Los Angeles Unified School District (Watts) (PERB 1000E)

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-126
PERB Decision No. 	1000
June 22, 	1993
)
)
)
)
)
)
Appearance: 	Howard 0. 	Watts, 	on his 	own behalf.
Before Blair, 	Chair; 	Hesse and Caffrey, 	Members.
DECISION AND 	ORDER
BLAIR, 	Chair: 	This 	case 	is 	before 	the 	Public 	Employment
Relations 	Board 	(Board) 	on appeal 	by Howard O. 	Watts 	(Watts) 	of 	a
Board 	agent's 	administrative 	determination 	(attached) 	dismissing
Watts' 	public notice 	complaint. 	Watts' 	complaint 	alleged that
the 	Los 	Angeles 	Unified 	School 	District 	(District) 	violated
section 	3547(b) 	and 	(c) 	of 	the 	Educational 	Employment 	Relations
Act 	(EERA)1 by: 	(1) 	failing to adequately inform the public 	of
1 EERA 	is 	codified at 	Government 	Code 	section 	3540 	et 	seq.
Section 	3547 	states, 	in pertinent 	part:
(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.

the District's 	initial proposals; 	(2) 	failing to give the public
a full 	opportunity to express 	their views; 	(3) 	failing to timely
post 	the 	initial proposals; 	and 	(4) 	improperly adopting the
initial proposals.
The 	Board has 	reviewed the 	entire 	record 	in 	this 	case,
including Watts' 	public notice complaint, 	the administrative
determination and Watts' 	appeal. 	Finding the administrative
determination to be 	free 	of prejudicial 	error, 	the Board adopts
it as 	the decision of 	the Board itself.
The public notice complaint 	in Case No. 	LA-PN-126 	is hereby
DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE 	TO AMEND.
Members 	Hesse and Caffrey joined 	in 	this 	Decision.
2
2

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
HOWARD 	WATTS,
Complainant,
v.
LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Respondent.
)
)
) 	Case No. 	LA-PN-126
ADMINISTRATIVE
DETERMINATION
March 10, 	1993
)
)
)
)
)
)
This 	administrative determination dismisses 	the above-
referenced public 	notice 	complaint 	filed by Mr. 	Howard Watts
(Complainant 	or Watts) 	against 	the Los Angeles 	Unified School
District 	(District or Employer).
BACKGROUND
On June 	22, 	1992,1 Complainant 	filed a public notice
complaint 	in the Los Angeles 	Regional 	Office 	of 	the 	Public
Employment 	Relations Board 	(PERB or Board) 	pursuant 	to 	PERB
regulation 	32190.2 The 	complaint 	contended 	that 	the District
1'All ll 	dates 	referenced herein are 	calendar year 	1992 	unless
otherwise 	noted.
2PERB 	regulation 32190 	states 	in part:
32190. 	Filing of EERA. 	. 	. 	Complaint. 	A
complaint 	alleging 	that 	an 	employer 	or an
exclusive 	representative 	has 	failed 	to 	comply
with Government Code section 3547 	. 	. 	. may
be 	filed 	in the 	regional 	office. 	An EERA
complaint may be 	filed by an 	individual 	who
is 	a 	resident 	of 	the 	school 	district 	involved
in the 	complaint 	or who 	is 	the parent 	or
guardian of a 	student 	in the district. 	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. 	. 	.
(
A

had violated Government 	Code 	sections 	3547(b) 	and 	(c)3 in
negotiations 	concerning 	the 	certificated 	bargaining 	unit,
represented by United Teachers-Los Angeles 	(UTLA). 	The 	complaint
contended 	that 	the 	District 	failed 	to 	adequately develop 	its
proposals 	to 	allow 	the 	public 	to understand what 	issues 	were 	to
be 	discussed at 	the 	bargaining 	table, 	and 	that 	the public 	was 	not
given 	a 	full 	opportunity 	to 	express 	their views 	on 	the 	issues.
The 	complaint 	also 	alleged 	that 	the 	District 	failed 	to 	post 	and
improperly 	adopted 	the 	initial 	proposals.
On May 	19, 	the District posted 	copies 	of 	the 	initial
proposals 	for 	eight 	bargaining units4 at 	various 	school 	sites
throughout 	the 	District. 	The District's 	Board 	of 	Education held
public meetings 	where 	initial 	proposals 	for 	1992-93 	were
presented 	for 	information and 	comment, 	on May 21 	and May 26, 	and
3 The 	Educational 	Employment 	Relations Act 	(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(b) 	and 	(c) 	states:
(b) 	Meeting 	and negotiating 	shall 	not 	take
place 	on 	any proposal 	until 	a 	reasonable 	time
has 	elapsed after 	the 	submission 	of 	the
proposals 	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
4 In 	addition 	to 	the 	certificated 	unit 	the 	proposals 	applied
to 	the 	following bargaining units: 	Instructional 	Aides,
Operations-Support Services, 	Teachers Assistants, 	School 	Police,
Office Technical/Business Service, 	Trades/Crafts, 	and
Certificated 	Supervisory.
N
	2

