Decision 1013E – Los Angeles Unified School District (Watts)
LA-PN-133
Decision Date: September 9, 1993
Decision Type: PERB Decision
Perc Vol: 17
Perc Index: 24152
Decision Headnotes
1502.02000 – Initial Proposals
There is no requirement for a district to make available copies of proposals at subsequent meetings once it has been presented at a public meeting; p. 7, admin. determination.
102.03000 – Enforcement of Settlement Agreements and Contracts 3541.5(b); 3514.5(b); 3563.2(b)
PERB does not have the authority to enforce agreements between the parties. Rather, PERB can only investigate conduct alleged to violate an agreement if such conduct also constitutes a deprivation of statutory rights under the EERA; p. 9, admin. determination.
1205.04000 – Attorneys Fees and Costs
The Board will award attorneys' fees and costs where a case is without arguable merit, frivolous, vexatious, dilatory, pursued in bad faith, or otherwise an abuse of process; p. 2. The Board reversed the Board agent's awarding of attorney fees and other costs against charging party, finding that the issues raised have not been the subject of Board decisions in the recent past; pp. 2-3. The Board indicated that a balancing of all factors on future complaints involving the same issues already decided by this Board may result in the awarding of attorney fees and costs in the future; p. 3.
1502.01000 – In General
Nothing in section 3547 requires school districts to have a local public notice complaint resolution procedure, nor does it define how a school board's local policy shall be regulated. PERB however, may entertain a complaint and intercede if the locally adopted rules facially conflict with the law and if the application of such rule deprives the public of their statutory rights. No evidence produced to support such an assertion in this case; p. 8, admin. determination.
1502.10000 – Remedies
The Board will award attorneys' fees and costs where a case is without arguable merit, frivolous, vexatious, dilatory, pursued in bad faith, or otherwise an abuse of process; p. 2. The Board reversed the Board agent's awarding of attorney fees and other costs against charging party, finding that the issues raised have not been the subject of Board decisions in the recent past; pp. 2-3. The Board indicated that a balancing of all factors on future complaints involving the same issues already decided by this Board may result in the awarding of attorney fees and costs in the future; p. 3.