Los Angeles Unified School District (Watts) (PERB 0964E)

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-121
PERB Decision No. 	964
December 8, 	1992
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Appearances: 	Howard 0. 	Watts, 	on his own behalf; 	Ron Apperson,
Legal Adviser, 	for Los Angeles 	Unified School District.
Before Hesse, 	Chairperson; 	Caffrey and Carlyle, 	Members.
DECISION
CAFFREY, 	Member: 	This 	case is before the Public 	Employment
Relations 	Board 	(PERB or Board) 	on an appeal 	filed by 	the
Los Angeles 	Unified School 	District 	(District) 	of 	a 	Board agent's
Administrative Determination. 	The 	Board 	agent 	found that 	the
District violated 	section 3547(a) 	and 	(b) 	of the Educational
Employment Relations Act 	(EERA)1 by 	its 	failure to 	clarify the
JEERA 	is 	codified at Government Code 	section 	3540 	et 	seq.
Unless 	otherwise 	indicated, 	all 	statutory references 	herein are
to the Government Code. 	Section 3547(a) 	and 	(b) 	state:
(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
informed and the public 	has 	the 	opportunity
to 	express 	itself 	regarding the proposal 	at 	a
meeting 	of 	the public 	school 	employer.

initial proposal made to United Teachers-Los Angeles 	(UTLA) 	at
the June 	3, 	June 	10 and June 	17, 	1991 public meetings of the
District 	Board of 	Education.
After review of 	the 	entire 	record, 	including the 	original
complaint, 	the Administrative Determination, 	the District's
appeal, 	Howard 0. 	Watts's 	(Watts) 	response thereto and tape
recordings 	of 	the 	relevant meetings 	of 	the District 	Board 	of
Education, 	the Board reverses 	the Board agent's 	finding of 	a
violation of EERA section 3547(a) 	and 	(b) , 	and dismisses the
complaint.
FACTUAL 	SUMMARY
The 	District 	first presented 	its 	initial proposal 	to 	UTLA
for 	the 	1991-92 	year at 	a public 	meeting of 	the 	District 	Board of
Education on June 	3, 	1991. 	The proposal was presented in a
format 	consistent with 	the 	interest-based 	bargaining 	approach 	the
parties were 	taking. 	This was 	a departure 	from the traditional
bargaining 	approach 	and 	introduced 	a 	new 	format 	for 	initial
proposals. 	Public 	comment 	and 	input was 	solicited by the
District at 	the meeting of 	June 	3, 	and accepted at 	the meetings
of June 	10 and June 	17, 	1991.
At the June 	17, 	1991 public meeting, 	Watts 	testified,
informing 	the 	District 	Board of 	Education that he 	intended 	to
file 	public 	notice 	complaints with 	PERB 	because 	the 	initial
proposals 	did not describe 	"what really you are 	going to do 	in
your negotiations." 	Watts 	did not 	specifically 	seek
clarification of 	the 	initial proposals 	during his 	testimony.
Instead, 	he 	criticized 	the 	Board of 	Education 	for what he
22

