Los Angeles Unified School District (Watts) (PERB 0397E)

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-42
PERB Decision No. 	39 7
August 16, 	1984
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Appearances! 	Howard 0. Watts, 	in propria persona.
Before Hesse, 	Chairperson; 	Jaeger and Tovar, 	Members.
DECISION
JAEGER, 	Member: 	This 	case 	is before 	the Public Employment
Relations 	Board 	on 	appeal of 	a partial 	dismissal 	without 	leave
to 	amend 	of 	a public 	notice 	complaint 	filed by Howard 	0. 	Watts
alleging 	that 	the 	Los 	Angeles 	Unified 	School 	District
,
(District) 	violated 	section 	35471 of 	the 	Educational
Employment 	Relations Act 	(EERA or Act) 	in connection with 	the
presentation of 	initial proposals 	in June, 	1982.
1The 	EERA is 	codified 	at 	Government 	Code 	section 	3540
et 	seq. 	All 	references 	are 	to 	the 	Government 	Code unless
otherwise 	noted.
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
)

Specifically, 	Watts 	alleges 	that 	the 	District 	violated 	the
Act 	by:
1. 	Failing 	to place 	initial proposals 	on 	the 	agenda 	in
breach 	of 	the 	District's 	public 	notice 	regulations.2
school 	employer 	and 	thereafter 	shall 	be
public 	records.
(b) 	Meeting 	and 	negotiating 	shall 	not 	take
place 	on 	any 	proposal 	until 	a 	reasonable
time 	has 	elapsed 	after 	the 	submission 	of 	the
proposal 	to 	enable 	the 	public 	to 	become
informed 	and 	the 	public 	has 	the 	opportunity
to 	express 	itself 	regarding 	the 	proposal 	at
a 	meeting 	of 	the 	public 	school 	employer.
(c) 	After 	the public 	has 	had 	the
opportunity 	to 	express 	itself, 	the 	public
school 	employer 	shall, 	at 	a meeting 	which 	is
open 	to 	the 	public, 	adopt 	its 	initial
proposal.
(d) 	New 	subjects 	of 	meeting 	and 	negotiating
arising 	after 	the 	presentation 	of 	initial
proposals 	shall 	be 	made 	public 	within
24 	hours. 	If 	a 	vote 	is 	taken on 	such
subject 	by 	the 	public 	school employer, 	the
vote 	thereon 	by 	each 	member 	voting 	shall
also 	be made 	public within 	24 	hours.
(e) 	The 	board 	may 	adopt 	regulations 	for 	the
purpose 	of 	implementing 	this 	section, 	which
are 	consistent 	with 	the 	intent 	of 	the
section; 	namely 	that 	the 	public 	be 	informed
of 	the 	issues 	that 	are 	being 	negotiated 	upon
and 	have 	full 	opportunity 	to 	express 	their
views 	on 	the 	issues 	to 	the 	public 	school
employer, 	and 	to 	know 	of 	the 	positions 	of
their 	elected 	representatives.
2The 	regional 	representative 	found 	that 	that 	portion 	of
the 	complaint 	alleging 	that 	the 	District 	failed 	to place 	a
proposal 	on 	its 	agenda 	stated 	a 	prima 	facie 	violation 	of 	the
Act. 	That 	portion of 	the 	charge 	has proceeded 	to 	a 	hearing 	and
is 	not 	before 	us 	in 	this 	case.
22

2. 	Presenting 	initial bargaining 	proposals 	at 	a closed
meeting.
3. 	Failing 	to 	give 	a 	verbal description of 	initial
bargaining proposals 	at 	a public 	meeting.
4. 	Failing 	to 	follow 	the 	same 	procedures 	for 	presenting
the proposals 	of 	classified 	employee 	organizations 	as 	are
followed 	with 	regard 	to 	certificated 	employee 	organizations.
For 	the 	reasons 	set 	forth 	below, 	we 	affirm 	in part 	and
reverse 	in part 	the 	regional 	representative's dismissal.
PROCEDURAL 	HISTORY AND 	FACTS
On July 	13, 	1982, 	Watts 	filed 	the 	instant public notice
complaint.
On August 31, 	1982, 	a notice of deficiency was 	issued
concerning 	several allegations 	in 	the 	complaint. 	In 	response
to this notice, 	on September 30, 	1982, Watts amended his
complaint.
On October 	6, 	1982, 	a notice of partial dismissal with
leave 	to 	amend 	was 	issued.
On October 	26, 	1982, 	Watts 	filed 	a second 	amended complaint
reiterating 	the 	allegations 	which 	had 	been 	dismissed 	with 	leave
to amend.
On November 	8, 	1982, 	the 	regional 	representative 	issued 	a
notice 	of partial dismissal 	without 	leave 	to amend 	on 	the
ground 	that 	the 	amended 	complaint 	did 	not 	state 	a 	prima 	facie
violation of 	the public 	notice provisions 	of EERA.
W	
3

