California State University (Watts) (PERB 0477H)

1 printed pages contain little extracted OCR body text; searchable legal-body completeness has not been established for those pages.

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD

HOWARD O. WATTS,
Charging Party, Case No. LA-PN-51-H

Vv. PERB Decision No. 477-H

CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, December 31, 1984

Respondent.

Nea Se Nae Ne Set Neel See Noe Sel? eet

Appearance: Howard O. Watts on his own behalf.

Before Hesse, Chairperson; Jaeger and Burt, Members.
DECISION

BURT, Member: This case is before the Public Employment
Relations Board (Board) on an appeal by Howard O. Watts
(Complainant) of the Board agent's dismissal, attached hereto,
of his public notice complaint alleging that the California
State University violated section 3595(a) and (b) of the Higher
Education Employer-Employee Relations Act (Government Code
section 3560 et seq.).

We have reviewed the Board agent's dismissal in light of
the Complainant's appeal and the entire record in this matter
and adopt that dismissal as the Decision of the Board itself.

ORDER
The public notice complaint in Case No. LA-PN-51-H is

DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.

Chairperson Hesse and Member Jaeger joined in this Decision.

1

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 	GEORGE 0EUKMEJIAN, Go-mmor
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
Headqucrters Office
1031 	18th Strieet
Sacramento, California 95814
(916) 322-3088
February 	3, 	1984
Howard Watts
1021 	N. 	Mariposa 	Avenue# 	3 	1/2
Los 	Angeles, 	CA 	90029
Thomas 	A. 	Lambre, 	Assistant 	Vice 	Chancellor
Employee 	Relations
California 	State 	University 	System
400 	Golden 	Shore
Long 	Beach, 	CA 	90802
Re: 	Dismissal 	of 	Public 	Notice 	Complaint 	H. 	Watts 	v. 	California
State 	University 	System, 	Complaint 	No. 	LA-PN-51-H
Dear 	Parties:
I 	indicated 	to 	Mr. 	Watts 	in 	my warning 	letter 	dated
November 	25, 	1983, 	(attached) 	that 	the 	above-reference.d
complaint did not 	state 	a 	prima 	facie 	case 	and 	that 	unless 	he
amended 	the 	complaint 	to 	state 	a 	prima 	facie 	case 	or 	withdraw
it 	prior 	to 	December 	15, 	1983, 	it 	would be dismissed. 	After
two 	extensions 	of 	time, 	Mr. 	Watts 	filed 	his 	first 	amended
complaint on January 	5, 	1984, 	including 	additional
allegations~ 	Also, 	my 	investigation has 	uncovered 	more
information. 	After 	carefully reviewing 	the 	amended complaint,
the 	new 	information 	and 	the 	material 	previously 	presented, 	the
above-referenced 	complaint 	as 	amended 	still 	fails 	to 	state a
prima 	facie 	case. 	Therefore, 	the 	amended 	complaint 	is 	being
dismissed 	without 	leave 	to 	amend based 	on 	the 	facts 	and 	reasons,
stated below.
..
I.
The 	amended 	complaint provided no 	additional 	facts, 	but 	rather
provides 	only additional,legal 	arguments. 	The 	amended
complaint 	alleges 	that 	the 	California 	State 	University 	System
(CSUS) 	committed 	numerous 	violations 	of 	Government 	Code
sections 	3595(a) 	and 	(b), 	among 	others. 	More 	specifically, 	the
amended complaint 	argues 	that: 	(1) 	The 	CSUS 	Board of 	Trustees
illegally delegated 	its 	control 	to 	the 	"subterfuge" 	Committee
on 	Collective 	Bargaining: 	(2) 	CSUS 	procedures 	do 	not 	"allow 	for
the 	representative 	to 	avoid 	the 	presentation 	at 	a 	public
meeting of 	the 	'subterfuge' 	Committee on 	Collective 	Bargaining
or 	the 	Board of 	Trustees:" 	(3) 	CSUS 	procedures 	are 	in violation

