Rio Hondo Community College District (PERB A017E)

STATE OF
C.ALIFORNIA
DECISION
OF
TiiE
EDUCATIONAL
EMPLOYMENT
RELATIONS
BOARD
In
the
Matter
of
the
Administrative Appeal
RIO
HONOO
COMMUNITY
COLl.EGE
DISTRICT,
Employer,
	APPELLANT,
and
RIO
HONOO
COLl.EGE
FACULTY
ASSOCIATION,. CI'A/NEA,
E.rrployee
Organization.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
~
)
)
----------------------
Case
No.
	I.A-R-111
EERB
Order
No.
	Ad-17
October 7,
	1977
ORDER
The
determination
of
the
Los Angeles Regional Director,
	in
the
above-
captioned matter,
	that
the Rio
Hondo
Faculty Association,
	CTA/NEA,
	possesses
the
requisite
showing
of
support
is
	sustained
by the Board
itself.
The
Board
finds
	that
the Regional
Director
correctly
applied Section 35M
of
the Governrrent
Code
and Section 33030(a)
	of
the Rules and Regulations.
Educational Ernployrrent Relations Board
by
STEPHEN BARBER
Executive Assistant to the Board
10-7-
77
Jerilou
H.
	Cossack,
	Member,
	concurring:
I agree
that
the decision
of the Regional Director should be sustained and the
appeal denied
in this
	case, 	although I do not affinn
the Regional
Director's
reasoning.
I believe that
an administrative agency, 	as
Justice
Tobriner writing for the California
Supreme Court stated,
	"IIn.lSt
set forth findings to bridge the analytic gap between the
rEM evidence and ultimate decision or order. . . .
	Am::mg
other functions a findings
requirement serves to conduce the administrative body to draw legally relevant sub-
conclusions supportive of
its
ultimate decision; 	the intended effect is
	to
	facilitate
orderly analysis and
rn:i.n:i.mize
the likeliliood that the agency will randomly leap from

evidence
to
	conclusions.
. . . 	They
also
serve
a
public
relations
	function
by
helping
to
persuade
the
parties that
administrative
decision-making
is
	careful,
	reasoned,
and
equitable."
	Topanga Assn.
	v.
	County
of
Los Angeles, 	11
Cal.3d
506, 	113
Cal.Rptr.
836 	(1974) . 	However, 	a
majority
of
the
Board
has
elected not to
set
forth
its
	findings
of
fact
and
conclusions
of
law.
	It
would
be
an
exercise
in
futility
for
me,
	as
one
m:mber,
	to
do
so,
	since
neither
the
parties
nor
any
reviewing
court
could
rely
upon
one member's
opinion
as
accurately
reflecting
the
reasoning
of
the
Board
as
	a 'Whole.
-2-