Los Angeles Community College District (Watts) (PERB 0731E)

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF 	THE
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
HOWARD O. 	WATTS,
Complainant,
v.
LOS ANGELES 	COMMUNITY COLLEGE
DISTRICT,
Respondent.
Case No. 	LA-PN-99
PERB Decision No. 	731
May 3, 	1939
Appearance: 	Howard O. 	Watts, 	on his own behalf.
Before Hesse, 	Chairperson; 	Porter and Camilli, 	Members.
DECISION
CAMILLI, 	Member: 	On July 7, 	1988, 	Howard O. 	Watts 	(Watts)
filed a 	complaint with the 	Los Angeles 	Regional 	Office 	of 	the
Public 	Employment 	Relations 	Board 	(PERB 	or Board) 	alleging that
the 	Los 	Angeles 	Community College 	District 	(LACCD 	or 	District)
had violated 	the public 	notice provisions 	of 	the 	Educational
Employment Relations Act 	(EERA)1 when it failed to provide the
public 	copies 	of 	its proposals 	relating 	to a new contract with
the 	Los 	Angeles 	County Building and Construction Trades 	Council.
The 	PERB 	Los Angeles 	Regional 	Director 	subsequently
concluded that LACCD violated EERA 	section 3547(a) 	and 	(b)2 and,
1EERA 	is 	codified at Government Code 	section 	3540 	et 	seq.
Unless 	otherwise 	indicated, 	further 	statutory references 	are 	to
the Government Code.
2Section 3547 provides, 	in pertinent part:
(a) 	All 	initial proposals of exclusive
representatives 	and 	of public 	school
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
______________ !

on August 	8, 	1988, 	served an order on LACCD directing the
District 	to 	cease 	and desist 	from 	failing to provide 	copies 	of
all proposals 	to members 	of 	the public 	upon request. 	The
District was 	also 	ordered to post a 	notice 	and to 	inform the 	PERB
Los Angeles 	Regional 	Director of 	actions 	it had taken to 	comply
with the 	order.
employers, 	which relate to matters within the
scope of representation, 	shall be presented
at 	a public 	meeting of 	the public 	school
employer 	and thereafter 	shall 	be public
records.
Rather than go 	to hearing, 	the 	District 	complied with the
order. 	Finding that LACCD complied, 	the regional director
dismissed the 	complaint pursuant 	to Regulation 	32920(b)(7).3 On
November 28, 	1988, 	Watts appealed the regional director's
dismissal pursuant 	to Regulation 	32925.4
3PERB 	Regulations 	are 	codified 	at 	California Administrative
Code, 	title 8, 	section 31001 	et seq. 	Regulation 32920 	states, 	in
pertinent part:
(b) 	The powers and duties 	of 	such Board
agent 	shall be to:
(7) 	If 	the Board agent receives proof 	that
the 	respondent 	has 	voluntarily 	complied with
the provisions 	of 	Government Code 	sections
3547 	or 3595, 	a Board agent may either
approve 	the 	complainant's withdrawal 	of 	the
complaint 	or dismiss 	the 	complaint.
4PERB 	Regulation 	section 	32925 	states:
Within 20 days 	of the date of 	service of a
dismissal 	made pursuant 	to 	section
32920(b)(8) 	or a determination made pursuant
to section 32920(b)(10), 	any party adversely
affected by 	the 	ruling may appeal 	to 	the
22

Board itself. 	The appeal 	shall be 	filed 	in
writing with 	the 	Board 	itself 	in the
headquarters 	office, 	and 	shall be 	signed by
the appealing party or its 	agent. 	The
appealing party 	shall 	serve 	the 	appeal 	and
all 	supporting documents 	upon all 	other
parties. 	Within 20 days of service, 	each
other party may 	file with 	the 	Board 	itself 	an
opposition to the appeal.
Watts 	appeals 	on the basis 	that 	the 	order 	issued provided
that 	LACCD 	shall 	cease 	and desist 	from 	failing 	to provide 	copies
of 	all proposals 	to members 	of 	the public upon request. 	Watts
contends 	that 	the upon request 	language was 	improper and that 	the
notice 	should be 	reissued and posted, 	requiring 	that 	LACCD
provide 	its 	proposals 	at 	the 	time 	of 	the presentation and not
upon request.
-
-
The Board finds 	no merit 	in Watts' 	argument. 	Section 3547
provides 	that proposals
. 	. 	. which relate to matters within the
scope 	of 	representation 	shall 	be presented 	at
a public meeting 	. 	. 	. 	and thereafter shall
be public records.
(Emphasis 	added.)
A 	fundamental 	right 	of 	every person 	is 	access 	to 	information
concerning the conduct of 	the people's business. 	(California
Public Records Act, 	Gov. 	Code, 	secs. 	6250 et seq.) 	The right to
inspect public 	records 	must 	be 	freely 	allowed unless 	contrary 	to
statute 	or public 	policy.
Section 	6256 	of 	the California 	Public 	Records Act 	also
provides 	in pertinent part:
Any person may receive 	a 	copy of 	any
identifiable public 	record 	or 	copy thereof.
33

-Upo	----·	n request, 	an exact 	copy 	shall be provided
unless impracticable to do so. 	. 	. 	.
(Emphasis 	added.)
The 	Board 	finds 	that 	the 	notice posted by LACCD 	in this 	case
was proper, 	as 	section 6256 only requires 	copies of public
records 	be available upon request.5 As 	the 	notice 	at 	issue
contained this 	requirement, 	we 	find the notice conformed with
California 	law. 	As Watts 	has 	the 	opportunity of 	obtaining a 	copy
of 	the proposal 	by requesting 	it 	from LACCD, 	we 	find 	that 	the
dismissal 	of 	the 	charge was proper.
ORDER
For the reasons 	stated above, 	the Board DENIES 	Howard O.
Watts' 	appeal and AFFIRMS the dismissal of Case Number LA-PN-99.
Chairperson Hesse 	and Member 	Porter 	joined 	in this 	Decision.
5See also Gov. 	Code section 6257.
4