Los Angeles Unified School District (Watts) (PERB 0964EA)

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
DECISION 	OF 	THE
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
HOWARD 0. 	WATTS,
Complainant,
v.
LOS 	ANGELES 	UNIFIED 	SCHOOL
DISTRICT,
Respondent.
) 	Case No. 	LA-PN-121
Request 	for Reconsideration
PERB Decision No. 	964
PERB Decision No. 	964a
February 5, 	1993
)
)
)
)
)
)
Appearance: 	Howard 0. 	Watts, 	on his own behalf.
Before Hesse, 	Chairperson; 	Caffrey and Carlyle, 	Members.
DECISION
CAFFREY, 	Member: 	This 	case 	is before the Public Employment
Relations 	Board 	(PERB or Board) 	on a 	request 	for reconsideration
filed by Howard 0. 	Watts 	(Watts) 	of 	the Board's 	decision 	in
Los Angeles Unified School District 	(1992) 	PERB Decision No. 	964.
In 	that 	decision 	the 	Board reversed 	the 	Board agent's 	finding
that 	the 	Los Angeles 	Unified School 	District 	(District) 	violated
section 3547(a) 	and 	(b) 	of the Educational Employment Relations
Act 	(EERA)1 by failing to provide adequate public notice 	in
1EERA is 	codified at Government 	Code 	section 3540 	et 	seq.
Section 3547 states, 	in pertinent part:
(a) 	All 	initial proposals 	of 	exclusive
representatives 	and 	of 	public 	school
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.
(b) 	Meeting and negotiating 	shall 	not 	take
place 	on any proposal 	until 	a 	reasonable 	time
)

June 	1991 	of 	the 	initial 	proposal 	it made 	to United Teachers-Los
Angeles 	(UTLA).
The 	Board found that 	the District's 	initial proposal, 	made
in an 	interest-based bargaining 	format, 	fulfilled EERA's 	public
notice 	requirements. 	The 	Board dismissed 	the 	complaint 	which had
originally been 	filed by Watts 	in July 	1991.
In his 	request 	for reconsideration, 	Watts 	asserts 	that 	the
Board was 	wrong 	in 	concluding 	that 	the District's 	initial
proposal 	adequately 	informed 	the public 	of 	the 	issues 	to be
negotiated. 	He argues 	that 	the District 	should do more 	to ensure
that 	the public 	is 	"really 	informed of 	the 	initial 	proposals"
particularly when 	the 	interest-based bargaining 	approach 	is 	being
utilized.
DISCUSSION
PERB Regulation 32410(a)2 states, 	in pertinent part:
The 	grounds 	for 	requesting 	reconsideration
are 	limited to 	claims 	that 	the 	decision of
the 	Board 	itself 	contains 	prejudicial 	errors
of 	fact, 	or newly discovered evidence 	or law
which was 	not 	previously available 	and 	could
not 	have been discovered with 	the 	exercise 	of
reasonable 	diligence.
In his 	reconsideration request, 	Watts 	restates 	his belief
that 	the District 	did not meet 	its 	public notice 	requirement 	in
has 	elapsed after 	the 	submission 	of 	the
proposal 	to enable 	the public 	to become
informed and the public 	has 	the 	opportunity
to express 	itself 	regarding 	the proposal 	at 	a
meeting 	of 	the public 	school 	employer.
2PERB 	regulations 	are 	codified at 	California 	Code 	of
Regulations, 	title 8, 	section 31001 et seq.
22

this 	case. 	He does not, 	however, 	present any new evidence or law
to 	support 	that position. 	Nor does Watts 	claim that 	the Board
decision 	contains prejudicial 	errors.
The 	Board 	considered 	the 	entire 	record 	in 	this 	case,
including 	listening 	to the 	tape 	recordings 	of 	the District 	Board
of 	Education meetings 	at which 	the 	initial 	proposal 	to UTLA was
presented. 	Watts 	has 	presented no 	information which would
suggest 	that 	reconsideration of 	this 	case 	is appropriate.
ORDER
The 	request 	for reconsideration in PERB Decision No. 	964 	is
hereby DENIED.
Chairperson Hesse 	and Member 	Carlyle 	joined 	in 	this 	Decision.3
3By joining 	in this 	decision, 	Member Carlyle has not
rejected 	the views 	expressed 	in his 	dissent 	in the 	original
decision.
33