State of California (Governor Pete Wilson) (Association of California State Attorneys and Administrative Law Judges; Professional Engineers in California Government; California Association of Professional Scientists) (PERB 0927S)

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
DECISION 	OF 	THE
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
ASSOCIATION 	OF 	CALIFORNIA 	STATE
ATTORNEYS 	AND ADMINISTRATIVE 	LAW
JUDGES, 	PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS IN
CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT, 	AND
CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION 	OF
PROFESSIONAL 	SCIENTISTS,
Charging 	Party,
v.
STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA, 	GOVERNOR
PETE 	WILSON,
Respondent.
Case No. 	S-CE-553-S
PERB Decision No. 	927-S
April 	13, 	1992
)
)
)
)
Appearance; 	Dennis F. 	Moss, 	Attorney, 	for Association of
California 	State Attorneys 	and Administrative 	Law Judges,
Professional 	Engineers 	in California Government, 	and California
Association of 	Professional 	Scientists.
Before Hesse, 	Chairperson; 	Camilli and Caffrey, 	Members.
DECISION
CAMILLI, 	Member: 	This 	case is before the Public Employment
Relations 	Board 	(Board) 	on appeal by the Association of
California 	State Attorneys 	and Administrative 	Law Judges,
Professional 	Engineers 	in California Government, 	and California
Association of 	Professional 	Scientists 	of 	a 	Board agent's
dismissal, 	attached hereto, 	of their charge that the State of
California, 	Governor Pete Wilson violated sections 	3516.5, 	and
3519(b) 	and 	(c), 	of the Ralph C. 	Dills Act 	(Dills Act)1 by
failing 	to 	provide 	the 	charging parties 	notice 	and 	an opportunity
1 The 	Dills Act 	is 	codified 	at 	Government Code 	section 	3512
et 	seq.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

to 	bargain prior 	to 	proposing 	an 	initiative 	measure 	to 	the
Attorney General 	and announcing 	it 	to the people 	of 	California.
The 	initiative measure would allow the Governor, 	in a 	state 	of
fiscal 	emergency, 	to 	furlough or reduce 	salaries 	of 	state
employees.
The Board has 	reviewed the dismissal 	and, 	finding 	it to be
free of prejudicial error2, 	adopts 	it as 	the decision of the
Board 	itself.
ORDER
The unfair practice 	charge 	in Case No. 	S-CE-553-S 	is 	hereby
DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE 	TO AMEND.3
Chairperson Hesse 	and Member Caffrey 	joined 	in this 	Decision.
22References 	to 	section 	3516.5 	of 	the Dills Act at page 	one,
first paragraph of 	the dismissal 	letter and page one, 	first and
second paragraphs, 	and page four, 	first full paragraph of 	text of
the warning 	letter are 	inadvertently 	cited as 	3515.6.
As 	the 	Board has 	summarily 	affirmed 	the Board 	agent's
dismissal of the unfair practice charge, 	the charging parties'
motion 	for reconsideration of 	the 	Board's 	denial 	of 	its 	request
for 	injunctive relief 	is moot. 	On this basis, 	the Board denies
charging parties' 	motion for reconsideration of 	the request 	for
injunctive 	relief.
N
'
2

