Los Angeles Community College District (Watts) (PERB 0485E)

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF 	THE
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS 	BOARD
HOWARD 	O. 	WATTS,
Complainant,
v.
LOS 	ANGELES 	COMMUNITY 	COLLEGE
DISTRICT,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
_________________ )
Case 	No. 	LA-PN-70
PERB 	Decision 	No. 	485
February 	8, 	1985
Appearance: 	Howard 	o. 	Watts, 	on 	his 	own 	behalf.
Before 	Hesse, 	Chairperson; 	Morgenstern 	and 	Burt, 	Members.
DECISION
MORGENSTERN, 	Member: 	This 	case 	is 	before 	the 	Public
Employment 	Relations 	Board 	(Board) 	on 	appeal 	of 	a 	dismissal
without 	leave 	to 	amend 	of 	a 	public 	notice 	complaint 	filed 	by
Howard 	o. 	watts 	against 	the 	Los 	Angeles 	Community College
District 	(District). 	Having 	fully 	considered 	the 	assertions
contained 	in 	Watts' 	appeal, 1 we 	adopt 	the 	attached
determination 	of 	the 	Board's 	Los 	Angeles 	regional 	director 	as
the 	decision 	of 	the 	Board 	itself. 	Additionally, 	in 	accordance
with 	Los 	Angeles 	Unified 	School 	District 	et 	al. 	(8/16/84) 	PERB
Decision 	No. 	396-H, 	we 	reject 	Watts' 	contention 	that 	he 	was
denied 	assistance 	in 	filing 	this 	complaint.
lin 	light 	of 	the 	Board's 	disposition 	of 	the 	instant 	case,
it 	is 	unnecessary 	to 	entertain 	the 	District's 	petition 	for
relief 	from 	late 	filing 	of 	its 	response 	to 	Watts' 	appeal.

N
ORDER
Upon 	the 	foregoing 	Decision 	and 	the 	entire 	record 	in 	this
case, 	the 	Public 	Employment 	Relations 	Board 	ORDERS 	that 	the
public 	notice 	complaint 	against 	the 	Los 	Angeles 	Community
College 	District 	in 	Case 	No. 	LA-PN-70 	is 	hereby 	DISMISSED
WITHOUT 	LEAVE 	TO AMEND.
Chairperson 	Hesse 	and 	Member 	Burt 	joined 	in 	this 	Decision.
2

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS 	BOARD
LOS ANGELES REGIONAL OFFICE
3-470 WILSHIRE BLVD .• SUITE 1001
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 	~10
(213) 736-3127
March 30, 1984
Howard o ... Watts
1021 N. Mariposa Avenue, Apt. 	3 1/2
Los Angeles, CA. 90029
Re: 	1-btice of Dismissal
J.A,.,...PN-70, Watts v. Los Angeles Ccmm.mity College District
Dear Mr. Watts:
Your ah:'Ve--captioned public notice romplaint was filed with our
otE{ce on Nove1iber 2&, 1983. 	T'ne canplaint alleges that 	(1)
the Los Angeles Ccmnunity College District 	(IACXD} 	failed to
adequately describe the bargaining proposal which was presented
on October 26, 1983 and therefore you were not able to fully
respond. 	It further alleges that 	(2) 	at the Nooember 2, 1983
IAOCD Boa.rd meeting you \>i'ere not provided sufficient tine in
which to address the District's proposal. 	And finally, 	the
o:mplaint alleges that 	(3) IACXD failed to oomply with its own
p::>licies r~arding the :posting of new subjects of bargaining.
Specifically with regard to f3, you allege that meeting and
negotiating cccurred between lAO::O and the Supervisory
Emplo~es Union, SEIU Local 99, and L.A. County Building and
Trades Council prior to the expiration of the twenty-four hour
lX)Sting period as required in Paragraph 2(a} of IAO::D's
September 3, 1980 public notice policy. 	You allege violations
of 3547 (a) (b) 	and 	{e) of the Act~
On January 11, 1984, a notice pursuant to PERB Regulation 32920
was issued to you outlining the def iciences of the first 	h«>
allegations of this oonplaint. 	The notice prOV'ided that any
amendment to the o:xnplaint was required to be filed with this
off ice by ,January 31, 1984. 	You chose not to file an_actual
amendrrent, but on January 26, 1984, you met with me to further
discu.ss the issues raised by the C<lllplaint. 	At that time you
provided me with Minutes of the October 26, 1983 and the
November 2, 1983 IACXl> Board of Trustees Meetings. 	This
additional material fails to oorrect the deficiencies in the
c::mplaint. 	For the reasons stated below and in the January 11,
1984 notice, 	the first t....-o allegations in the canplaint do not
state a prima facie violation of Goverrnnent COde section 3547.
GEORGE 1,Wl(.MEJIAN, Governor

