Los Angeles Unified School District (Watts) (PERB 0181EA)

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
DECISION 	OF 	THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
HOWARD 	O. 	WAT'rS ,
Complainant,
PETI'rIONER
v.
LOS 	ANGELES 	UNIFIED SCHOOL 	DISTRICT,
Employer,
and
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION,
Employee 	Organization.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
·-------)
Case No. 	LA-PN-33
Request 	for 	Reconsideration
PERB 	Decision No. 	181
PERB 	Decision No. 	181a
February 	22, 	1982
A~arances: 	Howard 	o. 	Watts, 	representing 	himself.
Before 	Gluck, 	Chairperson; 	Jaeger 	and 	Tovar, 	Members.
DECISION
Howard 	O. 	Watts 	requests 	that 	the 	Public Employment
Relations 	Board 	(PERB 	or 	Board) 	reconsider 	its 	decision 	in Los
Angeles 	Unified School District 	(11/19/81) 	PERB 	Decision
No. 	181. 	The 	Board 	therein 	affirmed 	the 	regional 	director's
dismissal 	of 	his 	public 	notice 	complaint 	against 	the 	Los
Angeles 	Unified 	School 	District 	(District) 	and 	the 	California
School 	Employees Association 	(Association) 	without 	further
leave 	to 	amend. 	The 	complaint 	alleged 	violations 	of

section 	3547 	of 	the 	Educational Employment 	Relations 	Act.l
Petitioner's 	request 	is 	filed 	pursuant 	to 	subsection 	32410(a)
of 	PERB's 	rules 	and 	regulations.2
lThe 	Educational Employment 	Relations 	Act 	is 	codified 	at
Government Code 	section 	3540 	et 	seq.
Section 	3547 	reads, 	in 	pertinent 	part:
(a) 	All 	initial 	proposals 	of 	exclusive
representatives 	and 	of 	public 	school
employers, 	which 	relate 	to 	matters 	within
the 	scope 	of 	representation, 	shall 	be
presented 	at 	a 	public 	meeting 	of 	the 	public
school 	employer 	and 	thereafter 	shall 	be
public 	records.
(b) 	Meeting 	and 	negotiating 	shall 	not 	take
place 	on 	any 	proposal 	until 	a 	reasonable
time 	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) 	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.
2PERB 	rules 	are 	codified 	at 	California Administrative
Code, 	title 	8, 	section 	31000 	et 	seq.
Subsection 	32410(a) 	provides:
(a) 	Any 	party 	to 	a 	decision 	of 	the 	Board
itself 	may, 	because 	of 	extraordinary
circumstances, 	file 	a 	request 	to 	reconsider
the 	decision 	with 	the 	Board 	itself 	within
10 	days 	following 	the 	date 	of 	service 	of 	the
decision. 	The 	request 	for 	reconsideration
shall 	be 	filed 	with 	the 	Executive Assistant
to 	the 	Board 	and 	shall 	state 	with
specificity 	the 	grounds 	claimed 	and, 	where
applicable, 	shall 	specify 	the 	page 	of 	the
2

