Los Angeles Unified School District (Watts) (PERB 0832EA)

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF 	THE
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS 	BOARD
HOWARD 0. 	WATTS,
Complainant,
v.
LOS ANGELES 	UNIFIED 	SCHOOL
DISTRICT,
Respondent.
) 	Case No. 	LA-PN-108
Request 	for Reconsideration
PERB Decision No. 	832
PERB Decision No. 	832a
October 25, 	1990
)
)
)
Appearance: 	Howard 0. 	Watts, 	on his own behalf.
Before Hesse, 	Chairperson; 	Shank and Cunningham, 	Members.
DECISION
CUNNINGHAM, 	Member: 	This 	case is before the Public
Employment Relations 	Board 	(PERB or Board) 	on a request 	for
reconsideration filed by Howard 0. 	Watts 	(Watts) 	of 	PERB 	Decision
No. 	832, 	which issued on August 8, 	1990. 	Having duly considered
the 	request 	for reconsideration, 	the Board denies 	the 	request 	for
the 	reasons 	that 	follow.
In PERB Decision No. 	832, 	the Board affirmed the dismissal
by 	a 	Board agent of Watts' 	complaint against the Los Angeles
Unified School 	District 	(District) 	which alleged that the
District 	violated 	the Educational 	Employment 	Relations 	Act 	(EERA)
section 3547 	(a), 	(b), 	(c), 	(d) and (e)1 by failing to properly
1 EERA 	is 	codified at Government Code 	section 	3540 	et 	seq.
Unless 	otherwise 	indicated, 	all 	statutory references 	herein are
to the Government Code. 	EERA section 3547(a), 	(b), 	(c), 	(d) and
(e) state:
(a) 	All 	initial proposals 	of 	exclusive
representatives 	and 	of public 	school
)
)
)
)
)
_______________ )

"sunshine" 	an 	initial proposal 	for an agency 	fee 	election with
the United Teachers 	of 	Los Angeles.
DISCUSSION
PERB Regulation 32410(a) 	states, 	in pertinent part:
Any party to 	a 	decision of 	the 	Board 	itself
may, 	because of extraordinary circumstances,
file 	a 	request 	to reconsider the
decision. 	. 	. 	. 	The grounds for requesting
reconsideration are 	limited 	to 	claims 	that
the decision of 	the 	Board 	itself 	contains
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.
22

prejudicial errors of fact, 	or newly
discovered 	evidence 	or 	law which was 	not
previously 	available 	and 	could 	not have 	been
discovered with 	the 	exercise 	of 	reasonable
diligence.
In his request for reconsideration, 	Watts argues: 	(1) 	he
has 	suffered prejudice due 	to 	comments 	regarding this 	case which
he made before Board members 	at a PERB public meeting; 	(2) 	the
presentation of 	an 	initial proposal 	in the 	form of 	a motion 	is
inconsistent with 	the provisions 	of 	EERA 	regarding public 	notice;
and 	(3) 	the underlying decisions 	by 	the 	Board agent 	and the 	Board
itself 	improperly 	considered 	events 	occurring 	after August 	10,
1989.
Initially, 	Watts 	argues 	that he has 	suffered prejudice based
on events which occurred on April 	12, 	1990, 	at a PERB public
meeting held in Los Angeles. 	At this meeting, 	Watts 	addressed
the Board on 	several 	issues. 	Additionally, 	Watts 	made reference
to 	the 	initial proposal 	brought by the 	District 	in this 	case 	for
an agency 	fee 	election 	for the 	United Teachers 	of 	Los Angeles.
Watts 	also 	expressed his 	opinion regarding the 	Board 	agent's
analysis 	of 	the use of motions 	as 	vehicles 	for the 	introduction
of 	initial proposals. 	At this 	juncture 	in his 	statement, 	Board
Chairperson Hesse 	admonished Watts 	that 	he 	should not 	discuss
cases which were then pending before the Board, 	as was 	this 	case
on the date 	of 	this 	meeting.
Notwithstanding 	the 	fact 	that 	PERB 	regulations 	provide 	that
a 	party 	may bring 	a 	motion 	for 	recusal 	of 	a 	Board member within
w	
3

ten days 	of 	discovering 	a disqualifying 	interest,2 and 	that 	Watts
has 	chosen to 	ignore these requirements 	and, 	instead, 	advance
this 	argument 	for the 	first time 	in this 	reconsideration, 	we
can 	conceive 	of 	no plausible 	argument which would 	support 	the
allegation 	that Watts 	has 	suffered 	any prejudice whatsoever.
Watts 	himself 	chose 	to 	address 	the 	Board and make 	reference 	to
the 	facts 	of 	this 	case. 	Immediately upon realizing that Watts
was 	embarking on this wholly 	inappropriate 	course of 	conduct, 	the
Chairperson directed him 	to 	cease 	discussing the 	facts 	of 	any
pending cases 	so 	as 	to 	avoid the possibility of 	any prejudice.
On this 	instruction, 	Watts 	made no 	further references 	to 	this
case but, 	instead, 	moved on to other topics. 	As Watts has 	failed
to 	demonstrate 	facts 	which would 	arguably 	support 	a 	finding 	of
prejudice and, 	as 	it appears 	frivolous based on the 	facts
asserted, 	this 	allegation does 	not 	constitute 	an appropriate
basis 	for granting 	this 	request 	for 	reconsideration.
Reconsideration is 	not 	appropriate when a party restates 	an
argument which was 	considered 	and 	rejected by 	the 	Board 	in 	its
2PERB Regulation 32155(f) 	provides:
Any party to 	a 	case before the 	Board may
file 	directly with 	the 	Board member a 	motion
for his 	or her recusal 	from the 	case when
exceptions 	are 	filed with 	the 	Board 	or within
ten days 	of discovering a 	disqualifying
interest provided 	that 	such 	facts 	were 	not
available 	at 	the 	time 	exceptions were 	filed.
The 	motion 	shall 	be 	supported by 	sworn
affidavits 	stating 	the 	facts 	constituting
the 	ground 	for disqualification of 	the 	Board
member. 	Copies 	of 	the motion and 	supporting
affidavits 	shall 	be 	served on all parties 	to
the case.
44

underlying decision. 	(Tustin Unified 	School District 	(1987) 	PERB
Decision No. 	626a, 	p. 	3.) 	Here, 	Watts merely reargues that a
motion 	is 	not 	an appropriate 	form 	for the 	introduction of 	an
initial 	proposal, 	and that 	the Board 	should 	consider only 	those
events 	occurring before August 	10, 	1989 	in this 	complaint. 	These
arguments 	were properly 	rejected by 	the 	Board 	in the 	underlying
decision. 	No 	newly discovered evidence 	or 	law is 	cited 	in
conjunction with these allegations. 	Accordingly, 	Watts has
failed 	to 	demonstrate 	extraordinary 	circumstances 	warranting
reconsideration.
ORDER
There 	being 	no proper 	grounds 	for reconsideration 	stated,
the request 	for reconsideration of 	PERB Decision No. 	832 	is
hereby 	DENIED.
Chairperson Hesse 	and Member Shank 	joined 	in this 	Decision.
55