Ocean View Teachers Association (Busch) (PERB 0943E)

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF 	THE
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
GORDON 	BUSCH,
Complainant,
v.
OCEAN VIEW TEACHERS ASSOCIATION,
Respondent.
)
)
) 	Case No. 	LA-PN-118
PERB Decision No. 	943
June 	18, 	1992
)
)
)
)
)
)
__________________ )
Appearances: 	Gordon Busch, 	on his own behalf; 	Robert Einar
Lindquist, 	Attorney, 	for Ocean View Teachers Association.
Before Hesse, 	Chairperson; 	Camilli and Caffrey, 	Members.
DECISION
HESSE, 	Chairperson: 	This 	case is before the Public
Employment Relations 	Board 	(PERB 	or Board) 	on an appeal 	filed by
Gordon Busch 	(Busch) 	to a partial dismissal of public 	notice
complaint 	(attached) 	by a PERB regional director. 	The regional
director dismissed 	the 	complaint 	filed by 	Busch 	against 	the 	Ocean
View Teachers 	Association 	(Association) 	which 	alleged 	that 	the
Association violated section 3547(a), 	(b) 	and 	(e) 	of the
Educational Employment Relations Act 	(EERA).1
1EERA 	is 	codified at Government Code 	section 3540 	et 	seq.
Unless 	otherwise 	indicated, 	all 	statutory references 	herein are
to the Government Code. 	Section 3547 provides, 	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.
EERA

The 	complaint alleged that: 	(1) 	the Association's 	initial
proposals 	presented were 	not 	sufficiently 	developed 	for 	the
public 	to comprehend; 	(2) 	the Association and Ocean View School
District 	(District) 	may have 	negotiated 	in an executive 	session
before 	the public was 	afforded 	an opportunity to 	express 	itself;2
and 	(3) 	"PERB 	should 	consider Government Code 	54950 	in addition
to 	section 	3547 	in making 	its 	ruling."3
The Board has 	reviewed the dismissal, 	and 	finding 	it 	free of
prejudicial 	error, 	adopts 	it as 	the decision of the Board 	itself
consistent with 	the 	following discussion.
DISCUSSION
In his 	appeal, 	Busch argues that the regional director
failed 	to make 	a 	determination regarding 	the Association's
(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.
(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.
2The 	regional 	director determined 	that 	this 	allegation
stated a prima 	facie violation.
3See 	footnote 	5 	on page 	2 	of 	the regional director's partial
dismissal 	of public 	notice 	complaint.
2

initial proposals. 	This 	argument is without merit. 	As 	stated by
the 	regional 	director 	in her administrative determination, 	PERB
cases 	establish 	that 	in determining 	the 	sufficiency 	and
specificity of 	an initial proposal, 	the Board may 	look to
subsequent oral 	clarifications 	and explanations. 	(Los Angeles
Community College District 	(1985) 	PERB Decision No. 	489; 	Los
Angeles 	City and County School Employees 	Union. 	Local 	99, 	Service
Employees International Union, 	AFL-CIO 	(Watts) 	(1985) 	PERB
Decision No. 	4 90; 	and Los Angeles Community College District
(1991) 	PERB Decision No. 	908.) 	In this case, 	the regional
director properly 	concluded 	that 	the Association's 	oral
clarifications 	at the September 	3, 	1991 public board meeting were
sufficient 	to 	cure 	any defects 	or 	insufficiencies 	in the
Association's 	initial proposals.
Busch's 	argument that 	the 	regional 	director unnecessarily
expanded 	the 	scope 	of 	Palo Alto 	Unified 	School 	District 	(1981)
PERB Decision No. 	184 	(Palo Alto) 	is also without merit. 	In Palo
Alto, 	the Board 	found that a proposal 	for a 	cost of 	living
adjustment 	based upon the 	consumer price 	index was 	sufficient 	to
inform the public 	of 	the 	issue to be 	negotiated. 	The Board 	also
stated that 	an 	initial proposal which 	is 	simply a 	statement 	of 	a
subject matter, 	such as wages, 	does 	not adequately inform the
public 	of 	the 	issues 	to be 	negotiated.
In the present 	case, 	the regional director 	found that 	the
subsequent 	oral 	clarifications 	of 	the Association's 	initial
proposals 	cured any defects 	or 	insufficiencies. 	In reviewing the
33

