Los Angeles Community College District (Watts) (PERB 0154E)

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
STATE	
OF
	CALIFORNIA
DECISION
	OF 	THE
PUBLIC
	EMPLOYMENT
	RELATIONS
	BOARD
HOWARD
	WATTS,
Complainant,
v.
LOS
	ANGELES
	COMMUNITY
	COLLEGE
DISTRICT,
Respondent,
and
SERVICE
	EMPLOYEES
	INTERNATIONAL
UNION,
	LOCAL
	99,
	AFL-CIO,
Respondent.
Case
	No. 	LA-PN-21
PERB
	Decision
	No.
	154
December	
31, 	1980
HOWARD WATTS ,
Complainant, 	Case No. LA-PN-21
V .
LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY COLLEGE 	PERB Decision No. 154
DISTRICT,
Respondent ,
and
SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL
UNION, LOCAL 99, AFL-CIO, December 31, 1980
Respondent.
Appearances: Howard Watts, representing himself;
Mary L. Dowell, Associate General Counsel, representing the
District.
Before Gluck, Chairperson; Moore, Member.
DECISION
Howard Watts excepts to the attached administrative
determination issued by the Los Angeles Regional Director
dismissing his public notice complaint without leave to amend.
After considering the entire record in light of the exceptions,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
___________________ )
Appearances:	
Howard
	Watts, 	representing 	himself;
Mary
	L.
	Dowell,
	Associate
	General 	Counsel,
	representing 	the
District.
Before 	Gluck,
	Chairperson;
	Moore,
	Member.
DECISION
Howard
	Watts
	excepts 	to 	the 	attached 	administrative
determination 	issued
	by
	the
	Los
	Angeles 	Regional
	Director
dismissing 	his 	public 	notice 	complaint 	without 	leave 	to
	amend.
After 	considering 	the
	entire
	record 	in
	light
	of 	the 	exceptions,

the Board affirms the Regional Director's findings and
conclusions and administrative determination.
ORDER
Upon the foregoing decision and the entire record in this
case, the Public Employment Relations Board ORDERS that:
The public notice complaint, LA-PN-21, filed by
Howard Watts against the Los Angeles Community College District
and the Service Employees International Union, Local 99,
AFL-CIO, is hereby DISMISSED in its entirety without leave to
amend .
PER CURIAM
2
the 	Board 	affirms 	the 	Regional 	Director's 	findings 	and
conclusions 	and 	administrative 	determination.
ORDER
Upon 	the 	foregoing 	decision 	and 	the 	entire 	record 	in 	this
case, 	the 	Public 	Employment 	Relations 	Board 	ORDERS 	that:
The 	public 	notice 	complaint, 	LA-PN-21, 	filed 	by
Howard 	Watts 	against 	the 	Los 	Angeles 	Community 	College 	District
and 	the 	Service 	Employees 	International 	Union, 	Local 	99,
AFL-CIO, 	is 	hereby 	DISMISSED 	in 	its 	entirety 	without 	leave 	to
amend.
PER CURIAM
2

