Los Angeles Unified School District (Watts) (PERB 0187E)

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
HOWARD O. WATTS,
Complainant, 	Case No. LA-PN-36
v . 	PERB Decision No. 187
LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, 	December 15, 1981
Respondent,
and
SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION,
LOCAL 99, AFL-CIO
Respondent.
Appearances: 	Howard Watts, representing himself.
DECISION
STATE
	OF
	CALIFORNIA
DECISION
	OF
	THE
PUBLIC
	EMPLOYMENT
	RELATIONS
	BOARD
HOWARD
	O. 	WATTS,
Complainant,
V •
LOS
	ANGELES
	UNIFIED
	SCHOOL
	DISTRICT,
Respondent,
and
SERVICE
	EMPLOYEES
	INTERNATIONAL 	UNION,
LOCAL
	99,
	AFL-CIO
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
_____________________
)
Case
	No.
	LA-PN-36
PERB
	Decision
	No.
	187
December
	15,
	1981
Appearances:	
Howard
Watts,
	representing 	himself,
Before Gluck, Chairperson; Moore and Tovar, Members.	
Before 	Gluck,
	Chairperson;
	Moore
	and
	Tovar,
	Members.
DECISION
Howard O. Watts excepts to the attached administrative
determination issued by the Los Angeles regional director of
the Public Employment Relations Board (hereafter Board)
dismissing his public notice complaint without leave to amend.
After considering the entire record in light of Watts' appeal
and the District's response, the Board affirms the regional
director's findings conclusions, and administrative
determination for the reasons set forth in her letter of
dismissal.
Howard 	O.
	Watts
	excepts 	to
	the 	attached	
rlrlministrative
determination 	issued
	by
	the
	Los
	Angeles
	regional 	director
	of
the 	Public
	Employment
	Relations
	Board
	(hereafter
	Board)
dismissing 	his 	public 	notice 	complaint 	without 	leave 	to
	amend.
After 	considering 	the
	entire
	record 	in
	light	
Watts' 	appeal
and
	the
	District's
	response, 	the
	Board
	affirms 	the 	regional
director's
	findings 	conclusions,
	and
	administrative
determination 	for
dismissal.
reasons
	set 	forth
	her
	letter

ORDER
Upon the foregoing decision and the entire record in this
case, the Public Employment Relations Board ORDERS that:
The public notice complaint, filed by Howard O. Watts
against the Los Angeles Unified School District and Service
Employees International Union, Local 99, AFL-CIO, is hereby
DISMISSED in its entirety without leave to amend.
PER CURIAM
2
ORDER
Upon
	the 	foregoing
	decision
	and
	the
	entire
	record
	in
	this
case,
	the
	Public
	Employment
	Relations
	Board
	ORDERS
	that:
The
	public 	notice
	complaint,
	filed
	by Howard
	O.
	Watts
against
	the
	Los
	Angeles
	Unified
	School
	District
	and
	Service
Employees
	International
	Union,
	Local 	99,
	AFL-CIO,
	is
	hereby
DISMISSED
	in
	its
	entirety
	without 	leave
	to
	amend.
PER
	CURIAM
2

