United Teachers of Los Angeles (Watts) (PERB 1018E)

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
DECISION 	OF 	THE
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
HOWARD 0. 	WATTS,
Complainant,
v.
UNITED TEACHERS OF LOS ANGELES,
Respondent.
)
)
) 	Case No. 	LA-PN-13 0
PERB Decision No. 	1018
October 20, 	1993
)
)
)
)
)
)
Appearance: 	Howard 0. 	Watts, 	on his own behalf.
Before Caffrey, 	Carlyle and Garcia, 	Members.
DECISION
GARCIA, 	Member: 	This 	case is before the Public Employment
Relations Board 	(PERB or Board) 	on appeal by Howard 0. 	Watts
(Watts) 	of a dismissal 	of a public notice complaint 	(attached) 	by
a Board agent. 	The basis 	of Watts' 	appeal 	is that 	the Board
agent 	did not 	receive 	input 	from the 	complainant. 	A review of
the 	case 	reveals 	no 	identifiable 	error on the part 	of 	the Board
agent, 	so we will 	limit our discussion to whether Watts' 	reason
for appeal 	is well 	founded.
DISCUSSION
In his appeal Watts 	simply states, 	"the 	specialist 	cannot
take 	it upon herself 	to decide any case without 	input 	from the
Complaintant 	[sic], 	there was no input given in this case." 	On
the 	five pages 	that 	follow, 	Watts does not 	state 	that he 	offered
information to 	the Board agent under PERB Regulation 	329201 or
1PERB 	regulations 	are 	codified at 	California 	Code 	of
Regulations, 	title 8, 	section 31001 et seq.
_____ )

does 	he 	identify how any 	statute 	or regulation was violated. 	No
proof 	is 	offered by 	statement 	or otherwise.
In Los Angeles Unified School District, 	et al. 	(19 84) 	PERB
Decision No. 	396-H, 	the Board took judicial notice that Watts 	is
an expert 	complainant 	and not 	in need of 	technical 	assistance.
We now find 	it 	unlikely 	that 	he would 	fail 	to 	substantiate 	the
basis 	of his appeal 	if he 	could.
ORDER
The public notice complaint 	in Case No. 	LA-PN-13 0 	is hereby
DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. 	The Board agent's 	order 	for
reimbursement 	to 	the United Teachers 	of 	Los Angeles 	for any
litigation expenses, 	including 	reasonable attorney 	fees 	by Watts,
and order 	for Watts 	to make written notification of 	his 	actions
in 	complying with such reimbursement 	is 	hereby REVERSED.2
Members 	Caffrey and Carlyle 	joined 	in 	this 	Decision.
2 Notwithstanding the dismissal 	without 	leave 	to amend of 	the
public notice 	complaint, 	the Board does 	not 	find that 	said
complaint is 	"without arguable merit, 	frivolous, 	vexatious,
dilatory, 	pursued in bad faith or otherwise an abuse 	of process."
(State of 	California 	(Office of 	the Lieutenant Governor) 	(1992)
PERB Decision No. 	920-S; 	relying on Chula Vista City School
District 	(1990) 	PERB Decision No. 	834, 	pp. 	73-74; United
Professors of California 	(Watts) 	(1984) 	PERB Decision No. 	398-H.)
22

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
HOWARD WATTS,
Complainant,
v.
UNITED TEACHERS 	OF LOS ANGELES,
Respondent.
) 	Case No. 	LA-PN-130
ADMINISTRATIVE
DETERMINATION
May 19, 	1993
)
)
)
)
)
This 	administrative 	determination dismisses 	the 	above-
captioned public 	notice 	complaint 	filed by 	Howard Watts
(Complainant 	or Watts) 	alleging 	that 	the United Teachers 	of 	Los
Angeles 	(Association or UTLA) 	violated Government 	Code 	Section
3547(b)1 by presenting proposals 	that 	lacked specificity, 	and by
not making 	its proposals 	available 	to 	the public 	in a 	timely
manner.
BACKGROUND
Watts 	filed 	the 	instant 	public 	notice 	complaint 	with 	the 	Los
Angeles 	Regional 	Office 	of 	the 	Public 	Employment 	Relations 	Board
1The Educational Employment Relations Act 	(EERA) 	is 	codified
at 	Government 	Code 	section 	3540 	et 	seq. 	All 	statutory 	references
herein are to 	the Government Code. 	Section 3547(b) 	provides:
(b) 	Meeting and negotiating shall
not 	take place 	on any proposal
until 	a 	reasonable 	time 	has 	elapsed
after the 	submission 	of 	proposals
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.
,\
)
)

