Los Angeles Unified School District (Watts) (PERB 0181E)

STA'rE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
DECISION 	OF 	THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
HOWARD 	O. 	WATTS,
Complainant,
V •
LOS 	ANGELES 	UNIFIED SCHOOL 	DISTRICT,
and
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL EMPLOYEES 	ASSOCIA'rION,
Respondents.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
______________________ )
Case No. 	LA-PN-33
PERB 	Decision No. 	181
November 	19, 	1981
~ppearances: 	Howard 	O. 	Watts, 	representing 	himself.
Before 	Gluck, 	Chairperson; 	Jaeger 	and 	Tovar, 	Members.
DECISION
Howard 	O. 	Watts 	appeals 	a 	dismissal 	without 	further 	leave
to 	amend 	of 	his 	public 	notice 	complaint 	filed 	pursuant 	to
section 	3547 	of 	the 	Educational 	Employment 	Relations 	Act. 1
lThe 	Educational Employment 	Relations 	Act 	is 	codified 	at
Government Code 	section 	3540 	et 	seq. 	Section 	3547 	reads 	in
per ti ne n t 	par t :
(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

Upon 	consideration 	of 	the 	entire 	record 	in 	light 	of 	the
exceptions, 	the 	Public 	Employment 	Relations 	Board 	(hereafter
Board) 	finds 	no 	reversible 	error 	in 	the 	regional 	director's
findings 	of 	fact 	or 	conclusions 	of 	law 	(attached). 	Further,
the 	Board 	notes 	that 	although 	his 	complaint 	includes 	an
allegation 	that 	the 	Los 	Angeles 	Unified 	School 	District's
(hereafter 	District) 	distribution 	of 	twenty 	copies 	of 	the
employee 	organization's 	proposals 	is 	inadequate, 	Mr. 	Watts'
Exhibit 	No. 	52 	is 	a 	stipulation 	between 	the 	District 	and
himself 	which 	includes 	an 	agreement 	to 	the 	distribution 	of 	that
number 	of 	copies.
to 	express 	itself 	regarding 	the 	proposal 	at
a 	meeting 	of 	the 	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.
2Exhibit 	No. 	5 	is 	a 	settlement 	agreement 	arising 	out 	of
an 	earlier 	public 	notice 	complaint 	filed 	by Mr. 	Watts 	(Watts 	v.
Los 	Angeles 	Unified 	School 	District, 	LA-PN-9 	and 	LA-PN-10),
which 	reads 	in 	pertinent 	part:
Each 	exclusive 	representative 	shall 	provide
a 	reasonable 	number 	of 	copies, 	not 	to 	exceed
20, 	of 	its 	initial 	proposals 	at 	the 	time 	the
exclusive 	representative 	presents 	its
proposals 	to 	the 	District. 	These 	copies
shall 	be 	made 	available 	to 	the 	public 	at 	the
Board 	meeting 	at 	which 	the 	proposals 	are
presented.
2

The
	Board 	summarily
AFFIRMS
	the
	regional
	director's
determination 	to
	dismiss 	the 	complaint 	without
	further
	leave
	to
amend.
PER
	CURIAM
3

