The Public Employment Relations Board (perb) Costly, Slow and Unsure

State of California Little Hoover Commission 1303 J Street. Suite 270· Sacramento, CA 95814· (916) 445-2125 THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD (PERB): COSTLY, SLOW AND UNSURE APRIL 1990 Commission on California State Government Organization & Economy State of California George Deukmejian, Governor Little Hoover Commission 1303 J Street. Suite 270 • Sacramento, CA 95814 • (916) 445-2125 April 18, 1990 Nathan Shapell Chairman Haig G. MardikiaI1 Vice· Chairman Alfred E. AlquISt Senator Mary Anne ChalKer Albert Gersten The Honorable George Deukmejian Milton Marks Governor of California Senator Gwen Moore The Honorable David Roberti The Honorable Kenneth L. Maddy Assemblywoman President pro Tempore of the Senate Senate Minority Floor Leader George E. Paras and Members of the Senate Abraham Spiegel The Honorable Willie L. Brown, Jr. The Honorable Ross Johnson Barbara S. Stone Speaker of the Assembly Assembly Minority Floor Leader Richard R. TerziaI1 and Members of the Assembly Phillip D. WymaI1 Assemblyman Dear Governor and Members of the Legislature: JeaI1nine L English Executive Director Consistent with its legislative mandate to examine agenCies within the executive branch of state government and to assist in promoting economy, efficiency and improved services, the Little Hoover Commission undertook a study of the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) after public debate raised questions about its efficiency, productivity and effectiveness. Since the criticisms that occasioned this study focused on the PERB itself and not on its staff or administration, the Commission confined its scrutiny primarily to the functioning of the five-member Board. To elicit perceptions and recommendations related to the PERB's efficiency, productivity and effectiveness, the Commission received at a public hearing testimony and documentary evidence from the current Chair of the Board1 and from representatives of labor organizations and employers, among others. (Attachment A contains a list of witnesses from the August 1989 hearing). Commission staff interviewed additional parties who regularly appear before the PERB, former Board members, and present and former PERS staff, and received and reviewed the PERS's reports and responses to the Commission's specific queries. In addition, staff referred to publications which track the PERB, and interviewed the Chair and staff of the New York State PERS, the entity with which the California PERS has been compared. After an intensive study, the Commission has concluded that the PERB takes too long to issue its decisions and has members that are not qualified by expertise or experience to carry out required duties. In addition, the study revealed that the state is providing an unlimited subsidy for school district collective bargaining costs that currently exceed $30 million per year. Commission on California State Government Organization & Economy (This I6ltertlead not printed at taxpayer's expense.) BACKGROUND Private sector labor laws were first enacted on a national level in 1935 (the Wagner Act). and expanded and modified by subsequent major legislation in 1947 (Taft-Hartley Act) and in 1959 (Landrum Griffin Act). Under these laws the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) investigates and adjudicates disputes between employers, employees and their union representatives, and issues decisions which, if upheld, may be enforced by federal courts. In California, legislation affecting the public sector was first adopted in 1960 (the George Brown Act) and required the state employer to meet and confer with representatives of the state work force on issues relating to salary. That requirement to meet and confer was expanded by the Winton Act of 1965 to include public school employees and the representatives of classified and certificated employees. Over the next ten years, several schemes to regulate public employment relations and bargaining were introduced in the State Legislature; finally, in 1976, there came the passage of the Education Employment Relations Act (EERA) which defined the rights of public school employees and the responsibilities of the public school employers in language that tracked the federal laws and established a three-member Education Employment Relations Board (EERB) to settle labor disputes and to promote harmony through collective bargaining. The EERB was governor-appointed and functioned as an appellate body hearing appeals from administrative law decisions. In 1978, the state and all of its employees were brought under the mantle of the State Employer-Employee Relations Act (SEERA), which established a framework for negotiations and dispute resolutions almost identical to that in the EERA. The three-member EERB was expanded to five members. appointed by the Governor for staggered five-year terms. and renamed the Public Employment Relations Board. The University of California. the California State University and the California State Colleges and their employees were brought under the PERB's jurisdiction when the Higher Education Employer-Employee Relations Act (HEERA) passed in 1979. bringing close to 700,000 the number of public employees in approximately 2,200 bargaining units under the PERB's jurisdiction. The stated purposes of the EERA. the SEERA and the HEERA (Acts) include the promotion of communication between the employing entities and their employees and the prOVision of a reasonable method for the resolution of disputes relating to wages. hours, and other terms and conditions of employment. Other objectives of the Acts include the improvement in personnel management and employee-employer relations. and the training and education of the parties to improve the collective bargaining process. The Acts, which PERB interprets and enforces, achieve their stated purposes by granting to employees the right to "form, join and participate in the activities of employee organizations of their own choosing for the purpose of representation on all matters of employer-employee relations", while also protecting the employees' rights to refuse to join or to participate in the activities of the employee organizations and to represent themselves individually in relation to their employers. Methods are provided for the establishment and modification of appropriate bargaining units and for the election and decertification of exclusive representatives of those bargaining units. Aggrieved individuals and parties may allege and, through hearings ultimately appealable to the Board, resolve claims of unfair practices or violations of the Acts. 2 The obligation of the employer to meet and confer in good faith with the exclusive bargaining representative of the relevant employee group is enforceable through PERB processes and, in the event the parties fail to reach agreement after a reasonable period of time, a mediation procedure is provided for state employer-employee bargaining. Violations of the Acts, proved to the satisfaction of the PERS's General Counsel and when authorized by the Board, may be enjoined by court orders sought by the PERB, Just as the