Los Angeles Community College District (Kimmett) (PERB 0158E)

STATE 	OF
	CALIFORNIA
DECISION
	OF
	THE
PUBLIC
	EMPLOYMENT
	RELATIONS
	BOARD
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
____________________
)
AJ?Pearances:
DECISION
All 	statutory 	references 	are 	to 	the 	California
Government 	Code
	unless 	otherwise 	specified.
Section
	3547
	provides:
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
JULES
Respondent,
and
CALIFORNIA
	SCHOOL
	EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION,
	CHAPTER
	507,
Respondent.
JULES KIMMETT,
Complainant,
v .
LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY COLLEGE
DISTRICT,
Respondent,
and
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION, CHAPTER 507 ,
Respondent.
Case	Case No. LA-PN-8
PERB Decision No. 158
March 3, 1981
Appearances: Jules Kimmett representing himself; Daniel Means,
Director, Staff Relations Branch, for Los Angeles Community
College District; Julius Jefferson, Field Representative, for
California School Employees Association, Chapter 507.
Before Gluck, Chairperson; Jaeger, Moore, Tovar, Members.	
Before 	Gluck,
	Chairperson;
	Jaeger,
	Moore,
	Tovar,
	Members.
Jules
DECISION
The	The California School Employees Association and its Chapter
No. 507 (hereafter CSEA) excepts to the attached hearing
officer's proposed decision which holds that CSEA violated
sections 3547 (a) and (b) of the Educational Employment
Relations Act (hereafter Act or EERA) ! b l meeting and
	by 	meeting
	and
1All statutory references are to the California
Government Code unless otherwise specified.
Section 3547 provides:
No. 	LA-PN-8
PERB
	Decision
	No. 	158
March
	3,
	1981
KIMMETT,
Complainant,
v.
LOS 	ANGELES
	COMMUNITY
	COLLEGE
DISTRICT,
Kirnmett
	representing 	himself;
	Daniel
	Means,
Director, 	Staff
	Relations
	Branch,
	for
	Los
	Angeles
	Community
College
	District;
	Julius 	Jefferson,
	Field 	Representative,
	for
California
	School
	Employees
	Association,
	Chapter 	507.
California
	School 	Employees
	Association
	and
	its
	Chapter
No. 	507
	(hereafter
	CSEA)
	excepts 	to 	the 	attached 	hearing
officer's
	proposed
	decision
	which
	holds
	that
	CSEA
	violated
sections
	3547 (a) 	and 	(b)
	of 	the 	Educational
	Employment
Relations
	Act
	(hereafter
	Act 	or
	EERAy)

negotiating	negotiating with the Los Angeles Community College District
(hereafter District) regarding wage reopeners and other
amendments to the existing agreement before those proposals
were sunshined.
The
	board
	may
	adopt
	regula
purpose 	of
	implementing
	this 	seare 	consistent
	with 	the
	intentsection;
	namely
	that 	the 	public
of 	the 	issues 	that 	are 	being 	ne
and 	have
	full
	opportunity 	to 	exviews 	on
	the 	issues 	to 	the 	publemployer, 	and
	to	
know	
of 	the 	po
2
(a) 	l initial proposals of exclusive
representatives
	and
	of 	public
	schoolemployers,
	which
	relate
	to 	matters 	withinthe
	scope
	of
	representation,
	shall
	be
presented
	at
	a
	public
	meeting
	of 	the 	public
school
	employer
	and
	thereafter 	shall
	be
public 	records.
(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)
Al
place
(b)	
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.
M
(c)
opportunity 	to 	express
	itself,
	the 	publicschool
	employer
	shall, 	at
	a
	meeting
	which
	is
open
	to 	the
	public,
	adopt
	its 	initial
proposal.
(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.
A
arising
(d)	(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
by the public school employer, the vote
thereon by each member voting shall also be
made public within 24 hours.
(e)
	tions 	for 	the
ction,	
which
of 	the
be 	informed
gotiated
	upon
press
	theiric 	school
sitions 	of
their 	elected 	representatives.
(e) 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.
Ne
N
fter the public has had the
with 	the
	Los
	Angeles
	Community
	College
	District
(hereafter
	District)
	regarding
	wage
	reopeners
	and
	other
amendments
	to
	the
	existing
	agreement
	before 	those
	proposals
were
	sunshined.
eeting and negotiating shall not take
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.
w subjects of meeting and negotiating
after
	the
	presentation
	of
	initial
proposals
	shall
	be
	made
	public 	within
	24
hours.
	If
	a
	vote
	is
	taken
	on
	such
	subjectby 	the 	public 	school 	employer,
	the 	vote
thereon 	by	
each
	member
	voting
	shall 	also
	bemade
	public 	within
	24
	hours.

Specifically, 	CSEA 	excepts 	to 	the 	h
3
earing	Specifically, CSEA excepts to the hearing officer's
determination that proposals for wage reopeners and proposals
for other amendments to an existing agreement are "initial
proposals" within the meaning of section 3547 (a) , and to his
conclusion that the failure to sunshine such proposals in this
case constituted a violation of the Act by CSEA as well as by
2
the District. CSEA contends that the negotiations were
actually a continuation of the original negotiations which
resulted in the written agreement, that the salary and other
proposals were not initial proposals but were merely amendments
to the original agreement, and that the original proposals were
properly sunshined. CSEA also excepts to the hearing officer's
determination that it violated section 3547 (b) by meeting and
negotiating with the District regarding proposals that had not
been sunshined.
The hearing officer's findings of fact are substantially	The 	hearing 	officer's 	findings 	of 	fact 	are 	substantially
correct and are adopted by the Public Employment Relations	correct 	and 	are 	adopted 	by 	the 	Public 	Employment 	Relations
Board (hereafter Board) .	Board 	(hereafter 	Board).
the
The	The Board AFFIRMS the hearing officer's determination that
proposals regarding salary reopeners and other amendments to an
agreement must be presented at a public meeting. However, we
REVERSE the hearing officer's conclusion that CSEA violated
section 3547 (a) . The preparation of the agenda for public
2The 	District 	has 	filed 	no 	exceptions 	to 	the 	proposed
decision.	decision.
2The District has filed no exceptions to the proposed
W
officer's
determination 	that 	proposals 	for 	wage 	reopeners 	and 	proposals
for 	other 	amendments 	to 	an 	existing 	agreement 	are 	"initial
proposals" 	within 	the 	meaning 	of 	section 	3547(a), 	and 	to 	his
conclusion 	that 	the 	failure 	to 	sunshine 	such 	proposals 	in 	this
case 	constituted 	a 	violation 	of 	the 	Act 	by 	CSEA 	as 	well 	as 	by
District. 	CSEA 	contends 	that 	the 	negotiations 	were
actually 	a 	continuation 	of 	the 	original 	negotiations 	which
resulted 	in 	the 	written 	agreement, 	that 	the 	salary 	and 	other
proposals 	were 	not 	initial 	proposals 	but 	were 	merely 	amendments
to 	the 	original 	agreement, 	and 	that 	the 	original 	proposals 	were
properly 	sunshined. 	CSEA 	also 	excepts 	to 	the 	hearing 	officer's
determination 	that 	it 	violated 	section 	3547(b) 	by 	meeting 	and
negotiating 	with 	the 	District 	regarding 	proposals 	that 	had 	not
been 	sunshined.
Board 	AFFIRMS 	the 	hearing 	officer's 	determination 	that
proposals 	regarding 	salary 	reopeners 	and 	other 	amendments 	to 	an
agreement 	must 	be 	presented 	at 	a 	public 	meeting. 	However, 	we
REVERSE 	the 	hearing 	officer's 	conclusion 	that 	CSEA 	violated
section 	3547(a). 	The 	preparation 	of 	the 	agenda 	for 	public