Howard 	Watts
Thomas A. 	Lambre
February 	3, 	1984
Page 	2
of 	Government Code .section 3595 (a) ; 	( 4) 	Government Code 	section
3562(h) 	"is 	not 	tied 	to 	3595(a-e) 	at 	all;" 	(5) 	Applicability of
Government Code 	section 	11122 	does 	not 	allow Mr. 	Lambre 	to
Atak[e] 	action 	by 	himself" 	in 	deciding 	not 	to 	hold 	the 	UAPD
proposals 	in 	abeyance; 	(6) 	"Whether 	the 	csus 	held 	a 	public
response" 	meeting 	on 	the 	various 	proposals 	in Fresno,
California on March 	2, 	1983; 	(7) 	Government Code 	section
3595(b) 	was 	violated 	because 	"there 	was 	no opportunity 	for 	the
public 	to 	express 	itself 	at 	the 	meeting 	on March 	2, 	1983;"
(8) 	UAPD 	proposals 	should 	not 	have 	been 	presented 	on
March 	2, 	1983, 	"because Mr. 	Watts 	did 	not 	receive 	his 	letter
denying 	the 	proposals 	be 	put 	into abeyance 	until
March 	3, 	1983;• 	and 	(9) 	The 	applicable 	laws 	create 	a
•conflicting 	and 	complex 	situation".
My 	investigation 	revealed 	the 	following: 	the 	initial 	response
meeting 	for 	the 	exclusive 	representatives 	and 	higher 	education
employer 	was 	held 	in Long Beach, 	California on
February 	23, 	1983, 	for 	UAPD 	- 	Unit 	1, 	Physicians; 	California
State Employees' 	Association 	for 	Unit 	2, 	Health Care Support;
Unit 	5, 	Operations 	Support; 	Unit 	7, 	Clerical/Administrative
Support; 	Unit 9, 	Technical Support Services; 	and State Employee
Trades 	Council 	for 	Unit 	6, 	Skilled Crafts. 	In 	the 	original
public 	notice 	complaint 	filed 	by Mr. 	Watts 	in LA-PN-52-H, 	a
complaint 	based on 	the 	same meetings 	as 	in LA-PN-51-H,,the
complaint 	alleged 	that 	50 	copies 	of 	the 	UAPD proposal 	were
available 	to 	the 	public 	at 	the 	public meeting 	held
February 	23, 	1983.
.
Mr. 	Watts 	requested 	at 	the 	February 	23 	meeting 	that 	the OAPD
proposal 	be 	held 	in abeyance. 	In 	a 	letter 	received 	by Mr.
Watts 	on March 	3, 	1983, 	his 	abeyance 	request 	was 	denied 	by Mr.
Lambre, 	Assistant Vice Chancellor 	for 	Employee Relations 	at
csus.
On March 	2, 	1983, 	in Fresno, 	California, 	a 	public meeting 	was
held 	for 	the 	purpose of 	presenting 	the 	bargaining proposals
from 	the 	Statewide 	University Police Association 	for 	Unit 8,
Public 	Safety 	and 	for 	the 	public 	to 	respond 	to 	the 	proposals 	by
State Employee Trades 	Council, 	the 	California State Employees'
Association, 	and UAPD~
For 	the 	following 	reasons, 	none 	of 	the 	allegations 	in 	the
amended 	complaint 	state 	a 	prima 	facie 	case.

Howard Watts
Thomas 	A. 	Lambre
February 	3, 	1984
Page 	3
Allegations 	1. 	& 	4. 	Government 	Code 	sections 	3562(h) 	and
3595(a-e) 	are 	all 	part 	of 	the 	Higher Education
Employer-Employee 	Relations Act 	(HEERA), 	a 	comprehensive
statuary 	plan 	to 	"provide 	orderly 	and 	clearly 	defined
procedures 	for 	meeting 	and 	conferring 	and 	the 	resolution 	of
impasses, 	and 	to 	define 	and 	prohibit 	certain practices which
are 	inimical 	to 	the 	public 	interest." 	(Government Code 	section
3561). 	HEERA became operative on July 	1, 	1979.
The 	CSUS 	Board 	of 	Trustees 	or 	its 	designated 	committee may
conduct meetings 	for 	the 	CSUS Board 	of Trustees, 	the 	Higher
Education Employer, 	as 	provided 	in Government 	Code 	section
3562 (h) :
"Employer" 	or 	"higher 	education 	employer"
means 	the ••• trustees 	in 	the 	case 	of 	the
California State University 	and 	Colleges,
including 	any 	person 	acting 	as 	an 	agent 	of
an 	employer.
Section 89035 	of 	the Education Code 	provides:
Wherever 	in 	this 	code 	a 	power 	is 	vested 	in
the 	Trustees, 	the 	Trustees 	by 	majority 	vote
may 	adopt 	a 	rule 	delegating 	such 	power 	to
any 	officer, 	employee 	or 	committee 	as 	the
Trustees may 	designate.
In connection 	with 	the 	adoption of 	HEERA, 	the 	CSUS 	Board 	of
Trustees 	established 	a 	special Committee on Collective
Bargaining.l 	Since 	then, 	the 	Committee 	on Collective
lPursuant 	to 	the 	express 	legislative 	grant 	of 	the
authority 	to 	delegate, 	contained 	in Education Code section
89035, 	the 	Board 	of Trustees 	established 	its 	Committee on
Collective 	Bargaining. 	Subsection S(h) 	of Article VI 	of 	that
Board's 	Rules 	of Procedure 	provides 	as 	follows:
(h). 	Committee on Collective 	Bargaining.
The 	Committee on Collective Bargaining 	shall
have 	delegated 	authority 	to 	act 	for 	the
Board 	of 	Trustees 	in 	order 	to 	comply with
the 	requirements 	of 	the 	Higher 	Education