(PERB or Board) 	pursuant 	to PERB regulation 321902 on July 5,
1992.3 UTLA represents 	the 	Los Angeles 	Unified School 	District's
(District) 	certificated bargaining unit.
Mr. 	Watts 	first asserts 	that 	UTLA violated the 	EERA public
notice 	requirement because 	it 	submitted proposals 	that 	lack
specificity.
The Association's proposals 	consisted of 	70 	pages 	including
a 	cover memo 	and a 	title page.4 The 	cover memo 	read as 	follows:
United Teachers 	Los Angeles 	proposes 	the 	attached additions,
amendments 	and/or 	corrections 	to 	the 	current 	UTLA-LAUSD
Collective Bargaining Agreement. 	These are presented 	in the
spirit 	of 	working 	together 	to 	face 	the 	financial 	and 	social
crises that threaten LAUSD employees, 	students, 	parents, 	and
community. 	It 	is UTLA's desire, 	throughout 	the upcoming
negotiations, 	to attempt 	to reach agreement 	that will 	impact
significantly 	on:
1. 	District 	organization restructuring,
2. 	identifying 	cost 	savings 	that will 	contribute 	to
improving 	the District's 	financial 	conditions.
3. 	protecting 	the members 	of 	our bargaining unit's
working conditions, 	salaries and benefits, 	and,
2A 	complaint 	alleging 	that 	an 	employer 	or an 	exclusive
representative 	has 	failed 	to 	comply with Government 	Code 	section
3547 may be 	filed 	in the 	regional 	office. 	An EERA complaint may
be 	filed by an individual 	who 	is 	a 	resident 	of 	the 	school
district 	involved in the 	complaint 	or who 	is 	the parent 	or
guardian of 	a 	student 	in the 	school 	district 	or 	is 	an adult
student 	in 	the 	district. 	The 	complaint 	shall 	be 	filed no 	later
than 3 0 	days 	subsequent 	to the date when conduct 	alleged to be a
violation was 	known 	or 	reasonably 	could 	have 	been 	discovered.
Any period 	of 	time used by 	the 	complainant 	in 	first 	exhausting 	a
complaint 	procedure 	adopted by an 	EERA employer 	shall 	not 	be
included 	in 	the 	30-day 	limitation.
3A11 	dates 	referenced herein are 	calendar year 1992.
4The 	Complainant 	provided 	PERB with a 	copy 	of 	UTLA's
proposals, 	which included the 	cover memo.
2
(
2

4. 	providing a basic 	education program for Los
Angeles 	students.
Attached 	to 	the memo were 	a number 	of 	specific proposals 	for
changes 	to 	the 	then current agreement, 	including additions,
deletions or corrections of 22 	articles, 	covering issues such as
personal 	leave, 	salary and grievance procedure.
The 	District's 	public 	notice policy5 in pertinent 	part
states:
V. 	Accessibility 	of 	Initial 	Proposals
A. 	Certificated 	Proposals
The District 	shall 	make 	the 	Board's 	and 	the 	exclusive
representative's 	proposals 	accessible 	to 	the 	public 	in
the 	following manner:
3. 	A copy of 	initial proposals 	presented at 	a 	regular
public meeting 	of 	the 	Board 	shall 	be 	posted 	and
available 	for 	inspection 	and 	review 	through 	the
PIO until 	such time as 	negotiations 	are 	completed.
(The 	exclusive 	representative will 	provide 	the
District with copies 	of 	its 	initial proposals
which 	shall 	be 	distributed 	through 	regular
District mail 	service 	procedures.)
In 	the 	instant 	case, 	the District 	held its 	first public
notice meeting on June 	15, 	wherein they 	acknowledged 	the 	receipt
of UTLA's 	initial proposals. 	Complainant 	affirms 	that 	he
attended 	the 	June 	15 	meeting 	and 	received 	a 	copy 	of 	UTLA's
proposals. 	He 	further states 	that he addressed the District's
School 	Board at 	two 	separate public 	comment meetings 	which were
held on June .25 	and July 	6.
Mr. 	Watts 	alleges 	that 	on June 	25 	UTLA violated the public
5The 	Complainant provided 	PERB with 	copy of 	the District's
Public Notice policy, 	Bulletin No 18 	(Rev) 	September 26, 	1988,
section V 	(A).
(
3