minutes 	of the September 3 	and 	19, 	1991 public board meetings, 	it
is 	clear that the Association's 	initial proposals, 	including the
subsequent oral 	clarifications, 	are more than mere 	statements 	of
the 	subject 	matter to be 	negotiated. 	As 	these 	oral
clarifications 	of 	the 	initial 	proposals were held to be
sufficient 	to 	inform the public 	of 	the 	issue to be negotiated,
the 	administrative determination 	is 	consistent with 	the 	Board's
decision 	in Palo Alto.
While 	Busch admits 	that oral 	clarifications 	are 	sufficient,
it 	appears 	Busch 	is 	asserting that 	the District 	should have
adopted the September 	3, 	1991 	oral 	clarifications 	as 	amendments
to the 	initial proposals 	or amended 	initial proposals. 	In the
PERB 	cases 	involving 	subsequent 	clarifications 	of 	initial
proposals, 	there is 	no requirement that the public 	school
employer amend its 	initial proposals. 	Rather, 	the 	issue 	is
whether 	the 	subsequent 	clarifications 	result 	in the 	initial
proposals 	being 	"sufficiently developed to permit 	the public 	to
comprehend them." 	(Palo Alto.) 	Here, 	there were no amendments
to the District's 	initial proposals, 	only oral 	clarifications.
Based on these 	facts, 	the regional 	director correctly 	concluded
that 	oral 	clarifications 	of 	the Association's 	initial proposals
constituted 	sufficient notice under 	section 	3547(a) 	of 	EERA.
Busch's 	arguments 	that the Association 	failed 	to present
sufficient 	information on certain issues 	must be 	rejected. 	Both
the 	regional director's 	administrative determination, 	and Busch's
own appeal, 	demonstrate 	that he had 	sufficient 	information on the
4

Association's 	initial proposals. 	For example, 	Busch's 	objection
to 	the use of 	the words 	"usually" 	and 	"probably" 	in the
Association's 	oral 	clarification of 	the 	issue 	regarding 	the
maintenance of a competitive 	salary 	schedule is 	meticulous.
Busch 	is 	dissecting the Association's 	initial proposals 	and
subsequent 	oral 	clarifications 	to 	find 	any possible 	ambiguity.
Based 	on PERB 	case 	law regarding the 	sufficiency of 	initial
proposals, 	the regional director properly 	found that 	the
Association's 	initial proposals, 	with its 	subsequent oral
clarifications, 	were 	sufficient to 	inform the public 	of 	the
issues 	to be negotiated. 	(See Palo Alto f 	supra, 	PERB Decision
No. 	184.)
Finally, 	the Association's 	argument that 	its 	reliance on
"collaborative 	bargaining" 	equitably 	estops 	PERB 	from 	finding 	a
public 	notice violation is without merit. 	Regardless 	of whether
"collaborative bargaining" 	was advocated by PERB, 	the parties'
use 	of 	a 	new or different bargaining technique does 	not 	excuse
the parties 	from the 	statutory requirements 	set 	forth 	in EERA.
ORDER
The allegation in the complaint 	in Case No. 	LA-PN-118 	that
the Association violated 	EERA 	section 	3547 	by presenting 	initial
proposals which were 	not 	sufficiently developed 	for the public 	to
comprehend 	is 	hereby 	DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE 	TO AMEND.
Members 	Camilli 	and Caffrey 	joined 	in this 	Decision.
5

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
OCEAN VIEW TEACHERS ASSOCIATION,
Respondent,
- 	and 	-
GORDON 	BUSCH,
Complainant.
)
)
) 	Case No. 	LA-PN-118
PARTIAL 	DISMISSAL 	OF
PUBLIC NOTICE COMPLAINT
March 	17, 	1992
)
)
)
)
)
)
PROCEDURAL 	HISTORY
On June 	6, 	1991,1 Gordon Busch 	(Busch or Complainant)
filed 	a 	public 	notice 	complaint 	against 	the 	Ocean View Teachers
Association 	(OVTA)2 alleging violations of section 3547(a), 	(b)
and 	(e) 	of 	the Educational 	Employment Relations Act.3 The
'All 	dates 	referenced herein are 	in calendar year 	1901,
unless 	otherwise 	indicated.
2OVTA 	is 	the 	exclusive representative 	of 	the 	certificated
employees 	in the 	Ocean View School 	District.
3The 	EERA 	is 	codified 	at 	Government 	Code 	section 	3540 	et
seq. 	Unless 	otherwise 	indicated, 	all 	statutory references 	herein
are 	to 	the 	Government Code.
Section 	3547 provides 	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.
_________________ )