such proposals 	were 	adopted subsequent 	to 	the 	receipt 	of 	public
comment 	on May 26.
In the 	certificated unit, 	the District presented initial
proposals 	in the areas of 	"Assessment and Accountability 	- -
Improvement 	of 	Program Support" 	and 	"Compensation Matters 	--
Balancing 	the 	Budget." 	Regarding 	"Assessment 	and Accountability
-- 	Student Achievement," 	the District proposed review and
consideration 	of:
a. 	Strengthening 	the 	evaluation process 	for students 	and
employees, 	including 	the development 	of 	improved 	standards
for measuring 	student progress, 	early and more 	effective
intervention 	for staff and students where needed, 	peer
assistance/coaching, 	methods 	of 	recognition and/or
incentives, 	professional 	growth activities 	and possibly
broadening 	the 	services 	of Mentor Teachers 	to assist 	tenured
employees 	as well 	as probationary employees. 	Continue 	the
work of 	the 	Joint District-Union 	committees 	on 	this 	subject.
b. 	Redirection of 	the Urban Classroom Teacher 	Program
toward a 	"specialist" 	model.
c. 	Review the delivery of 	library services, 	including
possible adjustment 	of the librarians' 	on-site obligation.
d. 	Increasing 	continuity of 	instruction, 	including
exploration 	of methods 	and 	incentives 	to 	reduce 	absenteeism,
and 	scheduling 	School 	Leadership 	Council 	meetings 	outside
the hours 	of 	instruction.
e. 	Address 	the adverse 	impact 	of 	Chapter Chair release 	time
upon 	the 	State-reported administrative 	ratio.
f. 	Continue 	the process 	of 	reallocation of District
resources 	to permit 	greater 	local 	school 	autonomy 	in
decision making, 	and 	facilitate 	local 	site 	efforts 	to
initiate 	school 	based management.
In the area 	of 	"Compensation Matters 	-- 	Balancing 	the
Budget," 	the District 	first 	stated 	its 	goal 	of balancing 	the
budget 	"within the 	legally required dates, 	in 	compliance with 	its
legal obligations, 	avoiding external 	fiscal 	intervention, 	and
3

maintaining 	the 	required 	levels 	of 	service," 	and 	then presented
an 	estimate 	of 	the 	dimensions 	of 	the District's 	anticipated
income 	deficit 	("a minimum of 	$400 	million 	and a maximum 	...
unknown"). 	With this background, 	the District proposed the
following 	items 	for possible adjustment, 	reduction or
curtailment:
a. 	Restoration of 	salaries 	to 	1990-91 	levels 	on an interim
basis 	(July 1, 	1992 	to September 15, 	1992) 	as previously
committed. 	This 	interim payment, 	if made, 	would simply add
to 	the 	size 	of 	the 	salary reduction 	for 	the balance 	of 	the
1992-93 	fiscal 	year.
b. 	All 	salary schedules and rates, 	including differentials.
c. 	The 	number of paid days 	and assigned 	instructional
hours.
d. 	Health benefits package 	cost, 	including but 	not 	limited
to deductibles, 	co-payments, 	eligibility criteria, 	level of
benefits, etc.
e. 	Salary step/column advancement 	policies 	and
requirements.
f. 	Pay provisions 	relating to off-basis assignments.
g. 	Illness pay for 	"Z' 	(additional assignment) 	time,
h. 	Elementary supervision duties 	and costs.
i. 	Various methods 	and 	incentives 	for compliance with AQMD
regulations 	to avoid 	financial 	penalties.
ISSUES
Did 	the 	District's 	initial 	proposals 	adequately 	inform the
public? 	Was 	the public 	given a 	full 	opportunity 	to 	express 	their
views 	regarding 	initial 	proposals? 	Did 	the District 	fail 	to
timely post 	initial 	proposals? 	Did 	the 	District 	improperly adopt
the 	initial 	proposals?
(
4

