Los Angeles Unified School District (Watts) (PERB 0705E)

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-91
PERB Decision No. 	705
December 16, 	1988
Appearance; 	Howard 0. 	Watts, 	on his own behalf.
Before Hesse, 	Chairperson; 	Craib and Shank, 	Members.
DECISION
HESSE, 	Chairperson: 	Howard O. 	Watts appeals the dismissal
(attached hereto) 	by a 	Public 	Employment 	Relations 	Board 	(Board)
agent 	of 	his 	public 	notice 	complaint 	alleging that the
Los 	Angeles 	Unified 	School 	District 	(District) 	violated 	section
3547(a), 	(b), 	(c), and (e) of the Educational Employment
Relations Act 	(EERA)1 by failing to place 	its 	1987-88 	school
JEERA 	is 	codified 	at Government Code 	section 	3540 	et 	seq.
Unless 	otherwise 	indicated, 	all 	statutory references 	are 	to 	the
Government Code. 	Section 3547 reads, 	in pertinent part, 	as
follows:
(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
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
________________ )

calendar proposal 	on the 	order of business 	for the March 	16
and 	30, 	1987 board of education meetings. 	Such alleged failure,
it 	is 	claimed, 	denied the public 	an opportunity to respond to the
proposal which 	indicated the 	starting and ending days, 	holidays,
and 	recesses 	for 	the 	year-round 	and 	traditional 	school 	calendars.
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.
(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.
FACTS
The 	Board 	agent 	found 	that 	the 	District's 	initial 	proposal
for 	1987-88 was 	on the 	order of business 	in February 	1986.
Public 	response 	time was 	provided by the 	District 	at 	its 	regular
meetings of February 11 	and 24, 	1986. 	Further, 	these facts are
not 	and 	cannot be 	in dispute. 	(See 	Los Angeles 	Unified School
District 	(Watts) 	(1987) 	PERB Order Ad-162.)
Not 	only were 	these 	calendars 	presented 	in a manner 	to 	give
the 	public 	an opportunity to 	speak in 	1986, 	but 	additionally the
1987-88 	calendar was presented in February 	1985. 	The 	Board, 	in
N	2

Los Angeles 	Unified School 	District 	(1985) 	PERB Decision No. 	506,
found:
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.
In this 	decision, 	the 	Board held that the District had
voluntarily 	complied with 	the 	public 	notice 	requirements 	by
allowing 	for 	public 	comment 	during 	at 	least 	six meetings
DISCUSSION
In his 	appeal of the Board agent's dismissal, 	Mr. 	Watts
claims 	that 	the 	1987-88 	calendar was 	again presented to 	the
Board, 	but this 	time without an opportunity for public 	comment.
Mr. 	Watts 	takes 	issue with the 	fact that a 	calendar which was
properly presented 	at 	a public 	meeting 	can be 	reviewed by 	the
District 	in 	subsequent years 	without 	further 	opportunity 	for
public 	notice 	and 	comment.
The 	District does 	admit 	there was 	an amendment 	to 	the
1987-88 	calendar. 	However, 	this 	amendment in no way changed the
calendar which was presented on February 	3, 	1986, 	but was 	simply
an amendment 	to 	add a 	footnote 	to 	accommodate 	PERB's 	cease 	and
desist 	order 	arising 	from 	the 	settlement 	of 	a 	prior 	public 	notice
complaint by Mr. 	Watts. 	Thus, 	the District was 	simply advising
the 	public 	of 	its 	unchanged proposal.
A portion of Mr. 	Watts' 	appeal requests the Board remand
W
	3

the 	case 	to the 	regional 	office 	for 	further investigation 	into
additional 	facts. 	However, 	evidence offered for the 	first time
on appeal must be:
Newly discovered 	. 	. 	. which was not
previously 	available 	and 	could 	not 	have 	been
discovered with 	the 	exercise 	of 	reasonable
diligence. 	(Regents 	of 	the 	University of
California 	(1987) 	PERB Decision No. 	640-H.)
The 	appellant has 	not presented 	any 	showing that 	the 	evidence 	he
refers 	to 	("more 	documents") 	was 	previously unavailable.
ORDER
For the reasons 	stated above, 	the 	Board DENIES 	Howard O.
Watts' 	appeal 	of the notice of dismissal 	and AFFIRMS the
dismissal in Case No. 	LA-PN-91.
Members 	Craib 	and 	Shank 	joined 	in 	this 	Decision.
A	4