Howard Watts
Thomas A. 	Lambre
February 	3, 	1984
Page 	4
Bargaining 	has 	been maintained 	as 	a 	regular 	standing 	committee
of 	the 	Board 	of Trustees. 	The 	statutory 	scheme 	outlined above
appears 	plainly 	to 	permit CSUC 	to 	delegate 	to 	its 	Committee 	on
collective 	bargaining 	authority 	to 	act 	in 	the 	realm of
collective 	bargaining 	including 	sunshining 	of 	collective
bargaining 	proposals. 	Accordingly, 	allegations 	1 	and 	4 are
dismissed.
Allegation 	2. 	HEERA does 	not 	require 	the 	exclusi,,e
representative 	to make 	in-person 	presentations 	of 	the
collective 	bargaining 	proposals. 	(See November 	25, 	1983
letter, 	sections 	II.l.) 	Furthermore, 	the 	csus 	Board 	of
Trustees 	in Title 	5, 	Article 	16.1 	- 	Public 	Notice 	of 	Initial
Proposals 	of 	Exclusive 	Representatives 	and 	California State
University, 	procedure 	section 	43725(b), 	provide 	the 	following:
(b) 	At 	the 	first meeting 	called 	for 	a
particular 	representation 	unit, 	the
exclusive 	representative 	shall present 	its
proposal 	in writing 	and 	shall 	have 	ten 	(10)
copies 	of 	such 	proposal 	for 	members 	of 	the
Board 	of Trustees 	or 	its 	designated
committee present, 	twenty 	(20) 	additional
copies 	for 	distribution 	to 	the 	main 	library
at 	each 	campus 	and 	in 	the Office 	of 	the
Chancellor, 	and 	a 	sufficient 	quantity, 	but
- 	not 	fewer 	than 	twenty 	(20), 	for 	interested
members 	of 	the 	public 	in 	attendance 	at 	the
public meeting. 	At 	the 	time 	of 	such
presentation, 	a 	representative 	of 	the
exclusive 	representative may 	address 	the
Board 	of Trustees 	or 	its 	designated
committee 	for 	the 	purpose 	of 	clarifying 	or
Employer-Employee Relations 	Act 	(HEERA} 	and
implement 	the 	collective 	bargaining 	policy of
the 	Board 	of Trustees. 	The 	delegation 	to 	the
Committee on 	Collective Bargaining 	includes, 	but
is 	not 	limited 	to, 	authority 	to 	negotiate
memoranda of 	understanding 	pursuant 	to 	the
policies 	of 	the 	Board 	of Trustees. 	The
Committee on Collective 	Bargaining 	shall 	submit
periodic 	progress 	reports 	to 	the 	Board 	of
Trustees 	on matters 	pertaining 	to 	collective
bargaining 	and 	actions 	which 	it 	has 	taken.
(Emphasis 	added.)

Heward 	Watts
Thomas A. 	Lambre
February 	3, 	1984
Page 	5
amplifying 	upon 	any 	portion 	of 	its
proposal. 	Thereafter, 	the 	Board 	of 	Trustees
or 	its 	designated 	committee 	shall 	set 	a 	time
for 	a 	second 	public 	hearing.
Thus, 	the 	exclusive 	representative 	may 	choose 	not 	to 	address
the Board 	of Trustees 	or 	its 	designated 	committee 	if 	the
representative 	deems 	the 	written 	proposal 	sufficient. 	The
procedure 	does 	not make 	it mandatory 	that 	the 	exclusive
representative 	appear 	in 	person 	before 	the Board 	of Trustees 	or
its 	designated 	committee 	when 	offering 	the proposal. 	Based on
the 	foregoing, 	allegation 	number 	2 	is 	dismissed.
Allegation 	3. 	The 	csos Board 	of 	Trustees 	in Title 	5, 	Article
16.1 	- 	Public Notice 	of 	Initial Proposals 	of Exclusive
Representatives 	and 	California State 	University, 	procedure
section 	43725(a) 	provides 	the 	following:
(a) 	An 	initial meeting 	to present 	the
proposal 	of 	an 	exclusive 	representative 	for
a 	particular 	u~it 	shall 	be 	scheduled 	within
a 	reasonable 	time 	by 	the Board 	of Trustees
or 	its 	designated 	committee.
This 	procedure, 	Mr. 	Watts 	asserts, 	is 	in 	violation of 	HEERA
section 	3595(a).
Section 	3595(a) 	states:
(a) 	All 	initial proposals 	of 	exclusive
representatives 	and 	of 	higher 	education
employers, 	which 	relate 	to 	matters 	within
the 	scope of 	representation, 	shall be
presented 	at 	a 	public meeting 	of 	the 	higher
education 	employer 	and 	thereafter 	shall be
public 	records.
It 	is 	clear 	that 	procedure 	section 	43725(a) 	and 	Government Code
section 	3595(a) 	are 	compatible. 	Both 	sections 	require
presentation 	of 	initial proposals 	of 	the 	exclusive
representatives 	at 	a 	public meeting 	of 	the 	higher 	education
employer. 	See 	number 	1 	for 	discussion 	on 	higher 	education
employer.
The 	Webster's New 	Collegiate 	Dictionary 	definition 	of 	the 	verb
npresentn 	is 	nto 	bring 	before 	the 	public ••• to 	offer 	to