DISCUSSION
Specificity 	of 	Proposals
The 	intent 	of 	the public notice 	requirements 	is 	set 	forth 	in
Government 	Code 	section 3547(e).5 PERB's 	regulations
implementing 	the provisions 	of 	section 	3547 were 	adopted 	to 	fully
protect 	the public's rights 	in this 	regard. 	(Los Angeles
Community College District) 	(1978) 	PERB Order No. 	Ad-41.)
In Palo Alto Unified School District 	(1981) 	PERB Decision
No. 	184, 	the Board found 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." 	(Id.) 	The Board held, 	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 negotiation." 	(Id.; 	see also American 	Federation
of Teachers 	College Guild. 	Local 	1521 	(Watts) 	(1989) 	PERB
Decision No. 	740.)
As 	noted by 	the 	Board 	in Los 	Angeles 	Unified School 	District
5EERA section 3547(e) 	states:
(e) 	The board may adopt 	regulations 	for the
purpose of 	implementing this 	section, 	which
are 	consistent with the 	intent 	of 	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.
5
I
5

(1992) 	PERB Decision No. 	964 	(LAUSD). 	"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 nature."
For the District 	to 	fulfill 	its public notice 	obligation,
its 	initial 	proposals must be 	sufficiently developed 	to 	allow 	the
public 	to 	comprehend the 	issues 	which will 	be 	on 	the 	table 	during
negotiations. 	A review of 	the District's 	initial proposal 	to
UTLA indicates 	that 	it 	sought 	to address 	issues 	related 	to
improving 	student 	achievements 	and the 	financial 	crisis 	facing
the District. 	In the section on 	"Assessment and Accountability 	-
- 	Improving 	Student Achievement," 	the District 	indicates 	a
desire 	to strengthen the evaluation process, 	"including the
development 	of 	improved 	standards 	for measuring 	student 	progress;
early and more 	effective 	intervention;" 	methods 	of 	recognition
and 	to 	continue 	the work of 	the 	joint 	District-Union committees.
The 	District 	also proposed 	"[r]edirection 	of 	the 	Urban 	Classroom
Teacher 	Program toward a 	'specialist' 	model." 	These proposals
are 	specific 	enough 	to 	inform the public 	of 	the 	issues 	which will
be 	the 	subject 	of 	negotiations.
The 	second 	section of 	the District's 	initial 	proposal
addresses 	the 	issue of 	"Compensation Matters 	-- 	Balancing the
Budget." 	The proposal 	clearly states 	that 	the District
anticipates 	an 	income deficit 	from the General 	Fund budget 	of 	at
least 	$400 million, 	and further states 	"that 	significant
adjustments 	to 	the 	compensation package 	appear 	to be
66

V
unavoidable." 	The District 	then listed "nine 	items, 	including all
salary schedules, 	rates and differentials, 	where they proposed
consideration of 	"possible adjustments, 	reduction or
curtailment." 	Although 	the District 	could have been more
specific 	in describing 	the possible 	impact 	of budget 	cuts 	on
staffing, 	pay and benefits, 	the Board has held that proposals 	of
similar 	specificity were adequate 	to allow the public 	to
understand the issues 	to be negotiated. 	(See LAUSD). 	The
compensation proposals 	offered 	in this 	case are 	sufficiently
developed 	to 	allow the public 	to understand the 	issues 	to be
negotiated.
Public 	Comment 	Time 	Limitation
Section 	3547 	generally 	requires 	that 	the public 	have an
opportunity 	to 	express 	itself 	regarding 	initial 	bargaining
proposals 	at 	a meeting of 	the public 	school 	employer.
The 	Board has 	previously held 	that 	nothing 	in 	section 	3547
or 	in 	the 	PERB Regulations 	defines 	how a 	school 	board meeting
should be 	regulated. 	The 	regulation of 	those meetings 	is 	left 	to
the discretion of 	the 	local 	school board. 	(Los Angeles 	Community
College District 	(Kimmett) 	(1981) 	PERB Decision No. 	158; 	Los
Angeles Community College District 	(Watts) 	(1980) 	PERB No. 	153;
Los Angeles Community College District 	(Watts) 	(1980) 	PERB
Decision No. 	154.)
Pursuant 	to 	section 	3547 	the District 	has 	adopted a public
7