notice 	requirements 	because 	it 	failed to make 	its proposals
available to the public 	in a timely manner. 	Specifically, 	he
received a 	copy of UTLA's proposals 	approximately one 	and one-
half 	hours 	after he 	addressed the 	Board.
ISSUES
Did 	the Association's 	proposals 	lack 	specificity? 	Did 	the
Association fail 	to make 	available 	its 	proposals 	to 	the public?
DISCUSSION
Specificity 	of 	Proposals
The 	intent 	of 	the public notice 	requirements 	is 	set 	forth in
Government Code section 3547 (e).6 PERB's regulations
implementing 	the provisions 	of 	section 	3547 were 	adopted 	to 	fully
protect 	the public's 	right 	in this 	regard. 	(Los Angeles
Community College District 	(1978) 	PERB Order No. 	Ad-41.)
Section 	3547 	contains 	no 	express 	provision 	stating 	that 	the
initial proposals which 	it 	requires 	be made public must 	be
"specific" 	in their nature. 	In Palo Alto Unified School District
(1981) 	PERB Decision No. 	184, 	the Board noted that such proposals
must 	satisfy the 	intent 	expressed in subsection 3547(a). 	The
Board 	found 	that 	"the 	initial 	proposals 	presented 	to 	the 	public
must 	be 	sufficiently developed 	to permit 	the public 	to 	comprehend
6 EERA section 3547(e) 	states:
(e) 	The board may adopt 	regulations 	for the purpose 	of
implementing 	this 	section, 	which are 	consistent with
the 	intent of 	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.
4

A
them." 	PERB 	found a proposal 	"which 	is, simply a statement 	of
the 	subject matter such as 	'wages' 	does 	not adequately inform the
public 	of 	the 	issues 	that 	will 	be negotiated." 	The Board
continued, 	however, 	that a proposal 	for a cost of living
adjustment 	based 	on 	the 	Consumer 	Price 	Index is 	"sufficiently
developed 	to 	inform the public 	what 	issue will 	be 	on 	the 	table 	at
negotiations." 	The 	same 	result was 	reached in a 	later, 	similar
case. 	(See American Federation of Teachers 	College Guild, 	Local
1521 	(Watts) 	(1989) 	PERB decision No.740.)
The 	format 	of 	UTLA's 	initial 	proposals 	is unmistakably
traditional 	in nature. 	It 	clearly identifies 	the 	issues and
detailed positions 	concerning 	each and 	every proposal. 	The
initial 	proposals 	were presented 	in terms 	of proposed 	changes 	to
articles 	in 	the 	then current 	collective 	bargaining agreement. 	A
single 	line 	has 	been drawn 	through 	the 	existing 	language,
followed by 	the proposed 	language. 	The 	proposed 	language 	is
typed 	in bold 	letters 	and preceded by 	the 	word 	"NEW". 	Even 	if
there was 	a 	tendency 	to peruse 	rather 	than to 	study 	these
proposals 	it 	would be noted that 	each 	section has 	been
specifically 	developed 	to 	allow 	the 	public 	to 	comprehend which
issues 	will 	be 	on 	the 	table 	during negotiations.
Following 	are 	several 	representative 	examples 	of 	UTLA's
proposals:
Article XI 	- - 	Adult & Occupational Education
Section 	4.2 	Delete 	first 	sentence: 	"Current
personnel 	in 	either Adult 	Education 	or 	categorically 	funded
position do 	not 	have 	an 	implied 	right 	to 	employment 	beyond
their assigned 	term." 	Replace with: 	"All personnel 	in
5 	S.
(
5 	.

