Los Angeles Unified School District (Watts) (PERB 0405E)

1 printed pages contain little extracted OCR body text; searchable legal-body completeness has not been established for those pages.

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD

HOWARD O. WATTS, )

Complainant, ) Case No. LA-PN-42
Vv. )) PERB Decision No. 405
LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, ) September 13, 1984
Respondent.

Appearances: Howard 0. Watts, in propria persona.

Before Hesse, Chairperson; Tovar and Jaeger, Members.
DECISION
JAEGER, Member: This case is before the Public Employment
Relations Board on exceptions filed by Howard ©. Watts to the
attached proposed decision of the Regional Director finding
that the Los Angeles Unified School District violated
subsection 3547(a) of the Educational Employment Relations

Act.*

‘The Educational Employment Relations Act is codified at
Government Code section 3540 et seq. Subsection 3547 (a)
provides:

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.

We have 	reviewed 	the 	case 	in light 	of Watts' 	exceptions and
the 	entire 	record 	and adopt 	the 	Regional 	Director's proposed
decision as 	the 	Decision of 	the 	Board 	itself.
ORDER
Based on the 	foregoing, 	and on the 	record as a whole, 	the
Public Employment 	Relations 	Board 	finds 	that 	the Los Angeles
Unified 	School 	District 	violated 	subsection 	3547(a) 	of 	the
Educational 	Employment 	Relations Act 	and ORDERS that 	the
Los 	Angeles Unified 	School 	District, 	its governing board 	and
its 	representatives shall:
1. 	CEASE AND DESIST FROM:
Interfering with the public's 	right 	to know of 	the
presentation 	of 	its 	initial 	proposals by 	failing 	to place
notification of 	such presentation on 	its printed 	agenda.
2. 	TAKE 	THE FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE ACTIONS DESIGNED TO
EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES 	OF THE EDUCATIONAL EMPLOYMENT
RELATIONS ACT.
(a) 	Within 35 days 	following the date 	the Decision 	is
no longer 	subject 	to 	reconsideration, 	post at all work
locations 	where 	notices 	to 	the public 	are 	customarily placed
copies of 	the Notice attached as 	an Appendix hereto, 	signed by
an authorized agent 	of 	the 	employer. 	Such posting 	shall be
maintained 	for 	a period of 	30 	consecutive workdays. 	Reasonable
steps 	shall be 	taken 	to 	insure 	that 	this Notice 	is 	not 	reduced
in size, 	defaced, 	altered or covered by any material.
22

(b) 	Written notification of 	the 	actions 	taken to
comply with 	this 	Order 	shall be 	made 	to 	the Los Angeles
Regional 	Director of 	the 	Public 	Employment 	Relations 	Board 	in
accordance with her 	instructions.
The 	alleged violation of Government 	Code 	section 	3547(b) 	is
hereby 	DISMISSED.
Chairperson Hesse 	and Member Tovar 	joined 	in 	this 	Decision.
33

APPENDIX
NOTICE 	TO THE 	PUBLIC
POSTED 	BY 	ORDER OF 	THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
An Agency of 	the 	State of 	California
After a hearing 	in Public Notice Case No. 	LA-PN-42,
Howard 0. 	Watts v. 	Los Angeles Unified 	School District, 	in
which all parties had the right 	to participate, 	it 	is 	found
that 	the 	Los 	Angeles 	Unified 	School 	District 	violated 	the
Educational 	Employment Relations Act, 	Government 	Code
subsection 	3547(a) 	by 	failing to place 	notification of
presentation of 	its 	initial proposals 	on 	its printed 	agenda.
As a 	result of 	this 	conduct, 	we have been ordered to post 	this
Notice and 	we will:
A. 	CEASE AND DESIST 	FROM:
Interfering 	with 	the public's 	right 	to know of 	the
presentation of 	initial bargaining proposals.
B. 	TAKE 	THE FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE ACTIONS DESIGNED TO
EFFECTUATE 	THE 	POLICIES OF 	THE EDUCATIONAL EMPLOYMENT
RELATIONS ACT:
Place 	notification of 	initial bargaining proposals 	on 	the
printed 	agenda of 	governing board 	meetings.
Dated: 	LOS 	ANGELES UNIFIED
SCHOOL 	DISTRICT
By Authorized 	Agent
THIS 	IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE. 	IT MUST REMAIN POSTED FOR THIRTY
(30) 	CONSECUTIVE WORKDAYS 	FROM THE DATE OF 	POSTING AND MUST NOT
BE ALTERED, 	REDUCED 	IN SIZE, 	DEFACED OR COVERED WITH ANY OTHER
MATERIAL.