notice policy6 which provides 	in 	relevant part 	as 	follow:
(B) 	Absent 	an emergency or other compelling
circumstances, 	the district will allow at
least 	two opportunities 	at 	two 	separate
meetings 	for public 	expression 	on 	initial
proposals 	following 	the presentation of 	the
proposals 	at 	a 	regular meeting of 	the 	Board.
Such opportunities 	shall 	be prior to 	the 	time
the Board adopts 	the proposals, 	but may occur
at 	the 	same meeting during which 	the adoption
occurs.
(D) 	In 	conformity with Board Rules 	governing
speakers before the Board, 	each public
speaker addressing 	the 	issue 	of 	such
proposals 	shall 	be permitted 	to 	speak 	for
three minutes 	at 	Board meetings 	during which
such proposals 	are 	reviewed and adopted. 	A
total 	of 	20 	different public 	speakers 	shall
be permitted to address 	the 	issue 	of 	initial
contract proposals at such meetings, 	if 20
persons 	indicate a desire 	to do so. 	Speakers
shall 	not be permitted 	to waive 	their 	time 	to
other speakers. 	The Board, 	in its
discretion, 	may allow more 	than 20 	speakers.
Absent 	an 	emergency 	or 	other 	compelling
circumstances, 	a quorum of 	the Board shall be
present 	in the 	Board Room during 	the 	time
such speakers 	speak, 	although a 	speaker may
waive 	this provision and continue 	speaking
when a quorum is not present.
The 	Board's 	decision 	in Los Angeles 	Community College
District 	(1984) 	PERB Decision No. 	385 provides 	that 	the section
3547 mandate 	is 	amply satisfied if a 	time 	for 	comment 	is provided
prior to 	the 	commencement 	of negotiations. 	In Los Angeles
Unified School District 	(1990) 	PERB Decision No. 	832, 	the Board
found that 	the 	form in which an 	initial 	proposal 	is brought 	to
public 	attention 	is 	relevant 	only insofar as 	it must 	allow time
6The District's 	Public Notice Policy, 	Bulletin No. 	18 	(Rev)
September 26, 	1988.
(
8

for adequate public 	comment. 	(See also 	Los Angeles 	Unified School
District 	(1983) 	PERB Decision No. 	335.) 	Finally, 	in Los Angeles
Unified School District 	(1984) 	PERB Decision No. 	405, 	the Board
upheld the 	Regional 	Director's 	dismissal 	of a 	similar allegation
that 	the District violated EERA section 3547(b) 	by 	limiting 	the
public's 	opportunity 	to 	address 	collective bargaining proposals
to 	three minutes 	at 	a Board meeting.
Watts 	provided 	PERB with a 	copy of 	a 	tape 	recording which
contained segments 	of 	the 	special board meetings, 	specifically,
his public notice 	comments. 	An auditory review of 	this 	tape
clearly 	indicates 	that 	the 	Complainant was 	given an 	opportunity
to 	express 	his views 	at 	the aforementioned Board meetings.
During his 	three minutes Mr. 	Watts addressed several 	issues. 	He
criticized 	the 	Board 	for 	failing 	to 	follow 	their 	own public
notice policy; 	he 	expressed his 	dissatisfaction with 	the Board's
implementation of 	its 	"three minute rule"; 	he 	informed the Board
that 	three minutes was 	an 	inadequate amount 	of public 	comment
time, 	particularly when multiple unit 	proposals were being
addressed; 	and, 	finally, 	Watts 	stated that 	the proposals 	lacked
specificity.
For the District 	to 	fulfill 	its public notice obligation, 	it
must 	allow 	the 	public 	an 	opportunity 	to 	express 	their views
regarding the 	initial proposals. 	Based 	on 	the 	facts 	in 	this 	case
it 	is not apparent 	that 	the 	"three minute 	rule" 	has prevented or
precluded 	the 	public 	from the 	opportunity 	to express 	their views.
In fact, 	the allotted time was used to express views 	that were
99

