Los Angeles Unified School District (Watts) (PERB A162E)

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-89
PERB Order 	No. 	Ad-162
February 5, 	1987
)
)
)
)
)
)
Appearance: 	Howard 0. 	Watts, 	on his own behalf.
Before Hesse, 	Chairperson; 	Burt and Craib, Members.
DECISION
CRAIB, 	Member: 	On March 31, 	1986, 	Howard 0. Watts 	filed a
complaint with 	the Los Angeles 	Regional 	Office 	of 	the 	Public
Employment 	Relations 	Board 	(PERB 	or 	Board) 	alleging 	that 	the
Los Angeles Unified 	School 	District 	(LAUSD or District) 	had
violated 	the 	public 	notice 	provisions 	of 	the 	Educational
Employment Relations Act 	(EERA) l	1 	when 	it 	adopted, 	on March 3,
1986, 	an initial 	school 	calendar proposal. 	The school 	calendar
proposal 	was 	originally 	sunshined 	by 	the 	District 	on
February 3. 	Public 	response 	time was 	provided 	by the District
at 	its 	regular 	February 	11 	and February 24 	meetings.
1 The 	EERA 	is 	codified 	at 	Government 	Code 	section 	3540 	et
seq. 	All 	references 	are 	to 	the Government 	Code unless
otherwise 	noted.
________ )

However, 	on March 3, 	the District 	amended 	its 	initial 	school
calendar proposal 	and then voted to 	adopt 	it. 	Thus, 	charges
Watts, 	there was 	no 	opportunity for 	the public 	to 	respond 	to
the 	amended 	school 	calendar 	proposal. 	Watts 	also 	claims 	that
in a 	settlement of 	an earlier case 	(LA-PN-77) 	the District
promised 	to 	provide 	an opportunity 	for 	appropriate 	public
response prior 	to 	adoption of 	the 	school 	calendar. 	The
District's 	actions 	in this 	case 	allegedly violated 	the 	terms 	of
that voluntary agreement 	as well 	as 	the EERA.
The 	PERB 	Los 	Angeles 	Regional 	Director 	subsequently
concluded that 	the LAUSD violated EERA section 3547(a) 	(b) 	and
(c)2 and on June 	9, 	1986 	served 	an order 	on the LAUSD
2Section 	3547 	provides 	in pertinent 	part:
(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
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.
22

directing 	the 	District 	to 	cease 	and 	desist 	from 	failing 	to
present 	at 	public meetings 	the 	amendment 	of 	initial 	proposals
dealing with 	the 	school 	calendar 	and 	failing 	to 	provide 	a
reasonable 	time 	thereafter 	to 	enable 	the 	public 	to 	become
informed 	and 	have 	an opportunity to 	express 	itself 	regarding
such proposals. 	The District was 	also 	ordered 	to 	post 	a 	notice
and 	to 	inform the 	PERB Los Angeles 	Regional 	Director 	of 	actions
it has 	taken to 	comply with the order.3
Rather 	than go 	to 	hearing, 	the District 	complied with the
PERB order. 	Finding 	that the LAUSD complied, 	PERB dismissed
the complaint 	pursuant 	to Regulation 32920(b)(7).4 On August
11, 	1986, 	Watts 	appealed the Regional Director's dismissal
pursuant 	to Regulation 32925.
The gist of Watts' 	appeal 	is 	that 	"the 	local 	office of 	the
Public 	Employment 	Relations 	Board used 	a 	cease 	and desist 	order
to 	correct violations 	of 	the Act by the Board of 	Education, 	in
essence 	the PERB 	slapped 	the wrists 	of 	the 	staff 	but 	did
nothing 	to 	the 	individual members 	of 	the 	Board 	or 	the 	Board 	of
Education 	as 	a whole." 	Watts 	implies 	that 	the 	remedy ordered
by the 	PERB 	is 	inadequate 	in 	light of 	the District's 	refusal 	to
3 The 	June 	9th 	letter 	from PERB 	to 	the 	LAUSD 	incorrectly
refers 	to PERB Decision No. 	527. 	The correspondence from the
District 	also 	erroneously refers 	to Decision No. 	527. 	Decision
No. 	527 	is 	another public notice case 	involving 	the Los Angeles
Unified School District. 	It 	is 	not 	related to 	this 	case.
4PERB 	Regulations 	are 	codified 	at 	California
Administrative Code, 	title 8, 	section 31001 et 	seq.
33