PERB's orders, findings and opinions may be enforced by resort to the state's judicial system. To accomplish the various broad tasks assigned to it, the PERB established an organizational structure which includes the Soard itself, the General Counsel's office, and divisions of administrative law, representation and administrative services. The General Counsel, appointed by the Governor upon the recommendation of the Board, serves at the pleasure of the Board and assists in the performance of the Board's functions. The General Counsel is the Board's chief legal advisor and represents the Board in court. Charge processing, litigation and representation matters are under the direction of the General Counsel, who also makes recommendations to the Board when and whether to seek court injunctions against alleged unfair practices or violations of the Acts administered by the Board. The division of administrative law includes the administrative law judges and their supporting staff. The administrative law judges preside at settlement conferences on unfair practice charges and act as judges at hearings to resolve the unfair practice charges, issuing proposed decisions which the parties can accept or appeal to the Board. The Board's division of representation is responsible for determining the initial makeup of bargaining units processing unit modification requests, and handling elections of exclusive bargaining representatives, decertification elections and elections to approve or reject union security agreements. Additionally, the division of representation is responsible for certifying that collective bargaining negotiations have reached a point at which they should be referred to mediation and/or fact finding. The division of administrative services is supervised by the Executive Director who performs research and legislative activities for the Board and is responsible for the daily operation of the agency. Increasingly, the administrative services division has coordinated with the purpose of facilitating smoother collective bargaining relations. FINDING #1: THE PERS TAKES TOO LONG TO ISSUE ITS DECISIONS Practitioners familiar with the operation of the PERB perennially complain that after matters have been submitted to it, the Board takes an unjustifiably long time to issue its decisions. In its first four years of operation, the PERB focused on administering and supervising elections to determine the exclusive bargaining representatives. While its staff supervised elections, the Board began issuing decisions interpreting the new public sector labor laws and formulating the precedent which defines the respective rights and duties of the employers and employee representatives. As the Board was interpreting and applying the Acts through its decisions, looking to the National Labor Relations Act for guidance, the absence of binding precedent and the opportunity to shape California labor law spawned at the Board level debate which often resulted in prolonged delays in the issuance of key decisions. Backlogs of undecided cases rose as appeals to the Board outpaced the issuance of decisions. 3 Recent criticisms in the publication California Public Employment Relations (CPER)2 documented that California's PERB took more than three times longer to issue its decisions (252 days in fiscal year 1986-87 on the average for all decisions) than did the New York State PERB (60 days); while spending more than five times as much on the salaries of those involved in decision-making than the New York State PERB spends. Chart I below tabulates the volume of selected PERB activities, unfair practice charges filed and elections conducted, in the fiscal years 1976-77 to 1988-89, together with the agency's annual expenditures and personnel years. CHART I COMPARISON OF UNFAIR PRACTICE CHARGES ELECTIONS, PERB STAFFING AND BUDGET 1976-77 through 1988-89 Fiscal Unfair Practice PERB Staffing Budget Year Charges· Elections· Level"" In 1000s .... 88·89 412 41 81.9 $ 5,731 87-88 597 61 85.1 5,827 86·87 660 59 89 5,803 85·86 538 75 85.3 5.526 84·85 622 76 88.5 5.082 83·84 709 78 89 4,672 82-83 654 71 94 4,437 81-82 733 104" 95.4 4,422 80-81 646 91" 88.4 3,955 79-80 524 122" 82.8 3.326 78·79 993" 137" 78.4 2.715 77-78 579" 327" 84 2.676 76·77 140' 113" 64.7 2,057 • For calendar year Source: '" PERB Annual Reports ... Governor's Budget As the chart illustrates. in the first four years of operation the number of elections ranged from 113 to 327 per year. The average number of elections annually in those years averaged 175. Also during the same period. the number of unfair labor charges which the PERB investigated and processed averaged 559. In succeeding years, up to 1987. the number of unfair practice charges 4 filed annually leveled at approximately 600, the annual election volume declined to approximately 60, and the number of Board decisions issued annually declined, resulting in the gradual increase of a backlog of cases. The numbers of mediations following impasse in negotiations increased to a peak of 563 in calendar year 1979, and then declined to under 400 annually in recent years. While the budget more than doubled from 1978 to 1988, the volume of elections conducted by PERS declined eight-fold and unfair practice charge filings, excluding the first year of start-up operation, fell to an historic low of 412. The statistics on the number and types of PERS decisions and the time taken by the Soard to decide cases cannot easily be extracted from any published reports. From raw data provided by the PERS upon request, the Commission staff computed relevant numbers for fiscal years 1986- 87 to date. (Attachment S contains the raw data submitted by the PERS) Chart II shows the total number of PERS decisions issued annually and the number of decisions the Board issued excluding reviews of administrative actions. CHART 1\ NUMBER OF PEAB DECISIONS ISSUED July 1, 1986 through January 30 1990 89-90 1986-87 1987-88 1988-89 (to lt30t90) Number of PERS decisions"'" 45 54 62 36 Number of PERB decisions excluding reviews of administrative actions'" 8 7 16 14 "'"These numbers exclude reissued decisions or decisions modified after rehearings. As Chart II illustrates, the number of decisions issued by the PERB has increased in recent years from 45 in 1986-87 to 62 in 1988-89, contributing to the recent reduction in the PERS's backlog. 