Regents of the University of California (Fried, et al.) (PERB 0829H)

STATE 	OP 	CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF 	THE
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
CLIFF FRIED, 	et al.,
Charging 	Party,
v.
REGENTS 	OF 	THE 	UNIVERSITY OF
CALIFORNIA,
Respondent.
Case No. 	LA-CE-250-H
PERB Decision No. 	029-H
July 24, 1990
Appearances: 	Cliff Fried, 	Representative 	for American Federation
of State, 	County and Municipal Employees; 	Sandra J. 	Rich,
Assistant Labor Relations 	Manager, 	for Regents 	of the 	University
of California.
Before Craib, 	Camilli, 	and Cunningham, 	Members.
DECISION AND 	ORDER
CAMILLI, 	Member: 	This case is before the Public 	Employment
Relations 	Board 	(PERB or Board) 	on exceptions 	filed by the
charging parties 	to 	the proposed decision 	(attached hereto) 	of 	a
PERB 	administrative 	law 	judge which held 	the Regents 	of 	the
University of 	California 	(UC) 	did not violate 	the Higher
Education Employer-Employee Relations Act 	(HEERA) 	section 	3571(a)
and 	(b)1 but, 	rather satisfied its obligation under the Act to
HEERA
I HEERA 	is 	codified at Government Code 	section 	3560 	et 	seq.
Section 3571 	states, 	in pertinent part:
It 	shall 	be unlawful 	for the higher 	education
employer to:
(a) 	Impose or threaten to 	impose reprisals
on employees, 	to discriminate or threaten to
discriminate against employees, 	or otherwise
to interfere with, 	restrain, 	or coerce
employees 	because 	of 	their 	exercise of 	rights
guaranteed by 	this 	chapter.

meet 	and discuss with regard to 	its 	decision to raise 	the parking
rates 	at the UC Los Angeles 	campus.
The 	Board has 	reviewed the 	entire record 	in this 	case,
including the 	charging parties' 	exceptions 	and UC's 	response
thereto, 	and, 	finding the proposed decision to be 	free 	from
prejudicial 	error, 	adopts 	it as 	the decision of the Board 	itself.
The unfair practice charge 	in Case No. 	LA-CE-250-H 	is 	hereby
DISMISSED WITH 	PREJUDICE.
Members 	Craib 	and Cunningham 	joined 	in this 	Decision.
(b) 	Deny to employee organizations rights
guaranteed 	to 	them by 	this 	chapter.
22

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS 	BOARD
CLIFF FRIED, et al. ,
Charging 	Party,
v.
REGENTS OF 	THE 	UNIVERSITY OF
CALIFORNIA,
Respondent.
Unfair 	Practice
Case No. 	LA-CE-250-H
PROPOSED 	DECISION
(3/27/90)
Appearances: 	Cliff Fried, 	Representative, AFSCME Council 	10, 	for
American Federation of State, 	County and Municipal Employees;
Sandra Rich, 	Assistant Labor Relations Manager, 	for Regents 	of
the 	University of 	California.
Before 	Fred D'Orazio, 	Administrative Law Judge.
PROCEDURAL 	HISTORY
This 	unfair practice 	charge was 	filed by Cliff 	Fried 	and
other American Federation of State, 	County, 	and Municipal
Employee members 	(hereafter Charging Parties) 	in bargaining units
at 	the 	University of California at Los Angeles 	(UCLA) 	where no
exclusive representative exists. 	The charge, 	filed on March 	13,
1989, 	alleges 	that the Regents 	of the 	University of California
(hereafter Respondent) 	increased parking rates 	at 	its 	Los Angeles
campus 	(UCLA) 	without meeting and discussing the change. 	It 	is
alleged that 	this 	conduct violated 	the 	Higher Education Employer-
Employee Relations Act (HEERA or Act), 	sections 3571(a) 	and 	(b).1
1The HEERA is 	codified at Government Code 	section 	3560 	et
seq. 	Unless 	otherwise 	indicated, 	a l l 	statutory 	references 	are 	to
the Government Code. 	Sections 	3571(a) 	and 	(b) 	state that 	it
shall 	be 	unlawful 	for 	the 	employer 	to:
This proposed decision has been appealed to the
Board i t s e l f and may not be cited as precedent
unless the decision and i t s rationale have been
adopted by the Board.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
______________ )

