Trial: May of... · ASSOCIATION, ) ) Plaintiff, ) MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND ) ... DEMURRER TO FIRST AMENDED CITY OF SAN DIEGO, and DOES 1 to 20 ... Memorandum of Points and Authorities

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

MICHAEL A CONGER ESQUIRE (State Bar 147882) LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL A CONGER 16236 San Dieguito Road Suite 4-14 Mailing PO Box 9374 Rancho Santa Fe California 92067 Telephone (858) 759-0200 Facsimile (858) 759-1906

Attorney for Plaintiff San Diego Police Officers Association

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

SAN DIEGO POLICE OFFICERS ) CASE NO 37-2009-00081659-CU-WM-CTL

ASSOCIATION ) )

Plaintiff ) MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND ) AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO

v ) CITY OF SAN DIEGOS ) DEMURRER TO FIRST AMENDED

CITY OF SAN DIEGO and DOES 1 to 20 ) COMPLAINT FOR WRIT OF inclusive ) MANDATE

) Defendants ) Date February 26 2010

) Time 1030 am ) Judge Hon Judith F Hayes ) Dept C-68 ) Complaint Filed January 14 2009

Trial May 282010------------------------------)

Memorandum ofPoints and Authorities in Opposition to City of San Diegos Demurrer [etc]

5

10

15

20

25

TABLE OF CONTENTS

2

INTRODUCTION 1- L

4 II A GENERAL DEMURRER TESTS THE LEGAL SUFFICIENCY OF THE FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS IN A COMPLAINT TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION 2

6 III THIS IS AN ACTION FOR A WRIT OF MANDATE BROUGHT BY THE SDPOA TO ENFORCE ITS COLLECTIVE BARGAINING RIGHTS UNDER

7 THE MlvIBA 2

8 A The MMBA Applies to SDPOA Members Pensions 2

9 B SDPOA Members Pensions Depend In Part on Base Compensation Which is Determined by the Earnings Codes Document 4

C The City Never Changed The Earnings Codes Before 2007 Without 11 Complying with the MMBA 4

12 D In January 2007 as a Litigation Ploy the City Changed the Earnings Code Document Without First Complying With the

13 lvIMBA 5

14 E A Writ of Mandate Lies To Correct Rule Adoption in Violation of theMMBA 6

IV BECAUSE THIS IS NOT AN ACTION FOR MONEY OR DAMAGES 16 (GOV CODE sect 905) THE GOVERNMENT CLAIMS ACTIS

INAPPLICABLE 7 17

A The Petition Does Not Seek Money or Damages 7 18

B The Canova Case Supports the Plaintiff Not the City 9 19

V EVEN IF THIS ACTION TO ENFORCE THE MEET AND CONFER REQUIREMENT OF THE MMBA WERE AN ACTION FOR MONEY OR DAMAGES IT WOULD BE EXEMPT FROM THE

21 REQUIREMENTS OF THE GOVERNMENT CLAIMS ACT 11

22 A Subdivision (c) of Government Code Section 905 Exempts Claims by Public Employees for Fees Salaries Wages Mileage or Other

23 Expenses and Allowances 11

24 B Subdivision (f) of Government Code Section 905 Exempts Claims for Money or Benefits Under Any Public Retirement or Pension System 12

26 VI EVEN IF A GOVERNMENT CLAIM WERE REQUIRED THE RESPONDENTS BRIEF IN SLOAN SATISFIED THE CLAIM-FILING

27 REQ1JIREMENT 13

28

1

Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to City of San Diegos Demurrer [etc]

1

2

j

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

26

27

28

VII IF ANY DEFECT WERE PERCEIVED LEAVE TO AMEND SHOULD BE GRANTED 14

VIII CONCLUSION 15

11


5

10

15

20

25

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

11

12

13

14

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

24

26

27

28

T ABLE OF AUTHORlTIES

Adler v Los Angeles Unified School Dist (1979) 98 CalApp3d 280 11

Aubry v Tri-City Hospital Dist (1992) 2 Ca14th 962 2

Bellus v City ofEureka (1968) 69 CaL2d 12

Betts v Board ofAdministration (1978)21Cal3d859 12

Board ofAdministration v Wilson (1997) 52 CalApp 4th 1109 8 10

California Association ofProfessional Scientists v Schwarzenegger (2006) 137 CalApp4th 371 12

Canova v Trustees ofImperial Irrigation District Employee Pension Plan (2007) 150 CalApp4th 1487 9-11 13

Carman v Alvord (1982)31 CaL3d318 12

City ofFresno v People ex reI Fresno Firefighters IAFF Local 753 (1999) 71 CalApp4th 82 32 3

City ofStockton v Superior Court (2007) 42 Cal4th 730 14

Claremont Police Officers Association v City ofClaremont (2006) 39 Ca14th 623 3

Connelly v County ofFresno (2006) 146 CalApp4th 29 13

County ofSacramento v Lackner (1979) 97 CalApp3d 576 8 10

Dalton v East Bay Municipal Utility Dist (1993) 18 CaLApp4th 1566 13

Forde v Cory (1977) 66 CalApp3d 434 8 10

Fox v Ethicon Endo-Surgery Inc (2005) 35 Ca14th 797 2

Hart v County ofAlameda (1999) 76 CalApp4th 766 8

111


5

10

15

20

25

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

11

12

13

14

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

24

26

27

28

Kern v City ofLong Beach (1947) 29 Ca12d 848 12

Longshore v County of Ventura (1979) 25 Ca13d 14 11

Marbury v Madison (1803)5US137 15

Minsky v City ofLos Ang~les (1974) 11 Ca13d 113 8

Olson v Cory (1980)27Ca13d532 12

People v Thomas (1974) 41 CalApp3d 861 15

Rakestraw v California Physicians Service (2000) 81 CalAppAth 39 2

San Bernardino Public Employees Assn v City ofFontana (1998) 67 CalAppAth 1215 12

San Leandro Police Officers Ass n v City ofSan Leandro (1976) 55 CalApp3d 553 9

Santa Clara County Counsel Attys Assn v Woodside (1994)7Ca14th525 36-7

State ex rel Pension Obligation Bond Comm v All Persons Interested [etc] (2007) 152 CalAppAth 1386 12

TrafficSchool Online Inc v Clarke (2003) 112 CalAppAth 736 14

Vernon Firefighters v City ofVernon (1980) 107 CalApp3d 802 6-7

Windham at Carmel Mountain Ranch Assn v Superior Court (2003) 109 CalAppAth 1162 2

Statutes

Code of Civil Procedure

sect1085 613

sect1858 13

Government Code

sect 905 711-13

IV


5

10

15

20

25

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

11

12

13

14

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

24

26

28

sect 905 subd (c) 11-12~ ~ ~

sect905subd(f) 12-13

sect 910 14

sect 34055 7

sect3500 13

sectsect 3500-3510 3

sect 3504 3

sect 35045 3 6 9

sect 3505 3

Municipal Laws

San Diego City Charter

Article IX

sectsect 141 through 1481 4

San Diego Municipal Code

sect 2401 00 4

sect 240103 4

sect240403 4

Other Authorities

13 CalJur3d (2004) Constitutional Law sect 102 p208 15

v Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to City of San Diegos Demurrer (etc]

