California School Employees Association (Watts) (PERB 1008E)

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF 	THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
HOWARD 0. 	WATTS,
Complainant,
v.
CALIFORNIA 	SCHOOL 	EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION,
Respondent.
Case No. 	LA-PN-132
PERB Decision No. 	1008
August 9, 	1993
Appearances; 	Howard 0. 	Watts, 	on his own behalf; 	William C.
Heath, 	Attorney, 	for California School 	Employees Association.
Before Blair, 	Chair; 	Caffrey and Carlyle, 	Members.
DECISION
BLAIR, 	Chair: 	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)
dismissing Watts' 	public notice complaint. 	In his 	complaint,
Watts 	alleged 	that 	the 	California 	School 	Employees Association
(CSEA) 	violated section 3547 	of 	the Educational 	Employment
Relations Act 	(EERA)1 by: 	(1) 	failing to adequately develop its
1EERA is 	codified at Government 	Code 	section 3540 	et 	seq.
Section 3547 	states:
(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
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
______________ )

proposals 	to 	allow 	the public 	to understand what 	issues 	were 	to
be 	discussed at 	the bargaining 	table; 	and 	(2) 	not making 	its
proposals 	available 	to 	the public.
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 	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 positions 	of
their 	elected 	representatives.
22
The 	Board has 	reviewed 	the 	entire 	record 	in 	this 	case,
including Watts' 	appeal. 	We 	affirm the 	Board agent's
determination as 	to 	the 	first 	issue. 	We 	reach 	the 	same 	result
on 	the 	second 	issue, 	but 	base 	our 	result 	on a different 	theory,
as 	discussed below.
DISCUSSION
Availability 	of 	Proposals
Watts 	alleges 	that 	he 	received a 	copy 	of 	CSEA's 	proposal 	at
a public 	meeting where 	the 	reopeners 	were 	presented, 	but 	that 	it

was 	incomplete. 	He 	contends 	that 	the 	second side of 	the proposal
had not been xeroxed and so was blank. 	On the basis 	of 	these
facts, 	Watts 	claims 	that 	CSEA failed to make 	its proposals
available 	to the public.
The 	Board agent 	found 	that 	CSEA's 	action of 	providing 	the
Los Angeles Unified School District 	(District) 	with copies 	of 	the
proposals 	demonstrated a 	conscious 	effort 	to 	fulfill 	the public
notice requirements of section 3547(a).
However, 	this 	is not a proper violation with which to 	charge
an employee 	organization. 	Only 	the 	employer 	can be 	held 	liable
for violation of 	the 	duty 	to present 	proposals 	at 	a public
meeting, 	because 	the employer controls 	the meeting agenda.
(Service Employees International Union. 	Local 99 	(Watts) 	(1990)
PERB Decision No. 	863.) 	In Los Angeles 	Community College
District 	(Kimmett) 	(1981) 	PERB Decision No. 	158, 	the Board
held that 	it 	is 	the 	district's 	obligation and responsibility
to provide proper public notice 	and 	to present 	all 	initial
proposals--its-own as 	well 	as 	those 	of 	the 	exclusive
representative--to 	the public 	at 	an appropriate meeting.
Citing Kimmett, 	the Board, 	in United Professors 	of California
(Watts) 	(1984) 	PERB Decision No. 	398-H, 	states that the proper
respondent 	for this allegation is 	the employer only. 	Thus, 	CSEA
is not 	the proper respondent 	to 	the allegation that 	its proposals
were not made available 	to 	the public.
W	
3

Appeal
On appeal, 	Watts alleges 	for the 	first 	time 	that 	CSEA and
the District 	engaged 	in negotiations before 	the public 	notice
process 	had been 	completed.
PERB Regulation 32635 	states, 	in pertinent part:
(b) 	Unless good cause is shown, 	a charging
party may not 	present 	on appeal 	new charge
allegations 	or new supporting 	evidence.
This 	allegation was not presented prior to Watts' 	appeal,
and no assertion of good cause was made. 	Therefore, 	the Board
cannot 	consider whether 	CSEA violated 	EERA by negotiating before
the public 	notice process 	had been 	completed.
ORDER
The unfair practice 	charge 	in Case No. 	LA-PN-132 	is hereby
DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE 	TO AMEND.
Member Caffrey 	joined 	in 	this 	Decision.
Member Carlyle's 	concurrence 	and dissent 	begins 	on page 	5.
4