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 	PETE WILSON, Governor
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
Headquarters Office
1031 18th Street
Sacramento, CA 95814-4174
(916) 322-3088
January 10, 	1992
Dennis F. 	Moss
Attorney At 	Law
505 	North Brand Boulevard, 	Suite 	780
Glendale, 	CA 	91203
Re: 	Association of California 	State Attorneys 	and Administrative
Law Judges f 	Professional 	Engineers 	in California Government.
and California Association of 	Professional 	Scientists 	v.
State 	of California
Unfair Practice Charge No. 	S-CE-553-S
DISMISSAL 	LETTER
Dear Mr. 	Moss:
On December 23, 	1991, 	you filed a charge in which you alleged
that the Governor, 	has violated sections 	3515.6, 	3519(b) 	and 	(c)
of the Government Code 	(the Dills Act).
I 	indicated to you 	in my attached 	letter dated January 	7, 	1992
that 	the 	above-referenced 	charge did not 	state a prima 	facie
case. 	You were advised that 	if there were any factual
inaccuracies 	or additional 	facts 	that would 	correct 	the
deficiencies 	explained 	in that 	letter, 	you 	should amend the
charge 	accordingly. 	You were 	further advised that unless 	you
amended the charge to 	state a prima 	facie case, 	or withdrew it
prior to January 	15, 	the 	charge would be dismissed.
On January 	9, 	1992, 	you informed me that you would not amend the
charge 	and requested that 	I 	issue a dismissal 	letter to 	allow you
the opportunity to 	file an appeal with the Board. 	I 	am therefore
dismissing the 	charge based on the 	facts 	and reasons 	contained 	in
my January 7, 	1992 	letter.
Right 	to Appeal
Pursuant to Public 	Employment Relations 	Board regulations, 	you
may obtain a 	review of 	this 	dismissal 	of 	the 	charge by 	filing an
appeal 	to 	the Board 	itself within twenty 	(20) 	calendar days 	after
service of this dismissal 	(California Code of Regs., 	tit. 	8,
sec. 	32635(a)). 	To be timely filed, 	the original and five copies
==--_-_-_-_-_-_--~-

of 	such 	appeal 	must 	be actually 	received by the 	Board 	itself
before the close of business 	(5:00 p.m.) 	or sent by telegraph,
certified 	or Express 	United 	States 	mail postmarked 	no 	later than
the 	last date 	set for filing 	(California Code of Regs., 	tit. 	8,
sec. 	32135). 	Code of Civil Procedure section 1013 	shall apply.
The Board's address 	is:
Dismissal 	Letter 	- 	S-CE-553-S
Page 2
Public 	Employment 	Relations 	Board
1031 	18th Street
Sacramento, 	CA 95814
If you file a timely appeal 	of 	the refusal to 	issue a complaint,
any 	other party may 	file with 	the 	Board 	an original 	and 	five
copies 	of 	a 	statement 	in opposition within twenty calendar days
following the date of 	service of 	the 	appeal 	(California Code 	of
Regs., 	tit. 	8, 	sec. 	32635(b)).
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 	each 	copy 	of 	a 	document 	served upon a party 	or 	filed
with the Board itself. 	(See California Code of Regs., 	tit. 	8,
sec. 	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.
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 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 	(California Code of
Regs., 	tit. 	8, 	sec. 	32132).

Dismissal 	Letter 	- 	S-CE-553-S
Page 3
Final 	Date
If 	no appeal 	is 	filed within the 	specified time limits, 	the
dismissal will become 	final when the 	time 	limits have 	expired.
Sincerely,
JOHN W. 	SPITTLER
General 	Counsel
By
Michael E. 	Gash
Regional 	Attorney
Attachment
cc: 	Christopher W. 	Waddell
Chief 	Counsel
Department 	of 	Personnel Administration
Legal 	Division
1515 	"S" 	Street, 	North Building, 	Suite 400
Sacramento, 	CA 	95814-7243
'