5 The number of days it took the Board to issue its decisions (both PEAB decisions and decisions excluding reviews of administrative actions), on the average, for the period from fiscal 1986-87 to date is reflected in Chart III. CHART III AVERAGE NUMBER OF DAYS TO ISSUE PERB DECISIONS July 1, 1986 through February 14, 1990 1989-90 1986-87 1987-88 1988-89 to 2/14/90 Average Number of Days: To issue all decisions 252 302 265 239 To issue PERB decisions 285 324 319 315 excluding reviews of administrative actions To issue PERB decisions 208 272 232 228 when specifically delayed cases are not counted* * Excludes cases delayed because of pending litigation or because Board member turnover required reassignment. As chart III illustrates, three different figures are set out for each fiscal year. The first row shows the average time taken to issue all decisions. The second row of figures shows the average number of days the Board took to issue decisions excluding reviews of administrative actions. PERB staff has identified specific decisions the issuance of which were specifically delayed either because litigation was pending in State courts which would affect the Board's decisions or because Board member turnover required reassignment of the decisions. The average number of days the Board took to decide cases when these specifically delayed cases are removed is reflected in the third figure. Despite the recent increase in the number of decisions issued in the last three and one half years, California's PERB continues to suffer by comparison to the New York State PERB, which, on the average. takes less than one-fourth the time of the California PERB to issue its decisions. Chart IV shows the number of decisions the New York State PERB issued in improper practice cases and in respect to representation petitions during calendar years 1985 through 1987. and the median number of days it took to issue such decisions. 6 CHART IV NUMBER OF NEW YORK STATE PERB DECISIONS AND MEDIAN NUMBER OF DAYS TO ISSUE DECISIONS 1985 through 1987 IMPROPER PRACTICE CASES REPRESENTATION PETITIONS Calendar Number Median Number Number Median Number Year of decisions of days of decisions of days 1987 49 51 12 48 1986 48 45 14 35 1985 60 36 13 26 Source: New York State PERB As the chart illustrates, the median number of days it took the New York State PERB to issue decisions ranged from 36 to 51 for improper practice cases and 26-48 days for representation petitions. It should be noted that statistics which characterize the New York State PERB's operations are not absolute guideposts for California's PERB. New York's three-member PERB, for instance, rarely reviews records from administrative hearings which last more than one day, does not contend with striking parties and the issues they raise since strikes are illegal under New York statute, and neither seeks nor issues injunctive orders. Furthermore. the opinions that the New York State PERB issues are more often counted in paragraphs than in pages; dissents are rare (one to two per year); and all draft opinions are prepared by one Board counsel, who has been in that position almost from the Board's inception. Despite a lack of total congruence between the Public Employment Relations Boards of California and New York, bases for comparison exist that support the continued criticism of the California Board. This criticism has existed at least since 1980. when the former California Chair3 opposed the expansion of the Board from three members to five because he predicted the increase in delay and backlog. Each California PERB member has two legal counsel to assist the member in the preparation and writing of decisions and dissents. The volume of cases under submission to the Board simply does not justify the time taken to issue opinions. The absence of any enforcement authority to compel the acceleration of the decision writing activity allows the members to procrastinate indefinitely, denying parties swift resolution of their disputes and prolonging the uncertainty caused by the absence of such decisions. Even though decisions are assigned to three-member panels, any member may join any case in which he or she takes an interest and may hold up the issuance of decisions by reviewing draft majority opinions or by proposing dissenting opinions. The confusion that results when members depart and their case loads must be reassigned; the delay inherent in educating new members to the point where they can meaningfully participate in deliberations; and the absence of any enforceable external standard all contribute to and account for a delay which has continuously plagued the PERB since its early years. 7 Recent years of PERS operations have been characterized by generalized dissatisfaction with the Board by unions who perceive the Board as biased in favor of management, by parties disgusted by long delays in the issuance of Board decisions, and by constituents who have sought alternative means of dispute resolution to avoid PERB involvement. While the present Board has reduced its backlog and adopted production quotas, and is attempting to redefine the goals and objectives of the Board to emphasize improving the collective bargaining process, the amount of time it takes for the Board to issue decisions has not improved sufficiently. FINDING #2: PERB MEMBERS ARE NOT QUALIFIED BY EXPERTISE OR EXPERIENCE TO CARRY OUT THEIR ESSENTIALLY JUDICIAL FUNCTIONS Unlike the requirement of a set number of years of prior practice imposed on appointees to judicial positions, there are no explicit competence standards or experience tests which appointees to the quasi-judicial Board positions at PERB must pass. The Governor appointments are subject only to Senate confirmation. Whereas appointees to the National Labor Relations Board and the New York State PERB are virtually all labor law professionals. In California the five member PERB, with responsibility for administering the EERA, the HEERA and the SEERA, is presently composed of the following: Deborah M. Hesse, Chair, now in her second term, was first appointed in 1984. Ms. Hesse has a Bachelors degree in Social Work and a Masters in Public Administration from California State University at Sacramento. She was the Assistant Director of the Governor's Office of Employee Relations in 1976 and 1977 before moving to the Department of Consumer Affairs and Investigative Services. From 1979 to 1983, Ms. Hesse was an Affirmative Action Officer for the State Department of Justice and, in 1983, became the Deputy Director of the State Department of Personnel Administration, a position she held until her appointment to the PERB. William A. Craib, appointed to the PERB in 1986, retired from the California Department of Transportation in 1981 after 23 years as an Engineer with the Department. From 1976 to 1979, Mr. Craib was the President of the California State Employees Association (CSEA), and from 1980 to 1983, served as President of the 500-member Assembly of Governmental Employees. Willard A. Schenk, appointed to the PERB in 1987, received his Bachelor of Law and Juris Doctor from the University of California at Berkeley and served in the Department of Justice beginning in 1950, in pOSitions including a Deputy Attorney General position, and Chief Assistant Attorney General in the Civil Division. He also was the Assistant Adjutant General of the California National Guard and the Adjutant General of the National Guard until 1987. Richard L. Camilli, appointed to the PERB in 1988. had been the Assistant Commissioner for the Department of Corporations' Health Care Services Division from 1984 to 1988. and from 1983 to 1984 was the Undersecretary for the Health & Welfare Agency. Previously, Mr. Camilli was Associate Warden for Folsom State Prison (1982-1983), Deputy Director for the Department of Corporations (1980-1982), and a Manager for the State Personnel Board (1976 to 1980). Alexander R. Cunningham, appointed to the Board in January 1990, replaced Stephen Porter, who resigned in November 1989 to