5

10

15

20

25

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

11

12

13

14

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

26

27

28

I INTRODUCTION

The City of San Diegos (City) demurrer to petitioner San Diego Police Officers

Associations (SDPOA) petition for writ of mandate should be overruled because the

SDPOAs petition does not seek money or damages but rather presents the justiciable issue

whether the City violated the Meyer-Milias Brown Act (MMBA) in adopting changes in 2007

to SDPOA members pensions

Soon after this Court entered a judgment in Sloan et al v City oSan Diego] the City of

San Diego (City) sought to undermine the Courts ruling by-without compliance with the

MMBA (Gov Code sect 3500 et seq-unilaterally changing the Earnings Code Document which

was at issue in that case The Court of Appeal rejected the Citys maneuver stating

In this case the statement that the prior designation of canine care pay was a mistake is inconsistent with the evidence and appears to be solely an attempt to overturn the trial courts factual finding to achieve a favorable result for the City (RIN Exh 2 Slip Opinion p 17)

This case challenges the process by which the City unilaterally implemented that change

It seeks neither money nor damages Specifically the SDPOA seeks only a vvTit of mandate

invalidating that change because the City failed to comply with two mandatory provisions of the

MMBA-(1) notice by the City of such proposed changes and (2) engaging in a good faith meet

and confer with the SDPOA before implementing such changes

To be sure the City can make changes to the wages hours and working conditions of its

employees including members of the SDPOA And it has often done so However to be

effective the City must first comply with the MMBA If it fails to do so the changes it makes

are invalid This case simply seeks an order mandating that a 2007 change unilaterally made by

the City is invalid because the City failed to comply with the MMBA

The City demurs on the sole ground that prior to bringing this action the SDPOA failed

to first comply with the Government Claims Act However because the SDPOA does not seek

money or damages compliance with the Claims Act was not required

A copy of the Courts June 122006 Ruling After Hearing is attached as Exhibit 1 to the accompanying Request for Judicial Notice (RIN)

1 Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to City of San Diegos Demurrer [etc]

5

10

15

20

25

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

11

12

13

14

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

24

26

27

28

Even if such compliance were required two statutory exemptions to the Claims Act

would apply Finally even if that were not so the SDPOA substantially complied with the

claim-filing requirement Therefore the Citys demurrer should be overruled

II A GENERAL DEMURRER TESTS THE LEGAL SUFFICIENCY OF THE FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS IN A COMPLAINT TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION

A demurrer tests the legal sufficiency of factual allegations in a complaint [Citation]

(Windham at Carmel Mountain Ranch Assn v Superior Court (2003) 109 CalAppAth 1162

1168 quoting Rakestraw v California Physicians Service (2000) 81 CalAppAth 39 42-43) In

ruling on demurrers the court must treat] the demurrer as admitting all facts properly pleaded

(Aubry v Tri-City Hospital Dist (1992) 2 Ca14th 962967 Fox v Ethicon Endo-Surgery Inc

(2005) 35 Ca14th 797 810) [1]t is error for a trial court to sustain a demurrer when the plaintiff

has stated a cause of action under any possible legal theory (Aubry supra Fox supra) And

it is an abuse of discretion to sustain a demurrer without leave to amend if the plaintiff shows

there is a reasonable possibility any defect identified by the defendant can be cured by

amendment (Aubry supra Fox supra)

III THIS IS AN ACTION FOR A WRIT OF MANDATE BROUGHT BY THE SDPOA TO ENFORCE ITS COLLECTIVE BARGAINING RIGHTS UNDER THE MMBA

A The MMBA Applies to SDPOA Members Pensions

The SDPOA is a mutual benefit corporation organized and doing business as a State of

California sanctioned employee organization representing police officers holding the rank of

lieutenant and below who are employed by the City (Verified First Amended Complaint

(F A C) -r 12) The scope of the SD PO As representation of San Diego police officers in

negotiating labor-management agreements and the Citys duty to meet and confer in good faith

2 The City concedes this point in another lawsuit it recently filed against the SDPOA (See RJN Exh 3 Citys Petition for Writ of Mandate Case No 37-2009-00086499 (Citys Petition) -r 18)


5

10

15

20

25

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

11

12

l3

14

16

17

18

19

21

23

24

26

27

28

are set forth in the MMBA3 (Gov Code sectsect 3500-3510)

To effect [its] goals the [MMBA] obligates employers to bargain with employee

representatives about matters that fall within the scope ofrepresentation (FAC 1 9 quoting

Claremont Police Officers Association v City ofClaremont (2006) 39 Ca14th 623630 Gov

Code sectsect 35045 3505) The scope of representation include[s] all matters relating to

employment conditions and employer-employee relations including but not limited to wages

hours and other terms and conditions of employment (FAC 1 10 quoting Gov Code sect

3504) The duty to bargain requires the public agency to refrain from making unilateral

changes in employees wages and working conditions until the employer and employee

association have bargained to impasse (FAC 1 11 quoting City ofFresno v People ex

reI Fresno Firefighters IAFF Local 753 (1999) 71 CaLApp4th 8299 quoting Santq Clara

County Counsel Attys Assn v Woodside (Santa Clara) (1994) 7 CaL4th 525537)

As the City concedes employee pensions are within the scope of SDPOAs

representation of its members (RJN Exh 3 Citys Petition 143 [Citys proposal to eliminate

[a pension benefit] is a matter within the scope of [the SDPOAs] representation under the

MMBA]) And as the City also knows [t]he City has an obligation to give written notice of

any proposed ordinance rule resolution or regulation directly relating to matters within the

scope of representation to [SD]POA and give [SD]POA an opportunity to meet with the [City]

(RJN Exh 3 Citys Petition 141 citing Gov Code sect 35045)

There are two provisions ofthe MMBA at issue in this litigation First Goverrunent

Code section 35045 requires the City to provide reasonable written notice to each recognized

employee organization affected [by] any ordinance rule resolution or regulation directly related

to matters within the scope of representation Second Government Code section 3505

provides that [the City] shall meet and confer in good faith regarding wages hours and other

terms and conditions of employment with representatives of such recognized employee

organizations

RJN Exh 3 Citys Petition 11 19 42 [The City and [SD]POA have a mutual obligation to meet and confer in good faith]


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

B SDPOA Members Pensions Depend In Part on Base Compensation Which is Determined by the Earnings Codes Document

As the Court may recall from the May 31 2006 Sloan trial or other matters such as San

Diego Firefighters et aI v Board ofAdministrators ofthe San Diego City Employees

Retirement System el at San Diego Superior Court Case No 37-2008-00093217-CU-OE-CTL

in 1927 the City established a defined benefit pension plan to provide retirement disability

death and retiree health benefits to City employees including the police officers represented by

the SDPOA and their beneficiaries (the retirement plan) (FAC 1112) Pursuant to the San