. 	.
4
meetings	meetings and the conduct of such meetings are the province of
the District Board of Trustees and under its control. While an
employee organization may request that its proposals be placed
on the agenda of the public meeting, it is the District's
obligation and responsibility to provide proper public notice
and to present all initial proposals--its own as well as those
of the exclusive representative--to the public at an
appropriate meeting.
Unlike	Unlike the responsibility for the conduct of public
meetings, the mandate of section 3547 (b) that meeting and
negotiating not take place until the public has been informed
of the proposals and has had the opportunity to express itself
applies to all parties to the negotiations. 	We agree with the
hearing officer's conclusion that CSEA, as well as the
District, violated section 3547 (b) by conducting negotiations
before the public notice requirement had been fulfilled.
Board	Board rule 37000 was undoubtedly adopted, at least in
part,
3	
was
	undoubtedly 	adopted,	
at 	least
	in
part, in recognition of the fact that the public interest in
the continuity of the educational process is enhanced by the
3	3Board rule 37000 (Cal. Admin. Code, tit. 8, sec. 37000)	Board	
rule
	37000 	(Cal.
	Admin. 	Code,	
tit.
	8, 	sec.
	37000)
reads in pertinent part:	
reads
	in 	pertinent 	part:
.••	. . It is the policy of the Board to	
It
	is
	the 	policy 	of
	the 	Board
	to
permit the parties to continue the	
permit 	the	
parties
	to 	continue 	the
negotiation process pending the resolution	
negotiation 	process	
pending 	the	
resolution
of any complaint filed pursuant to this	
of	
any	
complaint
	filed
	pursuant 	to 	this
Chapter . .	
Chapter.
rule
	37000
and
	the
	conduct
	of
	such
	meetings
	are 	the 	province
	of
the
	District
	Board
	of 	Trustees
	and
	under
	its
	control.
	While
	an
employee
	organization
	may
	request
	that
	its
	proposals
	be
	placed
on
	the
	agenda
	of
	the 	public
	meeting,
	it
	is
	the
	District's
obligation
	and
	responsibility
	to
	provide 	proper
	public 	notice
and
	to 	present
	all 	initial
	proposals--its
	own
	as
	well 	as 	those
of
	the 	exclusive
	representative--to
	the
	public
	at
	an
appropriate
	meeting.
the
	responsibility
	for 	the
	conduct	
of	
public
meetings, 	the
	mandate
	of
	section
	3547(b)
	that
	meeting
	and
negotiating
	not 	take 	place
	until
	the 	public
	has 	been 	informed
of	
the 	proposals
	and
	has
	had
	the 	opportunity 	to
	express
	itself
applies 	to
	all
	parties
	to
	the
	negotiations.
	We
	agree 	with
	the
hearing
	officer's
	conclusion
	that
	CSEA,
	as 	well 	as 	the
District,	
violated 	section
	3547(b)	
by	
conducting
	negotiations
before	
the	
public 	notice
	requirement
	had
	been
	fulfilled.
in 	recognition of
	the
	fact 	that	
the	
public
	interest 	in
the
	continuity 	of
	the	
educational 	process
	is	
enhanced
	by
	the

ORDER
5
stabilizing	stabilizing value of collective negotiations as a means of
resolving disputes between school employers and their
employees. In the instant case, the amended agreement has been
in effect since April 11, 1979. The educational process has
proceeded without interruption. To void that agreement now
would seriously disrupt employment relations in the District
and likely lead to a confrontation potentially more damaging to
the public interest than the violation complained of. The
District has not excepted to the hearing officer's
recommendation and seems to acknowledge its error. Our ruling
here should suffice to alert both parties to their respective
obligations and assure their voluntary future compliance with
the Act's requirements.
ORDER
Based on the foregoing decision and the entire record in
this case, the Public Employment Relations Board finds that the
Los Angeles Community College District has violated Government
Code section 3547 (a) , (b) , and (c) and that the California
School Employees Association, Chapter 507 has violated
Government Code section 3547 (b) . Pursuant to Government Code
section 3547 (e) , it is hereby ORDERED:
(1)
Based
Failing
(1) 	THE LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT SHALL CEASE
AND DESIST FROM :
Failing to present at a public meeting any initial
proposal or any amendment to an existing agreement constituting
Us
THE 	LOS 	ANGELES
	COMMUNITY
	COLLEGE
	DISTRICT
	SHALL 	CEASE
AND
	DESIST
	FROM:
on
	the 	foregoing
	decision
	and
	the
	entire
	record
	in
this
	case, 	the 	Public
	Employment
	Relations
	Board
	finds
	that
	the
Los
	Angeles
	Community
	College
	District
	has
	violated
	Government
Code
	section 	3547(a), 	(b),
	and 	(c) 	and
	that
	the
	California
School
	Employees
	Association,
	Chapter
	507
	has
	violated
Government 	Code
	section
	3547(b). 	Pursuant
	to
	Government 	Code
section
	3547(e),
	it
	is
	hereby
	ORDERED:
to 	present
	at
	a
	public 	meeting 	any
	initial
proposal 	or 	any 	amendment
	to
	an
	existing
	agreement
	constituting
value
	of
	collective
	negotiations
	as
	a 	means
	of
resolving 	disputes
	between
	school
	employers
	and
	their
employees. 	In
	the
	instant
	case,
	the
	amended
	agreement 	has 	been
in
	effect
	since April
	11, 	1979.
	The
	educational 	process
	has
proceeded
	without
	interruption.
	To
	void
	that
	agreement
	now
would
	seriously 	disrupt
	employment
	relations
	in 	the
	District
and
	likely
	lead
	to
	a
	confrontation
	potentially
	more
	damaging
	to
the 	public
	interest
	than
	the
	violation
	complained
	of.
	The
District	
has	
not 	excepted
	to 	the 	hearing
	officer's
recommendation
	and 	seems
	to
	acknowledge
	its
	error.
	Our
	ruling
here 	should
	suffice
	to
	alert
	both
	parties
	to
	their
	respective
obligations
	and
	assure
	their
	voluntary
	future
	compliance
	with
the
	Act's
	requirements.

an
	initial
	proposal
	and
	from
	failing
	to
	provide
	a
	reasonable
time
	thereafter
	to
	enable
	the 	public
	to
	become
	informed
	and
have 	an
	opportunity 	to
	express
	itself
	regarding
	such
	a
	proposal
at
	a
	meeting
	of
	the
	District.
(2) 	THAT THE LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT AND
THE CALIFORNIA SCHOOL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, CHAPTER 507 SHALL
CEASE AND DESIST FROM:
THAT
	THE
	LOS
	ANGELES
	COMMUNITY
	COLLEGE
	DISTRICT
	AND
THE
	CALIFORNIA
	SCHOOL
	EMPLOYEES
	ASSOCIATION, 	CHAPTER 	507 	SHALL
CEASE
	AND
	DESIST
	FRO
Meeting
	and
	negotiating
	on 	any
	initial
	proposal 	or
amendment
	to
	an
	existing
	agreement
	constituting
	an
	initial
proposal
	until
	such
	proposal
	has
	been
	presented
	at
	a
	public
meeting
	and
	until
	a
	reasonable
	time 	has
	elapsed 	enabling
	the
public 	to
	become
	informed
	and
	the 	public
	has
	had
	an
	opportunity
to
	express
	itself
	regarding
	such
	a
	proposal
	at
	a
	meeting
	of 	the
District.
Meeting and negotiating on any initial proposal or
amendment to an existing agreement constituting an initial
proposal until such proposal has been presented at a public
meeting and until a reasonable time has elapsed enabling the
public to become informed and the public has had an opportunity
to express itself regarding such a proposal at a meeting of the
District.
(3)
	IT 	IS
	FURTHER
	ORDERED 	THAT 	THE 	LOS 	ANGELES
	COMMUNITY
COLLEGE 	DISTRICT
	AND
	THE
	CALIFORNIA	
SCHOOL
	EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION, 	CHAPTER 	507 	SHALL
	TAKE
	THE 	FOLLOWING
	AFFIRMATIVE
ACTIONS
	DESIGNED
	TO
	EFFECTUATE
	THE
	POLICIES
	OF
	THE	
EDUCATIONAL
EMPLOYMENT
	RELATIONS ACT:
Post 	copies 	of 	the
	NOTICE
	attach
thirty
	(30)
	working 	days
	after 	this
	Order
	is
	r
6
an initial proposal and from failing to provide a reasonable
time thereafter to enable the public to become informed and
have an opportunity to express itself regarding such a proposal
at a meeting of the District.
(2)
) IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY
COLLEGE DISTRICT AND THE CALIFORNIA SCHOOL EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION, CHAPTER 507 SHALL TAKE THE FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE
ACTIONS DESIGNED TO EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES OF THE EDUCATIONAL
EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS ACT:
(a)	{a) Post copies of the NOTICE attached hereto for	
ed 	hereto 	for
thirty (30) working days after this Order is received at all	
eceived
	at
	all
locations
	normally 	used
	for 	posting 	public 	notices 	regarding
regular 	meetings 	of 	the
	District
	and
	in 	conspicuous 	places
	at
the 	location(s)
	where	re not
notices 	to 	classified
	employees
	are
customarily 	posted
	and
	shall 	indicate 	the 	times
	and
	places
locations normally used for posting public notices regarding
regular meetings of the District and in conspicuous places at
the location (s) whe 	ices to classified employees are
customarily posted and shall indicate the times and places
M:

where
	the
	public
	and
	employees
	may
	inspect
	a
	copy
	of
	this
decision.
ORDER.
By1/	
Harr~'Gluck,
	Cha"1rperson
Barbara
	D.
	Moore, 	Member	
--	
Iiifni Tovar,
	Member
7
where the public and employees may inspect a copy of this
decision.
(b)	(b)
	Within
	five
	(5)
	days
	after
	the
	expiration
	of
	the
posting 	period,
	each
	party
	shall
	notify
	the
	Los
	Angeles
Regional
	Director
	of 	the
	Public
	Employment
	Relations
	Board,
	in
writing,
	of
	the
	actions
	they
	have
	taken
	to
	comply
	with
	this
ORDER.
Within five (5) days after the expiration of the
posting period, each party shall notify the Los Angeles
Regional Director of the Public Employment Relations Board, in
writing, of the actions they have taken to comply with this
(4)	(4)THE CHARGE THAT CALIFORNIA SCHOOL EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION AND ITS CHAPTER NO. 507 VIOLATED SECTION 3547 (a) IS
HEREBY DISMISSED.	
HEREBY
This ORDER shall become effective immediately upon	
This
	ORDER
	shall
	become
	effective
	immediately
	upon
service	service of a true copy thereof on the parties.	
of
	a
	true
	copy
	thereof
	on
	the
	parties.
By: Harry Gluck, Chairperson 	John W. Jaeger, Member
Barbara D. Moore, Member 	Irene Tovar, Member
7
THE
	CHARGE 	THAT
	CALIFORNIA
	SCHOOL EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION
	AND
	ITS
	CHAPTER
	NO.
	507
	VIOLATED
	SECTION
	3547(a)
	IS
DISMISSED.

NOTICE 
NOTICE
	TO
	EMPLOYEES
POSTED
	BY
	ORDER
OF
	THE
PUBLIC
	EMPLOYMENT
	RELATIONS
	BOARD
An
	Agency
	of
	the
	State of
	California
1
NOTICE
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the State of California
After a hearing in Public Notice Case No. LA-PN-8,
Jules Kimmett v. Los Angeles Community College District and
California School Employees Association, Chapter 507, in which
all parties had the right to participate, it has been found
that the Los Angeles Community College District has violated
Government Code section 3547 (a) , (b) , and (c) and that the
California School Employees Association, Chapter 507 has
violated Government Code section 3547(b) . As a result of this
conduct, we have been ordered to post this Notice, and we will
abide by the following:
(1)
After
Failing
(1) THE LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT SHALL CEASE
AND DESIST FROM:	
AND
	DESIST
	FROM:
Failing to provide public notice of any initial
proposal and/or amendment to an existing agreement constituting
an initial proposal from failing to provide a reasonable time
thereafter to enable the public to become informed and have an
opportunity to express itself regarding such a proposal at a
meeting of the District.
(2)	
(2) 	THE LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT AND
THE CALIFORNIA SCHOOL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, CHAPTER 507 SHALL
CEASE AND DESIST FROM:
Meeting	Meeting and negotiating on any initial proposal or
amendment to an existing agreement constituting an initial
proposal until a reasonable time has elapsed enabling the
1
THE 	LOS 	ANGELES
	COMMUNITY
	COLLEGE 	DISTRICT	
SHALL
	CEASE
THE 	LOS 	ANGELES
	CO:MMUNITY
	COLLEGE 	DISTRICT
	ANDTHE
	CALIFORNIA
	SCHOOL 	EMPLOYEES	
ASSOCIATION,
	CHAPTER
	507 	SHALL
CEASE	
AND
	DESIST
	FROM:
and
	negotiating
	on 	any
	initial
	proposal 	or
amendment
	to
	an
	existing
	agreement
	constituting
	an
	initial
proposal
	until
	a
	reasonable 	time 	has 	elapsed 	enabling 	the
to
	provide 	public 	notice 	of
	any
	initial
proposal 	and/or
	amendment
	to
	an
	existing
	agreement
	constituting
an
	initial
	proposal
	from
	failing
	to 	provide
	a
	reasonable 	time
thereafter
	to 	enable 	the
	public 	to
	become
	informed
	and 	have 	an
opportunity 	to 	express
	itself
	regarding
	such
	a
	proposal
	at
	a
meeting
	of 	the
	District.
a
	hearing 	in 	Public
	Notice
	Case
	No. 	LA-PN-8,
Jules
	Kimmett
	v.
	Los
	Angeles
	Community
	College
	District
	and
California
	School
	Employees
	Association,
	Chapter
	507,
	in
	which
all
	parties
	had
	the
	right
	to
	participate,
	it
	has 	been
	found
that
	the
	Los
	Angeles
	Community
	College
	District
	has
	violated
Government
	Code
	section
	3547{a),
	(b),
	and 	(c) 	and
	that
	the
California
	School
	Employees
	Association,
	Chapter
	507
	has
violated
	Government
	Code
	section
	3547(b).
	As 	a
	result
	of
	this
conduct,
	we
	have 	been
	ordered
	to
	post
	this
	Notice,
	and
	we
	will
abide
	by
	the 	following:

2
public	public to become informed and have an opportunity to express
itself regarding such a proposal at a meeting of the District.
LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY COLLEGE	
LOS
	ANGELES
	COMMUNITY
	COLLEGE
DISTRICT	DISTRICT
Dated :	
Dated: 	By :	B
Authorized Agent of the District	
Authorized
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION CHAPTER 507
Dated :	
Dated: 	By :
Authorized Agent of Employee
Organization
Authorized
B
THIS	THIS IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE. IT MUST REMAIN POSTED FOR THIRTY
) CONSECUTIVE WORKDAYS FROM THE DATE OF POSTING AND MUST NOT
BE REDUCED IN SIZE, DEFACED, ALTERED, OR COVERED BY ANY
MATERIAL.
N
IS
	AN	
OFFICIAL 	NOTICE. 	IT
	MUST 	REMAIN 	POSTED 	FOR	
THIRTY
(30	
(30)	
CONSECUTIVE
	WORKDAYS 	FROM
	THE 	DATE
	OF POSTING	
AND	
MUST 	NOT
BE 	REDUCED 	IN 	SIZE, 	DEFACED, 	ALTERED,
	OR	
COVERED	
BY ANY
MATERIAL .
:
Agent
	of
	the
	District
CALIFORNIA
	SCHOOL
	EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION 	CHAPTER
	507
:
Agent
	of
	Employee
Organization
to
	become
	informed
	and
	have 	an
	opportunity
	to
	express
itself
	regarding
	such
	a
	proposal
	at
	a
	meeting
	of
	the
	District.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
___________________ )
Appearances:
	Jules
	Kimmett
	representing 	him
Director,
	Staff
	Relations
	Branch,
	for
	Los
	A
College
	District; 	Julius 	Jefferson, 	Field 	R
California
	School
	Employees
	Association,
	Ch
INTRODUCTION
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC
JULES	JULES KIMMETT,
Complainant,
v.
LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY COLLEGE
DISTRICT,
Respondent,
and
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION, CHAPTER 507,
Respondent.
Public Notice
Case No. LA-PN-8
PROPOSED DECISION
(10/24/79)
Appearances: Ju	
self;	les Kimmett representing himself; Daniel Means,
Director, Staff Relations Branch, for Los Angeles Community
College District; Julius Jefferson, Field Representative, for
California School Employees Association, Chapter 507.
Before Bruce Barsook, Hearing Officer.	
Before
INTRODUCTION
On	On April 25, 1979, Complainant Jules Kimmett filed a public 	a
	public
notice complaint against the Los Angeles Community College	
College
District (hereafter District) and the California School	
School
Employees Association, Chapter 507 (hereafter C.S. E.A.)	
C.S.E.A.)
alleging a violation of section 3547(a) , (b) , (c), (d) and (e)
	{c),	
(d) 	and 	(e}
of 	the 	Educational	
Employment	
Relations	
Act	
(hereafter
	Act)
.l
EERA	T
lThe	he EERA is codified at Government Code section 3540 et
seq. All statutory references are to the Government Code
unless otherwise specified.
EMPLOYMENT
	RELATIONS
	BOARD
OF
	THE
	STATE
	OF
	CALIFORNIA
is 	codified 	at
	Government 	Code
	section
	3540
	etseq. 	All 	statutory 	references 	are 	to 	the 	Government 	Code
unless 	otherwise 	specified.
KIMMETT,
Complainant,
v .
LOS
	ANGELES
	COMMUNITY
	COLLEGE
DISTRICT,
Respondent,
and
CALIFORNIA
	SCHOOL
	EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION,
	CHAPTER
	507,
Respondent.
Public 	Notice
Case
	No. 	LA-PN-8
PROPOSED
	DECISION
(10
/24/79)
Bruce
	Barsook, 	Hearing
	Officer.
April
	25, 	1979, 	Complainant 	,Jules
	Kimmett
	filed
notice
	complaint
	against
	the
	Los
	Angeles
	Community
District
	(hereafter 	District)	
and
	the	
California
Employees	
Association,
	Chapter
	507
	(hereafter
alleging	
a	
violation 	of 	section
	3547
(a), 	(b),
of the Educational Employment Relations Act (hereafter Act) . 1
Daniel
	Means,
ngeles
	Community
epresentative, 	for
apter 	507.

