Los Angeles Unified School District (Watts) (PERB 0705EA)

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF 	THE
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
HOWARD O. 	WATTS,
Complainant,
v.
LOS ANGELES 	UNIFIED SCHOOL 	DISTRICT,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 	LA-PN-91
Request 	for Reconsideration
PERB Decision No. 	705
PERB Decision No. 	705a
June 	19, 	1989
Appearance: 	Howard 0. 	Watts, 	on his own behalf.
Before Hesse, 	Chairperson; 	Craib and Shank, 	Members.
DECISION
HESSE, 	Chairperson: 	Howard O. 	Watts requests
reconsideration of PERB Decision No. 	705, 	issued by the Public
Employment Relations 	Board 	(PERB or Board) 	on December 	16, 	1988.
Having duly considered Mr. 	Watts' 	written request for
reconsideration 	in detail, 	the Board 	itself hereby denies 	the
request 	for the 	reasons 	that 	follow.
In PERB Decision No. 	705, 	the Board affirmed the Board
agents' 	dismissal of 	the complainant's 	allegation that the 	Los
Angeles 	Unified 	School 	District 	had not properly 	allowed 	time 	for
the public 	response 	to a non-substantive 	amendment 	to a 	school
calendar. 	The 	calendar had been previously noticed 	in accordance
with the requirements of section 3547(a), 	(b), 	(c), and (e) of

the Educational Employment Relations Act 	(EERA).1 The Board also
refused 	to 	consider 	a 	claim of 	new evidence 	in the 	complainant's
bare 	assertion there were 	"more documents" 	where there was 	no
showing 	that 	the 	evidence was 	previously unavailable.
1EERA is 	codified at Government Code 	section 3540 	et 	seq.
Unless 	otherwise 	indicated, 	all 	statutory references 	herein are
to the Government Code. 	EERA section 3547 	states, 	in pertinent
part:
(a) 	All 	initial proposals 	of exclusive
representatives 	and of public 	school
employers, 	which relate to matters within the
scope of representation, 	shall be presented
at a public 	meeting of 	the public 	school
employer and 	thereafter 	shall 	be public
records.
(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.
(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.
N
	2

DISCUSSION
PERB Regulation 32410(a)2 states, 	in pertinent part:
Any party to 	a decision of 	the 	Board 	itself
may, 	because of 	extraordinary circumstances,
file a request to reconsider the decision 	. 	.
. 	the grounds 	for requesting reconsideration
are 	limited to 	claims 	that the decision of
the 	Board 	itself 	contains 	prejudicial 	errors
of 	fact, 	or newly discovered evidence or 	law
which was 	not previously available 	and 	could
not have 	been discovered with 	the 	exercise 	of
reasonable diligence.
(Emphasis 	added.)
In his request for reconsideration, 	the complainant, 	inter
alia, 	argues 	that 	each public 	noticed 	subject must go through
three phases, 	i.e., 	(1) 	the actual public notice, 	(2) 	a two-week
opportunity for public 	comment, 	and 	(3) 	the meeting where the
public 	noticed proposals 	are 	actually adopted. 	The 	complainant
asserts 	that he had 	recently acquired minutes 	of 	two meetings 	of
the board and committees 	of the board, 	dated March 	16 	and 	30,
1987. 	The 	claim is 	simply that they were 	"unavailable until
now." 	However, 	the 	complainant offers 	no explanation as 	to why
these 	documents 	could not 	have 	been discovered with 	the 	exercise
of reasonable diligence between March 	16, 	1987, 	and the Board
agent's 	decision in October 	1987.
Therefore, 	the Board rejects 	the 	complainant's 	arguments 	in
support 	of his 	request 	for reconsideration 	in that he has 	not 	set
forth 	sufficient 	grounds 	for 	such request 	in accordance" with PERB
PERB 	Regulations 	are 	codified 	at 	California Administrative
Code, title 8, section 31001 et seq.
33

Regulation 32410(a). 	Nor has he otherwise demonstrated
extraordinary 	circumstances 	warranting 	reconsideration.
ORDER
The 	request by 	the 	complainant 	that 	the 	Public 	Employment
Relations 	Board 	grant 	reconsideration of 	Los Angeles 	Unified
School District 	(Watts) 	(1988) 	PERB Decision No. 	705 is DENIED,
Members 	Craib 	and 	Shank 	joined 	this 	Decision.
4