The General 	Counsel 	of 	the 	Public 	Employment 	Relations 	Board
(PERB or Board) 	issued a complaint on July 	17, 	1989. 	Respondent
answered the complaint on August 	10, 	1989, 	denying that it
violated the Act. 	The informal conference, 	held on August 	15,
1989, 	did not resolve the dispute.
A 	formal 	hearing was 	conducted by 	the 	undersigned 	in 	Los
Angeles, 	California on November 	1 and 2, 	1989. 	The last post-
hearing brief was received on February 27, 	1990.
FINDINGS 	OF 	FACT
Introduction
Cliff 	Fried and 	Peter Goodman are 	employees within the
meaning of 	section 3562(f). 	AFSCME, 	an employee organization
within the meaning of 	section 3562(g), 	represented Fried and
Goodman in the meet and discuss 	sessions 	in this 	case. 	AFSCME 	is
not an exclusive representative, of 	Fried or Goodman within the
meaning of 	section 3562(j). 	Respondent 	is 	an employer within the
meaning of section 3562(h).
Parking 	Fee 	Increase
The process 	for 	increasing parking rates 	at 	UCLA typically
begins 	approximately one 	year prior 	to 	the desired 	implementation
(a) 	Impose or threaten to 	impose reprisals
on employees, 	to discriminate or threaten to
discriminate against employees, 	or otherwise
to interfere with, 	restrain, 	or coerce
employees 	because 	of 	their 	exercise of 	rights
guaranteed by this 	chapter.
(b) 	Deny to employee organizations 	rights
guaranteed 	to them by 	this 	chapter.
N	2

date. 	According to Mark Stocki, 	business 	and transportation
administrator who is 	responsible 	for a wide range of
transportation-related 	services 	at UCLA, 	the process 	begins with
low-level 	analysis 	of various 	options 	in areas 	such as
construction schedules, parking expansion, 	fees, 	etc. 	As the
analysis 	evolves, 	parking estimates 	are 	fine-tuned 	in context of
the 	entire transportation 	system. 	The 	subject moves 	up 	the
administrative 	chain and 	is 	reviewed by higher 	level
administrators, 	eventually arriving at 	the 	Executive Budget
Committee. 	Chaired by the 	chancellor, 	the 	committee 	includes
deans, 	academic representatives, 	and administrators.
According to Stocki, 	the 	committee ultimately decides 	that
the proposal has 	been 	"brought 	to a 	level 	of 	sophistication that
it 	should move 	forward." 	At this point, 	the proposal 	is 	reviewed
with the Academic 	Senate, 	the 	Staff Assembly and various 	student
groups. 	A notice of 	intent to 	increase 	fees 	and 	solicit 	input 	is
then issued to employees 	and employee 	organizations. 	After
receiving input, 	the 	committee conducts more meetings 	leading to
a decision on fees. 	The 	final decision is 	made by the
chancellor, 	with 	input from a broad 	spectrum of 	interested
parties.
The decision that the proposed 	fee 	increase had 	reached 	the
desired 	"level of 	sophistication" 	was made on January 	11, 	1989.2
On February 	15, 	Raymond Schultze, 	administrative vice chancellor,
2Unless otherwise noted, 	all dates refer to 	1989.
33

sent 	a memo announcing the 	increase to 	"all 	UCLA academic 	and
staff 	employees." 	Schultze>describe	
,, 	d the 	increase as 	follows:
After 	several months 	of program planning
analysis and administrative review, 	it has
become 	apparent 	that we 	must 	raise 	campus
parking fees, 	effective July 	1, 	1989. 	This
increase is the first in two years, 	parking
fees 	having 	last been raised 	in July 	1987.
The July 	1, 	1989 	increase will 	change the
basic 	$22/month permit 	fee 	to 	$30/month 	and
the daily 	entry 	fee 	from $3.00 	to
$4.00/entry.
The 	memo 	also 	announced 	increases 	in approximately 	eight 	other
subordinate fee areas; 	e.g., 	night permits, 	meters, 	courtesy
permits, etc.
Fried and Goodman, 	both AFSCME representatives, 	believed
that the wording of 	the notice 	suggested a 	fait accompli. 	They
believed 	Respondent 	had no 	intention to 	change 	the proposed 	fees
reflected in the February 	15 memo. 	However, 	Stocki testified
that 	the 	announcement did not 	represent a 	final decision.
Relying on past practice, 	he testified, 	"as with every other
notice that has 	gone out 	in the past on parking 	fees, 	we
solicited 	input. 	It was definitely not a 	final decision."
Respondent 	solicited 	input with respect 	to proposed 	increases 	in
1981, 	1982, 	1985 and 1987, 	altering its initial proposal on at
least 	two 	occasions 	after receiving 	input 	from 	employees 	and
employee 	organizations.
The memo 	itself 	is ambiguous 	in this regard. 	For example,
at one point 	it 	states that the changes 	"will" 	take place. 	At
another point, 	it 	states 	that the changes 	are merely 	"planned."
Internal 	memoranda 	generated 	as 	part 	of 	the planning process
4

