California State University (Watts) (PERB 0453H)

STATE OF 	CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF 	THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS 	BOARD
HOWARD O. 	WATTS,
Complainant.
v.
CALIFORNIA STATE 	UNIVERSITY.
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
_____________________ )
Case 	No. 	LA-PN-48-H
PERB 	Decision No. 	453-H
December 	7, 	19 84
Appearance: 	Howard 	o. 	Watts. 	on 	his 	own 	behalf.
Before 	Hesse. 	Chairperson; 	Jaeger 	and 	Morgenstern. 	Members.*
DECISION
This 	case 	is 	before 	the 	Public 	Employment 	Relations 	Board
(Board) 	on 	an 	appeal 	by Howard 	O. 	Watts 	of 	the 	Board 	agent's
dismissal. 	attached 	hereto. 	of 	his 	public 	notice 	complaint
alleging 	that 	the 	California 	State 	University 	violated 	section
359S(a) 	and 	(b) 	of 	the 	Higher 	Education Employer-Employee
Relations 	Act 	(Government 	Code 	section 	3560 	et 	seq.).
We 	have 	reviewed 	the 	Board 	agent's 	dismissal 	in 	light 	of
the 	Complainant's 	appeal 	and 	the 	entire 	record 	in 	this 	matter
and 	adopt 	that 	dismissal 	as 	the 	decision 	of 	the 	Board 	itself.
The 	Board 	agent's 	denial 	of 	Watts' 	request 	for 	assistance 	made
pursuant 	to 	California 	Administrative 	Code. 	title 	a. 	section
32163 	is 	affirmed 	for 	the 	reasons 	set 	forth 	in 	Los 	Angeles
*Members 	Tovar 	and 	Burt 	did 	not 	participate 	in 	this 	Decision.

Unified 	School 	District 	and 	California 	State 	University
{8/16/84) 	PERB 	Decision No. 	396-H.
ORDER
The 	public 	notice 	complaint 	in 	Case 	No. 	LA-PN-48-H 	is
DISMISSED WITHOUT 	LEAVE 	TO AMEND.
By 	the 	BOARD
2

STA1E OF CAUFORNIA
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
LOS ANGELES REGIONAL OFFICE
3470 WILSHIRE BLVD., SUITE 1001
LOS ANGEtES, CALIFORNIA 	S:0010
(213) 736-3127
March 	14, 	1984
Mr. 	Howard 	o. 	Watts
1021 	North 	Mariposa 	Avenue, 	Apt. 	3 	1/2
Los 	Angeles, 	CA 	90029
Mr. 	Caesar 	J. 	Naples, 	Assistant 	Vice
Chancellor, 	Employee 	Relations
California 	State 	University
400 	Golden 	Shore
Long 	Beach, 	CA 	90802
Re: 	NOTICE 	OF 	DISMISSAL
Watts 	v. 	California 	State 	TJniversi 1:.Y LA-PN-48-H
Dear 	Interested 	Parties:
GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Governor
The 	above-referenced 	Public 	Notice 	Complaint 	(Complaint} 	was
field 	with 	our 	office 	on February 	11, 	1983. 	A first 	Amended
Complaint 	was 	filed 	March 	22, 	1983. 	A Second Amended Complaint
was 	filed 	February 	14, 	1984 	subsequent 	to 	a 	December 	28, 	1983
personal 	meeting 	I 	had 	with 	Mr. 	Watts.I 	The 	second 	amendment
makes 	new 	legal 	argument 	but 	fails 	to 	allege 	any 	new 	facts.
For 	the 	reasons 	which 	follow, 	all 	allegations 	in 	the Complaint
fail 	to 	state 	a 	prima 	facie 	violation 	of 	Government 	Code
subsections 	3595(a) 	and 	(b}2 	and 	cannot 	be 	amended 	to do 	so.
The 	entire 	Complaint 	is, 	accordingly, 	hereby 	dismissed.
