Los Angeles City and County School Employees Union (Kimmett) (PERB A167E)

STATE 	OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF 	THE
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
JULES 	KIMMETT,
Charging 	Party,
v.
LOS ANGELES 	CITY & 	COUNTY SCHOOL
EMPLOYEES UNION, 	LOCAL 99, 	SEIU,
AFL-CIO, Respondent.
)
)
) 	Case 	No. 	LA-FS-3
PERB Order No. 	Ad-167
December 18, 	1987
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Appearance; 	Jules 	Kimmett, 	on his 	own behalf.
Before Craib, 	Shank and Cordoba, 	Members.
DECISION
CRAIB, 	Member: 	This 	case 	is before 	the Public Employment
Relations 	Board 	(PERB or 	Board) 	on appeal 	from 	the 	dismissal 	of
a 	financial 	statement 	complaint 	filed by Jules 	Kimmett. 	For
the 	reasons 	set 	forth below, 	we 	affirm 	the dismissal 	of 	the
complaint.
PROCEDURAL 	HISTORY
On June 	3, 	1987, 	Kimmett 	filed a 	financial 	statement
complaint, 	contending 	that 	the 	financial 	report 	form 	filed by
Los Angeles 	City & 	County School 	Employees 	Union, 	Local 	99,
SEIU, 	AFL-CIO 	(Local 	99) 	failed to contain 	the 	signatures 	of
two 	officers 	of 	the 	union, 	as 	required by PERB Regulation
32125(a).11 On June 	23, 	PERB's Los Angeles 	regional 	director
1PERB 	Regulations 	are 	codified 	at 	California
Administrative Code, 	title 8, 	part 	III, 	section 31001 et seq.
Regulation 32125(a) 	states:
}

2
informed 	Kimmett by 	letter 	that, 	while his 	complaint had merit
when 	filed, 	Local 	99 had 	since 	complied 	with 	Regulation
32125(a) 	by resubmitting 	the 	financial 	report 	form with 	the
appropriate 	signatures. 	Consequently, 	the 	regional 	director
stated 	that he 	would 	close 	the 	case 	unless 	Kimmett believed
further 	action 	was 	necessary 	and 	indicated 	what 	that 	action
should be and why. 	In response, 	on June 	29, 	Kimmett 	filed a
"Declaration of 	Facts—Bill of 	Particulars," which, 	in essence,
alleges 	that 	the 	financial 	statement 	is 	fraudulent.
On July 17, 	1987, 	the regional director wrote 	to Kimmett
and 	explained 	that 	bare 	assertions 	of 	fraud 	are 	insufficient 	to
state 	a prima 	facie 	case 	of 	noncompliance 	with 	Regulation
32125(a). 	In 	that 	letter, 	the regional 	director extended to
Kimmett 	the 	first 	of 	two 	opportunities2 to 	submit 	an amended
complaint 	alleging 	facts which, 	if 	true, 	would 	indicate 	fraud
had 	occurred. 	The 	regional 	director 	found 	Kimmett's 	two
responses 	insufficient 	and 	dismissed 	the 	complaint 	on August
27, 	1987. 	In his 	first 	response, 	Kimmett declared that he was
Under 	EERA 	[Educational 	Employment 	Relations
Act], 	pursuant to Government Code section
3546.5, 	every recognized or 	certified
employee 	organization 	shall 	keep an adequate
itemized 	record 	of 	its 	financial
transactions. 	Within 60 	days 	after 	the 	end
of 	its 	fiscal year, 	every recognized or
certified 	employee 	organization 	shall 	file
with 	the 	regional 	office 	a 	detailed written
report 	thereof, 	signed and 	certified as 	to
accuracy by 	its 	president 	and 	treasurer 	or
corresponding principal 	officers.
2The 	second was by letter 	of August 	7, 	1987.
2