March 30, 1984
Ha....-ard o. Watts
IA-PN-70
Page 2
Allegation il
As I 	indicated to you in my January 11, 1984 letter, 	the PERB
has already determined in Palo Alto Unified School District
(12/2/81) 	PERB No. 184~ that" ••• 	initial prep:>sals presented
to the public must be sufficiently developed to permit the
public to o:>IT4?rehend the.i'11." 	The PERB found that the res:r;:ondent
had "sufficiently developed" for public canprehension a
proposal on a cost of living adjustment by simply stating that
its proposal was to be based on the consumer Price Index. 	The
complainant alleged that the proposal was not specific enough.
The PERB found that because the respondent's proposal referred
to a document available to the public, 	i.e., 	the Consumer Price
Index, 	that the proposal had met the criteria of developnent.
Li'<ewisf~ in .rot~r case, IAO::O presented n proposal on pending
layoffs of classified employees and referred the public to
Education Code section 88017. 	You stated that you received a
copy of the O:::tober 26, 1983 scheduled agenda and a copy of the
District's proposal regarding the effects of layoffs on
approximately Oc,-tober 25, 1983. 	You further stated that you
addressed the subject of the District's prop:,sal in a five
minute period at the October 26, 1983 Board of Trustees meeting
and again at the November 2, 1983 meeting.. 	It appears that you
had adequate time to ooth prepare a response and to present
that resp;:>nse to IACXll's prop:>Sal. 	Indeed, 	it appears that you
had an understanding of 'Nhat Education Code 88017 described and
·had even obtained a COP'f of the revelant section 	(which you
provided as an exhibit to the instant canplaint). 	No evidence
was presented to denor'lstrate that you had difficulty
canprehending IACCD's pro.i;x,sal.
MJ.~ation i2
Your second allegation as to the airount of response time at the
November 2, 1983 Board mreting was also addressed in my
January 11, 1984 letter. 	After discussing the case with you
during this investigation and reviewing the minutes from that
meeting, which you provided, 	it is clear that you were granted

March 30, 1984
Howard o. Watts
IA-PN-70
Page 3
two five minute pericx:1s for resi;x:>nse. 	It a:i;:pears, hoi-iever,
that you chose to spend part of your allotted resp:mse time for
a discussion of unrelated procedural matters. 	In sum, you have
alleged no facts which indicate inadequate time for rreaningful
in~t on the proposal. 	(See Los Apgeles Can:nunity College
District, 6/16/80 PERS Decision No. Ad-91.) 	On the contrary,
the facts 	indicate tha.t you failed to utilize the full tine
period allowed when offering your comnents regarding the layoff
prop:>Sal.
Allegation *3
Finally, as to your third allegation that IAOCD violated its
a,m internal public notice p:>licy,l the PERB's responsibility
is to det-2rminE:; w.1etr;.er or not violatiou. of a statute it
0\7ersees has oxurred. 	(See Los Angeles Unified School
District 	(8/18/83} PERB Decision No. 	335.) 	Government COde
section 3547(d} 	requires that "[n]ew subjects of ~ting and
negotiating arising after the presentation of initial proposals
shall be made p.ililic with 24 hours." 	This investigation
revealed tbe undisputed fact that IACXD properly "sunshined"
the new subjects of rreeting and negotiating prrsuant to 3547(c)
by posting the new subjects within 24 hours, as required. 	No
violation can t.herefore be found here.
lIAo:o has a provision in its 5epternber 3, 1980
oollective bargaining pro:::edure, Article 2, New Subjects of
Y~ting and Negotiating which states:
"[N]o meeting and negotiating will take
place on the subject until the item has been
p:,sted for a minimum of twenty-four hours."
~
!
This local policy is not based on a statutory requirement
of the :IBAA. 	It is noted that the IACCD does have a canplaint
pro:::edure in paragraph 6 of its September 3, 1980 collective
bargaining procedure which might be utilized to renedy your
allegation.

