail 	to 	state 	a 	p:.:ima 	fac.ie 	vio:!..at::.on 	0£ 	Go·,e:rume.nt
Code 	subsections 	3595(a) 	and 	(b)2 	and 	cannot 	be 	amended 	to 	do
so. 	The 	entire 	Complaint 	is, 	accordingly, 	hereby 	dismissed.
Allegation 	No. 	One: 	The 	respondent, 	California 	State
University 	(CSU), 	violated 	subsections 	3595(a) 	and 	(b) 	by 	the
presentation 	of 	its 	initial 	proposals 	at 	Long 	Beach 	and 	the
conduct 	of 	a 	meeting 	for 	public 	response 	to 	those 	proposals
1At 	that 	meeting 	I 	explained 	to 	Mr. 	watts 	the 	Complaint's
deficiencies 	and 	the 	apparent 	impossibility 	of 	perfecting
them. 	However, 	at 	his 	insistence, 	I 	allowed 	time 	to amen<l 	the
Complaint.
2All 	statutory 	references 	are 	to 	the 	Government 	coae
unless 	otherwise 	specifiea.

Watts 	& Naples
LA-PN--50-H
March 	21, 	1984
Page 	2
only 	at 	San 	Francisco. 	There 	was 	no meeting 	held 	for 	public
response 	in 	southern 	California. 	Since 	Mr. 	Watts 	could 	not
afford 	to 	travel 	to 	San 	Francisco, 	(see 	case 	No. 	LA-PN-48-H)
presumably 	he 	could 	not 	express 	himself 	regarding 	those
proposals.
Determination: 	Nothing 	in 	section 	3595 	requires 	the 	public
meetings 	for 	presentation 	and 	response 	to 	initial 	proposals 	to
be 	held 	at 	the 	same 	location. 	The 	only 	requirement 	of
subsection 	3595{b) 	is 	that 	the 	public 	be 	given 	an 	opportunity
to 	express 	itself 	at 	a 	(i.e. 	one) 	meeting 	of 	the 	higher
education 	employer. 	This 	was 	done.
While 	conducting 	the 	meeting 	in 	San 	Francisco may 	have
precluded 	Mr. 	Watts 	from 	attending 	the 	meeting, 	other 	members
of 	the 	public 	would 	no 	doubt 	have 	been 	precluded 	from 	attending
if 	the 	meeting 	had 	been 	held 	in Long Beach. 	In other 	words, 	no
matter 	where 	an 	employer 	decides 	to 	conduct 	such 	meetings,
someone 	will 	potentially 	be 	inconvenienced. 	This 	is 	especially
true 	with 	respect 	to 	an 	employer 	with 	statewide 	facilities 	such
as. CSU. 	It 	is 	noted 	that 	CSU 	has 	attempted 	to mitigate 	this
problem 	through 	its 	acceptance 	of 	written 	comments 	from 	the
public 	as 	indicated 	by 	an 	unmarked 	exhibit 	to 	the 	Complaint
entitled 	"Committee 	on 	Collective 	Bargaining 	Agenda 	Item 	I 	for
March 	24-25, 	1981~"3
Subsection 	3595(b) 	does 	not 	requir.e 	the 	higher 	education
employer 	to 	schedule 	meetings 	in 	both 	northern 	and 	southern
California, 	nor 	does 	it 	require 	that 	the 	meeting 	conducted 	for
public 	response 	be 	held 	at 	the 	same 	location 	as 	the 	meeting 	at
which 	the 	initial 	proposals 	were 	presented. 	CSU's 	internal
policy 	implementing 	the 	statute 	appears 	to 	be 	a 	reasonable
accommodation 	to 	its 	statewide 	constituency. 	It 	is, 	therefore,
found 	that 	this 	allegation 	does 	not 	constitute 	a 	violation 	of
subsections 	3595(a) 	or 	(b).
3This 	is 	CSU's 	internal 	procedure 	implementing 	section
3595. 	See 	California 	Administrative 	Code, 	title 	5, 	section
43725.

Watts 	& Naples
LA-PN-50-H
March 	21, 	1984
Page 	3
Alleqation No. 	Two: 	The 	February 	9, 	1983 	meeting 	of 	CSU's
corrur7ittee 	on 	cof1.e·ctive 	bargaining 	wns 	not 	an 	approp.r iate
meeting 	of 	the 	higher 	education 	employer 	because 	the 	committee,
being 	composed 	of 	staff 	rather 	than 	trustees, 	cannot 	take
"official 	action."