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Employer,
and
HOWARD 0. 	WATTS,
Complainant,
)
)
) 	Case No. 	LA-PN-91
October 	23, 	1987
NOTICE OF 	DISMISSAL
, )
)
)
)
)
)
The 	above-captioned 	public 	notice 	complaint 	was 	filed 	with
our office on April 16, 	1987. 	The complaint alleges 	that 	the 	Los
Angeles 	Unified 	School 	District 	(District) 	violated 	sections
3547(a), 	(b), 	(c) 	and 	(e) 	of the Educational Employment Relations
Act 	(EERA or Act) 	by failing 	to place 	its 	1987-88 	school calendar
proposal on the order of 	business 	for 	the March 16 and 	30, 	1987
Board 	of Education meetings. 	By 	its 	failure 	to place 	the 	1987-88
calendar proposal 	on 	the 	order 	of 	business 	as 	an 	initial
proposal, 	the District has 	allegedly denied 	the public 	an
opportunity to 	respond 	to 	the 	proposal 	which 	indicates 	the
starting 	and 	ending 	days, 	holidays and 	recesses for year-round
and 	traditional 	school 	calendars.
At meetings 	which 	the 	Complainant 	and 	I 	attended 	with
representatives of 	the 	District 	in June 	and 	September 	it was
learned 	that 	the 	District's 	initial proposal 	for 	1987-88 was 	on
the order of 	business 	in February 	1986. 	Public 	response 	time was
provided 	by 	the 	District 	at 	its 	regular 	meetings 	of 	February 	11
-
)
______________ )

and February 24, 	1986. 	The Complainant 	does not dispute 	this.
Further, 	the 	Public 	Employment 	Relations 	Board 	(PERB 	or 	Board)
itself 	has 	so 	found. 	(Los Angeles Unified 	School District
(Watts) 	(1987) 	PERB Order No. Ad-162, 	).
Due 	to 	the 	fact 	that 	the 	District properly 	sunshined 	its
1987-88 school calendar proposal 	in February 1986, 	(See p. 	1 of
Los Angeles Unified School District 	(Watts), 	supra) 	and was
simply advising 	the public 	of 	its 	unchanged proposal 	in April
1987, 	no violation can be 	found. 	Thus, 	the Complaint 	is hereby
DISMISSED.
RIGHT TO APPEAL
An appeal 	of 	this 	decision 	to 	the 	Board 	itself may 	be 	made
within twenty 	(20) 	calendar 	days 	following 	the date of 	service 	of
this decision 	(PERB 	regulation 32925). 	To be 	timely filed, 	the
appeal must 	be 	filed 	with 	the 	Board 	itself 	at 	the 	following
address:
Members, 	Public Employment Relations Board
1031 	18th 	Street
Sacramento, 	California 	95814-4174
A document 	is 	considered 	"filed" 	when 	actually 	received
before 	the close of 	business 	(5:00 p.m.) 	on 	the 	last day set 	for
filing, 	". 	. 	. o r when sent by telegraph or certified or Express
United States mail, 	postmarked 	not 	later 	than 	the 	last day 	set
for 	filing 	. . . " 	(regulation 	32135.) 	Code 	of 	Civil 	Procedure
section 	1013 	shall 	apply.
N
2

The 	appeal 	shall 	be 	filed 	in writing 	and be 	signed by 	the
appealing 	party or 	its 	agent.
If 	a timely 	appeal 	is filed, 	any other 	party may 	file with
the Board 	an opposition 	to 	the 	appeal within 	twenty 	(20) 	calendar
days 	following 	the 	date 	of 	service 	of 	the 	appeal 	(regulation
32925).
Service
All documents 	authorized 	to 	be 	filed 	herein must 	also 	be
"served" 	upon all parties 	to 	the 	proceeding. 	A 	"proof 	of
service" 	must 	accompany 	each copy 	of 	a document 	served 	upon 	a
party of 	filed 	with 	the 	Board 	itself 	(see 	regulation 	32140 	for
the 	required contents and a sample 	form). 	The document will 	be
considered 	properly 	"served" 	when 	personally 	delivered 	or
deposited 	in 	the 	first-class 	mail 	postage 	paid 	and 	properly
addressed.
Robert R. 	Bergeson
Regional 	Director
Roger Smith
Labor 	Relations 	Specialist
3
•-= 	"
3