Los Angeles Unified School District (PERB 0494E)

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
HOWARD O. WATTS,
Complainant, 	Case No. LA-PN-85
PERB Decision No. 494
LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL
DISTRICT, March 14, 1985
Respondent.
Appearance: 	Howard O. Watts, on his own behalf.
Before Hesse, Chairperson; Jaeger, Morgenstern and Burt,
Members.
DECISION
This case is before the Public Employment Relations Board
on an appeal by Howard O. Watts of the Board agent's dismissal,
attached hereto, of his public notice complaint alleging that
the Los Angeles Unified School District violated section
3547 (b) of the Educational Employment Relations Act (Gov. Code
sec. 3540 et seq. ).
We have reviewed the Board agent's dismissal in light of
the appeal and, finding it free from error, adopt it as the
Decision of the Board itself.
ORDER
The public notice complaint in Case No. LA-PN-85 is
DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.
By the Board
STATE
	OF
	CALIFORNIA
DECISION
	OF
	THE
PUBLIC
	EMPLOYMENT
	RELATIONS
	BOARD
HOWARD
	O.
	WATTS,
Complainant,
V •
LOS 	ANGELES
	UNIFIED
	SCHOOL
DISTRICT,
Respondent.
)
)
)	
Case
	No. 	LA-PN-85
PERB
	Decision
	No.494
March
	14,
	1985
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
__________________
)
Appearance:	
Howard 	o.
	Watts,
	on
	his
	own
	behalf.
Before 	Hesse,
	Chairperson;
	Jaeger,
	Morgenstern
	and
	Burt,
Members. 
DECISION
This 	case
	is
	before 	the 	Public
	Employment
	Relations
	Board
on
	an
	appeal
	by 	Howard 	o.
	Watts
	of 	the
	Board
	agent's 	dismissal,
attached 	hereto,
	of
	his 	public 	notice
	complaint
	alleging
	that
the
	Los
	Angeles
	Unified
	School
	District
	violated 	section
3547(b) 	of 	the 	Educational
	Employment
	Relations
	Act
	(Gov. 	Code
sec.
	3540
	et
	seq.).
We
	have
	reviewed
	the
	Board
	agent's 	dismissal 	in
	light
	of
the 	appeal 	and,
	finding
	it
	free
	from
	error,
	adopt
	it
	as 	the
Decision 	of 	the
	Board
	itself.
ORDER
The
	public 	notice 	complaint 	in 	case
	No. 	LA-PN-85
	is
DISMISSED
	WITHOUT 	LEAVE
	TO 	AMEND.
By
	the
	Board

GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Governor
Angeles
Your above-captioned public notice complaint was filed with our
November
TATE OF CAUCORNIA
2,
	1984
Dear
	Mr.	
Watts.:
office on July 18, 1984. On September 13, 1984 I advised you
through a Notice of Deficiency that your complaint had not
established a prima facie violation of Government Code 3547 (b) ,
as you had alleged. On October 2, 1984, you filed a First
Amended complaint. The basis of both the original and amended
complaint is that the Los Angeles Unified School District,
proposals of the District and employee organizations
representing units, A, B, C, D, E and teachers, by restricting
response time to three minutes at the public meetings of the
employer. You allege that these restrictions occured at
meetings of June 18, 25, July 2, and 9, 1984; when you appeared
and spoke for three minutes at each meeting but were denied
extensions 	of
	time 	to 	further
	express
	yourself	
by 	tne
	~resident
of the Board of Education. You argue that the voluminous
length of some of the proposals required that LAUSD grant more
than three minutes to the public in order that it adequately
express itself. Your amendment alleges that the District
restricted public speaking through action it took on
October 31, 1977 by cutting response time from five to three
(You allege that this action was not official.)
The
	decision
	Los
PERB
	in
	its
	of
	LA-PN-42,
	Watts 	v.
Unified 	School
	District
	(PERB
	Decision
	No. 	405,.