31..1C
	i.'\-l?10"t~...'£:'-~fT 	RiLA Tic:..:~
	B-0~;'.(D
Ari::::~1:!S
	R;:giond
	07-ii~
SO
	Wi:.;;;:r~ olvd., Sui;:! 	1703
Ang~l~
Cclifomia- 	90010
3) T.:6--3127
July
	22, 	1981
Mr. 	Howard 	O.
	Watts
Re:
	LA--PN-36
Los
	Angeles 	Unifie~
	Sc~ool
	District
Dear
	Mr.	
Watts:
Your
	public
	notic2 	co~p:aint 	against 	the
	Los
	Angeles
	Unified
	School
District
	(LAUSD)
	anj
	th~
	Los
	Angeles
	City
	and 	County
	School
	Employees
Unionr
	Local
	99
	of
	the 	Service
	Employees
	International
	Union,
	AFL-C~O
{Local
	99) 	was
	filed
	~i:h
	this 	office
	June
	3,
	1981. 	Basea 	on
	the
	result
of
	an
	examination 	of
	th~	
co
□
?laint,	
the 	regional
	director
	has
	detercined
that
	it
	fails
	to
	st~te	
~	
pri~a 	facie 	violation
	of
	Government 	Code
	sectio
3547
	and
	cannot
	be
	a~enied 	to
	state
	a
	prima
	facie
	violation.
	You
	have
declined 	to
	withdra~
	th~
	complaint.
	The
	complaint
	is
	hereby
	DIS~ISS2D
WITEOuT
	LBAVE
	TO
	A..:1:2'1:J.
s
n
Your
	first
	complaint
	is 	that
	the
	LAUSD
	twice
	violated
	Government
	Code
section
	3547 	by
	faili~g 	to
	post 	copies 	of
	two
	initial
	proposals
	on
	a
dist=ist
	b~:1~~in 	tca=d.
	T~e~e
	is,
	00weverwhich
	requires
1
	nuth:~g
	in 	3eclto~
	3547
such
	a
	?Osting.
	The
	law 	does
	provide
	that
	initial
pro9osals 	must,
	after
	ttey
	are 	presented,
	be
	held
	as
	public 	records
	so
that	
□ embers	
of 	the 	pub:ic
	may
	have
	access 	to
	them
	and 	become
	infor~ed
	of
thei::-
	content.
	The
	L.?-~ti5D
	has
	a
	written 	policy
	on
	public
	notice- matt-:!rS,
a	
co9y 	of
	which 	you
	fil~d
	as
	an
	exhibit
	with 	your
	ccmplaint. 	That 	policy
sets
	out 	the 	times
	~nd
	pl2ces
	where
	persons
	may 	go
	to
	learn
	about
	initial
proposals.
	The
	L._~USD
	policy 	complies 	with
	the
	law.
You=
	second 	cornplai~t
	is 	th2t 	the
	LAUSD
	ana
	Local
	99
	violated 	section
3547	
by	
failing 	to
	~a~e
	co?ies 	of
	a
	reopener 	proposal 	available 	in
	the
district
	Board
	Room 	o~
	the 	day
	public 	response
	was
	received.
	You 	have
alleged 	viola=ion 	o: 	section
	3547 	on
	identical
	grounds 	in 	previouscomplaints
	and
	this
	iss=e 	has 	been 	decided 	by 	the
	PERB
	Board
	itself.
	In
its
	Decision
	tJo. 	153
	(12/30/30) 	the 	Board 	affirEted 	the 	findingsr
concl~sions
	and 	~eter~i~atio~ 	of 	the 	regional 	director
	who
	a1smisse~ 	your
co~plaint
	LA-PN-20
	a;ai~st 	the
	Los 	Angeles 	Community
	College 	District.Reoe~ition 	of 	the 	co=~l~int,
	even
	in
	a
	different 	school
	district, 	willre~ul~ 	in 	dismissal_: 	:~is
	time 	and 	every 	time.

.........
-, 	--,..,_~._,..._	
(
·
Los··
2'.2iG2LES	
UNIE'I:::8	
SCJ:C<..	
lISTRICT
LA-?N-36Page	
2
This
	determination
	may
	be
	appealed
	to
	the
	Board
	itself
	at
	the
headquarters
	office
	in
	accoraance 	with
	the
	provisions
	of 	Division
	1,
Chapter
·
4,
	Article
	2
	of
	the
	PERE
	Regulations.
	The
	n2w
	ador
ess
	of
	the
PERB
	Headquarters 	Office
	is
	1031
	18th
	Street,
	Sacramento,
	CA
	95814.
	Any
appeal
	must
	be
	filed
	within
	10
	days
	following 	the 	date 	of
	service 	of 	this
letter
	of
	dismissal.
Please 	contact
	me
	if
	you 	have
	any
	questions.
Very
	truly
	yours,
Frances
	A.
	Kreiling
Regional
	Director
JJO:eb
cc:
	William 	Sharp
Boward
	M.
	Friedman
[\