The 	amended 	complaint of 	October 	26, 	1982 	alleges 	that on
June 14, 	1982 Mr. 	William Sharp, Assistant Superintendent 	for
Staff Relations, 	who had 	been 	in attendance at 	a meeting of 	the
"committee 	of 	the 	whole,"3 	emerged 	from 	the 	meeting 	and
simply 	deposited 	an 	unspecified 	number 	of 	copies 	of 	the
District's 	bargaining 	proposals 	on 	a 	table 	among 	several 	copies
of 	the 	board's 	agenda. 	This presumably was 	the District's
method 	of 	sunshining 	its 	proposals. 	There 	was 	no public
attendance 	at 	this 	committee of 	the 	whole meeting, 	which was
the 	only meeting 	convened 	prior 	to 	the 	presentation 	of 	the
District's proposals.
In 	addition, 	the complaint 	alleges 	that 	the District's
method 	of 	distributing 	the 	proposals 	of 	classified 	employee
organizations 	differs 	from 	its 	method 	of distributing 	proposals
of 	certificated 	employee 	organizations.
DISCUSSION
Committee of 	the Whole Meeting of June 	14, 	1982
Watts 	alleges 	that 	the 	District presented 	its 	initial
proposals 	at 	a closed 	"committee of 	the 	whole" 	meeting 	rather
than 	at 	a public meeting 	as 	required 	by 	subsection 	3547(a).
The 	regional 	representative 	found 	that, 	because 	the
committee 	of 	the 	whole meeting 	represented 	a quorum of 	the
3A 	"committee 	of 	the 	whole" 	is 	composed of 	the members 	of
the Board 	of 	Education 	sitting 	as 	an 	investigative 	organ
without 	authority 	to 	act 	on 	the 	matter 	being 	investigated.
4

school board, 	it was 	a 	"public meeting" 	within 	the meaning of
the 	statute, 	and 	that 	presentation 	of 	the 	proposals 	at 	the
committee meeting did 	not violate 	subsection 3547(a).
There 	is 	no question 	that 	subsection 3547(a) 	mandates 	the
presentation 	of 	all 	initial 	bargaining 	proposals 	at 	a 	"public
meeting." 	Since 	the 	complaint 	alleges 	that 	the 	committee 	of
the 	whole meeting was 	closed 	to 	the public, 	we 	find 	that 	the
complaint 	states 	a prima 	facie 	violation of 	the Act. 	The 	mere
fact 	that 	the 	attendance 	at 	the 	committee of 	the 	whole meeting
may 	have 	constituted 	a quorum of 	the 	governing 	board 	is
irrelevant 	if 	the meeting was, 	in 	fact, 	closed to the public.
Verbal 	Description 	of Proposals
Watts 	challenges 	the 	District's 	method 	of presentation 	on
the ground 	that 	it 	failed 	to make 	"a verbal 	description of 	the
contents 	of proposals" 	at 	a public meeting. 	The 	regional
representative 	found 	that 	the 	statutory 	requirement 	that 	the
District 	"present" 	the 	proposals 	did 	not 	require 	the 	District
to verbally 	describe 	the 	contents 	of 	the proposals 	and 	that 	the
intent 	of 	the 	public 	notice 	statute 	would 	be 	satisfied 	if 	the
proposals 	were 	distributed 	in 	written 	form.
We 	agree 	with 	the 	regional 	representative 	that 	the Act 	does
not 	require 	the 	employer 	to give 	a verbal 	description of
proposals. 	Subsection 3547(a) 	cannot 	be construed 	as placing
such 	an onerous 	and 	impractical burden on 	the District.
Accordingly, 	this 	allegation 	is 	dismissed 	as 	failing 	to 	state 	a
prima 	facie 	violation of 	the Act.
5

Discrepancy Between 	Presentation 	of 	Classified 	and 	Certificated
Employee 	Organization 	Proposals
Watts 	alleges 	that 	the 	District's 	method 	of 	sunshining 	the
proposals 	of 	classified 	employee 	organizations 	differs 	from 	its
method 	of 	sunshining 	the 	proposals 	of 	certificated 	employee
organizations. 	Specifically, 	Watts alleges 	that, 	unlike 	its
practice 	with 	respect 	to classified 	proposals, 	the District
"present[s] 	thousands of copies of 	[certificated] 	proposals 	to
the 	Staff 	Relations 	Office 	and 	the 	Public 	information Office
and 	then 	their 	proposals 	are 	distributed 	by 	the 	school
mails 	. . . " 	[sic].
We 	find 	that 	the 	mere 	allegation 	that 	the 	method 	of
sunshining 	classified 	employee 	organization 	proposals 	differs
from 	that 	used 	for 	sunshining 	certificated 	employee 	proposals
does 	not 	state 	a prima 	facie 	case 	in 	the 	absence of 	some
indication 	that 	the 	method 	of presenting 	the 	classified
proposals 	is, 	itself, 	legally deficient. 	There 	is no
requirement 	in 	the 	statute 	that 	bargaining 	proposals 	of
employee 	organizations 	representing 	employees 	in different
bargaining 	units 	be presented 	in 	an 	identical manner 	so 	long 	as
the manner 	of presentation 	undertaken 	in 	each 	case 	is
consistent 	with 	the 	requirements 	of 	the Act.
ORDER
Upon 	the 	foregoing 	Decision 	and 	the 	entire 	record 	in 	this
case, 	the Public Employment Relations Board ORDERS 	that:
66

The portion of 	the 	complaint 	alleging 	that 	the District
presented 	a proposal 	at 	a closed 	meeting 	is 	found 	to 	state 	a
prima 	facie 	violation of 	section 	3547 	of 	the Educational
Employment 	Relations Act 	and 	is 	REMANDED 	to 	the 	general counsel
for 	further 	proceedings 	consistent 	with 	this 	Decision. 	All
other 	allegations 	in Case No. 	LA-PN-42, 	with 	the exception of
the 	agenda 	issue, 	are DISMISSED without 	leave 	to amend. 	The
agenda 	issue 	was 	not 	before 	the Board 	and 	has proceeded 	to 	a
hearing 	on 	the merits.
Chairperson Hesse 	and Member Tovar 	joined 	in 	this 	Decision.
77