Diquisto v. County of Santa Clara (181 Cal. App. 4th 236, 2010)

Opinion

McADAMS, J.

—This litigation arose at the crossroads of public labor bargaining and the electoral initiative process. In early 2004, three unions sponsored a local ballot initiative to mandate binding arbitration as a means of resolving labor disputes with their employer, Santa Clara County. The county opposed the initiative. During the same time period, the county engaged in labor negotiations with the unions, which included discussions aimed at their agreement not to support the initiative.

As taxpayers, plaintiffs sued the county, its board of supervisors, and two county officials, asserting that the county improperly spent public funds for partisan electoral purposes by bargaining for the unions’ nonsupport of the initiative measure. Plaintiffs later added claims based on a supervisor’s e-mail concerning the initiative. After extensive pretrial proceedings, the matter ended in a bench trial, with the court finding for defendants.

On appeal, plaintiffs renew their arguments that the county impermissibly used public funds for campaigning, both at the bargaining table and through the e-mail. On behalf of itself and the other defendants, the county defends the judgment against both arguments.

As we explain, the trial court’s determinations are supported by the evidence and the law. We therefore affirm the judgment.

INTRODUCTION; LEGAL BACKGROUND

To provide context for our discussion of the facts and the parties’ contentions, we begin by briefly summarizing the legal principles at play here.

Limits on the Expenditure of Public Funds

As the California Supreme Court recently reaffirmed, “in the absence of clear and unmistakable language specifically authorizing a public entity to expend public funds for campaign activities or materials, the entity lacks authority to make such expenditures.” (Vargas v. City of Salinas (2009) 46 Cal.4th 1, 24 [92 Cal.Rptr.3d 286, 205 P.3d 207] (Vargas).) This limitation on the expenditure of public funds for campaigning has been recognized in a long line of California Supreme Court decisions, including the leading case of Stanson v. Mott (1976) 17 Cal.3d 206, 217 [130 Cal.Rptr. 697, 551 P.2d 1] (Stans on).

The Relevant Public Employment Statute

Various statutes govern public employment. (Coachella Valley Mosquito & Vector Control Dist. v. California Public Employment Relations Bd. (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1072, 1084-1086 [29 Cal.Rptr.3d 234, 112 P.3d 623] (Coachella Valley).) At issue here is the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (MMBA), codified at Government Code sections 3500-3511. The MMBA “governs collective bargaining and employer-employee relations for most California local public entities, including cities, counties, and special districts.” (Coachella Valley, at p. 1077.) It “requires public agencies to meet and confer in good faith with representatives of recognized employee organizations regarding wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment.” (County of Sonoma v. Superior Court (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 322, 329-330 [93 Cal.Rptr.3d 39], citing § 3505.) “If these meetings produce an agreement, the representatives of the parties must jointly prepare a written memorandum of understanding (MOU).” (County of Sonoma, at p. 330, citing § 3505.1.) The MOU (memorandum of understanding) must then be approved by the agency’s governing body. (County of Sonoma, at p. 330.)

Binding Interest Arbitration

“Interest arbitration involves an agreement between an employer and a union to submit disagreements about the proposed content of a new labor contract to an arbitrator or arbitration panel.” {City of Fresno v. People ex rel. Fresno Firefighters (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 82, 96 [83 Cal.Rptr.2d 603] (Fresno); see also, e.g., County of Sonoma v. Superior Court, supra, 173 Cal.App.4th at pp. 341-342.)

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The plaintiffs and appellants are John DiQuisto, Mildred Evans, and Rosemary Knox (collectively, plaintiffs). They are taxpayers and residents of the County of Santa Clara. The defendants and respondents are the County of Santa Clara, its board of supervisors, and two of its officials, chief administrative officer Peter Kutras, Jr., and chief labor negotiator Luke Leung (collectively, the County).

The Ballot Initiative: Measure C

In early 2004, three Santa Clara County public sector labor unions agreed to sponsor a local initiative measure on the November 2004 ballot. The three sponsoring unions were the Registered Nurses Professional Association (RNPA), the Santa Clara County Correctional Peace Officers’ Association (CPOA), and the Santa Clara Government Attorneys Association (GAA).

The initiative’s purpose was to amend the county’s charter by adding a provision for binding interest arbitration as a means of resolving labor disputes between the three sponsoring unions and the County.