Regional
	Director's 	dismissal
September 	13, 	1984), 	upheld 	the
EERA
of 	your 	allegation 	that
	LAOSD
	violated
	3547(b)
	of 	by
collectivelimiting 	the
	public's
	opportunity 	to 	address The
bargaining 	proposals 	to 	three 	minutes
	at
	Board 	meeting. 	The
Regional 	Director's 	rationale 	in 	dismissing 	the 	allegation 	is
found
	at pe8 	of 	her 	Decision~
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
LOS ANGELES REGIONAL OFFICE
TO "WILSHIRE BLVD., SUITE 1001
S ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 9:010
November 2, 1984
Mr. Howard O. Watts
.TAll'.
t,.:.f
Watts
C).U"Ol<NIA
RELATIONS
·=======================
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	BOARD
LOS
ANGE~i:S REGIONAL OFFICE
,S M~CEcE:.,
(Adl'09.NIA 	9':0lu
Pl'.l)
73&3,,7	
(213) 736-3127
Dismissal
	R~·
	Notice
	of
	- 	LA-PN-85
Watts~.
	Los
	Angeles
	Unified
	Schoo]
	District
Mr. 	Reward 	O.
Re: Notice of Dismissal - LA-PN-85
Watts v. Los Angeles Unified School District
Dear Mr. Watts:
GEORGE
DEUKMc..JlAN,
G:,ff'fflQ("
Your
	above-captioned 	public 	notice
	complaint
	was
	filed
	with
	our
office
	on
	July
	18,
	1984.
	On
	September
	13,
	1984 	I
	advised
	you
through
	a
	Notice 	of 	Deficiency
	that
	your
	complaint
	had
	not
established
	a
	prima
	facie 	violation
	of
	Government 	Code
	3547(b),
as
	you 	had
	alleged.
	On
	October 	2, 	1984,
	you
	filed
	a
	First
Amended
	complaint.
	The
	basis
	of 	both 	the
	original
	and 	amended
complaint
	is 	that
	the
	Los
	Angeles
	Unified 	School
	District,
(LAUSD
	or
	District),	(LAUSD or District), limited the public's ability to address
limited
	the
	public
ts	
ability
	to 	address
proposals	
of	
the
	District	
and 	employee
	organizations
representing
	units,
	A, 	B, 	C, 	D, 	E and
	teachers,	
by	
restricting
response
	time
	to 	three
	minutes
	at
	the 	public
	meetings
	of 	the
employer.
	You
	allege 	that
	these
	restrictions
	occured
	at
meetings 	of 	June 	18,
	25,
	July
	2,
	and
	9, 	1984;
	when 	you
	appeared
and 	spok~
	for 	three
	minuteR
	at
	each 	meeting 	but
	were
	denied
extensions of time to further express yourself by the President
of 	the
	Board
	of
	Education.
	You
	argue
	that
	the
	voluminous
length 	of
	some
	of 	the 	proposals 	required
	that
	LAUSD
	grant
	more
than 	three
	minutes
	to
	the 	public 	in 	order
	that
	it
	adequately
express
	itself.
	Your 	amendment
	alleges 	that
	the
	District
restricted
	public
	speaking 	through
	action
	it
	took
	on
October
	31,
	1977	
by	
cutting
	response 	time
	from
	five 	to 	th~ee
minutes.	
minutes.
	(You
	allege 	that 	this 	action
	was
	not
	official.)
The PERB in its decision of LA-PN-42, Watts v. Los Angeles
Unified School District (PERB Decision No. 405,
September 13, 1984), upheld the Regional Director's dismissal
of your allegation that LAUSD violated 3547 (b) of EERA by
limiting the public's opportunity to address collective
bargaining proposals to three minutes at Board meeting.
Regional Director's rationale in dismissing the allegation is
found at p.8 of her Decision:

As discussed above and in our meetings of September 28,
The instant complaint does not state a prima facie violation of
The allegation in your amended complaint as to the District's
Similarly,
Mr.
November
	2,
	1984
LA-PN-85
Page
	2
Watts
	did 	not
	speak
	entirely
	to
	the
	merits 	of
the
	District's
	and
	union's
	initial
	proposals
•
.