Diego City Charter Article IX sections 141 through 1481 (RJN Exh 14) and the San Diego

Municipal Code (SDMC) section 240100 et seq each ofthe police officers represented by

the SDPOA makes contributiops to the retirement plan and the City makes substantially equal

contributions on their behalf

The amount of retirement benefits paid to these police officers at retirement depends on

several factors including the officers Final Compensation (RJN Exhs 1 16 SDMC sectsect

240403240103 see RJN Exh 2 pp 2-8) Final Compensation is defined as the Base

Compensation for the highest one year period during membership in the Retirement System

(RJN Exh 15 SDMC sect 240103) Base Compensation is defined in SDMC section 240103

which provides [a] complete listing of included and excluded items of compensation or

remuneration is memorialized in a document entitled Earnings Codes Included in Retirement

Base Compensation[] [the Earnings Codes Document] which is prepared annually and which

shall be kept on file in the Office of the City Clerk and also maintained by the City Manager the

City Auditor and the Personnel Director (RJN Exhs 4-13 [Earnings Codes Documents from

1998-2007])

C The City Never Changed The Earnings Codes Before 2007 Without Complying with the MMBA

As far back as records are available changes to the Earnings Codes Documents were only

made after meet and confer sessions the Citys employee labor unions Each ofthese Earnings

Code Documents expressly stated that inclusions were negotiated specialty add-ons (italics

4 Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to City of San Diegos Demurrer [etc J

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

added) meaning that they had been expressly added after being the subject of labor negotiations

between the City and the SDPOA pursuant to the MMBA4 Indeed changes to the earnings

code documents were always based on [the] meet and confer process j For example the

September 6 2000 earnings code document states

As a result of the recently concluded meet and confer sessions with the employee labor unions twenty-four new earnings codes were added and included in the retirement base compensation and two existing earnings codes were reclassified as included in retirement base compensation (RJN Exh 7 p 1)

And as far back as records are available Canine Care Pay and Motorcycle Care Pay

(which affects only SDPOA members) were both included in Base Compensation6

D In January 2007 as a Litigation Ploy the City Changed the Earnings Code Document Without First Complying With the MMBA

On June 122006 after a trial before this Court in which the City fully participated this

Court held that (1) Canine Care Pay is not overtime pay and should be included in the

determination affinal compensation (RJN Exh 1 p 224-25 italics added) and (2)

[i]nclusion in the list of earnings included in the determination of retirement pay is no mistake

(RJN Exh 1 p 33-4 italics added) Yet on January 252007 four days before the City filed

its appellants opening brief [in Sloan] RJN Exh 2 Slip Opinion p 16) the City unilaterally

changed the Earnings Code Document and excluded Canine Care Pay from the determination of

base compensation because the City defiantly legislated Canine Care Pay [is] overtime

pay [and was] mistakenly listed in prior Earnings Code Documents as earnings codes

included in Base Compensation (RJN Exh 13 p 8 italics added) Unlike in all previous

4 RJN Exh 5 p 2 RJN Exh 6 p 2 RJN Exh 7 p 6 RJN Exh 8 p 8 RJN Exh 9 p 8 RJN Exh 10 p 7 RJN Exh 11 p 7 RJN Exh 1 p7

5 RJN Exh 6 p 1 RJN Exh 8 p 1 [earnings code changes [b]ased on the results of the meet and confer sessions with the employee labor unions] RJN Exh 9 p 1 [changes based on meet and confer sessions with employee labor unions] RJN Exh 10 [same] RJN Exh 11 p 1 [same] RJN Exh 12 p 1 [same]

6 RJN Exh 5 p 2 RJN Exh 6 pp RJN Exh 7 p 7 RJN Exh 8 p 9 RJN Exh 9 p 9 RJN Exh 10 pp 8-9 RJN Exh 11 p 9 RJN Exh 12 p 9


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

years (RJN Exhs 4-12) the City made its changes to the Earnings Code Document without first

complying with its notification requirements under Government Code section 35045 or its meet

and confer obligations under Government Code section 3505 (FAC ~~ 15-167)

The Court of Appeal rejected the Citys stratagem stating

In this case the statement that the prior designation of canine care pay was a mistake is inconsistent with the evidence and appears to be solely an attempt to overturn the trial courts factual finding to achieve a favorable result for the City (RTN Exh 2 Slip Opinion p 178

)

E A Writ of Mandate Lies To Correct Rule Adoption in Violation oftheMMBA

[A] writ of mandate lies for an employee association to challenge a public employers

breach of its duti[ies] under the MMBA (Santa Clara supra 7 Cal 4th at p 541) Indeed the

proper procedure to correct proc~dural violations of the MMBA is traditional mandamus

pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1085 (Vernon Firefighters v City of Vernon

(Vernon) (1980) 107 CalApp3d 802808-810)

In Vernon the petitioners sought a peremptory writ of mandate invalidating a new City

rule which prohibit[ ed] firemen from using City facilities to wash personal automobiles while

not on duty (Id at p 806) The firefighters union sought to have the anti-car-washing rule

invalidated in its entirety because the City of Vernon unilaterally adopted [the rule] without

prior notice to or meeting and conferring with the Union (Id at 811) The Union

properly sought relief by writ of mandate under section 1085 (Id at 810) In order to be

entitled to the relief sought the Union had to establish] that the anti-car-washing rule was

enacted in violation of the MMBA (Ibid)

The Court of Appeal invalidated the anti-car-washing rule because the City of Vernon

failed to do precisely what the City of San Diego failed to do-provide notification of a proposed

7 The First Amended Complaint was verified by SDPOA President Officer Brian Marvel

The Court of Appeal did not consider the validity of the Citys 2007 change to the Earnings Code Document because [t]he evidence [was] not properly before [the Court] (RJN Exh 2 Slip Opinion p 17 This case was brought to establish the invalidity of that change


5

10

15

20

25

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

11

12

13

14

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

24

26

27

28

rule change under Government Code section 34055 and meet and confer under section 3505

The rule in California is well settled a citys unilateral change in a matter within the scope of representation is a per se violation of the duty to meet and confer in good faith [T]he courts have not been reluctant to intervene when a public agency has taken unilateral action without bargaining at all In such situations courts have been quite zealous in condemning unilateral action and in granting appropriate relief [Citations] (Vernon supra 107 CalApp3d at p 823)

The Court concluded we find that the rule being unilaterally adopted by the City without prior

notice to or meeting and conferring with the Union was void in its entirety for a procedural

violation of Government Code section 3505 (Id at p 828)

Vernon is indistinguishable After the SDPOA became aware of the Citys unilateral

change in the Earnings Code Document it brought this petition for a writ of mandate which

seeks invalidation of the CityS unilateral removal of Canine Care Pay and Motorcycle Care Pay

from Base Compensation because the City failed to comply with the MMBA

The case law in this state is indeed unanimous that a writ of mandate lies for an

employee association to challenge a public employers breach of its duty under the MMBA