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
HOWARD 0. 	WATTS,
Complainant,
v.
LOS ANGELES 	UNIFIED SCHOOL 	DISTRICT,
Respondent.
)
)
) 	Public Notice
Case No. 	LA-PN-42
PROPOSED DECISION
(11/15/83)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Appearances; 	Howard 0. Watts, 	representing himself; 	Reginald T.
Murphy, 	Administrative Coordinator, 	Office of Staff Relations,
for 	Los Angeles 	Unified 	School District.
Before: 	Frances A. 	Kreiling, 	Regional Director.
This 	case 	presents 	the 	issue 	of 	whether 	a public 	school
employer 	is 	obligated 	by 	subsection 	3547(a) 	of 	the Educational
Employment 	Relations 	Act 	(hereafter 	EERA)1 to place
1 The 	EERA 	is 	codified 	at Government Code 	section 	3540 	et
seq. 	All 	statutory 	references 	are 	to 	the Government Code
unless otherwise 	indicated. 	Section 3547 	provides 	as 	follows:
(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
)

notification on 	the 	agenda 	of 	its 	public meeting 	that 	it
intends 	to present 	its 	initial proposals 	at 	that meeting. 	It
also presents 	the 	question of 	whether Los Angeles Unified
School 	District 	(hereafter 	LAUSD or 	District) 	violated
subsection 	3547(b) 	by limiting Howard 0. 	Watts 	(hereafter
Complainant) 	to 	three minutes' speaking 	time 	at 	two public
meetings 	when 	he 	was 	calendared 	to 	speak 	to 	the 	District's
initial proposals.
PROCEDURAL 	HISTORY
The 	instant 	public 	notice 	complaint 	was 	filed 	with 	the
Public Employment 	Relations Board 	(hereafter PERB or 	Board) 	on
July 13, 	1982,2 alleging numerous violations of 	subsections
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 	the positions
of 	their 	elected 	representatives.
2 A 1 1 dates 	refer 	to calendar 	year 	1982 	unless otherwise
specified.
N	
2

3547(a) 	and 	(b).3 A notice 	of 	deficiency was 	sent 	to Mr.
Watts on August 	31 as 	to all allegations. 	On September 	3, 	a
request 	for 	assistance 	was 	filed 	by 	the Complainant. 	PERB
denied 	the 	request September 	8. 	The 	denial 	has 	been 	appealed
to 	the Board 	itself 	and 	is 	still pending. 	A request 	for
extension 	of 	time 	was 	filed 	September 	20 	and 	granted 	September
21 pursuant 	to LAUSD's agreement.
An 	amendment was 	filed September 	30. 	On October 	5, 	PERB
served 	two 	allegations 	on LAUSD as 	stating 	a prima 	facie
violation. 	A notice 	of partial dismissal with 	and without
leave 	to 	amend 	(depending 	upon 	the 	allegation) 	was 	issued 	as 	to
the 	other 	allegations October 	6.
A 	second 	amendment 	was 	filed 	October 	26 	particularizing 	the
amendments 	which 	had 	been dismissed 	with 	leave 	to 	amend. 	On
November 	8, 	all but one of 	the 	remaining 	allegations 	were
dismissed 	without 	further 	leave 	to 	amend.4 The 	dismissal
3The 	original 	complaint 	alleged 	14 	violations 	of
subsections 3547(a) 	and 	(b), 	many with multiple parts, 	and
contained 	52 	attached exhibits, 	most of 	which were 	not material
to 	the 	issues 	in the complaint.
4AS
discussed 	infra, 	due 	to confusion 	as 	to exactly when
LAUSD presented 	its 	initial proposals, 	the Complainant alleged
that 	there 	was 	nothing 	on 	either 	the June 	14 	committee 	of 	the
whole 	agenda 	or 	the June 	21 	board 	of 	education 	indicating 	that
the 	District 	would 	present 	its 	initial proposals 	at 	one 	of
those meetings. 	Thus, 	until 	the District 	responded 	to the
complaint, 	neither 	of 	those 	allegations 	could 	be dismissed. 	As
will be 	shown, 	the 	rather 	perfunctory 	investigation of 	the
facts performed 	by LAUSD 	resulted 	in 	the 	wrong 	allegation 	being
dismissed 	by PERB, 	thereby 	requiring 	rehabilitation of 	that
allegation 	herein.
W	
3