Carlyle, 	Member, 	concurring and dissenting: 	I concur with
the majority 	insofar as 	it 	affirms 	the 	Board agent's
determination 	that 	the 	California 	School 	Employees 	Association
(CSEA) 	did make its proposals available to the public; 	however, 	I
disagree with the majority's 	theory and, 	in part, 	with the Board
agent's 	reasoning as well.
The 	Educational 	Employment 	Relations 	Act 	(EERA)1 section
3547 states,- in pertinent part:
(a) 	All 	initial proposals of exclusive
representatives 	and of 	the 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.
(e) 	The board 	[public school board] 	may
adopt 	regulations 	for the purpose 	of
implementing this 	section, 	which are
consistent with 	the 	intent 	of 	this 	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 positions 	of 	their elected
representatives.
Pursuant to EERA section 3547(a) 	and 	(e), 	the Los Angeles
Unified School District 	(District) 	promulgated Bulletin No. 	18
(Rev.) 	dated September 26, 	1988 	(hereinafter referred to as
"Bulletin").
The 	District's 	Bulletin 	concerning 	accessibility 	of 	initial
proposals 	is set forth, 	in relevant part:
V. 	ACCESSIBILITY OF 	INITIAL 	PROPOSALS
JEERA 	is 	codified at Government 	Code 	section 3540 	et 	seq.
Unless 	otherwise 	indicated, 	all 	statutory references 	herein are
to 	the Government 	Code.
55

A. 	Certificated 	Proposals
The District 	shall make 	the Board and the 	exclusive
representative's 	proposals 	accessible 	to 	the public 	in
the 	following manner:
1. 	The 	PIO and the Office 	of 	Staff Relations 	shall
maintain a 	file 	of all 	initial 	and subsequent 	new
proposals, 	each of which shall be available 	for public
inspection during 	regular working hours 	on 	the 	day
following presentation and 	thereafter until 	the 	close
of negotiations. 	The Staff Relations Office will
respond to questions 	from the public 	on 	collective
bargaining 	issues.
2. 	Such files 	shall 	also 	include within 24 	hours 	the
position 	of 	each Board Member 	if 	orally 	expressed by
vote 	at 	a public meeting.
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.
C. 	Classified 	Proposals
The 	PIO and the Office 	of 	Staff 	Relations 	shall
maintain a 	file 	of 	all 	initial 	classified proposals 	and
subsequent new subjects 	for negotiations. 	Each 	initial
proposal 	or new subject 	shall 	be 	available 	for public
inspection during 	regular working hours 	on 	the 	day
following presentation 	and 	thereafter until 	the 	close
of negotiations. 	The Staff Relations Office will
respond 	to questions 	of 	the public 	on 	classified
collective bargaining 	issues.
Each exclusive 	representative 	shall provide 	a
reasonable number of copies, 	not to exceed twenty 	(20),
of 	its 	initial proposals at 	the time 	the exclusive
representative presents 	its proposals 	to 	the District.
These 	copies 	shall be made available 	to 	the public at
the 	Board meeting at 	which the proposals 	are presented.
When one 	reads 	the previously 	cited EERA section 	in
conjunction with the District's Bulletin, 	one arrives at 	the
following 	conclusion: 	There 	is no per se 	statutory requirement
that 	copies 	of 	the 	initial 	proposals be 	supplied to 	the public at
public meetings; 	only that 	they become public records. 	The 	only
requirement 	concerning 	such availability at 	public meetings 	is
66