DISCUSSION
2
On	On May 30, 1979 Mr. Kimmett filed an amended complaint alleging
a violation of section 3547(a) , (b) and (c) only.
The	The District filed its response to the complaint on
October 10, 1979. C. S. E.A. filed its response on
October 12, 1979. A hearing in this matter was held on
October 17, 1979.
The essence of Mr. Kimmett's charge is that the District by
negotiating changes in its agreement with C. S. E.A. and later
amending the agreement (April 11, 1979) without presenting the
initial proposals regarding the proposed changes in the
agreement at a public meeting violated the public notice
provisions of the EERA. 2 Thus, the issue presented in this
case is whether initial proposals made during negotiations on
amendments to an existing agreement must be "sunshined"
pursuant to section 3547 of the EERA.
2	
Thus,
	the 	issue 	presented
	in
	this
case
	is
	whether
	initial
	proposals
	made
	during
	negotiations	
on
amendments
	to
	an
	existing
	agreement
	must 	be
	"sunshined"
pursuant 	to 	section
	3547
	of
	the
	EERA.
DISCUSSION
was	C.	
C.S.E.A.	S. E.A. was certified by the Public Employment Relations
Board (hereafter PERB) as exclusive representative of the
2I
In
	his 	complaint,
	.Mr.
	Kimmett
	also 	alleged 	as
	a
violation 	of 	section
	3547(b)
	the
	District's
	refusal 	to
	let
	him
speak
	at
	its
	April	
11,	
1979
	board 	meeting 	for
	more 	than 	one
minute 	regarding 	the
	District's
	adoption 	of 	the
	amendment.
However,
	whether 	or 	not
	an
	individual
	is
	accorded
	a
	reasonable
amount
	of
	time
	to
	comment 	on
	the 	adoption 	of
	a
	contract 	or
	anamendment	
to
	a
	contract 	is
	not 	within 	the 	purview	
of 	section
3547.
	Section
	3547
	is
	concerned 	with 	the	
right 	of 	public 	input
on
	contract 	proposals 	not 	with 	the	
ratification 	process.
2 n his complaint, Mr. Kimmett also alleged as a
violation of section 3547 (b) the District's refusal to let him
speak at its April 11, 1979 board meeting for more than one
minute regarding the District's adoption of the amendment.
However, whether or not an individual is accorded a reasonable
amount of time to comment on the adoption of a contract or an
amendment to a contract is not within the purview of section
3547. Section 3547 is concerned with the right of public input
on contract proposals not with the ratification process.
2
May
	30,
	1979 	Mr. 	Kimrnett
	filed
	an
	amended
	complaint
	alleging
a	
violation
	of
	section
	3547
(a),	
(b) 	and	
(c)	
only.
District
	filed
	its
	response
	to
	the 	complaint
	on
October
	10,
	1979.
	C.S.E.A.
	filed
	its
	response
	on
October
	12, 	1979.
	A
hearing
	in
	this
	matter
	was
	held
	on
October
	17,
	1979.
The
	essence 	of
	Mr.
	Kimmett's 	charge
	is 	that
	the
	District	
by
negotiating
	changes
	in
	its
	agreement
	with
	C.S.E.A.
	and
	later
amending
	the
	agreement
	(April
	11,
	1979)
	without
	presenting
	the
initial
	proposals
	regarding 	the
	proposed 	changes
	in 	the
agreement
	at
	a
	public
	meeting
	violated
	the
	public 	notice
provisions
	of 	the
	EERA.
certified
	by
	the 	Public
	Employment
	Relations
Board
	(hereafter
	PERB)as
	exclusive 	representative 	of 	the

3
"clerical-technical"	"clerical-technical" classified employees unit on
May 27, 1977. Soon thereafter, the District and C. S. E. A
commenced negotiations on an initial agreement.
December 12, 1978, the District and C. S. E.A. entered into an
Agreement for the term December 12, 1978 to June 30, 1980.
pertinent part the Agreement provides in Article IX
section A that:
This Agreement may be altered, changed,
added to, deleted from, or modified only
through the voluntary and mutual consent of
the parties in a written and signed
amendment to this Agreement.
Article XXXIV, section C, provides that:
C.	C.S.E.A.	S. E.A. and the District agree to reopen	and 	the 	District 	agree 	to 	reopen
salary negotiations for the 1979-80 fiscal	salary 	negotiations 	for 	the 	1979-80 	fiscal
year no later than March 15, 1979, upon the	year 	no 	later 	than 	March 	15, 	1979, 	upon 	the
request of either party.	request 	of 	either 	party.
On February 23, 1979, C.S. E.A. mailed to the District two
separate requests for negotiations. The first request cited
Article IX, section A, and the then recent California Supreme
Court decision invalidating salary freezes and request	3 edand 	requested
negootiations 	on 	a 	salary 	increase 	for 	the 	1978-79 	school
3
Court 	decision 	invalidating 	salary 	freezes
tiations on a salary increase for the 1978-79 school
sonoma County Organization 	Public 	Em
1lovees 	v. 	County
of 	Sonoma 	(February 	15, 	1979) 	23 	Cal. 3d 	296 	~15~ 	Cal. Rptr. 	903] •
3 Sonoma County Organization of Public Employees v. County
of Sonoma (February 15, 1979) 23 Cal. 3d 296 [152 Cal. Rptr. 903].
W
classified 	employees 	unit 	on
May 	27, 	1977. 	Soon 	thereafter, 	the 	District 	and 	C.S.E.A
commenced 	negotiations 	on 	an 	initial 	agreement. 	On	On
December 	12, 	1978, 	the 	District 	and 	C.S.E.A. 	entered 	into 	an
Agreement 	for 	the 	term 	December 	12, 	1978 	to 	June 	30, 	1980. 	InIn
pertinent 	part 	the 	Agreement 	provides 	in 	Article 	IX
section 	A that:
This 	Agreement 	may 	be 	altered, 	changed,
added 	to, 	deleted 	from, 	or 	modified 	only
through 	the 	voluntary 	and 	mutual 	consent 	of
the 	parties 	in 	a 	written 	and 	signed
amendment 	to 	this 	Agreement.
Article 	XXXIV, 	section 	C, 	provides 	that:
On 	February 	23, 	1979, 	C.S.E.A. 	mailed 	to 	the 	District 	two
separate 	requests 	for 	negotiations. 	The 	first 	request 	cited
Article 	IX, 	section 	A, 	and 	the 	then 	recent 	California 	Supreme