complaint 	alleges 	that the 	initial 	proposal 	presented by OVTA on
May 	7 was 	not 	sufficiently developed 	for the public 	to
comprehend; 	that OVTA and the 	Board 	of 	Trustees 	met on May 	21 	and
may have 	negotiated 	in an 	executive 	session before 	the public 	was
afforded an opportunity to 	express 	itself4; 	and, 	"that PERB
should consider Government Code 	54950 	in addition to 	section 	3547
in making its 	ruling."5
(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.
The allegations 	regarding the May 	21 	meeting have been
severed 	from this 	dismissal 	since 	they have been 	found to 	state 	a
prima 	facie violation. 	A 	separate Determination of 	Prima Facie
Violation has 	been 	issued 	this 	date.
sGovernment Code 	section 54950, 	the 	"Declaration of public
policy" within the Ralph M. 	Brown Act, 	states the following:
In enacting this 	chapter, 	the Legislature 	finds 	and declares
that 	the public 	commissions, 	boards 	and councils 	and the
other public 	agencies 	in this 	State 	exist to aid 	in the
conduct of the people's business. 	It is the intent of the
law that 	their 	actions 	be 	taken 	openly 	and 	that 	their
deliberations 	be 	conducted 	openly.
The people 	of 	this 	State do 	not 	yield their 	sovereignty 	to
the agencies which 	serve them. 	The people, 	in delegating
authority, 	do not give 	their public 	servants 	the right 	to
decide what 	is 	good 	for the people 	to 	know and what 	is 	not
good 	for them to 	know. 	The people 	insist 	on remaining
informed 	so 	that 	they may 	retain control 	over 	the
instruments 	they have 	created.
PERB's 	jurisdiction 	in this 	case 	is 	limited to enforcing
violations 	of 	the 	EERA. 	Bracey v. 	Los 	Angeles 	Unified 	School
Dist. 	(1986) 	PERB Decision No. 	588. 	While PERB's interpretation
of 	the 	EERA may 	reasonably 	be 	construed 	in 	a way which will
harmonize 	it with other laws, 	San Mateo City School Dist, 	v.
22

OVTA presented 	its 	initial 	proposal 	at 	a public 	Board
meeting 	on May 	7. 	The public 	was 	provided 	an opportunity 	to
address 	the proposals 	at 	a 	public 	Board 	meeting on May 	21.6
1
An 	informal 	settlement 	conference 	was 	conducted 	on August
Public 	Employment 	Relations 	Bd. 	(1983) 	33 	Cal.3d 850 	[191
Cal.Rptr. 	800], 	the 	issues 	in this 	case do not require that EERA
be 	harmonized with 	the 	Brown Act.
6A 	copy of 	the 	District's 	May 	21 	agenda 	lists 	"Public
Hearing 	- 	Initial 	Proposals 	for Collective 	Bargaining 	- 	Ocean
View Teachers 	Association" 	as 	an 	Information 	Item. 	Minutes
reflect 	that 	Complainant 	and 	another 	member 	of 	the public
addressed 	the 	Board.
7 PERB 	regulations 	are 	codified 	at 	California 	Code 	of
Regulations, 	title 	8, 	section 31001 	et 	seq. 	Regulation 32920
provides 	in part:
(a) 	When a 	complaint 	is 	filed, 	the case 	shall be
assigned 	to 	a 	Board 	agent 	for processing. 	•
(b) 	The powers 	and duties 	of 	such 	Board 	agent 	shall 	be
to. . .
(4) 	Facilitate 	communication and 	the 	exchange 	of
information 	between 	the 	complainant 	and 	the 	respondent 	or
respondents;
(5) 	Explore 	the possibility of 	and 	facilitate 	the
voluntary 	compliance 	and 	settlement 	of 	the 	case 	through
informal 	conferences 	or 	other 	means;
(6) 	Conduct 	investigatory 	conferences 	with 	the parties
to 	explore 	and 	resolve 	factual 	or 	legal 	issues;
(7) 	If 	the 	Board 	agent 	receives 	proof 	that 	the
respondent 	has 	voluntarily 	complied 	with 	the 	provisions 	of
Government Code 	sections 	3547 	or 	3595, 	a 	Board agent may
either 	approve 	the 	complainant's 	withdrawal 	of 	the 	complaint
or 	dismiss 	the 	complaint.
(8) 	Dismiss 	any complaint which, 	after 	investigation,
is 	determined 	to 	fail 	to 	state 	a 	prima 	facie 	allegation 	or
33