found in the District's Bulletin, 	and it 	only applies 	to copies
being made available 	at 	the 	Board meeting at which 	the proposals
are 	presented.
Howard 0. 	Watts 	(Watts) 	alleges 	that he did in
fact 	receive a 	full 	and complete 	copy of 	CSEA's 	initial 	re-opener
proposal 	at 	the August 3, 	1992 	District public meeting at which
it was presented. 	The one and only requirement 	concerning
production of 	copies 	at 	a public meeting as 	a result 	of 	the
Bulletin has been met. 	Watts 	does 	not 	allege or assert 	that 	the
various 	other provisions 	of District Bulletin No. 	18 	concerning
retention 	of 	all 	initial 	proposals 	and availability 	to 	the public
as 	public 	records 	were violated by 	the District.
Accordingly, 	I would affirm the Board agent's 	decision
finding 	that 	CSEA properly made 	its 	proposal 	available 	as
required. 	The 	discussion by the 	Board agent 	concerning 	CSEA's
"conscious effort," 	relative to the August 17, 	1992 meeting, 	is
not 	necessary to dispose 	of 	this 	issue.
While 	it 	is undoubtedly true 	that 	CSEA is 	not 	the proper
party 	to be 	charged 	for an alleged violation 	of 	the 	duty 	to
present proposals 	at 	a public meeting, 	I do not 	endorse 	the
majority's 	notion 	that 	the 	dismissal 	should be 	affirmed
for this 	reason. 	To me, 	reliance on such a basis puts 	"form over
substance" 	and has 	the potential 	to 	lead to dangerous 	results 	in
future 	cases, 	not 	just 	those limited to the public notice arena.
Further, 	this defect was 	imminently correctable at 	the
complaint 	stage but was not 	rectified by the Board agent. 	Again,
I am not prepared to rule against 	someone, 	in part, 	because of
7

failure 	to 	correct 	a procedural 	defect 	in 	the pleading at 	an
early 	stage 	of 	the proceeding which would not 	have 	resulted 	in
any prejudice 	to anyone.
As 	I 	stated 	in my dissent 	in Los Angeles 	Unified School
District 	(Watts) 	(1992) 	PERB Decision No. 	964:
Under EERA, 	the public has 	an opportunity to
make 	its views 	known at 	the beginning of 	the
collective bargaining process. 	There 	is no
obligation on the part 	of 	the District 	to
receive 	any additional 	public 	input 	during 	or
at 	the 	end of 	the process 	when the 	final
agreement 	is 	to be voted/ratified upon. 	This
is 	true even if 	the 	final 	document bears
little, 	if any, 	resemblance to the initial
proposal 	which was 	subject 	to public 	comment.
Accordingly, 	under such constraints, 	I weigh
more heavily to 	the 	side 	of 	an 	informed
public 	and 	full 	compliance with 	the public
notice 	requirements 	than I 	do any derived
benefits 	of 	the 	interest-based bargaining
format 	on an initial 	proposal.
My view has 	not 	changed nor does 	it 	change 	if 	the 	initial
proposal 	is made by 	the 	exclusive 	representative 	instead 	of 	the
District. 	Indeed, 	one 	could envision an even more 	compelling
rationale 	of 	the 	need 	for detail 	and 	specificity 	if 	the 	initial
proposal 	in question 	is 	proffered by other than one's 	elected
representatives.
In my opinion, 	the 	initial 	re-opener proposal 	of 	CSEA in
Article IV 	(CSEA Rights), 	Article X 	(Evaluation Procedures),
Article XII 	(Wages and Salaries, 	Pay Allowances, 	Differentials
and Special 	Salary Practices), 	and Article XIII 	(Health and
Welfare), 	is 	lacking in sufficient detail 	and specificity so as
to comply with EERA section 3547(b).
88

