Decision A400E – Santa Maria-Bonita School District
LA-CE-5709-E
Decision Date: July 9, 2013
Decision Type: Administrative Appeal
Description: After a formal hearing resulting in a proposed decision finding that the Santa Maria-Bonita School District, acting through its agent, an elected official on the governing body, interfered with protected rights, the agent filed a document construed by the Appeals Assistant as a statement of exceptions. After the Appeals Assistant rejected the document due to the agent’s non-party status in an administrative decision, the agent appealed.
Description: The Board denied the appeal, affirming the decision of the Appeals Assistant that the agent lacked party status to file exceptions to the proposed decision.****** Neither party filed exceptions; therefore, the proposed decision of the administrative law judge became final.
Perc Vol: 38
Perc Index: 19
Decision Headnotes
1107.01000 – Exceptions; Responses to Exceptions; Standing; Extensions of Time/Late Filing/Waiver
After a formal unfair practice hearing resulting in a proposed decision finding that the school district, acting through its agent, an elected official on the governing body, interfered with protected rights, the proposed decision became final because neither of the parties filed a statement of exceptions; the agent lacked party status to file a statement of exceptions; to accord the agent the right to appellate review would be to contravene the statutory definition of “public school employer” and the regulatory rules governing the filing of exceptions, and would undercut the respondent’s right to control the administrative litigation and both parties’ expectation of finality.
1107.20000 – Other
An individual, determined by the administrative law judge to be an agent of the respondent in the unfair practice proceedings, was denied joinder where he requested joinder for the first time on appeal from an administrative decision denying him the right to file a statement of exceptions for lack of party status; to grant joinder would be to revive a proceeding that has already concluded, a result as problematic as “impeding” an ongoing proceeding, which is grounds for denial of joinder under PERB Regulation 32164.