2 3 with the Ocean View School 	District,8 OVTA and Busch.
Although 	settlement 	of the 	complaints was 	not reached at 	the
informal 	conference, 	both the 	District 	and OVTA 	expressed a
willingness 	to present 	further 	explanation of 	their 	respective
initial proposals 	at another public 	Board meeting(s). 	The
District 	and OVTA were 	also 	encouraged 	at 	the 	conference 	and
during 	subsequent 	telephone 	conversations 	with 	the 	undersigned 	to
provide 	the 	complainant 	with 	information 	and documentation which
might 	facilitate 	voluntary 	resolution of 	the 	complaints.
At a 	September 	3 public 	Board meeting, 	OVTA provided
explanatory 	comments 	regarding 	some 	27 	separate Articles 	and
subsections 	that 	it wished to negotiate with the District. 	At
the 	end of OVTA's 	and the District's presentation, 	the public was
informed 	by 	the 	District 	representative 	that 	an 	opportunity 	to
which 	is 	not 	supported by 	sufficient 	facts 	to 	comprise 	a
violation of Government Code 	sections 	3547 	or 	3595. 	Any
such dismissal 	is 	appealable 	to 	the 	Board 	itself pursuant 	to
section 	32925 	of 	these regulations;
(9) 	If 	the complaint 	is 	found by the 	Board agent 	to
state 	a prima 	facie 	violation of 	Government Code 	sections
3547 	or 	3595, 	direct 	each respondent to 	file with the
regional 	office a written answer, 	signed by an authorized
agent 	of 	the respondent...
8 Two 	separate public 	notice 	complaints 	(LA-PN-119 	and 	LA-
PN-122) 	were 	filed against 	the District on June 	6 	and August 	8,
respectively. 	Resolution of 	those 	complaints was 	also 	attempted
at 	the August 	23 	settlement 	conference by agreement 	of 	the
parties. 	However, 	since no 	settlement was obtained, 	a 	separate
investigation 	regarding 	the 	allegations 	against 	the 	District was
conducted.
4

present 	input 	and 	questions 	regarding both 	sets 	of 	proposals
would be provided at the 	September 	17 public 	Board meeting.
Thereafter, 	at the September 	19 public Board meeting, 	the
public 	was 	afforded 	an opportunity 	to present 	input 	and 	ask
questions 	regarding OVTA's proposal. 	One member of 	the public
addressed the 	Board, 	in addition to 	Busch who was 	allowed thirty
minutes 	to do 	so. 	The 	District 	and OVTA commenced 	negotiations
on September 	23.10 At this 	session, 	the parties 	set 	ground rules
and 	apparently 	engaged 	in 	collaborative 	bargaining.1111
After various 	conversations with the Complainant, 	it was
determined 	by 	the 	undersigned 	that 	he would 	not 	withdraw 	the
complaint, 	regardless 	of 	the 	steps undertaken by OVTA.
Therefore, 	on November 22, 	OVTA was ordered to produce documents
and argument which 	substantiated 	its 	belief 	that 	it 	had 	complied
with the 	law. 	The Complainant was 	afforded an opportunity to
9 A
meetin
' lthough 	the 	September 	3 	minutes 	reflect 	that 	the 	next
g would be held on September 	17, 	documentation provided by
both parties 	reflects 	that 	it was 	in fact held on September 	19.
10The 	last 	collective 	bargaining 	agreement 	between 	the
parties 	expired on July 	1.
11In April 	1991, 	the 	District 	and OVTA participated 	in
training 	under the 	auspices 	of 	the 	California 	Foundation 	for 	the
Improvement 	of 	Employer/Employee 	Relations 	to 	learn 	the
techniques 	of 	collaborative bargaining. 	While 	PERB 	contributed
to 	the development of the 	training module, 	its 	participation 	in
the project 	ceased after March, 	1991. 	PERB does 	not 	endorse a
particular negotiations model over others, 	since 	its 	mission is
simply 	to 	administer and 	enforce 	the 	statutes 	under 	its
jurisdiction, 	regardless 	of 	the model 	or method 	chosen by the
parties 	to 	effectuate 	their 	labor 	relations.
UnT	5