Indeed, 	in reading 	the 	Board agent's 	administrative
determination, 	one 	cannot help but be 	struck by the 	"assumption
language" 	utilized in the decision. 	On page 	7, 	the determination
reads, 	relative to Article 	IV, 	that 	"[t]he 	issue regarding the
reinstatement 	of 	CSEA's 	right 	to use 	the 	school's mail 	system,
can be 	reasonably understood 	to provide 	that 	the mail 	system
would be used as a vehicle for CSEA . 	. 	. 	." 	(Emphasis added.)
Article X 	is 	addressed 	in the determination: 	"[a]lthough
CSEA did 	not 	provide 	specific 	details 	indicating how 	they
intended to evaluate 	. 	. 	. 	it can be reasonably
understood . 	. 	. 	." 	(Emphasis added.)
Concerning Article XII, 	again on page 	7, 	the determination
states:
Perhaps 	CSEA could have been more 	specific 	in
----	describing 	th	---	e 	possibl	-----	e budgetar	--y 	impac	-- ---	t 	of
this proposal, 	but 	consideration must be
given to 	the 	fact 	that 	the District's
financial 	situation has 	been well 	publicized.
It 	is 	common knowledge 	that 	the District 	is
facing a 	financial 	crisis.
(Emphasis 	added.)
Finally, 	regarding Article XIII, 	the Board agent 	states
that 	in the proposal, 	"CSEA indicated that 	they were 	'interested
in maintaining 	and/or 	improving 	the 	current 	benefit 	package'" 	and
that 	"they would 	consider all 	suggestions 	and/or 	options 	which
would 	'improve 	or maintain 	the 	current 	benefit 	package 	and 	still
be 	cost-effective.'" 	The 	Board agent 	found 	this 	language 	to be
satisfactory, 	holding that 	the 	"proposal 	provides 	the public with
sufficient 	information 	regarding 	what 	health and welfare-related
issues will be discussed and negotiated, 	and the public 	is 	also
informed 	of 	CSEA's bargaining position." 	(Emphasis 	added.)
99

I 	am 	concerned 	that 	affirming 	the 	administrative
determination which 	found 	CSEA's 	initial 	re-opener proposal 	to
adequately 	inform the public 	in 	compliance 	with 	EERA section
3547(b), 	will 	result 	in virtually every future public notice
complaint 	case 	being decided 	in a 	similar 	fashion.
It 	is 	hard 	to 	imagine 	language which could be more general
or broad 	than 	that 	utilized by 	the 	Board agent 	in 	the
administrative 	determination 	in 	finding 	that 	CSEA did not 	violate
EERA section 	3547(b) 	or that 	CSEA could be more 	general 	and 	lack
any more 	detail 	in 	its positions, 	particularly relating 	to
"Health and Welfare," 	which was 	akin to 	"we want 	to keep what we.
have at a minimum, 	and we will 	try to get more, 	and we are open
to any and all 	options 	to get us 	there."
I 	would 	reverse 	the 	administrative 	determination and 	find
that 	there was 	a violation of 	EERA section 3547(b) 	due 	to a 	lack
of 	sufficient 	detail 	and 	specificity 	concerning 	all 	four Articles
as 	previously discussed herein.
10

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
HOWARD 0. 	WATTS,
Complainant,
v .
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL 	EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 	LA-PN-132
.
ADMINISTRATIVE
DETERMINATION
April 15, 	1993
This 	administrative 	determination dismisses 	the 	above-
captioned public 	notice 	complaint 	filed by Mr. 	Howard 0. 	Watts
(Complainant 	or Watts) 	against 	the 	California School 	Employees
Association 	(CSEA). 	CSEA represents 	the Los Angeles Unified
School 	District's 	(Employer or District) 	Office 	Technical/
Business 	Services 	employees, 	unit D.
BACKGROUND
On August 	8, 	1992,1 Complainant 	filed a public 	notice
complaint 	in 	the 	Los Angeles 	Regional 	Office 	of 	the 	Public
Employment 	Relations 	Board 	(PERB 	or Board) 	pursuant 	to 	PERB
regulation 	32190.2 The 	complaint 	contends 	that 	CSEA violated
1All dates 	herein refer to 	calendar year 	1992.
2PERB 	regulation 	32190 	states 	in part:
32190. 	Filing of EERA. 	Complaint. 	A
complaint 	alleging 	that 	an employer or 	an
exclusive 	representative 	has 	failed 	to 	comply
with Government Code section 3547 	. 	. 	. 	may
be 	filed 	in 	the 	regional 	office. 	An EERA
complaint 	may be 	filed by an 	individual 	who
is 	a 	resident 	of 	the 	school 	district 	involved
in 	the 	complaint 	or who 	is 	the parent 	or
guardian of a student 	in the district. 	The
complaint 	shall be 	filed no later than 3 0
days 	subsequent 	to 	the 	date when 	conduct