accept appointment to the Municipal Court. Mr. Cunningham, from 1986 until his appointment, was Chief Deputy Director for the State Department 8 of Health and, since the earthquake in October 1989, served as Special Assistant to the Governor's Office on earthquake recovery issues. From 1983 to 1986, Mr. Cunningham was Chief Deputy Director for the State Department of Water Resources, and from 1978 to 1983, was the Director for the State Office of Emergency Services. He has a Bachelors Degree in Civil Engineering, which he earned at Villanova University in 1959. The labor law which PERB members must analyze and apply include statutes with deliberately vague language designed to satisfy labor and management but which have been given very specific meaning through years of interpretation by administrative and judicial bodies. An absence of fundamental grounding in those defining precedents hinders inexperienced members from participating fully in relevant deliberations, promotes the accusation made by a former Board member4 and others that the Board is constantly reinventing the wheel, and requires, at the least, a substantial period of learning before an inexperienced appointee can function efficiently. A delay in the issuance of decisions, that results from a new member properly insisting on developing competence and confidence before participating in the issuance of decisions, is compounded when members resign or leave their pOSitions and cases, for which they were responsible either as principal authors or as panel members, are reassigned. When former Board member Marty Morgenstern left the Board in January 1987, 19 cases to which he was assigned as a panel member had to be reassigned; in March 1987, when member Nancy Burt left the PERB 25 cases to which she was aSSigned as author or panel member had to be reassigned; when Betty Cordoba left the PERB in March 1988, 25 cases to which she was assigned as author or panel member had to be reassigned. With Steven Porter's departure in November 1989, 13 cases to which he was assigned will have to be reassigned, necessarily increasing the time required for the issuance of decisions in those cases. The pace of decision output from New York's PERB results, in part, from the absence of significant Board member turnover. In its 22-year history, New York's PERB has had only two Chairs who serve full-time on the three-member Board, and only eight other part-time members, all who have been professional arbitrators or labor law professors. The part-time members receive per diem payments of $250 for every day they attend meetings or work on decisions in their homes or offices, which according to the New York PERB Chair,5 results in total annual payments of apprOXimately $20,000 to those members. In its 14-year history, the California PERB has had 17 members and three Chairs, more than double the annual turnover experienced by New York's PERB. The principle distinction between the New York and California Boards which accounts for the effiCiency of New York's PERB is not ideological balance, but rather expertise and professionalism. Functionally, the PERB Board is not so much a political body as it is an appellate court explicating a technical body of law relying on accepted principles of labor law. New York's reliance on labor arbitrators to decide cases with the Board's Chair demonstrates its awareness of the need for technical expertise to function properly in the rarefied atmosphere of public sector labor law. That New York's PERB is non-partisan is demonstrated by its members' ability to survive the regular change of political parties in power in New York State. Furthermore, the longevity of the New York Board members and their counsel permits and promotes uniformity and continuity in their opinions and provides clear guidance to parties who, anticipating the Board's probable actions, often forgo appeal of adverse decisions to the Board and thereby reduce the number of cases ultimately to be considered by the members themselves. 9 Calls for a change in the method of appointment to California's PERB miss the mark. What is required are standards for appointment to the appellate body, just as such standards are applied by the California State Bar when it reviews proposed appointments to the judiciary. The first chairman of the EERB6 predicted that if labor law expertise were a requirement for appointment to the Board there would be no want of excellent candidates. Characterizing membership on the PERB as a "crushing bore for the inexperienced neophyte and enormously exciting for anyone who had acquired, through experience, an addictive fascination for the sophisticated issues arising under those labor law management relations laws interpreted by PERB members," he predicted the Board could easily draw the kind of labor law specialists who would efficiently and expertly decide the Board's cases. One union, the California Correctional Peace Officers Association, and the state employer have decided to submit their disputes to arbitration before an arbitrator from the American Arbitration Association, instead of to the PERB. Other unions are reportedly avoiding utilizing the PERB processes. When parties shun the PERB, the agency established to hear and resolve their disputes, the PERB simply isn't doing its job. When a Board delay in ruling on unfair practice charges, such as in relation to the Los Angeles Unified School District situation which ended in a strike in 1989, makes the PERB irrelevant to the parties, change is necessary. FINDING #3: THE STATE IS PROVIDING AN UNLIMITED SUBSIDY FOR SCHOOL DISTRICTS' COLLECTIVE BARGAINING EXPENSES AT A COST OF MORE THAN $30 MILLION ANNUALLY Union representatives involved in last year's Los Angeles Unified School District strike accused the District of prolonged, unproductive bargaining negotiations which did not successfully bridge the gap between the parties. The District's negotiations' costs were paid from the State's general fund under a system that allows local governments, including school districts, to seek 100 percent state reimbursement of programs mandated by the State. Originating in Senate Bill 90. entitled The Property Relief Act of 1972, the Legislature resolved to reimburse local governments for the costs of new programs or increased levels of service mandated by state government. Proposition 4, which added Article XIlIB to the California Constitution in 1979, required reimbursement to local government for the costs of new programs mandated by the Legislature or any state agency or for increased levels of service. Beginning January 1, 1985, the Commission on State Mandates, a quasi-judicial body, was created and assigned responsibility to hear and decide claims from local governments that they are entitled to reimbursement by the State for costs mandated by the State. In the fiscal years 1986-87. 1987-88, and 1988-89, $12,133,000 was allocated for reimbursement for school district collective bargaining costs, and in 1988-89, over $30,000,000 has been made available. As Chart V illustrates, Los Angeles School District alone has received close to a million dollars each year for the last three fiscal years to cover collective bargaining expenses. Reimbursement requests for collective bargaining costs for selected districts for fiscal years 1985- 86 to 1987-88 are set out in Chart V below. 