Howard 	Watts
Thomas 	A. 	Lambre
February 	3, 	1984
Page 	6
view." 	Nothing 	in 	the 	definition 	or 	the 	relevant 	sections 	or
statutes 	requires 	that 	the 	offering 	be made 	in 	person 	in 	order
to 	constitute 	a 	"presentation". 	The 	public 	notice 	provisions
of 	HEERA 	were 	enacted 	to 	ensure 	that 	the 	public 	has 	an
opportunity 	to 	be 	informed 	about 	the 	substance 	of 	initial
collective 	bargaining 	proposals 	submitted 	by HEERA employer 	and
employee 	organizations. 	The 	documents 	submitted 	by UAPD 	were
the 	best 	evidence 	of 	the 	proposal 	UAPD 	wished 	to make. 	UAPD's
decision 	not 	to 	orally 	reiterate 	the 	contents 	of 	its 	documents
cannot 	reasonably 	be 	considered 	violative 	of 	either 	CSUS's
regulation 	or 	the 	applicable 	Government 	Code 	section.
Allegations 	5. 	& 8. 	PERB 	does 	not 	have 	jurisdiction 	to 	correct
all 	possible 	unfairness 	directed 	towards 	members 	of 	the
public. 	Instead, 	PERB 	is 	authorized 	to 	enforce 	and 	protect
certain 	rights 	granted 	to 	the 	public 	under 	HEERA.
Specifically, 	Government 	Code 	section 	3595 	provides:
(a) 	All 	initial proposals 	of 	exclusive
representatives 	and 	of 	higher 	education
employers, 	which 	relate 	to 	matters 	within
the 	scope 	of 	representation, 	shall be
presented 	at 	a 	public meeting 	of 	the 	higher
education 	employer 	and 	thereafter 	shall 	be
public 	records. 	·
(b) 	Meeting 	and 	conferring 	shall 	not
commence 	on 	an 	initial proposal 	until 	a
reasonable 	time 	has 	elapsed 	after 	the
submission 	of 	the 	proposal 	to 	enable 	the
public 	to 	become 	informed 	and 	the 	public 	bas
the 	opportunity 	to 	express 	itself 	regarding
the 	proposal at 	a 	meeting 	of 	the 	higher
education 	employer.
(c) 	After 	the 	public 	has 	had 	the
opportunity 	to 	express 	itself, 	the 	higher
education 	employer 	shall, 	at 	a 	meeting 	which
is 	open 	to 	the 	public, 	adopt 	a 	proposal,
including 	any 	changes 	to 	its 	initial
proposal 	which 	the 	higher 	education 	employer
deems 	appropriate 	based 	on 	the 	public's
comments.

Howard 	Watts
Thomas 	A. 	Lambre
February 	3, 	1984
Page 	7
(d) 	New_ subjects 	of 	meeting 	and 	conferring
arising 	after 	the 	presentation 	of 	initial
proposals 	shall 	be 	made 	public 	within 	24
hours. 	If 	a 	vote 	is 	taken 	on 	such 	subject
by 	the 	higher 	education 	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 	met 	and
conferred 	upon 	and 	have 	full 	opportunity 	to
express 	their 	views 	on 	the 	issues 	to 	the
higher 	education 	employer, 	and 	to 	know 	of
the 	positions 	o,f 	the 	higher 	education
employer •.
Mr .. 	Watts 	attempts 	to 	rely 	upon 	the 	11 Open 	Meeting 	Act"
(Government 	Code 	sections 	11120-11131) 	to 	demohstrate 	that Mr.
Lambre's 	"action" 	in 	denying 	Watts' 	request 	to 	hold 	the 	UAPD
proposal--in 	abeyance 	was 	a 	violation 	of 	Government 	Code 	section
11122. 	The 	lawfulness 	under 	the 	"Open 	Meeting 	Act", 	of 	CSUS's
delegation 	to Mr. 	Lambre 	is 	not 	a 	question 	for 	PERB 	to 	decide
nor 	is 	j_t 	necessary 	to 	make 	that 	determination; 	PERB 	ls 	not
authdrized 	to 	adjudicate 	violations 	of 	Government 	Code 	section
11122. 	In 	any 	~vent, 	the 	"Open 	Meeting 	Act" 	does 	not 	appear 	to
have 	been 	intended 	to 	address 	the 	question 	of 	whether 	a
committee, 	rather 	than 	its 	agent, 	must 	decide 	to 	hold 	a 	matter
in 	abeyance.
Mr. 	Watts 	appears 	to 	argue 	that 	Mr. 	Lambre's 	denial 	of 	his
request 	to 	hold 	the 	UAPD 	proposal 	in 	abeyance 	also 	violated
HEERA 	section 	3595. 	But 	Mr. 	Watts 	knew, 	or 	should 	have 	known,
of 	the 	scheduled 	March 	2, 	1983, 	public 	response 	meeting. 	By
his 	own 	admission, 	he 	attended 	the 	February 	23 	initial 	proposal
meeting 	and 	the 	notes 	of 	that 	meeting 	indicate 	that 	a 	public
response 	meeting 	was 	scheduled 	for 	March 	2, 	1983.
Additionally, 	the 	public 	in 	general 	(including 	Mr. 	Watts) 	were
informed 	that 	if 	they 	could 	not 	attend 	the 	March 	2 	meeting 	in
Fresno, 	they 	could 	make 	their 	comments 	in 	writing. 	This
afforded 	ample 	opportunity 	for 	public 	response 	to 	the 	proposal.

