Los Angeles Community College District (Watts) (PERB 0455E)

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-73
LA-PN-78
Vv.
PERB Decision No. 455
LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT,
December 7, 1984
Respondent.

Neat? Neaetl Sage? Nee “net Soe Snat Neae Net “eee?

Appearances: Howard O. Watts, on his own behalf: Carmen D.
Hawkins, Attorney for Los Angeles Community College District.

Before Hesse, Chairperson; Jaeger and Morgenstern, Members. *
DECISION

This case is before the Public Employment Relations Board
(Board) on an appeal by Howard 0. Watts of the Board agent's
dismissal, attached hereto, of his public notice complaint
alleging that the Los Angeles Community College District
(District) violated section 3547(a). (b), and (c) of the
Educational Employment Relations Act (Government Code section
3540 et seq.).

We have reviewed the Board agent's dismissal in light of
the Complainant's appeal and the entire record in this matter
and adopt that dismissal as the decision of the Board itself.

In addition, for the reasons set forth in Los Angeles

Unified School District and California State University

(8/16/84) PERB Decision No. 396-H, we affirm the Board agent's

*Members Tovar and Burt did not participate in this Decision.

denial of Watts' request for assistance made pursuant to
California Administrative Code, title 8, section 32163. 	In so
finding, we reject the Complainant's motion to the deny the
District the right to brief the Board concerning the request
for assistance issue. 	The District, as a party to this case,
is entitled to comment on any issue related to the complaint,
including the Complainant's request for assistance and the
Board agent's response to that request.
Finally, we deny the Complainant's request for oral
argument.
ORDER
The public notice complaints in Case Nos. LA-PN-73 and
LA-PN-78 are DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.
By the BOARD
N

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 	GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Governor
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
LOS ANGELES REGIONAL OFFICE
3470 WILSHIRE BLVD., SUITE 1001
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90010
(213) 736-3127
July 5, 1984
Howard O. Watts
Re: 	NOTICE OF DISMISSAL
LA-PN-73 and LA-PN-78 Hatts v. Los Angeles Community
College District
Dear Mr. Watts:
Your above-captioned public notice complaints were filed with our
office on March 26, 1984 and April 20, 1984 respectively. Complaint
LA-PN-73, alleges that the Los Angeles Community College District
(LACCD) violated Government Code sections 3547 (a) (b) and (c) by
engaging in the following conduct: (1) at the Board of Trustees
meeting of March 7, 1984 the Board agenda provided for public
response time to the District's initial proposal for the salary and
fringe reopener of the certificated unit (represented by Local 1521
AFT College Guild) and additionally the agenda placed that proposal
as an action item to send to the negotiating table that same day,
thus "streamlining" the public notice process and violating EERA and
District policy; (2) the District initially informed the public of
the certificated unit's salary and fringe reopener proposal on
February 3, 1984 and that on February 22, 1984 the District informed
the public of its own proposal, but that at no meeting prior to
March 7, 1984 when the Board intended to act on its proposal had the
District provided the public with response time to the exclusive
representative's proposal. Your statement of facts supporting the
complaint continues by stating that the LACCD did not take action on
its own proposal on March 7, 1984, but rather delayed until a future
meeting any action on its reopener proposal. You indicate that you
used five minutes to respond to the District proposal on the
reopener at the March 7, 1984 meeting.
Your allegations in LA-PN-78 follow chronologically the progress of
the salary and fringe reopener proposals of LACCD and AFT Local
1511. (In that sense it is more akin to an amendment rather than a
separate complaint. ) It alleges that the District presented the
alternate proposals and arranged for public response time in an out
of order fashion thus preventing the public from becoming informed.

July 5, 1984
LA-PN-73 and LA-PN-78
Page 2
And you allege once again that LACCD acted on its own proposal at
the same meeting at which it heard public comment of the exclusive
representative's proposal, (March 21, 1984) .
As you are well aware, Government Code sections 3547(a) (b) and (c)
read 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 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 poulic, adopt its initial proposal.
Your statement of facts indicates that both AFT and the District's
proposals were presented at public meetings on February 8 and 22,
1984, thereby nullifying your allegation of a 3547 (a) violation in
LA-PN-73. According to your complaint, LACCD adopted its initial
proposal on March 21, 1984. A month elapsed between the
presentation and the adoption. (There is no allegation that meeting
and negotiating occurred prior to the March 21, 1984 adoption.) 	I
find that a month is clearly "a reasonable time", between submission
and action. You indicate that you had the opportunity to respond to
both parties' proposals at Board meetings in March, 1984 before any
meeting and negotiating occurred. Based on all the facts you have
provided, no violation of 3547 (b) in either of your complaints can
be found.
Finally, regarding your allegation of the 3547 (c) violations, as I
have already stated, you have affirmatively shown that you and the
public had an opportunity to respond before the public school
employer adopted its proposal on March 21, 1984. I find no
violation of 3547 (c) in either complaint.

June 5, 1984
LA-PN-73 and LA-PN-78
Page 3
You argue that LACCD failed to comply with 3547 (a) (b) and (c) by
presenting the proposals and allowing public response time in an out
of order fashion. Section 3547 does not prescribe an order for the
presentation of initial proposals other than requiring public
response time prior to meeting and negotiating. The law does not
specify that there should be five separate and distinct steps taken
at five separate and distinct meetings of the public school employer
in order to comply with public notice provisions. 	PERB Decision No.
335, Watts v. Los Angeles Unified School District, (August 18,
1983), indicates that the Board will not find violations of local
rules regarding public notice requirements unlawful unless they
"facially conflict" with EERA. The method used by LACCD in
presenting and acting upon the initial proposal in this case may
have varied from past practice, but no violation of 3547 (a) , (b) or
(c) has been demonstrated. Therefore, because neither complaint
states a prime facie violation of EEERA section 3547 nor can they be
amended to do so, they are hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.
Your request for assistance filed in LA-PN-73 is also dismissed.
Any and all technical assistance was provided you when we reviewed
your complaints in April, 1984. Technical assistance could not
create a prima facie case where none existed. Board policy requires
that only technical assistance be provided any party that requests
it. 	(See Watts v. Los Angeles Community College District PERB
Decision No. 186, (December 15, 1981), and Watts v. Los Angeles
Unified School District and California School Employees Association,
PERB Decision No. 18la, (February 22, 1982).
An appeal of this decision pursuant to PERB Regulation 32925 may be
made within 20 calendar days following the date of service of this
decision by filing an original and 5 copies a statement of the facts
upon which the appeal is based with the Board itself at 1031 - 18th
Street, Suite 200, Sacramento, California 95814. Copies of any
appeal must be concurrently served upon all parties and the Los
Angeles Regional Office. Proof of service pursuant to Regulation
32140 is required.
Sincerely,
Frances A. Kreiling
Regional Director
Roger Smith
Regional Representative
RS : bw