Los Angeles Community College District (Watts) (PERB 0150E)

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
DECISION 	OF THE
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
HOWARD 	0. 	WATTS
Complainant,
V •
LOS 	ANGELES 	COMMUNITY COLLEGE
DISTRICT,
Respondent,
and
AMERICAN 	FEDERATION 	OF 	TEACHERS
COLLEGE 	GUILD, 	LOCAL 	1521,
AFL-CIO,
Respondent.
Case 	No. 	LA-PN-25
PERB 	Decision No. 	150
December 	31, 	1980
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
________________ )
Appearances:	Appearances: 	Howard 	O. 	Watts, 	representing 	himself: 	Mary 	L.
Dowell, 	Associate 	General 	Counsel, 	representing 	the 	District.
Howard O. Watts, representing himself; Mary L.
Before Gluck, Chairperson; Moore, Member.	Before
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
HOWARD O. WATTS
Case No. LA-PN-25
DECISION AND 	ORDER	DECISION AND ORDER
A complaint 	was 	filed 	by 	Howard 	o. 	Watts 	on April 	10, 	1980,
alleging 	that 	the 	Los 	Angeles 	Community College 	District
(hereafter 	District) 	and 	the 	American 	Federation 	of
Teachers 	College 	Guild, 	Local 	1521, 	AFL-CIO, 	violated
section 	3547(a), 	(b), 	(c), 	(d), 	and 	(e) 	of 	the 	Educational
A complaint was filed by Howard O. Watts on April 10, 1980,
Gluck, 	Chairperson; 	Moore, 	Member.
Complainant ,
V .
LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY COLLEGE
DISTRICT ,
Respondent,
and
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF TEACHERS
COLLEGE GUILD, LOCAL 1521 ,
AFL-CIO,
Respondent .
PERB Decision No. 150
December 31, 1980
alleging that the Los Angeles Community College District
(hereafter District) and the American Federation of
Teachers College Guild, Local 1521, AFL-CIO, violated
section 3547 (a) , (b) , (c) , (d) , and (e) of the Educational
Dowell, Associate General Counsel, representing the District.

2
Employment
	Relations
	Actl 	in
	that:
	(1)
	the
	District
	failed
to 	post 	public 	notice
	complaints 	as
	required
	by
	the
	rules
	and
regulations
	of 	the 	Public
	Employment
	Relations
	Board
	(hereafter
Board),
	title
	8, 	California
	Administrative
	Code
	section
	37040;
(2)	
(2)
	the
	District's
	rule
	allotting
	five
	minutes
	to
	speakers
	at
school
	board
	meetings
	fails
	to
	provide
	full
	opportunity
	to
	the
public 	to
	respond
	to
	collective
	bargaining 	proposals;
(3)	(3)
	copies 	of 	the
	initial
	proposals
	were
	not
	available 	for
Employment Relations Act in that: (1) the District failed
lAll 	statutory
	references 	are 	to
	the
	Government 	Code
unless 	otherwise
	specified.
All statutory references are to the Government Code
Section	
3547	
provides:	Section 3547 provides:
(a)
	All
	initial
	proposals 	of 	exclusive
representatives
	and
	of 	public
	schoolemployers,
	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.
(a)
(b)
	Meeting
	and
	negotiating
	shall
	not 	take
place
	on 	any
	proposal
	until
	a
	reasonabletime 	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.
(b)
(c)
	After 	the
	public
	has
	had
	the
opportunity 	to 	express	
itself,	
the 	public
school	
employer
	shall, 	at
	a
	meeting
	which
	is
open
	to 	the 	public,	
adopt
	its 	initial
proposal.
(c)
(d) 	New
	subjects	
of 	meeting	
and
	negotiating
arising 	after	
the 	presentation 	of	
initial
proposals 	shall
	be made
	public 	within	
24
hours.	
If
	a
	vote 	is	
taken 	on 	such
	subject
(d)
2
to post public notice complaints as required by the rules and
regulations of the Public Employment Relations Board (hereafter
Board) , title 8, California Administrative Code section 37040;
the District's rule allotting five minutes to speakers at
school board meetings fails to provide full opportunity to the
public to respond to collective bargaining proposals;
copies of the initial proposals were not available for
unless otherwise specified.
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.
Meeting and negotiating shall not take
place on any proposal until a reasonable
time 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.
After the public has had the
opportunity to express itself, the public
school employer shall, at a meeting which is
open to the public, adopt its initial
proposal.
New subjects of meeting and negotiating
arising after the presentation of initial
proposals shall be made public within 24
hours. If a vote is taken on such subject

