Los Angeles Community College District (Watts) (PERB A119E)

STATE
	OF
	CALIFORNIA
DECISION
	OF
	THE
PUBLIC
	EMPLOYMENT
	RELATIONS
	BOARD
HOWARD
	O.
	WATTS,
Complainant,
APPELLANT,
v.
LOS 	ANGELES
	COMMUNITY
	COLLEGE
	DISTRICT,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case
	No. 	LA-PN-35
Administrative
	Appeal
PERB
	Order
	No.
	Ad-119
December
	15,
	1981	
____________________
)
Appearances:	
Howard 	O.
	Watts,
	representing 	himself.
Before
	Gluck,
	Chairperson;
	Moore 	and
	Tovar,
	Members.
DECISION
Howard 	o.
	watts
	seeks 	review
	of 	the
	denial
	of
	his 	request
that
	the 	Public
	Employment
	Relations
	Board
	(PERB)
	assist
	him
	in
the 	preparation 	of
	a
	public 	notice
	complaint. 	In
	making
	the
request,
	Mr.
	Watts
	incorrectly 	relied
	upon
	section
	32625
	of 	the
PERB
	rules
	and
	regulations.l	
The
	regional
	director
	dismissed
the 	request 	finding
	that
	such 	Board
	assistance
	is
	not
	mandated
lpERB
	rules
	and
	regulations 	are 	codified
	at 	CaliforniaAdministrative
	Code,
	title
	8,
	section
	31000
	et
	seq.
Section
	32625
	provides:
Board
	Assistance.
	If
	the 	charging 	party
	is
unable 	to 	retain
	counsel 	or 	demonstrates
extenuating 	circumstances, 	as 	determined
	by
the 	Board, 	a 	Board
	agent
	may 	be
	assigned 	to
assist
	such
	party 	to 	draft
	the 	charge 	or
gather 	evidence.

in
	public
	notice
	complaints
	by
	either
	the 	Educational
Employment
	Relations
	Act
	or
	the
	PERB
	rules
	and
	regulations.
Section
	37030 2
provides
	that
	PERB
	representatives
	have
both 	the
	power
	and
	duty 	to
	assist
	complainants
	in
	their
preparation 	of 	public
	notice
	complaints.
	Nevertheless, 	the
Board
	dismisses
	Mr.
	Watts' 	appeal.
	In
	Los
	Angeles
	Community
College
	District,
	PERB
	Decision
	No.
	186,
	issued
	today,
	we
	found
that
	Watts
	actually
	did
	receive 	appropriate 	assistance 	in
filing
	his
	original
	and
	amended
	complaints.
ORDER
The
	appeal
	by 	Howard
	Watts
	from 	an
	administrative
determination 	of 	the 	regional
	director
	of 	the
	Public
	Employment
Relations
	Board
	is
	hereby
	DISMISSED.
PER
	CURIAM
2
section
	37030
	reads, 	in 	pertinent 	part:
(a)
	When 	a
	complaint
	is 	filed,
	the 	case
shall
	be
	assigned
	by
	the 	Regional
	Directorto
	a
	Board
	agent
	for
	proc~ssing.
(b) 	The 	powers 	and
	duties 	of
	such 	Board
agent
	shall
	be
	to:
(1)
	Assist 	the 	complainant 	to
	state
	inproper
	form
	the 	information 	required
	by
Section
	37020.
(2) 	Answer
	procedural 	questions
regarding 	the 	processing 	of 	the 	case;
(3)
	Facilitate
	communication 	and
	theexchange
	of 	information between 	the
complainant 	and 	the 	respondent 	or
respondents;
Member 	Tovar's 	concurrence 	begins 	on 	Page 	3.
2

Irene 	Tovar, 	Member, 	concurring:
Mr. 	Watts' 	request 	for 	assistance 	from 	the 	Board 	pursuant
to 	section 	32625 	of 	PERB's 	rules 	and 	regulations 	has 	raised 	the
question 	of 	Board 	assistance 	to 	those 	wishing 	to 	file
complaints 	with 	this 	agency. 	I 	join 	in 	the 	order 	dismissing
Mr. 	Watts' 	appeal. 	As 	the 	Los 	Angeles 	regional 	director 	found,
the 	type 	of 	assistance 	mandated 	by 	section 	32625 	and 	requestea
by Mr. 	Watts 	pursuant 	thereto 	is 	presently 	made 	available 	only
to 	unfair 	practice 	complainants. 	Further, 	the 	application 	for
such 	assistance 	was 	untimely 	filed, 	in 	that Mr. 	Watts' 	public
notice 	complaint 	had 	already 	been 	dismissed 	without 	leave 	to
amend 	prior 	to 	his 	filing 	the 	application 	for 	Board
assistance. 	Thus, 	at 	the 	time 	he 	filed 	that 	application, 	his
only 	available 	course 	of 	action 	regarding 	his 	complaint 	was 	to
appeal 	that 	dismissal, 	and 	nowhere 	in 	our 	rules 	and 	regulations
is 	Board 	assistance 	with 	an 	appeal 	prescribed.
While 	I 	join 	in 	the 	order 	dismissing 	the 	appeal, 	I 	feel
that 	the 	decision 	does 	little 	to 	contribute 	any 	clarity 	to 	the
murky 	question 	of 	Board 	assistance 	to 	PERB's 	complainants.
Sections 	37030 	and 	32620 	of 	our 	rules 	and 	regulations 	make
virtually 	identical 	provisions 	for 	certain 	limitea 	technical
assistance 	to 	public 	notice 	complainants 	and 	unfair 	practice
complainants, 	respectively. 	Section 	32625 	goes 	further, 	making
available 	to 	unfair 	practice 	complainants 	only, 	the 	following:
If 	the 	charging 	party 	is 	unable 	to 	retain
counsel 	or 	demonstrates 	extenuating
3

circumstances,
	as
	determined
	by
	the
	Board,
	a
Board
	agent
	may 	be
	assigned 	to
	assist
	such
party
	to
	draft
	the 	charge
	or
	gatherevidence.
Without
	speculating
	as
	to 	the
	exact
	parameters
	of 	the
further 	assistance
	contemplated
	by
	section
	32625,
	I
	question
why
	our
	rules
	and
	regulations
	do
	not
	make
	similar 	provision
	for
public 	notice
	complainants. 	This 	could
	be
	read
	to
	imply
	some
lesser
	degree
	of
	importance
	regarding
	public 	noti6e
	matters,
	a
contention
	with
	which
	I 	would
	take
	issue.
	PERB
	should
	be
prepared 	to
	accommodate
	public 	notice
	complainants
	when,
	as
	is
so
	often
	the
	case,
	they
	are
	parents, 	individually
	or
	in 	groups,
who
	lack
	legal 	expertise.
	The
	importance
	of 	insuring
	that
every
	California
	citizen
	has
	effective
	access 	to 	the
	processes
which
	we
	administer
	may
	require 	that
	expert
	Boara
	assistance
	be
made
	available
	to 	public 	notice
	complainants
	where
	appropriate
and
	necessary.
	I
	am
	not
	satisfied
	that
	our
	rules
	and
regulations
	as
	presently
	formulated
	make
	sufficient
	provision
in
	this
	regard.
	I
	therefore
	intend 	to
	raise 	this
	issue 	in
	the
context 	of
	our
	upcoming
	rule
	review.
,............_
Ireh-e
	Tovar,
	Member
4