Los Angeles Community College District (Watts) (PERB 0385E)

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
DECISION 	OF 	THE
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
HOWARD 0. 	WATTS,
Complainant,
v.
LOS 	ANGELES 	COMMUNITY COLLEGE
DISTRICT,
Employer.
Case No. LA-PN-39
PERB Decision No. 	385
May 22, 	1984
Appearances; 	Howard 0. Watts, 	in pro. 	per.; 	Mary L. 	Dowell,
Associate 	General 	Counsel 	for 	the 	Los Angeles Community College
District.
Before Hesse, 	Chairperson; 	Jaeger 	and Morgenstern, Members.
DECISION
JAEGER, 	Member: 	Howard 0. 	Watts 	appeals 	the 	determination
by 	a Public Employment Relations Board 	(PERB 	or Board) 	agent
that 	his 	public 	notice 	complaint 	against 	the 	Los Angeles
Community College 	District 	(District) 	failed 	to 	state 	a prima
facie 	violation 	of 	section 	3547 	of 	the 	Educational Employment
Relations 	Act 	(EERA).1
For 	the 	reasons 	set 	forth 	below, 	we 	affirm the Board
agent's dismissal of Watts' 	complaint.
1EERA 	is 	codified 	at Government 	Code 	section 	3540
et 	seq. 	Section 3547 	reads:
(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.
(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) 	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.
PROCEDURAL 	HISTORY
On December 2, 	1981, 	Watts 	filed a complaint alleging 	that
the 	District 	violated EERA's 	public 	notice 	provisions.
On December 8, 	1981, 	pursuant 	to former PERB 	rule
37030(d),2 a 	Board 	agent 	sent Watts 	a 	notice 	of
2At 	the 	time 	this 	case 	arose, 	PERB 	rules were 	codified 	at
N	2

title 8, 	California Administrative Code, 	section 31000 	et seq.
Former PERB 	rule 	37030(d) 	provided:
If 	the 	complaint 	fails 	to 	state 	a prima
facie 	violation 	of 	Government 	Code 	section
3547, 	the Regional Director may 	issue 	a
notice 	of 	deficiency 	to 	the 	complainant
setting 	forth 	the 	basis 	for 	any
particularization 	necessary 	to 	state 	a 	prima
facie 	violation 	of Government 	Code 	section
3547.
deficiency 	and 	required 	him 	to 	particularize 	his 	complaint.
On December 	11, 	1981, Watts amended his complaint.
On January 11, 	1982, 	the District 	filed an answer 	to Watts'
complaint.
On February 2, 	1980, 	an 	informal conference was held, 	which
failed 	to 	settle 	the dispute.
On February 23, 	1982, 	pursuant 	to former PERB 	rule
37030(e),3 the Board 	agent 	dismissed Watts' 	complaint without
leave 	to 	amend.
FACTS
The 	complaint 	alleges 	that Watts 	was 	denied 	ample
opportunity 	to 	address 	the 	District 	governing 	board 	on 	certain
3Former 	PERB 	rule 	37030(e) 	provided:
If 	the complaint 	fails 	to 	state 	a prima
facie 	violation 	of Government 	Code 	section
3547 	and 	cannot be 	amended 	to 	state 	a prima
facie violation, 	the Regional Director 	shall
dismiss 	the complaint. 	A copy of 	the
complaint 	and 	the 	letter 	of 	dismissal 	shall
be 	served 	on 	the 	employer 	and 	the 	exclusive
representative 	by 	the 	Regional Director.
w	3

items 	appearing on 	the 	agenda, 	including 	three 	items 	related 	to
collective 	bargaining 	agreements.
One 	such 	item was 	an 	amendment proposed 	by 	the 	District 	to
the 	negotiated 	agreement 	with 	the 	exclusive 	representative 	of
the 	certificated 	employees. 	Although 	it 	appears 	from 	the
record 	that Watts 	did 	address 	this 	matter 	during 	his
presentation to the District, 	in fact, 	this proposal had
previously 	been 	presented 	at 	a meeting 	of 	the 	board 	both 	as 	an
informative 	item and 	for 	public 	response. 	Another 	item
appearing 	on 	the 	agenda 	was 	an 	amendment 	proposed 	by 	the
exclusive 	representative 	of 	the 	technical 	and 	clerical
employees. 	Again, 	while 	it 	appears 	from the 	record 	that Watts
addressed 	himself 	to 	this 	item at 	the 	board meeting, 	this
proposal 	was 	presented 	as 	an 	informative matter 	with 	public
comment 	reserved 	for 	the 	next 	regularly 	scheduled 	board 	meeting.
The 	final matter 	was 	an 	item concerning 	the 	collective
bargaining 	agreement 	between 	the 	District 	and 	the 	exclusive
representative 	of 	the 	maintenance 	and 	operations 	unit. 	This
matter 	had 	been presented 	as 	an 	informative 	item, 	listed 	for
public comment, 	adopted 	by 	the 	board, 	sent 	to the 	bargaining
table, 	and had been 	agreed 	to by both parties. 	It was 	to 	this
matter 	that Watts 	was 	speaking 	when 	his 	five-minute 	period
elapsed.
DISCUSSION
In his 	appeal, 	Watts 	urges 	the Board 	to 	reverse 	the Board
agent's 	dismissal of his 	complaint on 	a number 	of grounds.
4

