Los Angeles Unified School District (Watts) (PERB 1044E)

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF 	THE
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
HOWARD 0. 	WATTS,
Complainant,
v.
LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Respondent.
)
)
) 	Case No. 	LA-PN-134
PERB Decision No. 	1044
April 	19, 	1994
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Appearance: 	Howard 0. 	Watts, 	on his own behalf.
Before Blair, 	Chair; 	Carlyle and Garcia, 	Members.
DECISION
GARCIA, 	Member: 	This 	case 	is before the Public Employment
Relations Board 	(Board) 	on appeal by Howard 0. 	Watts 	(Watts) 	of a
Board agent's 	dismissal 	(attached hereto) 	of his 	public 	notice
complaint. 	The Board agent 	found that 	the 	complaint, 	alleging
that 	the 	Los Angeles 	Unified School 	District 	(District) 	violated
section 3547(a), 	(b) 	and 	(e) 	of the Educational Employment
Relations Act 	(EERA),1 did not 	state a prima 	facie 	case and
1EERA is 	codified at 	Government 	Code 	section 3540 	et 	seq.
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

dismissed 	it.
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.
The 	Board has 	reviewed 	the 	entire 	record 	including 	the
complaint, 	the Board agent's dismissal, 	and Watts' 	appeal.2 The
Board 	finds 	the 	Board agent's 	dismissal 	to be 	free 	of 	prejudicial
error and adopts 	it 	as 	the 	decision of 	the Board 	itself.
ORDER
The public notice complaint 	in Case No. 	LA-PN-134 	is hereby
DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE 	TO AMEND.
Chair Blair and Member Carlyle 	joined 	in 	this 	Decision.
2The District 	did not 	file a 	response 	to the appeal
22

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
HOWARD O. 	WATTS,
Complainant,
v.
LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Respondent.
)
)
)
) 	Case No. 	LA-PN-134
DISMISSAL OF 	PUBLIC
NOTICE 	COMPLAINT
December 	14, 	1993
)
)
)
)
)
This 	decision 	dismisses 	the 	above-captioned public 	notice
complaint 	filed by Howard 0. 	Watts 	(Watts) 	against 	the Los
Angeles Unified School District 	(District).
BACKGROUND
On May 	7, 	1993,1 Watts 	filed a public 	notice 	complaint 	with
the 	Public Employment Relations Board 	(PERB) 	pursuant 	to 	PERB
Regulation 32910.2 The 	complaint 	alleges 	that 	the District
violated the 	Educational 	Employment 	Relations Act 	(EERA or Act)3
1All dates 	referenced herein are 	calendar year 	1993.
2PERB Regulation 32910 	states, 	in pertinent part:
Filing 	of 	EERA or HEERA Complaint. 	A
complaint 	alleging 	that 	an 	employer or an
exclusive 	representative has 	failed to 	comply
with Government 	Code 	sections 	3547 	or 	3595
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.
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(a), 	(b) 	and 	(e) 	states:
(a) 	All 	initial proposals of exclusive
representatives 	and 	of 	public 	school
(

C
section 3547(a), 	(b) 	and 	(e) 	by not providing the public with
copies 	of 	the 	District's 	initial 	proposal 	regarding 	the 	1993-94
calendar 	for the bargaining units 	represented by the Associated
Administrators 	of 	Los Angeles 	(AALA) 	and the United Teachers 	of
Los Angeles 	(UTLA). 	Watts asserts 	that 	the unavailability of
copies 	of 	the proposal when it was 	listed on the Board of
Education's agenda 	for its April 	5 	and April 	8 meetings prevented
the public 	from acquiring 	sufficient 	knowledge 	thereof 	prior 	to
scheduled public 	comment 	opportunities.
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.
(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.
Watts 	also appears 	to assert 	that 	an 	insufficient period of
time was 	allowed 	for public 	comment 	on 	the proposal.
Additionally, 	Watts 	complains 	that 	the 	school board meetings were
scheduled at 	"unreasonable" 	hours, 	that 	the proposals were
22