10 CHART V REIMBURSEMENT REQUESTS FROM SELECTED SCHOOL DISTRICTS FOR COLLECTIVE BARGAINING COSTS 1985-86 through 1987-88 1985-86 1986-87 1987-88 Large School Districts Los Angeles $818,736 $980,376 $960,707 Sweetwater 230,187 176,616 125,673 Manhattan 181,156 385,576 48,041 Medium School Districts Mountain View $ 21,397 $ 5,450 $ 53,341 Capistrano 46,232 66,907 103,520 Martinez 59,051 12,526 25,107 King City 2,739 13,329 34,450 Small School Districts Milpitas $ 43,992 $ 22,700 $ 16,943 Mt. Pleasant 20,615 21,123 18,359 Butte 6,767 11,206 7,347 Source: State Controller's Office Form FAM-27 Since the funds are reimbursed without review of the policy behind the expenditure decisions, no cost/benefit analysis of the collective bargaining expenditures have been conducted. School employee union leaders and PERB staff see the generous financing of school district collective bargaining expenses by the state as a means of prolonging the collective bargaining process. With the passage of Proposition 98, the reimbursement of costs for state mandated programs, including collective bargaining, reduces the total funds available for education so that there is a one-to-one correspondence between expenditures on collective bargaining and reduction in funds available for classroom instruction, teachers' salaries, or other education purposes, abolishing the luxury which school districts previously possessed of having the state underwrite their collective bargaining costs without affecting the funds available for education. However, since dollars spent on school districts' collective bargaining come out of total education appropriations at the state level, but each school district determines what it will spend on collective bargaining, there still is no incentive for the districts to scrutinize their spending with a cost/benefit analysis clearly in mind. 11 With school district collective bargaining expenses being reimbursed up to $30,000,000 annually, serious efforts must be made to limit collective bargaining and legal fee expenses. Presently, there is presently no information available to permit an evaluation of the effectiveness of collective bargaining dollars spent to aid in the decision as to whether or at what level to support collective bargaining. Deborah Hesse, PEAB Chair, complained at the Little Hoover Commission's August 17, 1989 hearing, that the State Department of Finance could not even determine how much of the SB90 reimbursement funds went for collective bargaining as opposed to legal fees for litigation. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDA1·IONS The Little Hoover Commission recognizes that the California Public Employment Relations Board is attempting to improve its performance. Since the scope of the report did not include a review of collective bargaining laws administered by the PERB itself, we are not suggesting any fundamental changes in those laws; rather, we suggest changes to enhance the effective implementation of California's public sector labor laws. The Little Hoover Commission believes the following recommendations will assist the state in this endeavor: 1. To accelerate the pace of issuance of decisions and to provide economy, the Governor and the Legislature should enact a measure to reduce the number of Board members from five to three which, if joined with the recommendation below relating to establishment of qualifications for appOintment to the PERB, should allow the streamlining of the decision making process and the issuance of more timely decisions. 2. Given the workload of the Board, the assignment of two Board counsel to every Board member seems an unnecessary luxury which has not beneficially affected the pace of the production of decisions. To provide economy, the Governor and the Legislature should reduce the PERB's budget to limit the number of Board counsel to one per member while reducing the Board size to three. This modification should result in the annual savings of more than $500,000 or almost 10 percent of the PERB budget. 3. To facilitate the monitoring of the Board's efficiency, effectiveness and productivity, the Governor and the Legislature should enact a measure to require the Board to report to the Legislature quarterly, in a clearly presented format, the following information: (a) the number of PERB decisions. decisions on administrative appeals, and actions on injunctive relief requests; (b) the median number of days it took to issue the above-identified deCisions; (c) the median number of days to issue such decisions; (d) the number of appeals to the Board docketed; and (e) the number of appeals pending before the Board. 4. To identify the causes of the delay, the reasons for the delay in issuance of decisions should be reported for each case on the docket longer than the average number of days taken by the Board to issue its decisions in the previous quarter. 12 5. To increase the professionalism of the Board and the respect it commands from its constituencies, the Governor and the Legislature should enact a measure to ensure that members appointed to the Board have demonstrated competence in public sector labor law and that members serve longer terms. 6. To ensure maximum continuity and increased respect for the Board's expertise, the Governor and the Legislature should enact a measure to designate as PERB Chair the Board member with the greatest seniority on the PERB. 7. To allow the accurate assessment of the cost of school districts' collective bargaining, statistics should be collected and published by the State Controller's Office showing the amount spent, by school district, on collective bargaining in each fiscal year, thus enabling the state better to evaluate the effectiveness of these expenditures. The Commission believes that the Governor and the Legislature should adopt the recommendations outlined in this report, thereby assuring the enhancement of California's public sector labor laws. Sincerely, irman aig Mardikian, Vic Chairman Senator Alfred Alquist Mary Anne Chalker Albert Gersten Senator Milton Marks Assemblywoman Gwen Moore George Paras Abraham Spiegel Barbara Stone Richard Terzian Assemblyman Phillip Wyman 13 ATTACHMENT A LIST OF WITNESSES TESTIFYING AT THE COMMISSION'S AUGUST 1989 HEARING ON THE PERS The Honorable Albert Rodda Former State Senator Deborah Hesse, Chair Public Employment Relations Board Kirsten Zerger, Former Legislative Counsel California Teachers Association Garry G. Mathiason, Labor Attorney Littler, Mendelson, Fastiff & Tichy David Tirapelie, Director Public Employment Relations Board John Britz, Bargaining Specialist California Teachers Association Gordon Krischer, Attorney O'Melveny & Myers 14 ATTACHMENT B DATA REGARDING DECISIONS SUBMITTED BY THE PERB 2/14./90 CLOSED B(JARD CASES - 7/01/86 TO 6/30/87 NUMBER OF DAYS PUT ON BOARD BETWEEN DOCKETING CASE NUMBER CASE NAME DOCKET DECISION DECISION ~ & ISSUING DECISION LA-D -00176-E FONTANA CLASS EMP ASSOC/NEA 12/27/85 7/31/86 AD 157E 216 SF-D -00129-E ALUM ROCK UN S[I 8/16/85 8/06/86 