EDMUND G. BROWN JR.. Commer
TATE OF CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
.os Angeles Regional Office
3550 Wilshire Blyd., Suite 1708
Los Angeles, California 90010
(213) 736-3127
October 6, 1980
Mr. Howard O. Watts
Re: LA-PN-21
LETTER OF DISMISSAL
Dear Mr. Watts:
This is a LETTER OF DISMISSAL issued pursuant to PERB Regulation 37030(e)
regarding your public notice complaint received in this office on February
22, 1980. The complaint was filed against the Los Angeles Community
College District (LACCD) and the Service Employees International Union,
Local 99, AFL-CIO, (Local 99) and alleges violation of Government Code
section 3547 (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) (see attachment) .
In support of your complaint you submitted several documents including:
LACCD board agenda for January 23, 1980, board minutes for January 23 and
February 13, 1980, a copy of LACCD's initial proposal procedure dated
September 12, 1979, LACCD's initial proposal for the maintenance and
operations unit and Local 99's initial proposal.
An informal. conference was held on June 20, 1980 at which time no
resolution was reached. Respondents indicated there were no violations of
the public notice requirements. On July 9, 1980 respondent LACCD filed a
letter and exhibits with the PERB containing information in support of its
position. The letter requested that the complaint be dismissed without
leave to amend.
On July 14, 1980 your request to place this complaint in abeyance until
September 15, 1980 was granted by the Los Angeles Regional Director. A
further extension until October 5, 1980 was requested by you and granted.
Allegation 1
On February 13, 1980 LACCD failed to provide the
public full opportunity to speak on Local 99's
initial proposal by implementing a rule which
limited the public's right to express itself. The
Board's rule is Article V "Communications to the
Board" as amended on January 23, 1980.
BOA~tl
	:JUBUC EM?LOYJ!n..~T 	tU!..ATtONS
~
Ang;?>le5
	Regkmal 	Offi12
!.550 Wihhire Blvd., Suite 1708
:..O:S
Ar.g~I~
California 	90010
:213) 736-3127
October
	6,
	1980
Mr. Howard
O.
	Watts
Re: 	LA-PN-21
LETTER
OF
	DISMISSAL
Dear
Mr.
	Watts:
-~.--------========-
PERB
This
	OF
	to
is
	a
LETTER
	DISMISSAL
issued pursuant 	Regulation
37030(e)
notice
complaint
received
	in
	this office
on
February
regarding
your
	public
22,
	1980. 	The
	complaint
was
	filed
	against
	the
Los Angeles
	Co1llI!lunity
Employees
	International
Union,
College
District
	(LACCD)
	and
	the Service
Local
99,
	AFL-CIO,
	(Local
99) 	and
	alleges
violation
of
Government Code
section
3547
	(a), 	(b), 	(c),
	(d)
	and
	(e) 	(see attachment).
complaint
	several
documents
	including:
In
support of
your
	you
submitted
LACCD
board
agenda
	for
January
23, 	1980,
	board minutes
	for January
	23
	and
of
LACCD's
	initial
proposal procedure datedFebruary
	13, 	1980, 	a copy
12, 	1979,
	LACCD's
	initial
proposal
	for
	the maintenance
	and
September
operations unit
	and
Local
99 1 s
	initial
proposal.
._.,hich
conferenc.e 	10~An
	•.ras
hald
	on Ju'ie 	1980
at
	time
no:i.nformat
violations 	of
resolution
was
	reach~d.
	R~spondents
	indicated there
wer~ no
9,
	1980
respondent
LACCD
	filed
	a
On
July
	the public notice requirements.
letter
and
exhibits
with the
PERB
containing information
	in
	support
	of
	its
requested
	that
	the complaint
be
	dismissed
without
position.
	The
	letter
leave 	to
	amend.
this
On 	14, 	1980
your
request 	to place 	complaint
in
abeyance
until
July
Angeles Regional
	Director.
	A	Los
	September 15, 	1980 was
	granted
by 	the
S, 	1980 was
	requested
by you and
	granted.
further
	extension
until
	October
Allegation
1
On
February 13, 	1980
LACCD
	failed 	to provide 	the
full
	opportunity to speak on Local 99 1 s
public
initial
	proposal by implementing a
	rule
which
public's right
	to express
	itself.
	The
limited the
Board's rule 	is Article
V ncornmunications	ncornmunications 	to 	the
Board" as 	amended on January 23, 	1980.

