Associated Administrators of Los Angeles (Watts) (PERB 1001E)

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF 	THE
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
HOWARD 0. 	WATTS,
Complainant,
v.
ASSOCIATED ADMINISTRATORS 	OF
LOS ANGELES,
Respondent.
Case No. 	LA-PN-129
PERB Decision No. 	1001
June 22, 	1993
Appearance: 	Howard 0. 	Watts, 	on his own behalf.-
Before Blair, 	Chair; 	Hesse and Caffrey, 	Members.
DECISION AND 	ORDER
CAFFREY, 	Member: 	This 	case 	is before the Public Employment
Relations Board 	(Board) 	on appeal by Howard 0. 	Watts 	(Watts) 	of a
Board agent's 	administrative 	determination 	(attached) 	which
partially dismissed Watts' 	public notice 	complaint.1 In his
complaint, 	Watts 	alleged 	that 	the Associated Administrators 	of
Los Angeles 	(AALA) 	violated section 3547 	of 	the Educational
Employment Relations Act 	(EERA)2 by not making available 	copies
1The complaint 	filed by Watts 	also 	alleged 	that 	the 	initial
proposal 	presented by 	the Associated Administrators 	of 	Los
Angeles 	did not 	adequately 	inform the public 	of 	the 	issues 	to be
negotiated, 	in violation of 	EERA's public notice requirements.
That 	allegation has 	not 	been dismissed and 	is 	not 	under
consideration 	in this 	case.
2EERA is 	codified at Government 	Code 	section 3540 	et 	seq.
Section 3547 states, 	in pertinent part:
(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
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
______________ )

of 	its 	initial proposals, 	and by indicating that 	the AALA
reserved 	the 	right 	to 	supplement 	its 	initial proposals.
to 	express 	itself 	regarding 	the proposal 	at 	a
meeting of 	the public 	school 	employer.
(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.
The 	Board has 	carefully 	reviewed 	the 	entire 	record 	in 	this
case, 	including 	the Board agent's 	administrative determination,
Watts' 	complaint and his appeal 	of 	the partial dismissal. 	The
Board 	finds 	the Board agent's 	findings 	of 	fact 	and conclusions 	of
law to be 	free 	of prejudicial 	error and adopts 	them as 	the
decision of 	the Board 	itself.
The 	Board hereby AFFIRMS 	the 	Board agent's 	partial 	dismissal
of the complaint 	in Case No. 	LA-PN-129.
Chair Blair and Member Hesse 	joined 	in 	this 	Decision.
22

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
HOWARD WATTS,
Complainant,
v.
ASSOCIATED 	ADMINISTRATORS
OF LOS ANGELES,
Respondent.
) 	Case No. 	LA-PN-129
ADMINISTRATIVE
DETERMINATION
April 	8, 	1993
)
)
)
)
This 	administrative 	determination dismisses 	those
allegations 	in 	the 	above-referenced public 	notice 	complaint 	which
state 	that 	the Associated Administrators 	of 	Los Angeles 	(AALA)
violated Government 	Code 	section 3547(b)1 by not making available
copies 	of 	its 	initial proposals, 	and by indicating that 	they
reserved 	the 	right 	to 	supplement 	their proposals.
BACKGROUND
Mr. 	Howard Watts 	(Complainant 	or Watts) 	filed the 	instant
complaint against AALA on July 	7, 	1992.2 AALA represents 	the Los
1The Educational 	Employment Relations Act 	(EERA) 	is 	codified
at Government 	Code 	section 3540 	et 	seq. 	Unless 	otherwise
indicated, 	all 	statutory references 	herein are 	to 	the Government
Code. 	Section 3547(b) 	provides:
(b) 	Meeting and negotiating shall 	not 	take
place 	on any proposal 	until 	a 	reasonable 	time
has 	elapsed after 	the 	submission 	of proposals
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.
2A11 	dates 	referenced herein are 	calendar year 	1992 	unless
otherwise 	noted.