[Citations] (Santa Clara supra 7 Ca14th at p 541) [T]he MMBA inherently provides the

[the SDPOA] with a right to bring a mandamus action against [the City] for breach of its duty to

bargain in good faith and there are no statutory or common law grounds for limiting that

right (Id at p 542)

IV BECAUSE THIS IS NOT AN ACTION FOR MONEY OR DAMAGES (GOV CODE sect 905) THE GOVERNMENT CLAIMS ACT IS INAPPLICABLE

The City contends that the SDPOAs petition for a vTit of mandate should be dismissed

because the SDPOA did not comply with the Government Claims Act (Citys Memorandum

pp 14-712) The City is incorrect because the SDPOAs petition seeks only traditional

mandamus and does not seek money or damages9

A The Petition Does Not Seek Money or Damages

Mandamus actions seeking to compel performance of a mandatory duty statutory duty or

9 The City also incorrectly states that the SDPOA seeks declaratory relief (Citys Memorandum p 214) The SDPOAs petition seeks only a wTit of mandate


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ministerial act are not subject to the Government Claims Act if they do not seek money or

damages (Board 0Administration v Wilson (Wilson) (1997) 52 CalAppAth 1109 1125shy

1126 [mandamus action to enforce mandatory duty regarding future funding of retirement system

was not one for money or damages] County oSacramento v Lackner (1979) 97 CalApp3d

576587-588 [mandamus action to compel state to disburse funds in the manner provided by

Medi-Cal statutes was not one for money or damages but to compel by ministerial act the release

of funds] Forde v Cory (1977) 66 CalApp3d 434436-438 [mandamus proceeding to compel

state officer to pay lump sum death benefit on behalf ofjudge who died before retirement was a

suit to compel performance of express statutory duty not a money action and thus was exempt

from the claim-filing requirement]) The Claims Act generally applies only to claims for money

or damages and not to actions for declaratory relief (Hart v County 0Alameda (1999) 76

CalAppAth 766 782) The claims statutes do not impose any requirements for non-

pecuniary actions such as those seeking injunctive specific or declaratory relief (~Minsky v

City 0Los Angeles (1974) 11 Ca13d 113 121 footnote amp italics omitted)

In Wilson the Court explained why the claims-filing requirement did not apply in a case

seeking millions of dollars ofpension contributions rom the State of California [T]he primary

outcome sought was not money or damages but an order compelling performance of a

mandatory duty (Wilson supra 52 CalAppAth at p 1125) An action in traditional

mandamus which seeks an order compelling an official to perform a mandatory duty is not an

action against the state for money even though the result compels the public official to release

money vvTongfully detained [Citation] (Jd at p 1126) Here the outcome of the action will

not even cause any official to release or pay money At most the City will be required to

correctly report police officers base compensation accurately Theoretically such correcting

adjustments to Base Compensation could later cause the independent administrator of the City

employees pension plan the San Diego City Employees Retirement System (SDCERS) to

adjust contributions from both the City and employees However this result is far from certain

even if the SDPOA prevails because after meeting and conferring with the SDPOA the City

recently eliminated all Motorcycle Care Pay The number of police officers affected by the


5

10

15

20

25

1

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

11

12

13

14

16

17

18

19

21

24

26

Citys prior unlawful unilateral change to the Earnings Code Document is therefore limited

To be clear SDPOA expressly states in its verified First imended Complaint The

SDPOA is seeking neither money nor damages by this first amended complaint (FAC ~ 22)

Because as the City is aware the SDPOA is not entitled to a pension this lawsuit seeks only the

enforcement of collective bargaining rights under the MMBA it is not a suit for money or tort

or contract damages owed to the SDPOA The City previously conceded that the SDPOA

does not seek damages for itself (Citys Memorandum filed March 92009 p 6 11) Here

the SDPOA simply seeks to invalidate the Citys unilateral modification to the Earnings Code

Document because it was done without informing the SDPOA as required by Government Code

section 35045 (FAC r 15) and without meeting and conferring with the SDPOA as required by

GovernrnentCode section 3505 (FAC ~ 16)

Notably since it filed its original demurrer the City has dropped its reliance on San

Leandro Police Officers Ass n v City ofSan Leandro (1976) 55 CalApp3d 553 for the

proposition that the Claims Act applies to claims brought pursuant to the MMBA (Citys

Memorandum filed March 92009 p 326-28) The City realized that a careful reading of that

case demonstrates it actually supports the SDPOAs position that the Claims Act does not apply

In that case the trial court entered judgment in favor of the City of San Leandro on the causes of

action seeking damages (Jd at p 558) The Court of Appeal held that was proper (Jd at p

559) However the Court of Appeal left intact the portion ofthe judgment which issued a writ

[of mandate] requiring the city council of the City of San Leandro to enact legislation with

retroactive effect granting individual respondents the benefits of a three percent salary and

benefits program (Jd at pp 556-558)

The city council remains free to extend or eliminate the management incentive program but it may not discriminate among its employees for exercising their rights under the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act It was proper to compel by means of a writ of mandate action to correct the existing unlawful practice (Jd at p 558)

B The Canova Case Supports the Plaintiff Not the City

The City heavily relies on Canova v Trustees ofImperial Irrigation District Employee

28 Pension Plan (2007) 150 CalAppAth 1487 which when read carefully supports the SDPOAs


2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

] 7

] 8

19

20

21

position

In Canova individual pension plan members brought a class action for breach of contract

accounting and breach of fiduciary duty seeking monetary damages for a reduction in their plan

benefits (Canova supra 150 Ca1App3d at p 1491) In determining whether the Claims Act

applies the critical question is whether the recovery of money or damages was the primary

purpose of Plaintiffs claims (Id at p 1493) The Canova court concluded that the plaintiffs in

that case could not pursue remedies which primarily sought money damages (Canova supra

150 CalApp3d at p 1490)

However the Court carefully explained that those plaintiffs could pursue the portion of

their case which did not seek monetary relief In contrast mandamus actions seeking to compel

performance of a mandatory duty statutory duty or ministerial act may not be subject to the

Claims Act if they do not seek money or damages (Canova supra 150 CaLApp3d at p

1493 10) Here the SDPOA seeks a writ voiding the Citys unilateral amendment of the Earnings

Code Document and requiring the City to take all necessary steps to correctly report police

officers Base Compensation to the San Diego City Employees Retirement System (FAC p

421 ) Monetary relief is not sought In fact the SDPOA expressly states it is not seeking

monetary relief (FAC ~ 22)

Thus unlike in Wilson Lackner and Forde-which were all mandamus actions held to

be exempt from the claims-filing requirement-no money will even change hands if the SDPOA

is successful and the writ is issued by the Court Instead correct employee earnings information

will be transmitted from the Citys payroll department to the administrator of the City