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 	PETE WILSON, Governor
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
Headquarters Office
1031 18th Street
Sacramento, CA 95814-4174
(916) 322-3088	
PERB
January 7, 	1992
Dennis F. 	Moss
Attorney At 	Law
505 North Brand Boulevard, 	Suite 	780
Glendale, 	CA 	91203
Re: 	Association of 	California 	State Attorneys 	and Administrative
Law Judges, 	Professional Engineers 	in California Government f
and 	California Association of 	Professional 	Scientists 	v.
State 	of 	California
Unfair Practice Charge No. 	S-CE-553-S
WARNING 	LETTER
Dear Mr. 	Moss:
On December 23, 	1991, 	you filed a charge 	in which you alleged
that the Governor, 	has violated sections 	3515.6, 	3519(b) 	and 	(c)
of the Government Code 	(the Dills Act).
Specifically, 	you allege that 	the Governor has 	violated 	section
3515.6 	of 	the Dills Act by 	failing to provide charging parties
with written notice 	and the 	opportunity to meet 	and 	confer prior
to proposing an initiative measure, 	which reforms 	the budget
process 	and 	the welfare 	system 	and 	empowers 	the Governor to
reduce the 	salaries 	of 	state 	employees 	or 	furlough 	state
employees when there 	is a 	fiscal 	emergency, 	to the Attorney
General 	and 	announcing the 	initiative measure to 	the people 	of
California. 	Charging parties 	also 	contend that the Governor or
his 	designee by 	failing to 	notify and give 	them the 	opportunity
to meet and 	confer over the Governor obtaining, 	through the
initiative process, 	the power, 	when a fiscal emergency is
declared, 	to reduce the salaries 	of 	state 	employees 	or furlough
state employees, 	violated sections 	3519(c) 	and 	(b) 	of the Dills
Act. 	My 	investigation revealed the 	following facts.
The Association of 	California 	State Attorneys 	and Administrative
Law Judges 	(ACSA), 	Professional Engineers 	in California
Government 	(PECG) 	and California Association of 	Professional
Scientists 	(CAPS) 	are recognized employee 	organizations 	that are
the 	exclusive bargaining agents 	for 	approximately 	12,000
employees 	in Bargaining Units 	2, 	9 and 	10.

Warning 	Letter 	- 	S-CE-553-S
Page 2
The 	current Memorandum of 	Understanding 	(MOU or contract) 	between
these 	three 	exclusive 	representatives 	and 	the 	State 	expired at
midnight on June 	30, 	1991. 	Contract extensions were granted by
the State on June 30, 	1991 	and expired on July 30, 	1991. 	No
further contract extensions were agreed to, 	as 	such there are no
MOUs 	in effect between charging parties and the State.
On or about December 	9, 	1991, 	the Governor proposed an initiative
measure 	to 	the Attorney General 	and publicly 	announced 	the
initiative measure. 	The 	initiative measure would 	if 	approved by
the voters, 	in relevant part, 	add sections 	12.2, 	12.5 and 	12.7 to
Article 	IV of 	the 	California 	Constitution to 	read:
12.2. 	(a) 	Whenever the budget bill has not
been passed and 	signed by July 	1, 	the
Governor may declare 	a 	state 	of 	fiscal
emergency. 	When a 	fiscal 	emergency has 	been
declared, 	the prior year budget, 	adjusted as
required by Article XIII, 	section 25, 	Article
XIII B, 	sections 6 and 8, Article XVI,
section 8, 	and state debt service, 	shall
become 	the 	state's 	operational 	budget and
shall 	remain in effect until 	the 	Legislature
passes 	and the Governor signs 	a budget bill.
In order 	to bring anticipated revenues 	and
expenditures 	for the 	fiscal 	year 	into
balance, 	the Governor may 	immediately propose
reductions 	in any category of 	expenditure,
including any state 	entitlement, 	except
expenditures 	required by Article XIII,
Section 25, 	Article XIIIB, 	Sections 6 and 8,
funding 	for 	education as 	provided 	in Article
XVI, 	section 8, 	and state debt service.
(b) 	Any reductions 	proposed under 	subdivision
(a) 	shall become effective 	30 days after the
proposal 	is 	transmitted to the Legislature
unless, 	prior to the end of the 	30-day-
calendar period, 	the Legislature passes 	the
budget bill 	and the bill 	is 	signed by the
Governor.
12.5. 	(a) 	After the budget bill has been
enacted, 	the Governor may declare a state of
fiscal 	emergency and, 	in order to bring
anticipated 	State General 	Fund revenues 	and
expenditures 	for the 	fiscal year 	into