Angeles 	Unified School District's 	(Employer 	or District)
certificated 	supervisory bargaining unit. 	The 	Complainant 	filed
an amended 	complaint 	by 	certified mail 	on August 	5.3
The District's public notice policy4 in pertinent part
states:
V. 	Accessibility of 	Initial 	Proposals
A. 	Certificated 	Proposals
The District 	shall make 	the Board's 	and 	the
exclusive 	representative's 	proposals
accessible 	to 	the public 	in 	the 	following
manner:
3. 	A copy of 	initial 	proposals 	presented at
a 	regular public meeting of 	the 	Board
shall 	be 	posted and available 	for
inspection and 	review through 	the 	PIO
until 	such time as 	negotiations 	are
completed. 	(The exclusive
representative will 	provide 	the District
with copies 	of 	its 	initial 	proposals
which 	shall 	be 	distributed 	through
regular District 	mail 	service
procedures.)
In the 	instant 	case, 	the District held its 	first public
notice meeting on June 	15, 	wherein they acknowledged 	the receipt
of AALA's 	initial proposals. 	Complainant 	affirms 	that he
attended 	the 	June 	15 	meeting and 	received a 	copy 	of 	AALA's
proposals. 	He 	further states 	that 	he 	addressed 	the District's
School 	Board at 	two 	separate public 	comment 	meetings 	which were
3Case Number LA-PN-131 	was 	earlier assigned 	to 	the 	amended
complaint in error. 	The complaint, 	as amended, 	is being
processed 	only under 	Case Number 	LA-PN-129.
4The 	Complainant 	provided 	PERB with a 	copy 	of 	the 	District's
Public Notice policy, 	Bulletin No. 	18 	(Rev) 	September 26, 	1988,
section V 	(A).
N	2

held on June 	25 	and July 	6.
Mr. 	Watts alleges 	that 	on June 25 	at 	the public 	comment
meeting AALA failed 	to make 	its 	proposals 	available 	for public
inspection. 	Mr.. Watts also alleges 	that at 	the July 6 public
notice meeting AALA failed 	to meet 	the public 	notice 	requirements
because 	it 	failed to make 	its 	proposal 	available 	to 	the public 	in
a 	timely manner. 	Specifically, 	he 	received a 	copy of AALA's
proposals 	approximately 	one 	and 	one-half 	hours 	after he addressed
the Board.
Mr. 	Watts 	further asserts 	that AALA violated 	the EERA public
notice 	requirement by articulating 	in 	its 	proposals 	the 	following
Statement: 	"AALA RESERVES 	THE RIGHT TO SUPPLEMENT THE ABOVE WITH
PROPOSALS 	REGARDING ANY MATTER WITHIN SCOPE. 	IF ADDITIONAL
PROPOSALS ARE MADE, 	APPROPRIATE 	PUBLIC NOTICE 	PROCEDURES WILL BE
FOLLOWED. 	" 	It is Mr. 	Watts' 	contention that AALA cannot
supplement 	its 	proposals 	without 	informing 	the public.
ISSUE
Did 	the Association fail 	to make 	its 	initial 	proposals
available 	to 	the public 	in a 	timely manner? 	Did 	the Association
violate 	the 	EERA's 	public 	notice 	requirement 	by articulating 	that
they had 	the 	"right 	to 	supplement" 	their 	initial 	proposals?
DISCUSSION
Availability 	of 	Proposals
In Los Angeles Unified School District 	(Watts) 	(1980) 	PERB
Decision No. 	153, 	the Board held that:
[T]he 	statute 	requires 	that 	all 	initial
proposals 	be presented at 	a public meeting
33

- -
and, 	thereafter, 	become public records.
Beyond this 	the statute 	is 	silent. 	It does
not 	specify that 	copies 	of proposals must be
made available at 	all 	subsequent meetings.
The 	issue 	regarding 	the 	availability of proposals 	at
subsequent public 	comment 	meetings 	was 	also 	addressed by 	the
Board in Los Angeles 	Unified School District 	(19 81) 	PERB Decision
No. 	181a. 	In that case, 	the Board affirmed the regional
director's 	dismissal 	of 	an allegation that 	the District 	failed 	to
make 	its proposal 	available at 	subsequent meetings, 	finding that
"Mr. 	Watts has 	failed to state any sufficient 	facts 	to constitute
a prima 	facie 	complaint."
As 	evidenced in 	the 	complaint, 	the 	Complainant 	received a
copy of 	the 	initial 	proposals 	at 	the 	first public notice meeting
which was held on June 	15. 	The 	complaint 	confirms 	that Watts
spoke at both public 	comment meetings 	which 	succeeded 	the 	June 	15
public notice meeting where 	the proposals 	were 	initially made
available 	for public 	inspection.
AALA provided 	its proposals at 	the 	June 	15 	public 	notice
meeting and 	there 	is 	no 	requirement 	for 	the 	exclusive
representative 	to make 	its 	proposals 	available 	at 	subsequent
meetings. 	Thus, 	AALA fulfilled its public notice obligation
under the 	EERA. 	The 	Complainant 	offers 	no 	evidence 	or argument
to 	support 	or 	require 	a different 	finding 	in 	this 	case.
Supplemental 	Proposals
-
The Association's 	initial proposal 	states 	that 	"AALA
reserves 	the 	right 	to 	supplement" 	its 	proposals 	"regarding any
matters within scope", 	and that 	"i_f additional proposals are
4