Howard 	Watts
Thomas 	A. 	Lambre
February 	3, 	1904
Page 	8
Allegations 	6. 	& 	7. 	Mr. 	Watts 	questions 	"whether 	the 	CSUS 	held
a 	public 	response 	to 	the 	initial 	proposals 	presented 	at 	the
February 	23, 	1983," 	meeting. 	However, 	the 	answer 	is 	readily
available 	from 	a 	review 	of 	his 	original 	complaint. 	Exhibit 	4
(Agenda 	for 	March 	2, 	1983, 	meeting 	in Fresno, 	California, 	which
includes 	a 	provision 	for 	public 	comment 	on 	bargaining 	proposals
submitted 	February 	23, 	1983) 	and 	Exhibit 	5 	(Notes 	of 	the
March 	2, 	1983, 	public 	meeting 	held 	in 	Fresno, 	California)
attached 	to 	the 	original 	complaint 	show 	that 	a 	public 	response
meeting 	was 	held 	on 	March 	2, 	1983, 	in 	Fresno. 	His 	allegation
that 	the 	March 	2 	meeting 	may 	not 	have 	been 	held 	is 	wholly
speculative 	and, 	therefore, 	cannot 	sustain 	a 	complaint.
Mr. 	Watts 	asserts 	that 	if 	the 	meeting 	were 	held 	in Fresno, 	"it
wasn't 	a 	reasonable 	time 	or 	place 	to 	hold 	such 	a 	meeting." 	The
meeting 	was 	called 	to 	order 	at 	10:00 	a.m. 	Mr. 	Watts 	fails 	to
assert 	any 	facts 	to 	show 	that 	this 	is 	not 	a 	reasonable 	time.
Additionally, 	CSUS 	has 	campuses 	throughout 	California,
including 	Fresno, 	and 	it 	appears 	equitable 	to 	conduct 	meetings
at 	a 	variety 	of 	locations. 	Nothing 	in HEERA 	requires 	the
public 	response 	meeting 	to 	be 	conducted 	on 	the 	same 	campus
where 	the 	initial 	employer 	response 	meeting 	is 	held.
HEERA 	section 	3595(b) 	states:
(b) 	Meeting 	and 	conferring 	shall 	not
commence 	on 	an 	initial 	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 	higher
education 	employer.
Mr. 	Watts 	contends 	that 	this 	statute 	was 	violated 	because
"there 	was 	no 	opportunity 	for 	the 	public 	to 	express 	itself 	at
the 	meeting 	on 	March 	2, 	1983." 	This 	allegation 	is 	not·
supported 	by 	the 	facts. 	As 	shown 	above, 	Mr. 	Watts 	was 	aware 	of
the 	March?. 	meeting 	in 	Fresno. 	One 	of 	the 	main 	reasons 	for 	the
meeting 	was 	to 	receive 	public 	comment 	on 	the 	initial
proposals. 	Mr. 	Lambre 	stated 	on 	February 	23, 	1983, 	"that 	the
public 	meeting 	to 	hear 	community's 	comments 	on 	the 	exclusive
representative's 	proposals 	will 	be 	held 	on March 	2, 	1983,
California 	State 	University, 	Fresno, 	Joyal 	Administration
Building, 	Room 	203, 	at 	10:00 	a.m." 	He 	added 	that 	the 	Board 	of