0 The court then cited Wilson supra 52 CaLAppAth 1109 The City neither cites nor attempts to distinguish Wilson

The court also cited County oSacramento v Lackner (1979) 97 CalApp3d 576587shy588 [mandamus action to compel state to disburse funds in the manner provided by Medi-Cal statutes was not one for damages but to compel a ministerial act the release of funds] and Forde v Cory (1977) 66 CaLApp3d 434436-438 [mandamus proceeding to compel state officer to pay lump sum death benefit on behalf ofjudge who died before retirement was a suit to compel

28 performance of express statutory duty not a money action and thus was exempt from the government claim requirement])


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

23

24

26

27

28

employees pension system But even if money did change hands as the result of the invalidation

of the change to the earnings code document without either (1) notifying the SDPOA or (2)

meeting and conferring over those proposed changes both as required by the MMBA it still

would not trigger the Government Claims Act As explained by the court in Canova

Plaintiffs would be entitled to an order directing Defendants to comply with the terms of the Pension Plan While such relief if granted may ultimately result in money being transferred between the two systems such relief does not render the request a claim for money or damages that requires the filing on a government claim (Canova supra 150 CalApp3d at p 1498)

Here the primary relief sought is invalidation ofa rule adopted without compliance with the

MMBA and correct reporting ofpayroll data by the City No money is sought No damages are

sought The Claims Act does not apply

V EVEN IF THIS ACTION TO ENFORCE THE MEET AND CONFER REQUIREMENT OF THE MMBA WERE AN ACTION FOR MONEY OR DAMAGES IT WOULD BE EXEMPT FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE GOVERNMENT CLAIMS ACT

Government Code section 905 provides l3 exceptions to the claims-filing requirement of

the Government Claims Act Even if the SDPOAs complaint sought money or damages which

it does not at least two statutory exceptions apply

A Subdivision (c) of Government Code Section 905 Exempts Claims by Public Employees for Fees Salaries Wages Mileage or Other Expenses and Allowances

Government Code section 905 subdivision (c) provides an exception for Claims by

public employees for fees salaries wages mileage or other expenses and allowances Even if

as the City incorrectly contends the primary goal of the complaint is monetary relief the

exception of section 905 subdivision (c) applies (Longshore v County ofVentura (1979)

Ca13d 14 22 [because claim essentially seeks recognition of a right to compensation for

services performed as a county employee claim falls within exception of section 905

subdivision (c)] Adler v Los Angeles Unified School Dis (1979) 98 CalApp3d 280287

[claim for disability pay constituted an allowance within meaning of the subdivision])

A long line of California authorities supports the concept that pension benefits are a

component of a public employees compensation A public employees pension constitutes an


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

element of compensation and a vested contractual right to pension benefits accrues upon

acceptance of employment (Betts v Board ofAdministration (1978) 21 Ca13d 859863 1

State ex reI Pension Obligation Bond Comm v All Persons Interested [etc] (2007) 152

Ca1App4th 13 86 1405-1406 [a long line of California decisions establishes that a public

employees pension constitutes an element of compensation]) Earned benefits are deferred

compensation (Carman v Alvord supra 31 Ca13d at p 325 citing Olson v Cory (1980)

27 Ca13d 532 540)

This is not a dispute between an employee and the City over compensation But even if

the SDPOAs petition for writ of mandate could be grossly misconstrued as a claim for money or

damages because the compensation pay items at issue Canine Care Pay and Motorcycle Care

Pay involve claims for salaries wages or other allowances the exemption of section 905

subdivision (c) would apply

B Subdivision (f) of Government Code Section 905 Exempts Claims for Money or Benefits Under Any Public Retirement or Pension System

Government Code section 905 subdivision (t) provides an exemption for [a ]pplications

or claims for money or benefits under any public retirement or pension system By inserting a

word that does not exist in subdivision (t)-individual-the City contends this exception does

not apply because the exception is limited to applications for benefits by an individual (Citys

Memorandum p 714-27)

II Such a pension right may not be destroyed once vested without impairing a contractual obligation of the employing public entity (Ibid italics added citing Kern v City of Long Beach (1947) 29 Ca12d 848 852-853) [P]ublic employment gives rise to certain obligations which are protected by the contract clause of the Constitution [Citation] Such obligations include pension rights (California Association ofProfessional Scientists v

Schwarzenegger (2006) 137 Ca1App4th 371375-376 quoting San Bernardino Public Employees Assn v City ofFontana (1998) 67 CalApp4th 1215 1221) By entering public service an employee obtains a vested contractual right to earn a pension on terms substantially equivalent to those then offered by the employer (Schwarzenegger at p 376 quoting Carman v Alford (1982) 31 Cal3d 318 325) Pensions are a government obligation of great importance They help induce faithful public service and provide agreed subsistence to retired public servants who have fulfilled their employment contracts (Carman supra at p 325 fn 4 citing Bellus v City ofEureka (1968) 69 Cal2d 336351)


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

26

27

28

The City is incorrect because it inserts the word individual into the statute when that

word does not exist in that statute To support its legislative additur the Citys cites and

emphasizes the word individual from Canova IS citation to Dalton v East Bay Afunicipal

Utility Dist (1993) 18 CalAppAth 1566 (Citys Memorandum p 716-17) However the

word individual does not even appear in the Dalton opinion Nor did Canova in any manner

attempt to alter the ruling in Dalton Thus the Citys interpretation which relies on adding a

word of limitation to a statute should be rejected (Code Civ Proc sect 1858 [In construction of

statute office of the Judge is not to insert what has been omitted])

Indeed Dalton supports the SDPOA s position-that even if its petition for writ of

mandate could be grossly misconstrued as a claim for money or damages-the exception

contained in Government Code section 905 subdivision (f) applies In Dalton the Court

concluded by stating that the [plaintiffs] do not seek money due them under the terms of the

existing pension system (Dalton supra 18 CalAppAth at p 1574) Had that been the case

the exception of subdivision (f) would have applied (Ibid) Here even if misconstrued

construed as a claim for money or damages the petition merely relics on an existing pension

system (See eg RJN Exhs 4-1214-16)

Moreover the Court noted that commentators have construed the section 905 exceptions

as essentially nontortious claims for which some other adequate claims procedure has already

been devised or for which the procedural protection of the Tort Claims Act is believed

unnecessary [Citation] (Dalton supra 18 CalApp4th at p 1574) Here of course Code of

Civil Procedure section 1085 and the well settled manner of challenging a citys unilateral

change in a matter within the scope of [MMBA] representation (Vernon supra 107 CaLApp3d

at p 823) provides such an adequate claims procedure

VI EVEN IF A GOVERt~MENT CLAIM VERE REQUIRED THE RESPONDENTS BRIEF IN SLOAN SATISFIED THE CLAIM-FILING REQUIREMENT

In any event the SDPOA substantially complied with the Government Claims Act by

raising the Citys MMBA violation in the Respondents Brief filed in the Sloan et al v City of

San Diego appeal (Connelly v County ofFresno (2006) 146 CalAppAth 2938 [substantial


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

compliance with Government Claims Act sufficient] RIK Exh 5 pp 43-44 [City violated