Allegation 	No. 	One: 	The 	respondent, 	California 	State
University 	(CSU}, 	violated 	subsections 	3595{a) 	and 	(b) 	by
scheduling 	the 	presentation 	of 	an 	exclusive 	representative's
initial 	proposals 	at 	Long 	Beach 	and 	the 	public 	response 	to
'those 	proposals 	at 	San 	Francisco. 	There 	was 	no 	meeting 	held
for 	public 	response 	in 	southern 	California. 	Since Mr. 	Watts
could 	not 	afford 	to 	travel 	to 	San 	Francisco, 	he 	could 	not
express 	himself 	regarding 	those 	proposals.
lAt 	that 	meeting 	I 	explained 	to Mr. 	Watts 	the Complaint's
deficiencies 	and 	the 	apparent 	impossibility 	of 	perfecting
them. 	However, 	at 	his 	insistence, 	I 	allowed 	time 	to 	amend 	the
Complaint.
2All 	statutory 	references 	are 	to 	the 	Government 	Code
unless 	otherwise 	specified.

Watts 	and 	Naples
LA-PN-48-H
March 	14, 	1984
Page 	2
Determination: 	Nothing 	in 	section 	3595 	requires 	the 	public
meetings 	for 	presentation 	and 	response 	to 	initial 	proposals 	to
be 	held 	at 	the 	same 	location. 	The 	only 	requirement 	of
subsection 	3595(b) 	is 	that 	the 	public 	be 	given 	an 	opportunity
to 	express 	itself 	at 	a 	{i.e. 	one) 	meeting 	of 	the 	higher
education 	employer. 	This 	was 	done.
"While 	conducting ·the 	meeting 	in 	San 	Francisco may 	have
precluded 	Mr. 	Watts 	from 	attending 	the 	meeting, 	other 	members
of 	the 	public 	would 	no 	doubt 	have 	been 	precluded 	from 	attending
if 	the 	meeting 	had 	been 	held 	in 	Long 	Beach. 	In 	other 	words, 	no
matter 	where 	an 	employer 	decides 	to 	conduct 	such 	meetings,
someone 	will 	potentially 	be 	inconvenienced. 	This 	is 	especially
true 	with 	respect 	to 	an 	employer 	with 	statewide 	facilities 	such
as 	CSU. 	It 	is 	noted 	tha~ 	CSU 	has 	attempted 	to 	mitigate 	this
problem 	through 	its 	acceptance 	of 	written 	cm~ents 	from 	the
public 	as 	indicated 	by 	an 	unmarked 	exhibit 	to 	the 	Complaint
entitled 	"Committee 	on 	Collective 	Bargaining Agenda 	Item 	I 	for
March 	24-25, 	1981".3
Subsection 	3593(b) 	does 	not 	require 	the 	higher 	education
employer 	to 	schedule 	meetings 	in 	both 	northern 	and 	southern
California, 	nor 	does 	it 	require 	that 	the 	meeting 	conducted 	for
public 	response 	be 	held 	at 	the 	same 	location 	as 	the 	meeting 	at
which 	the 	initial 	proposals 	were 	presented. 	CSU's 	internal
policy 	implementirtg 	the 	statute 	appears 	to 	be 	a 	reasonable
accomodation 	to 	its 	statewide 	constituency. 	It 	is, 	therefore,
found 	that 	this 	allegation 	does 	not 	constitute 	a 	violation 	of
subsections 	3595(a) 	and 	{b).
Allegation No. 	Two: 	The 	January 	13, 	1983 	meeting 	of 	CSU's
committee 	on 	collective 	bargaining 	was 	not 	an 	appropriate
meeting 	of 	the 	higher 	education 	employer 	because 	the 	committee,
being 	composed 	of 	staff 	rather 	than 	trustees, 	cannot 	take
official 	action:
" •.• 	to 	change 	the 	proposal 	by 	amendment
or 	other 	action 	that 	could 	effect 	(sic) 	the
Proposals 	in 	either 	philosophy 	or 	direction
3This 	is 	CSU's 	internal procedure 	implementing 	section
3595. 	See 	California 	Administrative 	Code, 	title 	5, 	section
43725.