described as 	the deficiencies 	of 	the proposals. 	The 	initial
proposals 	were 	formally 	adopted by 	the 	District 	Board 	of
Education at the June 	17, 	1991 meeting.
Watts 	filed his public 	notice 	complaint on July 	17, 	1991.2
The 	complaint 	consists 	of 	sixteen handwritten pages 	plus
attachments 	in which Watts 	cites 	many 	individual 	sections 	of 	the
initial 	proposal, 	followed by questions 	seeking more 	specific
information. 	The questions 	typically ask how the proposal will
be 	carried out, 	or what 	specific 	actions 	the District 	intends 	to
take as 	a result of the proposal.
An 	informal 	settlement 	conference 	failed 	to 	resolve 	the
case. 	Findings 	of 	a prima 	facie violation of 	EERA sections
3547(a) 	and 	(b) 	were served on the parties on March 5, 	1992.
After considering the responses 	of 	the parties, 	the Board agent
issued an Administrative Determination on July 	6, 	1992, 	finding
that a violation of EERA sections 	3547(a) 	and 	(b) 	did occur, 	and
ordering 	appropriate 	remedies.
BOARD AGENT'S 	ADMINISTRATIVE 	DETERMINATION
After concluding that Watts 	had 	filed his 	complaint 	in a
timely 	fashion, 	the 	Board agent 	addressed the 	issue of whether
the 	District's 	initial proposal 	to 	UTLA adequately 	informed 	the
public 	of 	the 	issues 	to be negotiated. 	The 	Board agent 	noted the
interest-based approach to bargaining adopted by 	the parties, 	and
2Watts 	initially 	contended 	that 	the 	District 	had 	violated
public 	notice provisions 	in 	the 	seven bargaining units 	with which
it meets 	and negotiates. 	The 	complaint was 	verbally 	amended 	on
August 	8, 	1991 	to drop six units 	from the complaint, 	leaving only
the 	certificated unit 	represented 	by 	UTLA.
w3

concluded that parts 	of 	the proposal 	"were 	not 	specific 	enough to
allow the public 	to be 	able 	to 	form a 	response." 	The 	Board 	agent
then determined 	that 	the 	District 	had 	the 	opportunity 	to 	clarify
its proposal at the June 	17, 	1991 	Board of Education meeting at
which Watts testified, 	but failed to do 	so. 	He, 	therefore,
concluded that a violation of EERA 	sections 	3547(a) 	and 	(b) 	had
occurred.
DISTRICT'S 	APPEAL
On 	appeal 	the 	District 	argues 	that 	the 	complaint 	should 	have
been dismissed as 	untimely filed, 	since Watts was 	aware of 	the
conduct 	alleged to be a violation more 	than 	30 	days 	before 	the
complaint was 	filed.3
The 	District 	also 	argues 	that 	the 	Board agent's 	decision not
to 	allow a 	formal 	hearing before 	issuing his Administrative
Determination denied the 	District 	due process.
The 	District 	asserts 	that 	it 	fully 	complied with 	the
requirements 	of EERA sections 	3547(a) 	and 	(b) 	by presenting 	its
initial 	proposal 	at 	the June 	3 	Board of 	Education meeting and by
accepting public 	comment on the proposal 	at meetings 	on
3PERB regulations 	are 	codified at California Code 	of
Regulations, 	title 8, 	section 31001 	et seq. 	PERB
Regulation section 32910 provides, 	in pertinent part:
The 	complaint 	shall 	be 	filed no 	later 	than 	30
days 	subsequent to 	the date when conduct
alleged to be 	a violation was 	known or
reasonably 	could have 	been discovered. 	Any
period 	of 	time 	used by 	the 	complainant 	in
first 	exhausting 	a 	complaint procedure
adopted by 	an EERA or HEERA employer 	shall
not be 	included 	in the 	30-day 	limitation.
4

June 	10 and June 17, 	1991.
Finally, 	the District asserts, without elaboration, 	that
items within the 	initial proposal which were 	cited 	in the 	Board
agent's 	Administrative 	Determination 	are 	"beyond 	the 	scope 	of
negotiations and, 	therefore, 	arguably, 	the District has no
obligation under 	the public 	notice 	requirements 	established 	by
the 	EERA."
DISCUSSION
On the 	subject of 	the 	timeliness 	of 	the 	filing of 	the
complaint, 	the Board concludes 	that Watts 	timely 	filed his
complaint on July 	17, 	1991.4 The District's assertion that
Watts 	is 	a dedicated viewer of 	televised Board of 	Education
meetings 	and, 	therefore, 	was 	aware of the 	initial proposal when
it was 	first offered at the June 	3, 	1991 	Board of 	Education
meeting, 	is 	simply not 	sufficient to conclude that the complaint
is 	not timely. 	The purpose of 	EERA's public 	notice requirement
is 	to 	allow the public 	the opportunity to be 	informed of 	the
issues which are 	to be 	negotiated. 	An 	interpretation of 	PERB
filing requirements which would make 	it 	difficult 	for 	the public
4The 	complaint was 	mailed to 	the 	PERB Los Angeles 	regional
office via certified mail with a postmark of July 	17. 	PERB
Regulation 	section 	32135 provides 	that:
All 	documents 	shall be 	considered 	"filed"
when 	actually 	received 	by 	the 	appropriate
PERB 	office before 	the 	close of 	business 	on
the 	last date 	set 	for 	filing 	or when 	sent by
telegraph 	or 	certified or Express 	United
States 	mail postmarked not 	later than the
last 	day 	set 	for 	filing 	and 	addressed 	to 	the
proper PERB office.
55