MMBA by changing earnings code document without meeting and conferring with respondents

union the SDPOA]) The Sloan Respondents Brief contained all of the information required by

the Claims Act (Gov Code sect 910) And the Respondents Brief fulfilled the four purposes of

the Claims Act (1) providing the City with sufficient information to allow it to thoroughly

investigate the matter (2) facilitating settlement of meritorious claims (3) enabling fiscal

planning and (4) avoidance of similar liability in the future (TrafficSchool Online Inc v

Clarke (2003) 112 CalAppAth 736 742) Thus the Citys feigned lack of notice argument

(Citys Memorandum pp 824-915) should be rejected By May 4 2007 the City had actual

written notice in Sloan of a claim that its unilateral change to the Earnings Code Document

violated the MMBA

VII IF ANY DEFECT WERE PERCEIVED LEAVE TO AMEND SHOULD BE GRANTED

Finally in case of any doubt regarding the primary relief sought by the SDPOA-whiCh

does include money or damages-the Court must permit leave to amend

In City ofStockton v Superior Court (2007) 42 Ca14th 730 a developer filed an action

against the City of Stockton and its redevelopment agency for breach of a development contract

(Id at p 734) The trial court overruled a demurrer which was based on the plaintiffs failure to

file a claim under the Government Claims Act (Ibid) The Court of Appeal issued a writ of

mandate directing that the trial court sustain the demurrer (Ibid) The California Supreme Court

accepted review and remanded the case to the trial court with instructions to grant leave to

amend the complaint The Court of Appeal declined to reach the question whether the

[plaintiff] should be granted leave to amend reasoning that only the sufficiency of the second

amended complaint was properly before it On this point the court missed the mark (Id at p

746) [PlaintiflJ has not had an opportunity to amend its complaint to meet defendants

Government Claims Act defense (Id at p 747)

If the Court perceives any merit to the Citys demurrer the SDPOA should be permitted

leave to amend to further clarifY that it does not seek money or damages and instead seeks only a


5

10

15

20

25

I

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

11

12

13

14

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

24

26

27

28

writ of mandate

VIII CONCLUSION

A fundamental principle of the American Constitutional system is that the governmental

powers are divided among the three departments of the government the legislative executive

and judicial (13 Ca1Jur3d (2004) Constitutional Law sect 102 p 208) James Madison

who was not prone to overblown rhetoric referred to the doctrine of separation of powers as the

sacred maxim of free government (People v Thomas (1974) 41 CaLApp3d 861116 CalRptr

393401 citing A1arbury v Vadison (1803) 5 US 137)

On June 122006 after a trial before this Court in which the City fully participated the


determination of final compensation (RJN Exh 1 p 224-25 italics added) and (2)


(RJN Exh 1 p 33-4 italics added) Ignoring the Courts ruling and without notifying the

SDPOA (or anyone else) the City unilaterally changed the earnings document months later and

excluded Canine Care Pay from the determination of final compensation because the City

defiantly legislated Canine Care Pay [is] overtime pay [and was] mistakenly listed in

prior Earnings Code Documents as earnings codes included in Base Compensation (RJN Exh

13 p 8 italics added)

The Citys complete lack of respect for the judicial branch cannot be condoned12 Its

legal remedy was to appeal this Courts June 122006 ruling which it did and lost (RJN Exh

2) Its remedy was not to unilaterally amend the Earnings Code Document to contradict the final

judgment of a court of law

Because the SDPOAs petition for writ of mandate does not seek money or damages but

rather raises the justiciable issue ofwhether the City violated the MMBA in adopting the January

2007 changes to the earnings code document the Citys demurrer should be overruled

12 To their credit at least two former City staffers Chief Operating Officer Ronne Froman and Personnel Director Rich Snapper have testified that they would not have approved the January 2007 changes of Canine Care Payor Motorcycle Care Pay in the earnings code document had they been aware of this Courts June 122006 ruling

15 Memorandum ofPoints and Authorities in Opposition to City of San Diegos Demurrer [etc]

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

26

27

28

Dated February 11 2010 LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL A CONGER

By )~--=+----Michael A Conger Attorney for Petitioner San Diego Police Officers Association


5

10

15

20

25

TABLE OF CONTENTS

2

INTRODUCTION 1- L

4 II A GENERAL DEMURRER TESTS THE LEGAL SUFFICIENCY OF THE FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS IN A COMPLAINT TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION 2

6 III THIS IS AN ACTION FOR A WRIT OF MANDATE BROUGHT BY THE SDPOA TO ENFORCE ITS COLLECTIVE BARGAINING RIGHTS UNDER

7 THE MlvIBA 2

8 A The MMBA Applies to SDPOA Members Pensions 2

9 B SDPOA Members Pensions Depend In Part on Base Compensation Which is Determined by the Earnings Codes Document 4

C The City Never Changed The Earnings Codes Before 2007 Without 11 Complying with the MMBA 4

12 D In January 2007 as a Litigation Ploy the City Changed the Earnings Code Document Without First Complying With the

13 lvIMBA 5

14 E A Writ of Mandate Lies To Correct Rule Adoption in Violation of theMMBA 6

IV BECAUSE THIS IS NOT AN ACTION FOR MONEY OR DAMAGES 16 (GOV CODE sect 905) THE GOVERNMENT CLAIMS ACTIS

INAPPLICABLE 7 17

A The Petition Does Not Seek Money or Damages 7 18

B The Canova Case Supports the Plaintiff Not the City 9 19

V EVEN IF THIS ACTION TO ENFORCE THE MEET AND CONFER REQUIREMENT OF THE MMBA WERE AN ACTION FOR MONEY OR DAMAGES IT WOULD BE EXEMPT FROM THE

21 REQUIREMENTS OF THE GOVERNMENT CLAIMS ACT 11

22 A Subdivision (c) of Government Code Section 905 Exempts Claims by Public Employees for Fees Salaries Wages Mileage or Other

23 Expenses and Allowances 11

24 B Subdivision (f) of Government Code Section 905 Exempts Claims for Money or Benefits Under Any Public Retirement or Pension System 12

26 VI EVEN IF A GOVERNMENT CLAIM WERE REQUIRED THE RESPONDENTS BRIEF IN SLOAN SATISFIED THE CLAIM-FILING

27 REQ1JIREMENT 13

28

1


1

2

j

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

26

27

28


VIII CONCLUSION 15

11


5

10

15

20

25

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

11

12

13

14

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

24

26

27

28



















111


5

10

15

20

25

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

11

12

13

14

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

24

26

27

28















Statutes


sect1085 613

sect1858 13

Government Code

sect 905 711-13

IV


5

10

15

20

25

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

11

12

13

14

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

24

26

28

sect 905 subd (c) 11-12~ ~ ~


sect 910 14

sect 34055 7

sect3500 13


sect 3504 3

sect 35045 3 6 9

sect 3505 3

Municipal Laws


Article IX



sect 2401 00 4

sect 240103 4

sect240403 4

Other Authorities



5

10

15

20

25

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

11

12

13

14

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

26

27

28

I INTRODUCTION


























5

10

15

20

25

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

11

12

13

14

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

24

26

27

28
























5

10

15

20

25

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

11

12

l3

14

16

17

18

19

21

23

24

26

27

28


























organizations



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28






















1998-2007])