l'la t ts 	and 	Naples
LA-PN-48-H
March 	14, 	1984
Page 	3
of 	purpose. 	In 	the 	case 	of 	this 	union's
(United 	Professors 	of 	California) 	proposals
they 	(CSU) 	would 	have 	to 	accept 	them 	without
altering 	them.
The 	Complaint 	goes 	on 	to 	argue 	that 	Education 	Code 	section
89035 	precludes 	the 	bo~rd 	of 	trustees 	from 	delegating 	the
authority 	for 	conduct 	of 	such 	meetings 	to 	the 	committee 	on
collective 	bargaining.
Determination: 	Subsection 	3562(h} 	defines 	"higher 	education
employer" 	as 	follows:
(h) 	"Employer" 	or 	"higher 	education 	employer"
means 	the 	regents 	in 	the 	case 	of 	the 	University 	of
California, 	the 	directors 	in 	the 	case 	of 	Hastings
College 	of 	Law, 	and 	the 	trustees 	in 	the 	case 	of
the 	California 	State 	University 	and 	Colleges,
including 	a~y__~on 	acting 	as 	an 	agent 	of 	an
employer. 	(Emphasis 	added.)
Black's 	Law 	Dictionary, 	Fifth Ed., 	defines 	"agent" 	in 	the
following 	manner:
Agent. 	A person 	authorized 	by 	another 	act 	for
him, 	one 	instrusted 	with 	another's 	business.
(Citation 	omitted.) 	One 	who 	represents 	and 	act
for 	another 	under 	the 	contract 	or 	relation 	of
agency. 	A business 	representative, 	whose
function 	is 	to 	bring 	about, 	modify, 	affect,
accept 	performance 	of, 	or 	terminate 	contractual
obligations 	between 	principal 	and 	third 	persons.
One 	who 	undertakes 	to 	transact 	some 	business, 	or
to 	manage 	some 	affair 	for 	another, 	by 	the
authority 	and 	on 	account 	of 	the 	latter, 	and 	to
render 	an 	account 	of 	it. 	One 	who 	acts 	for 	or 	in
place 	of 	another 	by 	authority 	from 	him; 	a
substitute, 	a 	deputy, 	appointed 	by 	principal 	with
power 	to 	do 	the 	things 	which 	principal 	may 	do.
One 	who 	deals 	not 	only 	with 	things, 	as 	does 	a
servant, 	but 	with 	persons, 	using 	his 	own
discretion 	as 	a 	means, 	and 	frequently
establishing 	contractual 	relations 	between 	this
principal 	and 	third 	person.
The 	above-specified 	functions 	which 	an 	agent 	may 	perform on
behalf 	of 	a 	principal 	are 	certainly 	board 	enough 	to 	encompass

Watts 	and 	Naples
LA-PN-48-H
March 	14, 	1984
Page 	4
the 	functions 	of 	the 	committee 	on 	collective 	bargaining
pursuant 	to 	subsection 	3595(a) 	ana 	(b).4
Education 	Code 	Section 	89035 	provides:
Whenever 	in 	this 	code 	a 	power 	is 	vested 	in 	the
Trustees, 	the 	Trustees 	by 	majority 	vote 	may 	adopt
a 	rule 	delegating 	such 	power 	to 	an 	officer,
employee 	or 	committee 	as 	the 	Trustees 	may
designate.
Subsection 	S(h) 	of 	article 	VI 	of 	the 	Rules 	of 	Procedures 	of
CSU's 	board 	of 	trustees 	provides 	as 	follows:
(h) 	Committee 	on 	Collective 	Bargainin~
The 	CoITLTflittee 	on 	Collective 	Bargaining 	shall 	have
delegated 	authority 	to 	act 	for 	the 	Board 	of
Trustees 	in 	order 	to 	comply 	with 	the 	requirements
of 	the 	Higher 	Education 	Employer-Emplo~
Relations Act 	(HEERA) 	(including 	section 	3595)
and 	i~plement 	the 	collective 	bargaining 	policy 	of
the 	Board 	of 	TrusteesD 	The 	delegation 	to 	the
Committee 	on Collective 	Bargaining 	includes, 	but
is 	not 	limited 	to, 	authority 	to 	negotiate
memoranda 	of 	understanding 	pursuant 	to 	the
policies 	of 	the 	Board 	of 	Trustees. 	The 	Committee
on 	Collective 	Bargaining 	shall 	submit 	periodic
process 	reports 	to 	the 	Board 	of 	Trustees 	on
matters 	pertaining 	to 	collective 	bargaining 	and
actions 	which 	it 	has 	taken.