Meetings 	were 	held 	during 	the 	month 	of March.
4
year . 4 The second request sought negotiations on Article	year.4 	The 	second 	request 	sought 	negotiations 	on Article
XXXIV, section C, the salary reopener provision for the 1979-80	XXXIV, 	section C, 	the 	salary 	reopener 	provision 	for 	the 	1979-80
school year.	school 	year.
Meetings were held during the month of March.
After agreement was reached by C. S. E. A. and the District, the
District announced a proposed amendment to the agreement at its
April 11 board meeting. C.S. E. A. and the District agreed to
five changes in the agreement. The first change was the
deletion of Article V relating to a contingency if the
Education Code or the Personnel Commission were abolished.
second change was the amendment of section B of Article XXXIV
to provide for a 5-1/2 percent salary increase for the 1978-79
school year. Article XXXIV, section C was amended to provide
for a 5-1/2 percent salary increase for the 1979-80 school
The fourth change was to add an effective date of
January 7, 1979
4	4Although the subsection was not specified, C. S. E.A. was
After
Although 	the 	subsection 	was 	not 	specified, 	C.S.E.A. 	was
apparently seeking to renegotiate Article XXXIV, section B,	apparently 	seeking 	to 	renegotiate 	Article 	XXXIV, 	section 	B,
which provided:	which 	provided:
B. 	Effective
period after the California State
Legislature and the Governor approves a cost
of living wages and salary increase to State
employees, the Los Angeles Community College
District shall grant a cost of living wage
and salary increase to all classifications
assigned to Unit 1 equal to the average
increase granted to State employees assigned
to clerical positions, but not to exceed
agreement 	was 	reached 	by 	C.S.E.A. 	and 	the 	District, 	the
District 	announced 	a 	proposed 	amendment 	to 	the 	agreement 	at 	its
April 	11 	board meeting. 	C.S.E.A. 	and 	the 	District 	agreed 	to
five 	changes 	in 	the 	agreement. 	The 	first 	change 	was 	the
deletion 	of 	Article 	V 	relating 	to 	a 	contingency 	if 	the
Education 	Code 	or 	the 	Personnel 	Commission 	were 	abolished. 	The	The
second 	change 	was 	the 	amendment 	of 	section 	B of 	Article 	XXXIV
to 	provide 	for 	a 	5-1/2 	percent 	salary 	increase 	for 	the 	1978-79
school 	year. 	Article 	XXXIV, 	section C 	was 	amended 	to 	provide
for 	a 	5-1/2 	percent 	salary 	increase 	for 	the 	1979-80 	school
year .	year. 	The 	fourth 	change 	was 	to 	add 	an 	effective 	date 	of
January 	7, 	1979
. Effective the beginning of the pay	the 	beginning 	of 	the 	pay
period 	after 	the 	California 	State
Legislature 	and 	the 	Governor 	approves 	a 	cost
of 	living 	wages 	and 	salary 	increase 	to 	State
employees, 	the 	Los 	Angeles 	Community College
District 	shall 	grant 	a 	cost 	of 	living 	wage
and 	salary 	increase 	to 	all 	classifications
assigned 	to 	Unit 	1 	equal 	to 	the 	average
increase 	granted 	to 	State 	employees 	assigned
to 	clerical positions, 	but 	not 	to 	exceed
seven percent (78) .	seven 	percent 	(7%).

Analysis
Section
	3547
	provides 	in 	relevant
	part:
All
	initial
	proposals 	of 	exclusive
representatives
	and
	of
	public
	school
employers,
	which
	relate
	to matters 	withinthe
	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
	schoolemployer
	shall, 	at
	a
	meeting
	which
	is
	open
to 	the
	public,
	adopt
	its 	initial
	proposal.
SThere 	was 	no
	evidence
	that
	C.S.E.A.
	made 	any
	proposals
of
	its
	own.
5
to	to Article XXXI, relating to vacations. And the fifth change
added an Appendix B, Master Salary Schedule for Classified
Employees, to the agreement.
The	The District and C. S. E.A. admit that the District's
"initial" proposal regarding these amendments to the agreement
was not sunshined. 5
5
Analysis
(a)
Section 3547 provides in relevant 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)	(b) 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.
(c)	(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.
5There was no evidence that C. S. E. A. made any proposals
of its own.
5
Article
	XXXI,
	relating
	to 	vacations.
	And
	the
	fifth
	change
added
	an 	Appendix
	B,
	Master
	Salary
	Schedule
	for
	Classified
Employees,
	to 	the
	agreement.
District
	and
	C.S.E.A. 	admit
	that
	the
	District's
"initial"
	proposal 	regarding
	these
	amendments
	to
	the
	agreement
was
	not 	sunshined.

The 	board 	may 	adopt 	regulations
Mr. 	Kimmett 	argues 	that 	proposals 	made 	during 	negotiations
to 	amend 	existing 	provisions 	of 	an 	agreement 	(including
reopeners) 	must 	be 	presented 	at 	a 	public meeting 	of 	the 	public
school 	employer 	(i.e. 	they 	are 	"initial 	proposals" 	within 	the
The 	District 	and 	C.S.E.A. 	argue 	that 	proposals 	made 	during
such 	negotiations 	are 	not 	within 	the 	purview 	of 	section 	3547.
According 	to 	them, 	the 	term 	"initial 	proposal" 	should 	be 	given
6
(e) The board may adopt regulations for 	6 	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.
(e)
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.
meaning of section 3547 (a) ) .
a
Mr. Kimmett argues that proposals made during negotiations
to amend existing provisions of an agreement (including
reopeners) must be presented at a public meeting of the public
school employer (i.e. they are "initial proposals" within the
meaning 	of 	section 	3547(a)).
The District and C.S. E.A. argue that proposals made during
such negotiations are not within the purview of section 3547.
According to them, the term "initial proposal" should be given
a narrow and restrictive interpretation. They argue that
negotiations to amend an agreement are a continuation of the
initial negotiation process. Thus, the public is already on notice
because the bargaining issues have already been discussed at an
earlier 	time.
Determining	Determining whether "initial" proposals made during
negotiations on possible amendments to an existing agreement
66Rules	Rules and regulations regarding public notice can be
found at California Administrative Code, title 8, section 37000
et seq.
6
and 	regulations 	regarding 	public 	notice 	can 	be
found 	at 	California 	Administrative Code, 	title 	8, 	section 	37000
et 	seq.
whether 	"initial" 	proposals 	made 	during
negotiations 	on 	possible 	amendments 	to 	an 	existing 	agreement
narrow 	and 	restrictive 	interpretation. 	They 	argue 	that
negotiations 	to 	amend 	an 	agreement 	are 	a 	continuation 	of 	the
initial 	negotiation 	process. 	Thus, 	the 	public 	is 	already 	on 	notice
because 	the 	bargaining 	issues 	have 	already 	been 	discussed 	at 	an
earlier time.