1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28























1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28






)






(Vernon) (1980) 107 CalApp3d 802808-810)














5

10

15

20

25

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

11

12

13

14

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

24

26

27

28















right (Id at p 542)










1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28






























5

10

15

20

25

1

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

11

12

13

14

16

17

18

19

21

24

26




























2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

] 7

] 8

19

20

21

position

























1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

23

24

26

27

28

























1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28







27 Ca13d 532 540)















1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

26

27

28





























1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28











violated the MMBA


















5

10

15

20

25

I

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

11

12

13

14

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

24

26

27

28

writ of mandate

VIII CONCLUSION


























1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

26

27

28




1

2

j

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

26

27

28


VIII CONCLUSION 15

11


5

10

15

20

25

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

11

12

13

14

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

24

26

27

28



















111


5

10

15

20

25

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

11

12

13

14

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

24

26

27

28















Statutes


sect1085 613

sect1858 13

Government Code

sect 905 711-13

IV


5

10

15

20

25

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

11

12

13

14

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

24

26

28

sect 905 subd (c) 11-12~ ~ ~


sect 910 14

sect 34055 7

sect3500 13


sect 3504 3

sect 35045 3 6 9

sect 3505 3

Municipal Laws


Article IX



sect 2401 00 4

sect 240103 4

sect240403 4

Other Authorities



5

10

15

20

25

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

11

12

13

14

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

26

27

28

I INTRODUCTION


























5

10

15

20

25

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

11

12

13

14

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

24

26

27

28
























5

10

15

20

25

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

11

12

l3

14

16

17

18

19

21

23

24

26

27

28


























organizations



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28






















1998-2007])






1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28























1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28






)






(Vernon) (1980) 107 CalApp3d 802808-810)














5

10

15

20

25

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

11

12

13

14

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

24

26

27

28















right (Id at p 542)










1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28






























5

10

15

20

25

1

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

11

12

13

14

16

17

18

19

21

24

26




























2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

] 7

] 8

19

20

21

position

























1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

23

24

26

27

28

























1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28







27 Ca13d 532 540)















1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

26

27

28





























1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28











violated the MMBA


















5

10

15

20

25

I

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

11

12

13

14

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

24

26

27

28

writ of mandate

VIII CONCLUSION


























1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

26

27

28




5

10

15

20

25

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

11

12

13

14

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

24

26

27

28



















111


5

10

15

20

25

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

11

12

13

14

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

24

26

27

28















Statutes


sect1085 613

sect1858 13

Government Code

sect 905 711-13

IV


5

10

15

20

25

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

11

12

13

14

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

24

26

28

sect 905 subd (c) 11-12~ ~ ~


sect 910 14

sect 34055 7

sect3500 13


sect 3504 3

sect 35045 3 6 9

sect 3505 3

Municipal Laws


Article IX



sect 2401 00 4

sect 240103 4

sect240403 4

Other Authorities



5

10

15

20

25

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

11

12

13

14

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

26

27

28

I INTRODUCTION


























5

10

15

20

25

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

11

12

13

14

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

24

26

27

28
























5

10

15

20

25

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

11

12

l3

14

16

17

18

19

21

23

24

26

27

28


























organizations



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28






















1998-2007])






1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28























1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28






)






(Vernon) (1980) 107 CalApp3d 802808-810)














5

10

15

20

25

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

11

12

13

14

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

24

26

27

28















right (Id at p 542)










1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28






























5

10

15

20

25

1

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

11

12

13

14

16

17

18

19

21

24

26




























2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

] 7

] 8

19

20

21

position

























1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

23

24

26

27

28

























1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28







27 Ca13d 532 540)















1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

26

27

28





























1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28











violated the MMBA


















5

10

15

20

25

I

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

11

12

13

14

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

24

26

27

28

writ of mandate

VIII CONCLUSION


























1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

26

27

28




5

10

15

20

25

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

11

12

13

14

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

24

26

27

28















Statutes


sect1085 613

sect1858 13

Government Code

sect 905 711-13

IV


5

10

15

20

25

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

11

12

13

14

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

24

26

28

sect 905 subd (c) 11-12~ ~ ~


sect 910 14

sect 34055 7

sect3500 13


sect 3504 3

sect 35045 3 6 9

sect 3505 3

Municipal Laws


Article IX



sect 2401 00 4

sect 240103 4

sect240403 4

Other Authorities



5

10

15

20

25

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

11

12

13

14

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

26

27

28

I INTRODUCTION


























5

10

15

20

25

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

11

12

13

14

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

24

26

27

28
























5

10

15

20

25

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

11

12

l3

14

16

17

18

19

21

23

24

26

27

28


























organizations



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28






















1998-2007])






1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28























1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28






)






(Vernon) (1980) 107 CalApp3d 802808-810)














5

10

15

20

25

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

11

12

13

14

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

24

26

27

28















right (Id at p 542)










1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28






























5

10

15

20

25

1

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

11

12

13

14

16

17

18

19

21

24

26




























2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

] 7

] 8

19

20

21

position

























1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

23

24

26

27

28

























1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28







27 Ca13d 532 540)















1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

26

27

28





























1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28











violated the MMBA


















5

10

15

20

25

I

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

11

12

13

14

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

24

26

27

28

writ of mandate

VIII CONCLUSION


























1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

26

27

28




5

10

15

20

25

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

11

12

13

14

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

24

26

28

sect 905 subd (c) 11-12~ ~ ~


sect 910 14

sect 34055 7

sect3500 13


sect 3504 3

sect 35045 3 6 9

sect 3505 3

Municipal Laws


Article IX



sect 2401 00 4

sect 240103 4

sect240403 4

Other Authorities



5

10

15

20

25

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

11

12

13

14

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

26

27

28

I INTRODUCTION


























5

10

15

20

25

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

11

12

13

14

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

24

26

27

28
























5

10

15

20

25

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

11

12

l3

14

16

17

18

19

21

23

24

26

27

28


























organizations



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28






















1998-2007])






1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28























1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28






)






(Vernon) (1980) 107 CalApp3d 802808-810)














5

10

15

20

25

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

11

12

13

14

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

24

26

27

28















right (Id at p 542)










1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28






























5

10

15

20

25

1

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

11

12

13

14

16

17

18

19

21

24

26




























2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

] 7

] 8

19

20

21

position

























1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

23

24

26

27

28

























1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28







27 Ca13d 532 540)















1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

26

27

28





























1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28











violated the MMBA


















5

10

15

20

25

I

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

11

12

13

14

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

24

26

27

28

writ of mandate

VIII CONCLUSION


























1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

26

27

28




5

10

15

20

25

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

11

12

13

14

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

26

27

28

I INTRODUCTION


























5

10

15

20

25

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

11

12

13

14

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

24

26

27

28
























5

10

15

20

25

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

11

12

l3

14

16

17

18

19

21

23

24

26

27

28


























organizations



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28






















1998-2007])