~i.JC	
ur\?!.O"f~riiT	
~...EU7lr.
An~~r..es
	R~lQfld	
~
0 Wil:shrre Blvd.., Suit-a
	1708
An~r~1es..,
Callfomkl
	90010
3)
7'...,.6...3127
June
18,
	1981
Mr.
Heward O.
Watts
Re:	
IA-FN-33
Los
Ar:geles
Unified
Schcol
District
D.:ar
Mr.
Watts:
F-..ngelesYour
p..lblic
rotice
c:rrplaint
c.gainst the IDs
	Dnifiea
Schcc,l
District
2.1--rl
	t..'le
cal.i£ornia
School
::EJ:rg?loyees
Asscciaticn
was
filed
with
office
'P.ay
20,
1981.	
On l-lay
28,
	1981 the
ccmplaint
~,.;as
aismissed
this
with
leav-e
to
a:rcend. 	On
June
8,
	1981
this
office
received
your. aJnend:r:ent
..
to
	co:rpla.int
·and
several
additicna.1
exhibits	
the
ccrrplaint
The
	directa:=
	the
	regicri..al	
J:,.a:s
determined
that
	as
a.menc1E:d
fails
to
state
	a
prir.ia facie violaticn of
Government Cede
secticn
3547. 	The
DI~
WI'IEOJT
F'O'R'.!E€R
LEAVE 'IO
..:'-1-)3-ID.
	~Che
basis
CC11'!plaint
is
hereby
for 	the dismissal
is
c.:ntained
in
·rrij
letter
of
rrlay
28,
	1981 and
	t..1.e
follcwir.g.
initial	
A.
	r.ave
	CSEA
	You	
~lair:ed
that
the 	pro:r:;csal
ai'"ld
request
to r.:r~
and
negotiate
on
a
potential layoff
of
suri..shir.:ecP'
	Thecertai.11 I.ADSD
e:rployeas
~re
rot
propa:ly
11	
&
si:".ai:..91:etlts m	
p:g~
2
through
4
of
the
a1Dendrnent
ta
ymu:
by
,:crn;:?:..,"'i.lrrt,
	o::nfim
that
both
-wer.'e
pres-entecl.
	CS.EA
hcr,.,;ever,
on April
at
a
p.lbl.ic
~
of the
LAlJSD
I?oard
of
Educ.3tion
en
J,.981.
	This
presentaticn
was scheduled
	the
Beard
of
21,
to
Educaticn
~
agenda
for that
date..
	That
the request
negotiate
en
tee pcssible layoff
\>iaS
rot
physically
incorporat~
in
t.~e
CSEA
initial
proposal
is
of
no
law.
significance..
	resp:t'.dents havtl ccrrplled
wit..½
t,.~e	
Tbe
B.	
facts	
ar;d
Your
	st.a~
o:f	
regardir.g
the nmber
availab:i 1 i
ty
o:E
c=J?ies
of
	tr..e
	initial
pro:posal and
	request
to negotiate
	regardir.g t.rie
layoff
	still
dces not
establish
a
Your a;:encledpr1-r..a
fceie case cgair.st the
resp:::naents.
cx::.rrpl.2.L:,: 	o::n.;__-=j_~
	that
at least
20
ccpies
o:E
each
r,.;e:ce
available
ar:d
distributed to
tr,e
p.iblic rn
))_pril
21.
	Ycu
received
a co;;y
at	
t1iat thr.e.
initial	
Yau
~lain
29ain
tli.ai.:
mpies of
	tl',e 	pro:;:csal
i,,;e.ce
no::
	avail2ble in
t.1-:e
~ting
	rccm on the aates
sd:ecrJl-ed for
to
p.1blic resp:nse.
	I 	cnce egain direct
your
	attenticn
prier c2t2...r::ri.1;.ations of the
PER8 Boara itse]£ en
	this 	issue,
153.
part.iailarly t."-:eir Decisicns r-b. 151
ana No.

1.A-FN-JJ
June
18,
	1981
Page 2
Your
	effort
	ta
	e.."?rxd
the
ccmplaint
by
a::lding a
w1s
:-i
for
more
publici~y a:d
wicer
distriaJtion of
	initial
p:cq:osals
(p,-::ir2.g:raphs
n~ed
l
	and
2
en
page
l
	of
	the
~c:::e-it)
dces
	not
allege
su££icient
facts 	to
state
a p:cL::2
	f2.cie
violaticn
of
sec·Hcn
3547.
	Secticn
3547
of	
tl:e
Gov-erT!rnffit
Ccx!e
requireS	
ti_½;::it
initial
proposals,
	once
sw:nitted,	
be
maintai.~
2.S
p.lblic records.
	The
IAUSD
retains
¢lie
inspecticn
oopiE:S
of
all initial
proposals
	in
its
s7";::,rf
Relaticns
	and
?±>lie
Informatia,,
files.
	rrhis
';X>licv
ccrnplies
wit..ri
t.~
law.	
- 	-
C.	
The
a:men~t
to
your c:crrplaint
regarding
t1:,e
cr:der
of
busi:ri..ess
en
the
IJ....IJSD
meeting
agenda
is
confusing.
	You
have
filed	
a c:::;rrplaint
witi.11
this
	agency,	
but
state
in
	it
t.~t
11
this 	is
a
	local
violation
not pertaining
to
Pl:.:...'fi3'f.
	You
further
	state
	tre problem
has
been
corrected.
	Tn a
telephone
c:crr:7?r-~ticn
on June 15,
	1981 you ar:d I
	discussed
t..he
a:xr.pla.ii."1t gE:r'.erall.y and
this 	issue in particul2.r.
	You
stated
that
vcu
did
not wish
to
withdrct1.1r
this
oorticn of
	the
ccmplai.'1.t
•.
It
is,
	then,
	dismissed with
the rest
of
the
ccrnplaint.	
The
~
added
ro
new
facts
which
could
constitute
a
	violaticn
of sectia,
3547.
D. 	The
am~
to
your
car.plaint regarding
the t.~ee
minute
rule for
	speakers narrows
	its	
fo:us to even~
en
April
21;·
19.81.
	It
w;,...s
on
this
date that
	ti.'-1e
initial
propcsal
was
first
presented.
	Secticri
3547 (b)
	pro7ices
ti.i.,
0
public
IT"...:.St
have
an opportunity
to
express
	i
tse
1 F	
regarding
a-ri
	initial
propcsal
cnce
a
	reasonable
tL-ne
has
eiq:::.sea
after
the
p~.al
is
sul:mitted.
	In
	that
tlle prop::sal
wc.S
submit'"',.__::>d
cnly
en
lt.pril 21,
prblic
response
a:1
that
cate
oould have been
premature. 	Following
its
own FQlic_r,
	t.1-:,e
district	
sdlechili:d tirr:e
for p.lblic
resp:::nse
en
F-.pril 27
and
Nay
4,
1981. 	Yoo spJke	
to the prop:,sal
on
toth
of
	b.'-:ose
elates.
	You
have
rot
o::::mplainecl
of
	inadequate
tL-ne
for
re.spor,.se
on
eiti.~
April
27
or
May
4,
1931~
It
af=f)ears
frcm
t.~
	lar1guage
of the
amendment
tr.at
you
are
uncertain
2b::::ut wheti.t.ier
or
not
you sp:,ke
to
the p:ro;:csal on
April 21, 1981.
	You ti.ave
rot
aJJ.eged
that
you y;ere
cenied
ari
opportunity to speak, only
that
you "must'ven ex.'"lausted
the
	allotted
	t_rrr"?e
minutes speaking to other
rr.att2rs
en the
ager:da. 	E-:12n	
if
ycu
c!id
not
s:;:-veak
	to the
pr~
on April
21, 	as you spec'.Jlate, 	t.he c:crrplaint
is
	still 	insufficient 	to
rnake a prir..a
facie case, 	based on
the facts outlir.ed in the
par ag
i:aph
a.::::ove.
E. 	'r'r:e
anen~t
to allegaticn
!J7
	in the original
CCITlf>laint
still
cl.-:>25
not
r-2.'<e a
clear
annd concise stater:ent of the
fc.ets 	alleged 	to ror..stitute a
	violaticn of seeticn 3547.
•Based en corwer.::xitions with you and the h,o res:s:cr:ce.11ts
	it