made, 	appropriate public notice procedures will 	be 	followed."
(Emphasis 	added.)
The 	Complainant 	argues 	that 	the Association violated section
3547 (b) 	because 	"AALA cannot present any other proposals by-
supplement" 	without 	informing 	the public. 	While 	the 	Complainant
-
only alleges a violation of section 3547(b), 	the matter that he
raises 	is addressed under section 3547(d).
EERA section 3547(d) 	provides:
(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.
The 	statute 	clearly allows 	that 	after 	initial 	proposals 	are
presented new subjects may arise and 	that 	there 	is 	a duty 	to make
them public.
It 	is 	clear that 	the proposals, 	including the amendments,
must be 	sunshined. 	The Association's 	proposals 	explicitly state
that 	appropriate public 	notice procedures 	will 	be 	followed 	in 	the
event 	that 	their 	initial proposals 	are 	supplemented. 	In sum, 	the
Association's 	statement 	indicates 	an 	intent 	to meet 	its
obligations 	pursuant 	to 	the 	EERA's 	public 	notice 	requirement.
In Los Angeles 	Community College District 	(19 81) 	PERB
Decision No. 	158, 	the Board noted that 	it 	is not an unreasonable
burden to 	require 	the 	exclusive 	representative 	to 	"sunshine" 	its
amended proposals. 	However, 	in a later, 	case, 	the Board held
that only employers 	can violate section 3547(d). 	(Sacramento City
5

Unified School District 	(1982) 	PERB Decision No. 	205.)
For the reasons 	set 	forth above, 	it has been determined that
the Association did not violate section 3547 (b) 	or 	(d) 	by-
articulating 	in 	its 	proposals 	that 	it 	reserved 	the 	right 	to
supplement 	their proposals.
CONCLUSION
Based on the facts, 	law and precedent 	discussed above, 	it 	is
determined 	that 	the 	allegations 	that AALA violated 	section 	3547
by 	failing to make 	its proposals available, 	and by its 	stated
intention to possibly supplement 	its 	initial 	proposals 	fail 	to
state a prima facie violation of Government 	Code Section 3547(b).
These 	allegations 	are 	hereby DISMISSED without 	leave 	to amend.
Right 	to Appeal
Pursuant 	to 	Public 	Employment 	Relations 	Board regulations,
any party adversely affected by 	this 	ruling may appeal 	to 	the
Board 	itself 	by 	filing a written appeal 	within 	twenty 	(20)
calendar days 	after 	service of 	this 	ruling 	(California Code 	of
Regulations, 	title 8, 	section 32925). 	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
Code of Regulations, 	title 8, 	section 32135). 	Code of Civil
Procedure 	section 	1013 	shall 	apply. 	The 	Board's 	address 	is:
Members, 	Public Employment Relations Board
1031 	18th Street
Sacramento, 	CA 	95814
6

The appeal must 	state 	the 	specific 	issues 	of procedure,
fact, 	law or rationale 	that are appealed, 	must 	clearly and
concisely state 	the 	grounds 	for each 	issue 	stated, 	and must 	be
signed by the appealing party 	or 	its 	agent.
If a timely appeal 	of 	this 	ruling 	is 	filed, 	any other party
may file with the Board 	itself 	an original 	and 	five 	copies 	of 	a
statement 	of 	opposition within 	twenty 	calendar days 	following 	the
date of 	service of 	the appeal 	(California 	Code 	of Regulations,
title 8, 	section 32625). 	If no 	timely appeal 	is 	filed, 	the
aforementioned 	ruling 	shall 	become 	final 	upon 	the 	expiration 	of
the 	specified time 	limits.
Service
All 	document 	authorized 	to be 	filed herein must 	also be
"served" 	upon all 	parties 	to 	the proceeding and 	the 	Los Angeles
Regional 	Office. 	A 	"proof 	of 	service" 	must 	accompany each copy
of a document 	served upon a party or 	filed with 	the 	Board 	itself.
(See California Code of Regulations, 	title 	8, 	section 32140 	for
the 	required contents 	and a sample 	form.) 	The appeal 	and any
opposition 	to an appeal 	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 	an
appeal 	or 	opposition 	to 	an appeal 	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
77

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 	Code 	of 	Regulations, 	title 8'
section 	32132).
DATE : CHloud 5 1993 	Nora M. 	Baltierrez
Labor Relations 	Specialist
8