Mr.
	Watts
	maintains
	that
	reconsideration
	should
	be
	granted
because 	the
	Board
	did
	not
	thoroughly
	consider
	all
	of 	the
exceptions
	which
	were
	properly
	filed
	in
	the 	appeal 	of 	the
regional
	director's
	decision.
	Included
	among
	the
	exceptions
was
	the
	allegation 	that
	Mr.
	Watts
	did
	not
	receive
	the
	requisite
assistance 	in
	filing
	his
	complaint
	which
	he
	claims
	rules
	37030
and
	32625
	guarantee
	him.3.
	Further,
	he
	contended
	that
section
	3547
	was
	violated
	by:
	(l) 	the
	distribution
	of
	only
20
	copies
	of
	an
	employee
	organization's
	initial
	proposal
	when
the 	proposal
	was
	publicly 	presented 	to 	the 	school
	employer;
	(2)
the
	failure
	to 	provide
	additional
	copies
	at
	subsequent 	meetings
of
	the
	District;
	and 	(3)
	the 	three-minute
	limitation
	per
speaker 	for
	discussion
	of 	the
	proposals.
record
	relied
	on.
	Service
	and
	proof 	of
service
	of 	the 	request 	pursuant
	to
section
	32140
	are 	required.
3section
	32625
	provides:
If
	the 	charging
	party 	is
	unable
	to
	retain
counsel 	or 	demonstrates 	extenuating
circumstances,
	as 	determined
	by
	the 	Board,
	a
Board
	agent
	may
	be
	assigned 	to
	assist
	such
party 	to
	draft
	the 	charge 	or
	gather 	evidence.
Section
	37030
	reads, 	in 	pertinent 	part:
(a)
	When 	a
	complaint
	is
	f
	ed, 	case
shall
	be
	assigned
	by
	the 	Regional 	Directorto
	a
	Board 	agent 	for 	processing.
(b) 	The 	powers 	and
	es 	such 	board
agent
	shall 	to:
3

PERB
	Assistance
In
Los
	Angeles
	Comm_uni
ty
	College
	D
istr_ict
	(12/15/81)
	PERB
Decision
No. 	186 	and
	I.:_~_~_]i_!lgeles
	Communi!:_y_~~:I.:_!_~g__~_District
(12/15/81)
	PERB
	Order
	No.
	Ad-119,
	the
	Board
	set 	forth
	the
parameters
	of
	PERB
	assistance
	in 	public 	notice 	complaints.
Section
	32625, 	on 	which
	he
	relies,
	deals
	with
	unfair
	practice
charges
	and
	has
	no
	relevance 	to 	public 	notice 	complaints.
Section
	37030
	requires 	that
	Board
	agents 	provide
	technical
assistance
	to 	public 	notice
	complainants,
	but 	not
	legal
representation.
	Mr.
	Watts
	clearly
	received
	the
	requisite
assistance.
	The
	May
	28,
	1981
	notice
	of
	deficiency
	and
particularization
	which 	accompanied
	the
	dismissal
	with
	leave 	to
amend,
	clearly
	provided
	Mr.
	Watts 	with
	information 	explaining
what
	is
	necessary
	to
	establish
	a
	prima
	facie
	case.
~!_~:f::i;__!_eution
	of
	20
__
Copies
Mr.
	Watts 	contends
	that
	the
	Board
	misconstrued
	his
exception
	when
	it
	found
	that
	the
	District
1 s
	distribution
	of
(1)
	Assist
	the 	complainant
	to
state
	in
	proper
	form
	theinformation 	required
	by
	section
37020.
(2) 	Answer
	procedural 	questionsregarding 	the 	ocessing
	t
case;
(3)
	Facilitate
	communication 	and
the 	exchange 	of 	informabetween 	the 	complainant 	the
r	
nt 	or	
r	
nts;
4

20
	copies
	of
	the
	Association's
	proposal
	was
	adequate.
	He
argues
	that
	this
	was
	not
	the
	basis
	of
	his
	charge. 	Rather,
	he
maintains
	that
	the
	complaint
	centered
	around
	the
Association's
failure
	to
	distribute
	more
	than
	20
	copies.
	Regardless, 	the
complaint
	is
	groundless.
	Again,
	Watts'
	Exhibit
No.
	54
demonstrates 	the
	fallacy
	of
	the 	complaint.
	The
	stipulation
between
	the
	District
	and
	Watts
	clearly
	indicates 	that
	Mr.
	Watts
acknowledged
	that
	20
	copies
	would 	be 	an
	adequate
	number
	given
both 	the 	geographical
	size
	of 	the
	District
	and
	number
	of
students.
Failure
	to
	Distribute
	Proposals 	at
	Subsequent 	Meetings1
Three-Minute
	Rule
The
	Board
	affirmed 	the
	regional
	director's
	dismissal 	of
these
	allegations,
	finding
	that
	Mr.
	Watts
	had
	failed
	to
	state
sufficient
	facts
	to
	constitute
	a
	prima
	facie
	complaint.
	In
this
	request,
	Watts 	does 	not
	present
	any
	arguments 	which 	were
not
	raised
	during 	the
	earlier
	determination
	of 	the 	Board.
4Exhibit
	No.
	5
	is
	a
	settlement
	agreement
	arising
	out 	of
an
	earlier
	public 	notice 	complaint
	filed
	by Mr.
	Watts 	(Watts
	v.
Los
	Angeles 	Unified 	School
	District,
	LA-PN-9
	and LA-PN-10),
which
	reads,1npert1nerit
	part:
Each
	exclusive 	representative 	shall
	ovide
	a
reasonable
	number
	copies,
	not 	to
	exceed 	20,
of
	its 	initial
	propos
	sat
	the 	time 	the
exclusive 	representative 	presents
	its
proposals 	to 	the
	District.
	These 	copies
	shall
be
	made
	ava
	a 	e
	to 	the 	public 	at 	the Board
meeting
	at
	whi 	s
	are 	esent
5