Government 	Code 	section 3547(b),3 by failing 	to adequately
develop 	its 	proposals 	to 	allow the public 	to understand what
issues were 	to be discussed at 	the bargaining 	table, 	and by not
making 	their proposals 	available 	to 	the public.
alleged 	to be a violation was 	known 	or
reasonably could have been discovered. 	. 	.
On August 	3 	and 17 	the District's 	Board of 	Education held
public meetings 	where 	reopener proposals 	for 	1992-93 	were
presented 	for 	information and 	comment. 	CSEA asserts 	that 	during
these meetings proposals were made available 	to 	the public. 	Mr.
Watts 	confirms 	that 	on August 	3 	he 	received an entire 	copy of
CSEA's 	proposal, 	but 	alleges 	that he 	received an 	incomplete
proposal 	on August 	17.
A review of 	CSEA's 	1992-93 	reopener proposals 	indicates 	that
their proposals 	were presented 	in an 	interest-based bargaining
format.4 CSEA's 	proposals 	also 	indicate 	that 	specific 	contract
3The 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) 	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
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.
4 CSEA's 	proposal 	in 	section 	1. 	Reopener Agreement
Negotiations 	indicated 	that 	the 	interest-based bargaining 	was
based on 	the 	following 	elements:
a. 	Focus 	on the 	interests 	of 	the parties, 	not
positions;
22

language 	would be 	"mutually 	developed by 	the 	parties 	after
reaching agreement 	on specific 	options." 	Sections 	2 	and 	3 	of
CSEA's 	initial proposal 	read as 	follows:
2. 	ARTICLES EFFECTED
The 	following articles 	of 	the 	collective 	bargaining
agreement 	will 	or may be 	impacted by negotiations 	of
our proposed interest. 	Such 	impact may result 	in
amendments, 	modifications, 	and/or eliminations 	of
contract 	language:
Article 	IV 	CSEA Rights
Article 	X 	Evaluation 	Procedures
Article XII 	Wages and Salaries, 	Pay allowance,
Differentials 	and 	Special 	Salary
Practices
Article XIII 	Health and Welfare
3. 	ARTICLE 	- 	Statement of Interest
IV 	CSEA RIGHTS:
CSEA 	is 	interested 	in 	having 	the 	district 	grant
reasonable release 	time 	to CSEA officers, 	site
representatives 	and job stewards. 	Such 	release
time would be utilized 	for 	the 	above mentioned 	to
attend and/or 	conduct 	CSEA Chapter Meetings, 	CSEA
Workshops 	and Site Meetings.
CSEA is 	interested 	in having 	the 	district
reinstate 	the 	right 	of 	CSEA to use 	the 	school 	mail
system.
X 	EVALUATION 	PROCEDURE;
CSEA is 	interested 	in 	evaluating 	the 	need,
practice, 	purpose, 	application and effectiveness
of 	the 	current 	evaluation procedures.
b. 	Work hard on 	the problem and 	soft 	on 	the people;
c. 	Create 	"options" 	which will 	satisfy the parties'
interests, 	measuring 	options 	against 	mutually
established 	criteria.
3

