Los Angeles Community College District (Watts) (PERB A091E)

.
STATE
	OF
	CALIFORNIA
DECISION
	OF
	THE
PUBLIC
	EMPLOYMENT
	RELATIONS
	BOARD
HOWARD
	0.
	WATTS,
Charging
	Party,
APPELLANT,
V.
LOS
	ANGELES
	COMMUNITY
	COLLEGE
DISTRICT,
Respondent.
)
)
)	
Case
	No. 	LA-PN-16
PERB
	Order
	No. 	Ad-91
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL
June 	16,
	1980
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Appearances:	
Howard
	0.
	Watts,
	representing
	himself;
	Mary L.
	Dowell,
Attorney 	for
	Los
	Angeles
	Community
	College
	District.
Before
	Gluck,
	Chairperson;
	Gonzales 	and 	Moore, 	Members.
DECISION
AND
	ORDER
Appellant
	Howard
	0. 	Watts 	has 	appealed 	the 	regional
	director's
dismissal 	of his
	public 	notice
	complaint,
	in
which 	he
	alleged 	that
the
	Los 	Angeles
	Community
	College
	District
	violated
	Government
Code
	sections
	3547(a), 	(b),
	and
	(e)	
PERB
	affirms 	the 	dismissal
of 	the
	(a) 	and 	(e) 	complaints 	for 	the 	reasons
	set 	forth 	in 	the
1
Sections 	3547(a), 	(b),
	and 	(e)
	of 	the 	California
	Government
Code
	reads:
(a) 	All
	initial
	proposals 	of 	exclusive 	repre-
sentatives
	and
	of 	public 	school 	employers,
which
	relate 	to 	matters 	within 	the 	scope
of 	representation, 	shall
	be 	presented 	at
a
	public 	meeting 	of 	the 	public 	schoolemployer 	and
	thereafter 	shall
	be 	public
records.
(b) 	Meeting 	and 	negotiating 	shall 	not 	take 	placeon any 	proposal 	until 	a 	reasonable 	time 	has

attached 	regional
	director's
	decision.
	PERB
	also 	affirms 	the
dismissal 	of
	the
	(b)
	complaint
	on
	the
	grounds
	that
	the
	facts
	as
alleged
	by
	appellant
	fail
	to
	state
	a
	prima
	facie
	case. 	Appellant
alleged
	no
	facts 	indicating 	that
	the 	five-minute
	time
	limit
	for
individual
	speakers 	provided 	inadequate
	time
	for
	meaningful
debate
	of
	the
	negotiating
	proposals.
PER
	CURIAM
elapsed
	after
	the 	submission
	of
	the
proposal 	to 	enable 	the 	public 	to
	become
informed and
	the 	public
	has
	the 	oppor-
tunity 	to 	express
	itself
	regarding 	the
proposal
	at
	a
	meeting
	of 	the 	publicschool 	employer.
(e)
	The
	board
	may
	adopt
	regulations 	for 	thepurpose
	of
	implementing
	this 	section,
which
	are 	consistent with 	the
	intent 	ofthe 	section;
	namely
	that
	the 	public
	be
informed
	of 	the 	issues 	that 	are 	being
negotiated
	upon and 	have
	full
	oppor-
tunity 	to 	express
	their
	views 	on
	the
issues 	to 	the 	public 	school 	employer,
and 	to	
know
	of 	the 	positions 	of 	theirelected 	representatives.
2

