Los Angeles Unified School District (Kimmett) (PERB A053E)

STATE
	OF
	CALIFORNIA
DECISION
	OF 	THE
PUBLIC
	EMPLOYMENT
	RELATIONS
	BOARD
JULES
	KIMMETT,
Charging
	Party,
	APPELLANT,
v.
LOS
	ANGELES
	UNIFIED
	SCHOOL
	DISTRICT,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case
	No. 	LA-PN-2
PERB
	Order
	No. 	Ad-53
Administrative
	Appeal
January 	8,
	1979
______________________
)
Appearances:	
Jules
	Kimmett,
	representing 	himself;Steven
	C.
	Babb,
	Attorney
	(O'Melveny 	& Myers)
	for
	Los
	Angeles
Unified
	School
	District.
Before
	Gluck,
	Chairperson;
	Gonzales
	and 	Cossack
	Twohey, 	Members.
DECISION
This 	case
	comes
	before 	the 	Public
	Employment
	Relations
Board
	(hereafter
	PERB
	or
	Board) 	on
	appeal
	from
	the
	Los
	Angeles
regional
	director's
	dismissal 	of
	a
	public 	notice
	complaint
filed
	by
	the
	appellant 	against 	the
	Los
	Angeles
	Unified 	School
District
	(hereafter
	District).
	The
	appellant 	alleged
	that
	the
District
	violated 	section
	3547
	of
	the 	Educational
	Employment
Relations
	Act
	(hereafter
	EERA)
1
in 	several 	respects.
	The
lThe
	EERA
	is
	codified 	at
	Government 	Code
	section
	3540
et
	seq. 	All 	statutory 	references 	are 	to 	the
	Government 	Code
unless 	otherwise 	noted.
Section
	3547
	provides:
(a)
	All
	initial
	proposals 	of 	exclusive
representatives
	and
	of 	public 	school
employers, 	which
	relate 	to 	matters 	within
the 	scope 	of 	representation, 	shall
	be

procedural
	history
	of
	this
	case 	including
	the
	appellant's
allegations 	is
	set
	forth
	in
	the
	attached 	decision
	by
	the
regional
	director
	and
	is
	adopted
	by
	the
	Board.
(fn.
	1
	con'
t)
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}
	kfter
	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
	bemade
	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 	schoolemployer,
	and
	to
	know
	of 	the 	positions 	of
their 	elected 	representatives.
The
	original
	complaint,
	filed
	by
	the
	appellant
	and
	three
other
	persons,2	
was
	dismissed
	with
	leave 	to
	amend.
	Only
	the
appellant
	signed
	the
	amended
	complaint,
	and
	on
	July
	21, 	1978,
2The
	original
	complaint
	was
	signed
	by
	Jules
	Kimmett,Howard
	Watts,
	and 	Ben 	Gomez. 	Hy
	Getoff
	was
	listed
	with 	the
other 	three, 	but 	did 	not 	sign 	the 	complaint.
2

the 	three 	other
	"complainants"
	were
	dismissed
	as
	parties.3
This
	decision
	was
	not 	appealed.
	Therefore,
	the 	complaint
	at
issue
	in
	this
	case
	was
	.filed
	by
	only
	one
	person,
	the
	appellant.
PERB
	rule
	37010
	provides 	in
	pertinent 	part:
A
complaint
	alleging 	that
	an
	employer
	or
	an
exclusive
	representative
	has
	failed
	to
comply
	with
	Government 	Code
	section
	3547 	may
be
	filed
	in
	the
	appropriate 	regional
	office
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
	adultstudent
	in 	the
	district
••••
	(Emphasis
added.)
The
	appellant
	is
	a
	resident
	of
	Burbank,
	which
	is
	not
	part
	of
the
	Los
	Angeles
	Unified
	School
	District.
	He
	has 	not
	alleged
that
	he
	is 	either
	an
	adult 	student
	or
	the
	parent
	or
	guardian 	of
a
	student 	in 	the
	District.
	Therefore,
	under
	PERB
	rule
	37010
governing 	the
	filing
	of 	public 	notice 	complaints, 	the
	appellant
is
	not
	a
	proper 	complainant.
The
	intent
	of 	section
	3547,
	as
	stated	
by 	the
	Legislature,
is 	that:
[T]he
	public
	be
	informed
	of
	the
	issues 	thatare
	being
	negotiated
	upon 	and 	have
	full
opportunity 	to 	express
	their
	views 	on
	the
3pERB
	rule
	37020
	provides 	that 	allegations
	made
	in
	public
notice 	complaints:
..•
shall
	be
	contained 	in
	an
	affidavit
	or 	in
a
	statement 	that
	it
	is
	made 	under
	penalty 	of
perjury
	and
	that 	the 	allegations 	are 	true
and
	correct 	to 	the 	best 	of 	the 	complaining
party's
	knowledge 	and
	belief
	..•.
Thus, 	complaining 	parties
	must 	sign 	public 	notice 	complaints.
PERB
	rules 	are 	codified 	at 	California 	Administrative 	Code,
title 	8, 	section 	31100
	et 	seq.
3

issues 	to
	the
	public
	school
	employer,
	and
	to
know
	of
	the
	positions
	of
	their
	elected
representatives.
The
	statute
	gives
	persons
	who
	are
	affected
	by
	the
	negotiations
of
	a
	particular
	school
	district
	the
	right
	to
	be
	informed
	of
	and
respond
	to
	major
	negotiating 	decisions;
	it
	does
	not
	insure
	the
ability
	of
	all
	Californians 	to
	become
	involved
	in
	the
	decisions
of
	every 	school
	district.
	PERB
	rule
	37101
	protects
	the
involvement
	rights
	of
	district
	constituents
	while
	protecting
the
	district
	from
	complaints
	filed
	by
	persons 	with
	no
legitimate
	interest
	in
	its 	activities.
The
	appellant
	is
	not
	affected
	by
	District
	negotiating
decisions.
	The
	fact 	that
	he
	has
	attended
	and
	addressed
	at
least
	264
	District
	Board
	of
	Education 	meetings
	may
	indicate
I
the
intensity
	of 	his 	self-appointed
	interest
	in 	the
	District,
	but
does 	not 	give
	him 	any
	legal 	interest
	in
	its
	negotiating
activities.
	In
	short,
	the
	appellant
	is
	not
	entitled
	to
protection
	under
	section
	3547.
The 	Board
	therefore 	dismisses 	the
	amended
	complaint 	without
leave 	to
	amend
	because 	the
	appellant 	is
	not
	a
	proper
complainant
	under
	rule
	37010.
	Furthermore, 	the
	Board
	notes
that
	the
	District
	has
	amended
	its
	public 	notice 	administrative
regulations
	to 	increase 	the
	public's 	opportunity 	to
	become
involved 	in
	Board
	negotiating 	decisions.
	The
	changes
	also
appear 	to
	meet 	the
	appellant's 	concerns. 	Thus, 	even
	if
	the
Board 	reached 	the 	merits 	in 	this 	case, 	the
	District's
	voluntary
4section 	3547
(e), 	ante, 	fn. 	1.
4

compliance
	would
	resolve
	the
	issues,
	enabling
	the
	case
	to
	be
dismissed
	under
	PERB
	rule
	37060.s
ORDER
Based
	on
	the
	foregoing 	Decision
	and
	the
	entire
	record
	in
this
	case,
	the 	Public
	Employment
	Relations
	Board
	ORDERS
	that
the
	amended
	public 	notice
	complaint
	filed
	by
	Jules
	Kimmett
against
	the
	Los
	Angeles
	Unified
	School
	District
	be
	dismissed.
Har;J,
	Chai~son
Pejilou
	Cossack
	Twohey, 	Membe#
5PERB
	rule
	37060
	provides 	in 	pertinent 	part:
Prior 	to 	the 	date
	set
	for 	hearing, 	the
regional 	office 	shall 	contact
	the 	respondent
or 	respondents
	and
	attempt 	to 	obtain
voluntary 	compliance.
	If
	the 	respondent
agrees	
to	
comply
	voluntarily,
	the 	date 	ofhearing
	may 	be
	placed 	in
	abeyance
	by
	the
regional 	director.
	Upon
	proof 	to 	the
satisfaction
	of 	the 	regional 	director 	thatthe 	respondent 	has 	complied, 	the 	regional
director
	may
	either
	approve 	the 	complaining
party's
	withdrawal 	of 	the 	complaint 	or
dismiss 	the 	complaint.
I
5

PUBLIC
	EMPLOYMENT
	RELATIONS
	BOARD
OF THE
	STATE
	OF
	CALIFORNIA
JUt.ES
	KIMMETT,
Charging
	Party,
v.
LOS
	ANGELES
	UNIFIED
	SCHOOL
DISTRICT,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
	__________________
)
Case
	No. 	LA-PN-2
NOTICE
	OF
	CANCELLATION
OF
	HEARING
NOTICE
	OF
	DISMISSAL
OF
	PUBLIC 	NOTICE
COMPLAINT
	BASEO
	UPON
VOLUNTARY
	COMPLIANCE
NOTICE
	OF
	RIGHT
	TO
APPEAL
On
	September 	22,
	1978
	William
	J.
	Sharp,
	Assistant
Superintendent, 	Office 	of
	Staff
	Relations 	of
	the 	respondent,
Los
	Angeles
	Unified
	School
	District
	(hereafter	
LAUSD	
or
respondent),
	filed	
a	
declaration
	with
	this 	office
	which
	shows
that
	the 	respondent
	has
	taken
	immediate
	action
	to
	amend
	its
public 	notice 	regulations
	in 	order 	to
	achieve 	voluntary
compliance
	with
	the 	requirements
	of 	Article 	8, 	section
	3547
	of
the
	California
	Government 	Code. 1 Based 	upon 	a
	careful
	review
of
	the 	complaint·
and
	the 	voluntary 	action 	of
	the 	respondent,
the
	LAuSD
	amended
	public 	notice 	regulations,
	on
	their
	face,
constitute
	voluntary
	com~liance 	with 	the 	requirements
	of
	EERA
section
	3547. 	For
	the 	reasons
	set 	forth
	below, 	the 	complaint
lHereafter
	all
	references 	to 	the
	California
	GovernmentCode
	are 	referred 	to 	as
	"EERA
	section
	___
	"

in 	this
	matter
	is
	dismissed 	pursuant 	to
	California
Administrative
	Code,
	title
	8,
	section
	37060 2
and
	the
	formal
hearing
	scheduled
	for
	September 	28,
	1978
	is 	cancelled.
BACKGROUND
On
	December
	20, 	1977,
	complainants
	Jules
	Kimmett,
Hy
	Getoff
3 , 	Howard 	O.
	Watts,
	and 	Ben Gomez
	(hereafter
Complainant(s))
	filed
	a
	complaint
	in
	the
	Los
	Angeles
	Regional
Office
	of 	the
	Public
	Employment
	Relations
	Board
	(hereafter
PERB)
	alleging 	violations
	of
	EERA
	section
	3547(a),
	(b),
	(c),
(d)
	and 	(e) 	by 	Los
	Angeles
	unified
	School
	District
	and
	United
Teachers,
	Los
	Angeles
	(hereafter
	UTLA). 	The
	complaint
	alleged
in
	relevant 	part 	that:
1.	
LAUSD
	did
	not
	have	
a	
policy
	under
	which
	the 	complaint
could	
be	
resolved;
2.	
LAUSD
	distributed
	a
	contract
	proposal
	at
	some
	time
after
	7:45 	in 	the
	evening
	an
	November
	14, 	1977;
3.	
LAUSD
	reduced 	the
	number
	of
	weekly
	public 	school 	board
meetings
	from 	two
	to
	one;
2Hereafter
	all
	references
	to
	California 	Administrative
Code
	are
	referred
	to 	as
	"PERB
	Regulation, 	section	
~
PERB	
Regulation
	sec.
	37060
	states
	in
	relevant 	part:
Voluntary 	Comoliance.
	Prior 	to 	the 	date
	set
for 	hearing, 	the 	regional 	office 	shallcontact 	the 	respondent 	or 	respondents
	and
attempt 	to 	obtain 	voluntary 	compliance
.•.
Upon
	proof 	to 	the
	satisfaction
	of 	the
Regional 	Director 	that
	the 	respondent 	has
complied, 	the 	Regional 	Director
	may
	dismiss
the 	complaint.
3Mr.
	Getaff 	did 	not 	sign 	the 	complaint, 	however
	his
	name
was 	typed 	at 	the 	end 	of 	the 	document.
2

4.	
LAOSD
	has 	reduced 	the 	customary
	speaking
	time
	at
	public
school
	board
	meetings
	from
	five
	(5)
	to
	three
	(3)
	minutes 	per
speaker;
5.	
The
	full
	Board
	of
	Education
	of
	LAUSD
	or
	even
	a 	quorum
is
	not
	present
	to
	hear
	speakers
	on
	agended
	topics;
6.	
LAUSD
	has
	placed
	items
	which
	the 	complainants
	wish
	to
address
	at
	the
	end
	of
	the
	agenda.
The
	complaint
	was
	referred
	to
	an
	agent
	of
	the
	PERB
	pursuant
to
	PERE
	Regulation
	section
	37030(a).
	After 	extensive
examination
	and
	investigation
	of 	the
	complaint,
	a
	Notice
	of
Dismissal
	with
	Leave
	to
	Amend
	was
	issued
	on
	May
	1,
	1978
	based
on
	the
	fact
	the 	complaint
	was
	deficient
	in
	failing
	to
	comply
with
	PERB
	Regulations
	37010 	and 	37020 	and
	failed 	to
	state	
a
claim 	pursuant
	to
	section
	37030.
The
	complainants 	did
	not 	appeal
	this
	ruling
	and 	on
	May
	5,
1978,
	complainant
	Kimmett
	sought
	assistance
	in
	filing
	an
amended
	complaint 	pursuant 	to
	PERB
	Regulation
	section
37030(b)
(1).
	With
	the
	assistance
	of
	PERB
	agents,
	an 	amended
complaint, 	signed 	only 	by 	complainant
	Kimmett, 	was
	filed
alleging 	violations
	of
	EERA
	section
	3547(a),
	(b) 	and 	(c) 4
in
that: 
1.	
On
	November
	14, 	1977, 	the
	District
held
	a
	public
	meeting 	to 	present
contract 	proposals.
	When
	the
	contract
4EERA
	sec.
	3547(a) 	through 	(c)
	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.
(Footnote 	continued.)

proposals 	were 	presented, 	there 	was 	no
quorum 	present. 	Therefore, 	it 	was 	not 	a
valid 	public 	meeting. 	Therefore,
section 	3547(a) 	was 	violated.
2. 	The 	public 	was 	not 	given 	adequate 	access
to 	the 	contract 	proposals. 	This 	is 	a
violation 	of 	3547(a) 	and 	(b).
3. 	The 	public 	was 	limited 	to 	two 	weeks 	of
preparation 	time 	prior 	to 	giving 	input
to 	the 	District 	on 	November 	28, 	1977.
This 	is 	a 	violation 	of 	3547(b). 	In 	a
district 	as 	large 	as 	LAUSD, 	the 	public
should 	have 	at 	least 	30 	days 	to 	prepare.
4. 	The 	public 	is 	limited 	to 	three 	minutes
of 	oral 	comments 	on 	this 	item 	and 	that
prevents 	the 	public 	from 	having
reasonable 	opportunity 	to 	express
itself. 	This 	violates 	3547(b).
(Footnote 	4 continued)
(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.

5.	
The
	uistrict
	manipulates 	the
	order 	of
speakers
	for
	the
	purpose
	of 	hinderingthe
	regular 	speakers.
	This
	violates
3547
(b).
6.	
On
	November
	14,
	1977,
	the
	District
	took
items
	out 	of
	order
	and
	met
	in
	executive
session
	during 	the
	Board
	of
	Educationmeeting
	in 	order 	to 	delay
	discussion
	of
the-
	initial
	proposal
	until
	members
	of
the
	public
	had 	gone 	home.5
On
	July
	21,
	1978,
	the
	Regional
	Director
	issued
	a
	partial
dismissal
	of
	the
	amended
	complaint
	without
	further
	leave
	to
amend 	and
	served 	the
	remaining
	allegations
	of 	the
	complaint
wiih
	a
	Notice
	of
	Hearing
	scheduled 	for,August
	22, 	1978.
Pursuant 	to
	PERB
	Regulation
	37010,
	the 	Regional
	Director
dismissed
	allegations
	1 	and 	6
of
	the 	complaint
	since
	they
referred
	to 	acts
	known
	to 	complainant
	which
	occurred
	more
	than
30
	days
	prior
	to 	the
	filing
	of 	the
	original
	complaint. 	All
allegations
	concerning 	respondent
	UTLA
	were
	dismissed
	since
	no
facts
	were
	alleged
	which
	constituted
	a
	violation
	of
	section
3547 	by	
that 	organization. 	Finally
	complainants 	Watts,
	Gomez
and
	Getoff
	were
	dismissed
	from
	further
	participation
	in 	the
case 	since
	they
	failed
	to 	sign 	the
	amended
	complaint.
	No
exceptions
	were
	taken 	to 	the
	partial
	dismissal.
SAllegation
	7
	of 	the
	complaint
	which 	was
	later
	omitted
stated:
The
	141-page
	document
	referred 	to 	in 	the 	complaint 	is
an
	initial
	proposal 	pursuant 	to 	Section
	3547.
5

The
	remaining
	allegations
	of 	the
	Amended
	Complaint
	which
were 	found
	to
	state
	a
	prima
	facie
	case 	are
	set
	forth
	as
	follows:
(1)	
Between
	November
	14,
	1977 	and
November
	28, 	1977,
	the 	public
	was
	notgiven 	adequate
	access 	to
	LAUSD's
	initial
proposals
	for
	negotiation
	with
	OTLAf
exclusive
	representative
	for
	the
	unit
	of
certificated
	employees,
	submitted
	by
LAUSD
	to
	its
	Board 	on 	November
	14, 	1977.
(2) 	The
	public
	was
	limited
	to
	two 	weeks
	of
preparation
	time
	prior
	to 	giving
	input
to
	LAOSD
	on 	November
	28, 	1977.
	The 	two
week
	period
	is 	unreasonable 	considering
the
	size
	of
	LAUSD
1 s
	proposals
	and
	the
size
	of
	the
	school
	district.
(3) 	The
	public
	was
	limited
	to 	three
	minutes
of
	oral
	comment 	on
	the
	proposals
	at
	the
November 	28; 	1977
	public
	meeting
	prior
to 	action
	by
	LAOSD
1 s
	Board.
(4) 	tAUSO's 	Board
	willfully
	manipulated 	the
order 	of 	public 	speakers
	on
	its
	agendaon
	November
	28;
	1977
	for 	the 	purpose
	ofhindering 	public 	input
	on 	LAGSD's
initial
	proposals.
On
	August
	16,
	1978,
	LAUSD
	filed
	its
	answer
	to
	the
	Amended
Complaint
	essentially
	denying
	the
	allegations
	and
	alleging
certain
	affirmative
	defenses.
On
	August 	22, 	1978,
	prior 	to 	the 	opening
	of
	the 	formal
hearing, 	the 	complainant
	and
	respondent
	were
	asked 	by 	the
hearing
	officer
	to 	explore 	settlement 	of 	the 	Complaint.
6
Settlement 	discussions
	ensued 	for 	the 	duration
6By
	telephone
	and
	then
	by
	letter
	dated 	August
	5, 	1978,
the 	complainant 	urged
	that 	this 	office
	should
	assist
	the
parties
	in 	obtaining 	voluntary 	compliance
	and
	settlement 	of 	the
complaint 	without
	formal 	hearing 	(see 	Exhibit
	I
	attached
hereto).
6

of 	the 	day 	and 	did 	not 	conclude 	until 	7:30 	P.M. 	By mutual
agreement 	of 	the 	parties, 	the 	formal 	hearing 	was 	postponed
pending 	the 	outcome 	of 	settlement 	discussions. 	On
September 	1, 	1978, 	the 	complainant 	rejected 	the 	settlement
offer 	of 	LAUSD 	and 	the 	matter 	was 	reset 	for 	hearing 	on
September 	28, 	1978.
On 	September 	22, 	1978, 	LAUSD 	notified 	this 	office 	it 	had
implemented 	certain 	amendments 	to 	iti regulations 	for 	public
notice 	hearings. 	As 	analyzed 	below, 	these 	amendments 	appear 	to
meet 	the 	substance 	of 	the 	complaint, 	and, 	on 	their 	face, 	appear
to 	comply 	with 	the 	policy 	of 	PERB 	Regulation 	section 	37000 	et.
~.and 	provide 	reasonable 	time 	and 	opportunity 	for 	the 	public
to 	be 	informed 	of 	and 	express 	itself 	regarding· initial 	contract
proposals 	of 	LAUSD 	as 	required 	by 	section 	3547 	of 	the 	EERA.
ANALYSIS
Since 	about 	September, 	1977, 	LAUSD 	has 	had 	"Public 	Notice
Administrati~e 	Regulations" 	which 	set 	forth 	the 	general
procedures 	which 	respondent 	shall 	follow 	in 	order 	to 	comply
with 	the 	requirements 	of 	section 	3547 	of 	the 	EERA 	and 	PERB
Regulation 	37000 	et.~- 	A copy 	of 	LAUSD 	regulations 	is
attached 	as 	Exhibit 	II. 	In 	their 	present 	form, 	the 	LAUSD
regulations 	essentially 	track 	the 	language 	of 	the 	EERA 	and 	PERB
regulations.
The 	LAUSD 	regulations 	ao 	provide 	specific 	requirements 	for
notice 	of 	initial 	proposals 	to 	the 	public 	by 	establishing 	an
active 	sunshine 	committee, 	by 	maintaining 	copies 	of 	proposals
for 	public 	inspection, 	by 	posting 	initial 	pro9osals
7

at	
tAUSD's
	public
	Information
	Unit,	
by	
ensuring
	further
circulation
	and
	posting 	of
	initial
	proposals
	at
	each
	school,
education
	commission
	office,
	central
	bureau, 	area
administrative
	office
	and
	City
	Hall
	within
	the
	Los
	Angeles
Unified
	School
	District.
	(See
	Exhibit
	II,
	pp.
	2 and
	3).
Further,
	the
	regulations
	provide
	for
	broad
	public 	notice 	of
	the
locations
	where
	initial
	proposals
	are
	available
	for
inspection.
	(Exhibit
	II,
	p.
	3).
	LAUSD's
	regulations
	also
provide
	a
	grievance
	machinery 	to
	resolve
	complaints
	that
	the
LAUSD
	regulations
	or 	the
	EERA
	have
	not
	been
	followed.
	However,
the
	grievance
	machinery 	does
	not
	preclude
	the
	filing
	of
	a
complaint 	pursuant 	to
	PERB
	Regulation
	37000
	et.~-
	(Exhibit
II,
	paragraph
	E,
	pp.
	1 	and
	2).
The 	amendments
	to
	respondent's 	regulations
	as
	contained 	in
the 	declaration of
	William 	Sharp
	substantially
	expand 	LAUSD's
obligations
	to
	afford 	reasonable 	opportunity
	to 	the
	public
	to
become
	informed
	of
	and 	comment 	upon
	initial
	contract 	proposals
of
	the
	District.
	(Exhibit
	III).
	Thus,
	paragraph	
A	
requires
that 	at 	least
	two
	regular
	meetings
	shall
	intervene
	between
	the
meeting
	at
	which
	the
	initial
	LAUSD
	proposal 	is 	presented 	to
	the
public
	and
	the 	meeting
	at
	which
	the 	proposals 	are 	adopted.
This 	rule
	would
	require
	a
	total
	of 	four
	regular 	meetings
	to
elapse
	from
	the 	time 	the
	initial
	contract 	proposal 	is 	presented
until
	it
	is
	adopted. 	Since
	LAUSD
	regularly
	meets 	once 	a 	week,
the 	public
	would 	be
	afforded 	almost
	one 	month
	to
	become
familiar 	with
	LAUSu
	initial
	contract 	proposals.
8

The
	respondent
	guarantees
	to
	make
	available 	to
	the
	public
approximately
	200
	printed
	copies	
of	
its 	initial
	proposals
during
	the
	regular
	meeting
	at
	which
	they
	are
	presented
	and
	to
publicize
	the
	availability
	of 	the
	copies
	on
	the
	agenda 	and
during
	the
	public
	meeting. 	(Exhibit
	III,
	paragraph
	E).
	This
regulation
	would
	provide 	copies 	to
	the
	public
	at
	the 	meeting
when	
the
	initial
	proposal
	is
	presented.
	The
	present
	LAUSD
regulations 	require
	substantial 	distribution
	of
	copies
	of
	the
initial
	proposal
	to
	the
	public
	through
	publication
	and
	posting.
The
	respondent
	is
	required
	to
	present
	and
	adopt
	initial
contract
	proposals
	prior
	to
	8:00
	P.M.
	during
	a
	regular
meeting.
	This
	amended
	regulation
	would
	apparently
	eliminate
any
	possibili~y 	that
	initial
	contract
	proposals
	could
	be
	placed
so
	late
	in
	the 	meeting
	agenda
	that
	the
	interested 	public
	will
not
	be
	present
	to
	receive
	and
	discuss
	the
	initial
	proposals
when
	they
	are
~resented
	and
	adopted. 	(Exhibit
	C,
	paragraphs
	B
and 	D).
The 	above 	amendments
	to
	LAUSD's
	regulations
	appear
	to
	meet
allegations
	l,
	2 and 	4
of 	the
	amended
	complaint 	as
	restated 	at
page 	6,
	supra.
To meet
	the
	allegation 	that
	the 	time 	for 	public
	comment 	has
been
	limited,
	respondent
	has 	amended
	its
	rules 	to 	permit
	no
less
	than 	twenty
	different
	speakers, 	three
	minutes 	each,
	in
which
	to
	comment 	on
	initial
	contract 	proposals 	of 	the
District.
	(Exhibit
	III,
	paragraph 	E).
	The
	LAUSD
	rules 	for
public
	comments 	on
	all
	other 	matters 	before 	the 	School 	Board
permit 	only 	seven 	speakers 	per 	topic 	for 	a
	period 	of 	three
minutes 	each. 	(Exhibit 	IV,
	LAUSD
	Rule 	131c). 	Thus, 	the
	total
time 	for 	public 	comment 	on
	initial 	contract 	proposals 	is 	sixty
9

minutes
	at
	the
	meeting
	at
	which
	they
	are
	adopted.
	The
	Board
rule
	for
	comment
	on
	all
	other 	issues
	is
	twenty-one
	minutes.
Further,
	since
	the
	amenaments
	require
	the
	intervention
	of
	two
regular
	meetings
	between
	the
	presentation
	and
	adoption 	meeting,
the
	public
	may
	also
	comment 	under
	the
	District's
	normal
	rules
a t
	eac
	.	h 	o f
	th
e
	in
t
ervening
	. 	mee t
ings.
	' 	7
The 	amended
	LAUSD
	public 	notice 	regulations
	further
	provide
that
	"[t]he
	Boa~d,
	in
	its
	discretion,
	may
	allow
	more
	than
twenty
	speakers.
	Absent
	an 	emergency
	or
	other
	compelling
circumstances
	a 	quorum
	of 	the
	Board
	of
	Education
	shall
	be
present
	in
	the
	Board
	Room
	during
	the
	time 	such
	speaker
	speaks,
although
	a
	speaker
	may
	waive
	this
	provision
.•	
"	
(Exhibit
III,
	paragraph
	C).
7rn
	paragraph
	4
of	
the
	original
	complaint, 	the
complainant
	alleged
	LAOSD
	had
	reduced 	the 	"customary"
	speakingtime
	from
	five
	to
	three
	minutes. 	In 	paragraph
	3
	of
	the
	amended
complaint
	at
	p.	
6	
above, 	complainant
	alleges 	that
	"the
	public
was
	limited 	to
	three
	minutes 	of
	oral
	comment 	on
	the 	proposals
at
	the
	November
	28,
	1977
	meeting
	prior
	to 	action	
by	
tAOSD's
"Board." 	This
	three-minute 	rule
	was
	consistent
	with 	the
respondent's
	documented
	policy of 	limiting 	public
	comment
	to
twenty-one 	minutes 	divided
	amongst
	seven
	persons
	on 	any
	topic
in
	the
	agendao 	The 	amended
	rule
	would
	substantially
	broaden
the
	time 	for
	public
	comment 	on
	initial
	contract 	proposals.
	In
addition,
	the
	amended
	rules 	of 	the 	respondent 	provide 	for 	the
intervention
	of
	two
	regular
	meetings
	during
	which
	interested
persons 	could
	also
	comment 	upon
	initial
	contract 	proposals
under 	the 	three-minute
	rule.
	Thus, 	one
	individual 	could 	speak
for
	nine 	minutes
	on
	the
	initial
	contract 	proposal
	from
	the
	time
the 	proposal 	is 	presented
	until
	it
	is
	adopted.
10

The 	amended
	regulation
	concerning 	the
	time
	for
	public
	input
appears 	to
	utilize
	a
	standard 	of
	reasonablenesq 	to
	permit
extended
	public
	comment
	at
	the
	discretion
	of 	the
	School
	Board
in
	order
	to 	permit
	full
	expression
	of
	public 	sentiment.
Further,
	the
	amended
	rule 	requires
	a 	quorum
	of 	the 	School
	Board
to
	be
	present
	when
	the
	public
	is
	speaking
	to
	initial
	contract
proposal.
	This
	amendment 	would
	meet
	allegations
	of
	the
original
	and 	amended
	complaint
	previously 	dismissed.	
(See
discussion 	at
	pp.
	3-6,
	suora.)
Finally,
	while 	the
	amended
	regulations
	of
	LAUSD
	are
	couched
in
	terms
	of 	"absent
	an
	emergency
	or
	other
	compelling
circumstances"
	and
	"best
	efforts"
	of 	the
	LAUSD,
	these 	phrases
do 	not 	excuse 	compliance 	with 	the
	amended
	rules.
	·Rather, 	they
place
	the 	burden
	of 	proof
	upon
	the
	LAUSO
	to
	show
	that
	any
deviation
	from
	the
	regulations
	was 	done
	in
	good
	faith
	and
	with
substantial 	justification.
CONCLUSION
Based 	upon	
the
	above
	analysis,
	it
	is
	concluded
	that 	the
respondent
	has
	substantially 	altered
	its
	regulations 	concerning
public 	notice 	in 	order 	to
	meet
	the
	objections 	of 	the
	amended
complaint 	in
	this 	action.
	The
	PERB
	regulations 	require
	that
[i]t
	is
	the 	policy 	of 	the
	Board
	to
	encourage
the
	parties
	to
	comply
	voluntarily
	with
Article 	8, 	Public 	Notice,
	Government 	Code
section
	3547
	•.••
The 	Board 	urges 	public 	school 	employers 	to
promulgate 	a
	local 	policy 	to 	implement
Government 	Code
	section
	3547 	and
	also
recognizes 	that 	the 	implementation 	of 	that
11

section,
	as 	well
	as
	all
	other
	prov1s1ons
	ofthe
	Act,
	is
	most
	effective
	when
	it
represents
	a
	consensus
	of
	all
	parties
	and
the
	public
	.•••
The 	Board
	recognizes
	that
	there
	are
	several
methods
	which 	may 	be
	used
	to
	adhere 	to 	the
Public
	Notice
	provisions 	contained 	in 	(the
EERA]
	• 	o 	• 	and
	urges
	that 	application
	of
the
	law 	be
	applied
	with
	a 	maximum
	of
communication 	between
	public
	schoolemployers,
	exclusive
	representatives
	and
concerned
	citizenso
	(PERE
	Regulation
	37000).
The 	amended
	rules
	of
	LAUSD
	appear
	to
	meet
	the 	concerns
which 	form
	the 	bases
	of
	the 	complaint.
	Moreover,
	the
	voluntary
action
	taken	
by	
LAOSD
	goes 	to 	concerns
	raised	
by	
allegations
which 	were
	subsequently 	eliminated
	from
	the 	complaint 	by
amendment
	or
	dismissal.
	The
	action
	taken	
by	
LAOSD
	provides
	a
specific
	voluntary
	change
	in
	policy.
In
	light
	of 	the
	fact 	that
	the
	acts
	complained
	of 	concerned
a
	single
	meeting
	in
	November, 	1977 	and
	relate
	to
	unique
	facts
existing 	at
	that
	time,
	it
	is 	doubtful
	that 	this
	agency
	could
formulate
	any 	more
	specific
	remedy
	in
	light
	of
	the
	rule 	of
reason
	which
	underlies
	the
	spirit
	and
	intent 	of
	EERA
	section
3547
	even
	if
	complainant
	were
	to
	prevail
	on
	all
	substantive
allegations
	of 	the 	complaint.
This 	conclusion	
is	
based 	upon 	a
	reading 	of 	the
	amended
LAUSD	
regulations 	together
	with 	the
	allegations 	of
	the
complaint 	in	
this 	matter.
	Should
	the
	amended
	regulations 	of
LAUSD,
	as 	anplied, 	limit
	the
	right 	of 	public 	to
	become
	informed
of
	and 	comment 	upon
	initial
	LAUSD
	contract 	proposals 	in 	the
future, 	this
	or 	other 	complainants
	shall
	still
	have
	their
	11
day
in 	court~ 	when 	a
	specific 	fact 	situation 	~resents
	itself.
1 ?

ORDER
It
	is
	hereby
	ordered
	that:
	(1)
	the
	amended
	complaint
	shall
be
	dismissed;
	(2)
	the 	respondent
	shall
	forthwith
	file
	with	
the
Los
	Angeles
	Regional
	Dfrector,
	with
	a 	copy
	to 	the
	complainant,
the 	revised 	Administrative
	Regulations
	incorporating
	the
amendments 	found
	in 	Exhibit
	III;
	and 	(3)
	the
	formal
	hearing
scheduled 	for
	September
	28,
	1978
	is
	cancelled.
Pursuant 	to
	California
	Administrative
	Code,
	title
	8,
section
	37060, 	complainant
	may
	appeal
	this
	dismissal
	by
	filing
written
	exceptions
	with 	the
	Board
	itself
	at
	923
	12th
	Street,
Suite
	201, 	Sacramento,
	CA
	95814
	within
	seven
	(7)
	calendar
	days
following 	the 	date 	of
	receipt
	of
	this
	order. 	Written
exceptions
	should	
be	
filed
	no
	later
	than 	the
	close 	of
	business,
5:00 	P.M.,
	October
	4, 	1978.
	The
	exceptions
	shall
	be
accompanied 	by	
a
	proof 	of 	service
	of
	the
	document 	upon
respondent
	and
	the 	Regional
	Director.
	The
	exceptions
	shall
state
	the 	grounds
	upon 	which
	the
	dismissal
	should
	be
	reversed.
Dated:
	September
	27,
	1978	
FRANCES
	KREILING
REGIONAL
	DIRECTOR
Delivered 	by	
Hand
_September 	27, 	1978
13
J;
By__,,..---------'-r-c,-+'--'-"-'--,,-..-*----=-
/ 	Keri
	PereaHearing
	Officer

LA-PN-2
Burbank, California
2344 Catalina Street, 91504 ELE
LJUI'D2DJ1(,
	VJJIOI'I21a
23'-}4	
Catalina	
Str-ee
c,	
9-1504
Jules Kimmett , Chairman ~ MeWin Perfitsh, Secretary- Jr 	LOS ANG
sure
848-6917 	845-5386 or 845-59
August 5, 1978
TO: .: FRANCES KREILING
FROM: . JULES KIMMETT BL. 1/Y 12 01
In our conversation of August 3, 1978 I spoke to you about a meeting to bed
held at the Board of Education prompted by a conversation with Mr. Steven
. Babb. . A distinct advantage to all members who have not attended where the
oard meets. and don't know where 450 North Grand Avenue is . . I challenge
Taxpayers Funds going to O'Melveny & Myers to pay our opponents in this
Public Hearing."
B
I resent the	the. arrogance of Attorney Babb in not using the instrument of pre-
liminary hearings to bargain in good faith and the aggravated contempt o
not informing your office concerning its discussion. These actions flaunt
and flout the PERB Power. 	It: is imperative and necessary that you as the
Regional Director exert the, power vested in you to do something other than
slap their wrist. " Failure to do so is to surrender and abdicate Taxpayers
Rights.
I't has been 26 days since your letter of July 11, 1978 to Secretary-Treasure:
Griffin (per PERB Regulation 32126(3) has been sent WHY THE DELAY IN NOT
REPLYING? ? ? .
"
. JULES . KIMMETT
Shop Steward Local 9.9 SEIU
"c"" Shift Custodians
Los Angeles Valley College.
Chairman Concerned Citizens
Committee of Burbank.
"
.'
JK/ ck
PLEASE MAIL RESPONSE TO:
1106-D West Olive Avenue
Burbank, California 91506
EXHIBIT
i
	--1
,I
•
. .
.
.,	
.
.·;
I
. ' I
. 	i
..
	·,, ;
•
·:.'	
t	
; •Ao • 	I 1
. 	j
....
,_
__ .....,,,	
"-'---
u 	1 	1 	n
	,.,,(i	
..
1 ·
·,
..
....
•
•;·:
•••	
f •
•'
	'•
..
·'·
EXH!BIT' 1
..
	. . . .	. .
..
..
'.
	.	
,,.
: . \ ·
..
(;

\
i
j
(
LOS 	AHGELES
	UNIFIED
	SCHOOL
	DISTRICT
Office
	of
	the
	Superintendent
BULLETIN 	NO.
18
Sentember
	30,
	1977	·
SUBJECT: 	PUBLIC 	HO'TtCE 	ADt1INI:iTRAT!VE
	R.EGULA"l'IOtIS
	OF 	THE
LOS	
ANGELES	
UN
!FIED
	SCHOOL
	btSTRIC:'t
	REGAR.Di
NG
COLLECTIVE
	NEGOT!ATiot~S
	\HTH
	THE
	CERTIFICATEI'.5
EHrtoYtts
A.	
All
	initial
	proposals
	6f
	the
	certificated
	exclusive
representative
	and
	the
	Los 	AnPPles
	Unified
	School
	District
which
	relate
	to
	matters 	within
	the 	scope
	of
	representation
in
	Section
	3543.2
	of
	the
	Government 	Code,
	shall
	he
	presented
at
	a
	public
	meecinF,
	of
	the
	Board
	of
	Educar.ion.
	The
	initial
proposals
	thereafter 	shall
	be 	a
	public 	record.
B.	
Mee
tinr,
	and 	negoc
i.
at
ing
	sha
11
	not
	t:8.ke
	place
	cm
	an:'
	initial
proposal
	until
	a
	reasonable
	time 	has
	elapsed
	after
	the
submission
	of
	the 	proposal
	to
	enable 	the
	public
	co 	become
informed
	and
	the
	puhlic
	has
	the
	opportunity 	to 	express
	itself
regardinp; 	the 	propo~al
	at	
c1	
meeting
	of
	t:h~	
BoRrd	
of
	Educacion.
C.	
After
	the
	public
	bas
	had 	r.he
	opportunit:y 	to
	e:qness
	itself,
the
	Roard
	of·Education
shall,
	RC
	a
	meeting
	which
	is
	open
	co
the
	public,
	a<lopc
	its 	initial
	proposal.
D.	
t1ew
	suhjects
	of
	meetinp.;
	and
	ne8otiacinlj
	arising
	after
	the
presentation 	of
	initial
	proposals
	shall
	he 	made
	public 	within
24
	hours.
	If
	a
	vote
	is
	taken
	on
	such
	subject
	by
	the
	Board
of
	Education, 	the 	vote 	thereon
	by
	each
	member
	voting
	shallalso
	be 	made
	public within
	24
	hours.
E.	
During 	any
	rep:ular
	rnee
tin,;
	o
.f:	
the
	Boa
rd
	of.
	Education
	any
person
	representing 	himself 	or
	herself
	or
	an
	organization
~ay 	complain
	to 	the
	Board
	of 	Education 	chat 	the 	provisions
of
	Government 	Code
	Section
	3547
	or 	this 	policy
	have
	not
	been
followed. 	Within
	fifteen
	(15) 	workin~ 	days 	and
	at
	a
	regular
meeting 	the
	Board 	o~
	Education
	shall
	review 	the 	comnlaint
	and
make 	a	
decision
	on
	said 	complaint.
	The
	decision of
	the
	Board
of
	Education
	shall
	be
	final.
The 	Board
	of Education's 	complaint 	procedure
	shall
	not
prohibit
	any 	person
	from
	filing
	a
	complaint 	with 	the
Educational
	Employment
	Relations
	Board 	as
	provided 	inChapter 	7, 	Public 	Notice 	Proceedings, 	of 	that 	Board's 	rules
and
	regulations.
	A copy
	of 	Chapter 	7
will
	be
	provided by 	the
EXHIBIT 2

BULLETIN
	H0.18
September
	30, 	1977
	-2- 	Office
	of
	the
	Superintendent'
Public
	Information 	Office
	or
	the 	Office
	of
	Staff
	Relations
upon
	request.
	The 	Board
	of
	Education
	or
	the 	Educational
Employment
	Relations
	Board's 	complaint 	procedures
	shall
	not
prohibit
	the
	parties
	from
	continuing
	the
	negotiation
	pr.ocess
pending
	the
	resolution
	of. 	any
	complaint
	filed.
~F. 	The
	District 	shall
	recognize 	the
	"Sunshine
	Committee",
	which
includes 	representatives
	from
	the
	League
	of
	Homen
	Vo-cers,
the
	10th
	and
	31st
	PTA
	District:s,
·Area
Advisory
	Councils,
Citizens'
	Management 	Review
	Cornmi
t:tee, 	Superintendent's
	ResourceCommittee
	for
	Sex
	Equality, 	the 	city-wide
	St:uden-t A.ff
airs
Council
	and
	the 	four 	Ethnic 	Education
	Cornoissions.
	The 	Committee
shall
	serve
	on 	an
	ad hoc
	basis
	to
	the 	Personnel
	and
	Schools
Committee
	of
	the
	Board
	of
	Education.
	Its
	pri:ciary
	purposes
shall
	be	
as	
follows:
1.	
To
	convene
	public
	meetings
	at
	least
	monthly
	to
provide 	for
	an
	exchange
	of 	information, 	questions,
and 	answers
	among
	the
	co!1!I!littee 	members
	regarding
initial
	and
	subsequent
	proposals
	by
	the
	parties.
Such
	meetings
	may
	include 	dialogue 	with
	the
Exclusive 	Representative
	and
	with 	the
	Board
	of
Edu.cation
1 s
	negotiator.
2.	
To
	develop
	a
	proposal 	to
	further
	implementGovernment 	Code
	Section
	3547,
	Public
	tfot:ice, 	which
represents
	the 	consensus
	of.
	all
	parties
	and
	the
public
	and
	provides 	for	
a maximum
of
	communication
between 	concerned
	citizens,
	the
	certificated
	ex-
clusive 	representative
	and
	the
	Board
	of 	Education.
G.	
The
	District 	shall
	oake
	the
	Board
	of
	Education and
	the
exclusive 	representative's
	proposals 	accessible 	to
	the
	public
in
	the
	following manner:
The 	Public 	Information
	Unit
	and
	the
	Office
	of.
	Staf.: Relations
shall
	maintain
	a
	file
	of
	all 	initial
	and
	subsequent
	proposals,each
	of
which
	shall
	be
	available 	for 	public 	inspection 	during
regular
	workinp, 	hours 	on
	the 	day
	following
	presentation.
	The
Staff. 	Relations'
	O~f.ice
	will
	respond 	to 	questions 	of 	the
	public
on
	collective bargainin8.
Such
	files 	shall 	also 	include 	within
	24 	hours 	the
	position 	ofeach
	Board Member
	if
orally
	expressed by 	vote	
at	
a
	public
meeting.
A
	copy 	of 	initial
	proposals 	presented 	at
	a
	public 	meeting
	of 	theBoard 	of 	Education
	shall
	be 	posted 	and
	available 	for 	inspectionand 	review 	through 	the 	Public 	Information 	Unit
	until
	such 	time
as 	ne?,otiat:ions 	are 	completed. 	This 	information, 	within
	a
reasonable 	period 	of 	time, 	will
	be
	available 	in 	the 	following
locations:
(
\
( .

(
\
(
Office 	of
	the
	Supe~neendent
	-3-
BULLETIN
	NO.
	18
September
30,
	1977
1.	
Each
	school
	within
	the
	District
	during 	school
hours.
	Each
	principal
	shall
	advise
	the
	chair-
person
	of
	the 	advisory
	council,
	PTA/PTSA,
	and
other
	recognized 	school
	community 	F,roups
	as 	to
all
	information 	received	
by	
the 	school
	on
	the
subject 	of
	collective
	bargaining.
2.	
The
	Tenth
	and
	Thirty-first 	District
	Parent-
Teacher
	Association
	Off.ices.
3.	
Each
	Education
	Commission
	Office.
4.	
Each
	Central,
	Business,
	and
	Area
	AdninistrativeOffice.
In
	addition
	to 	the
	above,
	the
	Public 	Information 	Unit
will
	mail
	a 	copy
	of
	initial
	proposals 	to 	each
	City 	Hall
~ithin
	the 	school
	district
	and
	request 	that
	the
	City
Clerk	
of.	
each
	respective
	City 	Hall
	post
	the
	same
	for 	public
viewinp;.
H.	
Sources
	of
	Information.
Prior
	to 	meeting
	and
	negotiating,
	the
	public
	may
	become
	informedand have
	the 	opportunity 	to 	express
	itself
	at
	a
	public
	meeting
of
	the
	Board
	of
	Education
	regarding
	an
	initial
	proposal.
Publications 	containing
	announcements
	or
	surn:r.i4ries
	of
	anv
initial
	proposal
	made	
by	
the
	District
	or
	an
	Exclusive
Representative
	will 	indicate
	the 	various
	locations
	at
	which 	the
full
	proposal
	may 	be
	reviewed.
	Such
	informative
	publications
will
	be
	issued
	through 	the 	Public 	Information 	Unit
	and
will
include 	the 	followin8:
1. 	Public 	Information 	Unit
	Board
	Action
	flier
	for 	posting
in
	schools,
	offices, 	public
	libraries,
	and
	governmental
asency
	locations 	within
	District
	boundaries,
	and
postinr,
	on
	the
	Board
	of
	Education
	bulletin
	boards
	ac
Area,
	Central
	and 	Business 	Center
	Offices.
2.	
Spotlieht.
3.	
Press 	releases
	to 	newspapers, 	radio
	and
	television.
4.	
Special 	Interim Report 	on
	Negotiations 	for 	schooland
	office 	posting.

BULLETIN
	tm.
	18
September 	30,
	1977
	-4-
	Office
	of.
	the
	Superintendent
The
	Sunshine
	Committee
	shall
	report
	to
	the 	Personnel
	and
	Schools
Committee
	periodically.
	The
	Sunshine
	Committee
	is
	charged
	with
developing
	a
	proposal
	to
	further
	implement
	Government 	Code
	Section
3547 	on
	or 	before
	June 	30, 	1978.
	Until
	a
	proposal
	is
	developed
	and
adopted	
by 	the
	Board
	of
	Education
	this
	policy
	shall
	be
	the
administrative 	regulations 	of
	the
	District.
For
	assistance 	Please 	contact
	William
	J.
	Sharp,
	Assistant
Suoerint:endent,'
Sta.i::.t	
Relations,
	625-6255. 	'
APPROVED:	
William J. 	Johnston
DISTRIBUTI0H: 	All 	Schools 	and 	Offices
(
\.

l
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
ll
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
O'MELVENY & MYERS
t.os -'MGl:L..&s. CA1..JF'. 9-0017
Attorneys 	for 	Defendant
Los 	Angeles 	Unified 	School 	District
. -·.
STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
JULES 	KUL.'1ETT,
Complainant,
vs.
LOS 	ANGELES 	UNIFIED 	SCHOOL 	DISTRICT,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
_____________________ )
I, 	WILLIAM 	J. 	SHARP, 	declare:
CASE 	NO, 	T,~-PN-2
DECLAR.ATION 	OF
WILLLZl.....'1 	J. 	SHARP
1. 	I 	am 	the 	Assistant 	Superintendent, 	Office 	of
Staff 	Relations, 	of 	the 	Los 	Angeles 	Unified 	School 	District
(the 	"District").
2. 	My 	duties 	include 	formulating 	the 	District's
9olicies 	regarding 	compliance 	with 	the 	Rodda 	Act, 	Governnent
Code 	Section 	3540 	~- 	~-, 	including 	Section 	3547 	thereof
on 	the 	subject 	of 	2uolic 	notice.
pUH3IT 	3

1
2
3
4:
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
.13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
23
3.	
This
	action
	involves
	allegations 	that
	the
	District
did 	not
	coCTply
	with
	Government
	Code
	Section
	3547
	in 	presenting
to
	the-9ublic
	and
	in
	adopting
	certain
	initial
	certificated
contract 	proposals.
	In
	an
	effort
	to
	achieve
	voluntary
	compliance
pursuant 	to 	Section
	37060
	of
	the
	Rules
	and
	Regulations
	of
	the
Public
	Employment
	Relations
	Soard,
	but 	without
	admitting
	or
agreeing
	that
	such
	actions
	are 	required	
by	
statute
	or 	regulation,
the
	District
	has
	determined 	to
	add
	certain
	9rovisions 	to
	its
present 	regulations
	governing
	public 	notice
	for
	negotiation
matters.
	Attached
	hereto
	as
	Exhibit	
A	
and
	incorporated
	herein
by
	reference
	is
	a
	copy
	of 	these
	new
	provisions.
	These
	provisions
will
	become
	effective
	immediately.
I
	certify
	and
	declare
	under
	penalty
	of
	perjury
	that
the 	foregoing
	is
	true
	and
	correct.
Executed
	at
	Los
	Angeles,
	Los
	Angeles 	County,
	California
this
	21st
	day
	of
	September, 	1978.
-
I
2.

A.	
Absent
	an 	emergency
	or 	other
	compelling
	circumstances,
the
	District
	will
	allow 	the
	intervention
	of
	at
	least
two
	regular
	meetings
	of
	its
	Board
	of
	Education
	between
the
	time
	that
	its 	initial
	certificated
	contract
	pro-
prosals
	are
	first
	presented 	to
	the
	public
	at
	a
	Soard
meeting
	and
	the 	meeting
	at
	which
	such
	proposals 	are
adopted.
B.	
The
	District
	will
	use
	its
	best
	efforts
	to
	insure 	that
its 	initial
	certificated
	contract
	proposals
	are 	pre-
sented 	to
	the
	public 	before
	8:00
	P.M.
	during
	regular
meetings
	of
	its
	Board
	of
	Education.
	The
	public
	shall
thereafter
	have
	an
	opportunity
	to 	express
	its
	views
on
such	
proposals.
C.	
Each
	public
	speaker 	addressing 	the 	issue 	of
	such
proposals
	shall
	be
	permitted 	to
	speak
	for
	three
minutes
	at
	Board
	meetings 	during
	which 	such
	proposals
are
	adopted.
	A
total
	of
	twenty
	different
	public
speakers
	shall
	be
	permitted 	to 	address 	the
	issue 	of
initial
	certificated
	contract 	proposals
	at
	such
meetings
	if
	twenty 	persons
	indicate
	a
	desire 	to
	do
so. 	Speakers
	shall
	not
	be
	permitted 	to 	waive
	their
time 	to 	other 	spea~ers.
	The
	Board
	in
	its
	discretion
.
SX~I3IT 	A

may
	allow
	more
	than 	twenty
	speakers.
	Absent 	an
emergency
	or 	other
	compelling
	circumstances,
	a
quorum
	of
	the
	Board
	of
	Education
	shall
	be
	present
in
	the
	Board
	Room
	during 	the
	time 	such
	speakers
speak,
	although
	a
	speaker
	may
	waive
	this
	provision
and
	continue
	speaking
	when
	a
	quorum
	is
	not
	present.
D.	
After
	the
	public
	has
	~ad 	an
	opportunity	
to	
express
itself,
	the
	Board
	of
	Education
	shall, 	at
	a
	meeting
which
	is
	open
	to 	the
	public,
	adopt
	its 	initial
certificated
	contract
	proposals.
	The
	District 	will
use
	its
	best
	efforts 	to
	insure
	that 	consideration
of 	the 	matter 	of
	adoption
	of
	its 	initial
	certificated
contract
	proposals
	shall
	commence
	before
	8:00 	?.M.
at
	regular
	Board
	meetings.
E.	
At
	least
	200
	copies 	of
	such
	proposals
	shall	
be
available
	to
	members
	of 	the
	public
	at
	meetings
during
	which
	those
	initial
	contract
	proposals 	are
presented 	to 	the 	public	
by	
the
	Board.
	The
	agenda
or
	Order 	of 	Business 	for
	such 	meeting
	shall
	note
the
	availability
	of
	such
	?roposals.
	An
	announce-
ment
	shall
	be
	made
	at
	such 	raeeting
	that
	copies
	will
be
	available 	to 	the 	public
	at
	the 	time
	that 	the
Board
	acts 	to 	present 	the 	pro2osals 	to 	the 	public.

BOARD RULE 	lJl
Taken 	from Regular Board Meeting Minutes - 	October 31, 	1977
131. 	At 	the discretion oc 	the Board, 	any perso~, 	as an 	individual or
as a 	representative of a group, 	may be granted p~:-:::ission to 	address 	che
Board by oral presentation at a Regular :!eeti~g concerning any subject
Chae 	lies within 	the jurisdiction of the Board, 	provi~ed the 	req~irements
and 	precedures herein set 	forth are observed.
a. 	A request 	to address the Board shall be made to 	the Clerk of 	the
Board before 10:00 a.m. 	of 	the day of 	the ~eeting of 	the Board at
which the oral presentation is to be made. 	In addition, 	a 	speaker's
card confirming 	this request shall be filed with rh~ 	r1e~v of 	the
Board by 3:00 p.m. 	on the same day. 	Infor.:2ation en 	the card shall
include name, 	addr~ss, 	and telephone number of 	the person wishing 	to
speak, 	name of group represented, 	if any, 	and a concise statement
describing 	the exact nature of the subject or subjects 	to be discussed.
However, 	persons wishing to speak to an item on the Committee of 	the
Whole agenda to be acted upon at 	the Regular }!eeting of the Board on
the same day may be heard at 	the Regular :-fee ting providing a 	speaker's
card has been filed with the Clerk of 	the Board at the conclusion of
t~:~ meeting of 	the Committee of 	the T..J"hole.
b. 	No speaker shall be permitted 	to address 	the Board on a 	topic which is
before a Board Committee until 	that committee has completed 	its deli-
berations and reported 	to 	the Cor..mittee of 	the ;.;hole. 	Prior 	to 	this
action, 	speakers may be heard in committee.
EXHIBIT'4

Pase
	2
c.	
There
	shall
	be
	no more
	than 	ten	
(10) 	speakers
at
	any
	regular
meecing
of 	the
Board
on
	nonagenda
	ite~s.
	Three minutes
	s~all
	be
	allotted
	to
each
speaker-,
	and a ir.a:dmum
of
	t~..;enty-one
minutes
	:o
	each
subject ::act:er.
The number
of speakers
	on any
one
	topic
	shall
be
	limited
	to 	seven
	(7),
except
as
provided
	below:
l.	
Representatives of
groups wishing 	to 	speak
	to
	any
one
	topic
	shall
be
limited
	to
	three
minutes
per speaker
provided
	the
	time
	does
not
	exceed
a
	total
	of
	twenty-one
minutes.
2.	
When
	there are
speakers in opposition
	to each
other
	on
a
	topic,
they
	shall
be
	limited
	to
	three 	for
	each
sidec
3.	
There
	is
nothing
which
precludes
	the
	Board from amending
	these
rules
when
necessary.
d. 	Speakers 	to 	items
	other
	than
	those
	on
	the
	agenda
	shall
be
	limited
	to
	t~o
(2)
	appearances
	per
month
at	
a
Regular
	Board
Heeting.
e.	
There
	is
nothing
	in this
	section
which
precludes 	the
?resident, 	~ith
concurrence
of the
	Board,
	from
	calling
	a
	special
meeting
	for 	the sole
purpose
of hearing speakers.
f.	
No
oral
presentation
	shall
	include charges
or
complaints
	against
	any
employee
of 	the
	Board
of Education,
	regardless of
whether
or not 	the·
employee
	is
	identified in
	the
presentation by
name
or
by
any
other
reference
which
	tends 	to
	identify
him. 	AJ.l
	charges or complaints 	against
employees
	shall
	be submitted to 	the
Board
under the 	provision of
	Rule 133.
go	
Oral presentations 	to 	che Board
are subject
	to 	the further 	provisions
contained 	in
Rules 132 	to 	139.

h. 	The speaker's card will state 	the 	speaker's willi~gness 	to 	abide
by 	the rules of 	the Board and 	rulings of 	the Chair in 	support of
respectfuly conduct and language as well as 	the avoidance of 	disruptive
activities, 	or risk curtailment of 	the privilege of addressing 	the
Board publicly.