State of California (Department of Parks and Recreation) * * * OVERRULED by multiple decisions, as recognized in State of California (Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation) (2024) PERB Decision No. 2926-S, pp. 16-19 * * * (PERB 0810S)

* * * OVERRULED by multiple decisions, as recognized in State
of California (Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation)
(2024) PERB Decision No. 2926-S, pp. 16-19 * * *
STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF 	THE
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
CALIFORNIA 	UNION OF 	SAFETY
EMPLOYEES,
Charging 	Party,
v.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA 	(DEPARTMENT OF
PARKS AND RECREATION),
Respondent.
)
)
)
) 	Case No. 	S-CE-443-S
PERB 	Decision No. 	810-S
June 4, 	1990
)
))
)
)
)
)
Appearance: 	Sam A. 	McCall, 	Jr., 	Chief Legal Counsel, 	for
California 	Union of 	Safety Employees.
Before Craib, 	Shank, 	and Camilli, Members.
DECISION
CRAIB, 	Member: 	This 	case is before the Public 	Employment
Relations 	Board 	(PERB or Board) 	on appeal 	by the California 	Union
of 	Safety Employees 	(CAUSE) 	of 	the Board agent's dismissal
(attached hereto) 	of its unfair practice charge. 	In its 	charge,
CAUSE 	alleged 	that 	the 	Department 	of 	Parks 	and 	Recreation
(Department) 	violated the Ralph C. 	Dills Act 	(Dills Act) 	section
3519, 	subdivisions 	(a) 	and 	(b),1 by denying one of its members,
1 The Ralph C. 	Dills Act 	is 	codified at Government Code
section 3512 	et 	seq. 	Unless otherwise 	indicated, 	all 	statutory
references 	herein are to the Government Code. 	Section 	3519,
subdivisions 	(a) 	and 	(b) provides:
It 	shall be unlawful 	for the 	state to:
(a) 	Impose or threaten to 	impose reprisals
on employees, 	to discriminate or threaten to
discriminate against employees, 	or otherwise
to interfere with, 	restrain, 	or coerce
employees 	because 	of 	their 	exercise of 	rights
guaranteed by this 	chapter.
__)

Ranger Robert Murphy 	(Murphy), 	the right to representation at a
meeting with a 	Department 	superintendent. 	The 	Board agent
dismissed 	the 	complaint because he 	found 	that 	the 	matter was
covered by the parties' 	memorandum of understanding 	(MOU) 	and,
thus, 	should be deferred to arbitration. 	The facts, 	as presented
by the Board agent, 	accurately reflect 	those alleged 	in the
charge. 	We must accept those 	facts 	as 	true 	for purposes 	of
determining whether 	a prima 	facie 	violation has 	been 	stated.
(San Juan Unified School District 	(1977) 	EERB2 Decision No. 	12.)
THE 	BOARD AGENT'S 	DISMISSAL
The 	Board agent 	found that 	the 	charge 	failed 	to 	assert 	a
prima 	facie 	violation because 	the 	matter must be 	deferred 	to
arbitration pursuant to Dills Act 	section 	3514.5, 	subdivision
(a)(2)3 and the Board's decision in Lake Elsinore 	School 	District
(1987) 	PERB Decision No. 	646. 	In Lake Elsinore, 	the Board held
that 	identical 	language 	in the 	Educational 	Employment 	Relations
(b) 	Deny to employee organizations 	rights
guaranteed to 	them by this 	chapter.
2Prior to January 	1, 	1978, 	PERB was known as the Educational
Employment Relations Board 	(EERB).
3Section 3514.5, 	subdivision 	(a)(2) 	provides, 	in pertinent
part:
(a) 	. 	. 	. the board shall not . 	. 	. 	(2) issue
a 	complaint against 	conduct 	also prohibited
by the provisions 	of 	the 	agreement between
the parties 	until 	the 	grievance machinery of
the agreement, 	if it exists and covers the
matter at issue, 	has been exhausted, 	either
by settlement or binding arbitration. 	. 	. 	.
N	2