must be "sunshined" is not an easy task. Because California's
public notice law is unique, 7 there
must
i
7s
guidance.
no precedent to offer	
public 	notice
	law
	is
	unique,
	there
	is
	no
	precedent 	to
	offer
guidance. In addition, there is no statutory history to
examine.
What
	guidance
	there
	is
	may
	be 	found
	in
	the
	language
	of
	the
EERA. 	An
	examination
	of
	the
	EERA
	dis 	that
	the
Legislature
	has
	sought
	to 	fashion
	a
	balance
	between
	competing
interests.
	On
	the
	one
	side
	is
	the
	interest
	of 	the
	public
	to
	be
kept
	in~ormed
	of 	the
	issues
	(i.e.,
	wages,
	class 	size,
educational policy)
	being
	negotiated, 	to
	have
	the
	opportunity
to
	express
	their
	views
	on
	the
	issues 	to
	the
	public
	school
employer,
	and
	to
	know
	the
	positions
	of
	their
	elected
representatives 	(section
	3547).
	On
	the
	other
	side,
	is
	the
interest
	of 	the 	public
	school
	employer
	and
	the 	exclusive
representative
	to
	meet 	and
	negotiate
	in
	private
	without
interference
	from
	outside 	forces 	(section
	3547
	and
	3549.l(a)).
. 	Public 	notice
	prov1s1ons 	can 	so 	found
	in 	the
	r
two
	laws 	which
	PERB
	administers: 	sec.
	3595
	the 	Higher
Education
	Employer-Employee
	Re
	tions
	Act; 	and
	sec.
	3523
	of 	the
State
	Employer
	Relations 	Act.
7
What guidance there is may be found in the language of the
EERA. An examination of the EERA discloses that the
Legislature has sought to fashion a balance between competing
interests. On the one side is the interest of the public to be
kept informed of the issues (i. e., wages, class size,
educational policy) being negotiated, to have the opportunity
to express their views on the issues to the public school
employer, and to know the positions of their elected
representatives (section 3547) . On the other side, is the
interest of the public school employer and the exclusive
The
representative to meet and negotiate in private without
interference from outside forces (section 3547 and 3549.1 (a) ) .
The public's right to know and to have input in the
negotiation process is thus not absolute. The EERA limits the
public's role to being informed of the initial proposals
presented and to the right of input on the issues presented by
7	7public notice provisions can also be found in the other
two laws which PERB administers: sec. 3595 of the Higher
Education Employer-Employee Relations Act; and sec. 3523 of the
State Employer-Employee Relations Act.
J
In
	addition,
	there
	is
	no
	statutory 	history 	to
examine .
be
	"sunshined"
	is
	not
	an
	easy
	task.
	Because
	California's
public's 	right
	to
	know 	and
	to
	have
	input 	in
	the
negotiation 	process
	is
	thus 	not
	absolute.
	The 	EERA
	limits
	the
public's
	role 	to
	being 	informed
	of 	the
	initial
	proposals
presented
	and
	to 	the
	right
	of 	input
	on
	the 	issues 	presented
	by

the
	initial
	proposals.
	Correspondingly, 	the
	public
	school
employer
	and
	the
	exclusive
	representative
	do
	not
	have
	an
absolute
	right
	to
	negotiate 	in
	secret--they
must
	make
	their
initial
	proposals
	public
	and
	provide 	the
	public
	with
	a
reasonable
	opportunity 	to
	provide
	input.
8
the initial proposals. Correspondingly, the public school
employer and the exclusive representative do not have an
absolute right to negotiate in secret--they must make their
initial proposals public and provide the public with a
reasonable opportunity to provide input.
Thus,
	one
	of 	the
	dominant 	themes
	in
	the
	law
	is
	the
	public's
right
	to
	be
	informed
	of 	the
	issues
	between
	the
	negotiating
parties
	and
	its
	right
	to 	give 	input
	on
	those
	issues.
	An
	overly
restrictive
	interpretation
	of 	the
	term
	"initial
	proposal"
	would
frustrate 	this
	theme	
by 	ignoring 	the
	public's 	interest
	in
	the
issues
	being
	negotiated.
	The
	public's 	interest
	in
	a
	bargaining
issue
	is
	no
	less
	keen
	during
	amendment
	negotiations
	than
	it
	is
when
	the
	principals
	are 	negotiating
	a 	new
	agreement.
	The
public's 	interest
	in
	a
	provision
	being
	negotiated
	during
	the
second
	year 	of
	a
	three-year 	contract
	can
	be
	just
	as
	great
	as
	it
would 	be
	if
	the
	contract
	had
	expired
	after
	the
	second
	year
	and
negotiations
	were 	commencing 	on 	a 	new
	agreement
	involving
	that
same
	issue.
	In 	both 	examples, 	time 	has
	elapsed, 	circumstances
have 	changed
	and
	the
	public's
	opinion
	on 	an
	issue
	may
	have
	also
changed.	hanged.
Thus, one of the dominant themes in the law is the public's
ight to be informed of the issues between the negotiating
arties and its right to give input on those issues. An overly
restrictive interpretation of the term "initial proposal" would
rustrate this theme by ignoring the public's interest in the
issues being negotiated. The public's interest in a bargaining
ssue is no less keen during amendment negotiations than it is
hen the principals are negotiating a new agreement. 	The
ublic's interest in a provision being negotiated during the
second year of a three-year contract can be just as great as it
ould be if the contract had expired after the second year and
egotiations were commencing on a new agreement involving that
ame issue. In both examples, time has elapsed, circumstances
ave changed and the public's opinion on an issue may have also
r
p
f
i
w
p
w
n
s
h
c
It	It does not appear to be an unreasonable burden to require
a public school employer and the exclusive representative to
"sunshine" their initial proposals on possible amendments to
their agreement. Nor does it seem to be unreasonable to permit
Co
does
	not 	appear
	to
	be 	an
	unreasonable	
burden	
to 	require
a
	public 	school 	employer	
and	
the 	exclusive 	representative 	to
"sunshine"
	their 	initial
	proposals
	on
	possible
	amendments
	to
their
	agreement.
	Nor 	does
	it
	seem
	to
	be 	unreasonable 	to 	permit

Nor
	does
	this
	requirement
	require
	that
9
the	the public to provide input on the issue being negotiated. I
either event, the public's role is limited and the parties are
free to reject, modify or adopt the suggestions of the public.
Nor does this requirement require that every initial
proposal regarding amendments to an agreement be "sunshined."
Proposed technical changes do not necessitate public disclosure
as they do not substantially affect the public interest.
Examining the changes made in the agreement between the
District and C.S.E.A, it appears that the provisions relating
to Article XXXI, Vacations, and Appendix B, Master Salary
Schedule, are technical changes only. The deletion of
Article V, Abolishment of Education Code or Personnel
Commission, may or may not be a technical change only--it is
too difficult to tell. When in doubt, parties should sunshine
a proposal. To do so is not onerous and it would protect them
from a claim that substantive rights were being negotiated
without public input.
In	In summary, initial proposals relating to non-technical
amendments to an agreement must be presented at a public
meeting in order to provide the public with knowledge of the
issues, the opportunity to provide input on such issues and to
know of the positions of their elected representatives.
District's failure to sunshine the proposed amendments to the
agreement (with exceptions noted above) violates this rule and
is consequently a violation of section 3547 (a) , (b) and (c) .
public 	to
	provide 	input
	on
	the
	issue
	being
	negotiated.
	In
either
	event,
	the
	public's
	role
	is
	limited
	and
	the
	parties
	are
free 	to
	reject,
	modify
	or 	adopt
	the 	suggestions 	of 	the
	public.
every
	initial
proposal
	regarding
	amendments
	to
	an
	agreement
	be
	"sunshined."
Proposed
	technical
	changes
	do
	not
	necessitate
	public 	disclosure
as
	they
	do
	not
	substantially 	affect
	the
	public
	interest.
Examining
	the
	changes
	made
	in 	the
	agreement 	between
	the
District
	and
	C.S.E.A,
	it
	appears
	that
	the
	provisions
	relating
to 	Article
	XXXI,
	Vacations,
	and 	Appendix
	B,
	Master
	Salary
Schedule, 	are
	technical
	changes
	only.
	The
	deletion
	of
Article
	V,
	Abolishment
	of
	Education
	Code
	or 	Personnel
Commission,
	may
	or
	may
	not
	be
	a
	technical
	change
	only--it 	is
too
	difficult
	to
	tell.
	When
	in 	doubt,
	parties
	should
	sunshine
a
	proposal.
	To 	do
	so
	is
	not 	onerous
	and
	it
	would
	protect
	them
from 	a
	claim
	that 	substantive 	rights
	were
	being
	negotiated
without 	public 	input.
summary,
	initial
	proposals
	relating
	to 	non-technical
amendments	
to
	an
	agreement 	must 	be
	presented
	at
	a
	public
meeting
	in 	order 	to 	provide 	the 	public 	with
	knowledge
	of 	the
issues,	
the 	opportunity 	to 	provide 	input	
on
	such
	issues	
and	
to
know
	of 	the 	positions 	of
	their 	elected 	representatives. 	The	The
District's 	failure 	to 	sunshine 	the 	proposed
	amendments
	to
	the
agreement 	(with 	exceptions	
noted 	above)	
violates 	this 	rule	
and
is 	consequently
	a
	violation 	of 	section 	3547(a),
	(b) 	and	
(c).