XII 	Wages and Salaries, 	Pay Allowance, 	Differentials
and Special 	Salary 	Practices.
CSEA 	is 	interested 	in preserving 	and protecting
the income of Unit 	"D" 	employees.
XIII 	HEALTH AND WELFARE;
CSEA 	is 	interested 	in maintaining 	and/or 	improving
the 	current 	benefit 	package 	without 	out-of-pocket
cost 	to bargaining unit 	employees. 	CSEA is 	open
to 	considering all 	suggestions 	and/or 	options
which would 	improve 	or maintain 	the 	current
benefit package 	and 	still 	be 	cost-effective.
The District's public 	notice policy5 in pertinent 	part
states:
V. 	Accessibility of 	Initial 	Proposals
A. 	Classified Proposals 	.
The 	PIO and 	the Office 	of 	Staff 	Relations 	shall
maintain a 	file 	of 	all 	initial 	classified
proposals 	and 	subsequent 	new 	subjects 	for
negotiations. 	Each initial 	proposal 	or new
subject 	shall 	be 	available 	for public 	inspection
during 	regular working hours 	on 	the 	day 	following
presentation and 	thereafter until 	the 	close 	of
negotiations. 	The Staff Relations 	Office will
respond 	to questions 	of 	the public 	on 	classified
collective 	bargaining 	issues.
Each 	exclusive 	representative 	shall 	provide 	a
reasonable number of 	copies, 	not 	to exceed twenty
(20), 	of its 	initial proposals at the time the
exclusive 	representative presents 	its 	proposals 	to
the District. 	These 	copies 	shall 	be made
available 	to 	the 	public 	at 	the 	Board meeting 	at
which 	the proposals 	are 	presented.
ISSUES
Did 	CSEA's 	re-opener proposals 	adequately 	inform 	the 	public?
Did 	CSEA make 	its 	proposals 	available 	to 	the 	public?
5The 	Complainant 	provided 	PERB with a 	copy of 	the 	District's
Public Notice policy, 	Bulletin No. 	18 	(Rev) 	September 1988,
section V 	(C).
44

DISCUSSION
Specificity 	of 	Proposals
The 	intent 	of 	the public notice 	requirements 	is 	set 	forth 	in
Government 	Code 	section 3547(e).6 PERB's 	regulations
implementing 	the provisions 	of 	section 	3547 	were 	adopted 	to 	fully
protect 	the public's 	rights 	in this 	regard. 	(Los Angeles
Community College District 	(1978) 	PERB Order No. 	Ad-41.)
In Palo Alto Unified- School District 	(1981) 	PERB Decision
No. 	184, 	the Board found that 	"the 	initial proposals presented to
the 	public must 	be 	sufficiently developed 	to permit 	the 	public 	to
comprehend 	them." 	PERB 	found a proposal 	"which 	is 	simply a
statement 	of 	the 	subject 	such as 'wages' does 	not 	adequately
inform the public 	of 	the 	issues 	that 	will 	be 	negotiated." 	(Id.)
The Board held, 	however, 	that a proposal 	for a cost 	of 	living
adjustment 	based 	on 	the 	Consumer 	Price 	Index 	is 	"sufficiently
developed 	to 	inform the public what 	issue will 	be 	on 	the 	table 	at
negotiations." 	(Id.; 	see also American Federation of Teachers
College Guild. 	Local 	1521 	(Watts) 	(1989) 	PERB Decision No. 	740.)
As 	noted by 	the 	Board 	in Los Angeles 	Unified 	School 	District
(1992) 	PERB Decision No. 	964 	(LAUSD), 	"EERA's public notice
6Section 3547 (e) 	states:
(e) 	The board may adopt 	regulations 	for the
purpose of 	implementing this 	section, 	which
are 	consistent with the 	intent 	of 	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 positions 	of 	their elected
representatives.
5