3
prepared 	to 	testify under 	penalty of 	perjury as 	to 	the 	accuracy
of 	the 	assertions 	in his 	June 	29 	submission 	to 	the 	regional
director. 	The 	second 	response 	reiterated 	that he 	was 	prepared
to 	testify 	in 	support 	of his 	allegations, 	stated 	that he 	did
not 	witness 	the 	signing of 	the 	financial 	report 	form, 	and
asserted 	that 	a prima 	facie 	case 	of 	forgery 	is 	apparent 	from 	a
comparison of 	the 	various 	financial 	report 	forms 	submitted by
Local 99.
DISCUSSION
Kimmett's 	"appeal" 	consists 	solely of 	the submission of 	a
copy 	of 	the 	financial 	report 	form 	originally 	submitted 	to 	PERB,
i.e., 	the 	one 	containing only one 	of 	the 	signatures 	required by
Regulation 32125(a).
Regulation 	32360 	states:
(a) 	An appeal may be 	filed with 	the Board
itself 	from 	any 	administrative 	decision,
except 	as 	noted 	in section 	32380.
(b) 	An original 	and 5 	copies 	of 	the appeal
shall be 	filed 	with 	the 	Board 	itself 	in 	the
headquarters 	office 	within 	10 	days 	following
the date of 	service 	of 	the decision or
letter 	of 	determination.
(c) 	The appeal 	must be 	in writing and must
state 	the 	specific 	issue(s) 	of procedure,
fact, 	law or 	rationale 	that 	is 	appealed and
state 	the 	grounds 	for 	the appeal.
(d) 	Service 	and proof 	of 	service of 	the
appeal 	pursuant 	to 	section 	32140 	are
required.
On 	its 	face, 	Kimmett's 	"appeal" 	fails 	to comply with Regulation
32360(c), 	in that 	it 	fails 	to 	identify either 	the 	issues being
3

appealed 	or 	the 	grounds 	for 	the 	appeal.3 Consequently, 	this
filing 	is 	insufficient 	to 	constitute 	an 	appeal 	in accordance
with 	Regulation 	32360 	and we 	therefore 	reject 	it.
Our 	rejection of 	Kimmett's 	appeal 	is 	consistent with 	the
well-established principle 	that 	the 	Board will 	consider 	on
appeal 	only 	those 	issues 	properly raised. 	In American
Federation of 	State, 	County and Municipal 	Employees 	(Cupp)
(1987) 	PERB Decision No. 	612-S, 	the Board held that the portion
of 	Cupp's 	appeal 	which merely 	chastized 	the 	regional 	attorney
did 	not 	specify 	any 	errors by 	the 	regional 	attorney 	and 	thus
did 	not 	raise 	issues 	requiring 	consideration. 	On 	two 	occasions
the 	Board has 	rejected 	appeals 	which 	simply 	asserted 	in 	summary
fashion 	that 	the 	decision below was 	incorrect. 	In 	San Diego
Community College District 	(1983) 	PERB Decision No. 	368, 	the
California 	Teachers Association, 	in 	response 	to 	the 	District's
exceptions 	to 	an administrative 	law 	judge's 	proposed 	decision,
included 	an 	assertion 	that 	it 	should have 	prevailed 	on 	all
allegations 	and 	incorporated by 	reference 	its 	post-hearing
brief. 	The 	Board 	found 	this 	lacked 	sufficient 	specificity 	to
be 	considered 	as 	a 	statement 	of 	exceptions 	under 	Regulations
32310 	and 	32300. 	In 	Los Angeles 	Community College 	District
(1983) 	PERB Decision No. 	309, 	an earlier case 	filed by Kimmett
involving 	an appeal 	of a dismissal, 	the 	Board 	found 	Kimmett's
mere 	assertion 	that 	a 	prima 	facie 	case 	was 	stated 	to be
33we	we 	note 	that 	the 	requirements 	of 	Regulation 	32360(c)
were 	enumerated 	in 	the regional 	director's 	letter 	of August 	27,
4

5
insufficient 	to 	constitute 	an appeal 	(under 	then 	Regulation
32630(b)). 	Similarly, 	the 	Board normally will 	not 	consider 	any
findings 	which 	are 	not 	specifically 	excepted 	to 	in an appeal 	of
a proposed 	decision 	of 	a 	PERB hearing 	officer 	or 	administrative
law 	judge. 	See, 	e.g., 	Morgan Hill 	Unified 	School 	District
(1985) 	PERB Decision No. 	554, 	Brawley Union High School
District 	(1982) 	PERB Decision No. 	266.
In 	sum, 	we will 	affirm the 	regional 	director's 	dismissal 	of
Kimmett's 	financial 	statement 	complaint because 	the 	failure 	to
comply with 	Regulation 	32360 	requires 	that 	the 	"appeal" 	be
rejected. 	The 	"appeal" 	simply 	fails 	to raise any 	issues 	for
our 	review, 	therefore 	there 	is 	nothing 	to consider.
ORDER
The 	financial 	statement 	complaint 	in Case No. 	LA-FS-3 	is
hereby 	DISMISSED.
Members 	Shank 	and 	Cordoba 	joined 	in 	this 	Decision.