First, 	Watts 	argues 	that 	the Board 	agent 	failed 	to 	follow
the Board's 	own 	rules 	when 	he 	dismissed 	the 	complaint 	after 	it
had 	been 	served 	on 	the District, 	the 	District 	had 	filed 	its
answer, 	and 	an 	informal conference 	had 	been held. 	Watts
asserts 	that once 	a complaint 	is 	served on 	the District, 	an
informal conference 	is held, 	or 	an answer 	is 	filed, 	a prima
facie 	case exists 	and 	that, 	under 	the pertinent 	regulations,
the 	case 	must 	either 	go 	forward 	to 	hearing 	or 	be 	withdrawn.4
While 	the Board 	agent 	should, 	indeed, 	have dismissed Watts'
complaint 	earlier 	than he 	did, 	we disagree 	that, 	having 	failed
to do 	so, 	his 	subsequent 	actions 	in 	the 	case 	transform a
complaint 	failing 	to 	state 	a prima 	facie 	violation 	into one
that does. 	Thus, 	while Watts does point 	to some procedural
irregularities 	in 	the 	processing of his 	complaint, 	he was 	in no
way prejudiced 	by 	these 	irregularities 	and 	they 	do 	not,
therefore, 	constitute reversible error. 	Moreover, 	the Board
has 	previously held 	that 	dismissal 	of 	a 	complaint 	after 	an
answer 	was 	filed 	or 	after 	an 	informal 	conference 	was 	held 	does
not 	constitute 	reversible 	error 	in 	the 	absence of 	a 	showing
that 	the 	complaint 	alleged 	a prima 	facie 	violation.
4Former 	PERB 	rule 37030 (f) 	provided:
If 	the 	complaint 	is 	found 	by 	the Regional
Director 	to 	state 	a prima 	facie 	violation of
Government Code 	section 3547, 	the Regional
Director 	shall 	forthwith 	serve 	a copy of 	the
complaint on 	the 	parties 	to 	the 	complaint.
5

Los Angeles 	Community College District 	(8/15/83) 	PERB 	Decision
No. 	331; 	Los Angeles Community College District 	(12/31/80) 	PERB
Decision No. 	153.5
Next, 	we 	turn 	to Watts' substantive 	contention 	that 	the
Board 	agent 	erred 	in 	concluding 	that 	his 	complaint 	failed 	to
state 	a prima 	facie 	violation 	of 	section 	3547.
Two of 	the 	agenda 	items 	referred 	to 	in Watts' complaint
concern 	matters 	for 	which 	the 	opportunity 	for 	public 	comment
had 	already been afforded. 	Thus, 	to the 	extent 	that Watts'
complaint 	asserts 	a right 	to comment on these 	items, 	no prima
facie violation 	is 	stated. 	As 	to 	the only proposal not
previously sunshined, 	the 	fact 	is 	that Watts, 	like other
members of 	the public, 	was on notice by 	the District, 	both by
the 	material describing 	the 	proposal 	and 	the 	past 	practice 	of
the 	District's 	governing 	board, 	that public 	comment on 	that
negotiating 	proposal 	would 	be 	heard 	at 	a 	subsequent 	meeting.
Section 3547 	does 	not 	require 	a 	school district 	to 	accept 	such
comment 	at 	any 	time 	the member 	of 	the 	public wishes. 	The
section's mandate 	is 	amply 	satisfied 	if 	a 	time 	for 	comment 	is
provided 	prior 	to the 	commencement 	of 	negotiations, 	as was 	the
case here.
5In 	addition 	to 	the 	procedural 	irregularities 	cited
above, 	Watts 	alleges 	that 	the Board 	agent 	engaged 	in other 	acts
of misconduct which prejudiced 	his 	case. 	We 	have 	carefully
reviewed Watts' 	allegations 	and 	find 	them so 	lacking 	in
substance 	that 	they 	deserve 	no 	comment.
6

That 	the 	District 	chooses 	to provide 	advance 	notice of 	such
items 	through 	its 	"information" 	section of 	the 	agenda 	neither
violates EERA nor 	extends 	the 	public's 	right of 	comment.
Similarly, 	the 	fact 	that 	the District permitted Watts 	to spend
a portion of his 	time on November 	4 	speaking 	to 	that proposal
neither 	imposed 	on 	it 	a 	legal obligation 	to grant 	his 	request
for more 	time nor defeated Watts' 	opportunity, 	or 	right, 	to
address 	that 	proposal 	again 	at 	the 	time 	reserved 	for 	pertinent
public 	input. 	In short, 	Watts' 	complaint 	is based on a claim
of 	statutory 	right which, 	in 	two 	respects 	had 	been 	satisfied
and, 	in one 	respect, 	had not yet matured. 	No prima 	facie 	case
was 	presented.
ORDER
Upon 	the 	foregoing 	Decision 	and 	the 	entire 	record 	in 	this
matter, 	the complaint 	in Case No. 	LA-PN-39 	is DISMISSED without
leave 	to 	amend.
Chairperson Hesse 	and 	Member 	Morgenstern 	joined 	in 	this
Decision.
7