Los Angeles Unified School District (Watts) (PERB 0152E)

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
DECISION 	OF THE
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
HOWARD 	O. 	WATTS,
Complainant,
v.
LOS 	ANGELES 	UNIFIED 	SCHOOL
DISTRICT,
Respondent,
and
UNITED 	TEACHERS 	OF LOS 	ANGELES,
___________________Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
_ )
Case 	No. 	LA-PN-28
PERB 	Decision No. 152
December 	30, 	1980
A~pearances: 	Howard 	0. 	Watts, 	representing 	himself;
William 	J. 	Sharp, 	Assistant 	Superintendent, 	Office 	of 	Staff
Relations, 	representing 	the 	District.
Before 	Gluck, 	Chairperson: 	Moore, 	Member.
DECISION AND ORDER	DECISION AND 	ORDER
The 	public 	notice 	complaint 	at 	issue 	in 	this 	case 	was 	filed
on 	May 	27, 	1980. 	The 	complaint 	alleged 	numerous 	violations 	of
or 	inadequacies 	in 	the 	Los 	Angeles 	Unified 	School 	District
District's 	(hereafter 	District) 	public 	notice 	rules 	and
regulations 	and 	rules 	governing 	the 	conduct 	of 	public 	meetings
that 	purportedly 	violate 	section 	354 7 (a) , 	(b) , 	(c) , 	(d) , 	and
(e) 	of 	the 	Educational Employment 	Relations 	Act 	(hereafter
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
HOWARD O. WATTS,
Complainant, 	Case No. LA-PN-28
PERB Decision No. 152
LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL
DISTRICT,
Respondent , 	December 30, 1980
and
UNITED TEACHERS OF LOS ANGELES,
Respondent.
Appearances: 	Howard O. Watts, representing himself;
William J. Sharp, Assistant Superintendent, Office of Staff
Relations, representing the District.
Before Gluck, Chairperson; Moore, Member.
The public notice complaint at issue in this case was filed
on May 27, 1980. The complaint alleged numerous violations of
or inadequacyin the Los Angeles Unified School District
District's (hereafter District) public notice rules and
regulations and rules governing the conduct of public meetings
that purportedly violate section 3547 (a) , (b) , (c) , (d) , and
(e) of the Educational Employment Relations Act (hereafter

EERA)
1	
including,
	but 	not
	limited 	to:
	(1)
	the
	failure
	to
distribute
	copies
	of
	United 	Teachers
	of
	Los
	Angeles'
	(hereafter
lAll 	statutory
	references 	are 	to
	the
	California
Government
	Code
	unless 	otherwise
	specified.
Section
	3547
	provides:
(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.
(c)
	After 	the
	public
	has
	had
	the
opportunity 	to
	express
	itself,
	the 	publicschool
	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	
bemade
	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 	thei:rviews 	on 	the	
issues 	to 	the 	public 	school
2
EERA) _ including, but not limited to: (1) the failure to
distribute copies of United Teachers of Los Angeles' (hereafter
lAll statutory references are to the California
Government Code unless otherwise specified.
Section 3547 provides:
(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.
(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.
) 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
N