described above 	indicate that 	the 	changes were 	not 	fixed. 	A
November"18, 	1988 memo from Stocki to a group of administrators
refers 	to the parking fee 	increases 	as 	"recommendations." 	A
January 	1 memo from H.B. 	Thompson, 	assistant vice chancellor-
business, 	to Carlene Miller, 	budget and finance management
director, 	refers 	to the 	"proposed" 	parking fees 	for 	1989-90. 	As
more 	fully discussed below, 	it 	is 	concluded that the changes
described in the February 	15 memo were not 	set in concrete.
Schultze's 	February 	15 	memo 	stated the 	rationale 	for the
increase as 	follows:
The Campus 	Parking Service 	is 	a totally 	self-
supporting auxiliary enterprise which, 	by
state policy, 	is 	not 	supported by state or
other public funds. 	User fees are 	set at
levels 	sufficient to pay all 	expenses 	of 	the
campus 	parking 	and 	transportation 	system,
including total debt 	service. 	This 	fee
increase is 	required 	in order to keep pace
with 	escalating 	operating 	costs 	and to
provide 	sufficient 	funds 	for the payment of
bond 	indebtedness 	on 	existing 	and planned
future parking facilities. 	Emphasis 	in
original.
On March 	28, 	Fried 	(jointly with other AFSCME 	locals)
requested 	detailed 	information 	concerning 	the parking 	fee
increase. 	On April 	7, 	Fried wrote to Sandra Rich, 	assistant
labor relations 	manager, 	requesting to meet and discuss 	the
increase in parking fees. 	On April 	17, 	Rich provided the
information and 	informed Fried 	that 	she was 	prepared 	to 	meet.
On April 20, 	1989, 	Schultze sent out another memo to all
UCLA 	faculty 	and 	staff 	announcing 	changes 	in the 	February 	15
announcement of the 	intent to 	increase parking fees. 	The
5

changes, 	made as a result of 	suggestions by faculty, 	staff, 	and
at 	least one other employee organization, 	did not affect the
monthly permit or daily entry 	fee 	set 	forth 	in the 	initial 	memo.
Charging 	Parties 	later 	indicated 	that 	they were 	"happy" 	with
these changes.3
The 	first of two 	"meet and discuss" 	sessions was 	held on May
12. 	Fried and Goodman complained that notice was 	not 	given 	in a
timely manner, 	essentially making a 	sham of 	the 	obligation to
meet 	and discuss. 	Fried 	claimed the parking 	increases were
already set in concrete, 	and there was not enough time, 	prior to
July 	1, 	to address 	funding needs 	raised by the University. 	Rich
responded 	that there was 	no 	obligation to 	give notice 	of 	a
proposed 	change 	until 	a 	"semifirm" 	decision had been reached.
She 	took the position that the 	February 	15 	notice 	satisfied this
obligation. 	She told AFSCME representatives 	she was 	there 	to
consider 	the union's 	position and 	input.
The parties 	discussed 	alternative 	fund 	sources 	to 	help
alleviate 	the 	cost 	of 	campus 	parking. 	Rich and Stocki 	rejected
as 	unrealistic 	the 	suggestion that donors 	be 	asked to 	finance 	new
parking 	structures 	on campus. 	AFSCME representatives 	asked
3The 	following 	is 	a 	summary of 	the 	changes 	announced by
Schultze on April 	20. 	A ridesharing card, 	entitling the holder
to 	certain preferential parking, 	would be made available 	for
$10.00. 	Ridesharing 	cardholders would be 	charged a daily 	entry
fee of $3.00, 	rather than $4.00. 	The estimated cost of the
changes 	related to the ridesharing cardholders 	is 	$100,000. 	In
addition, 	Schultze announced that the 	campus 	express 	service
would be 	extended. 	This 	change was 	requested by another 	employee
organization and cost $25,000 	for 	six months 	in 	1989. 	Other
changes 	included a new reduced-fee weekend permit, 	and
consideration of 	implementing a 	two-person carpool 	in 	1990-91.
6