not 	specific 	to 	the bargaining proposal 	issues. 	These 	facts 	do
not 	support 	a 	finding 	that 	the 	"three minute 	rule" 	precluded
public 	comment 	on 	the proposals.
Posting 	of 	Initial 	Proposals
Mr. 	Watts 	alleges 	that 	the District 	failed 	to properly post
its 	initial proposals. 	He asserts 	that 	the District posted the
proposals 	only 	two days 	before 	the 	first 	public 	comment meeting.
EERA's public notice 	statute, 	Government 	Code section 3547,
contains 	no 	express 	provision stating 	that 	the 	initial 	proposals
must be made public 	or accessible 	for a 	specific period prior 	to
conducting a public 	comment meeting.
In 	the present 	case 	the District 	posted notices 	on May 	19,
and held public 	comment meetings 	on May 21 	and 26. 	Subsequent 	to
receiving public 	comment 	on May 26, 	the District 	adopted the
proposals.
While 	the District's public notice policy7 indicates 	that 	it
7The 	District's 	policy provides 	in 	section V 	in pertinent
part:
A. 	Certificated Proposals
The District 	shall make 	the Board's 	and the
exclusive 	representative's 	proposals 	accessible 	to
the public 	in the 	following manner:
3. 	A copy of 	initial 	proposals presented at
a 	regular public meeting 	of 	the 	Board
shall 	be available 	for 	inspection and
review 	through 	the 	PIO until 	such 	time
as negotiations are 	completed... 	This
information, 	within a reasonable period
of time, 	will be available 	in the
following 	locations:
a) 	Each school 	within the District
10

will post 	initial proposals, 	it does not 	state 	that 	it will post
for 	a 	specific 	period prior 	to 	conducting 	required public 	comment
meetings. 	As 	evidenced in the 	complaint, 	the District 	did post
the 	initial proposals 	at various 	school 	sites. 	The Complainant
did not provide any evidence 	that 	supports 	his 	contention 	that
posting 	duration 	adversely affected 	the 	public 	or prevented 	them
from being 	informed.
during school 	hours. 	Each principal
shall 	advise 	the 	chairperson of 	the
advisory council, 	PTA/PTSA, 	and other
recognized 	school 	community groups 	as 	to
all 	public 	information 	received by 	the
school 	on the 	subject 	of 	collective
bargaining.
The public 	notice process 	employed by 	the District,
including 	the 	posting period, 	represents 	a 	conscientious 	effort
to 	fulfill 	the 	intent 	of 	EERA's public notice 	requirement.
Adoption of 	Initial 	Proposals
The District's 	public notice policy 	indicates 	that,
generally, 	public notice matters will be addressed at 	regular
meetings 	of 	the Board, 	with the 	following exception: 	"Absent an
emergency or 	other 	compelling 	circumstances." 	In 	the 	complaint
Watts 	indicated 	that 	he 	was 	aware 	of 	the District's 	reasoning 	for
conducting special, 	instead of 	regular board meetings: 	"There
[sic] 	reasoning was 	that 	they had to adopt 	there 	[sic] 	District
Budget 	by June 	30, 	1992 	under State 	law AB 	1200 	Chapter 	1213
School 	district budget 	review."
Watts 	asserts 	that 	the proper proposal 	adoption process
involves three steps: 	1) 	Posting of proposals at school sites; 	2)
11
I

receiving public 	comment 	at 	three 	separate 	regular Board
meetings; 	and 3) 	adoption of such initial proposals.
The Board has 	held that 	the manner 	in which public 	notice
meetings 	are held 	is 	left 	to 	the discretion of 	the 	local 	school
board. 	(See Los Angeles 	Community College District 	(Kimmett),
(1981) 	PERB Decision No. 	158; 	Los Angeles Community College
District 	(Watts) 	(1980) 	PERB Decision No. 	153; 	Log Angeles
Community College District 	(Watts) 	(1980) 	PERB Decision No. 	154.)
In Los Angeles 	Community College District 	(1984) 	PERB
Decision No. 	455, 	the Board found that 	the EERA does not 	specify
five 	separate 	and distinct 	steps 	in order 	to 	comply with 	the
public notice provision. 	In San Francisco 	Community 	College
District 	(1979) 	PERB Decision No. 	105, 	the Board held that 	in
determining 	"reasonable 	time," 	no 	specific 	formula 	or 	time period
existed and 	that 	each case 	should be 	examined based 	on 	the 	facts.
In Los Angeles Unified School District 	(1990) 	PERB Decision No.
852, 	the Board 	found that 	there was a reasonable 	time 	for public
comment where 	two weeks were allowed 	for public 	comment. 	The
Board also 	stated 	that 	an 	employer 	is 	not 	precluded 	from adopting
a proposal 	at 	the 	same meeting as 	long as 	there 	is public
comment. 	(Id.)
In this 	case, 	the District posted the 	initial proposals and
received public 	comment 	at 	two 	separate meetings 	over an eight
day period, 	and 	then adopted 	the proposals 	after 	receiving public
comment. 	These actions 	have 	not been 	shown to 	interfere with the
public's 	right 	to be made aware 	of 	and have an opportunity to
12