PERB Regulation 37020 (5) provides that a complaint shall contain a clear
and concise statement of the facts which are alleged to constitute a
violation of Government Code section 3547. Your complaint fails to allege
any facts in support of the allegation, therefore, allegation 1 is
dismissed with leave to amend.
Allegation 2
Copies of Local 99's initial proposal were not
available in the board room on January 23, 1980,
the date for public presentation and February 13,
1980, the date for public response.
The Government Code requires that all initial proposals be presented at a
public meeting and thereafter, become public records. You have not
alleged a violation of either of these provisions. In fact, it was your
indication at the informal conference that you did receive a copy of the
proposal prior to its presentation. You further stated that you have
never been denied a copy of any proposal.
The complaint fails to state and cannot be amended to state a prima facie
violation of section 3547, therefore allegation 2 is dismissed without
leave to amend
Allegation 3
SETU, Local 99 addressed the Board of Trustees
without appearing on a speakers' list.
Section 3547 states that initial proposals shall be presented at a public
meeting of the public school employer. Nothing in the statute or in the
PERB Regulations defines how a school board meeting shall be regulated.
The regulation of those meetings is left to the discretion of the local
school board. Since the substance of allegation 3 does not fall within
the purview of section 3547, allegation 3 is dismissed without leave to
amend.
Allegation 4
On January 23, 1980, LACCD denied Mr. Jules
Kimmett, a member of Local 99's negotiating team
and also a member of the public, the opportunity to
speak on Local 99's initial proposal.
Pursuant to PERB Regulation 37020 (5) your complaint fails to allege any
facts in support of the allegation. Accordingly, allegation 4 is
dismissed with leave to amend.
PERB
Regulation
	37020
	(5) 	provides
	that
	a
	complaint
	shall
	contain
a
clear
and
	concise statement of
	the
	facts
	which
	are alleged
	to
	constitute
a
violation
	of
Government Code
	section
3547.
	Your
complaint
	fails
	to
	allege
any
	facts 	in
	support
of
	the
	allegation, 	therefore,
	allegation
1
is
dismissed with leave
	to
	amend.
Allegation	
2
Copies
	of
Local
99's
	initial
	proposal
were
not
available 	in
the
board
room on
January
23,
	1980,
the date for
	public
	presentation
and
February
	13,1980,
	the date 	for 	public response.
The Government Code
	requires
	that
	all 	initial
proposals
	be
	presented
at	
a
public
meeting
and
	thereafter,
	become
	public records.
	You have
not
alleged
a
violation
of
either
of these
	provisions.
	In
fact,
	it
was
	your
indication at
	the 	informal conference
	that
you
did
receive
	a copy
of
	the
proposal
	prior
	to
	its
	presentation.
	You
further stated
	that
you
have
never
been denied
	a copy
of
any
proposal.
The
	complaint
	fails
	to
	state
	and
cannot be
amended
	to
state
a prima
facie
violation
of section
3547,
	therefore
	allegation	
2
is
	dismissed without
leave to
	amend.
Allegation
3
SEIU,
	Local
99
	addressed the
Board
of
Trustees
without appearing
	on a
	speakers'
	list.
Section
3:.i47	
states 	that
	initial
	proposals
	shall
be
	presented
at
	a
public
1Lectint
of
	tr.e
	public
	school employar. 	Nothing
	in
	::he
s;:atute
	~r
	in
	the:
PERB
Regulations defines
	how a
	school board meeting
shall
be
regulated.
The	
regulation of
	those meetings
	is
	left
	to
	the
	discretion of
the
	local
school board. 	Since the substance of
allegation
3.does not
	fall
	within
the
	purview
of
section
3547,
	allegation
3
is
	dismissed without leave 	to
a.mend.
Allegation
4
On
January 23, 	1980,
	LACCD
denied
Mr.
	Jules
Kimmett, 	a member
of
Local
99's negotiating
	team
and
	also
a member
of the
	public,
	the opportunity to
speak on Local 99's
	initial
proposal.
Pursuant 	to
PERB
Regulation 37020 	(5) 	your complaint
fails
	to allege
	any
facts 	in support of the
	allegation. 	Accordingly, 	allegation
4
is
dismissed with leave to amend.

If you choose to amend allegations I and 4, the amended complaint must be
received at this office within 10 days after service of this decision.
If, in the alternative, you choose to appeal the dismissal you may do so
within 10 days following the date of service of this LETTER OF DISMISSAL.
Such an appeal must be in writing and must be filed with the Board itself
at the headquarters office in accordance with the provisions of Division
I, Chapter 4, Article 2 of the PERB Regulations. If no amended complaint
or appeal of the dismissal is filed within the specified time limits, this
dismissal will become final.
Very truly yours,
Frances A. Kreiling
Regional Director
Patricia Hernandez CSenior Representative
PH: bw
cc: Mary L. Dowell
Howard Friedman
If
	you
	choose
	to
	amend
allegations
	1 and
4,
	the
	amended
	complaint
must
be
received
	at
	this 	office
within
	10 days
	after
	service of
	this
	decision.
If,
	in
	the
	alternative,
	you
	choose
	to appeal the
	dismissal
you
may
	do
	so
within
10
	days
	following 	the
	date
	of service
of
	this
	LETTER
OF
DISMISSAL.
Such an
	appeal
must be
	in
writing
	and must be
	filed
	with the
	Board
	itself
at
	the headquarters
	office
	in accordance
with
	the
	provisions of Division
I,
	Chapter 4,
	Article
	2
of
	the
PERB
Regulations.
	If
no amended
	complaint
or
	appeal
	of
	the
	dismissal
	is 	filed
within
	the
	specified
	time
	limits, 	this
dismissal
will
	become
	final.
Very
	truly
yours,
Frances
A.
	Kreiling
Regional
Director
Patricia
Hernandez
Senior Representative
PH:bw
cc:
	Mary L.
	Dowell
Howard
Friedman
·
r'\
0