UTLA)
	initial
	negotiating
	proposals
	to
	the
	schools 	in
	the
District
	in
	time
	for 	the 	public
	to
	have
	them
	before 	the
	first
	of
two
	meetings
	designated 	for
	public 	discussion 	of
	the
	proposals
which
	frustrated
	the
	District's
	own
	rule 	to
	provide
	two
	full
weeks
	for
	public
	response~
	(2)
	the
	three
	minutes 	complainant
was
	allowed
	to
	speak
	on
	May
	5
	and
	again
	on
	May
	12,
	1980,
pursuant
	to 	the
	District's
	rules
	was
	insufficient
	time
	to
address
	UTLA's
	negotiating 	proposals:
	(3)
	certain
	new
	subjects
and/or
	initial
	negotiating
	proposals
	were
	not 	sunshined;
	and,
(4)
	the
	presentation 	of
	UTLA's
	initial
	negotiating 	proposals
was
	not
	listed
	on
	the
	agenda
	for 	the 	April
	28,
	1980
	meeting
	of
the
	District's
	governing 	board.
employer, 	and
	to	
know
	of
	the
	positions 	of 	theirelected 	representatives.
On
	July 	9,
	1980
	a
	letter
	of 	dismissal 	issued.
	The
	regional
director
	determined
	that
	each
	of 	the
	allegations 	failed
	to
state
	a
	prima
	facie
	case
	and
	could 	not
	be 	amended
	to
	do
	so.
Complainant
	appeals
	that 	dismissal.
The
	Public
	Employment
	Relations
	Board
	(hereafter
	Board)
summarily
	affirms 	the 	dismissal 	of
	all
	of 	the
	allegations
except 	the 	following:
(1) 	The
	allegation
	that
	the 	three-minute 	rule
	prevented
complainant
	from
	fully	
responding
	to 	the 	proposals	
on
	May 	5 	and
12,
	1980.
3
UTLA) initial negotiating proposals to the schools in the
District in time for the public to have them before the first of
two meetings designated for public discussion of the proposals
which frustrated the District's own rule to provide two full
weeks for public response; (2) the three minutes complainant
was allowed to speak on May 5 and again on May 12, 1980,
pursuant to the District's rules was insufficient time to
address UTLA's negotiating proposals; (3) certain new subjects
and/or initial negotiating proposals were not sunshined; and,
(4) the presentation of UTLA's initial negotiating proposals
was not listed on the agenda for the April 28, 1980 meeting of
the District's governing board.
On July 9, 1980 a letter of dismissal issued. The regional
director determined that each of the allegations failed to
state a prima facie case and could not be amended to do so.
Complainant appeals that dismissal.
The Public Employment Relations Board (hereafter Board)
summarily affirms the dismissal of all of the allegations
except the following:
(1) The allegation that the three-minute rule prevented
complainant from fully responding to the proposals on May 5 and
12, 1980.
employer, and to know of the positions of their
elected representatives.
W

(2) 	The 	allegation 	that 	certain 	new 	subjects 	or 	initial
proposals 	of 	UTLA were 	not 	sunshined.
(3) 	The 	allegation 	that 	negotiating 	proposals 	were 	not
listed 	on 	the 	agenda 	for 	April 	28, 	1980.
While 	the 	Board 	agrees 	with 	the 	regional 	director 	that
complainant's 	allegation 	concerning 	the 	District's 	three-minute
rule 	for 	speakers 	does 	not, 	as 	written, 	state 	a 	prima 	facie
violation 	of 	section 	3547; 	the 	Board 	disagrees 	that 	the
complaint 	could 	not 	be 	amended 	to 	state 	a 	claim 	under 	EERA.
In 	the 	portion 	of 	the 	complaint 	alleging 	a 	failure 	to
sunshine 	certain 	unspecified 	new 	subjects 	or 	initial 	proposals,
complainant 	refers 	to 	a 	prior 	public 	notice 	complaint 	that 	he
filed 	with 	the 	Board 	(LA-PN-18).2 	This 	reference 	creates
ambiguity 	because 	it 	is 	unclear 	whether 	the 	complainant 	is
referring 	to 	the 	same 	conduct 	that 	formed 	the 	basis 	for 	his
complaint 	in 	that 	earlier 	case 	or 	whether 	he 	is 	alleging 	new
violations 	of 	the 	same 	type 	complained 	of 	in 	LA-PN-18. 	This
allegation 	should 	not 	have 	been 	dismissed 	without 	first 	giving
complainant 	the 	opportunity 	to 	amend 	his 	complaint 	to 	remove
this 	ambiguity.
The 	allegation 	that 	the 	presentation 	of 	UTLA's 	initial
proposals 	was 	not 	listed 	on 	the 	governing 	board's 	agenda 	or
order 	of 	business 	for 	April 	28, 	1980 	states 	a 	claim 	under 	EERA
2Los 	Angeles 	Unified 	School 	District 	(12/10/80) 	PERB
Order 	No. 	Ad-104.
4
(2) The allegation that certain new subjects or initial
proposals of UTLA were not sunshined.
(3) The allegation that negotiating proposals were not
listed on the agenda for April 28, 1980.
While the Board agrees with the regional director that
complainant's allegation concerning the District's three-minute
rule for speakers does not, as written, state a prima facie
violation of section 3547; the Board disagrees that the
complaint could not be amended to state a claim under EERA.
In the portion of the complaint alleging a failure to
sunshine certain unspecified new subjects or initial proposals,
complainant refers to a prior public notice complaint that he
filed with the Board (LA-PN-18) .2 This reference creates
ambiguity because it is unclear whether the complainant is
referring to the same conduct that formed the basis for his
complaint in that earlier case or whether he is alleging new
violations of the same type complained of in LA-PN-18. This
allegation should not have been dismissed without first giving
complainant the opportunity to amend his complaint to remove
this ambiguity.
The allegation that the presentation of UTLA's initial
proposals was not listed on the governing board's agenda or
order of business for April 28, 1980 states a claim under EERA
Los Angeles Unified School District (12/10/80) PERB
Order No. Ad-104.