Adult 	and Occupational 	Education have 	an 	implied 	right 	to
continued employment with 	satisfactory 	service, 	barring
reductions 	in 	force 	or 	funding."
Section 4.3b(l) 	Add to 	first 	sentence 	(as 	indicated
here 	in bold): 	"Longevity is measured by the number of
consecutive 	uninterrupted years 	of 	satisfactory 	service
in the 	subject 	field in 	the Division, 	regardless 	of 	the
source of 	funding or 	calls 	code."
ARTICLE XVIII 	- 	Class 	Size 	(page 145)
2.2 	Junior high school 	(including 	6th grade 	junior high
school 	students): 	all 	classes at a schools are to average
36.25 	students
a. 	NE
- W 	At 	K-8 	sites, 	bargaining unit members, 	without
classes 	assigned to them, 	shall not be 	counted 	in
the 	pupil:teacher 	staffing 	formula.
b. 	NEW 	The 	class 	size 	average 	per bargaining unit 	member
- 	in Physical 	Education settings, 	based upon a six
(6) 	period day, 	shall not 	exceed forty 	(40)
students. 	No bargaining unit member shall 	have
more 	than one 	class 	in excess 	of 	forty 	(40)
students, 	unless additional 	students are 	requested
by 	the 	affected bargaining 	unit 	member.
ARTICLE IX 	- 	Hours and Work Year
6.0 	Secondary 	Preparation 	Period
ADD: 	Each regular 	full-time 	secondary 	classroom teacher 	(or
librarian, 	nurse) 	shall be assigned to five 	(5)
scheduled periods...
The 	Complainant 	argues 	that 	because 	the 	statements 	contained
in 	the 	cover memo 	lack 	specificity, 	UTLA's 	proposals 	were
inadequate 	to 	inform the public 	of 	the 	issues 	that 	were 	going 	to
be 	negotiated. 	The 	Complainant 	fails 	to 	acknowledge 	or mention
the existence of 	the 	70 page document, 	with its 	22 	detailed
proposals, 	notwithstanding the 	fact 	that 	this document
accompanied 	the 	filing 	of 	his 	complaint.
A review of 	the 	initial 	proposals 	in this 	case 	reveals 	that
UTLA has 	adequately 	complied with 	EERA's 	public 	notice
6
(

requirement 	regarding 	specificity.
Availability 	of 	Proposals
In Los Angeles Unified School District(Watts) 	(1980) 	PERB
Decision No. 	153, 	the Board held that:
[T]he 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 meetings.
The 	issue 	regarding 	the 	availability 	of proposals 	at
subsequent 	public 	comment 	meetings 	was 	also 	addressed by 	the
Board 	in Los Angeles 	Unified School District 	(1981) 	PERB Decision
No. 	181a. 	In that 	case, 	the Board affirmed the regional
director's 	dismissal 	of 	an allegation that 	the District 	failed to
make 	its 	proposal 	available at 	subsequent meetings, 	finding that
"Mr. 	Watts has 	failed to 	state any sufficient 	facts 	to 	constitute
a prima 	facie 	complaint."
As 	evidenced in the 	complaint, 	the 	Complainant 	received a
copy 	of 	the 	initial 	proposals 	at 	the 	first 	public notice meeting
which was 	held on June 	15. 	The 	complaint 	confirms 	that 	Watts
spoke 	at 	both public 	comment 	meetings 	which succeeded 	the 	June 	15
public 	notice meeting where 	the proposals 	were 	initially made
available 	for public 	inspection.
UTLA provided 	its 	proposals 	at 	the 	June 	15 	public 	notice
meeting 	and 	there 	is 	no 	requirement 	for 	the 	exclusive
representative 	to make 	its 	proposals 	available 	at 	subsequent
meetings. 	Thus, 	UTLA fulfilled its public notice obligation
under 	the 	EERA. 	The 	Complainant 	offers 	no 	evidence 	or argument
7