of 	those 	allegations 	has 	been 	appealed 	to 	the Board 	itself 	and
is 	still pending.
Informal 	conferences 	conducted 	by 	a 	PERB 	representative
December 	9 	and 	December 	27 	failed 	to 	result 	in 	settlement 	of
the 	case. 	Each 	party 	subsequently 	submitted 	a 	further 	offer 	of
settlement 	to PERB 	which 	was 	rejected 	by 	the 	other.
The 	allegations 	which 	PERB 	determined 	stated 	a 	prima 	facie
case 	were 	as 	follows:
1) 	The 	District's presentation of 	its 	initial proposals
was 	not 	listed 	on 	the 	June 	14 	committee 	of 	the 	whole
agenda.
2) 	The 	District's presentation of 	its 	initial proposals
was 	not 	listed 	on 	the 	June 	21 	board 	of 	education 	agenda,
3) 	The 	District 	failed 	to 	allow Mr. 	Watts 	to 	fully 	express
his 	opinion of 	the 	LAUSD's 	and 	two 	exclusive
representatives' 	initial proposals 	when 	it 	restricted
him 	to 	three 	minutes' 	speaking 	time 	at 	two public
meetings 	and 	denied 	him 	an 	extension 	of 	time.
Upon LAUSD's March 10, 	1983, 	and March 18, 	1983, 	admission
to 	the 	facts 	stated 	in 	allegations 	two 	and 	three 	above 	and
denial 	of 	the 	facts 	set 	forth 	in 	allegation number 	one, 	the
first 	allegation 	above 	was 	dismissed 	because 	subsection 	3547(a)
requires 	only 	one 	presentation.
Since 	no 	factual 	dispute 	existed, 	PERB 	determined 	on
July 	8, 	1983, 	that 	the 	instant 	case 	should 	be 	resolved 	through
investigation 	and 	the 	filing 	of 	briefs, 	rather 	than 	the 	conduct
4

of 	a hearing. 	Upon 	the 	receipt of briefs 	(see 	footnote 	13
infra), 	the case was submitted August 11, 	1983.
FINDINGS 	OF FACT
Despite the District's March 10, 	1983, 	and March 18, 	1983,
contention 	that 	LAUSD presented 	its 	initial 	proposals 	on
June 21, 	they were 	in fact presented June 14, 	1982.
Although 	seemingly 	unnecessary, 	given 	the 	absence 	of
disputed 	facts, 	the Complainant 	filed with 	his 	brief 	tapes 	of
the June 	14, 	June 	21 	and June 	28 	public meetings held 	by LAUSD
regarding 	initial 	proposals.5 At his 	insistence, 	I 	have
listened 	to those 	tapes. 	The 	tapes, 	PERB's 	file number
LA-PN-42 	(of which official notice 	is 	taken), 	and 	the
District's 	brief 	indicate 	that 	the 	District 	presented 	its
initial proposals on June 	14 	to 	its committee of 	the whole, 	not
June 	21.6
5The 	Complainant 	obtained 	the 	tapes 	from 	the 	District,
which 	records 	regular meetings 	of 	its 	governing 	board.
6Irrespective 	of 	its March 10, 	1983, 	and March 18, 	1983,
claims 	that 	its 	initial proposals were presented June 	21, 	it 	is
found 	that, 	as discussed 	in the September 	30 	amendment 	to 	the
complaint, 	the District presented 	its 	initial proposals when
former 	Associate 	Superintendent 	for 	Staff 	Relations 	William J.
Sharp placed 	copies 	of LAUSD's 	initial proposals 	on 	a 	table 	in
front of 	the committee of 	the whole on June 	14, 	prior 	to 	the
regular 	board 	of 	education meeting. 	(Although 	the 	original
complaint 	alleged 	that 	the minutes 	of 	the June 	14 	board 	meeting
do not 	reflect a presentation, 	those minutes 	are 	for 	the
regular 	board of education meeting only, 	not 	the 	committee of
the whole which precedes 	it.) 	The District's 	brief 	supports
this 	finding 	when 	it 	says 	that 	"The 	District contends 	the
proposals were 	'presented' 	by virtue 	of 	their 	being 	sent 	to 	the
5

At LAUSD, 	the 	committee of 	the whole 	is 	composed of members
of 	the 	board of education. 	However, 	the committee of 	the whole
takes 	no votes 	on 	its calendared 	items. 	As discussed 	in
District Bulletin No. 	18 	(exhibit no. 	22 of 	the original
complaint), 	the District's procedure 	is 	to present 	its 	initial
proposals 	at 	a public meeting 	of 	the 	committee of 	the whole.
The 	public 	is 	allowed 	to 	express 	its 	opinion of 	District
proposals 	at 	two subsequent meetings. 	Following 	the 	second
opportunity for 	public 	response, 	the 	governing 	board 	adopts 	the
District's 	initial proposals.
Committee of the Whole on June 14 	. 	. 	." 	(Emphasis 	in
original.)
Indeed, 	the June 	21 board 	agenda states as 	follows:
VII. 	PUBLIC NOTICE 	OF 	INITIAL PROPOSALS
Sunshine 	Committee 	Report 	by
Chairperson 	Betty 	Blake
United Teachers-Los Angeles 	(received
June 7, 	1982)
Unit D, 	Office-Technical 	and Business
Services 	(received June 	7, 	1982)
District's 	Policy 	Positions 	(presented
June 14, 	1982)
United 	Teachers-Los 	Angeles
Unit A, 	Security
Unit B, 	Instructional Aides
Unit C, 	Operations-Support Services
Unit D, 	Office-Technical 	and
Business 	Services
Unit E, 	Skilled Crafts
Compensation 	and 	Benefit 	Items
(Emphasis 	added.)
6