Howard Watts
Thomas A. 	Lambre
February 	3, 	1984
Page 	9
Trustees 	has 	stated 	that 	the 	public's 	comments 	are 	urged 	and
could 	also 	be 	made 	in 	writing. 	(Notes 	of 	Public Meeting 	-
February 	23, 	1983). 	Consequently, 	even 	if 	Mr. 	Watts 	could 	not
attend 	the 	March 	2, 	1983, 	public 	response 	meeting, 	he 	had 	the
opportunity 	to 	express 	his 	comments 	on 	the 	initial proposals 	in
writing. 	Hence, 	these 	allegations, 	also, 	lack 	merit.
Allegation 	9. 	In 	interpreting 	the 	public 	notice 	provisions 	of
HEERA, 	effort must 	be 	made 	to 	"harmonize" 	those 	provisions 	with
other 	potentially 	conflicting 	Education Code 	provisions. 	See
San Mateo City 	Schools 	v. 	PERB 	(1983) 	33 	Cal.3d 	850, 	864-865,
adopting PERB 	s 	approach 	in Healdsburg Union High School
District 	(6/19/80) 	PERB 	Decision No. 	132. 	Nothing 	1n 	the
amended 	complaint, 	however, 	suggests 	that 	harmonization
principles 	would 	be 	disserved 	by 	dismissal of 	the 	complaint.
Pursuant 	to Public Employment Relations 	Board 	regulation
section 	32925 	(California Administrative 	Code, 	title 	8,
part 	III), 	you may 	appeal 	the 	refusal 	to 	issue 	a 	complaint
(dismissal) 	to 	the 	Board 	itself.
Right 	to Appeal
You may 	obtain 	a 	review of 	this 	dismissal 	of 	the 	complaint by
filing 	an 	appeal 	to 	the Board 	itself 	within 	twenty 	(20)
calendar 	days 	after 	service 	of 	this 	dismissal 	(section 	32925).
To 	be 	timely 	filed, 	the 	appeal 	must 	be 	actually 	received 	by 	the
Board 	itself 	before 	the 	close 	of 	business 	(5:00 	p.m.} 	on
February 	23, 	1984, 	or 	sent 	by 	telegraph 	or 	certified 	United
States 	mail postmarked 	not 	later 	than 	February 	23, 	1984(section
32135). 	The Board's 	address 	is:
Public Employment Relations Board
1031 	18th Street
Sacramento, 	CA 95814
If 	you 	file 	a 	timely 	appeal 	of 	this 	dismissal 	any 	other 	party
may 	file 	with 	the Board 	itself 	a 	statement 	in opposition 	within
twenty 	(20) 	calendar 	days 	following 	the 	date 	of 	service 	of 	the
appeal.
Service
All 	documents 	authorized 	to 	be 	filed 	herein must 	also 	be
•served" 	upon 	all 	parties 	to 	the 	proceeding, 	and 	a 	•proof 	of
service" 	must 	accompany 	the 	document 	filed 	with 	the 	Board
itself 	(see 	section 	32140 	for 	the 	required 	contents 	and 	a

Howard 	Watts
Thomas 	A. 	Lambre
February 	3, 	1984
Page 	10
sample 	form). 	The 	document 	will 	be 	considered 	properly
"served" 	when 	personally 	delivered 	or 	deposited 	in 	the
first-class 	mail 	postage 	paid 	and 	properly 	addressed.
Extension 	of 	Time
A request 	for 	an 	extension 	of 	time 	in which 	to 	file 	a 	document
with 	the 	Board 	itself must 	be 	in 	writing 	and 	filed 	with 	the
Board 	at 	the 	previously 	noted 	address. 	A request 	for 	an
extension must 	be 	filed 	at 	least 	three 	(3) 	calendar 	days 	before
the 	expiration 	of 	the 	time 	required 	for 	filing 	the 	document.
The 	request must 	indicate 	good 	cause 	for 	and, 	if 	known, 	the
position 	of 	each 	other 	party 	regarding 	the 	extension, 	and 	shall
be 	accompanied 	by 	proof 	of 	service 	of 	the 	request 	upon 	each
party 	(section 	32132).
Final Date
If 	no 	appeal 	is 	filed 	within 	the 	specified 	time 	limits, 	the
dismissal 	will 	become 	final 	when 	the 	time 	limits 	have expired.
Very 	truly 	yours,
DENNIS 	M. 	SULLIVAN
General 	Counsel
By 	~~!Carl Bessent
Staff Attorney
CB:mlb

