Los Angeles Unified School District (Watts); California State University (Watts); United Professors of California (Watts); California State University (Watts) (PERB 0396H)

STATE 	OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF 	THE
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
HOWARD 0. WATTS,
Complainant,
v.
LOS ANGELES UNIFIED 	SCHOOL 	DISTRICT,
Respondent.
Case No. 	LA-PN-42
PERB Decision No. 	396-H
August 16, 	1984
HOWARD O. 	WATTS,
Complainant,
v.
CALIFORNIA 	STATE 	UNIVERSITY,
Respondent.
Case No. 	LA-PN-46-H
HOWARD 0. 	WATTS,
Complainant,
v.
UNITED 	PROFESSORS OF CALIFORNIA,
Respondent.
Case No. 	LA-PN-47-H
HOWARD 	0. 	WATTS,
Complainant,
v.
CALIFORNIA 	STATE 	UNIVERSITY,
Respondent.
Case No. 	LA-PN-65-H
Appearances; 	Howard 0. 	Watts, 	in propria persona.
Before Hesse, Chairperson; 	Morgenstern and Burt, Members.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
_______________ )
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
_______________ )
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
_______________ )
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
_______________ )
~

DECISION
MORGENSTERN, 	Member: 	In each of these cases, 	which have
been consolidated on appeal, 	complainant Howard 0. 	Watts
appeals 	the 	administrative decision of an 	agent 	of 	the 	Public
Employment Relations Board 	(PERB or 	Board) 	denying his 	request
for 	assistance 	in connection with 	the 	filing of 	a public 	notice
complaint. 	For 	the reasons discussed herein, 	we deny Watts'
appeals.
FACTS
In each of 	these cases, 	Watts 	filed an 	identical
Application 	for Assistance 	by a 	PERB 	agent 	in which 	he cited
the 	following 	"extenuating circumstances" 	which he 	believed
qualified 	him 	for 	assistance:
I 	have been disabled since 	1968 	and 	I 	am on
Disability with 	the V.A., 	Social 	Security
and SSI. 	I 	have been having 	trouble 	filing
these 	complaints 	against 	the previous
districts and now CSUS 	because 	I 	do not 	know
how to write a complaint without 	legal
help. 	I have been up against lawyers for
the unions and the previous districts and
now CSUS and 	I 	can't compete with 	them.1
In Case No. 	LA-PN-42, Watts' request was filed on
September 	3, 	1982 and was denied on September 	8, 	1982 	on the
following 	grounds:
1We 	take 	judicial notice of the more 	than 40 	public
notice complaints 	filed by Watts since 	1980, 	and referred 	to
above. 	For a complete listing, 	excluding the instant cases and
cases voluntarily withdrawn by Watts, 	see Appendix A attached
hereto.
22

[I]n accordance with PERB 	regulation
37030(b) (1), I have already given you
assistance 	in drafting 	an amendment to your
complaint 	. . . .
In Case Nos. 	LA-PN-46-H and LA-PN-47-H, Watts' 	requests
were filed on January 31, 	1983 	and were denied on February 	16,
1983 	on 	the 	following grounds:
[T]he 	lack 	of any Board policy 	in 	this 	area
precludes 	me 	from providing 	any more
assistance 	than has already been given you.
To 	do more without Board policy defining 	the
parameters 	of 	the 	assistance might 	prejudice
the 	respondents 	if 	the assistance 	exceeded
that 	intended by 	the 	Board when 	rule 	32163
was 	adopted.
In Case No. 	LA-PN-65-H, Watts' 	request was filed on
March 16, 	1983 and was denied on August 31, 	1983. 	The Board
agent 	stated 	the 	following 	reasons:
As with such previous requests, 	I must deny
any 	further 	assistance 	than has 	already been
provided you. 	. 	. 	.
As 	I 	have each 	time you have verbally
requested assistance, 	I have discussed 	the
merits of the Complaint with you and, 	for
purposes of clarity, 	assisted you 	in its
composition.
The Board 	has said 	that public 	notice
complainants 	shall 	receive 	"technical
assistance" 	as opposed 	to legal
representation. 	(Citations omitted.) 	You
have 	been provided 	this degree 	of 	assistance
and no other 	"Board policy" 	exists 	which
provides 	further 	guidance 	regarding 	the
parameters 	of assistance 	available 	to you.
Accordingly, 	your 	request 	for 	further
assistance 	is hereby DENIED.
3
3