During 	1982 	LAUSD presented 	its 	initial proposals 	at 	the
June 	14 	committee of 	the 	whole meeting. 	Public 	response was
provided 	for 	on June 	21 	and June 	28. 	Following public
response, 	the 	District's 	initial proposals were 	adopted on June
28. 	The only mention of public 	notice on 	the 	agenda 	for 	the
June 	14 	governing 	board 	meeting 	(including 	the 	committee 	of 	the
whole agenda) 	was listed as 	follows:
VII. 	PUBLIC NOTICE 	OF 	INITIAL PROPOSALS
United 	Teachers-Los 	Angeles 	(received
June 7, 	1982)
Unit 	D, 	Office-Technical 	and Business
Services 	(received June 	7, 	1982)
The 	Complainant 	spoke 	to 	the 	initial proposals 	of 	the 	exclusive
representatives 	of 	the 	District's 	certificated 	unit 	(United
Teachers-Los Angeles) 	and 	office-technical 	and 	business
services 	unit 	(California School Employees Association) 	on 	that
date.
On June 	21 	the 	District 	offered 	the 	public 	its 	first
opportunity 	to 	express 	its 	opinion of LAUSD's 	initial proposals
and 	a 	second opportunity 	to address 	the 	initial proposals 	of
UTLA and CSEA. 	Mr. 	Watts was 	among 	the members 	of 	the 	public
who exercised 	this 	option. 	He 	spoke 	for 	three minutes. 	His
speaking 	time 	then 	expired 	and 	he 	was 	denied 	an 	extension 	of
time by 	the governing 	board. 	However, 	contrary 	to 	the 	facts
alleged 	in 	the 	complaint 	and 	upon which 	a prima 	facie 	case
7

was determined 	by 	PERB,7 Mr. 	Watts 	did 	not 	speak 	entirely 	to
the merits of 	the District's 	and 	union's 	initial proposals.
Rather, 	the 	tapes 	submitted 	by 	the Complainant 	indicate 	that 	he
expended 	his 	three minutes 	at 	the June 	21 meeting 	criticizing
the manner 	in which LAUSD publicized 	its 	initial proposals 	and
the 	failure 	of 	District 	officials 	to 	cooperate 	with 	him.8 He
used 	none of 	that 	time 	to express 	his 	opinion of 	the merits 	of
the 	collective 	bargaining proposals.
On June 	28, 	the public was 	again allowed 	to express 	itself
regarding LAUSD's 	initial proposals. 	Again, Mr. 	Watts
addressed 	the 	board. 	At 	that meeting, 	he 	alleged 	that 	the
District 	failed 	to properly present 	its 	initial proposals 	and
threatened 	the District 	with 	a PERB 	complaint. 	This 	expended
approximately one 	of 	his 	three 	allotted minutes. 	He 	then 	spoke
to 	the 	initial proposals 	of 	UTLA before 	addressing 	the
District's 	initial 	proposals.9 After 	three minutes, 	his 	time
expired 	and 	he 	was 	again denied 	an 	extension of 	time.
7For 	purposes of determining 	a prima 	facie 	case, 	the
facts alleged 	in 	the charge are 	assumed 	to be 	true. 	See
San Juan Unified School District 	(3/10/77) 	EERB Dec. 	No. 	12 	and
its progeny. 	(Prior 	to January 1, 	1978, 	PERB was 	known as 	the
Educational Employment 	Relations 	Board.)
8 The 	tapes 	have 	not 	been authenticated. 	However, 	since
their 	contents 	harm only 	the Complainant's 	case, 	no prejudice
comes 	to 	the 	District 	through 	their 	receipt 	into evidence. 	No
prejudice comes 	to Mr. 	Watts 	in 	that 	it was 	he who submitted
them.
9UTLA's 	initial 	proposals 	were 	actually 	not 	sunshined 	at
this 	meeting 	since 	the 	public 	had 	already 	been 	given 	an
opportunity 	to 	speak 	to 	them on June 	14 	and June 	21.
8