to 	fully participate 	in a 	school district's public 	notice
process, 	including the opportunity to express 	their views 	on the
issues 	to the public 	school 	employer, 	would be 	contrary to this
purpose.
Watts attended only the June 	17, 	1991 meeting, 	the final
meeting 	at which 	the 	District presented 	to 	the public 	its 	initial
proposal. 	It was 	at that meeting that Watts 	addressed the Board
of 	Education and 	asserted 	that 	a public 	notice 	violation had
occurred. 	Therefore, 	the Board concludes 	that the complaint
filed by Watts 	on July 	17, 	1991 	is timely.
The District's 	assertion that 	it was 	denied due process
when the 	Board agent did not 	schedule 	a hearing 	in this 	case 	is
without merit. 	PERB regulations describe the process 	for
considering 	an EERA public 	notice 	complaint, 	and define 	the
powers 	and duties 	of Board agents 	in these matters. 	PERB
Regulation section 	32920(b)(II)5 gives 	a Board agent the
5PERB Regulation section 32920 	states, 	in pertinent part:
(b) 	The powers 	and duties of 	such Board
agent 	shall be to:
(11) 	Schedule a hearing pursuant to the
hearing procedures 	described 	in Division 	1,
Chapter 3 	(commencing with section 32165) 	of
these 	regulations 	when material 	factual
disputes 	exist. 	Any hearing 	shall be 	limited
to the 	issues 	set 	forth 	in the 	complaint. 	At
the 	close 	of the hearing 	and 	subsequent 	to
the hearing officer's 	declaration of 	the
proposed 	findings 	of 	facts 	and 	conclusions 	of
law, 	the hearing officer may 	solicit the aid.
of 	the parties 	in 	fashioning a mutually
satisfactory 	remedy 	of 	any violations 	found.
66

discretion to 	schedule a hearing to 	consider a public 	notice
complaint 	"when material 	factual 	disputes 	exist." 	The 	District
believes 	that the 	extent 	to which Watts was 	familiar with 	the
District's 	initial proposal 	prior to his 	appearance 	at 	the 	June
17, 	1991 	Board of Education meeting, 	constitutes a material
factual 	issue 	justifying 	a hearing. 	Through the hearing process
the 	District 	asserts 	that 	it 	could demonstrate 	that Watts 	fully
comprehended the 	issues presented 	in the 	initial proposal, 	did 	so
prior to his June 	17, 	1991 	appearance before the Board of
Education, 	and, 	therefore, 	had not filed his complaint in a
timely 	fashion.
The 	issue 	of 	the timeliness 	of the 	complaint 	is 	addressed
above. 	With respect 	to 	the 	assertion that 	a hearing would 	reveal
that Watts 	fully comprehended the 	initial proposal, 	the District
misinterprets 	the 	fundamental 	question before 	the 	Board 	in this
case. 	The 	Board must decide whether the 	District's 	initial
proposal 	to 	UTLA adequately 	informed 	the 	public 	in accordance
with EERA's public notice requirements. 	It 	is 	not essential- to
evaluate what Watts 	or any 	individual 	knew in addressing 	this
question. 	Therefore, 	the Board concludes that the District has
not 	cited a 	sufficient material 	factual dispute 	to 	support 	its
request 	for a hearing in this 	case.
EERA's public 	notice 	statute, 	Government Code 	section 3547,
contains 	no 	express provision 	stating that 	the 	initial 	proposals
which 	it requires 	be made public 	must be 	"specific" 	in their
nature. 	In Palo Alto Unified School District 	(1981) 	PERB
77

