Los Angeles Community College District (Watts) (PERB 0150EA)

STATE OF 	CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF 	THE
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
__________________ )
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
HOWARD 	O. 	WATTS,
Complainant,
v..
LOS 	ANGELES 	COMMUNITY 	COLLEGE
DISTRICT,
Respondent,
and
AMERICAN 	FEDERATION 	OF 	TEACHERS
COLLEGE 	GUILD, 	LOCAL 	1521,
AFL-CIO,
Respondent.
HOWARD O. WATTS,
Case No. 	LA-PN-25
PERB 	Decision No. 	150a
ORDER DENYING 	REQUEST
TO VACATE 	PERB
DECISION 	NO. 	150
April 	29, 	1981
Case No. LA-PN-25
Appearances:	~pearances: 	Mary 	L. 	Dowell, 	Associate 	General 	Counsel,
representing 	the 	Los 	Angeles 	Community 	College 	District;
Lawrence 	Rosenzweig 	(Levy 	& Goldman) 	for 	AFT 	College 	Guild,
Local 	1521, 	AFL-CIO.
Mary L. Dowell, Associate General Counsel,
Before 	Gluck, 	Chairperson; 	Jaeger, 	Moore, 	and 	Tovar, 	Members.	Before Gluck, Chairperson; Jaeger, Moore, and Tovar, Members.
DECISION AND 	ORDER	DECISION AND ORDER
The 	Los 	Angeles 	Community 	College 	District 	(hereafter
District) 	filed 	a 	request 	with 	the 	Public 	Employment 	Relations
Board 	(hereafter 	PERB 	or 	Board) 	for 	an 	order 	ing
Decision 	No. 	150 	and 	dismissing 	the 	public 	notice 	complaint
(LA-PN-25) 	on 	the 	grounds 	that 	the 	issues 	raised 	in 	this 	case
are 	moot 	as 	a 	res 	t 	of 	the 	decision 	of 	the 	Board 	in Watts 	v.
Angeles 	Community College 	District 	(12/31/80) 	PERB 	Decision
No. 	153. 	This 	request 	is 	supported 	by 	the 	American 	Federation
The Los Angeles Community College District (hereafter
Complainant,
v
LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY COLLEGE
DISTRICT
Respondent,
and
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF TEACHERS
COLLEGE GUILD, LOCAL 1521,
AFL-CIO,
Respondent.
PERB Decision No. 150a
ORDER DENYING REQUEST
TO VACATE PERB
DECISION NO. 150
April 29, 1981
representing the Los Angeles Community College District;
Lawrence Rosenzweig (Levy & Goldman) for AFT College Guild,
Local 1521, AFL-CIO.
District) filed a request with the Public Employment Relations
Board (hereafter PERB or Board) for an order vacating
Decision No. 150 and dismissing the public notice complaint
(LA-PN-25) on the grounds that the issues raised in this case
are moot as a result of the decision of the Board in Watts v.
Los Angeles Community College District (12/31/80) PERB Decision
No. 153. This request is supported by the American Federation

The complainant, Howard O. Watts, filed no response.
2
of 	Teachers 	College 	Guild, 	Local 	1521, 	AFL-CIO.1 	The 	Board
denies 	the 	request.
of Teachers College Guild, Local 1521, AFL-CIO.1 The Board
Three 	of 	the 	charges 	in 	the 	instant 	case--alleged 	failure
to 	post 	public 	notice 	complaints 	as 	required 	by California
Administrative 	Code, 	title 	8, 	section 	37040 	(subsequently
deleted 	7-18-80), 	alleged 	failure 	to 	have 	copies 	of 	the 	initial
proposals 	available 	for 	general 	distribution 	at 	public
meetings, 	and 	alleged 	failure 	to 	give 	proper 	public 	notice 	of
proposed 	amendments 	to 	an 	existing 	agreement 	and 	new 	subjects
for 	negotiations--were 	resolved 	by 	the 	Board 	in Watts 	v. 	Los
Angeles 	Community College 	District, 	supra. 	However, 	Watts'
charge 	that 	the 	District's 	rule 	allotting 	five 	minutes 	to
speakers 	at 	school 	board 	meetings 	failed 	to 	provide 	full
opportunity 	to 	the 	public 	to 	respond 	to 	collective 	bargaining
issues 	on 	March 	12 	and 	26, 	1980, 	has 	not 	been 	resolved 	by 	prior
litigation. 	While 	PERB 	determined 	in Watts 	v. 	Los 	Angeles
Community College 	District, 	§U2ra, 	and 	Watts 	v. 	Los 	Angeles
Community College 	District 	(6/16/80) 	PERB 	Order 	No. 	Ad-91, 	that
the 	District's 	five-minute 	policy 	does 	not 	constitute 	a 	per 	se
violation 	of 	the 	public 	notice 	provisions 	of 	the 	Educational
Employment 	Relations 	Act 	(hereafter 	EERA) ,2 	the 	charging
Three of the charges in the instant case--alleged failure
lThe 	complainant, 	Howard 	O. 	watts, 	filed 	no 	response.	1
2EERA is codified at California Government Code	2EERA 	is 	codified 	at 	California Government 	Code
section 3540 et seq. Unless otherwise noted, all statutory	section 	3540 	et 	seq. 	Unless 	otherwise 	noted, 	all 	statutory
references are to the Government Code.	references 	are 	to 	the 	Government 	Code.
Section 	3547 	provides:	Section 3547 provides:
(a) 	All 	initial 	proposals 	of 	exclusive	(a)
2
denies the request.
to post public notice complaints as required by California
Administrative Code, title 8, section 37040 (subsequently
deleted 7-18-80), alleged failure to have copies of the initial
proposals available for general distribution at public
meetings, and alleged failure to give proper public notice of
proposed amendments to an existing agreement and new subjects
for negotiations--were resolved by the Board in Watts v. Los
Angeles Community College District, supra. However, Watts'
charge that the District's rule allotting five minutes to
speakers at school board meetings failed to provide full
opportunity to the public to respond to collective bargaining
issues on March 12 and 26, 1980, has not been resolved by prior
litigation. While PERB determined in Watts v. Los Angeles
Community College District, supra, and Watts v. Los Angeles
Community College District (6/16/80) PERB Order No. Ad-91, that
the District's five-minute policy does not constitute a per se
violation of the public notice provisions of the Educational
Employment Relations Act (hereafter EERA) , 2 the charging
All initial proposals of exclusive