balance, 	may reduce any category of
expenditure, 	including any 	state entitlement,
except 	expenditures 	protected 	by Article
XIII, 	Section 25, Article XIII B, 	sections 6
and 	8, 	funding 	for education as provided 	in
Article XVI, 	section 8, 	and state debt
service 	if 	at the end of 	any quarter:
Warning Letter 	- 	S-CE-553-S
Page 3
(1) 	Cumulative 	fiscal year State General
Fund cash receipts 	fall 	at 	least 	three
percent 	(3%) 	below revenues 	as 	estimated by
the 	Department of 	Finance upon enactment 	of
the budget: 	or
(2) 	Cumulative 	fiscal year State General
Fund 	expenditures 	exceed budgeted 	amounts 	by
three percent (3%); or
(3) 	Cumulative 	fiscal year State General
Fund cash receipts 	fall 	at 	least one and one-
half percent 	(1-1/2%) 	below revenues 	as
estimated by the 	Department 	of 	Finance upon
enactment 	of 	the budget 	and 	cumulative 	fiscal
year 	expenditures 	exceed budgeted 	amounts 	by
at least one and one-half percent 	(1-1/2%).
For purposes of this provision, 	a quarter is
any 	three 	month period 	ending 	September 	30,
December 31, 	or March 31.
(b) 	Any reduction proposed under 	subdivision
(a) 	shall become effective 30 days after the
proposal 	is 	transmitted to the Legislature
unless, 	prior to the end of the 	30-day-
calendar period, 	the Legislature enacts 	in
each house 	by rollcall 	vote 	entered 	in the
journal, 	two thirds of the membership
concurring, 	alternate legislation to bring
anticipated 	revenues 	and 	expenditures 	for the
fiscal 	year 	into balance 	and that 	legislation
is 	signed by the Governor.
12.7. 	(a) 	When a state of fiscal emergency
has 	been declared pursuant to 	Sections 	12.2
or 	12.5, 	the Governor may, 	by Executive
Order, 	reduce the 	salaries of 	state employees
or furlough 	state 	employees, 	provided that

the 	total 	reduction 	from 	such actions 	does
not 	exceed 	five percent 	(5%) 	of 	an employee's
salary 	in any pay period.
Warning Letter 	- 	S-CE-553-S
Page 4
(b) 	The Governor may not reduce the 	salary of
or 	furlough a 	state 	employee during the
agreed upon term of 	a 	Memorandum of
Understanding that 	has 	been negotiated
pursuant 	to Chapter 	10.3 	(commencing with
Section 3512), 	Division 4, 	Title 1 of the
Government Code, 	which covers the terms and
conditions 	of 	employment 	for 	such employee,
unless 	the Memorandum of 	Understanding 	itself
allows 	such actions 	to be taken by the
Governor or his 	or her designee.
(c) 	the 	issuance of an Executive Order
pursuant to 	subsection 	(a) 	shall not be
subject 	to 	Chapter 	10.3 	(commencing with
Section 3512), 	Division 4, 	Title 1 of the
Government Code 	or the provisions 	of 	any
other 	state 	law governing 	salary 	setting 	for
state officers 	and employees.
(d) 	As used in this 	section, 	the term
"employee" 	or 	"state employee" 	includes 	those
employees 	defined 	in Government 	Code 	Section
19815(d).
Based on the 	facts 	set forth above, 	I 	do not 	find that you have
established a prima 	facie violation of 	sections 	3515.6, 	3519(c)
and 	(b) 	of the Dills Act.
The 	violation alleged 	in 	this 	unfair practice 	charge 	revolve
around 	sections 	3516.5 	and 	3517 	of the Dills Act. 	Section 3516.5
reads:
Except 	in cases 	of 	emergency as 	provided 	in
this 	section, 	the employer shall give
reasonable written notice 	to 	each recognized
employee 	organization 	affected by 	any 	law,
rule, 	resolution, 	or regulation directly
relating to matters within the 	scope of
representation proposed 	to 	be 	adopted by 	the
employer, 	and 	shall 	give 	such recognized
employee 	organizations 	the 	opportunity 	to
meet 	and 	confer with 	the 	administrative