Decision No. 	184, 	the Board noted that 	such proposals must
satisfy the intent expressed in subsection 3547(e), 	i.e., 	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. 	(Emphasis added.)
The 	Board went 	on to 	explain that 	"the 	initial proposals
presented 	to 	the public 	must 	be 	sufficiently developed 	to permit
the public 	to 	comprehend them." 	PERB 	found a proposal 	"which 	is
simply a 	statement of the 	subject matter 	such as 	'wages' 	does 	not
adequately 	inform the public 	of 	the 	issues 	that will 	be
negotiated." 	The Board continued, 	however, 	that a proposal 	for a
cost 	of 	living 	adjustment based on the Consumer Price 	Index 	is
"sufficiently developed 	to 	inform 	the public what 	issue will 	be
on the 	table at 	negotiations," 	notwithstanding 	complainant's
assertion that 	it was not 	specific. 	The 	same result was 	reached
in a 	later, 	similar case. 	(See American Federation of Teachers
College Guild. 	Local 	1521 	(Watts) 	(1989) 	PERB Decision No. 	740.)
In Ocean View Teachers Association 	(Busch) 	(1992) 	PERB
Decision No. 	943, 	the Board considered the question of whether
the use 	of 	the 	interest-based 	or 	collaborative 	bargaining
approach relieved the parties 	of the burden to provide public
notice. 	The Board found that 	"the parties' 	use of a new or
different bargaining 	technique does 	not 	excuse 	the parties 	from
the 	statutory requirements 	set 	forth 	in EERA."
It 	is 	clear, 	however, 	that the interest-based approach to
bargaining 	tends 	to produce 	initial proposals which do 	not
8

include a great deal of 	specific 	details. 	To the 	extent EERA's
public 	notice 	requirement 	is 	interpreted to mandate 	that 	initial
proposals 	include 	detailed 	information 	concerning 	subjects 	to 	be
discussed during 	negotiations, 	the 	interest-based 	approach 	makes
that task more difficult. 	The Board takes 	notice 	of 	the
potential 	inconsistency 	between 	EERA's 	public 	notice 	requirement
and the 	tendency 	for 	initial proposals 	under the 	interest-based
bargaining approach to be 	general 	in nature.
While 	interest-based 	bargaining may 	hold 	many 	advantages,
public 	school 	employers 	and 	exclusive 	representatives 	must 	strive
to 	insure that 	it does 	not have 	the 	effect of 	failing to 	fully
inform the public 	of 	the 	issues 	to be 	negotiated 	in collective
bargaining. 	Therefore, 	initial proposals presented 	in the
interest-based bargaining 	format, 	and the public 	notice processes
in which they are presented, 	must be 	reviewed 	closely on an
individual, 	case-by-case basis 	to determine 	if they meet the
underlying 	EERA public 	notice 	requirement.
A review of 	the 	initial proposal 	in this 	case, 	and the
District's public 	notice process, 	reveals 	that the District has
adequately 	complied with 	EERA's 	public 	notice 	requirement.
The 	District's 	initial proposal 	to 	UTLA was 	presented 	in
five 	separate 	interest-based 	sections: 	Improving Student
Achievement; 	Restructuring the District; 	Enhancing Working
Relationships; 	Increasing Attendance; 	and Balancing the Budget.
For the District to 	fulfill 	its public 	notice obligation, 	these
initial 	proposal 	sections 	must 	be 	sufficiently developed 	to 	allow
9
9