3
by 	the 	public 	school 	employer,
	the 	vote
thereon 	by 	each	
member
	voting
	shall 	also	
bemade
	public 	within
	24	
hours.
by the public school employer, the vote
(e) 	The
	board
	may
	adopt
	regulations 	for 	thepurpose 	of	
implementing
	this 	section,
	which
are 	consistent	
with 	the
	intent 	of 	the
section:	
namely
	that 	the 	public
	be 	informed
of
	the 	issues 	that 	are 	being 	negotiated
	upon
and 	have
	full
	opportunity 	to 	express 	theirviews 	on	
the 	issues 	to 	the 	public 	schoolemployer, 	and	
to	
know	
of 	the 	positions 	of
their 	elected 	representatives.
general
	distribution
	to
	the
	public
	in 	the
	board
	room
	on
	the
dates
	set
	for 	public
	response1
	and,
	(4) 	on
	March
	12 	and
26,
	1980,
	the
	District
	failed
	to 	properly
	sunshine
	amendments
to
	initial
	proposals,
	amendments
	to
	an
	existing 	collective
bargaining
	agreement,
	and 	new
	subjects.
general distribution to the public in the board room on the
The
	processing 	of
	this
	case 	included 	informal
	discussions
and 	a
	formal
	hearing
	that
	was
	held
	on
	June
	24,
	1980.
	A
letter
of	
dismissal
	issued
	on
	October
	6,
	1980,
	dismissing 	the
complaint
	on
	the
	grounds
	that 	allegations 	(1),
	(2) 	and
	(3)
above 	had
	already
	been
	litigated
	in
	a
	prior
	case
	[Watts
	v.
Los
	Angeles
	Community
	College
	District
	and 	American
	Federation
of
	Teachers 	College 	Guild,
	Local 	1521,
	LA-PN-20];
	the
allegation
	regarding 	the
	failure
	to 	properly
	sunshine
	various
proposals
	was
	dismissed 	because
	it
	was
	determined
	that
	the
District's
	adoption
	of
	a
	revised 	public 	notice
	procedure
	met
	or
exceeded
	complainant's
	demands
	and,
	in
	fact, 	constituted
voluntary
	compliance.
	Mr.
	Watts 	appealed
	from
	the
	dismissal 	of
his complaint.	
his
	complaint.
The processing of this case included informal discussions
(e)
3
dates set for public response; and, (4) on March 12 and
26, 1980, the District failed to properly sunshine amendments
to initial proposals, amendments to an existing collective
bargaining agreement, and new subjects.
and a formal hearing that was held on June 24, 1980. A letter
of dismissal issued on October 6, 1980, dismissing the
complaint on the grounds that allegations (1) , (2) and (3)
above had already been litigated in a prior case [Watts v.
Los Angeles Community College District and American Federation
of Teachers College Guild, Local 1521, LA-PN-20]; the
allegation regarding the failure to properly sunshine various
proposals was dismissed because it was determined that the
District's adoption of a revised public notice procedure met or
exceeded complainant's demands and, in fact, constituted
voluntary compliance. Mr. Watts appealed from the dismissal of
thereon by each member voting shall also be
made public within 24 hours.
The board may adopt regulations for the
purpose of implementing this section, which
are consistent with the intent of the
section; namely that the public be informed
of the issues that are being negotiated upon
and have full opportunity to express their
views on the issues to the public school
employer, and to know of the positions of
their elected representatives.

One
	of 	the
	contentions
	on
	appeal
	is
	that
	the 	tape
recordings 	of 	the
	formal
	hearing
	held
	on
	June
	24,
	1980
	were
lost
	and
	that
	the
	complainant's
	appeal
	rights
	were,
	thereby,
prejudiced.
	In
	the
	absence
	of
	a
	record 	of 	the
	formal
proceedings
	below,
	the
	Board
	is
	unable
	to
	determine
	either
	the
substantive
	or
	procedural
	due
	process
	issues 	raised
	in
	this
appeal.
	It
	is,
	therefore,
	decided
	and
	hereby
	ORDERED
	that
	the
case
	be
	remanded
	to
	the
	Los
	Angeles 	Regional
	Office 	of 	the
Public
	Employment
	Relations
	Board
	for
	a 	new
	hearing 	unless 	the
parties 	stipulate
	to
	a
	reconstructed
	record 	submitted
	by
	the
regional
	director.
One of the contentions on appeal is that the tape
4
PER
CURIAM	PER CURIAM
4
recordings of the formal hearing held on June 24, 1980 were
lost and that the complainant's appeal rights were, thereby,
prejudiced. In the absence of a record of the formal
proceedings below, the Board is unable to determine either the
substantive or procedural due process issues raised in this
appeal. It is, therefore, decided and hereby ORDERED that the
case be remanded to the Los Angeles Regional Office of the
Public Employment Relations Board for a new hearing unless the
parties stipulate to a reconstructed record submitted by the
regional director.