Los Angeles Unified School District (PERB 1465E)

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
HOWARD 0. WATTS,
Complainant,
V.
LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Respondent.
Case No. LA-PN-152-E
PERB Decision No. 	1465
October 	29, 	2001
Appearances: Howard 0. Watts, on his own behalf; Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker by
Niloofar Nejat-Bina, Attorney, for Los Angeles Unified School District.
Before Amador, Baker and Whitehead, Members.
DECISION
AMADOR, Member: This case comes before the Public Employment Relations Board
(Board) on appeal by Howard 0. Watts (Watts) to a Board agent's dismissal (attached) of the
public notice complaint. The complaint alleged that the Los Angeles Unified School District
violated the Educational Employment Relations Act (BERA) 1 when it changed its policy
regarding the time limit for public comment at Board of Education meetings. 	Watts alleged
that this conduct constituted a violation of BERA section 3547(a), (b) and (c).2
1EERA is codified at Government Code section 3540 et seq.
2 BERA section 3547 provides, in pertinent part:
(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.

After reviewing the entire record, the Board finds the Board agent's dismissal to be free
from prejudicial error and adopts it as the decision of the Board itself.
ORDER
The public notice complaint in Case No. LA-PN-152-E is hereby DISMISSED
WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.
Members Baker and Whitehead joined in this Decision.
(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.
(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.
2

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
HOWARD
0.
WATTS,
Complainant,
V.
LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Res ondent.
CASE NO. LA-PN-152-E
DISMISSAL OF PUBLIC NOTICE
COMPLAINT
July 18, 2001
This decision dismisses the above-captioned public notice complaint filed by Howard
0.
Watts against the Los Angeles Unified School District.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On August 13, 2000, 1 Howard
0.
Watts filed this public notice complaint with the
Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) pursuant to PERB Regulation 32910;2 the
complaint was amended on September 25. The complaint alleges that the Los Angeles Unified
School District violated the Educational Employment Relations Act (EERA) §3547(a), (b) and
( c) 3 when it changed its policy regarding the time limit for public comment at Board
of
All dates referenced occurred in 2000 unless otherwise specified.
2 PERB Regulation 32910 provides, in pertinent part:
A complaint alleging that an employer or an exclusive
representative has failed to comply with Government Code
sections 3523, 3547, 3547.5 or 3595 may be filed in the regional
office. An EERA complaint may be filed by any 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 school district or
is an adult student in the district.
3 EERA is codified at Government Code §3540 et seq. 	§3547 (a), (b) and (c) provide:
(a) All initial proposals of exclusive representatives and of
public school employers, which relate to matters within the scope

Education meetings. 	The complaint states that the previous policy allowed three minutes for
individuals to comment on initial bargaining proposals and three minutes on all other agenda
items. 	This policy was changed to allow a total
of
three minutes for both.
After receiving an extension
of
time, the District responded to the complaint on January
11,
2001. The response asserts that the complaint should be dismissed as untimely and without
merit.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Watts alleges that the District changed its policy regarding the time allotted for public
comment regarding both initial proposals and other agenda items on June 15, when a
new
public notice policy was issued in Bulletin No. AJ-1 (Revised). 	He states that a member
of
the
public announced the policy change at a July
11
Board
of
Education meeting, after having
obtained a copy
of
the new bulletin. Watts claims that he became aware
of
the new policy on
July 13, after visiting the Staff Relations Office and acquiring a copy
of
Bulletin AJ-1 (Revised).
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.
( 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.
2

In support of his complaint, Watts submitted copies of the District's current and
previous public notice policies as exhibits. 	Bulletin No. 18, effective from 1988-1998,
provides that "each speaker shall be permitted to speak for three minutes at Board meetings
during which [initial] proposals are reviewed or adopted."
Bulletin No. AJ-1 replaced Bulletin No. 18 on November 6, 1998. Bulletin AJ-1
provides that "each public speaker addressing [initial] proposals shall be permitted to speak for
three minutes at Board meetings during which such proposals are reviewed and adopted."
Bulletin AJ-1 (Revised) was issued on June 15. This bulletin provides that:
"each speaker addressing the [initial] proposals shall be permitted
to speak for three minutes at Board meetings during which such
proposals are reviewed and/or adopted.... Public speakers, who
are limited by Board Rules to a single appearance before the
Board at any meeting also may address other issues under the
Board's purview during their three minute period if they have
notified the Board Secretariat when signing up to speak."
(Emphasis added.)
All three bulletins also provide for at least two opportunities for public input on
initial proposals.
ISSUE
Has the District violated the public notice provisions of the EERA by limiting speakers
at public Board of Education meetings to three minutes to speak on initial bargaining proposals
and all other agenda items?
DISCUSSION
Timeliness
PERB Regulation 32910 provides, in pertinent part:
The [public notice} complaint shall be filed no later than 30 days
subsequent to the date when conduct alleged to be a violation was
known or reasonably could have been discovered.
3