Hence, Mr. 	Watts expended only about 	two of 	the 	three
minutes 	allotted 	him on June 	28 	to 	express 	his 	opinion 	of 	the
merits of 	the 	initial proposals. 	He 	thus 	used only
approximately 	one 	and 	one-half 	of 	the 	six minutes 	granted 	him
at 	the June 	21 	and June 	28 meetings 	to express 	his 	opinion of
the 	District's 	initial 	proposals.10
DISCUSSION
The June 	14 Agenda
The Board 	has 	said 	that 	the 	failure 	to notify 	the 	public 	by
placing 	the 	subject 	of 	presentation 	of 	collective 	bargaining
proposals 	on an 	employer's printed 	agenda 	is 	a prima 	facie
violation of 	the 	subsection 3547(a) 	presentation 	requirements.
Los Angeles Unified School District 	(12/30/80) 	PERB Dec. 	No.
151 	(hereafter 	LAUSD #1) 	and Los Angeles 	Unified School
District 	(12/30/80) 	PERB Dec. 	No. 	152 	(hereafter LAUSD # 2 ) .
In 	the 	instant case, 	the only reference 	to public 	notice of
collective 	bargaining 	proposals 	on 	the June 	14 	agenda was
notification 	that 	the 	governing 	board 	would 	hold 	a public
meeting 	to 	allow presentation of 	the 	initial proposals 	of 	two
exclusive 	representatives. 	While 	this would 	apprise 	the 	public
10It 	is 	noted 	that Mr. 	Watts 	could 	not 	suggest 	that 	he
needed 	to 	use 	this 	time 	to bring 	to 	the 	attention of 	the
governing 	board 	his objections 	to 	the 	District's 	1982 method 	of
noticing 	the public, 	since 	the 	complaint 	he 	filed 	through
LAUSD's 	internal 	complaint 	policy 	(ending 	in 	a decision 	by 	the
governing board) 	accomplished 	this.
lOzt
9

that 	the 	initial proposals 	relative 	to 	two LAUSD negotiating
units would 	be presented, 	it 	is 	insufficient 	to find 	that 	the
public 	would 	have 	been 	aware 	that 	LAUSD 	intended 	to 	present 	its
initial proposals.
It 	is noted 	that LAUSD #1, 	supra and LAUSD #2, 	supra
involved 	the 	instant 	respondent public 	school 	employer. 	PERB,
has, 	therefore, 	already 	formally advised 	the District of 	the
necessity of 	apprising 	the 	public 	of 	its 	intent 	to present 	its
initial proposals 	by listing 	such on 	its 	agenda. 	This 	it
failed 	to do with 	respect 	to 	its June 	14 	public meeting. 	That
conduct 	is 	therefore 	found 	to 	be 	a violation of 	subsection
3547(a). 	16.
Restriction of Complainant 	to Six Minutes' 	Speaking Time
As 	an affirmative defense 	to this charge, 	the District
contends 	that 	its 	rule 	limiting 	speakers 	to 	three minutes 	is
reasonable 	and 	has 	been 	found 	by PERB 	to 	be 	in conformance 	with
the 	requirements 	of 	section 3547. 	The 	District cites PERB case
numbers LA-PN-28 	(i.e. 	LAUSD #2, 	supra) 	and LA-PN-6 	in
asserting 	that PERB's disposition, 	the 	parties' 	settlement 	and
Mr. Watts' 	withdrawal, 	respectively, of those cases is res
judicata on the 	instant 	issue and 	that, 	therefore, Mr. 	Watts
should 	be 	barred 	from asserting 	the 	issue. 	However, 	that
argument misconstrues PERB's holding 	in LAUSD #2, 	the doctrine
of 	res 	judicata 	and 	the 	instant 	issue.
10

In LAUSD #2, 	the Board held 	that Mr. 	Watts' 	allegation that
the 	District's 	rule 	limiting 	him 	to 	three 	minutes 	speaking 	time
was 	insufficient 	to allow him 	to 	express 	his opinion of
collective 	bargaining 	proposals 	should 	have 	been 	dismissed 	with
leave to amend. 	In other words, 	the Board found 	that, 	with
more, 	the 	allegation could 	conceivably have 	stated 	a prima
-facie case.
The 	instant allegation made 	by Mr. 	Watts was 	that he
expressed 	his 	opinion 	regarding 	initial 	proposals 	being
sunshined 	for public 	response on June 	21 and June 	28, 	and 	that
he 	used 	the 	entire 	time 	granted 	him at 	both meetings 	and 	was
then denied an extension of 	time. 	In LA-PN-28, Mr. 	Watts
alleged 	only 	that 	the District's 	three minute 	speaking
limitation prevented 	him 	from 	fully 	responding 	to 	the 	proposals.
The 	doctrine of 	res 	judicata 	applies only 	to 	a 	judgment on
the same cause of action. 	See, 	generally, Witkin, 	California
Procedure 	(2nd ed. 	1971) 	at 3292. 	Therefore, 	the different
facts 	alleged 	in 	this 	case preclude 	application of 	the
doctrine. 	Further, Mr. Watts' 	withdrawal of LA-PN-28
subsequent 	to 	a 	remand 	by 	the Board 	itself 	cannot 	have 	res
judicata effect on 	the 	instant 	action 	since 	a withdrawal 	is 	not
a 	judgment 	on 	the 	merits 	by PERB.
Official 	notice 	is 	taken of 	closed 	file 	number 	LA-PN-6.
That complaint, 	involving 	these 	same parties, 	again did 	not
address 	the 	instant 	issue. 	Mr. 	Watts withdrew LA-PN-6 pursuant
to LAUSD's 	agreement 	to 	amend 	its 	internal public 	notice
11

