Los Angeles Community College District (PERB 0908EA)

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF 	THE
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
HOWARD O. 	WATTS,
Complainant,
v.
LOS ANGELES 	COMMUNITY COLLEGE
DISTRICT,
Respondent.
)
)
) 	Case No. 	LA-PN-116
Request 	for 	Reconsideration
PERB Decision No. 	908
PERB Decision No. 	908a
January 3, 	1992
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Appearance; 	Howard 0. 	Watts, 	on his own behalf.
Before Hesse, 	Chairperson; 	Shank and Camilli, 	Members.
DECISION
HESSE, 	Chairperson: 	This 	case 	is before the Public
Employment Relations 	Board 	(PERB or Board) 	on a request 	for
reconsideration filed by Howard O. 	Watts 	(Watts) 	of 	PERB 	Decision
No. 	908, 	which issued on October 24, 	1991. 	Having duly
considered 	the 	request for reconsideration, 	the 	Board denies 	the
request 	for the 	reasons 	that 	follow.
In PERB Decision No. 	908, 	the Board affirmed the dismissal
by a 	Board agent of Watts' 	complaint against the 	Los Angeles
Community College 	District 	(District) 	which alleged 	that 	the
District 	violated 	the 	Educational 	Employment 	Relations 	Act 	(EERA)
section 3547(a) 	and 	(b)1 by amending its 	initial proposal and
1EERA 	is 	codified at Government Code 	section 	3540 	et 	seq.
Unless 	otherwise 	indicated, 	all 	statutory 	references 	herein 	are
to the Government Code. 	EERA section 3547(a) 	and 	(b) 	state:
(a) 	All 	initial proposals 	of 	exclusive
representatives 	and 	of public 	school
employers, 	which relate to matters within the

failing 	to 	indicate 	on the 	agenda 	that 	the 	initial proposal 	had
been 	amended.
DISCUSSION
PERB Regulation 32410(a) 	states, 	in pertinent part:
Any party to 	a decision of 	the 	Board 	itself
may, 	because of extraordinary circumstances,
file a request to reconsider the decision.
. 	. 	. 	The grounds for requesting
reconsideration are 	limited 	to 	claims 	that
the decision of 	the 	Board 	itself 	contains
prejudicial errors of 	fact, 	or newly
discovered 	evidence 	or 	law which was 	not
previously 	available 	and 	could 	not 	have 	been
discovered with 	the 	exercise 	of 	reasonable
diligence.
In his 	request 	for reconsideration, 	Watts 	argues 	that the
Board does 	not 	"know the difference between a multiple 	agenda
speaking 	and 	a public 	notice 	of 	the 	amendment 	speaking time."
Further, 	Watts 	asserts 	that the amendment of the 	initial proposal
was 	not 	properly 	noticed under past 	PERB 	decisions.
Reconsideration 	is 	not 	appropriate when a party restates 	an
argument which was 	considered 	and 	rejected by the 	Board 	in 	its
underlying decision. 	(Tustin Unified School District 	(1987) 	PERB
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.
NV	
2

Decision No. 	626a, 	p. 	3.) 	Here, 	Watts merely reargues that the
District 	failed 	to properly 	notice 	the 	amended 	initial 	proposal.
These 	arguments 	were properly 	rejected by 	the 	Board 	in 	the
underlying decision. 	No 	newly discovered evidence 	or 	law 	is
cited 	in conjunction with these allegations. 	Accordingly, 	Watts
has 	failed 	to 	demonstrate 	extraordinary 	circumstances 	warranting
reconsideration.
ORDER
There 	being 	no proper 	grounds 	for 	reconsideration 	stated,
the request 	for reconsideration of PERB Decision No. 	908 	is
hereby 	DENIED.
Members 	Shank and Camilli 	joined 	in this 	Decision.
W	
3