Los Angeles Community College District (Watts) (PERB 0153E)

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
DECISION 	OF 	THE
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
HOWARD WATTS,
Complainant,
v.
LOS 	ANGELES 	COMMUNITY COLLEGE
DISTRICT,
Respondent,
ana
AMERICAN 	FEDERATION 	OF 	TEACHERS
COLLEGE 	GUILD, 	LOCAL 	1521, 	AFL-CIO,
____________________Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
}
Case 	No. 	LA-PN-20
PERB 	Decision 	No. 	153
December 	31, 	1980
Appearances: 	Howard 	Watts, 	representing 	himself;
Mary 	L. 	Dowell, 	Associate 	General 	Counsel, 	representing 	the
District.
Before 	Gluck, 	Chairperson; 	Moore, 	Member.
DECISION
Howard 	Watts 	excepts 	to 	the 	attached 	administrative
determination 	issued 	by 	the 	Los 	Angeles 	Regional 	Director
dismissing 	his 	public 	notice 	complaint 	without 	leave 	to 	amend.
In 	his 	appeal, 	complainant 	correctly 	alleges 	that 	the
Regional 	Director 	failed 	to 	attach 	a 	proof 	of 	service 	to 	the
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
HOWARD WATTS ,
Complainant, 	Case No. LA-PN-20
v .
LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY COLLEGE 	PERB Decision No. 153
DISTRICT,
Respondent,
and
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF TEACHERS 	December 31, 1980
COLLEGE GUILD, LOCAL 1521, AFL-CIO,
Respondent.
Appearances: Howard Watts, representing himself;
Mary L. Dowell, Associate General Counsel, representing the
District.
Before Gluck, Chairperson; Moore, Member.
DECISION
Howard Watts excepts to the attached administrative
determination issued by the Los Angeles Regional Director
dismissing his public notice complaint without leave to amend.
In his appeal, complainant correctly alleges that the
Regional Director failed to attach a proof of service to the

notice 	of 	dismissal
	as
	required	
by	
California
	Administrative
Code,
	section
	32140.1
The
	Board's 	proof
	of 	service 	regulations 	are
	modeled
	after
service
	requirements
	of
	the
	California
	Code
	of
	Civil
	Procedure
and
	are
	designed
	to
	inform
	the
	Board
	that
	all
	parties
	to
	a
proceeding 	received
	all
	documents
	filed
	before 	or
	by
	the
	Board
regarding
	that
	case.
	M.
	Lowenstein	
&	
Sons,
	Inc. 	v. 	Superior
Court
	(1978) 	80
	Cal.App.3d
	762, 	770,
	145
	Cal.Rptr.
	814.
	The
Board's
	jurisdiction
	to
	hear
	an
	appeal
	depends
	on
	the
	fact 	of
service 	rather
	than
	the 	proof
	thereof.
	Herman
	v.
	Santee
	(1894)
103
	Cal.
	519, 	523,
	37
	P. 	509.
The
	Regional
	Director's
	notice 	of 	dismissal
	was
	filed
	on
June 	13,
	1980.
	Mr.
	Watts
	filed 	his
	appeal
	from
	that 	dismissal
the 	next
	da_y
	noting
	that
	a
	proper 	proof 	of
	service
	form 	was
	not
attached.
	The
	complainant
	specifically
	referred 	to 	portions 	of
the 	notice 	of 	dismissal
	and
	it
	is
	clear 	that
	he 	had
	actual
lPERB
	rules 	are 	codifed
	at
	California Administrative
Code,
	title
	8, 	section
	31000
	et
	seq.
Section
	32140
	provides 	in 	relevant 	part:
(a)
	All
	documents
	referred 	to 	in 	these
regulations 	requiring 	"service'' 	or 	required 	tobe 	accompanied 	by
	"proof 	of 	service,"
	exceptsubpoenas,
	shall
	be
	considered 	"ierved"
	by
the
	Board
	or
	a
	party
	when
	personally
delivered 	or 	deposited 	in 	the
	first-class
mail 	properly 	addressed. 	All
	documents
required 	to
	be
	served
	shall
	include
	a
	"proof
of 	service" 	affidavit
	or 	declaration 	signedunder 	penalty 	of 	perjury
	..•
2
notice of dismissal as required by California Administrative
Code, section 32140.1
The Board's proof of service regulations are modeled after
service requirements of the California Code of Civil Procedure
and are designed to inform the Board that all parties to a
proceeding received all documents filed before or by the Board
regarding that case. M. Lowenstein & Sons, Inc. v. Superior
Court (1978) 80 Cal . App . 3d 762, 770, 145 Cal. Rptr. 814. The
Board's jurisdiction to hear an appeal depends on the fact of
service rather than the proof thereof. Herman v. Santee (1894)
103 Cal. 519, 523, 37 P. 509.
The Regional Director's notice of dismissal was filed on
June 13, 1980. Mr. Watts filed his appeal from that dismissal
the next day noting that a proper proof of service form was not
attached. The complainant specifically referred to portions of
the notice of dismissal and it is clear that he had actual
PERB rules are codifed at California Administrative
Code, title 8, section 31000 et seq.
Section 32140 provides in relevant part:
(a) All documents referred to in these
regulations requiring "service" or required to
be accompanied by "proof of service, " except
subpoenas, shall be considered "served" by
the Board or a party when personally
delivered or deposited in the first-class
mail properly addressed. All documents
required to be served shall include a "proof
of service" affidavit or declaration signed
under penalty of perjury . .
2

notice 	of
	its
	contents.
	The
	Board
	finds
	that
	service
	was
in
fact
	effected
	and
	that
	the 	lack
	of
	proof
	of 	service
	is
	not
fatal.
After 	considering 	the
	entire
	record
	in
	light
	of 	the
exceptions,
	the	
Board	
affirms	
the
	Regional	
Director's
	findings
and	
conclusions
2	
and
	administrative 	determination.
ORDER	
ORDER
Upon
	the 	foregoing
	decision	
and	
the
	entire	
record	
in
	this
case,	
the 	Public	
Employment	
Relations
	Board
	ORDERS
	that:
The
	public 	notice
	complaint,
	LA-PN-20,
	filed	
by
Howard
	Watts
	against
	the
	Los
	Angeles
	Community
	College
	District
and
	the
	AFT
	College 	Guild,
	Local
	1521
	is
	hereby
	DISMISSED
	in
its
	entirety
	without 	leave 	to
	amend.
PER
CURIAM
21n
	complainant's
	fifth 	allegation,
	he
	contends
	that
	the
District 	failed 	to 	post 	copies 	of 	his 	public 	notice 	complaint
at
	the
	district
	office
	of 	the
	LACCD
	as 	then 	required
	under
	PERB
regulation
	37040
	(subsequently 	repealed).
	The
	regional
director
	found
	that
	a
	violation 	of 	regulation
	37040 was
	not
actionable
	under
	section
	3547 	and
	thus 	dismissed 	the
allegation.
	We
	disagree.
	Rule 	37040 	was
	adopted 	pursuant
	tosection
	3547(e) 	and 	a
	purported 	violation 	of 	rule
	37040
	could
properly
	be 	a
	basis 	for
	a
	section
	3547(e) 	charge.
	The
	Board,however, 	finds 	the
	District
	complied 	with
	this 	regulation
	by
posting 	copies 	of 	the 	complaint 	on 	a
	clipboard 	available 	to 	the
public 	at 	the
	district 	office.
	The 	Board 	thus 	affirms 	the
regional 	director's 	dismissal 	of 	this 	allegation.
3
notice of its contents. The Board finds that service was
in fact effected and that the lack of proof of service is not
fatal.
After considering the entire record in light of the
exceptions, the Board affirms the Regional Director's findings
and conclusions and administrative determination.
Upon the foregoing decision and the entire record in this
case, the Public Employment Relations Board ORDERS that:
The public notice complaint, LA-PN-20, filed by
Howard Watts against the Los Angeles Community College District
and the AFT College Guild, Local 1521 is hereby DISMISSED in
its entirety without leave to amend.
PER CURIAM
2In complainant's fifth allegation, he contends that the
District failed to post copies of his public notice complaint
at the district office of the LACCD as then required under PERB
regulation 37040 (subsequently repealed) . The regional
director found that a violation of regulation 37040 was not
actionable under section 3547 and thus dismissed the
allegation. We disagree. Rule 37040 was adopted pursuant to
section 3547 (e) and a purported violation of rule 37040 could
properly be a basis for a section 3547(e) charge. The Board,
however, finds the District complied with this regulation by
posting copies of the complaint on a clipboard available to the
public at the district office. The Board thus affirms the
regional director's dismissal of this allegation.
3

PUBLIC
	EMPLOYMENT
	RELATIONS
	BOARD
OF 	THE
	STATE
	OF
	CALIFORNIA
HOWARD
	WATTS,.
Complainant,
v.
LOS 	ANGELES·
COMMUNITY
	COLLEGE
DISTRICT,
Respondent,
and
__________________
AFT 	COLLEGE
	GUILD,
	LOCAL
	1521,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
_
)
Case
	No. 	LA-PN-20
NOTICE
	OF
	DISMISSAL
WITHOUT 	LEAVE
	TO
AMEND
	PUBLICNOTICE
	COMPLAINT
NOTICE
	IS
	HEREBY
	GIVEN
	That
	the 	above-captioned
	Public
Notice
	Complaint
1
alleging 	violation
	of
	Government
	Code·
section
	3547 2
is
	dismissed 	without 	leave 	to
	amend 	on
	the
following 	grounds:
(1) 	The
	conditions
	set
	forth 	in
	PERB
	Regulation
	37060
	have
been
	satisfied
	as 	to 	the 	portion 	of 	the 	complaint
	alleging
violation 	of 	section 	3547(a).
lThe
	original
	complaint 	included
	two
	other
	employee
organizations 	as 	respondents. 	Separate
	files
	were
	establishedfor 	processing,
	and
	the 	other 	organizations 	appear 	as
respondents 	in
	LA-PN-21 	and 	LA-PN-22.
2	2
statutory 	references 	are 	to 	the 	Government 	Code
	unless
otherwise 	noted. 	Section 	3547
	provides:
(a) 	All 	initial 	proposals 	of 	exclusive
representatives 	and 	of 	public 	school
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
HOWARD WATTS ,
Complainant, 	Case No. LA-PN-20
V . 	NOTICE OF DISMISSAL
WITHOUT LEAVE TO
LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY COLLEGE 	AMEND PUBLIC
DISTRICT, 	NOTICE COMPLAINT
Respondent,
and
AFT COLLEGE GUILD, LOCAL 1521,
Respondent.
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN That the above-captioned Public
Notice Complaint alleging violation of Government Code
section 3547" is dismissed without leave to amend on the
following grounds:
(1) The conditions set forth in PERB Regulation 37060 have
been satisfied as to the portion of the complaint alleging
violation of section 3547 (a) .
The original complaint included two other employee
organizations as respondents. Separate files were established
for processing, and the other organizations appear as
respondents in LA-PN-21 and LA-PN-22.
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
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.
(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.
{2) 	Complainant 	has 	failed 	to 	allege 	facts 	which 	constitute
a 	prima 	facie 	violation 	of 	section 	3547(b),(c), 	(d} 	and 	(e).
PROCEDURAL 	HISTORY
On 	February 	22, 	1980 	Mr. 	Howard 	watts 	(hereafter
Complainant) 	filed 	a 	public 	notice 	complaint 	against 	the 	Los
Angeles 	Community College 	District 	(hereafter 	LACCD) 	and 	AFT
College 	Guild, 	Local 	1521 	(hereafter 	AFT) 	alleging 	violations
of 	section 	3547 	(a), 	(b), 	(c), 	(d}, 	and 	(e).
2
(2) Complainant has failed to allege facts which constitute
a prima facie violation of section 3547(b) , (c) , (d) and (e) .
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On February 22, 1980 Mr. Howard Watts (hereafter
Complainant) filed a public notice complaint against the Los
Angeles Community College District (hereafter LACCD) and AFT
College Guild, Local 1521 (hereafter AFT) alleging violations
of section 3547 (a) , (b) , (c) , (d) , and (e) .
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
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.
2

On March 	31, 	1980 	the 	complaint 	was 	served 	on 	LACCD 	and 	AFT
pursuant 	to 	PERB 	Regulation 	37030(f). 	An 	informal 	conference
was 	scheduled 	for 	April 	16, 	1980 	and 	a 	formal 	hear.ing 	was
noticed 	for 	May 	8, 	1980.
After 	considerable 	discussion 	at 	the 	informal 	conference
concerning 	that 	portion 	of 	the 	complaint 	alleging 	a 	violation
of 	section 	3547(a), 	LACCD 	expressed 	its 	desire 	to 	comply
voluntarily 	and 	agreed 	to 	post 	a 	notice 	regarding 	the 	future
processing 	of 	amendments 	to 	initial 	proposals. 	With 	respect 	to
the 	remaining 	allegations, 	respondents 	LACCD 	and 	AFT 	indicated
there 	were 	no 	violations 	of 	the 	public 	notice 	requirements 	and
agreed 	to 	provide 	declarations, 	board 	minutes 	and 	statements 	to
demonstrate 	that 	the 	public 	notice 	requirements 	had 	been met.
In 	order 	to 	allow 	submission 	of 	documents 	and 	evidence 	of
LACCD's 	voluntary 	compliance, 	a 	Notice 	of 	Cancellation 	of
Formal 	Hearing 	was 	issued 	on 	April 	25, 	1980, 	placing 	the
hearing 	in 	abeyance.
ALLEGATIONS
The 	public 	notice 	complaint 	alleges 	the 	following
violations:
ALLEGATIONS
(1) 	LACCD 	amended 	its 	certificated 	initial 	proposal 	on
February 	13, 	1980 	without 	properly 	noticing 	the 	amendment.
(2} 	LACCD 	failed 	to 	provide 	the 	public 	full 	opportunity 	on
January 	23, 	1980 	to 	express 	itself 	on 	the 	District's
certificated 	initial 	proposal.
3
On March 31, 1980 the complaint was served on LACCD and AFT
pursuant to PERB Regulation 37030 (f) . An informal conference
was scheduled for April 16, 1980 and a formal hearing was
noticed for May 8, 1980.
After considerable discussion at the informal conference
concerning that portion of the complaint alleging a violation
of section 3547 (a) , LACCD expressed its desire to comply
voluntarily and agreed to post a notice regarding the future
processing of amendments to initial proposals. With respect to
the remaining allegations, respondents LACCD and AFT indicated
there were no violations of the public notice requirements and
agreed to provide declarations, board minutes and statements to
demonstrate that the public notice requirements had been met.
In order to allow submission of documents and evidence of
LACCD's voluntary compliance, a Notice of Cancellation of
Formal Hearing was issued on April 25, 1980, placing the
hearing in abeyance.
The public notice complaint alleges the following
violations :
(1) LACCD amended its certificated initial proposal on
February 13, 1980 without properly noticing the amendment.
(2) LACCD failed to provide the public full opportunity on
January 23, 1980 to express itself on the District's
certificated initial proposal.
3

(3)
	AFT
	met
	and
	negotiated
	with
	LACCD
	at
	the
	January
	23
and
	February 	13,
	1980
	Board
	of 	Trustees'
	meetings.
(4)
	Copies
	of
	LACCD's
	certificated
	initial
	proposals
	were
not
	available
	in
	the
	board
	room
	on
	January
	23, 	1980,
	the
	date
set
	for 	public
	response
	and
	on
	February 	13,
	1980,
	the 	date
scheduled
	to
	adopt
	the 	proposal.
(5)
	LACCD
	failed
	to 	post 	public 	notice
	complaints
on 	a
	bulletin
	board,
	instead
	complaints
	were
	placed
	on
	a
clipboard
	and
	laid
	on
	a
	table.
(Gl
	AFT
	addressed 	the
	Board
	of
	Trustees 	without 	appearing
on 	a
	speakers
	list
	•nd
	for
	a
	longer 	period
	of
	time 	than
	is
allowed
	by 	a
	rule
	governing
	oral
	communications
	to 	the 	board.
DISCUSSION
Allegation
	1
Complainant
	alleges 	that
	LACCD
	amended
	its
	certificated
proposal 	without 	properly 	noticing 	the
	amendment •
On
	February 	13,
	1980
	LACCD
	was
	scheduled
	to
	adopt
	its
certificated
	proposal.
	The
	minutes
	of 	the 	February 	13,
	1980
board 	meeting
	reflect 	that
	AFT
	viewed
	the 	proposal 	as 	lacking
numerous
	items,
	two
	of
	which 	were 	academic 	freedom 	and
non-discrimination. 	After
	a
	presentation
	by
	AFT
	requesting
that
	the 	board
	amend
	its 	initial
	proposal 	to 	include 	these
items, 	the 	board 	recessed 	into 	executive 	session.
	When
	the
.
4
(3) AFT met and negotiated with LACCD at the January 23
and February 13, 1980 Board of Trustees' meetings.
(4) Copies of LACCD's certificated initial proposals were
not available in the board room on January 23, 1980, the date
set for public response and on February 13, 1980, the date
scheduled to adopt the proposal.
(5) LACCD failed to post public notice complaints
on a bulletin board, instead complaints were placed on a
clipboard and laid on a table.
(6) AFT addressed the Board of Trustees without appearing
on a speakers list and for a longer period of time than is
allowed by a rule governing oral communications to the board.
DISCUSSION
Allegation 1
Complainant alleges that LACCD amended its certificated
proposal without properly noticing the amendment.
On February 13, 1980 LACCD was scheduled to adopt its
certificated proposal. The minutes of the February 13, 1980
board meeting reflect that AFT viewed the proposal as lacking
numerous items, two of which were academic freedom and
non-discrimination. After a presentation by AFT requesting
that the board amend its initial proposal to include these
items, the board recessed into executive session. When the

board
	reconvened,
	it
	made
	the
	following
	announcement
	after
which
	it
	adopted
	its
	proposal:
Tomorrow
	at
	1:30
	p.m.
	the
	first
	negotiation
session
	on
	the
	new
	certificated
	contract
	is
scheduled,
	provided
	that
	public 	notice
provisions 	of 	the
	law
	are
	met.
	The
	law
	with
respect
	to
	making
	initial
	proposals
	public
would
	require
	that
	the
	Board
	'sunshine'
	any
amendments
	to
	its 	initial
	proposal.
Accordingly,
	any
	amendment
	to
	the
	initial
proposal
	could
	delay 	the
	start
	of
negotiations.
	Therefore, 	the
	Board
	endorses
inclusion 	of
	a
	statement
	with
	respect 	to
academic 	freedom
	and
	non-discrimination
	in
the
	final
	contract
	but
	believes
	that
	these
two
	items 	should
	be
	negotiated
	by
	its
designated
	representatives
	and
	that
	its
designated
	representatives 	will
	reflect
	the
will
	of
	the 	board.3
In
	the
	above
	announcement,
	the
	board 	endorsed
	the 	inclusion 	of
a
	statement
	on 	academic 	freedom 	and
	non-discrimination 	in 	the
final 	contract.
The
	intent
	of 	section
	3547
	as
	stated
	by
	the
	legislature
	in
subsection
	(e) 	and
	as 	held
	by
	the
	PERB
	in
	Kimmett
	v.
	Los
Angeles
	Unified
	School
	District,
	PERB
	Decision
	No. 	AD-53,
	is
that:
The
	public
	be 	informed
	of 	the 	issues
	thatare
	being
	negotiated
	upon 	and 	have
	full
opportunity 	to 	express
	their
	view on
	the
·issues 	to 	the 	public 	school 	employer, 	and
to
	know
	of 	the 	positions 	of
	their 	elected
representatives.
3see
	LACCD
	Board
	of 	Trustees'
	minutes 	for
February 	13, 	1980,
	p. 	6.
5
board reconvened, it made the following announcement after
which it adopted its proposal:
Tomorrow at 1:30 p.m. the first negotiation
session on the new certificated contract is
scheduled, provided that public notice
provisions of the law are met. The law with
respect to making initial proposals public
would require that the Board 'sunshine' any
amendments to its initial proposal.
Accordingly, any amendment to the initial
proposal could delay the start of
negotiations. Therefore, the Board endorses
inclusion of a statement with respect to
academic freedom and non-discrimination in
the final contract but believes that these
two items should be negotiated by its
designated representatives and that its
designated representatives will reflect the
will of the board. 3
In the above announcement, the board endorsed the inclusion of
a statement on academic freedom and non-discrimination in the
final contract.
The intent of section 3547 as stated by the legislature in
subsection (e) and as held by the PERB in Kimmett v. Los
Angeles Unified School District, PERB Decision No. AD-53, is
that.:
The public be informed of the issues that
are being negotiated upon and have full
opportunity to express their view on the
issues to the public school employer, and
to know of the positions of their elected
representatives.
3See LACCD Board of Trustees' minutes for
February 13, 1980, p. 6.
UT

The
	intent
	of
	section
	3547 	would
	be
	frustrated
	if
	parties
were
	allowed
	to
	circumvent
	the
	public 	notice
	requirements
	by
"endorsing"
	inclusion 	of
	items
	in 	the
	final
	contract
	without
proper
	notice.
An
	initial
	proposal
	presumably
	proposes, 	plans 	or 	intends
to
	put
	forth
	the
	position
	of
	a
	school
	board
	with
	respect 	to 	the
issues 	to
	be
	negotiated
	on.
	The
	public
	then
	comments
	on
	the
issues
	set
	forth
	as
	well
	as
	on
	the
	positions
	of 	the 	school
board.
	By
	its
	endorsement
	the 	board,
	in 	essence,
	altered
	its
original
	proposal
	which
	did 	not 	include
	academic 	freedom 	and
non-discrimination.
	And,
	the
	board
	failed
	to
	allow
	the 	public
the 	opportunity 	to
	comment 	on
	the
	issues.
In
	an
	effort
	to 	achieve 	voluntary
	compliance,
	LACCD
	posted
a
	notice
	(Exhibit
	A
attached) 	indicating 	that
	in 	the
	future,
amendments
	to
	initial
	proposals
	would 	be
	publicly 	noticed 	in
accordance 	with
	section
	3547.
	The
	undersigned
	is 	satisfied
with
	a
	prospective
	remedy
	because
	the 	subjects 	in 	question
	had
been
	negotiated
	and
	tenatively
	agreed 	to
	at
	the
	time 	of 	the
informal 	conference.
	It
	is
	the 	policy 	of 	the 	Board,
	as
expressed 	in
	PERB
	Regulation
	37000,
	to 	permit 	the
	parties 	to
continue 	the 	negotiation 	process
	pending 	the
	resolution 	of
	any
complaint
	filed.
It
	is
	determined
	that
	pursuant 	to
	PERB
	Regulation 	37060,
LACCD
	has
	voluntarily
	complied 	with 	section 	3547(a),
	and
	that
portion 	of 	the 	complaint
	is 	dismissed.
6
The intent of section 3547 would be frustrated if parties
were allowed to circumvent the public notice requirements by
"endorsing" inclusion of items in the final contract without
proper notice.
An initial proposal presumably proposes, plans or intends
to put forth the position of a school board with respect to the
issues to be negotiated on. The public then comments on the
issues set forth as well as on the positions of the school
board. By its endorsement the board, in essence, altered its
original proposal which did not include academic freedom and
non-discrimination. And, the board failed to allow the public
the opportunity to comment on the issues.
In an effort to achieve voluntary compliance, LACCD posted
a notice (Exhibit A attached) indicating that in the future,
amendments to initial proposals would be publicly noticed in
accordance with section 3547. The undersigned is satisfied
with a prospective remedy because the subjects in question had
been negotiated and tenatively agreed to at the time of the
informal conference. 	It is the policy of the Board, as
expressed in PERB Regulation 37000, to permit the parties to
continue the negotiation process pending the resolution of any
complaint filed.
It is determined that pursuant to PERB Regulation 37060,
LACCD has voluntarily complied with section 3547 (a) , and that
portion of the complaint is dismissed.

Allegation 	2
Complainant 	states 	that 	LACCD 	failed 	to 	provide 	the 	public
full 	opportunity 	on 	January 	23, 	1980 	to 	express 	itself 	on 	its
certificated 	proposal.
On 	January 	23, 	1980, 	LACCD 	held 	a 	meeting 	at 	which 	it
provided 	for 	public 	response 	to 	its 	initial 	proposal.
Complainant 	and 	LACCD 	agree 	that 	the 	meeting 	was 	regulated
pursuant 	to 	Article 	v, 	ncommunications 	to 	the 	Board," 	a 	rule 	of
the 	Board 	of 	Trustees. 	The 	rule 	was 	adopted 	and 	has 	been 	in
operation 	since 	April, 	1970. 	Section 	2501.l0(b) 	of 	the 	rule
reads 	as 	follows:
Five 	minutes 	shall 	be 	allotted 	per 	speaker, 	with 	20
minutes 	maximum 	time 	allotment 	for 	any 	one 	subject.
At 	the 	discretion 	of 	a 	majority 	of 	the 	Board 	Members
present, 	time 	may 	be 	extended. 	If 	there 	is 	not 	a
majority 	to 	extend 	the 	time, 	the 	five 	minute 	rule 	will
operate.
LACCD 	has 	indicated 	that 	any 	member 	of 	the 	public 	who
desired 	to 	speak 	to 	its 	proposal 	was 	allowed 	at 	least 	five
minutes 	to 	do 	so 	pursuant 	to 	Article 	V, 	Section 	2501.l0(b).
The 	board 	minutes 	of 	the 	January 	23, 	1980 	meeting 	were
submitted 	by 	the 	Complainant 	as 	well 	as 	by 	LACCD. 	Both
Complainant 	and 	LACCD 	indicated 	at 	the 	informal 	conference 	that
the 	minutes 	are 	accurate. 	The 	minutes 	reflect 	that 	five 	people
addressed 	the 	Board 	of 	Trustees 	on 	its 	initial 	proposal. 	One
of 	those 	individuals 	was 	Complainant. 	The 	minutes 	also
indicate 	that 	substantive 	comments 	were 	made 	within 	the 	time
allotted 	these 	individuals~
7
Allegation 2
Complainant states that LACCD failed to provide the public
full opportunity on January 23, 1980 to express itself on its
certificated proposal.
On January 23, 1980, LACCD held a meeting at which it
provided for public response to its initial proposal.
Complainant and LACCD agree that the meeting was regulated
pursuant to Article V, "Communications to the Board, " a rule of
the Board of Trustees. 	The rule was adopted and has been in
operation since April, 1970. Section 2501.10 (b) of the rule
reads as follows:
Five minutes shall be allotted per speaker, with 20
minutes maximum time allotment for any one subject.
At the discretion of a majority of the Board Members
present, time may be extended. If there is not a
majority to extend the time, the five minute rule will
operate.
LACCD has indicated that any member of the public who
desired to speak to its proposal was allowed at least five
minutes to do so pursuant to Article V, Section 2501. 10 (b) .
The board minutes of the January 23, 1980 meeting were
submitted by the Complainant as well as by LACCD. Both
Complainant and LACCD indicated at the informal conference that
the minutes are accurate. 	The minutes reflect that five people
addressed the Board of Trustees on its initial proposal. One
of those individuals was Complainant. The minutes also
indicate that substantive comments were made within the time
allotted these individuals.
7

Although 	Complainant
	alleges
	LACCD
	failed
	to
	provide
	the
public
	full
	opportunity 	to
	express
	itself,
	the
	minutes
	indicate
otherwise
	and
	Complainant 	has
	failed
	to
	provide
	any
	information
to
	support
	his 	contention.
	Nothing
	in 	the
	minutes
	reflects
that
	the
	public
	was
	denied,
	restrained
	or 	unreasonably
	limited
in
	the
	exercise
	of
	its
	right
	to
	express
	itself.
	Accordingly,
no
	violation
	of 	section
	3547
	is
	found
	and
	allegation
	2
	is
dismissed.
Allegation
	3
Complainant
	alleges
	AFT
	met
	and
	negotiated
	with
	LACCD
	at
the
	January
	23 	and
	February 	13,
	1980
	board
	meetings.
Section 	3540.l(h) 	defines
	meeting
	and
	negotiating:
"Meeting
	and
	negotiating"
	means
	meeting,
conferring, 	negotiating,
	and
	discussing
	by
the 	exclusive 	representative
	and
	the
	public
school
	employer
	in
	a 	good
	faith 	effort
	toreach
	agreement
	on
	matters 	within 	the
	scope
of 	representation
	and
	the 	execution,
	if
requested
	by
	either 	party,
	of
	a
	written
document
	incorporating
	any
	agreements
	by
	the
exclusive 	representative
	and
	the 	publicschool 	employer,
	become
	binding
	upon
	both
parties ••••
[Emphasis
	added.]
Thus,
	the 	objective 	in
	meeting
	and
	negotiating
	is
	to
	reach
agreement
	and
	to
	execute
	a
	written
	document •
•
Complainant
	referred 	to 	the
	board 	minutes
	of 	January
	23 	and
February 	13,
	1980
	to
	show
	that
	meeting
	and
	negotiating
	took
place.
	Conversely, 	Respondent
	AFT
	indicated 	the 	minutes
accurately 	reflect 	that
	meeting 	and
	negotiating 	did 	not 	take
8
Although Complainant alleges LACCD failed to provide the
public full opportunity to express itself, the minutes indicate
otherwise and Complainant has failed to provide any information
to support his contention. Nothing in the minutes reflects
that the public was denied, restrained or unreasonably limited
in the exercise of its right to express itself. Accordingly,
no violation of section 3547 is found and allegation 2 is
dismissed.
Allegation 3
Complainant alleges AFT met and negotiated with LACCD at
the January 23 and February 13, 1980 board meetings.
Section 3540.1 (h) defines meeting and negotiating:
"Meeting and negotiating" means meeting,
conferring, negotiating, and discussing by
the exclusive representative and the public
school employer in a good faith effort to
reach agreement on matters within the scope
of representation and the execution, if
requested by either party, of a written
document incorporating any agreements by the
exclusive representative and the public
school employer, become binding upon both
parties. . . . [Emphasis added. ]
Thus, the objective in meeting and negotiating is to reach
agreement and to execute a written document.
Complainant referred to the board minutes of January 23 and
February 13, 1980 to show that meeting and negotiating took
place. Conversely, Respondent AFT indicated the minutes
accurately reflect that meeting and negotiating did not take

place.
	Respondent
	AFT
	also
	filed
	a
	declaration
	by Ms.
	Virginia
Mulrooney,
	Executive
	Director
	of
	AFT,
	which
	refutes
	the
allegation
	and
	states 	that
	AFT
	was
	merely
	requesting
	that
	the
board
	defer 	action
	until
	it
	had 	an
	opportunity
	to
	research 	the
impact,
	if
	any,
	on
	its
	members
	of
	any
	of
	the
	proposed
subjects.
	The
	declaration 	indicates 	that
	the
	board 	adopted
	the
items
	as 	scheduled.
The
	board 	minutes 	bear
	out
	that
	the
	board
	did,
	in
	fact,
adopt
	the
	items 	as 	scheduled
	and
	that
	AFT
	was
	merely 	urging
	the
board
	to
	delay
	action.
	Urging
	or 	requesting
	at
	a
	public
meeting
	that
	something
	be
	delayed 	does
	not
	fall
	within 	the
definition
	of
	meeting
	and
	negotiating
	as 	defined 	in 	the
Government 	Code.
In 	her
	declaration
	Ms.
	Mulrooney,
	also 	described 	the
specific
	manner
	in
	which
	AFT
	and
	LACCD
	conduct
	negotiations.
Such
	negotiations
	do
	not 	occur
	at
	board 	meetings 	with
	the
	Board
of 	Trustees.
Complainant 	has
	failed 	to
	nemonstrate
	that
	meeting
	and
negotiating
	occurred
	at
	board 	meetings 	as
	alleged, 	therefore
	no
violation 	of 	section
	3547
	is
	found 	and
	allegation
	3
	is
dismissed.
Allegation
	4
Complainant
	alleges 	that
	copies 	of 	the
	LACCD
	certificated
initial
	proposal
	were
	not 	available 	in 	the 	board 	room 	on
January 	23, 	1980
	the 	date 	set 	for 	public 	response 	and 	on
9
place. Respondent AFT also filed a declaration by Ms. Virginia
Mulrooney, Executive Director of AFT, which refutes the
allegation and states that AFT was merely requesting that the
board defer action until it had an opportunity to research the
impact, if any, on its members of any of the proposed
subjects. The declaration indicates that the board adopted the
items as scheduled.
The board minutes bear out that the board did, in fact,
adopt the items as scheduled and that AFT was merely urging the
board to delay action. Urging or requesting at a public
meeting that something be delayed does not fall within the
definition of meeting and negotiating as defined in the
Government Code.
In her declaration Ms. Mulrooney, also described the
specific manner in which AFT and LACCD conduct negotiations.
Such negotiations do not occur at board meetings with the Board
of Trustees.
Complainant has failed to demonstrate that meeting and
negotiating occurred at board meetings as alleged, therefore no
violation of section 3547 is found and allegation 3 is
dismissed.
Allegation 4
Complainant alleges that copies of the LACCD certificated
initial proposal were not available in the board room on
January 23, 1980 the date set for public response and on
9

February 	13,
	1980,
	the 	date
	scheduled
	for 	adoption
	of
	the
proposal.
The
	statute
	requires
	that
	all 	initial
	proposals
	be
presented
	at
	a
	public
	meeting
	and,
	thereafter,
	become
	public
records.
	Beyond
	this
	the
	statute 	is
	silent.
	It
	does
	not
specify
	that
	copies
	of
	proposals
	must 	be
	made
	available
	at
	all
subsequent
	board
	meetings.
	Complainant
	affirms
	that
	he
received
	a
	copy
	of
	the 	proposal
	prior
	to
	its
	public
presentation.
	Complainant
	also 	affirms
	he
	has
	never
	been
denied
	a
	copy
	of
	any
	initial
	proposal.
LACCD's
	policy
4
is
	to
	have
	copies 	of
	its 	initial
	proposal
available
	in
	its
	Office 	of
	Staff
	Relations.
	Additionally,LACCD
indicated
	that
	anyone
	requesting
	a
	copy
	at
	those 	meetings
	would
have 	been
	provided 	one. 	Complainant 	has
	failed 	to 	allege 	facts
which
	state
	a
	prima
	facie 	violation
	of 	section
	3547,
	therefore,
allegation
	4
	is
	dismissed.
Allegation
	5
C~mplainant
	alleges
	the 	public 	notice
	requirements
	were
violated
	because
	LACCD
	failed 	to 	post
	two
	public 	notice
complaints
	on 	a
	bulletin
	board;
	instead,
	complaints
	were
attached 	to
	a
	clipboard
	and
	laid
	on 	a
	table 	at
	the
	district
office.
4
4"Collective 	Bargaining
	Initial
	Proposal 	Procedure"
adopted 	by
	LACCD
	on 	September 	12, 	1979.
,
10
February 13, 1980, the date scheduled for adoption of the
proposal.
The statute requires that all initial proposals be
presented at a public meeting and, thereafter, become public
records. Beyond this the statute is silent. It does not
specify that copies of proposals must be made available at all
subsequent board meetings. Complainant affirms that he
received a copy of the proposal prior to its public
presentation. Complainant also affirms he has never been
denied a copy of any initial proposal.
LACCD's policy is to have copies of its initial proposal
available in its Office of Staff Relations. Additionally , LACCD
indicated that anyone requesting a copy at those meetings would
have been provided one. Complainant has failed to allege facts
which state a prima facie violation of section 3547, therefore,
allegation 4 is dismissed.
Allegation 5
Complainant alleges the public notice requirements were
violated because LACCD failed to post two public notice
complaints on a bulletin board; instead, complaints were
attached to a clipboard and laid on a table at the district
office.
"Collective Bargaining Initial Proposal Procedure"
adopted by LACCD on September 12, 1979.
10

Public 	notice
	requirements
	of
	the
	statute
	concern
	initial
proposals 	of 	exclusive
	representatives
	and
	of 	public
	school
employers
	and
	not 	the 	posting 	of
	complaints
	filed
	pursuant
	to
Chapter
	7
	of 	Division
	2
	of 	the
	PERB
	Regulations. 	Therefore,
there
	is
	no
	violation
	of
	section
	3547
	and
	allegation
	5
	is
dismissed.
Allegation
	6
Complainant
	alleges
	AFT
	addressed 	the
	Board
	of 	Trustees
without 	appearing
	on
	the 	speakers
	list
	and
	for
	a
	longer
	period
of
	time
	than
	is
	allowed
	by
	Section
	2501.lO(b)
	of
	Article
	V,
LACCD's
	rule
	governing
	oral
	communications
	to
	the 	board.
Section
	3547
	states 	that
	initial
	proposals
	shall
	be
presented
	at
	a
	public
	meeting
	of 	the 	public
	school 	employer.
The
	regulation 	of 	those 	meetings
	is
	left
	to
	the
	discretion 	of
the
	local
	school 	boards.
	Nothing
	in 	the
	section
	3547
	or
	in 	the
PERB
	Regulations 	defines
	how 	a
	school
	board 	meeting
	shall
	be
regulated.
	The
	substance 	of
	allegation
	6
	is
	not
	a
	violation
	of
section
	3547,
	therefore, 	allegation
	6
	is
	dismissed.
ORDER	
ORDER
It
	is
	hereby 	ordered
	that:
	(1)
	since
	the
	LACCD
	is
	found
	to
have 	achieved 	voluntary
	compliance 	with
	section
	3547,
	as
	to
that 	portion 	of 	the 	complaint
	that 	stated
	a 	prima
	facie
violation, 	allegation
	1
	is
	dismissed;
	(2)
	allegations
	2
	thr?ugh
6
	inclusive 	are 	not 	found
	to
	be
	violations 	of 	section
	3547
	for
11
Public notice requirements of the statute concern initial
proposals of exclusive representatives and of public school
employers and not the posting of complaints filed pursuant to
Chapter 7 of Division 2 of the PERB Regulations. Therefore,
there is no violation of section 3547 and allegation 5 is
dismissed.
Allegation 6
Complainant alleges AFT addressed the Board of Trustees
without appearing on the speakers list and for a longer period
of time than is allowed by Section 2501.10 (b) of Article V,
LACCD's rule governing oral communications to the board.
Section 3547 states that initial proposals shall be
presented at a public meeting of the public school employer.
The regulation of those meetings is left to the discretion of
the local school boards. Nothing in the section 3547 or in the
PERB Regulations defines how a school board meeting shall be
regulated. The substance of allegation 6 is not a violation of
section 3547, therefore, allegation 6 is dismissed.
It is hereby ordered that: 	(1) since the LACCD is found to
have achieved voluntary compliance with section 3547, as to
that portion of the complaint that stated a prima facie
violation, allegation 1 is dismissed; (2) allegations 2 through
6 inclusive are not found to be violations of section 3547 for
11

the 	reasons
	stated
	above
	and
	are 	dismissed;
	and 	(3)
	the
	formal
hearing
	in
	this
	matter
	is
	cancelled.
Pursuant 	to
	PERB
	Regulation
	37030(e)
	and
	37060,
	Complainant
may
	appeal
	this
	dismissal
	by
	filing
	written
	exceptions
	with
	the
Executive
	Officer 	of
	the
	Board
	at
	923
	12th
	street,
	Suite
	201,
Sacramento,
	CA
	95814
	within
	seven
	(7)
	calendar
	days
	following
the
	date
	of
	receipt
	of
	this
	order.
	Such
	appeal
	must
	contain
facts
	and 	arguments
	upon
	which
	the·
appeal
	is
	based
	and
	must 	be
signed.
	The
	appeal
	shall
	be 	accompanied
	by 	a
	proof
	of
	service
of 	the
	document 	upon
	all
	parties
	and
	the
	Regional
	Director.
DATED:
	June
	13,
	1980
Frances
	A.
	Kreiling
Regional
	Director
12
the reasons stated above and are dismissed; and (3) the formal
hearing in this matter is cancelled.
Pursuant to PERB Regulation 37030(e) and 37060, Complainant
may appeal this dismissal by filing written exceptions with the
Executive Officer of the Board at 923 12th street, Suite 201,
Sacramento, CA 95814 within seven (7) calendar days following
the date of receipt of this order. Such appeal must contain
facts and arguments upon which the appeal is based and must be
signed . 	The appeal shall be accompanied by a proof of service
of the document upon all parties and the Regional Director.
DATED: June 13, 1980
Frances A. Kreiling
Regional Director
12

NOTICE
	REGARDING
	INITIAL
	COLLECTIVE 	BARAINING
	PROPOSALS
On
	February 	14,
	1980,
	the
	Los
	Angeles
	Community
	College
District
	commenced
	negotiations
	with
	the
	certified
	exclusive
representative
	of 	the
	certificated
	employees
	of 	the
	District.
At
	its
	regularly
	scheduled
	meeting
	on
	February
	13,
	1980,
	the
governing
	board
	of 	the
	District
	adopted
	its 	initial
	collective
bargaining 	proposal 	to
	be
	presented 	in 	those
	negotiations.
	The
initial
	proposal 	did 	not
	contain
	any 	language
	related
	to 	the
subjects
	of 	"Nondiscrimination"
	or
	"Academic 	Freedom"$
However, 	on
	February 	13, 	1980,
	the
	Board
	expressed
	its
endorsement
	of
	the 	inclusion 	of 	those
	items
	in 	the
	final
contract
	negotiated
	by
	the
	parties.
	In 	the
	future
	if
	it
	is
necessary	
to	
amend
	initial
	proposals, 	in
	a
	spirit
	of 	voluntary
compliance 	with
	Government 	Code
	Section
	3547,
	the
	amendments
will
	be
	publicly
	noticed 	in
	accordance 	with 	the
	District's
public 	notice 	procedure.
Exhibit 	A
13
NOTICE REGARDING INITIAL COLLECTIVE BARAINING PROPOSALS
On February 14, 1980, the Los Angeles Community College
District commenced negotiations with the certified exclusive
representative of the certificated employees of the District.
At its regularly scheduled meeting on February 13, 1980, the
governing board of the District adopted its initial collective
bargaining proposal to be presented in those negotiations. 	The
initial proposal did not contain any language related to the
subjects of "Nondiscrimination" or "Academic Freedom".
However, on February 13, 1980, the Board expressed its
endorsement of the inclusion of those items in the final
contract negotiated by the parties. In the future if it is
necessary to amend initial proposals, in a spirit of voluntary
compliance with Government Code Section 3547, the amendments
will be publicly noticed in accordance with the District's
public notice procedure.
Exhibit A
13