The 	Complaint 	goes 	on 	to 	argue 	that 	Education 	Code 	section
89035 	precludes 	the 	board 	of 	trustees 	from 	delegating 	the
authority 	for 	conduct 	of 	such meetings 	to 	the 	committee 	on
collective 	bargaining.
Determination: 	Subsection 	3562(h) 	defines 	"higher 	education
employer" 	as 	follows:
(h) 	"Employer" 	or 	"higher 	education
employer" 	means 	the 	regents 	in 	the 	case 	of
the 	University 	of 	California, 	the 	directors
in 	the 	case 	of 	Hastings 	College 	of 	Law, 	and
the ·Trustees 	in 	the 	case 	of 	the 	California
State 	University 	and 	Colleges, 	includ_~_any
person 	acting 	as 	an 	agent 	of 	an 	emp_~E-
(Emphasis 	added.)
Black's 	Law 	Dictionary, 	Fifth Ed~, 	def iues 	"a~1 ent t, 	in 	th2
following 	manner:
Agent. 	A person 	authorized 	by 	another 	to
act 	for 	him, 	one 	intrusted 	with 	another's
business. 	(Citation 	omitted.) 	One 	who
represents 	and 	acts 	for 	another 	under 	the
contract 	or 	relation 	of 	agency. 	A business
representative, 	whose 	function 	is 	to 	bring
about, 	modify, 	affect, 	accept 	performance
of, 	or 	terminate 	contractual 	obligations
between 	principal 	and 	third 	persons. 	One
who 	undertakes 	to 	transact 	some 	business, 	or
to 	manage 	some 	affair 	for 	another, 	by 	the
authority 	and 	on 	account 	of 	the 	latter, 	and
to 	render 	ari account 	of 	it. 	One 	who 	acts
for 	or 	in 	place 	of 	another 	by 	authority 	from
him; 	a 	substitute, 	a 	deputy, 	appointed 	by
principal 	with 	power 	to do 	the 	things 	which
principal 	may 	do. 	One 	who 	deals 	not 	only

Watts 	E, 	Naples
LA-PN-·50-H
March 	21, 	1984
Page 	4
with 	things, 	as 	does 	a 	servant, 	but 	with
persons, 	using 	his 	own 	discretion 	as 	to
means, 	and 	frequently 	establishing
contractual 	relations 	between 	his 	principal
and 	third 	persons.
The 	above-specified 	functions 	which 	an 	agent 	may 	perform 	on
behalf 	of 	a 	principal 	are 	certainly 	broad 	enough 	to 	encompass
the 	functions 	of 	the 	committee 	on 	collective 	bargaining
pursuant 	to 	subsections 	3595(a) 	and 	(b}.4
Education 	Code 	section 	89035 	provides:
Wherever 	in 	this 	code 	a 	power 	is 	vested 	i.n
the 	trustees, 	the 	trustees 	by 	majority 	vote
may 	adopt 	a 	rule 	delegating 	such 	power 	to
any 	officer, 	employee 	or 	committee 	as 	the
trustees 	may 	designate.
Subsection 	S(h) 	of 	article VI 	of 	the 	Rules 	of 	Procedure 	of 	CSU's
board 	of 	trustees 	provides 	as 	follows:
~
(h) • 	Conuni ttee 	on 	Collective 	Bargaining
The 	Cormni ttee -2.!!._ Collective _Bargaining_ 	shall
have 	delegated 	authority _!:o ~...9t 	fqf 	the
Board 	of 	Trustees 	in 	order 	to 	comply 	with
the 	requirements 	of 	the 	HigherEducation
Em 	lo 	er-Em 	lo 	ee Relations 	Act 	(HEERA)
(including... section. 	.3595) ---~-andimolement --the
collective 	barga1.n1ng P.Olicy_o~ !.!!~ Board 	of
4Mr. 	Watts 	implies 	that 	since 	the 	Los 	Angeles 	Unified
School 	District 	(LAUSD) 	board 	of 	education 	and 	the 	Los 	Angeles
Community 	College 	District 	(LACCD) 	board 	of 	trustees 	themselves
conduct 	these 	meetings, 	the 	instant 	board 	of 	trustees 	must 	do
so. 	However, 	the 	definition 	of 	employer 	under 	the 	Educational
Employment 	Relations Act 	(Government Code 	section 	3540 	et 	seq.)
to 	which 	LAUSD 	and 	LACCD 	are 	subject, 	has 	an 	employer
definition 	distinguishable 	from 	subsection 	3562(h). 	Further,
PERB 	has 	never 	found 	that 	those 	governing 	boards 	must 	perform
these 	functions 	as 	a 	matter 	of 	law. 	Hence, 	what 	LAUSD 	and
LACCD 	do 	with 	respect 	to 	public 	notice 	is 	irrelevant.