s r "re Ci- C !.. LIFOHNI,\ 	GEORGE OEUKMEJIAN, Gov~rnor
PUBLIC Ef;iPLOYME:NT Rl:l..ATIONS BO.f.\~D
.San frci1r:isco Regional Office
177 Po~t Street, 9th Floor
San Frondsco, California 94 l 08
(415) 557-1350
November 	25, 	1983
Mr. 	Howard 	O. 	Watts
1021 North 	Mariposa 	Avenue, 	Apt. 	3 	1/2
Los 	Angeles, 	CA 	90029
Re: 	LA-PN-51-H
Dear 	Mr. 	Watts:
The purpose 	of 	this 	letter 	is 	to: 	l) 	analyze 	your 	complaint
(LA-PN-51-H); 	2) 	explain why, 	as 	presently written, 	the
complaint does 	not 	state a 	prima 	facie 	case: 	and 	3) 	to provide
you 	an opportunity 	to 	amen~ your 	charge.
Your 	above referenced 	Public 	Notice 	Complaint 	alleges 	that 	the
California 	State 	University System 	(CSUS), 	higher 	education
employer, 	has 	committed 	four 	violations 	including 	the 	violation
of 	Government 	Code 	section 3595(a).
I.
T'ne 	complaint 	alleges 	the 	following: 	(1) 	CSUS 	violated
Government 	Code 	section 359S(a) 	by 	failing 	to 	require 	an
in-person presentation of 	initial 	proposals by 	the 	Union of
American 	Physicians 	and 	Dentists 	(UAPD), 	Unit 	1, 	at 	the
February 	23, 	1983 	public 	meeting; 	(2) 	there 	was 	no 	public
response 	meeting 	in 	Southern 	California: 	(3) 	proper 	notice was
not 	made 	for 	the 	March 	2, 	1983 	meeting 	because 	the 	meeting was
held by the 	"Committee on Collective 	Bargaining" 	instead 	of 	the
Board of 	Trustees: 	(4) 	meeting 	of 	the 	Committee 	on Collective
Bargaining 	is 	not 	a 	meeting of 	the higher 	education 	employer
because 	it 	is 	composed 	of 	staff 	rather 	than 	the 	full 	Board of
Trustees.
My 	investigation 	revealed 	that 	the 	initial 	response 	meeting 	for
the 	exclusive 	representatives 	and 	employer 	was 	held 	in 	Long
Beach, 	California 	on 	February 	23, 	1983 	for 	UAPD 	- 	Unit 	1,
Physicians: 	California 	State 	Employees' 	Association 	for 	Unit 	2,
Health Care 	Support; 	Unit 	5 	Operations 	Support; 	Unit 	7
Clerical/Administrative 	Support; 	and 	Unit 	9, 	Technical 	Support
Services: 	and 	State 	Employees 	Trades 	Council 	for 	Unit 	6,
Skilled Crafts. 	Your 	Complaint, 	LA-PN-52-H, 	shows 	that .SO
copies 	of 	the 	UAPD 	proposal 	were 	available 	to 	the 	public 	at 	the
public 	meeting held 	F'ebruary 	23, 	1983. 	Neither 	Complaint,

Howard	
o.	
Watts
November
	25,
	1983
Page
	2
L...l\-P~-51-H
	nor
	LA-PN-52-H,
	alleges
	that
	the
	Ul\.PD
	proposal
	was
not
	sufficient
	for 	the
	public 	to
	know
	the
	issues
	oeing
proposed.
	(See
	Palo 	Alto 	Unified
	School
	District
	(12/2/81)
PERB
	Decision
	No.
	184.)
II.
For
	the 	following
	reasons, 	the
	complaint, 	as
	presently
	framed,
does
	not
	state
	a
	prima
	facie
	case.
1.
	Section
	3595(a)
	states
	that:
(a) 	All
	initial
	proposals
	of 	exclusive
representatives
	and
	of higher 	education
employers,
	which
	relate
	to
	matters 	within
the
	scope
	of
	the
	representation,
	shall
	be
presented
	at
	a
	public
	meeting
	of 	the higher
education
	employer 	and
	thereafter 	shall
	be
public 	records.
The
	Webster's
	New
	Collegiate
	Dictionary
	definition
	of 	the 	verb
11
present
11
	is
	"to bring before
	the
	public
•••
to
	offer
	to
view." 	Nothing
	in
	the
	definition
	or 	the
	statute
	requires 	that
the 	offering
	be
	made
	in
	person
	to 	constitute
	a
	"presentation"
and
	logic
	dictates
	otherwise.
	The
	public 	notice 	provisions 	of
HEERA
were
	enacted
	to
	ensure
	that
	the
	public
has 	an
	opportunity
to
be 	informed 	about
	the
	substance 	of
	collective
	bargaining
propoals 	submitted
by
	HEERA
employers 	and 	employee
organizations.
	The
	documents
	submitted by
	UAPD
	were
	the
	best
evidence
	of
	the 	pronasal
	UAPD
wished
	to
	make.
	UAPD's
	failure
to 	orally reiterate
	the 	contents 	of
	its
	documents
	cannot
reasonably be 	considered
	violative of 	the
	statute.
2.
	As
	you
	admit
	in
	your 	complaint,
	CSUS
	did
	schedule
	and have
a
	public response 	meeting 	on
	March
	2,
	1983
	in
	Fresno,
California.
	Nothing
	in
	HEERA
	requires 	the 	public 	response
meeting
	to
	be 	conducted
	on
	the
	same 	campus 	where
	the
	initial
employer
	response 	meeting
	is
	conducted.
	Further,
	CSUS
	has
campuses
	throughout
	California
	and
	it
	appears 	equitable 	to
conduct meetings
	in
	a
	variety of 	locations.
	The
	complainant
cites
	PERB
	Decision
	No. 	158
	as 	support. 	That
	decision,
however,
	involves 	the
	District's 	responsibility 	to 	provide
proper 	public 	notice
	and
	to 	present
	all 	initial
	proposals;
	it
is 	irrelevant 	to 	the 	instant
	charge, 	which 	concerns 	where
	the
public 	response 	meeting
	is 	held.
3.	
&	
4.
	The 	Board
	of 	Trustees 	or
	its
	designated 	committee
	may