provide 	input 	into 	the negotiations process. 	Additionally,
while 	the 	employer 	is 	required to adopt 	its 	initial proposals 	at
a public meeting, 	there 	is 	no 	specificity regarding the 	type of
meeting 	(regular or special) 	that must be held. 	The process
implemented by 	the 	District 	satisfied 	the 	public 	notice
requirements as noted in sections 	3547(b) 	and 	(c) 	and the
"reasonable 	time" 	test 	adopted by the Board.
CONCLUSION
Based on the 	facts, 	law and precedent discussed above, 	the
following conclusion have been reached. 	First, 	the 	initial
proposals 	for 	1992-93 	presented by 	the 	District 	to UTLA were
sufficiently developed 	to allow the 	public 	to understand 	the
issues 	to be 	negotiated. 	Second, 	the District provided 	the
public 	an 	opportunity 	to 	express 	itself 	regarding 	such proposals
at 	two 	separate meetings. 	Finally, 	the manner 	in which the
District 	posted and adopted 	the proposals 	was 	consistent 	with
EERA's public notice 	requirements. 	It 	is 	determined that 	the
instant 	public 	notice 	complaint 	fails 	to 	state 	a prima 	facie
violation of Government Code section 3547 	(b) 	and 	(c). 	The
complaint 	is 	hereby DISMISSED without 	leave 	to 	amend.
Right 	to Appeal
Pursuant 	to 	Public 	Employment 	Relations 	Board 	regulations,
any party adversely affected by this 	ruling may appeal 	to 	the
Board 	itself 	by 	filing 	a written 	appeal 	within 	twenty 	(20)
calendar days 	after service 	of 	this 	ruling 	(California 	Code 	of
Regulations, 	title 8, 	section 32925). 	To be timely filed, 	the
13

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 Regulations, 	title 8, 	section 32135). 	Code of Civil
Procedure section 1013 	shall 	apply. 	The Board's address 	is:
Members, 	Public Employment Relations Board
1031 	18th Street
Sacramento, 	CA 	95814
The 	appeal must 	state 	the 	specific 	issues 	of procedure,
fact, 	law or rationale 	that are appealed, 	must 	clearly and
concisely state 	the grounds 	for each 	issue 	stated, 	and must be
signed by 	the 	appealing party or 	its 	agent.
If 	a 	timely appeal 	of 	this 	ruling 	is 	filed, 	any other party
may 	file 	with 	the 	Board 	itself 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 Regulations,
title 8, 	section 32625). 	If no timely appeal 	is 	filed, 	the
aforementioned 	ruling 	shall 	become 	final 	upon 	the 	expiration of
the 	specified 	time 	limits.
Service
All 	documents 	authorized 	to be 	filed herein must 	also be
"served" 	upon all 	parties 	to 	the proceeding and 	the 	Los Angeles
Regional 	Office. 	A 	"proof 	of 	service" 	must 	accompany each 	copy
of 	a 	document 	served upon a party or 	filed wit 	the Board 	itself.
(See California Code of Regulations, 	title 	8, 	section 32140 	for
the 	required 	contents 	and a 	sample 	form.) 	The 	appeal 	and any
14
(

opposition 	to an appeal 	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 	an
appeal 	or opposition to an appeal 	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 know, 	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 Regulations, 	title 	8,
section 32132) .
DATE: 	March 	1 0 . 	1993
Nora 	M. 	Baltierrez
Labor Relations Specialist
15
--
(
J