officials 	or 	their delegated 	representatives
as 	may be properly designated by 	law.
Warning 	Letter 	- 	S-CE-553-S
Page 5
In cases 	of 	emergency when the 	employer
determines that a law, 	rule, 	resolution, 	or
regulation 	must 	be 	adopted 	immediately
without prior notice 	or meeting with 	a
recognized employee organization, 	the
administrative 	officials 	or their delegated
representatives 	as 	may be properly designated
by 	law shall provide 	such notice and
opportunity 	to 	meet 	and 	confer 	in good 	faith
at 	the 	earliest practical 	time 	following the
adoption of such law, 	rule, 	resolution, 	or
regulation.
Section 3517 reads:
The Governor, 	or his 	representative as may be
properly designated by 	law, 	shall meet and
confer in good faith regarding wages, 	hours,
and 	other 	terms 	and 	conditions 	of 	employment
with 	representatives 	of 	recognized 	employee
organizations, 	and 	shall 	consider fully 	such
presentations 	as 	are made by the 	employee
organization on behalf 	of 	its 	members prior
to 	arriving at a determination of policy or
course of action.
"Meet and confer 	in good 	faith" 	means 	that
the Governor or 	such representatives 	as 	the
Governor may designate, 	and representatives
of recognized employee organizations, 	shall
have 	the mutual 	obligation personally 	to 	meet
and 	confer promptly 	upon 	request 	by 	either
party and 	continue 	for a 	reasonable period of
time 	in order to 	exchange 	freely 	information,
opinions, 	and proposals, 	and to endeavor to
reach 	agreement 	on matters within the 	scope
of 	representation prior to 	the 	adoption by
the 	state of 	its 	final budget 	for the 	ensuing
year. 	The process 	should 	include adequate
time 	for the resolution of 	impasses.
Charging parties 	contend that People 	ex rel. 	Seal 	Beach Police
Officers Association v. 	City of Seal Beach 	(1984) 	36 Cal.3d 591,
requires 	the 	Governor to 	give written notification and 	the

opportunity 	to meet 	and 	confer prior 	to proposing 	an 	initiative
measure which reforms 	the budget process 	and 	empowers 	the
Governor, 	when a 	fiscal emergency is declared, 	to reduce the
salaries 	of 	state 	employees 	or 	furlough 	state employees. 	In City
of Seal Beach, 	supra. 	sections 	3504.5 and 3505
Warning 	Letter 	- 	S-CE-553-S
Page 6
1 of the Meyers-
Milias-Brown Act 	(Government Code 	sections 	3500-3510) 	were
interpreted by the California 	Supreme Court. 	The 	Supreme Court
held 	that 	a 	city 	council was 	required 	to 	comply with 	the 	meet 	and
confer requirements 	of Government Code 	section 	3 505 before 	it
proposes 	an amendment 	to 	the 	city 	charter 	concerning 	the 	terms
and 	conditions 	of public 	employment.
In City of Seal Beach, 	supra. 	it was undisputed that the charter
amendments 	concerned 	the 	terms 	and 	conditions 	of public
employment.2 However, 	in this case, 	charging parties have failed
to 	demonstrate 	that 	the power 	conveyed to 	the Governor by 	the
proposed 	initiative 	is 	a 	subject within the 	scope of
representation.
The threshold 	issue to be addressed, 	is whether the Governor by
obtaining the power, 	through the initiative process, 	to reduce
the 	salaries 	of 	state 	employees 	or 	furlough 	state 	employees when
a 	fiscal 	emergency 	is declared, 	is 	a 	subject within the 	scope of
representation. 	Section 	3516 	of the Dills Act provides 	that:
The 	scope of 	representation 	shall 	be 	limited
to wages, 	hours, 	and other terms and
conditions of employment, 	except, 	however,
that the 	scope 	of 	representation 	shall 	not
include 	consideration of the merits,
necessity, 	or organization of any 	service or
activity provided by 	law or 	executive 	order.
1Sections 	3516.5 	and 	3517 	of the Dills Act are nearly
identical 	to 	sections 	3504.5 	and 	3505 	of the MMBA.
In City of 	Seal Beach, 	one amendment required the 	immediate
firing, 	subject to an administrative hearing procedure, 	of any
city 	employee who participated 	in a 	strike; 	it also prohibited
the 	city 	council 	from 	granting 	amnesty 	or 	otherwise 	rehiring 	any
striking public 	employee. 	The 	Supreme Court 	stated that 	"since
the substantive validity of the amendments is not before us, 	. 	.
. 	it 	is undisputed that they 	[the charter amendments] 	deal with
terms 	and conditions 	of public 	employment. 	(See, 	City of Seal
Beach. 	(1984) 	36 Cal.3d 591, 	595 footnote No. 	2 ) ,