C
presented at special, 	rather than regular, 	meetings, 	and that
copies 	of 	the proposals were not 	sent 	to 	the 	schools 	"when they
were 	to be given 	to Advisory Councils."
FACTS
The District's 	initial 	1993-94 	calendar proposal 	was 	first
listed on the 	agenda of 	the April 	5 public 	Committee 	of 	the Whole
meeting.4 That meeting was 	continued 	to April 	8, 	when the
proposal 	was again on the agenda. 	Watts 	asserts that 	copies 	of
the proposal 	were 	"nowhere 	to be 	found" 	at 	either of 	these
meetings.5 He 	confirms 	that he did receive a 	copy of 	the
proposal 	at 	3:20 p.m. 	on April 	12. 	Minutes of 	the special Board
of 	Education meeting which began at 	2 	p.m. 	that 	day reflect 	that
both Watts 	and 	another 	individual 	addressed 	the board 	regarding
the proposal. 	It 	is unclear whether Watts 	spoke before or after
he 	received his 	copy of 	the proposal. 	Also at that meeting, 	it
was 	announced 	that 	the board would hear 	speakers 	on the 	calendar
proposal 	at 	the 	special 	Committee of 	the Whole meeting at 	5 	p.m.
on April 	26 	and at 	the 	regular Board of 	Education meeting at
2 	p.m. 	on May 	3.
4A 	"Committee of the Whole" 	is 	composed of 	the members 	of
the 	Board of 	Education 	sitting as 	an 	investigative 	organ without
authority to act 	on the matters being 	investigated. 	(Los Angeles
Unified School 	District 	(1984) 	PERB Decision No. 	397.)
5In 	its 	response to the complaint, 	the District 	stated that
copies 	of 	the proposal were provided at 	the 	speaker's 	table 	for
interested parties as follows: 	50 	copies on April 	5, 	75 	copies
on April 	12, 	100 	copies on April 26 and 50 	copies on May 3.
However, 	as 	discussed below, 	the dispute 	over the availability
(or lack thereof) 	of copies at the April 	5 meeting is not
material 	to 	the disposition of 	this 	complaint.
3
( 	(
3

At 	the April 	26 meeting, 	Watts was 	one of 	seven persons who
spoke 	regarding 	the 	calendar proposal.6 He 	also 	spoke at 	the
May 3 meeting 	(along with 18 	other individuals), 	after which the
initial 	proposal 	for the 	1993-94 	calendar was 	adopted.
ISSUES
1. 	Did the District 	fail 	to make 	its 	initial proposal
regarding 	the 	1993-94 	school 	calendar 	for 	the AALA and UTLA
bargaining units 	available 	to 	the public 	in a timely manner?
2. 	Was 	a 	sufficient period of 	time 	allowed for public
comment 	on 	the 	proposal?
3. 	Is 	the 	following District 	conduct unlawful:
(a) 	convening 	its public 	comment meetings 	at 	"unreasonable" 	hours
(i.e., 	during the workday); 	(b) 	presenting and allowing public
comment 	regarding 	its 	initial 	calendar proposal 	during special,
rather than regular, 	meetings; 	and 	(c) 	not sending copies of the
proposal 	to the 	schools 	in a 	timely manner.
DISCUSSION
The 	intent 	of 	the public notice 	requirements 	is 	set 	forth 	in
section 3547(e):
. 	. 	. 	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 the positions 	of 	their elected
representatives.
PERB's 	regulations 	implementing 	the 	provisions 	of
section 	3547 	were 	adopted to 	fully protect 	the public's 	right 	in
6This 	information was not 	included 	in the 	complaint. 	(See
footnote 	7.)
(
4

this 	regard. 	(Los Angeles 	Community College District 	(1978) 	PERB
Order No. 	Ad-41.)
Availability Of 	Proposals 	In A Timely Manner
In Los Angeles 	Community College District 	(1980) 	PERB
Decision No. 	153, 	the PERB 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.
(Emphasis 	added.)
In order 	for the District 	to meet 	its 	obligations under EERA
it must make 	copies 	of 	its 	initial 	proposals available at 	a
(i.e., 	one) 	public meeting and allow the public a reasonable
opportunity to make 	comment at 	subsequent meetings. 	However,
there 	is 	no 	requirement 	that 	copies be available at 	the 	first
meeting at which the proposals 	are 	listed on the agenda.
Watts 	admits 	that 	he 	received a 	copy 	of 	the 	calendar
proposal 	at 	3:20 	on April 	12. 	Furthermore, 	minutes of both the
April 	26 	and May 3 	meetings 	reflect 	that 	he and other members 	of
the public 	addressed the board regarding 	the proposal.7 Thus,
even 	if 	copies were not available when 	the proposal was 	first
placed on 	the agenda on April 	5 	and April 	8, 	copies were made
available prior 	to 	the 	two meetings 	later held 	for public
comment, 	thus 	fulfilling the District's 	public notice obligation
7 In a 	conversation with the undersigned on December 3, 	1993,
Watts 	asserted that his 	comments 	at 	the April 	26 meeting are
irrelevant 	since 	that meeting was 	not 	a 	"regular" 	Board of
Education meeting. 	Pursuant 	to the discussion below, 	this
assertion 	is 	found to be without merit.
(
5