Act 	(EERA)4 barred PERB 	from processing a 	charge 	if 	the grievance
machinery of 	an agreement 	covered the matter at 	issue, 	resulted
in binding arbitration, 	and the 	conduct 	complained of 	in the
charge was 	arguably prohibited by 	the 	agreement.
In the present case, 	the parties' 	MOU, 	section 2.6 provides:
The 	state 	and CAUSE 	shall 	not 	impose 	or
threaten to impose reprisals 	on employees, 	to
discriminate 	or 	threaten 	to 	discriminate
against 	employees 	or 	otherwise 	interfere
with, 	restrain or coerce employees because of
the 	exercise of 	their rights 	under the 	Ralph
C. 	Dills Act or any right given by this
contract.
This 	language 	is 	virtually 	identical 	to 	section 	3519, 	subdivision
(a) 	of the Dills Act. 	Article 	6 of the MOU contains a grievance
procedure that 	results 	in binding arbitration.
The 	Board 	agent 	concluded that 	the 	standards 	set 	forth by
the Board 	in Lake 	Elsinore were met.
First, 	the grievance machinery of the
agreement/MOU 	covers 	the 	dispute 	raised by
the unfair practice 	charge 	and culminates 	in
binding arbitration. 	Second, 	the conduct
complained of 	in this 	charge that 	District
Superintendent 	Fait 	denied 	Ranger 	Murphy 	the
right 	to 	representation during 	an 	interview
is 	arguably prohibited by Article 	2, 	Section
2.6 of the MOU. 	. 	. 	.
(Warning letter, 	at p. 	3.) 	He, 	therefore, 	held that the charge
must 	be 	deferred 	to 	arbitration.
DISCUSSION
CAUSE 	contends 	that 	the 	Board 	agent 	erred 	in dismissing 	its
charge because 	it believes 	that the matter 	is 	not 	subject to 	the
4EERA 	is 	codified at Government Code 	section 	3540 	et 	seq.
W
	3

parties' 	MOU. 	It argues that the denial of Murphy's 	statutory
right to representation did not amount 	to a reprisal, 	a threat 	of
reprisal, 	a discrimination, 	or any interference, 	restraint or
coercion because of his 	exercise of protected rights. 	We
disagree.
The Board has 	held the denial 	of 	a 	right 	to representation
to be a violation of provisions 	identical 	to 	section 	3519,
subdivision 	(a) 	of the Dills Act in its 	counterparts, 	the EERA
and 	the 	Higher 	Education 	Employer-Employee 	Relations 	Act
(HEERA).5 (See Rio Hondo Community College District 	(1982) 	PERB
Decision No. 	260, 	at p. 	19; 	Regents of the University of
California 	(CSEA) 	(1983) 	PERB Decision No. 	310-H, 	at p. 	25.)
Conduct which denies 	an employee 	the 	right of 	representation
"interferes" 	with rights protected by these 	statutes.
The 	right 	to 	representation at 	investigatory 	interviews
which the 	employee believes 	might 	lead to discipline 	arises 	out
of 	employee 	rights protected by 	section 	3515 	of 	the 	Dills Act.
Section 3515 provides, 	in pertinent part:
Except 	as 	otherwise provided by 	the
Legislature, 	state employees 	shall have the
right to form, 	join, 	and participate 	in the
activities 	of 	employee organizations 	of 	their
own choosing 	for the purpose 	of
representation on all matters 	of 	employer-
employee 	r e l a t i o n s . . . .
5HEERA 	is 	codified at Government Code 	section 	3560 	et 	seq.
Unless 	otherwise 	indicated, 	all 	statutory references 	are to 	the
Government Code.
44

