Los Angeles Unified School District (PERB 0506E)

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF 	THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS 	BOARD
HOWARD O. 	WATTS,
Complainant.
v.
LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT.
Respondent.
)
)
) 	Case 	No. 	LA-PN-77
PERB 	Decision No. 	506
May 7, 	1985
)
)
)
)
)
)
Appearances: 	Howard O. 	Watts, 	on his own behalf.
Before Jaeger. 	Morgenstern and Burt. 	Members.
DECISION
BURT. 	Member: 	Howard O. 	Watts 	appeals 	the Notice of
Finding Voluntary 	Compliance 	and 	the 	dismissal 	of 	his 	public
notice 	complaint 	alleging 	that 	the 	Los 	Angeles 	Unified 	School
District 	(District) violated section 3547(a), 	(b) 	and 	(c) 	of
the Educational 	Employment 	Relations Act 	(EERA)l by failing
to 	present 	the District's 	school 	calendar 	proposal, 	by denying
the 	public 	an 	opportunity 	to 	speak 	to 	the 	proposal 	on March 	5.
12 	or 	19, 	1984 	and 	by taking action on the proposal 	prior 	to
public 	comment.
1The 	EERA 	is 	codified 	at Government 	Code 	section 	3540, 	et
seq. 	Unless 	otherwise 	indicated, 	all 	statutory references 	are
to 	the Government Code.
__ )

FACTS
The 	regional 	representative 	found 	that Watts 	had 	stated 	a
prima 	facie 	case 	and, 	after 	discussing 	the 	charge with District
personnel, 	advised Watts 	that 	the District was willing 	to
settle. 	On June 22, 	1984, 	the District 	served Watts with a
copy 	of 	the 	District's 	letter 	sent 	to 	the 	Public 	Employment
Relations 	Board 	(PERB or 	Board) 	outlining 	the 	proposed
settlement. 	The 	letter, 	while denying that 	the District 	had
done 	anything 	improper, 	stated 	that 	the District would 	properly
comply with 	the 	public 	notice 	provisions 	of 	the 	EERA 	the 	next
time 	a 	calendar 	proposal was 	submitted, 	and would 	post 	a 	notice
to 	that effect.
Despite 	objections 	to 	the 	settlement 	from Watts, 	on June 	27
and 	29. 	1984 	the 	regional 	representative 	advised Watts 	through
copies 	of 	his 	letters 	to 	the District 	that 	he 	had 	found 	a 	prima
facie 	case, 	but 	that 	the District 	had 	agreed 	to 	comply
voluntarily with 	the 	public 	notice 	requirements 	and 	that 	Watts'
complaint would 	be 	held 	in abeyance until 	the District 	could
show it had 	so complied. 	On September 	27. 	1984, 	the regional
representative 	sent Watts 	a Notice 	of 	Finding Voluntary
Compliance advising him that, 	by expressing 	its 	intent 	to
properly notice 	the 	school 	calendar 	issue 	the 	next 	time
proposals were 	exchanged 	and 	by posting 	a 	notice 	of 	said
intention, 	the District 	had 	commenced voluntary compliance. 	He
22

indicated 	that 	he would 	retain 	jurisdiction until 	full
compliance was 	achieved.
On October 	1, 	1984, 	Watts 	appealed 	the Notice because he
did 	not 	feel 	voluntary 	compliance was 	an appropriate means 	by
which to 	resolve 	the 	case; 	he wanted 	a 	PERB decision that would
resolve 	this 	case 	and 	provide 	precedent 	for 	future 	cases. 	He
also 	alleged 	his 	due 	process 	rights 	were 	violated 	because 	there
was 	no 	informal 	conference 	or 	a 	hearing. 	He also 	indicated
that, 	while 	allowing 	for multiple presentations 	on 	initial
proposals was not a PERB 	issue, 	it was 	the District's past
practice 	to 	permit 	such multiple 	opportunities 	to 	comment..
On February 7. 	1985, 	the District 	sent 	PERB a memorandum
showing 	the 	presentation of 	the 	1985-86, 	1986-87 	and 	1987-88
calendars as 	initial 	proposals 	on November 	19. 	1984. 	and also
the 	agenda 	for 	the January 	28. 	1985 	board meeting where 	the
proposal was adopted. 	On February 13. 	1985. 	the acting
regional 	director 	dismissed 	the 	case without 	leave 	to 	amend,
based 	on 	the District's 	February 7 	letter 	and Watts'
acknowledgment 	of 	compliance 	at 	a February 8. 	1985 meeting.
On March 5, 	1985, 	Watts 	appealed 	the dismissal. 	Although
he 	indicates 	that 	the District 	had 	voluntarily 	complied 	with
the 	public 	notice 	requirements 	by 	allowing 	for 	public 	comment
during 	at 	least 	six meetings, 	which Watts 	recognized 	as 	being
"way beyond 	the 	required 	amount," 	he nevertheless maintains 	his
w	
3

objection 	to voluntary 	compliance 	as 	a 	means 	of 	resolving 	this
case.
DISCUSSION
As Watts' 	own exhibits 	show. 	PERB Regulation 32920(b)(4)
directs 	the 	Board 	agent 	processing 	an EERA 	complaint 	to:
[e]xplore 	the 	possibility 	of 	and 	facilitate
the 	voluntary 	compliance 	and 	settlement 	of
the 	case 	through 	informal 	conferences 	or
other means.
Regulation 32920(g) 	states:
If 	the Board agent 	receives 	proof 	that 	the
respondent 	has 	voluntarily 	complied with 	the
provisions 	of 	Government 	Code 	sections 	3547
. 	. 	. 	, 	a Board agent may either approve the
complainant's withdrawal 	of 	the 	complaint 	or_
dismiss 	the 	complaint. 	[Emphasis 	added.]
Regulation 	32920(b)(4) 	shows 	clear approval 	of 	the use 	of
voluntary 	compliance 	to 	dispose 	of 	an EERA complaint. 	We
interpret Regulation 3292O(g) 	literally; 	the use 	of 	the
disjunctive 	"or" 	means 	that 	if 	complainant 	fails 	to withdraw
the 	complaint 	once 	the 	Board 	agent 	has 	found 	the 	respondent 	has
voluntarily complied, 	the 	agent may dismiss 	the 	complaint.
Watts 	has 	not 	cited, 	and we 	have not 	found, 	any regulation
giving 	a 	charging 	party 	the 	right 	to 	demand 	a 	formal 	decision.
Moreover, 	no novel 	legal 	issue was 	presented 	in this 	case 	that
requires 	more 	precedent 	than 	has 	already 	been 	established. 	In
addition. 	Watts 	himself 	has 	agreed 	that 	the District had
voluntarily 	complied with 	the 	public 	notice 	provisions 	to 	an
extent 	greater 	than 	that 	required 	by 	law.
4

ORDER
For 	the 	reason stated 	above, 	the Board DENIES
Howard O. 	Watts' 	appeal 	of 	the Notice of Finding Voluntary
Compliance and AFFIRMS the dismissal 	of Case No. 	LA-PN-77.
Members 	Jaeger 	and Morgenstern 	joined 	in 	this 	Decision.
5s