l?UBLIC
EMPI..OYMENI'
RELATIONS
:OOARD
5'1"...ATE
OF
CALiroPNIA
a::wARD
O. WATl'S ,
Canplainant,
v.
I.DS
ANGE!.ES
CCM<1l:JNITY
COLLEX;E
DIS'I'RICl'
Respondent,
aoo
AFT
a:>r..LmE
GUILD,
	Lccal
1521,
Res):X:)ndent.
)
)
)
)
}
)
)
)
)
)
>
}
}
}
}
_________________
)
Case No. !A-PN-16
DISMISSAL WITHO'JT LEAVE
'ID
AMEND
PUBLIC NOTICE
a:MI?I.AINT
and
:ooTICE
OF CANCEUATICN
OF
HEARING
NJTICE
rs
HEREBY
GIVEN
that
the
aoove-captioned
public notice
cauplaint alleging
violaticns of
Government Cede
Section
35471
is
dismissed without leave
	to
amend
on
the
followin;; grounds:
T'ne
conditions
set
forth 	in California
Administrative Code,
	tit.le
8,
section
370602 have been
satisfied
as
	to
the p:>rtion
of
	the
canplaint
alleging
a
violation of section
3547(a) 	and Canplainant has
	failed 	to
allege facts
	whicn
state
a primQ i~cid
violation
of section
3547(b}
	or
(e).
NOTICE
IS
HEREBY
GIVEN
that
the
	formal hearing scheduled for February
21, 1980
	is
cancelled.
lA11
statutory references are to the Government
COde
unless
otherwise noted.
Secticn 3547 provides:
(a) 	All
	initial
proposals of exclusive representativesand of public school employers, 	which relate to matters
within the soope of representation, 	shall
l::::e
presented
at a public meeting of the school employer and
thereafter shall!:€ public records. 	(Cont'd. 	on page 2)

On O:tober 24,
	1979
Howard
O.
Watts
	(hereafter
Ccrrlplainant)
	filed
a
public
mtice
a:mplaint
against
the Los
Angeles Ccmnunity College
District
	(hereafter
I.ACCD) 	and the
AFT
College Guild,
	Local
1521
(hereafter
AF!')	
alleging violation of section
3547(a),
	(b),
	(c),
	(d}
	and
(e).	
The
canplaint
was found
	to
be improperly
filed
and was returned
	to
Canplainant. 	Canplainant corrected the deficiency
and
refiled
on October
29, 1979. 	On
November
26, 1979 Canplainant
filed
an
amended
canplaint
alleging violations of
section
3547(a),
	(b)
	and
	(e)
	only.
(fne	
1
cent'
d.)
(b) 	Meeting and
negotiating
shall
not take place on any
proposal
until
a reasonable time has elapsed
after
	the
sul:mission
of
the proposal to enable the public
tobecane informed and the public
has the opportunity
toexpress
	itself
	regarding the prop::,sal
at
a meeting
of
t..1-ie
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.
(d)
	New
subjects of
meeting and negotiating arising
after
	the presentation of
	initial
proposals
shall
be
Made
public
wi
f"..hin
14 hours.
	If
a
vote
	is
	t3ken on snch
subject by the public school employer, 	the vote thereon
by
each
member
voting
shall
also
be
made
public within
24
	hourse
(e) 	The l:oard
may
adopt regulations for the purp::,se 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
pcsitians of their
	electe<l representatives.
.
2section 37060 provides 	in
part:
co@Upon
proof to the satisfaction of the Regional
Director that the respondent has canplied, 	the Regional
Director
may
either awrove the canplainant party 1 s
withdrawal of the ccmplaint or dismiss the ccmplaint •••
PERS
Rules are codified at california ~..dministrative Code
title
8, section 31100
et
seq.
Page 2

On
December 18, 1979
the
amended
a:mplaint
was
served on
:ua:D
and
AFT.
	Ac-canpanying
the
amended
canplaint
was
a copy
of
	the "Notice
of
Formal Hearing" scheduled for February 21, 1980 and a copy
of
a "Notice
of
Informal Conference" scheduled
for
January 15, 1980.
On
January 15, 1980
at
9:00 a.m. Ccmplainant
called
the
PERB
office
and
stated that
he
was
unable
to
appear
for the
	infernal
conference
scheduled for 	2:00 p.m. 	Based en
this
	oonversation the informal
conference
was
cancelled.
DISOJSSIOO
Ccmplainant
alleges
a
violation of section
3547(a) 	in
that
at
the
September 26 , 1979 meeting
of
LACCD
Board
of
Trustees the agenda i tern
presenting
the
	initial
proposals
of
	the
AET was
	incorrectly
showri
as
"Presentation:
	_AET
College Guild
Address
•••
or.
Virginia
Mulrooney."
On February
1,
	1980 counsel
for
I.ACCD
filed
a statement
indicating:
" ••• the
District will
undertake
to
ensure
that
on
future agendas
of the
Los Angeles Ccmnunity
College
District
public
meetings
of the
Board
ofI'rustees,
	inidal
colleci:ive
bargaining
proposals
of
any exclusive representative or
of
	the
Districtwill
be
clearly
indicated.	
An example
of
an
initial
propcsal agenda item
is
enclosed.
	We
believe
that
the agenda
of
January 23, 	1980
satisfies
the requirements
of Article
8
of
the
Educational Employment :Relations Act and
theregulations of
	the Public Employment Relations
Board."
One
of
the January 23, 1980 agenda items referred to in the above
statement
	is
shown as follows "VII. 	California School Employees
Association, Chapter 507,
	Initial
Contract Proposal for the
Technical/Clerical Unit Pursuant to Government
Ccx:ie
Section 3547
11
•	
It
is
Page 3