Interpreting 	the 	EERA counterpart 	to 	section 	3515,6 PERB 	and 	the
California Court of Appeal have held that 	employees 	are
guaranteed 	the 	right 	to 	be 	represented by 	their 	employee
organization 	at 	investigatory 	interviews 	where 	the 	employee
reasonably believes 	that 	discipline may occur 	or 	in other highly
unusual 	circumstances. 	(Redwoods 	Community College 	District
(1983) 	PERB Decision No. 	293, 	affd in part in Redwoods Community
College District v. 	Public 	Employment Relations 	Board 	(1984) 	159
Cal.App.3d 617; 	see also, Weingarten. 	Inc. 	(1975) 	420 U.S. 	251
[88 LRRM 2689]; 	Placer Hills 	Union High School 	District 	(1984)
PERB Decision No. 	377; 	Rio Hondo Community College District
(1982) 	PERB Decision No. 	272.)
PERB has 	also held that 	an employee 	organization has 	a
concurrent right to 	represent 	employees 	at 	such 	investigations.
(Redwoods Community College District, 	supra. 	PERB Decision
No. 	2 93, 	at p. 	9; 	Rio Hondo Community College District, 	supra.
PERB Decision No. 	272, at p. 	11; 	see also, 	Mt. 	Diablo Unified
School District, 	et al. 	(1977) 	EERB7 Decision No. 	44.)
6EERA section 3543 provides, 	in pertinent part:
Public 	school 	employees 	shall have the 	right
to form, 	join, 	and participate in the
activities 	of 	employee organizations 	of 	their
own choosing 	for the purpose 	of
representation on all 	matters 	of 	employer-
employee relations.
7Prior to January 	1, 	1978, 	PERB was known as the Educational
Employment 	Relations 	Board.
5

These 	cases were all 	decided prior to 	the Board's
determination in Lak
--------------·e Elsinore School District, 	supra.
---·
PERB Decision No. 	646, 	that 	section 3541.5 	of EERA precluded the
Board's 	jurisdiction over matters 	which 	also violated 	the
parties' 	collective bargaining agreements 	and were 	covered by a
grievance procedure 	culminating 	in binding arbitration. 	However,
the 	Board has 	recently held that, 	where 	conduct allegedly
violates 	both 	employee 	and 	employee 	organization rights, 	and 	the
parties' 	collective bargaining agreement 	only prohibits 	the
violation of 	employee rights, 	only the 	employee charge 	should be
deferred. 	(State 	of California 	(California 	Department 	of
Forestry and Fire Protection) 	(1989) 	PERB Decision No. 	734-S.)
In Department 	of Forestry, 	the 	employee organization alleged
violations 	of 	its 	rights 	and those 	of 	employees 	arising 	from
threats 	by the 	employer that, 	"if the union and that board don't
quit 	screwing around with that 	contract, 	then there won't be 	a
contract and CDF 	[the California Department of 	Forestry] 	will 	see
to 	it." 	Pursuant to 	language 	in the parties' 	agreement which
stated 	that 	"each 	employee 	retains 	all 	the 	rights 	conferred by
section 	3515, 	et 	seq. 	of the State Employer-Employee Relations
Act," 	the 	Board determined that 	the 	allegation that 	the 	employer
discriminated against the 	employees, 	in violation of 	section
3519, 	subdivision 	(a), 	must be deferred. 	The Board, 	however,
reversed 	the 	Board 	agent 	on the 	issue 	of whether 	the 	employee
organization's 	charge, 	that the 	employer's 	conduct violated 	its
66

rights, 	must be deferred. 	The general counsel was directed to
issue a 	complaint on that 	issue.
CONCLUSION
Since 	the 	Board has 	regularly held 	that the denial 	of 	an
employee's 	request 	for representation violates 	both 	the
employee's 	statutory 	rights 	and those 	of 	the 	employee
organization, 	consistent with the Board's 	position 	in Department
of Forestry, 	supra. 	the Board affirms the Board agent's dismissal
of the 	section 3519, 	subdivision 	(a) 	charge and reverses his
dismissal of the section 3519, 	subdivision 	(b) 	charge.
OORDER	RDER
The dismissal of the section 3519, 	subdivision 	(a) 	charge 	is
AFFIRMED; 	the dismissal of the 	section 3519, 	subdivision 	(b)
charge 	is 	REVERSED and REMANDED. 	The general 	counsel 	is 	ORDERED
to issue a complaint on the section 3519, 	subdivision 	(b) 	charge.
Members 	Shank and Camilli 	joined 	in this 	Decision.
77