March
30,
1984
Howard
O.
Watts
IA-PN-70
Page 4
For the reasons
stated
above, none
of
the
three allegations
states
a pri.ma
facie violation
of
EERA
section
3547.
Therefore, the
complaint
is
hereby
DISMISSED
wrmoor
LFAVE
TO
AMEND.
An appeal
of
this
decision pursuant
to
PERB
Regulation
32925
may be made
within 20
calendar
days following the
date of
service of
this
decision by
filing
an
original
and 5 copies
of
a staternent
of the
facts
upon which
the
appeal
is
based
with
the
Board
	itself at
103118th
Street,
Suite
200, Sacra:rrento,
California
95814. 	Copies
of
any appeal must be ooncurrently
served upon
all
p:rrties
and
the
Los Angeles Regional Office.
Proof
of
service
pursuant
to
Regulation 32140
is
required.
Sincerely,
i"rances
A.
	Kreiling
Regional Director
(k~
Fogk}
Swlth
Regional Representative
RS:gml
cc:
Mary D::Mell

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS- BOARD
tOS ANGELES REGIONAL OFFICE
3470 WILSHIRE BLVD .• SUITE 1001
LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 	90010
(213) 736-3127 ";. 	•
March 1, 1984
Howard 0. 	Watts
1021 	N.MariposaAvenue, Apt 3 1/2
Los Angeles, 	CA 	90029
Re: 	Request for Assistance (Sec. 	32163 PERS Regulations)
LA~PN-70~ 	Los Angeles Community College District
Dear Mr. 	Watts:
GEORGE· DEUll'J-'.EJIAN, Govemor
Upon 	review of your- request for assistanc~, 	I have found no cause to consider
your request beyond the limits of what the PERB decided in your case LA-PN-35.
(PERB Decision No~ 	186) 	I will 	provide the technical 	assistance -needed for the
prooer f:l ing and pror.essing ·of this 	c:iJrnplaint but I will 	not interrn~t the
law for you nor will 	I establish tne prima·facie case for you. 	It is a thin
line 	between technical 	and legal 	assistance and I hope to monitor it very
precisely. 	I will 	continue to provide any technical 	help I. can in order _to
perfect your complaints. 	I will 	not give you legal opinion as 	to how to
draft or amend you complaints.
·
Your request for anything other than technical 	assistance is denied.
Ap appeal 	of this 	decision pursuant to PERB Regulation 32360 may be made
within 10 calendar days following the date of service of this 	decision 	by
filing an original 	and 5 copies of a statement of the facts 	upon which 	the
appeal 	is 	based with the Board itself at 1031 	18th Street, 	Suite 200,
Sacramento, 	California 95815. 	Copies.of any appeal must be concurrently
served upon all 	parties and the Los 	Angeles Regional 	Office. 	Proof of
service pursuant to 	Regulation 32140 is 	required. 	.
Sincerely :l
Frances A. 	kreiling
Regional 	Director
fYx-μR~r Smith
Regional 	Representative
RS:gml