respond 	to OVTA's 	submissions. 	Both parties 	filed 	timely
responses on December 23 	and January 27, 	1992 	respectively.
POSITIONS 	OF 	THE 	PARTIES
In his 	complaint, 	Busch alleges 	that OVTA has 	violated
section 3547(a), 	(b) 	and (e)l2 by not presenting sufficiently
developed proposals 	for the public 	to 	comprehend. 	The 	complaint
also 	asks 	PERB to 	consider Government Code 	section 	54950 	when
making 	its 	determination.
OVTA believes 	that 	it has 	fully 	complied with 	the public
notice requirements. 	In the alternative, 	it believes 	that PERB
should be 	estopped 	from 	finding 	a 	violation because 	it
intentionally caused OVTA to 	fail 	to 	comply with 	section 	3547.
DISCUSSION
EERA's public 	notice 	statute, 	Government Code 	section 3547,
contains 	no 	express 	provision 	stating that 	the 	initial 	proposals
which 	it 	requires 	be made public must be 	"specific" 	in their
nature. 	However, 	in Palo Alto Unified School 	District 	(1981)
PERB Decision No. 	184, 	the Board noted that proposals of both the
exclusive 	representative 	and 	the 	employer must 	satisfy 	the 	intent
expressed in subsection 3547 (e)13, 	i.e., 	that
12The January 	27 	submission 	simply 	states 	the 	language
contained in subsection 	(e).
13Subsection 3547(e) 	contains 	a 	statement of the
legislature's 	intent 	in 	enacting the public 	notice provisions,
and 	thus, 	has 	aided PERB 	in the 	interpretation of 	the 	remaining
subsections. 	However, 	it imposes 	no 	independent and 	specific
requirements 	on 	either the 	employer 	or 	exclusive 	representative,
and, 	therefore, 	a party cannot be 	found to violate this
subsection. 	Accordingly, 	Complainant's 	allegation of 	a violation
of 	subsection 3547(e) 	is dismissed.
6

. 	. 	. 	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.
The 	Board went on to 	explain that 	"the 	initial 	proposals
presented to 	the public 	must 	be 	sufficiently developed 	to permit
the public 	to 	comprehend them." 	PERB 	found 	a proposal 	for a 	cost
of 	living 	adjustment 	based 	upon the 	Consumer Price 	Index 	to 	be
"sufficiently developed 	to 	inform the public 	what 	issue will 	be
on the 	table 	at negotiations," 	notwithstanding Complainant's
assertion that it was not 	specific. 	The 	same result was 	reached
in a 	later, 	similar case. 	American Federation of Teachers
College Guild. 	Local 	1521 	(1989) 	PERB Decision No. 	740.
In other decisions, 	the Board has 	shown that 	it will 	look
beyond 	the 	actual 	initial 	proposal 	to 	determine whether 	the
requirements 	of 	section 3547 have been met. 	In Los Angeles
Community College District 	(1984) 	PERB Decision No. 	411, 	the
Board was 	presented with 	the 	issue 	of whether or 	not 	the
employer's 	initial proposal 	regarding amendments 	to 	life
insurance plans 	provided 	sufficient 	information. 	The 	Board 	found
it unnecessary to decide whether the proposal, 	alone, 	"[met] 	the
requirements 	of Government Code 	section 3547, 	because the
District 	also 	included 	explanatory 	information with 	its 	initial
proposal." 	(footnote 	omitted)
Explanation of 	an initial 	proposal 	to 	bring 	it 	into
conformity with 	the requirements 	of 	section 	3547 	need 	not 	be 	in
writing. 	Oral 	clarification of 	initial proposals 	at public
77