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 	GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Governor
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
Sacramento Regional Office
1031 18th Street, Room 102
Sacramento, CA 	95814-4174
(916) 322-3198
March 	6, 	1990
Charlie Solt, 	Labor Representative
California 	Union 	of 	Safety Employees
915 	20th 	Street
Sacramento 	CA 	95814
Jeff Fine, 	Deputy Chief Counsel
Department 	of 	Personnel 	Administration
1515 S Street, 	North Bldg., 	Ste. 	400
P.O. 	Box 	944234
Sacramento 	CA 	94244-2340
Re: 	California 	Union of 	Safety	
I	Employee	
I
	I	s 	v. 	State of California
(Department 	of 	Parks 	and 	Recreation)
Unfair Practice Charge No. 	S-CE-443-S
DISMISSAL 	LETTER
Dear Mr. 	Solt:
The 	above-reference 	charge 	alleges 	that an agent 	of 	the 	State of
California, 	Department of Parks and Recreation 	(DPR) 	refused to
permit 	a 	union representative 	to 	attend 	a 	meeting between 	an
employee 	and DPR's 	agent, 	which meeting the employee had a
reasonable belief would result 	in disciplinary 	action, 	thereby
violating Government Code 	sections 	3519(a) 	and 	(b) 	(the 	"Dills
Act").
I 	indicated to you in my attached letter dated February 20, 	19 90,
that 	the 	above-referenced 	charge was 	subject 	to deferral 	to
arbitration. 	You were 	advised 	that 	if 	there were 	any 	factual
inaccuracies 	or 	additional 	facts 	which would 	correct 	the
deficiencies 	explained 	in that 	letter, 	you 	should amend 	the
charge accordingly. 	You were 	further advised that unless 	you
amended the charge or withdrew it prior to March 	5, 	1990, 	it
would be 	dismissed.
I 	have 	not 	received 	either a 	request 	for withdrawal 	or an amended
charge 	and 	am therefore dismissing the 	charge based 	on the 	facts
and reasons 	contained in my February 20, 	1990, 	letter.
.¢ -.,""1'~
ri•r;;'·>	~; • \1
'"o,;,
;J

_.---":
'"'
I).
..

Right 	to Appeal
Pursuant 	to 	Public 	Employment Relations 	Board regulations, 	you
may obtain a 	review of this dismissal 	of 	the 	charge by 	filing 	an
appeal 	to 	the 	Board 	itself within twenty 	(20) 	calendar days 	after
service of 	this 	dismissal 	(California Administrative Code, 	title
8, 	section 32635(a)). 	To be timely filed, 	the 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
Administrative Code, 	title 8, 	section 32135). 	Code of Civil
Procedure 	section 	1013 	shall 	apply. 	The Board's 	address 	is:
Public 	Employment 	Relations 	Board
1031 	18th Street
Sacramento, 	CA 95814
If 	you 	file a timely appeal 	of the refusal 	to 	issue a 	complaint,
any 	other party 	may 	file with 	the Board 	an original 	and 	five
copies 	of 	a 	statement 	in opposition within 	twenty 	calendar days
following the date of 	service of 	the appeal 	(California
Administrative Code, 	title 8, 	section 32635(b)).
Service
All 	documents 	authorized to 	be 	filed herein must 	also 	be 	"served"
upon all parties 	to the proceeding, 	and a 	"proof of 	service" 	must
accompany 	each 	copy of 	a 	document 	served upon a 	party 	or 	filed
with 	the 	Board 	itself. 	(See California Administrative 	Code,
title 	8, 	section 	32140 	for the required contents 	and a 	sample
form.) 	The document 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 	a document
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 known, 	the position of 	each other
party regarding 	the 	extension, 	and 	shall 	be 	accompanied by proof
of 	service 	of 	the 	request 	upon 	each party 	(California
Administrative Code, 	title 8, 	section 32132).
N	2

Final 	Date
If no appeal 	is 	filed within the specified time 	limits, 	the
dismissal will become 	final when the time limits 	have 	expired.
Sincerely,
Michael E. 	Gash
Regional 	Attorney
MEG:djt
Attachment
33