whether 	the 	Master 	Plan 	for Higher 	Education 	in California
prohibited 	the 	University 	from 	seeking 	other 	funds 	for parking.
It was AFSCME's 	firm position that 	alternative 	funding 	sources
should be pursued. 	The Master Plan, 	according to AFSCME,
contained only recommendations 	regarding 	funding 	sources. 	It did
not mandate 	that user 	fees 	fund the parking program. 	Fried
testified 	repeatedly 	throughout 	the 	hearing 	that 	Respondent was
not 	legally prohibited 	from 	seeking 	alternative 	funding. 	Rather,
Fried contended, 	it chose not to do 	so as 	a policy matter.
Stocki responded that, 	consistent with the Regents'
interpretation of 	the Master Plan, 	UCLA policy rejected 	seeking
alternative 	funds, 	and it was 	not realistic 	to pursue 	state 	funds
due to the 	scarcity of 	such 	funds 	in general. 	According to
Stocki, 	a well-established past practice 	supported his position.
Alternative 	funds 	had not been used during the 	last 	"10 	or 	20
years." 	He 	testified that this position 	is 	based on the 	concept
that parking 	is 	a 	"self 	supporting auxiliary enterprise" 	which
supports 	the 	entire 	transportation 	system. 	Stocki 	also 	explained
that 	the 	University was 	obligated under a 	1986 	bond 	to maintain a
debt 	service 	ratio 	of 	1.35.4
Near the 	end of the meeting, 	AFSCME 	submitted 	its 	initial
proposal. 	It proposed that holders of blue permits, 	primarily
managers 	and administrators, 	pay a monthly fee of $30.00.
4The debt 	service 	ratio represents 	the 	relationship 	of 	net
revenue to maximum aggregate annual debt. 	Net revenue 	is 	defined
as 	annual 	income 	generated by parking 	fees 	less 	operating 	costs.
77

Holders of yellow permits, 	primarily 	staff members, 	pay a monthly
fee 	of 	$2 6.00. 	Rich responded that 	the monthly 	fee 	could be
reduced below the 	$30.00 	figure, 	but not without cost to other
programs. 	The bond does 	not mandate 	specific 	fees 	and 	several
arrangements 	could have met bond requirements. 	Rich 	said 	she
would 	consider the proposal. 	The meeting 	lasted 	90 	minutes.
On May 	17, 	prior to the next meet and discuss 	session, 	Fried
submitted a written proposal to Rich. 	He proposed: 	(1) 	monthly
parking fee increases be 	set at $26.00, 	"without a 	loss 	in any
other projected new programs 	and/or 	any 	cuts 	in 	existing parking
service programs"; 	(2) 	the Chancellor's fund, 	containing one half
of 	all parking citation monies, 	be used to help 	lower costs
associated with parking; 	and 	(3) 	the University find alternative
state 	and/or private 	funding 	for 	its 	present 	capital 	development
and 	future projects. 	Fried also reiterated his position that
fees 	paid by 	students, 	staff 	and 	faculty 	should 	supplement
private and 	state 	funds 	for auxiliary operations, 	such as
parking.
Prior to 	the 	second meet 	and discuss 	session on May 	31,
Stocki 	costed out Fried's proposals. 	At the meeting, 	he
explained that the 	first proposal, 	$26.00 	fee for both blue and
yellow permits, 	produced a debt 	service ratio of 	1.21. 	The debt
service ratio under the second proposal, 	$26.00 	for a yellow
permit and $30.00 	for a blue permit, 	was 	1.25. 	Neither proposal
was 	viable under the 	required 	1.35 	debt 	service 	ratio, 	Stocki
CO
	8