without 	need 	for 	amendment. 	The 	public 	is 	not 	given 	an
adequate 	opportunity 	to 	inform 	itself 	of 	collective 	bargaining
issues 	if 	it 	is 	not 	notified 	that 	those 	issues 	will 	be 	the
subject 	of 	discussion 	at 	a 	public 	meeting 	of 	the 	governing
board 	of 	the 	District.
In 	his 	appeal, 	complainant 	contends 	that 	the 	letter 	of
dismissal 	was 	served 	on 	him 	personally 	without 	a 	proof 	of
service 	in 	violation 	of 	PERB's 	rules 	and 	regulations.3 	The
3california Administrative 	Code, 	title 	8, 	section 	37030,
subsection 	(e) 	provides:
. 	. . 	. 	. 	. . . . 	. 	. . 	. 	. 	. .
(e) 	If 	the 	complaint 	fails 	to 	state 	a 	prima
facie 	violation 	of 	Government 	Code
section 	3547 	and 	cannot 	be 	amended 	to 	state
a 	prima 	facie 	violation, 	the 	Regional
Director 	shall 	dismiss 	the 	complaint. 	A
copy 	of 	the 	complaint 	and 	the 	letter 	of
dismissal 	shall 	be 	served 	on 	the 	employer
and 	the 	exclusive 	representative 	by 	the
Regional 	Director.
California Administrative 	Code, 	title 	8, 	section 	32140
provides:
(a) 	All 	documents 	referred 	to 	in 	these
regulations 	requiring 	"service" 	or 	required
to 	be 	accompanied 	by 	"proof 	of 	service,"
except 	subpoenas, 	shall 	be 	considered
"served" 	by 	the 	Board 	or 	a 	party when
personally 	delivered 	or 	deposited 	in 	the
first-class 	mail 	properly 	addressed. 	All
documents 	required 	to 	be 	served 	shall
include 	a 	"proof 	of 	service" 	affidavit 	or
declaration 	signed 	under 	penalty 	of 	perjury
which 	meets 	the 	requirements 	of
section 	1013(a} 	of 	the 	Code 	of 	Civil
Procedure 	or 	which 	contains 	the 	following
information:
5
without need for amendment. The public is not given an
adequate opportunity to inform itself of collective bargaining
issues if it is not notified that those issues will be the
subject of discussion at a public meeting of the governing
board of the District.
In his appeal, complainant contends that the letter of
dismissal was served on him personally without a proof of
service in violation of PERB's rules and regulations. 3 The
California Administrative Code, title 8, section 37030,
subsection (e) provides:
(e) If the complaint fails to state a prima
facie violation of Government Code
section 3547 and cannot be amended to state
a prima facie violation, the Regional
Director shall dismiss the complaint. 	A
copy of the complaint and the letter of
dismissal shall be served on the employer
and the exclusive representative by the
Regional Director.
California Administrative Code, title 8, section 32140
provides :
(a) All documents referred to in these
regulations requiring "service" or required
to be accompanied by "proof of service,"
except subpoenas, shall be considered
"served" by the Board or a party when
personally delivered or deposited in the
first-class mail properly addressed. All
documents required to be served shall
include a "proof of service" affidavit or
declaration signed under penalty of perjury
which meets the requirements of
section 1013 (a) of the Code of Civil
Procedure or which contains the following
information:

record
	before 	the
	Board
	in
	this
	case
	contains
	a
	declaration 	of
service 	indicating
	that
	the
	letter
	of 	dismissal
	was
	personally
served
	on
	the
	complainant
	on
	July
	11,
	1980,
	and
	also 	contains
	a
proof 	of
	service
	by
	mail
	indicating
	that
	the
	letter
	of
dismissal
	was
	mailed
	to
	all
	parties
	on
	July
	9,
	1980.
Complainant 	concedes
	that
	the
	letter
	of
	dismissal
	was
personally
	served
	on
	him. 	His
	appeal
	was
	timely
	filed.
	No
other 	party 	to
	this
	action
	has 	complained
	of
	a
	failure
	to
	be
I	
declare
	that	
I	
am
	employed
	in 	the
County
	of-=--=----'
	California.
	I
	am
	over
the
	age
	of
	18
	years
	and
	not
	a
	party 	to
	the
within
	entitled
	cause;
	my
	business 	address
is-----:=-=----:------=--=-·
	On
I
	(personally) 	served
	the---=-------
	on
the
	________
	(by
	placing
	a
	true
	copy
thereof
	enclosed 	in
	a
	sealed
	envelope 	with
postage 	thereon
	fully
	prepaid, 	in 	the 	U.S.
Mail
	at
	________
	addressed) 	as
follows:
(names
	of
	parties
	served)
I
	declare
	under
	penalty 	of 	perjury
	that
the 	foregoing
	is
	true
	and
	correct,
	and
	that
this
	declaration
	was
	executed
	on
at
	________ ,
California.
(Type
	of
	print
	name)	
(Signature)
(b)
	That 	portion
	of 	section
	1013	
of
	the
Code	
of 	Civil
	Procedure
	relating 	toextending 	time
	after
	mailing
	shall
	not 	apply.
(c) 	Whenever
	"service"
	is	
required
	by
	these
regulations, 	service 	shall	
be 	on
	all 	partiesto 	the 	proceeding
	and
	shall
	be	
concurrent
with 	the	
filing	
in 	question.
6
record before the Board in this case contains a declaration of
service indicating that the letter of dismissal was personally
served on the complainant on July 11, 1980, and also contains a
proof of service by mail indicating that the letter of
dismissal was mailed to all parties on July 9, 1980.
Complainant concedes that the letter of dismissal was
personally served on him. His appeal was timely filed. No
other party to this action has complained of a failure to be
I declare that I am employed in the
County of 	, California. I am over
the age of 18 years and not a party to the
within entitled cause; my business address
is 	On
I (personally) served the 	on
the 	(by placing a true copy
thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope with
postage thereon fully prepaid, in the U.S.
Mail at 	addressed) as
follows :
(names of parties served)
I declare under penalty of perjury that
the foregoing is true and correct, and that
this declaration was executed on
at
California.
(Type of print name) 	(Signature)
) That portion of section 1013 of the
Code of Civil Procedure relating to
extending time after mailing shall not apply.
(c) Whenever "service" is required by these
regulations, service shall be on all parties
to the proceeding and shall be concurrent
with the filing in question.
6

served 	with
	copies
	of
	the 	complaint 	or
	letter
	of
	dismissal.
	It
is
	clear 	that
	all
	requirements 	for 	the
	service 	of
	the
	documents
on
	the
	parties
	were 	met.
	The
	alleged
	failure
	to
	provide
complainant
	with
	a
	copy
	of
	the 	proof
	of 	service
	did 	not
prejudice
	him
	in
	any
	way
	and
	is,
	therefore,
	considered
	by
	the
Board
	to
	be
	of
	no
	consequence
	in
	this
	case.
ORDER
It
	is
	hereby
	ORDERED
	that
	those
	portions
	of 	the 	complaint
alleging
	that
	the
	District's
	three-minute
	rule
	for 	speakers
	to
address
	collective
	bargaining 	proposals
	violates
	section
	3547
	and
alleging
	that 	certain
	new
	subjects
	or
	initial
	proposals
	were
not 	properly
	sunshined
	be 	DISMISSED
	WITH
	LEAVE
	TO
	AMEND.
The
	issue 	of
	whether
	or 	not
	the 	presentation 	of 	negotiating
proposals
	is
	scheduled
	on
	the 	board's
	agenda
	is
	REMANDED
	to 	the
regional
	office
	for
	further 	action 	consistent
	with
	this
decision.
	The
	dismissal 	of
	all
	other
	allegations
	the
complaint
	is
	AFFIRMED.
PER
CURIAM
7
served with copies of the complaint or letter of dismissal. It
is clear that all requirements for the service of the documents
on the parties were met. The alleged failure to provide
complainant with a copy of the proof of service did not
prejudice him in any way and is, therefore, considered by the
Board to be of no consequence in this case.
ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that those portions of the complaint
alleging that the District's three-minute rule for speakers to
address collective bargaining proposals violates section 3547 and
alleging that certain new subjects or initial proposals were
not properly sunshined be DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.
The issue of whether or not the presentation of negotiating
proposals is scheduled on the board's agenda is REMANDED to the
regional office for further action consistent with this
decision. 	The dismissal of all other allegations in the
complaint is AFFIRMED.
PER CURIAM