AD 158E 355 SF-D -00129-E ALUM ROCK S[I 9/22/86 12/30/86 AD 158EA 99 LA-[I -00197-E COAST CCD 7/17/86 10/15/86 AD 159E 90 S -CE-00273-S PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION 11/06/86 11/10/86 AD 160S 4 S -CE-00273-S PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION 11/1.3/86 1/12/87 AD 160SA 60 LA-CE-02169-E RIM OF THE WORLD USD 12/04/85 12/31/86 AD 161E 392 LA-PN-00089-E LOS ANGELES USD 9/02/86 2/05/87 AD 162E 156 LA-D -00200-E SANTA MONICA-MALIBU USD 1/02/87 4/15/87 A[I 163E 103 LA-[I -00200-E SANTA MONICA-MALIBU USD 6/01/87 6/23/87 AD l63EA 22 SF -UM-00~"385-E PERALTA CCD 2/24/f37 6/1.8/87 AD l64E 114 S -CO-00145-E SACRAMENTO CITY USB 1/2J./El7 '2/17/87 H~ 049E 27 LA-CO-00396-E COMPTON USD 2/18/87 3/17/87 IR 050E 27 S -CE-00238-S X DEVELOPMENTAL SERVICES J./23/86 3/03/87 F'Erm 551SA 404 S --CE-00286-E X MODESTO C b HSD 6/02/86 2/13/87 F'ERB 566EA 256 LA-CO-00307-E RIO HONDO CLG F A (FURRIEL) 9/12/85 7/30/8':, PEF~B 5!:l3E 321 S -CE-00939-E ANDERSON UN HSD 4/01/86 B/29/86 PEHB 584E 150 S -CE-00275-S PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION 4/22/86 9/04/86 PERB 5858 135 SF-R -00668-H UC 11/20/85 9/23/86 F'ERB 586H 307 LA-CE-02354-E LOS ANGELES USD 7/31/86 9/25/86 F'Er,B 587E 56 LA-CE-02307--E LOS ANGELES USD 7/01/86 9/25/86 PERB 588E 86 LA-CE -02341--'E BURBANK USD 7/:!1/86 9/25/86 F'ERB 589E 66 SF -CO-OOO 11-1 ~ CSEA ([lEES) 7/1-l/86 9/25/86 PERB 590H 73 LA-CO-00006-H lUOE LOC 501 (REICH) 5/01/86 10/03/86 PEF,B 591H 155 LA-CE -02188-E FUVERSIDE USD (/2-V86 10/10/86 PERB 592E 78 LA-CE-02089-E INGLEWOOD USD 12/23/85 10/15/86 PERI' 5r,l3E 296 SF-CE--Ol094-E PLEASANTON .JT SD 6/17/86 10/:30/86 PEPB 594E 135 LA-CE-01602-E X PLACENTIA USD 9/06/83 11/0,1/86 F'ERB 595E 1154 SF-CO-00014-H CSEA (O'CONNELL) 6/17/86 12/16/86 F'ERB 5961-1 182 S -CE-00943-E CLOVIS USD 1/23/06 12/19/86 F'ERB 597E 330 LA--CO-00338-E A T METRO RIVERSIDE (PETRICH 9/09/86 12/22/136 F'ERB 598E 104 LA-CE-02375-E LOS ANGELES US[I 9/15/1:16 12/23/1:16 F'ERB 599E 99 S -CE-00291-S PERSONNEL ADMINISfRATION 10/17/86 12/24/86 PERB 6008 68 S -CE-00261-S DPA/DDS/[IMH 12/01/86 12/30/86 F'ERB 601S 29 LA-CE-01643-E RANCHO SANTIAGO CCD 3/12/84 12/30/86 F'ERB 602E 1023 LA-CE -0207 6--E LAKE F,LSINClr'::E SD 3/25/(36 12/30/86 F'ERB 603E 280 LA-CO-00020-S CSEA (FRY) 1/21/!36 12/30/86 PERB 6048 343 LA-CE-00141-H CSU (FULLERTON) 6/04/86 12/31/86 F'ERB 605H 210 LA-CE-00141-H esu (FULLERTON) 2/17/87 4/30/87 F'ERB 605HA 72 LA-CE-02028-E LAI\E ELSINORE 5[1 6/1.1./85 12/31/86 F'E:RB 606E 568 SF-CE-00192-H X CSU, -HAYWARD ([lEES) 10/15/04 1/02/87 F'ERB 607H 809 LA-CE-01329-E X LONG BEACH L1SD 9/ J.9/0'\ 1/07/87 PERB 608E 840 S -CO-00062--S PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION 7/31/86 1/09/87 PERB 609S 162 LA-CE-02101-E SAN [lIEGO USD 1/29/86 1./1~;/87 F'ERB 610E 351 LA-CE-01736-E LOS ANGELES l.JS[I 8/14/86 1/28/87 F'ER[~ 611E 167 S -CO-000~_;9-S AI""SCME (ClJPP) 5/30/86 2/06/87 PEFm 612 S 252 LA-CE-00150-H CSU (CFA) 9/04/8'<' 2/()9/~r( PEJ;'B 613H 158 S -CO-00054-S CSEA (MORROW) 12/16/86 2/20/87 PERB 614S 66 SF-CE-'00121-H UC (YEARY> 3/29/85 3/03/87 F'ERB 615H 704 15 2/14/90 CLOSED BOAR!:' CASES - 7/01/86 TO 6/30/87 NUMBER OF DAYS PUT ON BOARD BElWEEN DOCKETING CASE NUMBER CASE NAME DOCKET DECISION DECISION,. & ISSUING DECISION LA-CO-00365-E UTLA <BRACEY) 11/12/86 3/27/87 PERB 616E 135 LA-CE-02386-E LOS ANGELES CCD 1/21/87 3/27/87 PERB 617E 85 LA-CE-02402-E LOS ANGELES CC[I 1/21/87 3/31/87 PERB 618E 69 S -CE-00238-S DEVELOPMENTAL SERVICES 7/22/86 4/17/87 PERB 6.1.95 269 S -CE-Ol026-E OAKDALE JT UN H5D 4/28/87 5/20/87 PERB 620E 22 LA-CO-OOO07-H CFA (CSU) 10/21/86 5/29/87 PERB 621HV 220 LA-CE-02112-E X RIVERSIDE USD 3/25/86 6/11/87 PERB 622E 443 LA-CE-02463-E LOS ANGELES CCD 5/04/87 6/17/87 PERIl 623£ 44 LA-CE-01938-E INGLEWOOI:I USD 1/16/86 6/23/87 F"ERB 624E 523 LA-CE-02040-E X FOUNTAIN VALLEY ESD 5/06/85 6/23/87 PERB 625E 778 LA-CO-00377-E TUSTIN usn 3/05/87 6/23/87 PERB 626E 110 LA-CO-00379-E LA usn PEACE OFF ASSN (BROWN 4/20/87 6/23/87 PERB 627E 64 S -CE-00759-E X WOODLAND JT USD 6/10/85 6/30/87 PERB 628E 750 X Case delay due to Board Member turnover. 16 2/14/90 CLOSED BOARD CASES - 7/01/87 TO 6/30/88 NUMBER OF DAYS PUT ON BOARD BETWEEN DOCKETING CASE NUMBER CASE NAME DOCKET DECISION DECISION ~ & ISSUING DECISION LA-D -00176-E FONTANA usn 10/01/87 11/06/87 AD 157EA 36 LA-CE-00163-H uc (OANIiASAN) 7/10/87 7/14/87 AD 165H 4 LA-CE-02399-E RIVERSIDE USD 4/15/87 9/16/87 AD 166E 154 LA-FS-00003-E LOCAL 99, SEIU (KIMMETT) 9/21/87 12/18/87 AD 167E 88 LA-CO-00023-S CCPOA (FORD) 5/28/87 4/21/88 AD 1685 328 LA-Ii -00176-E FONTANA USD 12/14/87 6/20/88 AD 169E 188 LA-D -00213-E ALHAMBRA C ~ HSD 8/04/87 6/20/88 AD 170E 320 SF-D -00169-E OAKLAND USD 6/08/88 6/29/88 AD 171E 21 LA-CE-02359-E *RIVERSIDE USD 6/08/87 9/23/87 IR 51E 107 LA-R -00835-E LOS ANGELES usn 10/01/87 12/30/87 PERB 424EA 90 LA-CO-00007-H CFA (CSU) 8/28/87 9/24/87 PERB 621HA 27 LA-CE-02112-E RIVERSIDE USD 7/24/87 8/31/87 F'ERB 622EA 38 LA-CO-00377-E TUSTIN usn 8/03/87 10/29/87 F'ERB 626EA 87 SF-CE-01052-E TRINIDAD/PENINSULA 1/26/87 7/08/87 PERB 629E 163 LA-CE-02168-E XKERN COUNTY OFFiCE OF EDU 2/03/86 7/14/87 PERB 630E 526 LA-CE-01986-E SAN DIEGO usn 12/12/86 8/18/87 PERB 631E 249 LA-CE-02399-E RIVERSItIE usn 6/08/87 8/26/87 PERB 632E 79 LA-CE-00153-H CSU (CFA) 2/19/87 9/24/87 PERB 633H 217 LA-CE-00156-H CSU (CFA) 5/20/87 9/24/87 PERB 634H 127 LA-CE-00149-H CSU <CFA) 8/28/87 9/24/87 PERB 635H 27 5 -CE-00306-S CA COMMUNITY COLLEGES 6/08/87 10/06/87 F'ERB 6365 120 LJll-CD-00027-S ASSN CA ST ATTYS (MAYER) 6/22/87 10/06/87 PERB 6378 106 5 -CE-01052-E LOS RIOS CCD 3/18/87 11/03/87 PERB 638E 230 LA-CE-02359-E RIVERSIDE USD 7/08/87 11/23/87 PERB 639E 138 SF-CE-00200-H UC <UNIV COUNCIL. AFT) 3/23/87 12/10/87 F'ERB 640H 262 LA-CE-00130-H CSll (LONG BEACH) 1/23/87 12/11/87 PERB 641H 322 LA-CE-02:248-·E PALO VEt,DE USD 7/20/87 12/15/87 PERB 642E 148 S -CO-00021-S*X CAUSE (ECKSTEIN) 5/07/84 12/18/87 PERB 643S 225 S -CO-00047-S *PORAC & CAFDO (ECKSTEIN) 6/24/85 12/18/87 PERB 6448 907 LA-CO-00392--E LA SCH EMF' UN LOC 99 (MORG.,\N ·l/06/87 12/18/87 PER£< 645E 256 LA-CE-01827-E XLAKE ELSINORE 5D 9/11/85 12/18/87 PERB 64/JE 828 LA-UM-00408-E IMPERIAL USD 8/24/87 12/18/87 PERr~ 647E 116 S -CE-00125-S *PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION 6/27/84 12/18/87 PERB 648S 1269 LA-CE-02393-E *COMPTON CCD 12/30/86 12/21/87 PERB 649E 356 SF-CE-00979-E REDWOODS CCD 8/25/86 12/28/87 PERB 650E 490 SF-CE-00779-E FREMONT UN HSD 6/10/85 12/30/87 PERB 651E 933 SF-CO-00313-E *CTA (CLEGG) 4/28/87 12/30/87 PERB 652E 246 SF-CO-00314-E *NAT'L ED ASSN (CLEGG) 4/28/87 12/30/87 PERB 653E 246 S -CE-00029-H UC (DAVIS) 4/15/87 12/31/87 PERB 654H 260 LA-CO-00400-E *CTA. (HENKEL. ET i'lL) 4/17/87 12/31/87 PERB 655E 258 LA-CO-00402-E *NAT'L ED ASSN(HENKEL. ET i'lL) 4/17/87 12/31/87 PERB 656E 258 LA-CO-00017-S CCPOA (PACILLAS) 12/10/85 12/31/87 PERB 6576 751 SF-CO-00310-E BERKELEY FED TEACHERS (MOOf~E 11/0'?