DISCUSSION
Rule 	32920 	(previously rule 	37030)2 provides, 	in
pertinent part, 	that 	in 	processing 	a public 	notice 	complaint,
the Board 	agent 	shall, 	inter 	alia:
(1) 	Assist 	the complainant 	to 	state 	in
proper 	form 	the 	information
required . 	. 	.; 	and
(2) 	Answer 	procedural 	questions 	regarding
the 	processing 	of 	the 	case.
As 	indicated 	by 	the 	use 	of 	the 	word 	"shall," 	rule 	32920
imposes 	a 	mandatory 	requirement 	on 	Board 	agents. 	With 	respect
to 	the 	scope 	of 	this 	obligation, 	the 	Board 	has 	repeatedly 	held
that 	rule 	32920 	"is 	intended 	to 	provide 	technical 	assistance
rather 	than 	legal 	representation." 	(Emphasis 	in 	original.)
Los 	Angeles 	Community College 	District 	(12/15/81) 	PERB 	Decision
No. 	186; 	Los Angeles Unified School District 	(8/18/83) 	PERB
Decision 	No. 	336; 	and 	see 	Los 	Angeles 	Community College
District 	(12/15/81) 	PERB Order No. 	Ad-119.
In denying 	each 	of 	these 	requests, 	the 	Board 	agent 	stated
that 	he 	had 	already 	provided 	some 	assistance 	to Watts 	but 	was
precluded 	from providing 	any 	"more" 	or 	"further" 	assistance
than 	had 	already 	been 	given.
In 	his 	appeal, 	Watts 	does 	not deny 	that he 	received 	such
assistance. 	Indeed, 	finding no deficiency of 	a 	technical
nature 	on 	the 	face 	of 	his 	complaints, 	and 	absent 	any 	evidence
2 PERB 	regulations 	are 	codified 	at 	California
Administrative 	Code, 	title 	8, 	section 	31001 et 	seq.
44

or allegation to the contrary, 	we must conclude that, 	in each
case, 	the Board agent provided Watts with 	technical 	assistance
mandated by rule 	32920.
Though Watts 	does not 	specify 	the 	nature of 	the 	additional
assistance requested, he states, 	in pertinent part, as follows:
I 	have 	been having 	trouble 	filing 	these
complaints 	. 	. 	. 	because I do not know how
to write a complaint without legal help. 	I
have been up against lawyers 	. 	. 	. and I
can't compete with 	them. 	(Emphasis added.)
Thus, 	it appears 	that Watts 	is seeking legal representation
rather 	than mere 	technical 	assistance. 	He 	essentially contends
that he 	is entitled to such pursuant to rule 32163.3 3
Effective September 20, 	1982, 	rule 32163 provides that:
If 	a party 	is unable to retain counsel or
demonstrates extenuating circumstances, 	as
determined by the Board, 	a Board 	agent may
be 	assigned 	to assist 	the party 	in
accordance with Board 	policy. 	(Emphasis
added.)
As 	noted by the Board agent 	in his denial of Watts' 	request
for assistance 	in Case Nos. 	LA-PN-46-H and LA-PN-47-H, 	the
3In 	Case No. 	LA-PN-42, 	Watts erroneously applied for
assistance under 	rule 32625 	and a 	"proposed" 	rule. 	Rule 32625,
in effect at the 	time of his request, 	pertained only to unfair
practice charges 	(see footnote 4, 	infra) 	and, 	therefore, 	is not
applicable 	to this public notice complaint. 	Equally misplaced
is Watts' 	reliance on a 	"proposed" 	rule which had not been
finally 	adopted pursuant 	to 	the procedure 	established 	by
Government Code section 11345 et seq. 	In this case, 	the
"proposed" 	rule was 	finally adopted 	as 	rule 	32163 	after 	Watts
applied 	for 	assistance.
In 	sum, 	the only rules applicable 	to assistance 	in public
notice cases are rules 32920 	and 32163, 	as discussed herein.
55