abide by the 	terms 	of 	the earlier 	settlement 	agreement. 	In
spite of 	this, 	Watts does not propose a 	remedy himself. 	For
the 	reasons which 	follow, 	we 	affirm the dismissal 	of 	the
regional 	director.
DISCUSSION
In 	this 	case, 	the 	record 	reveals 	that 	the public had 	two
opportunities 	to 	speak on 	the 	initial 	school 	calendar
proposal. 	However, 	on March 3, 	the 	initial proposal was
amended 	and 	on 	the 	same 	day 	the 	District 	adopted 	the 	amended
school 	calendar proposal. 	Thus, 	there was 	no opportunity for
the 	public 	to 	speak on 	the 	amendment prior 	to 	its 	adoption.5
While we 	agree 	that 	adoption of 	the 	amended calendar 	on March 	3
appears 	to have violated section 3547(b), 	we note there was
opportunity to 	discuss 	the 	substantive 	aspects 	of 	the 	initial
calendar 	proposal 	and 	to 	that 	extent 	the 	harm 	is 	lessened.
This 	has 	some weight 	in 	concluding 	that 	the District's
voluntary compliance with 	a 	cease 	and desist 	order 	and 	an 	order
to post 	is 	a 	sufficient 	remedy.
5The minutes 	of 	the March 	3 	LAUSD meeting 	indicate 	that
the Committee 	of 	the Whole Report Number 	Three was 	amended 	"by
adding 	a 	footnote 	to 	include 	any new year-round 	calendar 	such
as 	a 	four 	or 	five-term calendar 	approved 	by the 	Board 	under 	the
priority housing 	program." 	It 	appears 	that 	this 	amendment 	did
not 	alter 	the 	calendar 	proposals 	already noticed 	but 	provided
for 	inclusion 	in the 	report 	of 	other 	calendars 	approved 	by 	the
board.
6Regulation 32920(b) 	states 	in pertinent part:
The 	powers 	and 	duties 	of 	such Board 	agent
shall be to:
4
6
Regulation 32920 	subsections 	(b)(5) 	and 	(b)(7) 	permit
and 	encourage 	voluntary 	resolution 	of 	public 	notice

complaints. 	Los Angeles Unified School District 	(1985) 	PERB
Decision No. 	506, 	the Board stated that:
Regulation 32920(b)(4) 	shows 	clear 	approval
of 	the use 	of 	voluntary compliance 	to
dispose of 	an EERA complaint. 	We 	interpret
Regulation 32920(g) 	literally; 	the use of
the disjunctive 	"or" means 	that 	if
complainant 	fails 	to withdraw the 	complaint
once 	the 	Board 	agent 	has 	found 	the
respondent 	has 	voluntarily complied, 	the
agent 	may 	dismiss 	the 	complaint.7
Moreover, 	the 	Board 	typically sustains 	dismissals where 	there
has 	been voluntary compliance. 	Los 	Angeles Unified 	School
District 	(Kimmett) 	(1979) 	PERB Order No. 	Ad-53, 	Los Angeles
Community College District 	(Watts) 	(1980) 	PERB Decision
No. 	153, 	PERB Decision No. 	506, 	supra. 	The regional director's
decision to 	dismiss 	the 	complaint 	because 	the District
voluntarily complied 	is 	in 	accord with 	PERB 	policy 	and
precedent.
(5) 	Explore the possibility of 	and
facilitate 	the voluntary compliance 	and
settlement 	of 	the 	case 	through 	informal
conferences 	or 	other means;
(7) 	If 	the Board agent 	receives 	proof
that 	the 	respondent 	has 	voluntarily
complied with 	the 	provisions 	of
Government Code 	sections 	3547 	or 	3595,
a 	Board 	agent 	may either 	approve 	the
complainant's 	withdrawal 	of 	the
complaint 	or dismiss 	the complaint.
7Former Regulations 	32920(b)(4) 	and 32920(g) 	have
subsequently been 	renumbered 	and 	are 	now 	32920(b)(5) 	and 	(b)(7)
respectively.
un	
5

Although Watts 	argues 	that 	the 	District 	violated 	earlier
assurances 	to 	provide 	the 	public with 	an opportunity to 	be
heard, 	we 	are not convinced, 	based on the facts 	of 	this 	case,
that 	the District 	engages 	in 	a 	pattern or 	practice 	of
noncompliance with 	section 3547. 	As 	noted 	above, 	the public
had 	an 	opportunity to discuss 	substantive 	calendar 	issues,
albeit 	there was 	no 	opportunity 	for 	the 	public 	to 	be 	heard 	on
the 	amendment. 	Further, 	the District's willingness 	to
voluntarily 	comply 	eliminated 	delay 	and 	thereby minimized 	any
consequence 	of 	the District's 	earlier 	failure 	to 	comply with
section 3547. 	We 	therefore do 	not 	believe 	that 	some
unspecified 	extraordinary 	relief 	is 	warranted.
ORDER
For 	the 	reasons 	stated 	above, 	the Board DENIES
Howard 0. 	Watts' 	appeal 	and AFFIRMS the dismissal 	of 	case
number LA-PN-89.
Chairperson Hesse 	and Member 	Burt 	joined 	in 	this 	Decision.
66