3
party 	is 	entitled 	to 	amend 	his 	charge 	to 	state 	a 	prima 	facie
case.	case. 	If 	the 	amended 	charge 	states 	a 	prima 	facie 	case, 	he 	is
entitled 	to 	produce 	evidence 	that 	the 	policy 	actually 	did
operate 	to 	deny 	him 	the 	opportunity 	guaranteed 	him 	by 	the 	Act.
See Watts 	v. 	Los 	Angeles 	Unified 	School 	District 	(12/30/80)
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
to 	express 	itself 	regarding 	the 	proposal 	at
a 	meeting 	of 	the 	public 	school 	employer.
(b)
(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.
(c)
(d) 	New 	subjects 	of 	meeting 	and 	negotiating
arising 	after 	the 	presentation 	of 	initial
proposals 	shall 	be 	made 	public 	within 	24
hours.	hours. 	If 	a 	vote 	is 	taken 	on 	such 	subject
by 	the 	public 	school 	employer, 	the 	vote
thereon 	by 	each member 	voting 	shall 	also 	be
made 	public 	within 	24 	hours.
(d)
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.
party is entitled to amend his charge to state a prima facie
representatives and of public school
(e)
W
If the amended charge states a prima facie case, he is
entitled to produce evidence that the policy actually did
operate to deny him the opportunity guaranteed him by the Act.
See Watts v. Los Angeles Unified School District (12/30/80)
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.
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.
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.
) 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.
New subjects of meeting and negotiating
arising after the presentation of initial
proposals shall be made public within 24
If a vote is taken on such subject
by the public school employer, the vote
thereon by each member voting shall also be
made public within 24 hours.

4
vacatur is denied.
PERB 	Decision No. 	152 	at 	page 	4. 	Because 	the 	record 	of 	the
formal 	hearing 	in 	these 	proceedings 	was 	lost, 	there 	is 	no 	basis
for 	the 	Board 	to 	determine 	Watts' 	appeal. 	If 	the 	amended
charge 	states 	a 	prima 	facie 	case, 	the 	hearing 	on 	remand 	shall
ct's request for	be 	limited 	to 	this 	question.3	ri 	The 	District's 	request 	for
vacatur 	is 	denied.
PERB Decision No. 152 at page 4. Because the record of the
It 	is 	so 	ORDERED.	It is so ORDERED.
PER CURIAM	PER CURIAM
3	3 	Complainant 	also 	charged 	that 	the 	hearing 	officer 	who
conducted 	the 	hearing 	in 	his 	case 	was 	biased 	against 	him.
Although 	there 	is 	similarly 	no 	record 	of 	the 	evidence 	he
produced 	to 	support 	his 	charge, 	it 	is 	not 	necessary 	to 	reach
this 	issue. 	A 	different 	hearing 	officer 	has 	been 	assigned 	to
hear 	the 	matter 	on 	remand.
Complainant also charged that the hearing officer who
formal hearing in these proceedings was lost, there is no basis
for the Board to determine Watts' appeal. If the amended
charge states a prima facie case, the hearing on remand shall
be limited to this question. 3 The Dist
conducted the hearing in his case was biased against him.
Although there is similarly no record of the evidence he
produced to support his charge, it is not necessary to reach
this issue. A different hearing officer has been assigned to
hear the matter on remand.