/87 2/22/88 PERB 658E 105 LA-CE-02243-E LOS ANGELES USD 3/31/87 3/16/88 PERB 659E 350 L.A-·CO-00413-E C SCI-! EA (MF~VICHIN) 1/07/88 4/01/88 PERB 660E 84 LA-CO-00416-E C SCH EA (MRVICHIN) 1/07/88 4/01/88 PERB 661E 84 LA-CE-01905-E SAN DIEGO CCD 6/27/86 4/05/88 PERB 662£ 647 S -CO-00042-S UAPD (STEWART) 7/28/86 4/13/88 PERB 6638 624 LA-CO-00369-E OXNARD ED A CGORCEY & TRIPP) 9/15/86 5/05/88 PERB 664E 597 17 2/14/90 CLOSED BOARD CASES - 7/01/~7 TO 6/JO/88 NUMBER OF DAYS PUT ON BOARD BEiWEEN DOCKETING CASE NUMBER CASE NAME DOCKET DECISION DECISION. & ISSUING oeCISION * SF-CO-OO30!5-E CTA (ABBOT) 4/28/87 5/20/88 PERB 665E 387 LA-CE-01964\-E LAKE ELSINORE SO 10/21/85 5/23/88 F'EF\j'B 666E 944 LA-CE-02389-E X OXNARD SO 9/08/86 5/26/98 PERB 667E 625 S -CE-01006-E TAHOE-TRUCKEE USD <4/06/87 5/27/89 PERB 668E 416 * LA-CE-02363-E CHAFFEY JT UN HSD 7/29/86 5/31/88 PERB 669E 672 S -CE-01053-E LOS RIOS CCD 9/04/97 6/02/98 F'ERB 670E 271 LA-CE-02527-E SAVANNA SD 12/11/87 6/07/88 PERB 671E 178 LA-CE-02529-E HUNTINGTON BEACH CSD 12/11/87 6/07/88 PERB 672E 178 LA-CE-02529-E OCEAN VIEW SO 12/11/87 6/07/88 PERB 673E 178 LA-CE-02307-E LOS ANGELESUSD 6/18/87 6/08/88 PERB 674E 355 LA-CE-02512-E ANAHEIM CSD 12/11/87 6/09/88 PERB 675E 180 LA-CE-02517-E MAGNOLIA t::L SO 12/28/87 6/09/88 F'ERB 676E 163 Lft-CE-02532-E WESTMINSTER SD 12/11/97 6/09/88 PERB 677E 180 Ul-CE-02:511-E SADDLEBACK CCD 12/07/87 6/10/88 PEF,B 678E 185 S -CE-01179-E SAN JUAN usn 6/01/88 6/10/88 PERB 679E 9 LA-CE-02331-E * POWAY USD 7/28/87 6/15/88 PERB 680E 322 LA-CO-00369-E OXNARD ED ASSC (GORCEY /TR IF'P 8/21/87 6/20/88 F'ERB 681E 303 LA-CO-OO010-H AFSCME, COUNCIL 10 (OLSON) 5/09/138 6/20/88 PERB 682H 42 SF-CO-OOO12-S AFSCME 2620 (MOORE) 5/18/88 6/20/88 PERB 683S 33 S -CE-00992-E LOS RIOS CCD 11/07/86 6/23/88 PERB 684£ 593 LA-CE-02267-E HACIEN[IA LA PUENTE USD 2/24/87 6/24/88 F'ERB 685E 485 LA-CE-02634\-E LOS ANGELES US[I 12/29/87 6/24/88 PERB 686E 177 S -CE-00879-E COTTONWOOD UN SO 6/13/86 6/27/88 PF.:RB 687E 744 SF-CE-0111<4-E SAN FRANCISCO CCD 6/01/87 6/27/88 PERB 688E 391 LA-CE-02313-E X PALO VERDE USD 3/12/87 6/30/88 PERB 689E 475 SF-CE-00077-S X FORESTRY 9/23/87 6/30/88 PERB 690S 280 LA-C -00077-E MT SAN ANTONIO CC[I 2/02/88 6/30/88 PERB 691E 148 * Case delays due to party-initiated delay or held in abeyance pending litigation, X Case delays due to Board Member turnover, 18 2/15/90 CLOSED BOARD CASES - 7/01/88 TO 6/30/89 NUMBER OF DAYS PUT ON tiOARD BETWEEN DOCKETING CASE NUMBER CASE NAME DOCKET !)EC H:iI ON DECISION ~ &. ISSUING DECISION SF-D -00169-E * OAKLAND USD 7/25/88 10/13/88 AD 171EA 80 SF-D -00169-E OAKLAND USD 6/08/88 7/14/88 AD 172E 36 LA-D -00219-E POWAY USI) 5/31./88 7/18/88 AD 173E 48 LA-C -00135-H CSU (SUF'A) 3/14/88 8/24/88 AD 1741-\ 163 S L A - -M D - - 0 0 0 18 1 9 1 0 0 - - H E S C H SU A ST (C A F A U > N HSD 5 7 / / 3 1 1 4 / / 8 88 8 1 1 1 2 / / 3 1 0 6 / / 8 8 8 8 A A D D 1 17 7 ~ 7 .i H E 1 1 8 5 3 5 LA-M -01890-H CSU (CFA) 1/16/89 2/15/89 AD 177HA 30 S -UM-00403-S PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION 6/28/88 12/20/88 AD 1788 175 LA-I) -00231-E *F'ASADENA AREA CCD 6/06/88 12/29/88 AP 179E 206 LA-D -00234-'E PASADENA US!) 10/10/88 2/17/89 AD 180E 130 S -8 -00124'-S PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION 4/24/89 5/12/89 AD 181S 18 8 -CE-01112'-E Gf\IDLEY UN HSD 10/03/88 5/1(",/89 AD 182E 225 8 -D -00120-8 PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION 4/20189 5/23/89 A[I 1.838 33 8F-CE-01162-E EUREKA CS 2/0J/88 5/25/89 AD 184E 478 LA-CE-02795-E IMPERIAL USD 5/15/89 6/08/89 AD 185E 24 LA-CE-02792-F.: CALIPATRIA USD 6/08/8<'> 6/09/89 ,\[1 18,f,E 1 S -[0 -00118-E * JAMESTOWN f:SD 1/30/89 6/21/89 AD 187E 142 LA-CE-02771-E CORONADO U8D 5/04/89 6/27/89 AD 18ElE 54 LA-CE-00255-H CSU (WANG) 5/12/89 5/18/89 DENIED REO 6 8 -CE-00414-S OFFICE OF STATE PRINTING 11/08/88 11/09/88 DENIED REO 1 LA-CO-00462-E L.OS ,;NGELE5 Utm 1.1/15/88 11/16/88 DENIED F:EO 1 LA-CE-02869-E A£IC USD 6/08/89 6/L5/89 DENIED REa 5 8F -CO-00360'-E SAN JOSE USD 6/14/89 6/15/89 DENIED REO 1 L 8 A - - C CE E - - 0 0 1 0 9 1 0 2 5 5 -- - E 8 S P A E N R SO D N IE N G E O L e A C D l M ) INISTRATION 6 9 / / 0 0 6 8 / / 8 8 8 8 1 1 1 2 / / 2 2 8 0 / / 8 8 8 8 F F' 'E E R F~ B B 6 6 6 4 2 8 E S A A 1 1 0 7 3 5 LA-CO-00369-E OXNARD ED A (GORCEY b TRIPP) 6/1:::;;88 8/26/88 PERB 664EA 72 8 L F A - - C C E O - - 0 O 1 O 1 O 1 I 4 I - -H E * S C A F N A F (W RA AN N G C ) I SCO CCD 8 7/ / 2 2 6 9 / / 1 8 3 8 8 1 10 2 / / 1 2 B 9/ / 8 8 8 8 F F' ' E E H R E B I 6 6 9 88 2 E A , H ~ 1 8 2 4 2 LA-CO-00011-H *CFA (WANG) 3/1.5/88 7/26/88 PERB 692H 133 LA-CO--OOO 16--H CA FACULTY ASSN (HALE. ET i'lL 3/07/88 7/26/88 PEF:B 693H 141 LA--CE -00220-H UC (WATEF,S) 3/11/88 7/26/88 PEf..:B 694H 137 SF-CO-00339-E AMER FED TCHRS LOCAL 2121 4/21/88 7/28/88 PERB 695E 98 LA-CE-01968-E XLAKE ELSINORE SD 7/31/86 9/07/88 PERB 696E 768 LA-CO-00013-H AFSCME (W,~ TEf;:S ) ~j/31/88 9/26/88 F'ERB 697H 118 LA-CO-00017-H CFA (P()MERANTSEV) 7/11/88 9/26/88 PERB 698H 77 LA-CE-00223-H UC (RIDLEY) 5/23/88 <'>/27/88 F'ERB 699H 127 LA-CE-00227-H UC (RIDLEY) 6/15/88 9/27/88 PERB 700H 104 SF-CE-01230-E CAMPBELL UN H5[; 7/11/88 10/12/88 PERB 701E 93 SF- CE'-01104-E *EUREKA CITY SD 7/22/87 10/19/88 PERB 702E 454 8F-CE-01146-E SAN FRANCISCO CCD 5/26/87 10/28/8tl F'ERD 703E 52Q SF-CE-01146-E SAN FRANCISCO CCO 12/12/88 2/16/89 F'ERB 703EA 66 LA-C£-02630--E COMPTON CCD 4/04/88 11/22/88 PER£< 704E 232 LA-PN-00091-E LOS ANGELES USC 2/29/88 12/16/88 F'ERB 705E 291 LA-F'N-00091-E LOS ANGELES usn 1/31/89 6/19/89 PERB 705EA 139 S -CE'-00371-S PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION 5/09/08 12/16/88 PERB 7065 221 LA-CE-00231-H UC (RIDLEY) 11/04/88 12/21/88 PERB 707H 47 LA-CE-02224-E PLEASANT VALLEY S[I 1/12/87 12/21/88 PERB 708£ 708 LA-CO--00015-H CFA (HOLLIS, ET AL) 11/0'7/138 12/21/88 F'Em,1 709H 42 LA-CE-00222-H CSU (HOL.LIS, ET AL) 11/01/88 12/21/88 PERB 710H 50 19 2/15/90 CLOSED BOARD CASES - 7/01/88 TO 6/30/89 NUMBER OF DAYS PUT ON BOARD BETWEEN DOCKETING CASE NUMBER CASE NAME [IDCKET DECISION DECISION ~ & ISSUING DECISION LA-CO-00452-E SAN MARCOS EA (DURAN-CHUGON) 9'/20/88 12/21/88 PERB 711E 92 S -CO-00180-E LOS RIOS CFT LOC 2279 (BARTH 9/28/88 12/29/88 PERB 712E 92 LA-PN-00097-E UT OF LA <WATTS) 8/29/88 1:2/29/88 PERB 713E 123 LA-CE-02471-E * BONITA USD 6/08/87 12/29/88 PERB 714E 569 LA-CE-02349-E LAKE ELSINORE SD 4/03/87 12/29/88 PERB 715E 635 LA-CE-00216-H * UC <W ATERS) 11/05/88 12/30/88 PERB 716H 55 SF-CE-01242-E KLAMATH-TRINITY JT US[I 7/05/88 12/30/88 F'ERB 717E 178 LA-CE-00115-H CSU (SAN DIEGO) 5/05/86 1/17/89 F'ERB 718H 987 LA-CE-00213-H CSU (UNITED F'I:;:OF OF CA) 5/09'/88 1/19/89 PERB 719H 255 LA-CE-01865-E COMPTON CC[I 8/05/85 3/01/89 PERB 720E 1303 LA-CE-01865-E COMPTON CCD 3/27/89 6/19/89 PERB 720EA 84 LA-CE-01151-E ,~X LONG BEACH USD 1/03/84 3/03/89 PERB 721E 1884 LA-CE -0 1151-E LONG BEACH USD 4/17/89 6/06/89 PERB 721EA 50 SF-CE-00247-H UC <CA NURSES ASSN) 3/02/88 3/03/89 F'ERB 722H 366 LA-CE-02051-E *XSAN BERNARDINO CITY usn 5/03/85 3/08/89 PERB 723E 1404 LA-CE-02661-E ANTELOPE VALLEY UN HSD ll./1.4/t'l8 3/14/89 PERB 724E 120 SF-CE-00044-H UC CUC, AFT, LOC 2034. ET AL 10/11/88 3/21/89 PERB 725H 161 SF-CO-00014-H XCSEA (O'CONNEU_' 11/20/87 3/21/89 PERl:< 726H 486 S -UM-002'.38-S XPER60NNEL ADMINISTRATION 8/03/87 4/03/89 F'ERB 7275 608 LA-CE-02276-E COMPTON CCD 9/08/88 4/04/89 PERB 728E 208 SF-CE-00271-H CSU, CHICO 9/06/f38 -,\/14/89 PERB 729H 220 SF-CE-00179-H UC (AGSN GRAD STUDENT EMPS) 5/06/88 4/:26/89 