meetings 	held by the 	employer has 	been 	found to 	constitute
sufficient notice under 	subsection 	3547(a) 	in Los Angeles
Community College District 	(1985) 	PERB Decision No. 	489, 	Los
Angeles City and County School 	Employees 	Union. 	Local 	99, 	Service
Employees 	International 	Union. 	AFL-CIO 	(1985) 	PERB Decision No.
490, 	and Los Angeles Community College District 	(1991) 	PERB
Decision No. 	908.
Sufficiently 	informative 	proposals 	and 	an 	opportunity 	for
public 	comment 	on 	such proposals 	are 	necessary prerequisites 	to
meeting and negotiating. 	Complainant 	contends 	OVTA's 	proposals
lacked 	the 	requisite 	specificity when 	they were 	first 	presented,
and 	that 	they 	remain 	insufficient 	even 	after 	additional
information was 	provided.
It 	is 	fair to 	say that the proposals presented by the OVTA
on May 	7 	varied 	in the 	extent 	to which they provided 	insight 	into
the 	issues which would be 	at 	the 	negotiating table, 	and 	some
proposals 	might well 	have 	been 	found 	insufficiently 	specific 	had
there been no 	further explanation. 	However, 	it 	is 	unnecessary to
decide whether any 	of 	those written proposals 	were 	inadequate
standing alone, 	because, 	in response to the complaint, 	and
pursuant to agreement reached at the August 	2 3 	settlement
conference, 	OVTA provided oral 	explanation of 	each proposal 	at
the 	September 	3 	public 	Board meeting. 	The 	explanation consisted
of 	a 	recitation of 	the original 	written proposal 	followed by 	a
more 	complete 	and detailed 	statement 	of 	OVTA's 	intent.
Differences 	in 	the 	earlier 	and 	explained proposals 	may be 	seen,
8

for example, 	in proposals 	concerning teacher discipline and
professional growth: 	The 	initial proposal 	in the 	subject area of
"Teacher Discipline" 	had 	indicated that OVTA 	sought, 	among other
items, 	a 	"review of process 	and criteria"; 	this was 	expanded to
indicate 	that 	OVTA 	sought
to 	restructure 	the teacher discipline process 	to 	include 	a
series 	of 	steps 	and written warnings 	and reprimands 	before
any punitive 	action is 	administered.14
Another initial 	proposal 	had 	identified 	"Professional 	Growth" 	as
a 	new article to be negotiated; 	this was 	explained to 	reveal 	that
OVTA 	sought
to 	outline the 	legal 	requirements 	for new teachers 	to
successfully 	complete the 	150 	clock hours 	of 	education that
are required 	every 	5 	years 	for new teachers 	hired after
.1986.15
Taken together, 	the 	initial written proposals 	and 	the 	subsequent
explanatory 	remarks 	are 	sufficiently 	developed 	to 	inform 	the
public 	of 	the 	issues which would be 	on the 	table when
negotiations began on September 23. 	Thus, 	even if OVTA's
proposals 	violated the requirements 	of 	subsection 	3547(a) 	at 	the
time the 	complaint was 	filed, 	the deficiencies were 	cured as 	of
September 3.
Complainant disputes 	the adequacy of OVTA's 	proposals, 	even
after 	the 	explanations 	offered on 	September 	3 	and 	the 	opportunity
for public 	response and questions 	on September 	19, 	characterizing
OVTA's 	representative 	at 	the 	latter meeting 	to have 	been 	"at
14September 19, 	1991, 	Board Meeting Minutes, p. 	113.4.
15September 19, 	1991, 	Board Meeting Minutes, 	p. 	113.5.
9

best, 	contentious when responding and 	[having] 	evaded or refused
to 	answer questions 	involving key 	issues." 	Complainant proceeds
to quote a rather lengthy 	series 	of 	exchanges 	between himself 	and
OVTA's representative, 	including, 	for example, 	one in which
Complainant 	sought 	to know how much 	additional 	planning 	time was
being 	sought by OVTA for grades 	4 	through 	6. 	(Complainant's
Brief, 	pp.7-8.) 	However, 	the very nature of the Complainant's
questions 	indicates 	that he had an understanding of 	the 	issues
which were 	to be 	on the 	negotiating table. 	The 	kind 	of 	detailed
information which the Complainant 	sought, 	and apparently 	still
seeks, 	is 	simply not required by the public 	notice provisions.16
The September 	19 meeting was 	expressly identified 	as 	an
opportunity 	for 	the public 	to 	speak and 	ask questions 	on 	the
initial proposals,17 which 	is precisely what Complainant did.
Because Complainant was 	given this 	opportunity, 	more than two
weeks 	after presentation on September 	3 	of a detailed explanation
of OVTA's proposals, 	the requirements of Government Code
subsection 3547(b) 	were met.
CONCLUSION
16Complainant's 	desire 	to understand 	the 	fiscal 	impact 	of
proposals 	is 	analogous 	to the request 	to obtain disclosure of
insurance 	company bids 	in 	Los 	Angeles 	Community 	College 	District
(1984) 	PERB Decision No. 	411. 	There, 	PERB found such disclosure
"requires 	specificity beyond 	the 	Board's 	guidelines 	in Fein." 	The
reference 	to 	Fein 	is 	to 	the 	landmark decision 	in Palo Alto
Unified School District 	(1981) 	PERB Decision No. 	184, 	cited
previously.
17September 3, 	1991 Board Meeting Minutes, 	p. 	113.10;
September 19, 	1991 Board Meeting Minutes, 	p. 	137.2.
10