apparent
that
the
LAaD has
clearly
indicated
the
presentation
of
an
initial
proposal on an agenda
for
a
public
meeting and
its
statement
indicates that
	it
will
continue
to
cc
so in
the
future.
Cortplainant, 	having been furnished with a copy
of
	the
District's
statement
has declined
to
withdraw
his
	o::mplaint. 	Therefore,
	it
	is
determined
that
pursuant
to
PERE
rule
37060
LACCD
has
	voluntarily
ccmplied and
	that
f('rtion
of
	the a::n,plaint
is
dismissed C
Ccmplainant
alleges
a
violation of
section
3547(b}
	in that
he and
other
members
of
the
public
were allcwed
cnly
five
minutes
to
respond
	to
initial
proposals
at
the
public
meetings
of
LACCD
Board
of
Trustees
while
Mrs. Mulrooney
as
a "resource person"
	was
allcmed unlimited time
at
the
September
2~
and October 10, 1979 meetings
of
Ll\CCD
Board
of
Trustees.
3
The
initial
pro-posals
	that
were being presented were those
of
AFT
and
Dr. Mulrooney served as the
spokesperson
for
AET.
	Canplainant has not
alleged that
meeting and negotiating took place before
the public
had the
O!:=:l?Ortunity
to
becane informed. 	Canplainant has not alleged
that
	the
public
was
denied an opportunity to express
	ft.self:
	in fact,
	Conplainant
did
spea1<
for	
a perio:!
of five
minutes
at
each
of
	the	
~
meetings.
Therefore,
	it
	is
determined
	that
ru
	violation of
3547(b) 	o:curred and
that
portion of the ccmplaint
	is
dismissed.
3The LAa:l)
Boa.rd
of
Trustees established a designation of"resource person" 	in
1975
to facilitate
cannunication between
the Board members and members
of standing o:m:nittees. 	These
canrnittees deal with specific areas of interest of the Board.
Page 4

Finally,
Ccmpla.inant
alleges
a
violation of
section
3547
(e)
	in that
the
public
	is
not given
full
opportunity
to
express
their
views on
	the
issues.
Section 3547(e)
	refers solely to
the
authority
for
	the
Public
Er!ployrnent Relations Board
to
adopt regulations and not
	to
the
rights
of
the
p.iblic
to be
heard. 	Therefore,
	no
violation
has
cx:::curred
and
	this
}?Ortion
of
the ccmplaint
is
dismissed.
ORDER
It
	is
hereby ordered
that:
(1) 	The o::mplaint
shall
be
dismissed,
	(2)
	the
formal
hearing
scheduled for Febr~ary 21,
	1980
	is
cancelled.
Pursuant to California Administrative Cede,
	title
8, sections
37030(e) 	and 37060, Ccmplainant
may
appeal
	this
dismissal by
filing
written
exceptions
with the
Board
itself
at
923
12th
Street,
Suite
201,
Sacramento,
	california,
	95814 within seven
	(7)
	calendar days follo,,ing
the date
of receipt of this
order.
	The
exceptions
shall
be accanpanied
by the prcof of service of
	the
dOCt:Jment
upon Respondents and
the
Regional
Director.
	The
exceptioos
shall state
the grounds upon which the
dismissal should be reversed.
DA.TED:
	February 15, 1980
Franees A • Kre1 1ng
Regional Director
·1· 	{J
Page 5