(Emphasis 	supplied.)
4Mr. 	Watts 	implies 	that 	since 	the 	Los 	Angeles 	Unified
School 	District 	(LAUSD) 	Board 	of 	Education 	and 	the 	Los 	Angeles
Community College 	District 	(LACCD) 	Board 	of 	Trustees 	themselves
conduct 	these 	meetings, 	the 	instant 	board 	of 	trustees 	must 	do
so. 	However, 	the 	definition 	of 	emoloyer 	under 	the 	Educational
Employment 	Relations 	Act 	(Government 	Code 	section 	3540 	et 	seq.)
to 	which 	tAUSD 	and 	LACCD 	are 	subject, 	has 	an 	employer
definition 	distinguishable 	from 	subsection 	3562(h). 	Further,
PERB 	has 	never 	found 	that 	these 	governing 	boards 	must 	perform
those 	functions 	as 	a 	matter 	of 	law. 	Hence, 	what LAUSD 	and
LACCD 	do 	with 	respect 	to 	public 	notice 	is 	irrelevant.

Watts 	and 	Naples
LA-PN-48-H
March 	14, 	1984
Page 	5
The 	above 	plainly 	permits 	the 	board 	of 	trustees 	to 	delegate 	to
the 	committee 	on 	collective 	bargaining 	authority 	to 	act 	in 	the
realm 	of 	collective 	bargaininS, 	including 	the 	public 	notice
requirements 	of 	section 	3593.
As 	to Mr. 	Watts' 	allegation 	that 	a 	committee 	composed 	entirely
of 	staff 	cannot 	take 	official 	action, 	this 	argument 	is 	also
irrelevant. 	The 	Complaint 	alleges 	only 	that 	subsections
3595(a) 	and 	(b) 	were 	violated. 	Unlike 	subsection 	(c), 	these
subsections 	do 	not 	require 	the 	committee 	to 	take 	any 	action.
They 	require 	only 	the 	holding 	of 	a 	meeting 	open 	to 	the 	public.
This 	was 	done.6 	Hence, 	this 	allegation 	is 	also 	without 	merit.
Allegation 	No. 	Three: 	The 	original 	and 	First Amended 	Complaint
alleged 	that 	a 	violation 	occ~rred 	in 	the 	f2ilure 	cf 	CSU 	to
attach 	a 	copy of 	the 	initial 	proposal 	of 	United 	Professors 	of
California 	to 	the 	January 	13, 	1983 	committee 	on 	collective
bargaining 	agenda. 	The 	assertion 	is 	not 	raised 	in 	the 	Second
Amended 	Complaint 	which 	indicated 	that 	it 	superseded 	the 	First
Amended 	Complaint. 	Hence, 	it 	is 	presumed 	that 	this 	allegation
has 	been 	withdrawn.?
SThe·fact 	that 	Mr. 	Watts 	can 	find 	no 	appellate
decisions 	allowing 	the 	board 	of 	trustees 	to 	delegate 	this
authority 	to 	the 	com.mittee 	on 	collective 	bargaining 	does 	not
decide, 	nor 	even 	imply, 	that 	such 	delegation 	is 	improper.
6Moreover, 	it 	is 	not 	my 	reading 	of 	section 	3595 	to
allow 	the 	higher 	education 	employer 	to 	"alter" 	the 	initial
proposal 	of 	an 	exclusive 	representative.