statute, 	Government Code section 3547, 	contains no express
provision 	stating 	that 	the 	initial 	proposals 	which 	it 	requires 	be
made public must be 	'specific' 	in nature."
The 	Board 	has 	noted 	that 	the 	"interest-based 	approach 	to
bargaining 	tends 	to produce 	initial 	proposals 	which do 	not
include a great deal 	of specific details," 	therefore, 	proposals
presented 	in 	the 	interest-based 	format must 	be 	reviewed 	on an
individual 	basis 	to determine 	if 	they meet 	the underlying 	EERA
public notice 	requirement. 	However, 	the Board applies 	the same
standard 	to 	the 	interest-based proposals 	as 	it 	does 	to 	the 	non
interest-based. 	Thus, 	the use of a new or different bargaining
technique 	does 	not 	excuse 	the parties 	from the 	statutory
requirements 	set 	forth in EERA. 	(SEE LAUSD).
For CSEA to 	fulfill 	its public notice obligation, 	its
reopener proposals 	must be 	sufficiently developed 	to 	allow 	the
public 	to 	comprehend 	the 	issues 	which will 	be 	on 	the 	table 	during
negotiations.
A review of 	the 	CSEA's proposals 	to 	the District 	reveals
that 	it sought 	to focus on four subject areas: 	(1) 	CSEA Rights;
(2) 	Evaluation Procedure; 	(3) 	Wages and Salaries, 	Pay Allowance,
Differentials 	and Special 	Salary Practices; 	and 	(4) 	Health and
Welfare. 	These names 	of 	subject areas were 	reflective 	of 	the
articles 	from 	the 	current 	agreement 	or 	standard 	reopener
proposals. 	Such 	references 	clearly 	identified 	the 	negotiable
issues.
In 	the area of 	"CSEA Rights" 	CSEA addressed two 	items:
6
6

"release 	time" 	and the 	"use 	of 	the 	school mail 	system."
The 	"release 	time" 	proposal 	specifically 	identified who 	would be
using 	such 	time 	and how it 	would be 	spent.
The 	issue 	regarding 	the 	reinstatement 	of 	CSEA's 	right 	to use
the 	school's mail 	system, 	can be 	reasonably understood 	to provide
that 	the mail 	system would be 	used as 	a vehicle 	for CSEA to
communicate with 	its members 	regarding 	representation matters,
including negotiable 	issues. 	Both 	"CSEA Rights" 	proposals
adequately 	inform the public 	of 	the 	issues 	that 	will 	be
negotiated.
In 	the area of 	"Evaluation Procedure" 	CSEA indicated a
desire to evaluate the 	"need, 	practice, 	purpose, 	application and
effectiveness 	of 	current 	the 	evaluation procedures." 	Although
CSEA did not 	provide 	specific 	details 	indicating 	how 	they
intended 	to 	evaluate 	or study the 	current 	"Evaluation 	Procedure,"
it 	can be 	reasonably understood that 	there 	is 	a potential 	for
revising the existing procedure. 	Furthermore, 	the public 	can
identify 	the 	issue 	that will 	be 	negotiated.
Regarding 	"Wages and Salaries, 	Pay Allowances, 	Differentials
and 	Special 	Salary 	Practices," 	CSEA indicated an 	interest 	in
"preserving and protecting 	the 	income 	of Unit 	"D" 	employees."
Perhaps 	CSEA 	could have been more 	specific 	in describing 	the
possible budgetary impact 	of 	this proposal, 	but 	consideration
must 	be 	given 	to 	the 	fact 	that 	the District's 	financial 	situation
has 	been well 	publicized. 	It 	is 	common knowledge 	that 	the
District 	is 	facing a 	financial 	crisis. 	The public 	can easily
y