Board 	has 	not promulgated 	any 	formal written policy governing
the 	implementation of rule 32163. 	Indeed, 	this 	is a matter 	of
first 	impression 	for 	the Board 	itself.
We note, 	initially, 	that the rule is a general provision
applicable 	not only to the 	filing of public 	notice complaints,
but to all proceedings before 	the Board, 	including, 	for
example, 	unfair practice charges and matters of
representation.4
In addition, 	it is clear that, 	unlike rule 32920, 	rule
32163 	is discretionary, 	not mandatory, 	by its terms. 	Contrary
to Watts' contention, 	the rule creates no entitlement 	to legal
assistance. 	Rather, 	the decision to provide any legal
assistance 	to a party lies 	solely 	in 	the 	sound discretion of
the 	Board.
In determining appropriate policy in this area, 	we are
guided by 	the 	statutory scheme 	of 	the Acts which we
administer.55 	Unlike both the National Labor 	Relations Board
4 At 	the same 	time that rule 32163 was adopted, 	a more
specific 	rule pertaining only 	to unfair 	practice 	charges was
deleted. 	Previous 	rule 32625 provided as 	follows:
If 	the 	charging party is 	unable 	to 	retain
counsel or 	demonstrates 	extenuating
circumstances, 	as may be determined by 	the
Board, 	a Board 	agent may be 	assigned 	to
assist 	such party to draft 	the charge or
gather 	evidence.
5The 	Educational Employment Relations Act 	is 	codified 	at
Government Code 	section 3540 	et 	seq. 	The State Employer-
Employee 	Relations Act 	is codified 	at Government Code 	section
3512 	et 	seq. 	The 	Higher 	Education Employer-Employee 	Relations
Act 	is codified 	at Government Code 	section 	3560 	et 	seq.
66

and 	the Agricultural Labor 	Relations Board, 	this agency is not
structured 	to prosecute cases 	on behalf 	of charging parties.
Rather, 	the parties 	themselves are 	fully responsible 	for 	the
preparation and presentation of 	their cases. 	Thus, 	the Board's
discretion 	to grant 	legal 	assistance 	is 	properly exercised with
the 	utmost restraint.
Such 	determination must be made on a case-by-case basis,
considering, 	at a minimum, 	the abilities and experience of the
party 	requesting 	assistance, 	the difficulty and complexity of
the case, 	and 	the public 	interest 	in resolution of 	the 	issues
involved 	therein.
In 	the 	instant case, 	as we have noted, Watts has previously
filed 	in excess of 	40 public notice complaints.
Notwithstanding his 	lack 	of 	formal 	legal 	education 	and his
protestations 	to 	the contrary, 	Watts 	is undoubtedly an expert
on both 	the 	substantive 	and procedural 	aspects of 	the public
notice provisions of 	the Acts administered by 	this Board. 	For
this reason, 	we find 	it difficult to conceive of a 	situation 	in
which Watts 	could 	demonstrate 	circumstances 	justifying 	the
provision 	of 	legal 	assistance by 	this 	agency 	in relation 	to his
public notice complaints. 	Certainly, 	he has not demonstrated
such 	justification here.
We, 	therefore, 	find that Watts' 	requests for assistance
were 	properly 	denied.
7
L

ORDER
Based 	upon 	the 	foregoing 	findings 	of 	fact 	and conclusions
of law, 	and 	the entire record in this case, 	complainant Howard
Watts' administrative appeals in Case Nos. 	LA-PN-42,
LA-PN-46-H, 	LA-PN-47-H and LA-PN-65-H are hereby DENIED.
Chairperson Hesse 	and Member 	Burt 	joined 	in 	this decision.
88