Rather, 	the 	tapes 	submitted	
by	
the
	Complainant
indicate
	that
	he 	expended
	his
	three
	minutes
	atthe
	June
	21
	meeting
	criticizing
	the
	manner
	in
which 	LAUSD	
pu!Jlicized
	its 	initial
	proposals
	and
the
	failure
	of
	District 	officials
	to
	cooperate
with
	him.
	He
	used
	none
	of
	that
	time
	to
	express
his
	opinion 	of 	the 	merits
	of 	the 	col.lective
bargaining
	proposals.
as
	I
	pointed 	out 	to
	you
	in	
my 	S-eptember
Notice of Deficiency, the tapes which I listened to at the
Board offices and the tape which you provided, point to the
fact that you expended your three minutes at each of the four
meetings of June 18, 25, July 2 and 9, 1984 reading the
proposals out loud, complaining that you couldn't finish
commenting within three minutes, or identifying which proposal
pertained to which unit. Only for a few seconds at the
June 25, 1984 meeting did you choose to speak to the subject of
one of the proposals (You advocated that the membership reject
the CSEA proposals for agency shop provisions in their
contracts. )
unofficial reduction of public response time from five to three
minutes refers to the date of October 31, 1977 as the effective
date of said reduction. PERB Regulation 32910 requires that
"[the complaint shall be filed no later than 30 days
subsequent to the date when conduct alleged to be a violation
was known or reasonably could have been discovered."
regular attendant of LAUSD Board meetings you clearly had
knowledge of this change in policy prior to October 2, 1984.
Therefore, this allegation is found to be untimely.
EERA section 3547 and cannot be amended to do so.
complaint is hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.
October 5, and October 19, 1984, the PERB has already ruled on
a public notice complaint against this same district which
alleged a similar violation, (PERB Dec. No. 405). In the
in::;tunt	
c.:anc,
	ycu	
have
	..igain 	~hosE;n
	not
	to
	aod1
css
	t11e	
mer.
ls
of the proposals during the full amount of time alloted to
you. This allegation therefore fails as did your similar
allegation 	in
	LA-PN-42.
November 2, 1984
LA-PN-85
Page 2
Mr. Watts did not speak entirely to the merits of
the District's and union's initial proposals.
Rather, the tapes submitted by the Complainant
indicate that he expended his three minutes at
the June 21 meeting criticizing the manner in
which LAUSD publicized its initial proposals and
the failure of District officials to cooperate
with him. He used none of that time to express
his opinion of the merits of the collective
bargaining proposals.
Similarly, as I pointed out to you in my September 13, 1984	
13,
	1984
Notice
	of
	Deficiency, 	the 	tapes
	which
	I
	listened
	to
	at
	the
Board
	offices
	and
	the 	tape
	which
	you
	provided,
	point
	to 	the
fact 	that
	you
	expended 	your
	three
	minutes
	at
	each
	of
	the 	fourmeetings
	of
	June
	18,
	25,
	July
	2
	and
	9,
	1984 	reading 	the
proposals 	out 	loud,
	complaining
	that
	you-
	couldn't 	finish
commenting
	within 	three
	minutes, 	or
	identifying
	which
	proposal
pertained 	to
	which
	unit.
	Only
	for
	a 	few
	seconds
	at
	the
June
	25,
	1984 	meeting
	did
	you
	choose
	to
	speak
	to
	the
	subject
	of
one
	of
	the 	proposals
	(You
	advocated
	that
	the
	membership
	reject
the
	CSEA
	proposals 	for
	agency 	shop
	provisions 	in
	their
contracts.)
The
	allegation
	in
	your
	amended
	complaint 	as
	to
	the
	District's
unofficial
	reduction 	of 	pμblic 	response 	time
	from
	five 	to 	three
minutes
	refers
	to 	the 	date 	of 	October 	31,
	1977
	as 	the
	effectivedate 	of 	said 	reduction.
	PERB
	Regulation 	32910
	requires
	that
"[t]he
	complaint
	shall
	be
	filed
	no
	later
	than
	30
	days
subsequent 	to 	the 	date
	when
	conduct
	alleged
	to
	be 	a
	violation
was 	known
	or 	reasonably 	could
	have 	been
	discovered." 	As a	As 	a
regular 	attendant 	of
	LAOSD
	Board 	meetings
	you
	clearly
	had
knowledge
	of
	this
	change
	in 	policy 	prior 	to 	October 	2, 	1984.