explained during 	the 	meeting.5 Fried 	then requested 	a 	copy 	of
the bond which required the debt 	service 	ratio.6
Also on May 	31, 	Rich responded to another aspect of AFSCME's
May 	17 written proposal. 	The 	chancellor's 	contingency 	fund
contained only about $800,000. 	This money, 	Rich explained, 	is
committed to other uses; 	e.g., 	child care 	services, 	asbestos
removal, 	renovation of handicapped access, 	and small 	seismic
projects. 	The 	fund also 	supports 	academic projects 	such as 	the
Marcus 	Garvey papers 	and Black Scholars.
Fried reiterated the 	arguments 	made 	at 	the May 	12 	meeting.
Rich 	responded that notice of 	the 	change 	in 	fees was 	adequate,
some 	modifications 	of 	the 	February 	15 	memo had already been made,
and 	other 	modifications 	to provide 	additional 	alternate
transportation 	services were under consideration. 	Essentially,
the parties' 	positions remained unchanged. 	The May 31 	meeting
lasted approximately 	90 minutes.
On June 	5, 	Rich 	sent Fried a 	copy of 	the bond and various
other documents 	requested at the May 	31 	meeting. 	On June 	6,
5At Rich's request, 	Stocki also ran a cost analysis using
$2 9.00 	as 	the 	fee for both monthly permits. 	The result, 	at 	least
for one year, 	was that the program would have been viable. 	There
would have been no 	default 	and 	there would have 	been balance.
6Fried testified that, 	prior to the 	1989 parking 	increase,
he was 	unaware of 	the 	specific 	limitations 	imposed by the bond.
However, 	funding 	limitations 	stemming 	from the bond 	indebtedness
as well 	as 	the 	inability to use 	state 	funds 	had been discussed
during the four prior parking increases 	in 	1981, 	1982, 	1985 	and
1987. 	Although the 	specifics 	of 	these 	limitations may not have
been discussed in detail, 	it 	is 	clear from the record that AFSCME
and 	Fried were 	generally 	aware 	of 	these 	limitations 	prior 	to 	the
1989 	increase.
9

Fried 	sent 	Rich 	another proposal. 	He 	again argued that 	state
funds 	can be used 	for parking 	structures, 	and the Master Plan
does 	not prohibit use of 	alternate 	funding. 	He also argued that
the 	chancellor's 	"discretionary 	funds, 	surpluses 	and/or other
funding beyond need" 	be given to 	employees 	in the 	form of 	a
rebate. 	Rich responded that 	"sound business practices 	require
the 	department 	to maintain a prudent 	year-end balance 	in order 	to
minimize 	future years' 	increases 	and to cover emergency
situations."7 Rich rejected the proposal 	as 	"unfeasible." 	At
the hearing, 	Stocki 	explained that any 	surplus must be 	"rolled
back" 	into 	the 	system on an annual 	basis 	to pay 	for the 	overall
transportation program, 	including new parking 	structures 	or 	lots.
AFSCME 	made 	no 	other proposals 	regarding the 	monthly 	fees 	or 	any
of the 	subordinate fees.
On June 	19, 	UCLA announced 	its 	final 	decision related to 	the
changes 	in parking and transportation 	system. 	The 	fee 	for both
monthly permits was 	raised to $30.00. 	The 	changes 	reflected 	in
Schultze's April 	20 memo, 	and additional 	changes based on input
received after April 	20, 	were adopted.8 The 	changes were
implemented July 	1.
7Stocki 	also testified that 	a parking 	fee rebate was 	not
possible. 	Any parking 	fee 	excess 	is 	rolled back 	into 	the 	system
on an annual 	basis 	to 	fund 	construction of 	surface 	lots,
earthquake 	related work, 	and resurfacing 	existing 	lots.
8Examples of post-April 20 changes are: 	no vanpool 	increase,
incentives 	for vanpool drivers, 	implementation of 	a guaranteed
ride home program, 	etc.
10

ISSUE
Whether Respondent breached 	its 	obligation to 	meet 	and
discuss 	changes 	in parking 	fees 	at UCLA?
DISCUSSION
A nonexclusive 	representative has 	the 	right 	to 	meet 	and
discuss with an employer changes 	in matters 	of 	"fundamental"
interest to 	employees. 	Regents 	of 	the University of California
(1984) 	PERB Decision No. 	470-H, 	adopting decision of ALJ at
p. 	51; 	Regents of the University of California v. 	PERB 	(1985) 	168
Cal.App.3d 937 	[214 Cal.Rptr. 	698], 	Whether an employer has
breached 	this 	obligation 	is 	decided on a 	"case-by-case basis."
Regents 	of the University of California, 	supra, 	PERB Decision
No. 	470-H, 	adopting decision of ALJ at p. 	54. 	Although an
employer must meet 	and discuss 	proposed 	changes with 	a
nonexclusive representative of employees, 	there 	is no duty to
meet 	and 	negotiate. 	Good 	faith 	requires 	neither the 	obligation
to reach agreement nor to continue meeting until 	impasse. 	Id.-
Under 	some 	circumstances, 	providing the union an opportunity to
present 	alternatives 	along with 	supporting 	rationale 	satisfies
the obligation. 	Id. 	Under these principles, 	there was no breach-
of 	the duty to meet 	and discuss 	the parking 	change.
The general 	subject of parking costs 	is 	of 	fundamental
interest to 	employees. 	See Regents 	of the University of
California 	(1983) 	PERB Decision No. 	356-H. 	Thus, 	Respondent had
an 	obligation to provide 	notice 	and 	an opportunity 	to 	meet 	and
discuss 	the proposed 	changes.
11
i