identify what 	CSEA is 	proposing when 	it 	uses 	the phrase
"preserving and protecting" 	at 	a 	time 	when 	the District 	is
considering how to make 	substantial 	budget 	cuts.
Finally, 	regarding the 	"Health and Welfare" 	proposal, 	CSEA
indicated 	that 	they were 	"interested 	in maintaining 	and/or
improving 	the 	current 	benefit 	package." 	They 	further 	state 	that
they would 	consider all 	suggestions 	and/or 	options 	which would
"improve 	or maintain 	the 	current 	benefit 	package 	and 	still 	be
cost-effective." 	It 	is 	clear 	from these 	statements 	that 	the
focus 	of 	negotiations 	will 	be 	to maintain and/or 	improve 	the
current benefit package without 	out-of-pocket 	cost. 	This
proposal 	provides 	the 	public 	with 	sufficient 	information
regarding what 	health 	and welfare-related 	issues 	will 	be
discussed and negotiated, 	and 	the public 	is 	also 	informed of
CSEA's 	bargaining position.
1
Availability 	of 	Proposals
The Board has 	held 	in Los Angeles 	Unified School 	District
(Watts) 	(1980) 	PERB Decision No. 	153 	that there is no requirement
for 	the 	exclusive 	representative 	or 	the 	employer 	to make
available 	at 	each public 	comment meeting a 	copy of 	its 	proposals.
The 	issue 	regarding 	the 	availability 	of 	proposals 	at
subsequent 	public 	comment 	meetings 	was 	also 	addressed by the
Board 	in Los Angeles 	Unified School 	District 	(1981) 	PERB Decision
No. 	181a. 	In that case, 	the Board affirmed the regional
director's 	dismissal 	of 	a 	similar allegation 	that 	the District
failed to make 	its proposal 	available at 	subsequent meetings. 	The
CO
	8

Board 	found 	that 	"Mr. 	Watts 	has 	failed 	to 	state 	any sufficient
facts 	to 	constitute 	a prima 	facie 	complaint."
On August 	3 	and 	17 	the School 	Board conducted the 	required
public 	comment meetings 	where proposals 	were made 	available 	to
the public 	and 	the public 	was 	given an 	opportunity 	to 	express
their views.
The 	Complainant 	affirms 	that 	on August 	3 	he 	attended a
public 	notice meeting where 	he 	received a 	copy of 	CSEA's 	entire
proposal.7
CSEA's 	actions 	of providing 	the District with copies 	of 	its
proposals 	demonstrates 	a 	conscientious 	effort 	to 	fulfill 	both 	the
public notice 	requirements as 	outlined in Section 3547(a),8 and
the District's 	Public Notice policy. 	As 	evidenced 	in 	the
complaint 	there 	is 	no question that at 	the 	first public notice
meeting 	the District made 	available 	to 	the public an entire 	copy
of CSEA's proposals. 	Therefore, 	CSEA's obligation has been met.
CONCLUSION
For the 	foregoing reasons, 	the 	instant 	complaint 	is
7In the 	instant 	complaint 	the 	Complainant 	asserts 	that 	on
August 	17 	at 	a public 	comment meeting 	the 	only proposals 	that
were available 	for public 	inspection were 	incomplete. 	This 	is a
moot 	issue. 	The 	issue 	that 	is being addressed in this
administrative 	determination 	is 	whether or not 	CSEA's 	proposals
were made 	available 	to 	the public as 	required under 	the 	EERA.
"Section 3547 (a) 	states:
(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.
99

DISMISSED without 	leave 	to 	amend 	for 	failure 	to 	state 	a violation
of Government 	Code 	section 3547.
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
Administrative Code, 	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 Administrative Code, 	title 8, 	section 32135).
Code of 	Civil 	Procedure 	section 1031 	shall 	apply. 	The Board's
address is:
Members, 	Public Employment Relations Board
1031 	18th Street
Sacramento, 	CA 	95814
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
singed by he 	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 	in 	opposition within 	twenty 	calendar days 	following 	the
date 	of 	service 	of 	the 	appeal 	(California Administrative 	Code,
title 8, 	section 32635). 	If no timely appeal is 	filed, 	the
10

aforementioned 	ruling 	shall 	become 	final 	upon the 	expiration 	of
the 	specified 	time 	limits.
Service
All 	documents 	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 Administrative Code, 	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
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 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).
Dated: 	April 	15, 	1993
Nora M. 	Baltierrez
Labor Relations 	Specialist
11