Proposed
	Remedy
In
	addition,
	the
	District
	and
	the
	CSEA
	shall
	be
	ordered 	to
post
	a
	copy
	of
	Appendix
A
	in 	this
	case
	in
	the
	locations
	normally
used
	for 	posting 	public 	notices
	regarding 	regular
	meetings
	of
the
	District
	and
	in
	conspicuous
	places
	at
	the
	location(s)
	where
notices
	to
	classified
	employees
	are 	customarily 	posted
	and
	shall
indicate 	the 	times 	and
	places
	where
	the 	public
	and 	employees
	may
inspect
	a
	copy
	of 	this 	decision
0
10
Proposed Remedy
Section
	37080
	of
	PERB's
	rules
	ana
	regulations 	indicates
that
	after
	the 	issuance
	of 	the
	hearing
	officer's
	proposed
decision,
	"the
	hearing
	officer
	mav
	solicit
	the
	aid 	of 	the
parties
	in
	fashioning
	a
	mutually
	satisfactory
	remedy
	of
	any
violations
	found."
	[Emphasis
	added.]
	Under
	the
	circumstances
of
	this
	cas~,
	a
	subsequent
	meeting 	with
	the
	parties 	is
unnecessary.
	The
	District	
and	
C.S.E.A.
	amended
	the
	agreement
in 	April
	1979.
	To
	require
	that
	the
	amendment
	to
	the
	agreement
be
	dissolved
	and
	the
	District
	ordered 	to 	sunshine
	its
	proposal
would 	work
	undue
	hardship
	on
	the
	District
	and
	its
	employees
(those 	in
	C.S.E.A.
's 	classified 	unit).
	The
	interests
	of 	the
public
	can
	be
	adequately
	protected	
by
	a	
prospective
	application
of
	this
	decision.
	Consequently,
	this
	decision
	shall
	have
prospective
	effect
	only.
Section 37080 of PERB's rules and regulations indicates
that after the issuance of the hearing officer's proposed
decision, "the hearing officer may solicit the aid of the
parties in fashioning a mutually satisfactory remedy of any
violations found. " [Emphasis added. ] Under the circumstances
of this case, a subsequent meeting with the parties is
unnecessary. 	The District and C. S. E. A. amended the agreement
in April 1979. To require that the amendment to the agreement
be dissolved and the District ordered to sunshine its proposal
would work undue hardship on the District and its employees
(those in C.S. E. A. 's classified unit) . The interests of the
public can be adequately protected by a prospective application
of this decision. Consequently, this decision shall have
prospective effect only.
In addition, the District and the CSEA shall be ordered to
post a copy of Appendix A in this case in the locations normally
used for posting public notices regarding regular meetings of
the District and in conspicuous places at the location(s) where
notices to classified employees are customarily posted and shall
indicate the times and places where the public and employees may
inspect a copy of this decision.
8
8posting has been found to be an efficient method in	
Bposting 	has
	been 	found
	to
	an
	efficient
	method 	in
effectuating	effectuating the policies of the EERA. (Cf. Placerville Union	
the 	policies 	of 	the
	EERA.
	(Cf.
	Placerville
	Union
School District (9/18/78) PERB Decision No. 69 [2 PERC 2185].	
School
	District
	(9/18/78)
	PERB
	Decision
	No. 	69 	[2 	PERC
	2185].
10

PROPOSED
	ORDER
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law,
and the entire record in this case, it is found that the Los
Angeles Community College District has violated Government Code
section 3547(a), (b) and (c) and that the California School
Employees Association, Chapter 507 has violated Government
Code section 3547(a) and (b) . Pursuant to Government Code
section 3547(e), it is hereby ordered that:
Upon
	the 	foregoing
	findings 	of
	fact
	and
	conclusions 	of
	law,
and
	the
	entire
	record 	in
	this
	case,
	it
	is
	found
	that
	the
	Los
Angeles
	Community
	College
	District
	has
	violated
	Government
	Code
section
	3547(a),
	(b) 	and
	(c)
	and
	that
	the
	California
	School
Employees
	Association,
	Chapter
	507
	has
	violated
	Government
Code
	section
	3547(a)
	and
	(b).
	Pursuant 	to
	Government
	Code
section
	3547(e),
	it
	is
	hereby
	ordered
	that:
11
.
	The
	Los
	Angeles
	Community
	College
	District
	and
	the
California
	School
	Employees
	Association,
	Chapter
	507
	and
	their
representatives 	shall
	CEASE
	AND
	DESIST
	FROM:
ailing to present at a public meeting all
initial proposals relating to non-technical amendments to
an existing agreement;
eeting and negotiating on any proposal before
a reasonable time has elapsed after the submission of the
proposal enabling the public to become informed and having
opportunity to express itself regarding the proposal at a
meeting of the District.
PROPOSED ORDER
1	1 . 	The Los Angeles Community College District and the
California School Employees Association, Chapter 507 and their
representatives shall CEASE AND DESIST FROM:
(a) F	
(a)
	Failing 	to 	present
	at
	a
	public
	meeting
	all
initial
	proposals
	relating
	to 	non-technical
	amendments
	to
an
	existing
	agreement;
(b)	
(b)
	Meeting
	and
	negotiating
	on
	any
	proposal 	before
a
	reasonable
	time 	has
	elapsed
	after
	the 	submission
	of 	the
proposal 	enabling 	the
	public 	to
	become
	informed
	and
	having
opportunity 	to 	express
	itself
	regarding 	the 	proposal
	at
	a
meeting
	of 	the
	District·
M
2
2. IN ADDITION, THE LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT
SHALL CEASE AND DESIST FROM:
Failing	Failing to adopt its initial proposal at a meeting which
is open to the public after the public has had an opportunity
to express itself.
11
to 	adopt
	its 	initial
	proposal
	at
	a
	meeting
	which
is
	open
	to 	the 	public
	after
	the 	public 	has 	had 	an
	opportunity
to 	express
	itselfo
IN ADDITION,
	THE 	LOS 	ANGELES
	COMMUNITY
	COLLEGE
	DISTRICT.
SHALL 	CEASE
	AND
	DESIST 	FROM:

12
3o
	The 	Los
	Angeles
	Community
	College
	District
	and
	the
California
	School
	Employees
	Association,
	Chapter
	507
	shall
	TAKE
THE
	FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE ACTIONS 	DESIGNED
	TO
	EFFECTUATE
	THE
POLICIES
	OF 	THE
	EERA:
3. 	The Los Angeles Community College District and the
California School Employees Association, Chapter 507 shall TAKE
THE FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE ACTIONS DESIGNED TO EFFECTUATE THE
POLICIES OF THE EERA:
(a)
(a)
	Post 	copies
	of
	Appendix
A
	for
	thirty
	(30)
	working
days
	after
	this
	Proposed 	Order
	becomes
	final, 	at
	all
	locations
normally
	used
	for 	posting 	public 	notices
	regarding
	regular
meetings
	of
	the
	District
	and
	in
	conspicuous
	places
	at
	the
location(s)
	where
	notices
	to
	classified
	employees
	are 	customarily
posted
	and
	shall 	indicate
	the
	times
	and
	places
	where
	the 	public
and 	employees
	may
	inspect
	a
	copy
	of
	this
	decisiono
Post copies of Appendix A for thirty (30) working
days after this Proposed Order becomes final, at all locations
normally used for posting public notices regarding regular
meetings of the District and in conspicuous places at the
location(s) where notices to classified employees are customarily
posted and shall indicate the times and places where the public
and employees may inspect a copy of this decision.
(b)	
At
	the
	end
	of
	the 	posting 	period,
	notify
	the
	Los
Angeles 	Regional
	Director 	of
	the 	Public
	Employment
	Relations
	Board
of
	the 	actions
	they
	have
	taken 	to
	comply
with
	this
	Ordero
(b) At the end of the posting period, notify the Los
Angeles Regional Director of the Public Employment Relations Board
of the actions they have taken to comply with this Order.
Pursuant to California Administrative Code, title 8, part
III, section 37090, this Proposed Decision and Order shall
become final on November 5, 1979 unless a party files a timely
statement of exceptions and supporting brief within ten (10)
calendar days' following the date of service of this	
9	
following 	the 	date 	of 	service 	of
	this
decision. Such statement of exceptions and supporting brief
must be actually received by the Executive Assistant to the
9california Administrative Code, title 8, section 37090
specifies a limit of ten (10) calendar days to appeal a public
notice decision. However, because the tenth day falls on a
Saturday, the parties are given until the following Monday, the
twelfth day, in which to file their exceptions.
12
9california 	Administrative
Pursuant
	to 	California
	Administrative
	Code,
decision.
	Such
	statement 	of 	exceptions
	and
	supporting
	brief
must 	be
	actually 	received
	by
	the 	Executive
	Assistant 	to 	the
title
	8,
	part
III,
	section
	37090,
	this
	Proposed 	Decision
	and
	Order
	shall
become
	final
	on 	November
	5,
	1979
	unless
	a
	party
	files
	a
	timely
statement 	of 	exceptions
	and
	supporting
	brief
	within 	ten
	(10)
calendar
	days
Code,
	title
	8,
	section
	37090
specifies
	a
	limit 	of 	ten
	(10)
	calendar 	days
	to 	appeal
	a
	public
notice 	decision.
	However, 	because 	the
	tenth
	day
	falls
	on
	a
Saturday, 	the 	parties 	are 	given 	until
	the 	following
	Monday,
	the
twelfth 	day, 	in
	which
	to 	file
	their 	exceptions.