Warning 	Letter 	- 	S-CE-553-S
Page 	7
In State of California. 	(Department of Transportation) 	(1983)
PERB Decision No. 	361-S, 	the Board set forth the test 	for
determining whether given 	subjects 	are within the 	scope 	of
representation. 	The Board 	stated 	in State of California.
(Department of Transportation, 	supra, 	that
PERB will 	find 	such matters within 	scope 	if
they 	involve the 	employment 	relationship 	and
are 	of 	such concern to both management and
employees 	that 	conflict 	is 	likely to occur,
and 	if 	the mediatory 	influence 	of 	collective
negotiations 	is 	an appropriate means 	of
resolving the 	conflict.
Such 	subject will 	be 	found mandatorily
negotiable under 	SEERA unless 	imposing 	such
an 	obligation would unduly 	abridge 	the 	State
employer's 	freedom to 	exercise 	those
managerial 	prerogatives 	(including matters 	of
fundamental policy) 	essential to the
achievement of the State's mission. 	If
requiring negotiations 	on a 	subject would
significantly abridge 	the 	State 	employer's
managerial prerogative as 	set 	forth above,
the 	subject will 	be held outside the 	scope of
mandatory 	negotiations.
Although 	the 	proposed 	initiative 	involves 	the 	employment
relationship 	between the 	State 	employer and 	state 	employees 	the
mediatory 	influence 	of 	negotiations 	is 	not 	suited to 	the
resolution of 	conflict 	over whether the Governor 	should have 	the
power, 	when a 	fiscal emergency is declared, 	to reduce the
salaries 	of 	state employees, 	or furlough state employees. 	In
addition 	imposing 	such 	an 	obligation would 	unduly 	abridge 	the
State 	employer's 	freedom to 	exercise 	those managerial
prerogatives 	essential 	to 	the 	achievement 	of 	the 	State's 	mission.
This 	proposed 	initiative 	conveys 	power to 	the Governor during 	a
fiscal 	emergency. 	The provisions 	of 	the proposed 	initiative do
not 	impair or destroy the bargaining process. 	The proposed
initiative empowers 	the Governor, 	when a 	fiscal 	emergency 	is
declared, 	to reduce the 	salaries 	of 	state employees 	or furlough
state 	employees. 	The terms 	and conditions 	of an existing MOU
would not be 	abrogated, 	unless 	its 	terms 	specifically permitted

the Governor to act.' Accordingly, 	the 	subject of 	the Governor
obtaining the power, 	through the initiative process, 	to reduce
the 	salaries 	of 	state 	employees 	or to 	furlough 	state 	employees
when a 	fiscal 	emergency is 	declared 	is 	not a 	subject within the
scope of representation. 	Therefore, 	charging parties have 	failed
to 	establish a prima 	facie violation of the Dills Act.
Warning 	Letter 	- 	S-CE-553-S
Page 8
For these reasons, 	the charge as presently written does 	not 	state
a prima 	facie 	case. 	If there are any 	factual 	inaccuracies 	in
this 	letter or any 	additional 	facts 	that would 	correct 	the
deficiencies 	explained above, 	please 	amend the 	charge
accordingly. 	The 	amended 	charge 	should be prepared 	on a 	standard
PERB 	unfair practice 	charge 	form 	clearly 	labeled 	First Amended
Charge. 	contain all the facts 	and allegations you wish to make,
and 	must 	be 	signed under penalty 	of 	perjury by 	the 	charging
party. 	The 	amended 	charge must be 	served 	on the 	respondent and
the original proof of 	service must be 	filed with PERB. 	If 	I 	do
not 	receive 	an amended charge 	or withdrawal 	from you before
January 	15, 	1992, 	I 	shall dismiss your charge. 	If you have any
questions, 	please call me at 	(916) 	322-3198.
Sincerely,
Michael E. 	Gash
Regional 	Attorney
3See 	section 	12.7(b) 	of Government Accountability and
Taxpayer Protection Act of 	1992, 	at p. 	4, 	supra.