Howard 	o. 	Watts
November 	25, 	1983
Page 	3
conduct 	t.he 	meetings 	for 	the highe-r 	education 	employer 	as
provided 	in 	Government 	Code 	section 	3562(h).
"Employer" 	or 	"higher 	education 	employer"
means 	the ••• trustees 	in 	the 	case 	of 	the
California 	State 	University and Colleges,
including 	any person acting 	as 	an 	agent 	of
an 	employer.
Section 89035 	of 	the 	Education Code 	provides:
Wherever 	in 	this 	code a 	power 	is 	vested 	in
the 	Trustees, 	the 	Trustees 	by majority vote
may adopt 	a 	rule 	delegating 	such 	power 	to
any officer, 	employee or 	committee 	as 	the
Trustees 	may designate.
In 	connection with 	the 	adoption of 	HEERA, 	the CSUS 	Board of
Trustees 	established a 	special 	committee 	on 	collective
bargaining. 1 	Since 	that 	time, 	the Committee on Collective
Bargaining has 	been 	maint'ained as 	a 	regular 	standing 	committee
1 	Pursuant 	to 	the 	express 	legislative 	grant 	of 	the 	authority
to delegate, 	contained 	in 	Education Code 	section 89035, 	the
Board 	of 	Trustees 	established 	its 	Committee on Collective
Bargaining. 	Subsection 	S(h) 	of 	Article 	VI 	of 	that 	Board's
Rules 	of 	Procedure provides 	as 	follows:
(h). 	Committee on 	Collective 	Bargaining.
The Committee on 	Col-lective 	Bargaining 	shall
have 	delegated 	authority 	to 	act 	for 	the 	Board of
Trustees 	in 	order 	to 	comply with 	the 	requirements 	of
the 	Hi 	her 	Education 	Employer-Employee 	Relations 	Act
HEERA 	and 	implement 	the 	collective bargaining policy
of 	the 	Board of 	Trustees. 	The 	delegation 	to 	the
Committee 	on Collective 	Bargaining 	includes~ 	but 	is
not 	limited 	to, 	authority 	to 	negotiate 	memoranda of
understanding 	pursuant 	to 	the 	policies 	of 	the 	Board 	of
Trustees. 	The 	Committee on 	Collective 	Bargaining
shall 	submit 	periodic progress 	reports 	to 	the 	Board of
Trustees 	on 	matters 	pertaining 	to 	collective
bargaining 	and 	actions 	which 	it has 	taken. 	{Emphasis
added). 	.

Howard 	o. 	Watts
November 	25, 	1983
Page 	4
of 	the 	Board 	of 	Trustees. 	In 	light 	of 	Education 	Code
section 89035, 	the 	Board of 	Trustees' 	delegation of 	authority
does 	not 	appear 	to 	violate 	the public 	notice 	provision 	of
HEERA.2 	Thus, 	proper 	public 	notice 	was 	provided 	for 	the
March 	2, 	1983 	public 	response 	meeting held 	by 	the 	Board 	of
Trustees' 	designated 	committee.
For 	the 	aforementioned 	reasons, 	your 	complaint, 	as 	presently
written, 	does 	not 	state 	a 	prima 	facie 	case. 	If 	you 	feel 	that
there 	are 	any 	factual 	inaccuracies 	in 	this 	letter 	or 	any
additional 	facts 	which 	would 	correct 	the 	deficiencies 	explained
above, 	please amend 	the 	public notice 	complaint 	accordingly.
The 	amended 	complaint 	should be prepared 	on 	a 	standard PERB
public 	notice 	complaint 	form 	clearly 	labeled 	First 	Amended
Complaint, 	contain 	all 	the 	facts 	and 	allegations 	you 	wish 	to
make, 	and be 	signed 	under 	penalty of 	perjury by 	the
complainant.
If 	I 	do 	not 	receive 	an 	amended complaint 	or 	withdrawal 	from you
within 	20 	days 	of 	service-of 	this 	letter, 	your 	complaint will
be dismissed. 	If 	you have 	any questions 	on how 	to proceed,
please 	call 	me 	at 	(916) 	322-1320.
Sincerely yours,
Carl 	J. 	Bessent
Graduate 	Legal 	Assistant
CJB:mlb
2 	In 	interpreting 	the public 	notice 	provisions 	of 	HEERA,
efforts 	should be 	made 	to 	"harmonize" 	those 	provisions 	with
other 	potentially 	conflicting 	Education 	Code 	provisions. 	See
San 	Mateo City 	Schools 	vs. 	PERB 	(1983) 	33 	Cal. 	3d 	850, 	864-865,
adopting 	PERB's 	approach 	inttealdsburg 	Union High 	School
District 	{6/19/80) 	PERB 	Decision 	No. 	132.