Therefore, 	this 	allegation 	is
	found
	to
	be
	untimely.
The
	instant 	complaint 	does 	not 	state
	a 	prima 	facie 	violation 	of
EERA
	section
	3547 	and 	cannot
	be 	amended
	to
	do
	so. 	This	
This
complaint 	is
	hereby 	DISMISSED
	WITHOUT 	LEAVE 	TO AMEND.
As
	discussed
	above
	and 	in
	our 	meetings
	of
	September
	28,October
	S,
	and
	October
	19,
	1984, 	the
	PERB
	has
	already 	ruled
	on
a
	public 	notice
	complaint
	against
	this
	same
	district
	which
alleged
	a
	similar 	violation,
	(PERE
	Dec. 	No.
	405).
	In 	the
instunt case, you have again chosen not to address the merits
of 	the 	proposals 	during 	the
	full
	amount
	of
	time
	alloted 	to
you. 	This
	allegation 	therefore
	fails
	as 	did
	your
	similar
allegation in LA-PN-42.

cc:
RS/gm].
RogM
Frances
Sincerely,
An appeal of this decision pursuant to PERB Regulation 32925
On July 27, 1984 you filed a request for assistance pursuant to
November
	2,
	1984
LA-PN-85
Regulation 32163. As I indicated to you in meetings in August,
September and October, 1984 there are no technical flaws which
I could help you perfect. Your request for legal assistance is
hereby DENIED pursuant to Board Decisions No. 186, Watts v.
Los Angeles Community College District (12/15/81); No. 18la,
Watts v. Los Angeles Unified School District and California
School Employees Association (2/22/82) ; and No. 396-H, Watts v.
Los Angeles Unified School District, et al. (8/6/84).
may be made within 20 calendar days following the date of
service of this decision by filing an original and 5 copies of
a statement of the facts upon which the appeal is based with
the Board itself at 1031 - 18th Street, Suite 200, Sacramento,
Calfornia 95814. 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.
A.
	KreilingRegional
	Director
Smith
Labor
	Relations
	Specialist
Roger 	Johnson
November 2, 1984
LA-PN-85
Page 3
On
	July
	27,
	1984 	you
	filed
	a
	request
	for
	assistance
	pursuant 	toRegulation 	32163.
	As 	I
	indicated 	to
	you
	in
	meetings
	in
	August,
September
	and
	October,
	1984
	there 	are
	no
	technical
	flaws
	which
I
	could 	help
	you
	perfect.
	Your
	request
	for
	legal
	assistance
	is
hereby
	DENIED
	pursuant 	to
	Board
	Decisions
	No.
	186, 	Watts 	v.
Los 	Ange·les Community
	College
	District
	(12/15/81);	
No.	
181a,
watts
	v.
	Los
	Angeles
	unified
	School
	District
	ana
	California
School
	Employees
	Association 	(2/22/82);
	and 	No.
	396-H,
	Watts	
v.
Los
	Angeles
	Unified
	School
	District, 	et 	al.
	(8/6/84).
An
	appeal 	of
	this
	decision
	pursuant
	to
	PERB
	Regulation 	32925
may
	be
	made
	within
	20
	calendar
	days
	following 	the
	date 	of
service
	of
	this
	decision
	by
	filing
	an
	original
	and 	5
	copies
	of
a
	statement 	of
	the
	facts
	upon
	which
	the 	appeal
	is
	based
	with
the
	Board
	itself
	at
	1031 -
	18th
	Street,
	Suite
	200,
	Sacramento,
Calfornia
	95814.
	Copies 	of
	any
	appeal
	must
	be
	~oncurrently
served
	upon
	all
	parties
	and
	the
	Los
	Angeles 	Regional
	Office.
Proof 	of
	service
	pursuant 	to 	Regulation
	32140
	is
	required.
Sincerely,
Frances A. Kreiling
Regional Director
Roger Smith
Labor Relations Specialist
RS/gml
cc:Roger Johnson