the public 	to 	comprehend which 	issues will 	be 	on the 	table during
negotiations.
With regard to the 	"Improving Student Achievement" 	section,
the District 	indicated 	its 	intent 	to 	explore ways 	to 	"expand
staff 	development 	and 	in-service 	training 	opportunities" 	for
teachers. 	The 	District 	also noted 	its 	interest 	in 	"establishing
a program 	in designated 	schools 	to address 	the 	needs 	of
identified 	low achieving 	students." 	It 	is 	clear 	from these
statements 	that the 	focus 	of 	negotiations 	in this 	area will 	be 	to
improve 	methods 	through which 	teachers 	identify 	and deal with 	the
educational 	needs 	of 	students, 	particularly 	low-achieving
students. 	This 	adequately 	informs 	the public 	of the 	issue which
will be the 	subject of negotiations.
The 	"Restructuring the 	District" 	section 	indicates 	the
District's 	plan to 	continue 	restructuring 	efforts 	designed 	to
increase 	and enhance 	local 	control, 	responsibility and
accountability. 	The 	specific 	issues 	to be discussed 	include
"enhancing the role of teachers, 	parents, 	administrators and
others 	involved 	in 	shared 	decision making 	and 	school-based
management." 	This 	section of the proposal notes plans 	to
increase 	support 	for the 	restructured 	approach 	among 	all 	the
District's 	constituencies, 	and to provide training and 	staff
development 	to 	employees 	concerning 	the 	restructuring 	efforts.
The 	Board agent 	concluded that one 	element 	of 	this 	section was
not 	sufficiently developed 	to 	allow the public 	to 	comprehend 	it.
The 	Board disagrees. 	Although the 	specific 	details 	of 	the
10

District restructuring are not 	included, 	it 	is 	clear that the
effort 	involves 	the 	assignment 	of 	greater 	responsibility 	and
authority 	over 	the 	District's 	educational 	program to 	the 	local
school 	community.
The 	"Enhancing Working Relationships" 	section of 	the 	initial
proposal 	clearly delineates 	a number of 	approaches 	the 	District
suggests 	to 	enhance working relationships with UTLA. 	Among 	these
are 	issues 	such as 	"expanding 	joint 	legislative 	efforts,"
"facilitating 	conflict 	resolution by 	focussing 	on 	early
identification 	and 	resolution," 	and 	"providing 	comprehensive,
coordinated 	assistance 	and 	information 	to 	employees 	regarding
available 	District 	and 	statutory benefits." 	These 	descriptions
are 	sufficiently developed 	to 	allow the public 	to 	reasonably
comprehend 	the 	subject which will 	be 	negotiated 	at 	the bargaining
table.
In the 	area 	of 	"Increasing Attendance," 	the 	initial
proposal 	discusses 	the 	"need 	for 	improved 	student 	and 	employee
attendance" 	and the 	"educational 	and 	economic 	costs 	of
absenteeism." 	Several 	specific 	attendance-related 	topics 	are
cited 	so 	that the 	focus 	of 	negotiations 	in this 	area 	can be
reasonably 	understood.
The 	final 	initial proposal 	area 	is 	"Balancing the Budget."
In this 	section the 	District 	indicates 	it must achieve a balanced
budget 	in the midst of 	"the 	financial 	crisis which has 	resulted
from the 	State's 	revenue 	shortfall." 	As 	a 	result 	"the 	District
11

identifies 	for negotiations 	all 	matters 	relating to 	employee
staffing, 	compensation and related costs."
This 	section of 	the proposal was presented 	in the 	context 	of
the multi-million dollar 	reductions 	the 	District was 	dealing with
as 	it approached the 	1991-92 	fiscal year. 	It was well publicized
that 	the 	District 	faced a 	situation in which reductions 	in
employee 	staffing, 	pay and benefits would have 	to be discussed at
the bargaining table. 	Rather than 	include 	a detailed proposal
for reductions 	in these areas, 	the District utilized the
interest-based bargaining approach, 	and described 	its 	goals 	in
this 	area as 	seeking 	"the 	immediate 	commencement of 	negotiations
on 	an 	accelerated 	and 	concentrated 	basis 	to 	address 	specific
proposals 	and measures 	consistent with the 	upcoming 	Tentative
Budget." 	It 	is 	clear that employee 	staffing, 	pay 	and benefits
could 	only be 	supported 	at 	the 	level 	available 	in the projected
budget 	for the 	1991-92 	fiscal year, 	a 	level which would require
consideration of 	reductions 	from prior 	levels.
Although 	the 	District 	could have been more 	specific 	in
describing the possible 	impact of budget cuts 	on staffing, 	pay
and benefits, 	the Board believes 	that this proposal 	is 	adequate
to 	allow the public 	to understand the 	issues 	to be 	negotiated.
Just as 	a proposal 	to base a 	cost of 	living adjustment on the
Consumer Price 	Index 	fulfills 	EERA's 	public 	notice 	requirement,
so does 	a proposal 	to discuss possible reductions 	in employee
staffing, 	pay and benefits 	based on anticipated cuts 	in the
resources 	available to the District.
12