Contrary to 	the position taken by the Charging Parties,
Schultze's 	February 	15 	memo to all 	staff 	and 	faculty 	satisfied
notice 	requirements. 	The meetings which occurred prior to 	that
date were preliminary in nature. 	It was not until January 	11
that 	the 	committee determined 	the proposal was 	ready 	to 	go
forward. 	The 	February 	15 	notice announced an implementation date
of July 	1, 	leaving approximately four months 	to meet and discuss
the 	changes. 	Under the circumstances presented here, 	this was 	a
"reasonable" 	amount of time to discuss 	the proposed changes. 	See
Victor Valley Union High 	School 	District 	(1986) 	PERB Decision No.
565, p. 5.
In addition, 	the announcements 	in Schultze's 	February 	15
memo were not 	set 	in concrete. 	Stocki's 	testimony that the memo
did 	not represent 	a 	final 	decision 	is 	supported by the 	record.
The 	increase was 	described by at 	least 	two 	administrators 	late 	in
the planning 	stage as 	a 	"recommendation" 	or 	"proposal." 	There
were 	several 	fairly 	significant 	changes, 	applauded by the
Charging Parties, 	announced on two occasions 	after February 	15.
See 	footnotes 	3 	and 	8, 	supra. 	Even the proposed monthly fee of
-
$30.00, 	the key item here, 	could have been changed, 	albeit at the
expense of 	other programs. 	But Charging Parties proposed 	that
none of the other programs be reduced, 	focusing almost
exclusively on an attempt to 	secure 	a 	lower monthly 	fee. 	Under
the circumstances, 	the February 	15 memo cannot be described as 	a
fait accompli. 	The notice was not defective. 	See Lake Elsinore
School District 	(1988) 	PERB Decision No. 	696.
12

Nor does 	Respondent's post-February 	15 	conduct 	support the
conclusion that 	it breached 	the meet and discuss 	obligation.
Respondent met with Charging Parties 	on two occasions, 	each
lasting approximately 	90 	minutes. 	Detailed 	information was
provided 	in a 	timely manner. 	Charging 	Parties 	presented 	several
proposals 	orally and 	in writing. 	All proposals were discussed 	in
detail, 	or otherwise responded to in writing. 	Alternative
sources 	of 	funding were debated, 	as were 	funding limitations
imposed by the bond. 	Stocki 	even costed out Charging Parties'
proposals 	and reported that 	they were 	not 	viable 	under 	the 	debt
service ratio 	imposed by the bond. 	Plainly, 	Charging Parties
were 	given ample opportunity to meet and discuss 	the 	changes 	in
parking 	fees. 	The post-February events 	do 	not 	suggest bad 	faith.
Nevertheless, 	Charging Parties 	offer 	several 	arguments 	in
support 	of 	their position that 	Respondent 	acted 	in bad 	faith.
Charging 	Parties 	first 	contend 	that 	neither the 	Master 	Plan 	for
Higher Education nor 	state 	law mandates 	use 	of 	employee parking
fees 	to 	finance the parking 	system. 	According to Charging
Parties, 	alternative sources of funding, 	such as 	state funding,
can be used to finance such projects. 	Respondent's 	refusal, 	as 	a
matter of policy, 	to 	seek alternative 	funds 	is viewed by Charging
Parties 	as 	evidence of bad 	faith. 	These arguments 	are not
persuasive.
Stocki 	informed the Charging Parties 	at 	the May 	12 	meeting
that, 	under Respondent's 	interpretation of the Master Plan, 	use
of alternative 	funds 	has been prohibited, 	and it was 	unrealistic
13