policy. 	Again, 	a withdrawal 	is not a judgment on the merits by
PERB.11 Further, 	that 	case 	was 	also 	not 	concerned 	with 	the
issue 	to be 	resolved here.
It 	is 	therefore 	found 	that Mr. 	Watts may pursue 	the 	instant
allegation. 	Nonetheless, 	for 	the following reasons, 	it 	is
found 	that 	no 	subsection 	3547(b) 	violation occurred.
As 	determined 	by 	the 	regional 	representative 	in 	finding 	a
prima facie case, 	under 	the 	facts 	stated 	in the complaint, 	the
District would 	be 	in violation of 	subsection 3547(b) 	absent
sufficient affirmative defenses 	for 	its 	actions. 	However, 	as
evidenced 	by 	the 	tapes 	submitted 	by 	the Complainant, 	those
facts are erroneous.
As discussed 	above, 	Mr. 	Watts 	actually used 	only
approximately 	one-third 	of 	the 	six minutes 	allotted 	him 	to
speak 	to 	the merits 	of 	the 	initial proposals 	at 	the 	two
meetings. 	Because 	by his 	own 	actions 	the Complainant did 	not
exercise 	his 	full 	opportunity 	to 	express 	himself 	regarding 	the
merits of LAUSD's 	initial proposals, 	the District did 	not
violate EERA's public notice 	provisions 	through 	its 	actions
alleged 	in the complaint. 	Consequently, 	it 	is found that Mr.
Watts 	was 	not 	denied 	full opportunity 	to express 	his 	opinion 	by
11While 	a withdrawal may 	serve 	as 	a 	retraxit 	to 	future
litigation of 	the 	same 	issue, 	it may do 	so only 	if 	specifically
withdrawn with prejudice 	to refile. 	See 	Id, 	at 3318;
Ghiringhelli v. 	Riboni 	(1950) 	95 Cal. 	App.2d 506 	[213
P.2d 	17]. 	LA-PN-6 	was not withdrawn with prejudice.
12
•

the District's 	denial of 	additional 	time 	for 	him to speak.
Accordingly, 	the 	allegation of a 	subsection 3547(b) 	violation
must 	be DISMISSED.
The 	Instant Parties 	Should 	Learn 	that Section 	3547 	Is Not 	a
Prescription 	for 	Litigation
The 	instant case 	is, 	unfortunately, 	an example of 	the
inordinate 	amount of 	time 	this 	office 	is 	spending 	on 	the
processing of public 	notice 	complaints 	filed 	by Mr. 	Watts.
Since 	section 3547 	became effective July 1, 	1976, 	there
have 	been, 	to date, 	69 public notice complaints 	filed with 	the
Los Angeles 	regional office of 	the PERB. 	Only five 	complaints
have 	been 	filed with 	the San Francisco office 	and 	only 	two 	in
the Sacramento region. 	Of 	the 76 	total, 	10 have 	involved 	the
instant parties. 	Thirty-six others have 	been 	filed by Mr.
Watts 	against 	other 	respondents.
As cited 	in the District's brief, 	in Los Angeles Unified
School District 	(2/22/82) 	PERB Dec. 	No. 	181a 	(hereafter
LAUSD # 3 ) , 	the Board admonished Mr. 	Watts 	to cease and desist
from 	filing 	unmeritorious 	complaints 	pursuant 	to 	his 	vehement
determination 	to 	fully 	litigate 	even 	complaints 	which 	simply
restated 	issues 	already decided 	by 	the Board. 	Granted, 	the 	two
instant 	issues 	are 	not vexatious 	to 	the 	degree of 	those 	in
LAUSD #3. 	Nevertheless, 	a 	review of 	the voluminous 	instant
case 	file 	indicates 	that 	the 	"abuses 	[of] 	Board processes 	and
[waste] 	of State 	resources" 	discussed 	in LAUSD #3 	are present
13