Furthermore, 	the public 	notice process 	employed by the
District 	represents 	a 	conscientious 	effort to 	fulfill 	the 	intent
of 	EERA's public 	notice requirement. 	The District's 	initial
proposal was presented, 	and opportunity 	for public 	comment was
provided, 	at three Board of Education meetings. 	These meetings
were 	televised 	and 	extensively publicized. 	Copies 	of 	the 	initial
proposal were made available at the public 	meetings, 	and 	in the
District's 	Office of 	Staff 	Relations 	and Office of
Communications. 	Additionally, 	copies of the proposal were 	sent
to 	more 	than 	1,100 	schools 	and offices within the District with 	a
request 	to 	make 	the proposal 	available 	to 	interested 	individuals
and groups. 	Clearly, 	the District's process was designed to
fully 	comply with 	EERA's 	public 	notice 	requirement.
The 	Board 	concludes 	that 	the 	initial 	proposal presented 	to
UTLA by 	the 	District 	is 	sufficiently developed to 	allow the
public 	to understand the 	issues 	to be 	negotiated, 	and thereby
fulfills 	the public 	notice 	requirements 	of EERA.
Finally, 	although the District 	states 	that 	items within the
initial 	proposals 	cited 	in the 	Board 	agent's Administrative
Determination were outside 	the 	scope 	of 	negotiations 	and,
therefore, 	free from any public notice requirement, 	no evidence
or argument 	is presented to 	further this 	assertion. 	Therefore,
this 	exception is 	rejected.
13

ORDER
The 	complaint 	in Case No. 	LA-PN-121 	is hereby DISMISSED
WITHOUT LEAVE 	TO AMEND.
Chairperson Hesse 	joined 	in this 	Decision.
Member Carlyle's 	dissent begins 	on page 	15.
14

CARLYLE, 	dissenting: 	I would affirm the Board agent's
determination that 	the 	Los Angeles 	Unified 	School 	District
(District) 	violated section 3547(a) 	and 	(b) 	of the Educational
Employment Relations Act 	(EERA). 	I 	concur in the majority's
determination 	and 	rationale 	that 	the 	complaint was 	filed 	in a
timely manner. 	However, 	I 	disagree with the majority's 	opinion
that 	the 	District's 	initial 	proposal was 	sufficiently defined 	in
accordance with 	the public 	notice 	requirements 	as 	established by
EERA.
In Palo Alto Unified School 	District 	(1981) 	PERB Decision
No. 	184 	(Palo Alto), 	the Board noted that proposals of both the
exclusive 	representative 	and 	the 	employer must 	satisfy 	the 	intent
expressed in section 3547(e):
[T]hat 	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.
(Emphasis 	added.)
The 	Board went 	on to 	explain that 	"the 	initial proposals
presented 	to 	the 	public 	must 	be 	sufficiently developed 	to permit
the public 	to 	comprehend 	them." 	(.Id. 	at p. 	3.)
In other decisions, 	the Board has 	shown that 	it will 	look
beyond 	the 	actual 	initial 	proposal 	to determine whether 	the
requirements 	of 	EERA 	section 	3547 	have been met. 	In Los Angele
- - s
Community College District 	(1984) 	PERB Decision No. 	411, 	the
Board was 	presented with 	the 	issue 	of whether or 	not 	the
employer's 	initial 	proposal 	regarding 	amendments 	to 	life
insurance plans 	provided 	sufficient 	information. 	The 	Board 	found
15