(
In its argument that the complaint should be dismissed as untimely, the District points
out that Bulletin AJ-1 (Revised) was issued on June 15, almost two months prior to the filing
of
the public notice complaint on August 13. The District claims that Watts, "given his
renowned vigilance over all District actions," could reasonably have discovered Bulletin AJ-1
(Revised) well before he filed his complaint.
Watts states that the public was made aware
of
the new policy contained in Bulletin AJ-
l(Revised) at a Board
of
Education meeting on July 11, by another member
of
the public. 	He
asserts he became aware
of
it when he acquired a copy during a visit to the Staff Relations
Office on July 13.
While it is possible that Watts knew
of
the substance
of
Bulletin AJ-1 (Revised) at least
by July 11, it appears that he did not have a copy
of
the bulletin to confirm his knowledge
regarding the change in policy until July 13, thirty days prior to filing. 	Therefore, the public
notice complaint is found to be timely.
Change in Policy
The intent
of
the public notice requirements is set forth in §3547(e):
...
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.
The District's policy is to allow speakers at a public Board
of
Education meeting three
minutes to speak to initial proposals. There has been no change in this policy since at least
1988, as evidenced by the three bulletins submitted as exhibits in this case, including Bulletin
AJ-l(Revised).4 PERB has consistently held that three minutes is an adequate period
of
time to
address initial proposals. (Los Angeles Unified School District, supra, PERB Decision
4 In fact, the three minute rule has been in effect since 1977, as discussed in Los
Angeles Unified School District (1984) PERB Decision 405.
4

No. 405; Los Angeles Unified School District (1985) PERB Decision No. 494; Los Angeles
Community College District (1991) PERB Decision No. 908; Los Angeles Unified School
District (1993) PERB Decision No. 1000.5)
The issue Watts complains
of
is that the District has limited public comment on all
agenda items, including initial proposals, to three minutes. 	While this limitation may create a
hardship for the complainant, PERB has no jurisdiction over the District's policy regarding
public input on agenda items that are not related to public notice. 	As long as the District
continues to permit speakers three minutes to address initial proposals, it continues to fulfill its
public notice requirements under the EERA.
CONCLUSION
The District has not changed its policy
of
allowing the public three minutes to speak to
initial proposals, a length
of
time which PERB has found to be sufficient to comply with its
public notice requirements: For this reason, and since PERB lacks jurisdiction over the
District's time limitations for public input regarding issues other than initial bargaining
proposals, the public notice complaint filed in this case is DISMISSED.
Right to Appeal
Pursuant to PERB 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 (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, sec. 32925). The Board's address is:
Public Employment Relations Board
Attention: Appeals Assistant
1031 18th Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
FAX: (916) 327-7960
5 In all of the Los Angeles Unified School District cases cited here, as in the instant
case, audio tapes of Board of Education meetings reveal that Watts has used his allotted time to
criticize the three minute rule and to address other issues not relating to public notice.
5

A document is considered "filed" when actually received before the close
of
business
(5
p.m.) on the last day set for filing or when mailed by certified or Express United States mail,
as shown on the postal receipt or postmark, or delivered to a common carrier promising
overnight delivery, as shown on the carrier's receipt, not later than the last day set for filing.
(Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, secs. 32135(a) and 32130.)
A document is also considered "filed" when received by facsimile transmission before
the close
of
business on the last day for filing together with a Facsimile Transmission Cover
Sheet which meets the requirements
of
California Code
of
Regulations, title 8,
section 32135(d), provided the filing party also places the original, together with the required
number
of
copies and proof
of
service, in the U.S. mail. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, sec. 32135(b),
(c) and (d); see also Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, secs. 32090 and 32130.)
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 in opposition within twenty calendar days following the
date
of
service
of
the appeal (Cal. Code Regs., tit.
8,
sec. 32625).
	If
no timely appeal is filed,
the 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 San Francisco Regional Office Regional Office. A "proof
of
service" must
accompany each copy of a document served upon a party or filed with the Board itself. 	(See
Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, sec. 32140 for the required contents and a sample form.) The appeal
and any opposition to an appeal will be considered properly "served" when personally
6

delivered or deposited in the first-class mail postage paid and properly addressed. A document
filed by facsimile transmission may be concurrently served via facsimile transmission on all
parties to the proceeding. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, sec. 32135(c).)
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 other party regarding
. the extension, and shall be
accompanied by proof of service of the request upon each party (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8,
sec. 32132).
7