STATE Of CALIFORNIA 	GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Governor
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
Sacramento Regional Office
1031 18th Street, Room 102
Sacramento, CA 	95814-4174
(916)322-3198
February 20, 	1990
Charlie Solt, 	Labor Representative
California 	Union 	of 	Safety 	Employees
915 	20th 	Street
Sacramento 	CA 	95814
Re: 	California 	Union of 	Safety Employees 	v. 	State 	of California
(Department 	of 	Parks 	and 	Recreation)
Unfair Practice Charge No. 	S-CE-443-S
WARNING 	LETTER/DEFERRAL 	TO 	ARBITRATION
Dear Mr. 	Solt:
On January 24, 	1990, 	you filed a charge in which you allege that
an agent of the State of California, 	Department of Parks 	and
Recreation 	(DPR) 	refused to permit a union representative 	to
attend 	a 	meeting between an employee 	and DPR's 	agent; 	which
meeting 	the 	employee 	had 	a 	reasonable 	belief would 	result 	in
disciplinary action. 	Specifically, 	on or about October 	12, 	1989,
Ranger 	I, 	Robert Murphy was 	questioned by his 	supervisor,
District 	Superintendent William Fait, 	regarding 	several peace
officer complaints. 	Prior to 	the 	interrogation Ranger Murphy
requested 	union representation but was 	advised by 	District
Superintendent 	Fait 	that 	union 	representation would 	not 	be
allowed 	because 	the 	interview would 	not 	result 	in 	any 	documented
punitive 	action.
Ranger 	Murphy 	then 	telephoned 	his 	union 	representative 	and
advised him of 	the 	situation. 	The union representative
telephoned 	District 	Superintendent 	Fait 	and 	was 	informed 	that 	the
interview was 	to 	discuss 	a 	citation 	issued by Ranger 	Murphy 	and
no 	formal 	action would result 	from the 	interview. 	Immediately
prior to 	the 	interview, 	Ranger Murphy again requested
representation which was 	again denied 	by 	District 	Superintendent
Fait. 	Ranger Murphy was 	initially allowed 	to 	tape 	record 	this
interview but was 	ordered 	to 	turn off 	the 	tape 	recorder prior 	to
the 	conclusion of 	the 	interview. 	After 	Ranger Murphy 	turned 	off
the 	tape recorder, 	District Superintendent 	Fait 	began to 	ask
questions 	about 	other 	citizen complaints 	involving 	Ranger Murphy.
On or about October 	19, 	1989, 	Ranger Murphy received a documented
corrective 	counseling 	interview 	signed 	by 	District 	Superintendent
Fait. 	The documented 	corrective 	counseling 	interview 	states 	in
pertinent part:

No 	further 	action regarding 	this 	complaint 	is
planned. 	If 	similar complaints 	are received
regarding 	improper 	conduct 	on your part 	and
after 	investigation 	judged 	to 	be 	valid within
the next 	12 months, 	this memorandum may be
made 	an 	attachment 	to 	such 	corrective or
adverse 	action 	as 	may be deemed necessary.
The 	Charging 	Party 	also 	alleges 	that 	this 	document was 	placed 	in
Ranger Murphy's 	personnel 	file. 	The actions by District
Superintendent 	Fait 	are 	alleged 	to 	have 	violated 	Government 	Code
sections 3519(a) 	and 	(b) 	(the "Dills Act").
The parties 	to 	this 	unfair practice 	charge 	are 	signatories 	to 	a
Memorandum of 	Understanding 	(MOU) 	currently 	in effect. 	Article 2
("CAUSE 	RIGHTS") 	of 	that 	contract provides 	the 	following
provisions;
2.6 	No 	Reprisals
The 	state 	and CAUSE 	shall 	not 	impose or
threaten to 	impose 	reprisals 	on employees 	to
discriminate 	or 	threaten 	to 	discriminate
against 	employees 	or otherwise 	interfere
with, 	restrain or coerce employees because of
the 	exercise of 	their rights 	under the Ralph
C. 	Dills Act or any right given by this
contract.
Additionally, 	Article 	6 	of 	the MOU contains 	a grievance procedure
which 	culminates 	in final 	and binding arbitration. 	Section
3514.5(a)(2) 	of the Dills Act states, 	in pertinent part, 	that
PERB,
shall not 	. 	. 	. 	issue a complaint against
conduct 	also prohibited by the provisions 	of
the 	. 	. 	. 	[collective bargaining agreement in
effect] 	between the parties until the
grievance machinery of the agreement, 	if it
exists 	and covers 	the matter at issue, 	has
been 	exhausted 	either 	by 	settlement 	or
binding 	arbitration.
In Lake Elsinore School District. 	(1987) 	PERB Decision No. 	646,
PERB held 	that 	section 3541.5(a) 	of the Educational 	Employment
Relations Act, 	which contains 	language 	identical 	to
Section 	3514.5(a) 	of 	the Dills Act, 	established a 	jurisdictional
rule 	requiring that a 	charge be dismissed and deferred 	if: 	(1)
the 	grievance 	machinery 	of 	the 	agreement 	covers 	the 	matter 	at
issue and culminates 	in binding arbitration; 	and, 	(2) 	the conduct
complained 	of 	in the 	unfair practice 	charge 	is 	prohibited by 	the
provisions 	of 	the 	agreement between the parties. 	PERB Rule
N	2