APPENDIX 	A
PUBLIC NOTICE COMPLAINTS FILED BY HOWARD WATTS
Case No. 	Name 	Date Decision
No.
LA-PN-20 	Los Angeles Community College 	District 	(12/31/80) 	153
LA-PN-21 	Los 	Angeles 	Community College 	District 	(12/31/80) 	154
LA-PN-22 	Los Angeles Community College 	District 	(12/31/80) 	155
LA-PN-25 	Los 	Angeles 	Community College 	District 	(12/31/80) 	150
(4/29/81) 	150a
(11/30/81) 	150b
(2/19/82) 	150c
LA-PN-27 	Los 	Angeles 	Unified 	School 	District 	(12/30/80) 	151
LA-PN-28 	Los Angeles 	Unified 	School District 	(12/30/80) 	152
LA-PN-33 	Los 	Angeles 	Unified 	School 	District 	(11/19/81) 	181
(2/22/82) 	181a
LA-PN-34 	Los 	Angeles 	Community College 	District 	(6/29/84) 	388
LA-PN-35 	Los Angeles Community College District 	(12/15/81) 	186
LA-PN-36 	Los Angeles 	Unified School District 	(12/15/81) 	187
LA-PN-37 	Los Angeles Community College 	District 	(8/15/83) 	330
LA-PN-37 	Los 	Angeles 	Community College 	District 	(8/15/83) 	331
LA-PN-38 	Los Angeles Unified 	School District 	(8/18/83) 	335
In abeyance 	on 	remand
LA-PN-38 Los 	Angeles Unified School District 	(8/18/83) 	336
LA-PN-39 Los Angeles Community College District 	(5/22/84) 	385
LA-PN-40 Los 	Angeles 	Community College District 	Dismissed 	5/17/82
LA-PN-41 Los Angeles Community College District 	Dismissed 	5/17/82
LA-PN-43 Los 	Angeles 	Community College District 	Appeal pending
LA-PN-48-H California 	State 	University 	Appeal 	pending
LA-PN-50-H California 	State 	University 	Appeal 	pending
LA-PN-51-H California 	State 	University 	Appeal 	pending
LA-PN-52-H 	California 	State 	University 	Appeal 	pending

Decision
Case No. 	Name 	Date 	No.
LA-PN-53-H 	California 	State University 	Dismissed 	9/7/83
LA-PN-54-H 	California 	State 	University 	Dismissed 	9/8/83
LA-PN-55-H 	State Employees Trades Council 	Dismissed 	9/8/83
LA-PN-56-H 	California 	School 	Employees 	Association 	Dismissed 	9/8/83
LA-PN-57-H 	Statewide 	University Police 	Association 	Dismissed 	9/8/83
LA-PN-58-H 	California 	School 	Employees 	Association 	Dismissed 	9/8/83
LA-PN-59-H 	California 	State 	University 	Under 	investigation
LA-PN-60-H 	California 	State 	University 	Dismissed 	4/10/84
LA-PN-61-H 	California 	State University 	Dismissed 	4/10/84
LA-PN-62-H 	California 	State 	University 	Dismissed 	4/10/84
LA-PN-63-H 	California 	State 	University 	Dismissed 	4/10/84
LA-PN-64-H 	California 	State 	University 	Dismissed 	4/10/84
LA-PN-66-H 	California 	State 	University 	Dismissed 	4/10/84
LA-PN-6 7-H 	California 	State 	University 	Under 	investigation
LA-PN-70 	Los Angeles Community College 	District 	Appeal 	pending
LA-PN-73 	Los 	Angeles Community College 	District 	Appeal 	pending
LA-PN-74-H 	California 	State University 	Dismissed 	8/10/84
LA-PN-77 	Los 	Angeles Unified School 	District 	Under 	investigation
LA-PN-7 8 	Los Angeles Community College District 	Appeal 	pending
LA-PN-79 	Los 	Angeles 	Community College 	District 	Appeal 	pending
LA-PN-80 	Service Employees 	International 	Union,
Local 	99 	Appeal pending
LA-PN-81-H 	California 	State University 	Under 	investigation
LA-PN-82 	Service 	Employees 	International 	Union,
Local 	99 	Under 	investigation
LA-PN-83 	Los 	Angeles 	Community College 	District 	Under 	investigation
N2