13
Bruce 	Barsook
Hearing 	Officer
Board at the headquarters office in Sacramento before the close
of business (5:00 p.m. ) on November 5, 1979 in order to be
timely filed. See California Administrative Code, title 8,
part III, section 32135. Any statement of exceptions and
supporting brief must be served concurrently with its filing
upon each party to this proceeding. Proof of service shall be
filed with the Board itself. See California Administrative
Code, title 8, part III, sections 32300, 32305 and 37070.
Dated: 	October 24, 1979
Bruce Barsook
Hearing Officer
13
Dated:
Board 	at 	the 	headquarters 	office 	in 	Sacramento 	before 	the 	close
of 	business 	(5:00 	p.m.) 	on 	November 	5, 	1979 	in 	order 	to 	be
timely 	filed. 	See 	California 	Administrative 	Code, 	title 	8,
part 	III, 	section 	32135. 	Any 	statement 	of 	exceptions 	and
supporting 	brief 	must 	be 	served 	concurrently 	with 	its 	filing
upon 	each 	party 	to 	this 	proceeding. 	Proof 	of 	service 	shall 	be
filed 	with 	the 	Board 	itself. 	See 	California 	Administrative
Code, 	title 	8, 	part 	III, 	sections 	32300, 	32305 	and 	37070.
October 	24, 	1979

APPENDIX A
1 .
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD,
An Agency of the State of California
14
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD,
An Agency of the State of California
After a hearing on case no. LA-PN-8 in which all parties
had the right to participate, it has been found that the
Los Angeles Community College District has violated Government
Code section 3547(a), (b) and (c) and that the California School
Employees Association, Chapter 507 has violated Government Code
section 3547(a) and (b). As a result of this conduct, we have
been ordered to post this notice, and we will abide by the
following:	following :
(a) F
1. 	CEASE AND DESIST FROM:
(a) a
(b)
Failing	iling to present at a public meeting all initial	to present at a public meeting all initial
proposals relating to non-technical amendments to an	proposals relating to non-technical amendments to an
existing agreement;	existing agreement;
(b) Me
2.
Meting and negotiating on any proposal before a	eeting and negotiating on any proposal before a
reasonable time has elapsed after the submission of
the proposal enabling the public to become informed
and having opportunity to express itself regarding the
proposal at a meeting of the District.
reasonable time has elapsed after the submission of
the proposal enabling the public to become informed
and having opportunity to express itself regarding the
proposal at a meeting of the District.
2 . 	IN ADDITION, THE LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT SHALL
CEASE AND DESIST FROM:
Failing to adopt its initial proposal at a meeting which is
open to the public after the public has had an opportunity
to express itself.
3.	3. 	The times and places where the public and employees may
inspect a copy of this decision are as follows:
DATED: 	LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT	DATED :
By:
LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT
By :
Superintendent
DATED:
Superintendent
DATED : 	CALIFORNIA	CALIFORNIA SCHOOL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION,
CHAPTER 507
By :
THIS IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE. IT MUST REMAIN
POSTED FOR 30 CONSECUTIVE WORK DAYS FROM THE
DATE OF POSTING AND MUST NOT BE DEFACED,
ALTERED OR COVERED BY ANY MATERIAL.
14
THIS
Failing
The times and places where the public and employees may
inspect a copy of this decision are as follows:
After
IN ADDITION, THE LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT SHALL
CEASE AND DESIST FROM:
a hearing on case noo LA-PN-8 in which all parties
had the right to participate, 	it has been found that the
Los Angeles Community College District has violated Government
Code section 3547(a), 	(b) 	and (c) and that the California School
Employees Association, Chapter 507 has violated Government Code
section 3547(a) 	and (b), 	As a result of this conduct, we have
been ordered to post this notice, and we will abide by the
CEASE AND DESIST FROM:
to adopt its initial proposal at a meeting which is
open to the public after the public has had an opportunity
to express itself.
SCHOOL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION,
CHAPTER 507
By:
IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE. 	IT MUST REMAIN
POSTED FOR 30 CONSECUTIVE WORK DAYS FROM THE
DATE OF POSTING AND MUST NOT BE DEFACED,
ALTERED OR COVERED BY ANY MATERIAL.

APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD,
An Agency of the State of California
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION,
CHAPTER 507
By:
THIS IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE. 	IT MUST REMAIN
POSTED FOR 30 CONSECUTIVE WORK DAYS FROM THE
DATE OF POSTING AND MUST NOT BE DEFACED,
ALTERED OR COVERED BY ANY MATERIALo
14
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD,
An Agency of the State of California
After	After a hearing on case no. LA-PN-8 in which all parties
had the right to participate, it has been found that the
Los Angeles Community College District has violated Government
Code section 3547(a), (b) and (c) and that the California School
Employees Association, Chapter 507 has violated Government Code
section 3547(a) and (b) . As a result of this conduct, we have
been ordered to post this notice, and we will abide by the
following:
1lo
(a)
. 	CEASE AND DESIST FROM:	CEASE AND DESIST FROM:
(a) 	ailing to present at a public meeting all initial	Failing to present at a public meeting all initial
proposals relating to non-technical amendments to an
existing agreement;
(b)	(b) Meeting and negotiating on any proposal before a
proposals relating to non-technical amendments to an
existing agreement;
Meeting and negotiating on any proposal before a
reasonable time has elapsed after the submission of
the proposal enabling the public to become informed
and having opportunity to express itself regarding the
proposal at a meeting of the District.
2.2.
reasonable time has elapsed after the submission of
the proposal enabling the public to become informed
and having opportunity to express itself regarding the
proposal at a meeting of the Districto
IN ADDITION, THE LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT SHALL
CEASE AND DESIST FROM:
Failing to adopt its initial proposal at a meeting which is	Failing to adopt its initial proposal at a meeting which is
open to the public after the public has had an opportunity	open to the public after the public has had an opportunity
to express itself.	to express itself.
3o	3.
IN
The times and places where the public and employees may
inspect a copy of this decision are as follows:
DATED :
The
DATED: 	LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT
By:	By :
LOS
Superintendent	Superintendent
DATED:	DATED : 	CALIFORNIA SCHOOL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION,
CHAPTER 507
By :
THIS IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE. IT MUST REMAIN
POSTED FOR 30 CONSECUTIVE WORK DAYS FROM THE
DATE OF POSTING AND MUST NOT BE DEFACED,
ALTERED OR COVERED BY ANY MATERIAL.
14
ANGELES COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT
times and places where the public and employees may
inspect a copy of this decision are as follows:
ADDITION, THE LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT SHALL
CEASE AND DESIST FROM:
lo
F
a hearing on case noo 	LA-PN-8 in which all parties
had the right to participate, 	it has been found that the
Los Angeles Community College District has violated Government
Code section 3547(a), 	(b) 	and 	(c) 	and that the California School
Employees Association, 	Chapter 507 has violated Government Code
section 3547(a) 	and (b)o 	As a result of this conduct, we have
been ordered to post this notice, 	and we will abide by the
following: