Los Angeles Community College District (Watts) (PERB 0155E)

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF 	THE
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
HOWARD WATTS ,
Complainant, 	Case No. LA-PN-22
v .
LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY COLLEGE
DISTRICT 	PERB Decision No. 155
Respondent,
and
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL EMPLOYEES 	December 31 , 1980
ASSOCIATION,
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.
After considering the entire record in light of the exceptions,
the Board affirms the Regional Director's findings and
conclusions and administrative determination.
HOWARD WATTS,
Complainant,
v.
LOS 	ANGELES 	COMMUNITY 	COLLEGE
DISTRICT,
Respondent,
and
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL 	EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION,
_______Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
____ 	________ )
Case 	No. 	LA-PN-22
PERB 	Decision 	No. 	155
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.
After 	considering 	the 	entire 	record 	in 	light 	of 	the 	exceptions,
the 	Board 	affirms 	the 	Regional 	Director's 	findings 	and
conclusions 	and 	administrative 	determination.

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-22, filed by
Howard Watts against the Los Angeles Community College District
and the California School Employees Association is hereby
DISMISSED in its entirety without leave to amend.
PER CURIAM
N
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-22,
	filed	
by
Howard	
Watts
	against
	the
	Los
	Angeles
	Community
	College
	District
and	
the
	California
	School
	Employees
	Association
	is
	hereby
DISMISSED
	in
	its
	entirety
	without 	leave
	to
	amend.
PER	
CURIAM
2

FATE OF CALIFORNIA 	EDMUND G. BROWN IR., Gavarme
UBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
os Angeles Regional Office
3550 Wilshire Blyd., Suite 1708
.os Angeles, California 90010
213) 736-3127
October 6, 1980
Mr. Howard O. Watts
Re: LA-PN-22
LETTER OF DISMISSAL
Dear Mr. Watts:
This is a LETTER OF DISMISSAL issued pursuant to PERB Regulation 37030(e)
regarding your public notice complaint received in this office on February
22, 1980. The complaint was filed against the Los Angeles Community
College District (LACCD) and the California School Employees Association
(CSEA) and alleges violation of Government Code section 3547 (a), (b),
(c), (d) and (e) (see attachment).
In support of your complaint you submitted several documents including:
LACCD board agenda for January 23, 1980, board minutes for January 23 and
February 13, 1980, a copy of LACCD's initial proposal procedure dated
September 12, 1979, LACCD's initial proposal for the technical-clerical
unit and amendments to the agreement between LACCD and CSEA.
A notice of informal conference was served on the parties on May 27,
1980. On June 6, 1980, CSEA filed an answer to the public notice
complaint. The answer denied that any violations of Government Code
section 3547 had occurred and requested the complaint be dismissed. 0
July 9, 1980 respondent LACCD filed a letter and exhibits with the PERB.
The letter provided information relative to the alleged violations and
requested the complaint be dismissed without leave to amend. The informal
conference was held on June 20, 1980. No resolution was reached.
On July 14, 1980 your request to place this complaint in abeyance until
September 15, 1980 was granted by the Los Angeles Regional Director. A
further extension until October 5, 1980 was requested by you and granted.
Allegation 1
On February 13, 1980 LACCD failed to provide the
public full opportunity to speak on CSEA's initial
proposal by implementing a rule which limited the
public's right to express itself. The Board's rule
is Article V "Communications to the Board" as
amended on January 23, 1980.
rAT: OF CAL!i'ORNIA (
1UBLJC EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
.os Angeles Regionol Office
l550 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1708
.os Angeles, California 	90010
213) 736-3127
October 6, 	1980
Mr. Howard 0. 	Watts
Re: 	LA-PN-22
LETTER OF DISMISSAL
Dear Mr. Watts:
This 	is a LETTER OF DISMISSAL issued pursuant 	to PER.B Regulation 37030(e)
regarding your public notice complaint received in this office on February
22, 	1980. 	The 	complaint was 	filed against the Los Angeles 	Community
College District (LACCD) 	and the California School Employees Association
(CSEA) 	and alleges violation of Government Code section 3547 	(a), 	(b),
(c), 	(d) 	and (e) 	(see attachment).
In support of your complaint you submitted several documents 	including:
LACCD board agenda for January 23, 	1980, board minutes 	for January 23 and
February 13, 	1980, 	a copy of t:ACCD's 	initial proposal procedure dated
September 12, 	1979, LACCD's -initial proposal for the 	technical-clerical
unit and amendments 	to the agreement between LACCD ~nd CSEA.
A notice of informal conference wa~ served on the parties on ~ay ~7,
1980. 	Cn June 	6, 	1980, CSEA filed an answer to 	the 	public notice
complaint. 	The answer denied that any violations of Government Code
section 3547 had occurred and requested 	the complaint be dismissed. 	On
July 9, 	1980 respondent LACCD filed a letter and exhibits with the PER.B.
The 	letter provided 	information relative to the alleged violations 	and
requested the complaint be dismissed without leave to amend. 	The infernal
conference was held on June 20, 	1980. 	No resolution was 	reached.
On July 14, 	1980 your request 	to place this complaint in abeyance until
September 15, 	1980 was granted by the Los Angeles Regional Director. A
further extension until October 5, 	1980 was requested by you and granted.
Allegation l
On February 13, 	1980 LACCD failed 	to provide 	the
public 	full opportunity to speak on CSEA's 	initial
proposal by implementing a rule which 	limited 	the
public's 	right 	to express 	itself. 	The Board's 	rule
is Article V "Communications 	to the Board" as
amended on January 23, 	1980.
( 	EOMUND 0. BROWN lit, G<>verr,o,

PERB Regulation 37020 (5) provides that a complaint shall contain a clear
and concise statement of the facts which are alleged to constitute a
violation of Government Code section 3547. Your complaint fails to allege
any facts in support of the allegation, therefore, allegation 1 is
dismissed with leave to amend.
Allegation 2
Copies of CSEA's initial proposal were not
available in the board room on January 23, 1980,
the date for public presentation and February 13,
1980, the date for public response.
The Government Code requires that all initial proposals be presented at a
public meeting and thereafter, become public records. You have not
alleged a violation of either of these provisions. In fact, it was your
indication at the informal conference that you did receive a copy of the
proposal prior to its presentation. You further stated that you have
never been denied a copy of any proposal.
The complaint fails to state and cannot be amended to state a prima facie
violation of section 3547, therefore allegation 2 is dismissed without
leave to amend.
Allegation 3
CSEA addressed the Board of Trustees without
appearing on a speakers' list.
Section 3547 states that initial proposals shall be presented at a public
meeting of the public school employer. Nothing in the statute or in the
PERB Regulations defines how a school board meeting shall be regulated.
The regulation of those meetings is left to the discretion of the local
school board. Since the substance of allegation 3 does not fall within
the purview of section 3547, allegation 3 is dismissed without leave to
amend .
If you choose to amend allegation 1, the amended complaint must be
received at this office within 10 days after service of this decision.
If, in the alternative, you choose to appeal the dismissal you may do so
within 10 days following the date of service of the LETTER OF DISMISSAL.
Such an appeal must be in writing and must be filed with the Board itself
at the headquarters office in accordance with the provisions of Division
I, Chapter 4, Article 2 of the PERB Regulations. If no amended complaint
or appeal of the dismissal is filed within the specified time limits, this
dismissal will become final.
Very truly yours,
Frances A. Kreiling
Regional Director
Patricia Hernandez 	U
Senior Representative
PH: bw
cc: Mary L. Dowell
(
PERE
	Regulation
	37020
	(5) 	provides
	that
	a
complaint
	shall
	contain
a
clear
and
	concise 	statement
of
	the
	facts
	which
	are
	alleged
	to
	constitute
	a
violation
	of
Government Code
	section
	3547. 	Your
	complaint
	fails
	to
	allege
any
	facts 	in
	support
of
	the
	allegation,
	therefore,
	allegation
1
is
dismissed with 	leave to
	amend.
Allegation
	2
Copies
	of
CSEA's
	initial
	proposal
were
not
available 	in
	the board
	room on
January
23, 	1980,
the date 	for 	public
	presentation
and
February 13,
1980,
	the date 	for 	public response.
The Government Code
	requires
	that
	all
	initial
proposals
	be
	presented
at
	a
public
meeting
and
	thereafter,
	become
	public records.
	You
have
not
alleged
	a
violation
of
either
of
	these
	provisions. 	In
fact,
	it
was
	your
indication at
	the
	informal conference
	that
	you
did receive	
a copy
of
the
proposal
	prior
	to
	its
	presentation.
	You
	further stated
	that
you
have
never
been denied
	a copy
of
any
proposal.
The
	complaint
	fails
	to
	state
and
	cannot be
amended
	to
state
a
prima
	facie
violation
	of
	section
3547,
	therefore allegation
2
is
	dismissed without
leave to
	amend.
Allegation
	3
CSEA
addressed the
Board
of
Trustees without
appearing
	on a
	speakers'
	list.
Section
3547
	states 	that
	initial
	proposals
	shall
be
	presented
at
	a
	public
meeting
of
	the public
	school employer. 	Nothing
	in
	the
	statute
or
in
the
PERB
Regulations defines
how a
	school board meeting
	shall
be
	regulated.
The
	regulation of
	those meetings
	is
	left
	to
	the
	discretion
of
	the
	local
school board.
	Since
	the substance
of allegation
3 does
	not
	fall
within
the
	purview
of
section
3547,
	allegation
3
is
	dismissed without leave
	to
am.end.
If
you
choose 	to
	amend
allegation
	1, 	the
	amended
	complaint
must be
received
	at this office
within
10 days
	after
service of
	this
	decision.
If,
	in
the
	alternative,
	you choose to appeal the
	dismissal
you
may do
	so
within
10 days
	following 	the date of service of the
LETTER
OF
DISMISSAL.
Such an
appeal
must
be
	in writing
and must be
	filed
	with 	the
Board
	itself
at
	the headquarters
	office in
accordance with the provisions of Division
I,
	Chapter 4, 	Article
	2
of
	the
	PER3
Regulations.
	If
no amended c01llplaint
or appeal of
	the dismissal
	is 	filed within the
	specified
	time
	limits,
	this
dismissal will
become
	final.
Very
	truly
yours,
Frances A.
	Kreiling
Regional Director
Patricia
Hernandez
Senior Representative
PH:bw
cc: 	Mary L. 	Dowell1.(..,._..; __ .,:,.... A 	v,.._.,. __ ., ..
u

Attachment
Government Code section 3547
(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.
Attachment
Government Code
	section
3547
(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 schoolemployer.
(c) 	After
	the
	public
has had the
	opportunity to express
	itself,
	thepublic
	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 votethereon
by each
member
voting
	shall
also
be
made
	public within
	24
hours.
(e)	
The boa::-d 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.