For the 	foregoing reasons, 	that part of this 	complaint which
alleges 	that 	the 	OVTA violated 	section 	3547 	by presenting 	initial
proposals which were 	not 	sufficiently developed 	is 	DISMISSED.
Right 	to Appeal
Pursuant 	to 	Public 	Employment 	Relations 	Board 	regulations,
any party adversely 	affected by 	this 	ruling 	may 	appeal 	to 	the
Board 	itself by 	filing a written appeal within twenty 	(20)
calendar days 	after 	service 	of 	this 	ruling 	(California
Administrative Code, 	title 8, 	section 32925). 	To be timely
filed, 	the original 	and 	five 	copies 	of 	such appeal 	must be
actually 	received 	by 	the 	Board 	itself 	before 	the 	close 	of
business 	(5:00 p.m.) 	or sent by telegraph, 	certified or Express
United States 	mail postmarked no 	later than the 	last date 	set 	for
filing 	(California Administrative Code, 	title 8, 	section 32135).
Code of Civil Procedure 	section 	1013 	shall 	apply. 	The Board's
address is:
Members, 	Public Employment Relations 	Board
1031 	18th Street
Sacramento, 	CA 95814
The appeal must 	state the 	specific 	issues 	of procedure,
fact, 	law or rationale that are appealed, 	must clearly and
concisely 	state 	the 	grounds 	for 	each 	issue 	stated, 	and must 	be
signed by the 	appealing party 	or 	its 	agent.
If a 	timely appeal of this 	ruling 	is 	filed, 	any other party
may 	file with the 	Board 	itself 	an original 	and 	five 	copies 	of 	a
statement 	in 	opposition within twenty 	calendar days 	following 	the
date 	of 	service 	of 	the appeal 	(California Administrative Code,
11

title 8, 	section 32625). 	If no timely appeal is filed, 	the
aforementioned 	ruling 	shall 	become 	final 	upon the 	expiration 	of
the 	specified 	time 	limits.
Service
All 	documents 	authorized 	to be 	filed herein must 	also 	be
"served" 	upon all parties 	to 	the proceeding 	and 	the 	San Francisco
Regional 	Office. 	A 	"proof of 	service" 	must 	accompany each 	copy
of 	a document 	served upon a party or 	filed with the 	Board 	itself.
(See California Administrative Code, 	title 8, 	section 32140 	for
the 	required 	contents 	and a 	sample 	form.) 	The 	appeal 	and any
opposition to 	an appeal will 	be 	considered properly 	"served" 	when
personally delivered 	or deposited 	in the 	first-class 	mail 	postage
paid 	and 	properly 	addressed.
Extension 	of 	Time
A request 	for 	an extension of 	time 	in which 	to 	file 	an
appeal 	or opposition to 	an appeal with 	the 	Board 	itself 	must 	be
in writing and 	filed with the 	Board at 	the previously 	noted
address. 	A request 	for an 	extension must be 	filed 	at 	least 	three
calendar days 	before 	the 	expiration of 	the 	time 	required 	for
filing the document. 	The 	request must 	indicate 	good 	cause 	for
and, 	if known, 	the position of 	each other party regarding the
extension, 	and 	shall 	be accompanied by proof 	of 	service of 	the
request 	upon each party 	(California Administrative 	Code, 	title 	8,
section 	32132).
Dated: 	March 	17, 	1992
Anita I. 	Martinez
Regional 	Director
12