Los Angeles Community College District (Watts) (PERB 0186E)

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
HOWARD O. WATTS,
Complainant, 	Case No. LA-PN-35
V . 	PERB Decision No. 186
LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT, 	December 15, 1981
Respondent.
Appearances: 	Howard O. Watts, representing himself.
Before Gluck, Chairperson; Moore and Tovar, Members.
DECISION
Howard 0. Watts appeals a dismissal without further leave
to amend of his public notice complaint alleging violations of
sections 3547 (a) , (b) and (d) of the Educational Employment
Relations Act. 1
The Educational Employment Relations Act is codified at
Government Code section 3540 et seq. 	Unless otherwise noted,
all references are to the Government Code.
Section 3547 reads:
(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.
STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF 	THE
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
HOWARD 	O. 	WATTS,
Complainant,
v.
LOS 	ANGELES 	COMMUNITY COLLEGE 	DISTRICT,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
______________________ )
Case 	No. 	LA-PN-35
PERB 	Decision 	No. 	186
December 	15, 	1981
Appearances: 	Howard 	O. 	Watts, 	representing 	himself.
Before 	Gluck, 	Chairperson; 	Moore 	and 	Tovar, 	Members.
DECISION
Howard 	O. 	Watts 	appeals 	a 	dismissal 	without 	further 	leave
to 	amend 	of 	his 	public 	notice 	complaint 	alleging 	violations 	of
sections 	3547 (a), 	(b) 	and 	(d) 	of 	the 	Educational 	Employment
Relations 	Act .1
1The 	Educational Employment 	Relations 	Act 	is 	codified 	at
Government 	Code 	section 3540 	et 	seq. 	Unless 	otherwise 	noted,
all 	references 	are 	to 	the 	Government 	Code.
Section 3547 	reads:
(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.

Mr. Watts initially filed his complaint on July 3, 1981.
On July 10, the complaint was dismissed by a regional director
of the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) with leave to
amend. An amended complaint was received on July 22. This
complaint included allegations that: (1) a five-minute time
allotment per speaker was insufficient to address negotiating
proposals; (2) addressing six proposals on a single agenda was
burdensome and prevented complainant from expressing
(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.
(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 within 24
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.
(e) 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.
2
Mr. 	Watts 	initially 	filed 	his 	complaint 	on 	July 	3, 	1981.
On 	July 	10, 	the 	complaint 	was 	dismissed 	by 	a 	regional 	director
of 	the 	Public 	Employment 	Relations 	Board 	(PERB) 	with 	leave 	to
amend. 	An 	amended 	complaint 	was 	received 	on 	July 	22. 	This
complaint 	included 	allegations 	that: 	(1) 	a 	five-minute 	time
allotment 	per 	speaker 	was 	insufficient 	to 	address 	negotiating
proposals; 	(2) 	addressing 	six 	proposals 	on 	a 	single 	agenda 	was
burdensome 	and 	prevented 	complainant 	from 	expressing
(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.
(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 	within 	24
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.
(e) 	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.
2

himself on the issues; and (3) the Los Angeles Community
College District never made public a board of trustees vote on
a negotiation proposal.
On July 31, 1981, the regional director determined that
each of the allegations failed to state a prima facie case, and
the charges were dismissed without leave to amend. We
summarily affirm the dismissal of the complaint.
In his appeal, Mr. Watts claims that the regional director
failed to attach a proper proof of service thus violating
PERB's rules 32140 (a) and 37030 (e) . 2 After a review of the
2PERB rules are codified at California Administrative
Code, title 8, section 31000 et seq.
Section 32140, subsection (a) provides in pertinent part:
(a) All documents referred to in these
regulations requiring "service" or required
to be accompanied by "proof of service,"
except subpoenas, shall be considered
"served" by the Board or a party when
personally delivered or deposited in the
first-class mail properly addressed. 	All
documents required to be served shall
include a "proof of service" affidavit or
declaration signed under penalty of perjury
which meets the requirements of section
1013 (a) of the Code of Civil Procedure or
which contains the following information:
Section 37030, subsection (e) provides:
(e) If the complaint fails to state a prima
facie violation of Government Code section
3547 and cannot be amended to state a prima
facie violation, the Regional Director shall
dismiss the complaint. A copy of the
w
himself
	on
	the
	issues;
	and
	(3)
	the
	Los
	Angeles
	Community
College
	District
	never
	made
	public
	a
	board
	of
	trustees
	vote
	on
a
	negotiation
	proposal.
On
	July
	31, 	1981,
	the
	regional
	director
	determined
	that
each
	of
	the
	allegations 	failed
	to
	state
	a
	prima
	facie 	case,
	and
the
	charges
	were
	dismissed 	without 	leave 	to
	amend.
	We
summarily
	affirm
	the
	dismissal
	of 	the 	complaint.
In
	his
	appeal,
	Mr.
	Watts
	claims
	that
	the
	regional
	director
failed
	to 	attach
	a
	proper 	proof 	of
	service
	thus
	violating
PERB's
	rules
	32140(a)
	and
	37030(e).2 	After
	a
	review
	of 	the
2PERB
	rules
	are
	codified
	at
	California
	Administrative
Code,
	title
	8,
	section
	31000
	et
	seq.
Section
	32140,
	subsection
	(a)
	provides 	in
	pertinent
	part:
(a)
	All
	documents
	referred
	to
	in 	these
regulations 	requiring 	"service"
	or 	required
to
	be
	accompanied
	by
	"proof 	of
	service,"
except 	subpoenas,
	shall
	be
	considered
"served"
	by
	the
	Board
	or
	a
	party
	when
personally 	delivered
	or 	deposited	
in	
the
first-class
	mail 	properly 	addressed. 	All
documents
	required 	to
	be
	served
	shall
include
	a
	"proof
	of 	service"
	affidavit
	or
declaration
	signed	
under
	penalty
	of 	perjury
which
	meets 	the 	requirements 	of 	section
1013(a)	
of
	the
	Code	
of 	Civil
	procedure 	or
which
	contains	
the 	following 	information:
Section
	37030,
	subsection
	(e)	
provides:
(e)
	If
	the 	complaint
	fails	
to
	state
	a
	prima
facie 	violation 	of
	Government 	Code	
section
3547 	and	
cannot	
be 	amended	
to 	state
	a
	prima
facie 	violation,	
the 	Regional 	Director 	shall
dismiss 	the 	complaint.
	A copy
	of
	the
3