1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28























1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28






)






(Vernon) (1980) 107 CalApp3d 802808-810)














5

10

15

20

25

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

11

12

13

14

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

24

26

27

28















right (Id at p 542)










1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28






























5

10

15

20

25

1

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

11

12

13

14

16

17

18

19

21

24

26




























2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

] 7

] 8

19

20

21

position

























1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

23

24

26

27

28

























1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28







27 Ca13d 532 540)















1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

26

27

28





























1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28











violated the MMBA


















5

10

15

20

25

I

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

11

12

13

14

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

24

26

27

28

writ of mandate

VIII CONCLUSION


























1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

26

27

28




5

10

15

20

25

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

11

12

13

14

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

24

26

27

28
























5

10

15

20

25

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

11

12

l3

14

16

17

18

19

21

23

24

26

27

28


























organizations



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28






















1998-2007])






1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28























1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28






)






(Vernon) (1980) 107 CalApp3d 802808-810)














5

10

15

20

25

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

11

12

13

14

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

24

26

27

28















right (Id at p 542)










1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28






























5

10

15

20

25

1

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

11

12

13

14

16

17

18

19

21

24

26




























2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

] 7

] 8

19

20

21

position

























1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

23

24

26

27

28

























1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28







27 Ca13d 532 540)















1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

26

27

28





























1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28











violated the MMBA


















5

10

15

20

25

I

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

11

12

13

14

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

24

26

27

28

writ of mandate

VIII CONCLUSION


























1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

26

27

28




5

10

15

20

25

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

11

12

l3

14

16

17

18

19

21

23

24

26

27

28


























organizations



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28






















1998-2007])






1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28























1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28






)






(Vernon) (1980) 107 CalApp3d 802808-810)














5

10

15

20

25

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

11

12

13

14

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

24

26

27

28















right (Id at p 542)










1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28






























5

10

15

20

25

1

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

11

12

13

14

16

17

18

19

21

24

26




























2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

] 7

] 8

19

20

21

position

























1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

23

24

26

27

28

























1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28







27 Ca13d 532 540)















1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

26

27

28





























1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28











violated the MMBA


















5

10

15

20

25

I

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

11

12

13

14

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

24

26

27

28

writ of mandate

VIII CONCLUSION


























1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

26

27

28




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28






















1998-2007])






1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28























1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28






)






(Vernon) (1980) 107 CalApp3d 802808-810)














5

10

15

20

25

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

11

12

13

14

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

24

26

27

28















right (Id at p 542)










1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28






























5

10

15

20

25

1

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

11

12

13

14

16

17

18

19

21

24

26




























2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

] 7

] 8

19

20

21

position

























1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

23

24

26

27

28

























1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28







27 Ca13d 532 540)















1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

26

27

28





























1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28











violated the MMBA


















5

10

15

20

25

I

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

11

12

13

14

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

24

26

27

28

writ of mandate

VIII CONCLUSION


























1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

26

27

28




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28























1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28






)






(Vernon) (1980) 107 CalApp3d 802808-810)














5

10

15

20

25

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

11

12

13

14

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

24

26

27

28















right (Id at p 542)










1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28






























5

10

15

20

25

1

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

11

12

13

14

16

17

18

19

21

24

26




























2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

] 7

] 8

19

20

21

position

























1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

23

24

26

27

28

























1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28







27 Ca13d 532 540)















1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

26

27

28





























1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28











violated the MMBA


















5

10

15

20

25

I

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

11

12

13

14

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

24

26

27

28

writ of mandate

VIII CONCLUSION


























1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

26

27

28




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28






)






(Vernon) (1980) 107 CalApp3d 802808-810)














5

10

15

20

25

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

11

12

13

14

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

24

26

27

28















right (Id at p 542)










1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28






























5

10

15

20

25

1

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

11

12

13

14

16

17

18

19

21

24

26




























2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

] 7

] 8

19

20

21

position

























1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

23

24

26

27

28

























1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28







27 Ca13d 532 540)















1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

26

27

28





























1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28











violated the MMBA


















5

10

15

20

25

I

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

11

12

13

14

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

24

26

27

28

writ of mandate

VIII CONCLUSION


























1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

26

27

28




5

10

15

20

25

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

11

12

13

14

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

24

26

27

28















right (Id at p 542)










1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28






























5

10

15

20

25

1

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

11

12

13

14

16

17

18

19

21

24

26




























2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

] 7

] 8

19

20

21

position

























1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

23

24

26

27

28

























1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28







27 Ca13d 532 540)















1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

26

27

28





























1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28











violated the MMBA


















5

10

15

20

25

I

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

11

12

13

14

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

24

26

27

28

writ of mandate

VIII CONCLUSION


























1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

26

27

28




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28






























5

10

15

20

25

1

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

11

12

13

14

16

17

18

19

21

24

26




























2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

] 7

] 8

19

20

21

position

























1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

23

24

26

27

28

























1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28







27 Ca13d 532 540)















1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

26

27

28





























1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28











violated the MMBA


















5

10

15

20

25

I

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

11

12

13

14

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

24

26

27

28

writ of mandate

VIII CONCLUSION


























1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

26

27

28




5

10

15

20

25

1

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

11

12

13

14

16

17

18

19

21

24

26




























2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

] 7

] 8

19

20

21

position

























1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

23

24

26

27

28

























1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28







27 Ca13d 532 540)















1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

26

27

28





























1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28











violated the MMBA


















5

10

15

20

25

I

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

11

12

13

14

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

24

26

27

28

writ of mandate

VIII CONCLUSION


























1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

26

27

28




2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

] 7

] 8

19

20

21

position

























1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

23

24

26

27

28

























1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28







27 Ca13d 532 540)















1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

26

27

28





























1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28











violated the MMBA


















5

10

15

20

25

I

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

11

12

13

14

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

24

26

27

28

writ of mandate

VIII CONCLUSION


























1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

26

27

28




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

23

24

26

27

28

























1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28







27 Ca13d 532 540)















1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

26

27

28





























1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28











violated the MMBA


















5

10

15

20

25

I

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

11

12

13

14

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

24

26

27

28

writ of mandate

VIII CONCLUSION


























1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

26

27

28




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28







27 Ca13d 532 540)















1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

26

27

28





























1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28











violated the MMBA


















5

10

15

20

25

I

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

11

12

13

14

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

24

26

27

28

writ of mandate

VIII CONCLUSION


























1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

26

27

28




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

26

27

28





























1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28











violated the MMBA


















5

10

15

20

25

I

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

11

12

13

14

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

24

26

27

28

writ of mandate

VIII CONCLUSION


























1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

26

27

28




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28











violated the MMBA


















5

10

15

20

25

I

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

11

12

13

14

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

24

26

27

28

writ of mandate

VIII CONCLUSION


























1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

26

27

28




5

10

15

20

25

I

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

11

12

13

14

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

24

26

27

28

writ of mandate

VIII CONCLUSION


























1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

26

27

28




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

26

27

28