f
under 	the 	EERA.
Reasonable 	Time 	Period 	For 	Public 	Comment
In San Francisco Community College District 	(1979) 	PERB
Decision No. 	105, 	PERB 	found that no specific 	formula exists 	for
determining what 	constitutes 	a 	"reasonable 	time" 	for the public
to 	become 	informed and make 	comment 	on 	initial 	bargaining
proposals, 	and 	that 	each 	case 	should be 	examined based on 	the
facts. 	PERB has 	since held that periods 	of 	eight 	days 	and two
weeks 	constitute 	"reasonable 	time." 	(Los Angeles Unified School
District 	(1993) 	PERB Decision No. 	1000; 	Log Angeles Unified
School District 	(1990) 	PERB Decision No. 	852.) 	In this 	case,
even if 	no copies of 	the proposal were available until April 	12,
as Watts 	claims, 	three weeks 	elapsed 	from that date until May 3,
the 	date 	of 	the 	last public 	comment meeting prior 	to 	the 	adoption
of the proposal. 	It is clear that, 	under PERB case law, 	three
weeks 	is 	a sufficient period of 	time 	to meet 	the 	requirements 	of
the Act.
Regulation Of 	School 	Board Meetings
PERB has 	held 	that 	the 	regulation of 	local 	school 	board
meetings 	is 	left 	to the discretion of 	the local boards. 	(Los
Angeles Community College District 	(1981) 	PERB Decision No. 	158;
Los Angeles 	Community College District 	(1980) 	PERB Decision
No. 	154; 	Los Angeles Community College District, 	supra. 	PERB
Decision No. 	153.) 	Thus, 	while an employer is required to adopt
its 	initial 	proposals at 	a public meeting, 	the EERA sets 	forth no
requirements 	regarding 	the 	time 	or 	the 	type 	of meeting 	(regular
6
-------
6

or special) 	that must be held. 	(Los Angeles Unified School
District, 	supra. PERB Decision No. 1000; Los Angeles Unified
School District 	(1984) 	PERB Decision No. 	397.) 	In this case, 	the
Board of Education and Committee of the Whole meetings held on
April 12 	(2 p.m.), April 26 	(5 p.m.) 	and May 3 	(2 p.m.) 	were
public meetings, 	as evidenced by the fact that members of the
public addressed the board regarding the 	1993-94 	calendar
proposal at each of those meetings. 	Thus, 	under PERB precedent,
these public meetings satisfy the requirements of the EERA.
District's 	Failure To Comply With Local 	Public Notice Policy
Finally, 	Watts alleges that the District did not disseminate
copies of initial proposals to school sites 	"when they were to be
given to Advisory Councils." 	This is apparently an assertion
that the District 	failed to adhere to its own public notice
policy by not providing the schools with copies of 	the proposal
in a timely manner.
There 	is no specific requirement 	in the EERA which parallels
the District's policy in this regard. 	As discussed above, 	the
District has 	fulfilled its obligations under the statute that the
public be informed, 	and, 	thus, 	the allegation that it failed to
follow its own policy of sending copies 	of proposals to the
schools does not state a prima facie violation of the Act. 	(Los
Angeles Unified School District 	(1993) 	PERB Decision No. 	1013;
Los Angeles Unified School District 	(1983) 	PERB Decision No. 	335;
Los Angeles Unified School District 	(1980) 	PERB Decision
No. 152.)
7
(
----· 	--·
7

C
CONCLUSION AND 	ORDER
Based on the 	law and precedent discussed above, 	it 	is
determined 	that 	the 	Los Angeles 	Unified School 	District
(District) 	fulfilled its public notice 	obligations under 	the
Educational 	Employment Relations Act when 	it provided copies 	to
the public 	of 	its 	initial 	1993-94 	calendar proposal 	by at 	least
April 	12, 	1993 	and allowed for public comment 	regarding the
proposal 	at public meetings on April 	12, 	April 26 and
May 3, 	1993. 	It 	is also determined that 	the allegations
regarding 	the 	time 	and type 	of 	the District's public 	comment
meetings 	and 	the 	allegedly untimely dissemination 	of 	proposals 	to
the 	school 	sites 	fail 	to state prima 	facie violations 	of
Government Code section 3547. 	Therefore, 	the public notice
complaint 	is 	DISMISSED without 	leave 	to amend.
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
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 p.m.) 	or sent
by 	telegraph, 	certified or Express United States mail postmarked
no 	later 	than 	the 	last date 	set 	for 	filing 	(California Code 	of
Regulations, 	title 8, 	section 32135). 	Code of Civil Procedure
section 	1013 	shall 	apply. 	The Board's address 	is:
8
(

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 Code of 	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 	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 Code of Regulations, 	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
9
(

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 Code 	of 	Regulations, 	title 	8,
section 	32132).
CDATE: 	December 14. 	1993
Jerilyn Gelt /
Labor/R 	Relations Specialist
Gl!lt
10
(
C
Jerp.yp. 	t
La~R