it unnecessary to decide whether the proposal, 	alone, 	"[met] 	the
requirements of Government Code 	section 3547, 	because the
District 	also 	included 	explanatory 	information with 	its 	initial
proposal." 	(Fn. 	omitted.)
To meet the requirements of 	section 3547, 	an explanation of
an 	initial proposal 	to the public 	need not be 	in writing. 	Oral
clarification of 	initial 	proposals 	at public 	meetings 	held by 	the
employer has 	been 	found 	to 	constitute 	sufficient 	notice 	under
section 	3547(a). 	(Los Angeles Community College District 	(1985)
PERB Decision No. 	489; 	Los Angeles City and County School
Employees Union, 	Local 	99. 	Service Employees 	International Union.
AFL-CIO 	(Watts) 	(1985) 	PERB Decision No. 	490; 	and Los Angeles
Community College District 	(1991) 	PERB Decision No. 	908.)
Sufficiently 	informative proposals 	and 	an 	opportunity 	for
meaningful 	public 	comment 	on 	such proposals 	are 	necessary
prerequisites 	to meeting and negotiating. 	In this 	case, 	the
District presented 	its 	initial 	proposal 	for 	1991-92 	with 	an
attempt 	to 	use 	an 	interest 	based 	approach 	rather 	than 	the
traditional 	approach of 	collective bargaining. 	Presumably, 	the
District 	made 	this 	change 	to 	avoid 	setting 	itself 	up 	for the
traditional 	collective 	bargaining which had 	lead to 	a 	disruptive
relationship 	between the 	employee 	organization 	and 	itself 	in the
past. 	Under the 	interest based bargaining 	formula, 	an employer
has 	the 	opportunity 	of 	introducing proposals 	that 	tend 	to 	be 	less
specific 	than under the traditional model. 	As 	the majority
points 	out, 	this 	may 	lead to 	inherent 	conflicts with the public
notice act. 	However, 	the use of a different bargaining technique
16

does 	not 	excuse 	the parties 	from the 	statutory requirements 	set
forth in EERA. 	(Ocean View Teachers Association 	(Busch) 	(1992)
PERB Decision No. 	943.) 	The District 	is 	still required to
provide 	sufficient 	information or 	clarification 	so 	that 	the
public 	can 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.
In the 	case at hand, 	the District's 	initial proposal 	to
United Teachers 	of 	Los Angeles 	(UTLA) 	focused on five 	subject
areas: 	(1) 	improving student achievement; 	(2) 	restructuring the
District; 	(3) 	enhancing working relationships; 	(4) 	increasing
attendance; 	and 	(5) 	balancing the budget. 	These 	subject areas do
not 	reflect 	names 	of 	articles 	from the 	current 	agreement or
standard reopener proposals, 	i.e., 	class size, 	salaries, 	extra
duties, 	transfers, 	etc. 	One area where the Board agent found the
proposal 	not 	specific 	enough 	involved 	restructuring 	the 	District,
which 	stated:
Restructuring 	the 	District
The 	District 	seeks 	to 	further 	current 	restructuring
efforts--i.e., 	changing the way the District and
schools 	are 	organized 	and 	resources 	are 	allocated—in
order to 	increase and 	enhance 	local 	control,
responsibility 	and 	accountability, 	and 	improve
efficiency of 	operations, 	thereby making the
educational 	program more 	responsive 	to 	student 	needs.
Among 	the 	items 	related 	to 	the 	restructuring 	effort
are:
Enhancing the role of teachers, 	parents, 	administrators
and 	others 	involved 	in 	shared decision making 	and
school-based 	management.
Maximizing 	support 	of 	shared decision making 	in 	school-
based management 	among 	all 	constituencies.
17