PERB 730H 355 LA-PN-00099-E LOS ANGELES CCD 12/19/88 5/03/89 PE~:B 731E 135 S -CE-00372-S CORRECTIONS 12/01/88 5/03/89 PERB 7325 153 S -CO-00085-S C8EA (PARISI) 3/06/89 5/()3/89 PEI:;:B 7338 58 S -CE-00392-S FORESTRY 1/03/89 5/03/8'" PErm 734S 120 LA-CE-00240-+1 UC (NAPIEF,'S EMF' SEC AGENCY; L2,h) l/(!l'l 5/04/89 PEREt 735H 154 SF-R -00689-E XUPF'El::: LAKE UN SD 10/17/88 5/04/89 PERB 736E 199 LA-CE-02814-E LOS ANGELES USD 2/27/89 5/24/89 PERB 737E 86 LA-CO-00439-E UT -,LA (ABBOUD t ET AL) 1/:30/0"1 6/08/89 F'ERE~ 738E 129 S -CE-00410'-S PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION ~5/(:"8/B9 b/08/8't PEI:;:B 7398 91 LA-PN-00105-E AFT. LOCAL 1521 (WATTS) 1/17/89 6/14/89 F'ERB 740E 148 LA-CE-02542-E *HACIENDA L.A PUENTE USD 11/0l/88 6/1.6/89 PERB 741E 227 SF-CE-01274--E LOS GATOS-SARATOGA ....IT UN HSD 2/27/89 6/19/89 F'ERB 742E 112 S -CE-Ol111-E BUTTE CCD 9/12/88 6/19/89 F'ERB 743E 280 SF-CE-01119-E XCALISTOGA ....IT US[I 10/27/87 6/19/89 PERB 744E 600 LA-CO-00031-S CAPT (LONG) 8/30/88 6/20/89 PERB 7456 294 SF-CO-00016-H CFA (HIRHADY) 12/09/87 6/26/89 PERB 746H 564 SF-CE-00934-E *XALAI1EDA CO SUPT OF SCHOOLS B/2.3/8~5 <',,/27/89 F'ERB 747E 1403 LA-CE -023C-!6-E LO$ ANGELES CCD 3/27/8"1 6/28/B9 PERB 7-'8E 93 S -CE-00363-S YOUTH AUTHORITY 11/10/88 6/28/89 PERB 7498 230 LA-CE-02609-'E F,IVERSIDE US,!) 9/08/88 6/29/89 F'ERB 750E 294 SF-CE-01l57-E SAN RAMON VALLEY USD 4/28/87 6/29/89 F'ERB 751E 792 S -UM-00389-E SANGER usn 5/1<'0/88 6/30/89 F'ERB 752E 410 SF-CO-00012-H *CSEA (O'CONNELL) 5/01/87 6/30/1:19 PERB 753H 790 * Case delays due to party-initiated delay or held in abeyance pending litigation. X Case delays due to Board Member turnover. 20 2/14/90 CLOSED BOARD CASES - 7/01/89 TO 2/14/90 NUMBER OF DAYS PUT ON BOARD BETWEEN DOCKETING CASE NUMBER CASE NAME (lOCKET DECISION DECISION ~ & ISSUING DECISION S -[l -00118-E JAMESTOWN ESD 8/07/89 9/05/89 AD 187EA 29 LA-CE-02795-E IHF'ERIAL USD 5/15/89 711:189 AD 189£ 58 LA::-CE-02789-E TEMPLE CITY usn 6/19/89 7/12/89 AD 190E 23 5 -S -o0124-S PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION 1/09/89 8/24/89 AD 1915 227 S -S -00124-5 PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION 10/10/89 11/21/89 AD 1915A 42 5 -5 -00124-S PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION 9/27/89 11/21/89 Art 1915:3 55 S -CE-00032-H CSU (SUPA) 7/27/89 9/11/8';' AD 192H 46 LA-CE-02792-E CALIPATRIA usn 6/19/89 9/15/89 AD 193E 88 S -CE-00425-S PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION 9/05/89 9/21/89 AD 1945 16 S -CE-00427-S GENERAL SERVICES 9/05/89 9/21/89 AD 1955 16 LA-CE-00210-H UC (DAVIS, ET AL) 10/1"3/89 10/26/89 AD 197H 13 S -R -00836-E BUTTE CCD 12/05/88 11/01/89 An 198E 331 SF-UM-00440-E RICHMOND USD 9/18189 11/06/89 AD 199£ 49 SF-CE-01247-E SAN FRANCISCO USD 6/12/89 12/06/89 AD 200E 177 SF-D -00173-E KELSEYVILLE ustt 13/01/89 12/29/8'';; A[I 201E 150 LA-CE-00210-H UC (DAVIS, ET AL' IJ/()9/89 12/29/89 AD 202H 50 S -R -00836-E *[lUrTE cc[t 6/13/89 9/27/89 A[I'-196E 106 SF-CO-00367-E SAN JOSE usn 9/01/89 9/05/8" DENIED REQ 4 LA-CE-02920-E CHARTER OAK LJSD 2/01/90 2/01/';.>0 DENIED REIJ o LA-CO-00500-E SANTA MARIA JT UN HSD 10/30/B9 11/02/89 IR 053E 3 SF-CE-Ol114-E SAN FRANCISCO ceD 11/21/8'';; 12/20/89 F'ERB 688E3 29 SF-CE-01146-E SAN FRANCISCO cc[t 10/11/89 11/28/89 F'Er;:[l 703EB 48 SF-CE-01146-E SAN FRANCISCO CCD 1/05/90 1,/22/90 F'ERB 703EC 17 SF-CE-00271-H CSU, CHICO 5/30/89 I'J/2J./89 F'ERB 729HA 83 S -CE-00392-S FORESfRY. FIRE PROTECTION 6/20/89 8/24/89 PERB 7345.) 65 LA-CE-02417-E CALEXICO usn 3/01/88 7/17/89 F'EREI 754E 503 S -CO-00069-S CCPOA (COLMAN) 2/24/88 7/25/89 F'ERB 755S 516 S -CE-00036-H CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY 5/19/89 8/31/89 F'ERn 756H 104 LA-CE-02625-E VENTURA USD 7/25/89 9/01./89 F'ERB 757E 38 LA-CO-00339-E C SCH EA (PETRICH) 8/24/87 9/11/89 F'ER£< 758E 748 S -CO-00197--E EL DOF:ADO CO OFF OF E(IU 6/07/89 9/13/89 F'EP(i 759E 98 S -CO-00092-S P£CG (LOPEZ) 5/30/89 9/13/89 PERB 760S 106 LA-C£-02833-E LOS ANGELES eCD 7/03/89 9/13/89 F'ERB 761E 72 SF-CE-00090-S HEALTH SERVICES 7/14/89 9/13/89 F'ERB 7625 61 LA-CE-00243-H UC (AFSCME COUNCIL 10) 7/24/89 9/14/89 F'ERB 763H 52 SF-CE-01190-E CUP~RTINO USD 1/11/89 9/14/89 F'ERB 764E 246 LA-R -00916-E LONG BEACH CCD 8/28/97 9/14/89 PERB 765E 747 LA-CE-02620-E CAJON VALLEY UN 5D 2/01/89 9/15/89 F'ERB 766E 226 LA-CO-00339-E C SCH EA (PETRICH) 10/27/86 9/18/89 F'ERB 767E 1056 LA-CE--02683-E ALLAN HANCOCK CC(I 5/31188 9/20/89 F'ERB 7 {'f-3E 477 S -CE-00425-S PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION 9/05/89 9/27/89 F'ERB 7695 22 S -CE-00427-S GENEJ,AL SERVICES 9/0,5/89 9/27/89 PERF.! 770S 22 LA-CE-00180-H UC (UC, AFT) 6/13/98 9/28/89 F'ERn 771H 472 SF-CE-00085-S X PERSONNEL ArIM(NISTRATION 9/12/88 9/29/89 F'ERB 772S 382 S -S -00115-S PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION 6/23/88 9/29/89 F'ERB 773S 463 LA-UM-00433-E REDLANDS UBD 11/14/88 9/29/89 F'Ef;:B 774E 319 SF-CE-01214-E SAN FRANCISCO CCD 5/11/8,? 10/03/D'? PEF:P 775E 145 * S -UM-00301-S PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION 7/25/86 10/06/8'? P£RB 776S 1168 LA-CE-00209-H X CSU (CSEA, SEIU LOCAL 1000) 6/13/88 11/21/89 PERB 777H 526 21 2/14/90 CLOSED BOARD CASES - 7/01/89 TO 2/14/90 NUMBER OF DAYS F'UT ON BOARD BE1WEEN DOCKETING CASE NUMBER CASE NAME DOCKET DECISION DECISION ~ & ISSUING DECISION LA-CE-01590-E *CARLSBAD USD 7/23/87 11/21/89 PERB 779 851 n S -cE-01277-E FRESNO USn 9/11/89 11/27/89 PERB 779E S -CE-01246-E SYLVAN UN ESD 6/08/89 12/05/89 PERB 790E 180 LA-CE-00246-H UC. SAN DIEGO 6/12/89 12/15/89 PERB 791H 186 LA-CE-02628-E TEMPLE CITY USI:! 12/30/88 12/22/89 PERB 782E 357 SF-CE-00284-H UC 7/31/89 12/29/89 PERB 783H 151 LA-CE-02817-E COMPTON USD 10/17/89 12/29/89 PERB 794E 73 LA-CE-02720-E LOS ANGELES USD 10/04/89 12/29/89 PEREI 785E 86 LA-CE-02189-E XMC FARLAND USD 2/28/86 1/03/90 PERB 786E 1404 S -UM-00366-S PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION 12/07/88 1/11/90 F'ERB 797S 35 S -CE-012:52-E EL DORAI)O CO OFFICE OF EDU 9/19/89 1/17/90 PERB 788E 120 LA-CE-02725-E BEVERLY HILLS USD 5/25/89 1/19/90 PERB 789E 239 LA-CE-02393-E XCOMPTON CCD 12/24/87 2/06/90 PERB 790E n4 LA-CE-02750-E SOUTH BAY UN SD 6/23/89 2/08/90 PERB 791E 230 * Case delays due to party-initiated delays or held a in abeyance pending litigation. X = Case delays due to Board Member turnover. 22 ENDNOTES 1. Deborah M. Hesse, now in her second term, was first appointed chairperson of the Public Employment Relations Board in 1984. 2. "California's PERB: When more is less," California Public Employee Relations No. 76 (March 1988); and "Letters: Controversy Continues over PERB Workload Issue: California Public Employee Relations No. 77 (June 1988). 3. Reginald Allyne, currently a professor of law at the University of California, Los Angeles. He was appointed as first Chairman of the California Educational Employment Relations Board in January 1976 and served until his resignation in December 1977. "The Coming Counter Productive Enlargement of California's Public Employment Relations Board," PERB (August 1980). 4. Interview with Commission Consultant 5. Letter from Harold Newman to Nathan Shapell dated February 7, 1990. 6. Reginald AIIyne 23