?This 	allegation 	would 	have 	been 	dismissed 	in 	any
event. 	In 	Los Angeles 	Cormnuni1:.Y_Sollege 	District 	(12/31/80)
PERB 	Decision 	No. 	154, 	the 	Board 	itself 	affirmed 	the 	regional
director's 	dismissal 	of 	an 	allegation 	that 	the 	employer
violated 	subsection 	3547(b) 	by 	its 	failure 	to 	make 	availabe
copies 	of 	an 	exclusive 	representative's 	initial 	proposals 	at
the 	meeting 	held 	for 	public 	response 	to 	those 	proposals.
Subsection 	3547{b) 	is 	substantively 	similar 	to 	subsection
3595{b). 	Since 	there 	is 	no 	requirement 	that 	copies 	of 	the
proposal 	be 	preserit 	at 	all, 	it 	follows 	that 	the 	absence 	of 	a
copy 	of 	the 	proposals 	as 	an 	attachment 	to 	the 	agenda 	cannot 	be
a 	violation.

Watts 	and Naples
LA-PN-48-H
March 	14, 	1984
Page 	6
Allegation 	No. 	Four: 	The 	original 	and 	First 	Amended 	Complaint
contended 	that 	CSU 	had 	violated 	section 	3595 	in 	failing 	to
place 	its 	name 	on 	the 	published 	agenda. 	This 	allegation 	has
been 	explicity 	withdrawn 	in 	the 	Second Amended 	Complaint.
Withdrawal 	of 	that 	allegation 	is 	hereby 	accepted.
Allegation 	No. 	Five: 	This 	allegation, 	raised 	for 	the 	first
time 	in 	the 	Second Amended 	Complaint, 	is 	that 	CSU 	violated
Government 	Code 	section 	11120 	et 	esq., 	the 	so-called 	"state
open 	meeting 	act." 	San Mateo 	City 	Schools 	v. 	PERB 	(1983} 	33
Cal.3d 	850 	[ 	Cal. 	Rptr. 	] 	is 	cited 	for 	the 	proposition
that 	PERB 	must"harmonize" 	other 	conflicting 	statutes 	with
section 	3595.
Determination: 	PERB 	does 	not 	administer 	the 	open meeting 	act.
Mr. 	Watts 	fails 	to 	explain 	how 	section 	11120 	et 	seq. 	has 	been
violated, 	much 	less 	how 	such 	a 	violation 	would 	also 	constitute
a 	violation 	of 	section 	3595. 	In 	any 	event, 	the 	opening 	meeting
act 	does 	not 	appear 	to 	in 	any 	manner 	buttress 	Mr. 	Watts'
arguments 	dismissed 	above. 	Thus, 	no 	harmonization 	appears
necessary 	and 	this 	allegation, 	too, 	lacks 	merit.
REQUES'l' 	FOR _ASS I STANCE
Mr. 	Watts 	has 	filed 	PERB 	form 	GC-5 	requesting 	assistance 	with
his 	Complaint. 	A cover 	letter 	to 	the 	request 	states 	that 	he
hopes 	that 	he _will 	not" ••• 	have 	to 	appeal 	this 	request 	for
Assistance 	since 	(he} 	did 	qualify 	for 	this 	Assistance 	in 	the
past." 	While 	it 	is 	true 	that 	Mr. 	Watts 	financially 	qualified
for 	Board 	assistance, 	PERB's 	decision 	in 	prior 	cases 	was 	to
deny 	such 	requests 	by Mr. 	Watts 	because 	he 	had 	already 	received -
the 	level 	of 	assistance 	required 	by Board 	policy. 	For 	the 	same
reason, 	the 	instant 	request 	must 	also 	be 	denied.
In 	Los 	Angeles 	Community 	Coll~e 	District 	(12/15/81) 	PERB 	Order
No. 	Ad-119, 	Los 	Angeles 	Community 	College 	District 	(12/15/81)
PERB 	Decision 	No. 	186 	and _Los 	Angeles 	Unified 	School 	District
{2/22/82) 	PERB 	Decision No. 	181a, 	the 	Board 	itself 	affirmed 	the
regional 	director's 	denial 	of 	Mr. 	Watts' 	request 	for
assistance. 	PERB 	regulation 	37030 	(now 	regulation 	32920) 	was
then 	the 	only 	regulation 	which 	addressed 	the 	assistance 	to 	be
given 	public 	notice 	complainants. 	The 	Board 	itself 	stated 	that
that 	regulation 	required 	that 	a 	public 	notice 	complainant
receive 	only 	technical 	(as 	opposed 	to 	legal) 	assistance.