f
to support 	or 	require a different 	finding 	in this 	case.
CONCLUSION AND 	ORDER
Based on the 	facts, 	law and precedent 	discussed above, 	the
following 	conclusions have been reached. 	The 	initial 	proposals
for 	1992-93 	presented by UTLA to 	the 	District 	were 	sufficiently
developed to allow the public 	to understand the 	issues 	to be
negotiated. 	Further, 	the manner 	in which UTLA presented its
proposals was 	consistent with EERA's public notice 	requirement.
It 	is 	determined that 	the 	instant public 	notice 	complaint 	fails
to 	state 	a prima 	facie violation of Government 	Code 	section
3547(a).
In addition, 	it 	is 	concluded that Watts' 	complaint 	in this
matter was 	so meritless 	as 	to 	constitute 	"vexatious 	and
frivolous" 	conduct which abuses 	the processes 	of 	the Board and
which Watts 	previously has 	been 	ordered by 	the 	Board 	to 	cease 	and
desist 	from pursuing. 	(United 	Professors 	of 	California 	(Watts)
(1984) 	PERB Decision No. 	398-H, 	citing Los Angeles Unified School
District 	(Watts) 	(1982) 	PERB Decision No. 	181a 	(181a).) 	As noted
earlier by 	the 	Board,
Mr. 	Watts' 	repeated raising of such
nonmeritorious 	complaints 	abuses 	Board
processes 	and wastes 	State 	resources.
Further, 	respondents must necessarily incur
expenses 	in time, 	effort and money in
continually defending 	against 	the 	same
charges. 	(181a; 	see also Los Angeles Unified
School District 	(Watts) 	(1984) 	PERB Decision
No. 405.)
In this 	case, 	Watts' 	complaint 	regarding 	specificity defies any
rational 	basis 	in law or 	logic 	to 	term it 	a legitimate 	complaint
8

regarding 	the 	adequacy of 	the proposals 	submitted by UTLA. 	The
other issue 	-- 	availability of proposals 	at 	subsequent meetings 	-
is 	not 	only an 	issue 	decided 	often and 	consistently by 	the 	Board
but 	was 	also a 	substantive 	issue addressed 	in 181a. 	Under these
circumstances, 	it 	is appropriate to assess 	litigation expenses
against a complainant. 	(United Professors 	of California 	(Watts).
supra.)
For the 	foregoing reasons, 	the 	instant 	complaint 	is
DISMISSED without 	leave 	to amend. 	Further, 	Watts 	is hereby
ORDERED 	to:
1. 	CEASE AND DESIST 	from abusing 	the 	Board's 	administrative
processes 	by 	filing public 	notice 	complaints 	not 	supported by
evidence which the Board has made 	clear 	is 	necessary, 	or which
merely 	raise 	questions 	of 	law previously 	decided by 	the 	Board.
2. 	Reimburse any litigation expenses, 	including reasonable
attorney 	fees, 	incurred by UTLA in defending against 	this
complaint.
3. 	Make written notification of 	the 	actions 	taken to 	comply
with the 	Order 	to 	the Los Angeles 	Regional 	Director 	of 	the 	Public
Employment 	Relations 	Board 	in 	accord with 	the 	director's
instructions.
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 	Code 	of
- -
9
(
9

Regulations, 	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
Code Regulations, 	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 	95 814
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 	Code Regulations, 	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 Los Angeles
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 Code of 	Regulation, 	title 	8, 	section 32140 	for
10
i

the 	required contents and 	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 	know, 	the position of 	each other party regarding the
extension,and shall 	be 	accompanied by proof 	of 	service 	of 	the
request 	upon each party 	(California Code Regulations, 	title 	8,
section 	32132).
DATE : Onray 19 1923 Nora M. 	Baltierrez
Labor Relations Specialist
11