Expanding 	the 	training 	and 	staff 	development 	related 	to
restructuring 	efforts.
Ensuring the 	equitable allocation, 	on a per pupil
basis, 	of General Fund resources 	among all 	schools.
Concentrating 	efforts 	on the 	implementation of 	the
Middle 	School 	Program throughout 	the 	District,
including 	required planning, 	necessary 	credentialing
and 	related 	changes 	and 	the 	reconfiguration of 	all
affected 	schools.
This proposal has 	clear language, 	i.e. 	"ensuring the
equitable allocation, 	on a per pupil basis, 	of General Fund
resources 	among all 	schools," 	and 	"concentrating 	efforts 	on 	the
implementation of 	the Middle 	School 	Program throughout 	the
District." 	It also 	includes 	language which, 	based on 	layperson's
review, 	would require 	some 	further explanation. 	An example 	of
this 	is 	"maximizing 	support of 	shared decision making 	and 	school-
based management 	among 	all 	constituencies." 	The 	questions 	that
immediately arise are how; 	why; 	what 	constituencies 	are being
referred to 	(classified employees, 	parents, 	students,
administrators 	or teachers) 	and what 	impact does 	this 	have on the
collective 	bargaining relationship 	on matters 	within the 	scope 	of
the requirements to meet and negotiate. 	In my opinion, 	this
example 	of 	the 	District's 	proposal was 	not 	specific 	enough to
allow the public 	to be 	able to 	form a 	truly meaningful 	comment.
(See 	Palo Alto.)
The 	District 	had 	an opportunity 	to 	clarify 	its 	proposal 	at
the June 	17, 	1991 public meeting. 	In his remarks, 	Howard 0.
Watts 	(Watts) 	made 	several 	statements without 	specifically 	asking
a question. 	Although Watts' 	questions may have been rhetorical,
the 	issues were 	specifically raised as 	to the 	contract. 	As 	to
18

the 	restructuring 	issue, 	the 	District did not offer 	clarification
of 	its proposal 	nor were answers 	provided by the 	District's
staff. 	The proposal was adopted, 	as is, 	on June 	17, 	1991
although 	no 	negotiating 	or meeting 	occurred until 	August 	12.
It 	is 	apparent 	that 	the 	District had the 	opportunity 	to
verbally 	clarify 	its 	proposal 	at 	the 	June 	17 	meeting or hold 	the
matter over 	for the 	next public 	meeting 	rather than adopt 	the
proposal 	at that time. 	(See Los Angeles 	Community College
District. 	supra, 	PERB Decision No. 	489; 	Los Angeles City and
County School Employees Union. 	Local 99. 	SEIU, 	AFL-CIO 	(Watts).
supra 	PERB Decision No. 	410 	and Palo Alto.)
Under EERA, 	the public 	has 	an opportunity to make 	its 	views
known at 	the beginning of 	the 	collective bargaining process.
There 	is 	no obligation on the part of 	the 	District 	to 	receive 	any
additional public 	input during or at 	the 	end of 	the process when
the 	final 	agreement 	is 	to be voted/ratified upon. 	This 	is 	true
even if the final document bears 	little, 	if any, 	resemblance to
the 	initial proposal which was 	subject 	to public 	comment.
Accordingly, 	under such constraints, 	I weigh more heavily to
the 	side 	of 	an 	informed public 	and 	full 	compliance with 	the
public 	notice requirements 	than I 	do 	any derived benefits 	of 	the
interest-based bargaining 	format 	on an 	initial 	proposal.
In my opinion, 	the 	language of 	the District's 	initial
proposal 	to 	UTLA concerning 	restructuring 	the 	District 	is 	not
specific 	enough 	to 	allow general public 	comprehension 	and
meaningful 	comment. 	The 	District had 	an opportunity to 	clarify
its proposal following Watts' 	address at the June 	17, 	1991
19

meeting and made no attempt to do 	so. 	Therefore, 	I would find
that the District violated EERA section 3547(a) 	and 	(b).
20