Watts 	and 	Naples
LA-PN-48-H
March 	14, 	1984
Page 	7
Effective 	September 	20, 	1982, 	public 	notice 	complainants 	were
placed 	under 	PERB 	regulation 	32163, 	which 	had 	previously
applied 	only 	to 	charging 	parties 	in 	unfair 	practice 	cases. 	As
Mr. 	Watts 	suggests, 	that 	regulation 	provides 	as 	follows:
32163. 	Board 	Assistance. 	If 	a 	party 	is
unable 	to 	retain 	counsel 	or 	demonstrates
extenuating 	circumstances, 	as 	determined 	by
the 	Board, 	a 	Board 	agent 	may 	be 	assigned 	to
assist 	the 	party 	in 	accordance 	with 	Board
policy.
As 	I 	have 	previously 	advised 	Mr. 	Watts, 	there 	p~esently 	exists
no 	Board 	policy 	delineating 	the 	assistance 	to 	be 	given 	under
regulation 	32163. 	Mr. 	Watts 	has 	already 	beea provided 	the 	same
manner 	of 	assistance 	the 	Board 	found 	to 	be 	appropriate 	in 	the
above-cited 	decisions. 	Although 	those 	decisions 	were 	issued
prior 	to 	regulation 	32163 	becoming 	relevant 	to 	public 	notice
requests, 	they 	constitute 	the 	only.Board 	policy 	regarding 	the
appropriate 	extent 	of 	Board 	assistance.
In 	the 	absence 	of 	any 	further 	direction 	from 	the 	Board 	itself
as 	to 	the 	assistance 	to 	be 	granted 	a 	public 	notice 	complainant,
it 	is 	determined 	that, 	for 	the 	reasons 	stated 	above, 	Mr. 	Watts
request 	for 	assistance 	must 	be 	DENIED.
Based 	upon 	my 	investigation 	of 	the 	instant 	Complaint 	and 	the
above 	rationale, 	it 	is 	determined 	that 	none 	of 	the 	allegations
made 	by Mr. 	Watts 	state 	a 	prima 	facie 	violation 	of 	Government
Code 	subsections 	3595(a} 	or 	(b}. 	They 	cannot 	be 	amended 	to 	do
so. 	Accordingly, 	they 	are 	hereby 	DISMISSED 	without 	further
leave 	to 	amend. 	Moreover, 	Mr. 	Watts' 	request 	for 	further
assistance 	in 	this 	matter 	is 	also 	hereby 	DENIED.
Pursuant 	to 	PERB 	Regulation 	32925, 	Mr. 	Watts 	may 	appeal 	the
dismissal 	to 	the 	Board 	itself 	as 	follows:
An 	appeal 	of 	this 	decision 	pursuant 	to PERB 	regulation 	32925
may 	be made.within 	20 	calendar 	days 	following 	the 	date 	of 	this
decisio11 	by 	filing 	an 	original 	and 	five 	copies 	of 	a 	statement
of 	·the 	facts 	upon 	which 	the 	appeal 	is 	based 	with 	the 	Board

Watts 	and 	Naples
LA-PN-48-H
March 	14, 	1984
Page 	8
itself 	at 	1031 	18th 	Street, 	Suite 	200, 	Sacramento, 	California
95815. 	Copies 	of 	any 	appeal 	must 	be 	concurrently 	served 	upon
all 	parties 	and 	the 	Los 	Angeles 	regional 	office. 	Proof 	of
service 	pursuant 	to 	regulation 	32140 	is 	required.
Very 	truly 	yours,
Frances 	A. 	Kreiling
Regional 	Director
;2-/4-'/l- 	.
Robert 	R. 	Bergeson
Senior 	Regional 	Representative
RRB: bw