The
	Board
	notes
	that
	Mr.
	Watts
	has
	repeatedly
	filed
complaints
	which
	are
	virtually
	identical
	in 	content 	to
	this
despite
	the
	Board's
	patient
	and
	adverse
	rulings.
	See
Lo§__Ar:!_~eles
	Unified
	School
	District
	(12/30/80)
	PERB
	Decision
No.
	152;
	Los
	Angeles
	Community
	College
	District
	(12/31/80)
	PERB
Decision
	No.
	153;
	"!:2~_Angeles
	Co~munity
	College
	District
(12/31/80)
	PERB
	Decision
	No.
	154;
	Los
	Angeles
	Community
College
District
	(12/15/82)
	PERB
	Decision
No.
	186;
	and 	Los
	Angeles
Unified 	School
	District
	(12/15/81)
	PERB
	Decision
	No.
	187.
Further,
	we
	also 	notice
	that
	he
	has
	recently
	filed 	additional
requests
	for
	reconsideration
	of
	our
	decision
	involving
	most
	of
these
	same
	issues.5	
Mr.
	Watts' 	repeated
	raising
	of
	such
nonmeritorious 	complaints 	abuses
	Board
	processes
	and
	wastes
State
	resources. 	Further,
	respondents
	must
	necessarily
	incur
expenses
	in 	time,
	effort
	and
	money
	in 	continually
	defending
against
	the
	same
	charges. 	Accordingly, 	the
	Board
	sees
	fit
	to
order
	that
	Mr.
	Watts 	cease
	and
	desist
	from
	filing
	complaints
which
	merely
	raise 	facts
	and
	questions 	of
	law 	which
	the 	Board
has
	already
	fully
	considered.
	Further,
	if
	such 	complaints 	are
filed 	in
	the
	future,
	the
	Board
	will 	consider	
the	
possibility	
of
assessing
	Mr.
	Watts	
any	
litigation
	expenses 	incurred	
by 	a
respondent 	while 	trying 	to 	defend	
against	
such	
actions.
5These	
requests	
subsequently
	have
	all
	been	
dismissed.
6

ORDER
For 	the 	foregoing 	reasons, 	the 	request 	of 	Howard 	O. 	Watts
for 	reconsideration 	of 	the 	Public 	Employment 	Relations 	Board's
Decision 	No. 	181 	is 	DENIED.
Further, 	the 	Board 	ORDERS 	Mr. 	Watts 	to:
CEASE 	AND 	DESIST 	from 	abusing 	the 	Board's
administrative 	processes 	by 	filing 	public 	notice 	complaints
which 	are 	not 	supported 	by 	the 	type 	of 	evidence 	which 	the 	Board
has 	made 	clear 	is 	necessary 	to 	file 	a 	valid 	complaint, 	or 	which
merely 	raise 	facts 	and 	questions 	of 	law 	which 	the 	Board 	has
previously 	resolved.
PER CURIAM
7