32620(b)(5) 	(California Administrative Code, 	title 8, section
32620(b)(5)) 	also 	requires 	the 	investigating board 	agent 	to
dismiss 	a 	charge where the 	allegations 	are properly deferred 	to
binding 	arbitration.
These 	standards are met with respect to this 	case. 	First, 	the
grievance 	machinery 	of 	the 	agreement/MOU 	covers 	the 	dispute
raised by the 	unfair practice 	charge and 	culminates 	in binding
arbitration. 	Second, 	the 	conduct 	complained 	of 	in this 	charge
that 	District 	Superintendent 	Fait 	denied 	Ranger 	Murphy 	the 	right
to 	representation during 	an 	interview 	is 	arguably prohibited 	by
Article 	2, 	Section 2.6 of the MOU. 	Section 2.6 	of 	the MOU,
specifically prohibits 	the 	State 	from 	interfering with 	employees
"because 	of 	the 	exercise of 	their rights 	under the Ralph C. 	Dills
Act. 	. . . " 	In this 	situation, 	if the conduct as 	alleged is
true, 	then DPR would be 	in violation of 	section 	3519(a) 	and 	(b)
of 	the Dills Act, 	and thus 	in violation of a provision of the
agreement 	between CAUSE 	and 	the 	State.
Accordingly, 	this 	charge must be deferred to 	arbitration and will
be dismissed. 	Such dismissal 	is without prejudice 	to the
Charging Party's right, 	after arbitration, 	to 	seek a repugnancy
review by PERB 	of 	the 	arbitrator's 	decision under 	the 	Dry Creek
criteria. 	See 	PERB 	Regulation 	32661 	(California Administrative
Code, 	title 8, 	section 32661; 	Los Angeles 	Unified School District
(1982) 	PERB Decision No. 	218; 	Dry Creek Joint Elementary School
District, 	(1980) 	PERB Order No. Ad-81a.
If 	you 	feel 	that 	there are 	any 	factual 	inaccuracies 	in this
letter 	or 	any 	additional 	facts which would 	require 	a different
conclusion than the 	one explained 	above, 	please 	amend 	the 	charge
accordingly. 	This 	amended charge 	should be prepared on a
standard 	PERB 	unfair practice 	charge 	form 	clearly 	labeled 	First
Amended Charge, 	contain all 	the 	facts 	and allegations 	you wish to
make, 	and be 	signed under penalty of perjury by 	the 	charging
party. 	The 	amended 	charge must be 	served 	on the 	respondent 	and
the 	original proof 	of 	service must be 	filed with PERB. 	If 	I 	do
not 	receive 	an 	amended 	charge 	or withdrawal 	from you before
March 5, 	1990, 	I 	shall dismiss your charge without 	leave to
amend. 	If you have any questions 	on how to proceed, 	please 	call
me at 	(916) 	322-3198.
Sincerely,
Michael E. 	Gash
Regional 	Attorney
MEG:djt
33