:M.r.
Howard
O. Ha.tts.,
,,
4··
LA.-PN-33
	1
June
18,
	1981
P2ge
3
violation
	my
	a
	is
	unc1erstanaLrg
	cr.at
you
are
	alleging
when CSE:\ B.ace a
	c!ei-P.and
to
negotiate
with.
	tte
	occurred
district
	in
an
area 	(layoff
of
employees) 	which you
believe
is
outside
the
sc:::;s:e
of
	representation
under
	the
Educational
is
	trt.:e,
	the
Employme!'lt
Relaticns
kt.
	If
your
rontenticn
CC!l'\Plaint
canrot
be ar..ended
to
state
a prima
facie
violation
of
secticn
3547
	of
	t±e Government Co:le
	in
that
	it
c.-overs
prop:,sals
"
•••
which
relate
to
matters
within
	the
	initial
so::,pe
of
	represent:a.ticn".
	If,
	on
	the other
	hand,
	your
contenticn
is
not
t,_--ue,
	the canplaint
still
could
rot
be
in
	amended
	to state
a
prha
facie
case.
	As outlir:ed
paragraph
A
of
	t..r1is
letter,
	the
	resp:mdents
	have
co::plied
prop.:)Sals.
	with the
law
reg~ding
p.iblic
rotice
of
	initial
In
any
case,	
t..rie
re::,-pcndents
have
	ir1formed
me
that
no
take
	meeting
and r.egoti2.ting
en
this
	subject
has or
will
place
because
	the
iss1...i.e
was	
resolved to
their satisfaction
informally.
itself
	This
	determinaticn !PZj
be
appBaled
to
	t._he
Board
	at
	the
headquarters
office
in
accordance with
the provisions
of Division
1,
2
of	
the
PERS
R...c.gulaticris. 	The
new
2.ddress
of
	the
Chapter
	4,
Article
PERB
Headquarters
Office
is
1031
18th
Stre€t,
	Sacramento,
	CA
95814.	
Any
L11e
aate
of service
of
	this
a:f:Peal must
be
filed
within
10 aays
	following
letter
of
dismissal.
Please
ccntact
me
	if
you
r2.ve any
guestia1s.
Very
	truly
yours,
Frances
A~
	Kreiling
'Regiunal Dir2Ctor
\_
	Jqm
J\~ega
	(______)
J?:epresem:ative
cc: 	Willi2Tn
Sharp
Marjorie Kantro,.;:,e