to 	seek 	scarce 	state 	funding. 	Stocki's position 	is 	supported by
a 	"10 or 20 year" 	practice of not using alternative funds, 	and
AFSCME had been aware of 	this practice 	since at 	least 	1981. 	It
appears 	well 	established 	that 	the 	University parking 	system has
in the past been self-supporting. 	See Regents 	of 	the University
of California, 	supra, 	PERB Decision No. 	356-H. 	Under these
circumstances, 	Respondent's 	refusal 	to agree with Charging
Parties' 	alternative 	funding approach does 	not 	show bad faith.
In any event, 	the evidence 	shows 	that the parties 	in this
case 	simply disagreed about 	funding. 	Neither a 	legal 	dispute 	nor
a policy choice about available 	sources 	of 	funding, 	without more,
shows 	bad 	faith. 	The meet and discuss 	obligation does 	not
require agreement, 	nor does 	it even require that the parties
continue to meet until 	impasse. 	It requires only that designated
employee 	organizations 	be 	given an opportunity 	to 	discuss 	issues
and provide 	input and/or 	suggestions 	about 	a particular 	course 	of
action. 	Charging Parties were afforded this 	opportunity 	in the
present case, 	but could not convince Respondent to alter its
position on 	funding. 	Not 	even 	in a 	true bargaining 	setting 	is
the 	employer required to yield a position 	fairly maintained. 	See
Oakland Unified School District 	(1981) 	PERB Decision No. 	178,
pp. 	7-8.
Charging 	Parties 	next 	assert that they were 	never 	given an
opportunity to participate 	in decisions 	to 	issue any of 	the
bonds. 	According to Charging Parties, 	it is unfair to exclude
them 	from the 	bond 	issuance 	stage 	and 	thereafter 	raise 	funding
14

constraints 	contained 	in the bonds 	during 	the meet 	and discuss
process. 	It 	is 	claimed that this 	indicates bad faith. 	This
argument is not persuasive.
Assuming the decision to 	issue bonds 	is 	appropriately a part
of 	the meet and discuss process, 	an issue not fully 	litigated
here, 	the 	evidence 	in this 	area does 	not 	show bad 	faith.
Charging Parties 	knew of 	the bond 	issues 	since at 	least 	1981.
Funding 	limitations 	imposed by 	the 	bonds were 	communicated 	to
AFSCME 	and 	employees 	in connection with parking 	increases 	in
1981, 	1982, 	1985 and 	1987. 	This was not a new subject in 	1989.
Yet there 	is 	scant evidence to indicate what action, 	if any,
AFSCME 	took 	in 	connection with the 	bond 	issues 	or the
requirements 	imposed by the bonds. 	Therefore, 	no bad faith can
be 	attributed 	to 	Respondent 	because 	it 	adhered to 	funding
constraints 	imposed by a bond 	issued 	in 	1986.
CONCLUSION
Based on the 	foregoing findings 	of 	fact, 	conclusions 	of 	law
and the 	entire record herein, 	it 	is hereby ordered that Unfair
Practice Charge No. 	LA-CE-250-H be dismissed.
Pursuant to California Administrative Code, 	title 	8,
section 	32305, 	this 	Proposed Decision and Order 	shall become
final 	unless 	a party 	files 	a 	statement of 	exceptions with 	the
Board 	itself 	at 	the headquarters 	office 	in 	Sacramento within 	20
days 	of 	service of 	this Decision. 	In accordance with PERB
Regulations, 	the 	statement of 	exceptions 	should 	identify by page
citation or exhibit number the portions 	of 	the record, 	if any,
15

relied upon for 	such exceptions. 	See California Administrative
Code, 	title 8, 	section 32300. 	A document is 	considered 	"filed"
when actually received before 	the 	close 	of 	business 	(5:00 	p.m.)
on the 	last day 	set 	for filing 	". 	. 	. o r when sent by telegraph
or 	certified or Express 	United 	States 	mail, 	postmarked not 	later
than the last day set for filing 	. 	. 	. 	." 	See California
Administrative Code, 	title 8, 	section 32135. 	Code of Civil
Procedure 	section 	1013 	shall 	apply. 	Any 	statement of 	exceptions
and 	supporting brief 	must be 	served 	concurrently with 	its 	filing
upon each party to this proceeding. 	Proof 	of 	service 	shall
accompany 	each 	copy 	served on a party 	or 	filed with 	the 	Board
itself. 	See California Administrative Code, 	title 8, 	sections
32300, 	32305 and 32140.
Dated: 	March 27, 	1990
Fred 	D'Orazio
Administrative 	Law 	Judge
16