Watts 	& Naples
LA-PN-50-H
March 	21, 	1984
Page 	5
Trustees. 	The 	delegation 	to 	the Committee
on 	Collective Bargaining 	includes, 	but 	is
not 	limited 	to, 	authority 	to 	negotiate
memoranda 	of 	understanding 	pursuint 	to 	the
policies 	of 	the 	Board 	of 	Trustees. 	The
Committee 	on 	Collective 	Bargaining 	shall
submit 	periodic 	progress 	reports 	to 	the
Board 	of 	Trustees 	on 	matters 	pertaining 	to
collective 	bargaining 	and 	actions 	which 	it
has 	taken. 	(Emphasis 	supplied.)
The 	above 	plainly 	permits 	the 	board 	of 	trustees 	to 	delegate 	to
the 	committee 	on 	collective 	bargaining 	authority 	to 	act 	in 	the
realm of 	collective 	bargaining, 	including 	the 	public 	notice
requirements 	of 	section 	3595.s
As 	to 	Mr. 	Watts' 	allegation 	that 	a 	conmd.ttee 	composed 	entirely
of 	staff 	cannot 	take 	"official 	action," 	this 	argument 	is
also 	irrelevant. 	The 	Complaint 	alleges 	only 	that 	subsections
3595(a) 	and 	(b) 	were 	violated. 	Unlike 	subsection 	(c), 	these
subsections 	do 	not 	require 	the 	committee 	to 	take 	any 	action.
They 	require 	only 	the 	holding 	of 	a 	meeting 	open 	to 	the 	public.
This 	was 	done. 	Hence, 	this 	allegation 	is 	also without merit.
Allegati0n 	No. 	Three: 	This 	allesat.ion, 	rais~a 	for 	th~ 	fir.st
tfme 	in 	the 	first 	Amended 	Complaint, 	is 	that 	CSU 	violated
Government Code 	section 	11120 	et 	seq., 	the 	so-called 	"state
open meeting 	act."
Determination: 	PERB 	does 	not 	administer 	the 	open 	meeting 	act.
Mr. 	Watts 	fails 	to 	explain 	how 	section 	11120 	et 	seq. 	has 	been
violated, 	much 	less 	how 	such 	a 	violation 	would 	also 	constitute
a 	violation of 	section 	3595. 	In 	any 	event, 	the 	opening 	meeting
act 	does 	not 	appear 	to 	in 	any manner 	buttress 	Mr. 	Watts'
arguments 	dismissed 	above. 	Thus, 	this 	allegation, 	too, 	lacks
merit.
5The 	fact 	that 	Mr. 	Watts 	can 	find 	no 	appellate 	decisions
allowing 	the 	board of 	trustees 	to 	delegate 	this 	authority 	t6
the 	committee 	on 	collective 	bargaining 	does 	not 	decide, 	nor
even 	imply, 	that 	such 	delegation 	is 	improper.

Watts 	& 	Naples
LA-PN-50-H
March 	21, 	1984
Page 	6
REQUEST 	FOR ASSISTANCE
Mr. 	Watts 	has 	filed 	PERB 	form 	GC-5 	requesting 	assistance 	with
his 	Complaint. 	A cover 	letter 	to 	the 	request 	states 	that 	he
hopes 	that 	he 	will 	not 	" 	••• 	have 	to 	appeal 	this 	request 	for
Assistance 	since 	(he) 	did 	qualify 	for 	this 	Assistance 	in 	the
past." 	While 	it 	is 	true 	that 	Mr. 	Watts 	financially 	qualified
for 	Board 	assistance 	in 	prior 	cases, 	PERB 	denied 	his 	requests
for 	assistance 	in 	those 	cases 	because Mr. 	Watts 	had 	already
received 	the 	level 	of 	assistance 	required 	by Board 	policy. 	For
the 	same 	reason, 	the 	instant 	request 	must 	also 	be 	denied.