record, the Board finds that service of Mr. Watts was in fact
effected, that he received the letter of dismissal of the
complaint and that he was able to file a timely appeal in
response. 	Consequently, Watts was in no way prejudiced, and
the failure to include proof of service in this instance is not
sufficient grounds for reversal. Los Angeles Community College
District (12/31/80) PERB Decision No. 153.
Mr. Watts also alleges that he did not receive sufficient
assistance from PERB in filing his public notice complaint.
While section 37030 does require PERB representatives to
complaint and the letter of dismissal shall
be served on the employer and the exclusive
representative by the Regional Director.
37030 provides in pertinent part:
Processing of Complaint.
(a) When a complaint is filed, the case
shall be assigned by the Regional Director
to a Board agent for processing.
(b) The powers and duties of such Board
agent shall be to:
(1) 	Assist the complainant to state in
proper form the information required by
Section 37020.
(2) Answer procedural questions
regarding the processing of the case;
(3) Facilitate communication and the
exchange of information between the
complainant and the respondent or
respondents;
record,
	the
	Board
	finds
	that
	service
	of
	Mr.
	Watts
	was
	in
	fact
effected, 	that
	he
	received 	the
	letter
	of 	dismissal
	of 	the
complaint
	and
	that
	he
	was
	able 	to
	file
	a
	timely 	appeal
	in
response.
	Consequently,
	Watts
	was
	in
	no
	way
	prejudiced,
	and
the
	failure
	to
	include 	proof 	of
	service
	in
	this
	instance
	is
	not
sufficient
	grounds
	for
	reversal.
	Los
	Angeles
	Community
	College
District
	(12/31/80)
	PERB
	Decision
	No.
	153.
Mr.
	Watts
	also 	alleges 	that
	he
	did 	not
	receive
	sufficient
assistance
	from
	PERB
	in
	filing
	his 	public 	notice
	complaint.
While
	section
	370303 	does
	require
	PERB
	representatives 	to
complaint
	and
	the
	letter
	of 	dismissal
	shall
be
	served
	on
	the
	employer 	and
	the
	exclusive
representative	
by	
the 	Regional
	Director.
3
3section	section	
37030
	provides 	in
	pertinent 	part:
Processing 	of
	Complaint.
(a) 	When 	a
	complaint
	is 	filed,	
the	
case
shall
	be
	assigned
	by
	the 	Regional
	Director
to
	a
	Board
	agent 	for 	processing.
(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 	questionsregarding 	the 	processing	
of	
the	
case;
(3)
	Facilitate	
communication 	and
	theexchange
	of 	information	
between 	the
complainant	
and
	the 	respondent 	orrespondents;
4

provide assistance to the complainant, the rule is intended to
provide technical assistance rather than legal representation.
The record indicates that Mr. Watts was provided with such
assistance during the course of his filings. The Board agent's
refusal to provide interpretations of law, as Watts' requested,
was proper . 4
ORDER
Upon the foregoing decision and the entire record, the
Public Employment Relations Board ORDERS that:
The public notice complaint, LA-PN-35, filed by
Howard O. Watts against the Los Angeles Community College
District is hereby DISMISSED in its entirety without leave to
amend .
PER CURIAM
4After being told on July 10 that his facts failed to
state a prima facie violation, Mr. Watts sought to have PERB
agents assist him in arranging facts and issues which would
constitute the prima facie violation for which they were
looking .
provide 	assistance 	to 	the 	complainant, 	the 	rule 	is 	intended 	to
provide 	technical 	assistance 	rather 	than 	legal 	representation.
The 	record 	indicates 	that 	Mr. 	Watts 	was 	provided 	with 	such
assistance 	during 	the 	course 	of 	his 	filings. 	The 	Board 	agent's
refusal 	to 	provide 	interpretations 	of 	law, 	as Watts' 	requested,
was 	proper.4
ORDER
Upon 	the 	foregoing 	decision 	and 	the 	entire 	record, 	the
Public 	Employment 	Relations 	Board 	ORDERS 	that:
The 	public 	notice 	complaint, 	LA-PN-35, 	filed 	by
Howard 	o. 	Watts 	against 	the 	Los 	Angeles 	Community 	College
District 	is 	hereby 	DISMISSED 	in 	its 	entirety 	without 	leave 	to
amend.
PER CURIAM
4After 	being 	told 	on 	July 	10 	that 	his 	facts 	failed 	to
state 	a 	prima 	facie 	violation, 	Mr. 	Watts 	sought 	to 	have 	PERB
agents 	assist 	him 	in 	arranging 	facts 	and 	issues 	which 	would
constitute 	the 	prima 	facie 	violation 	for 	which 	they 	were
looking.
5