here. 	The Board 	agent who originally 	screened 	the 	complaint
identified 	14 	allegations, 	some with multiple parts, 	many of
which 	can be 	labeled 	frivolous 	or 	at 	least 	greatly 	lacking 	in
specificity. 	As discussed, 	supra, 	all but 	two allegations
failed 	to 	state 	a prima 	facie 	violation of 	section 	3547 	and, 	as
found 	herein, 	one of 	those 	allegations misstated 	the 	facts.
It 	is 	acknowledged 	that 	the Complainant 	lacks 	legal
counsel. 	However, 	as noted above, Mr. Watts 	is no stranger 	to
the 	filing 	of public 	notice 	complaints 	and 	has 	expended
innumerable 	hours 	of 	PERB 	staff 	time 	discussing 	section 	3547
and 	its 	requirements. 	Still, 	his complaints necessitate an
inordinate 	amount of 	staff 	time 	to process,12 with 	the 	end
result 	normally 	being 	a 	dismissal 	of 	nearly 	all 	allegations,
generally 	through 	time-consuming 	initial 	screening.13
Moreover, 	even when Mr. Watts' complaints are 	litigated, 	the
merits 	of 	the 	complaint 	are 	generally 	subordinated 	to 	the
unmeritorious procedural 	issues 	raised 	by Mr. 	Watts. 	See,
e.g., 	Los Angeles Unified School District 	(8/18/83) 	PERB Dec.
No. 	335; 	Los Angeles Community College District 	(8/15/83) 	PERB
12Approximately 	74 	hours 	of 	one 	staff member's 	time 	on
this 	complaint 	alone.
13Official 	notice 	is 	taken 	of 	other 	public 	notice
complaints 	filed 	by 	the Complainant. 	Those 	files 	indicate 	that
of 	the 	last 	14 	closed cases, 	all 	14 were dismissed 	by 	the
regional office. 	All dismissals 	appealed 	to 	the Board 	itself
were 	affirmed. 	The 	last 	closed public 	notice 	case 	filed 	by
Mr. 	Watts which was 	not disposed 	of 	by dismissal was 	withdrawn
in November 	1980.
14

Dec. 	No. 	331; 	Los Angeles Community College District 	(12/15/81)
PERB Dec. No. 	186.14
As 	to LAUSD, 	given Mr. Watts' past proclivity 	to file
unmeritorious complaints, 	a 	tendency 	to 	treat his 	allegations
lightly 	and 	therefore 	give 	them only cursory 	attention 	might 	be
understandable. 	Nonetheless, 	the processing of 	the 	instant
case 	would 	have 	been 	substantially 	facilitated 	by 	greater
diligence 	on 	the part of 	the District 	in 	investigating 	the
facts 	behind 	the 	complaint, 	including 	when LAUSD presented 	its
initial proposals 	and 	what 	the Complainant 	said 	in 	addressing
the 	governing 	board.15 Greater 	effort 	on 	their 	part 	could
have saved PERB, 	and, 	no doubt, LAUSD, 	substantial staff time.
The 	Legislature 	has 	seen 	fit 	to provide 	the California
public 	with 	a 	unique 	opportunity 	to participate 	to a 	limited
extent 	in 	the 	collective 	bargaining 	process 	and 	the Board
itself 	has 	adopted 	a public 	notice 	complaint procedure 	to
1 4 In 	the 	instant case, 	the 	Complainant 	again 	raises 	a
procedural 	issue, 	i.e. 	that 	the District's brief 	should not be
accepted 	because 	it was 	not 	timely 	filed. 	As Mr. 	Watts 	has
been advised verbally, 	both parties' 	briefs 	have 	been accepted
despite 	the 	fact 	that 	since 	neither 	originally met PERB's
filing 	requirements 	both 	were 	untimely 	filed.
15The 	District's culpability 	is mitigated 	by Mr. 	Sharpe's
retirement 	from 	service 	with 	the 	District 	and 	generally 	by 	the
fact 	that 	LAUSD 	undoubtedly 	has 	the 	most 	extensive 	public
notice policy in the state, 	including, 	inter alia, 	two
opportunities 	for 	the public 	to express 	its opinion of 	initial
proposals, 	an internal complaint procedure, 	a 	"sunshine
committee" 	and 	copies 	of 	certificated 	initial proposals 	sent 	to
all schools.
15

ensure 	this. 	While 	giving PERB 	the 	task 	of 	administering 	the
public notice provisions of EERA, 	the Legislature has, 	at 	the
same 	time, 	greatly limited 	this agency's budget. 	Hence, 	PERB
cannot 	afford 	to 	expend 	its 	limited 	resources 	investigating
frivolous 	charges 	or 	to discover 	on 	its 	own evidence which 	a
respondent 	could provide 	with 	a moderate 	degree 	of 	diligence.
Therefore, 	I 	find 	it 	necessary 	to admonish 	both parties 	to
make 	a greater 	effort 	to accomplish 	the 	provisions 	of 	section
3547 	through cooperation and compromise. 	Mr. 	Watts should
exercise greater 	restraint 	in 	his 	selection of 	issues 	to
litigate, 	and LAUSD 	should 	pay heed 	to what 	the Board 	has
determined 	the 	law 	requires 	and 	become more 	diligent 	in 	the
investigation of 	the 	facts. 	It 	is 	expected 	that 	the parties
will 	acknowledge 	this admonition and, 	in the 	future, 	act
accordingly.
PROPOSED 	REMEDY
It 	has 	been 	found 	that 	the 	District 	violated 	subsection
3547(a) 	by 	failing 	to place 	notification 	to 	the public on 	its
June 	14, 	1982, 	printed agenda 	that 	it would present 	its 	initial
proposals 	at 	that public meeting. 	It 	is 	appropriate 	to order
the 	District 	to 	cease 	and 	desist 	from violating 	Government Code
subsection 3547 (a) 	in the future.
It 	is 	also 	appropriate 	that 	the District 	be 	required 	to
post 	a notice 	incorporating 	the 	terms 	of 	the order. 	The 	notice
should 	be 	subscribed 	by 	an 	authorized 	agent 	of 	the 	District
16