In 	LoUngeles 	Community 	College 	District 	(12/15/81) 	PERB 	Order
No. 	Ad-119, 	Los 	Angeles 	Community 	Col_!_~5:1_e 	Distr~ct 	(12/15/81)
PERE 	Decision No. 	18? 	and. Los 	Angeles 	Un_i f ied 	School 	Dis tr ic::t
(2/22/82} 	PERB 	Decision 	No. 	181a, 	the 	Board 	itself 	affirmed 	the
regional 	director's 	denial 	of 	Mr. 	Watts' 	requests 	for
assistance. 	PERB 	regulation 	37030 	(now 	regulation 	32920) 	was
then 	the 	only 	regulation 	which 	addressed 	the 	assistance 	to 	be
given 	public 	notice 	complainants. 	The 	Board 	itself 	stated 	that
that 	regulation 	required 	that 	a 	public 	notice 	complainant
receive 	only 	technical 	(as 	opposed 	to 	legal) 	assistance.
Effective 	September 	20, 	1982, 	public 	notice 	complainants 	were
placed 	under 	PERB 	regulation 	32163, 	which 	haa 	previously
applied 	only 	to 	cha:::ging 	parties 	in 	unfair 	pn.ictice 	cas~s.
As 	Mr. 	Watts 	suggests, 	that 	regulation 	provides 	as 	follows:
32163. 	Board Assistanceo 	If 	a 	party 	is
unable 	to 	retain 	counsel 	or 	demonstrates
extenuating 	circumstances, 	as 	determined
by 	the 	Board, 	a 	Board 	agent 	may 	be 	assigned
to 	assist 	the 	party 	in 	accordance 	with
Board 	policy.
As 	I 	have 	previously 	advised Mr. 	Watts, 	there 	presently 	exists
no 	different 	Board 	policy 	delineating 	the 	assistance 	to be
given 	under 	regulation 	32163. 	Mr. 	Watts 	has 	already 	been
provided 	the 	same manner 	of 	assistance 	the 	Board 	found 	to 	be
appropriate 	in 	the 	above-cited 	decisions. 	Although 	those
decisions 	were 	issued 	prior 	to 	regulation 	32163 	becoming

Watts 	& 	Naples
LA-PN-50-H
March 	21, 	1984
Page 	7
relevant 	to 	public 	notice 	requests, 	they 	constitute 	the 	only
Board 	policy 	regarding 	the 	appropriate 	extent 	of 	Board
assistance.
In 	the 	absence 	of 	any 	further 	direction 	from 	the 	Board 	itself
as 	to 	the 	assistance 	to 	be 	granted 	a 	public 	notice 	complainant,
it 	is 	determined 	that, 	for 	the 	reasons 	stated 	above, 	Mr. 	Watts'
request 	for 	assistance 	must 	be 	DENIED.
Based 	upon 	my 	investigation 	of 	the 	instant 	Complaint 	and 	the
above 	rationale, 	it 	is 	determined 	that 	none 	of 	the 	allegations
made 	by Mr. 	Watts 	state 	a 	prima 	facie 	violation 	of 	Government
Code 	subsections 	3595(a) 	or 	(b). 	They 	cannot 	be 	amended 	to 	do
so. 	Accordingly, 	they 	are 	hereby DISMISSED without 	further
leave 	to 	amend. 	Moreover, 	Mr. 	Watts' 	request 	for 	further
assistance 	in 	this 	matter 	is 	also 	hereby 	DENIED.
Pursuant 	to PERB 	regulation 	32925, 	Mr. 	Watts 	may 	appeal 	the
dismissal 	to 	the 	Board 	itself 	as 	follows.
Right 	to Appeal
An 	appeal 	of 	this 	decision 	pursuant 	to PERB 	regulation 	32925
may 	be 	made 	within 	20 	calendar 	days 	following 	the 	date 	of
serv~c•? 	of 	this 	decision 	~y ·filing 	an 	original 	2nd 	five 	copies
of 	a 	statement 	of 	the 	facts 	upon 	which 	the 	appeal 	~s 	based 	with
the 	Board 	itself 	at 	1031 	18th Street, 	Suite 	200, 	Sacramento,
California 	95815. 	Copies 	of 	any 	appeal 	must 	be 	concurrently
served 	upon 	all 	parties 	and 	the 	Los 	Angeles 	regional 	office.
Proof 	of 	service 	pursuant 	to 	regulation 	32140 	is 	required.
Very 	truly 	yours,
~;tctorFrances A. 	Kreiling
Robert 	R. 	Bergeson
Sr. 	Representative
RRB:bw