indicating 	that 	it will comply with 	the 	terms 	thereof. 	The
notice 	shall 	be posted 	in 	the 	locations 	normally used 	for
posting 	public 	notices 	regarding 	regular 	meetings 	of 	the
District. 	The notice 	shall 	not be 	reduced 	in size. 	Posting
such 	a 	notice 	effectuates 	the 	purposes 	of EERA 	and 	will
announce 	the 	District's 	readiness 	to comply with 	the 	ordered
remedy. 	See Placerville Union School District 	(9/18/78) 	PERB
Dec. No. 69.
PROPOSED 	ORDER
Based 	upon 	the 	foregoing 	findings 	of 	fact 	and 	conclusions
of 	law and 	the entire 	record 	in 	the case, 	it 	is 	found 	that 	the
Los Angeles 	Unified 	School 	District 	has 	violated 	Government
Code subsection 3547 (a). 	Pursuant to Government Code
subsection 3547 (e), 	it 	is hereby ordered 	that the Los Angeles
Unified 	School 	District, 	its 	governing 	board 	and 	its
representatives 	shall:
1. 	CEASE AND DESIST FROM:
Interfering 	with 	the 	public's 	right 	to 	know of 	the
presentation of 	its 	initial proposals 	by 	failing 	to place
notification of 	such 	presentation 	on 	its 	printed 	agenda.
2. 	TAKE 	THE 	FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE ACTIONS 	DESIGNED TO
EFFECTUATE 	THE POLICIES 	OF THE 	EDUCATIONAL EMPLOYMENT
RELATIONS ACT.
(a) 	Within 	ten 	(10) 	days 	after 	this decision becomes
final, 	prepare 	and post 	copies 	of 	the NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC,
attached as an appendix hereto, 	for 	thirty 	(30) , 	consecutive
17

workdays 	at 	its 	headquarters 	offices 	and 	in conspicuous 	places
at 	the 	locations 	where 	notices 	to 	the public 	regarding 	regular
meetings 	of 	the 	District 	are 	customarily 	posted 	and 	shall
indicate 	the 	times 	and places 	where 	the 	public may 	inspect 	a
copy of 	this 	decision. 	The 	notice must 	not 	be 	reduced 	in 	size
and 	reasonable 	steps 	should 	be 	taken 	to 	see 	that 	it 	is 	not
defaced, 	altered 	or 	covered 	by 	any material.
(b) 	Within 25 days 	from service of 	the 	final
decision herein, 	give written 	notification 	to 	the Los Angeles
Regional 	Director 	of 	the 	actions 	taken 	to comply with 	this
order. 	Continue 	to 	report 	to 	the Regional Director 	thereafter
as 	directed. 	All 	reports 	to 	the 	Regional Director 	shall 	be
concurrently 	served 	on 	the Complainant 	herein.
The 	alleged 	violation 	of 	Government 	Code 	subsection 	3547(b)
is 	hereby DISMISSED.
Pursuant 	to California Administrative Code, 	title 8, 	part
III, 	section 32305, 	this Proposed Decision and Order 	shall
become 	final on December 	5, 	1983, 	unless 	a party files 	a 	timely
statement of exceptions. 	In accordance with the 	rules, 	the
statement 	of 	exceptions 	should 	identify 	by 	page 	citation 	or
exhibit 	number 	the 	portions 	of 	the 	record 	relied 	upon 	for 	such
exceptions. 	See California Administrative Code, 	title 8, 	part
III, 	section 32300. 	Such statement of exceptions and
supporting 	brief 	must 	be 	actually 	received 	by 	the 	Public
Employment 	Relations Board 	itself 	at 	the 	headquarters 	office 	in
Sacramento 	before 	the 	close 	of 	business 	(5:00 	p.m.)
18

on December 	5, 	1983, 	or 	sent by 	telegraph or 	certified United
States 	mail, 	postmarked 	not 	later 	than 	the 	last day 	for 	filing
in order 	to be 	timely 	filed. 	See California Administrative
Code, 	title 8, 	part III, 	section 32135. 	Any statement of
exceptions 	and 	supporting 	brief 	must 	be 	served 	concurrently
with 	its 	filing 	upon each party 	to 	this proceeding. 	Proof of
service 	shall 	be 	filed 	with 	the Board 	itself. 	See California
Administrative Code, 	title 8, 	part III, 	section 32300 	and 32305,
•
Dated: 	November 	15, 	1983
Prances A. 	Kreiling
Regional 	Director
19