On April 2, 2004, plaintiff Rosemary Knox, in her capacity as president of RNPA, filed a notice of intent to circulate a petition to qualify the measure for the ballot. The measure’s proponents began gathering signatures three weeks later, on April 23, 2004.

On June 4, 2004, representatives of the three sponsoring unions met with county Supervisor Donald Gage, and with Kutras, Leung, and other county representatives, to discuss the initiative. The unions “discussed binding interest arbitration and . . . shared with [the County] that [the measure] would go forward” while “reaching out to see if there was some language that would be acceptable for both sides.” No agreement was reached.

On June 23, 2004, the initiative qualified for the November ballot, identified as Measure C. On August 3, 2004, the county’s board of supervisors adopted a resolution to submit Measure C to the voters.

The county opposed Measure C. Acting through its board of supervisors, the county placed two countermeasures on the ballot, identified as Measures A and B.

In October 2004, county Supervisor Blanca Alvarado directed the dissemination of an e-mail to approximately 1,500 individuals, encouraging the recipients to educate themselves about the three initiative measures and attaching a copy of a newspaper editorial urging a “no” vote on Measure C and a “yes” vote on Measures A and B.

In November 2004, Measure C was defeated at the polls, as were Measures A and B.

Contract Negotiations

In 2003 and 2004, the County was engaged in contract negotiations with a number of its employee unions. The aim of the negotiations was to reach agreement with each union for a labor contract.

Negotiations with the Deputy Sheriffs’ Association

One of the unions negotiating with the County was the Deputy Sheriffs’ Association of Santa Clara County (DSA). Those negotiations began in 2003; the then current contract was set to expire in 2004.

One of the “main goals” for the DSA in its negotiations was to secure the County’s agreement to “benchmarking” with the San Jose Police Department. With benchmarking, DSA members “would just basically be piggybacked with the San Jose Police Department, so whatever raise they would get [DSA] would subsequently get when [its] contract came due.” Although the County seemed resistant to the idea of benchmarking at first, its position softened once the possibility of a longer contract was broached.

On April 1, 2004, the DSA and the County reached a tentative agreement, which included both pay raises and a benchmarking provision. After tentative agreement on those economic issues, the DSA offered the County a “side letter” stating that the DSA would not support the binding interest arbitration initiative. The side letter was “totally” the union negotiator’s idea, who “freely” offered it to the County. The union negotiator was aware that the County was “hostile” to the arbitration initiative. The county negotiator was “a bit startled” at the offer but “essentially said, yeah, well, sure.”

Both the DSA general membership and the County later ratified the agreement, including the side letter.

Negotiations with the Correctional Peace Officers’ Association

In the spring of 2004, the County was also negotiating with the CPOA. The CPOA’s contract had expired years before, and the negotiations for a new contract had been underway for some time.

On March 29, 2004, a meeting took place that included county executives Kutras and Leung and CPOA officers Everett Fitzgerald and William Calabrese. As union president, “Fitzgerald wanted the County to enhance its economic offer.” At that point, the CPOA was “demanding from the County a 30 percent wage increase over a period of a little over three years,” while the County had offered a raise of 18 percent over five and a half years. Fitzgerald “was having difficulty with his rank and file” and he wanted the County “to put more money on the table.” Fitzgerald “raised discussions about the binding interest arbitration measure, being asked whether CPOA was going to be in it or not.” Fitzgerald indicated that “in order for [CPOA] to stay out of it [he had] to see more money.” But according to Kutras, the County was not “going to put more money on the table.” The following day, March 30, 2004, the CPOA joined the coalition supporting the arbitration initiative.

The County offered package proposals to the CPOA on April 7 and again on April 12. Both proposals offered raises much lower than the 30 percent requested by the CPOA, and both included provisions that prohibited the CPOA from initiating or supporting a ballot measure for binding interest arbitration.

The CPOA rejected the April 2004 proposals. In September 2004, the County withdrew its request for nonsupport of the binding interest arbitration initiative. The parties finally reached agreement for a three-year contract starting in June 2005.

Negotiations with the Registered Nurses Professional Association

In the spring of 2004, the County was also negotiating with the RNPA. The RNPA contract was set to expire in November 2004.

On March 30, 2004, there was a meeting of union and county representatives. The County offered the RNPA a two-year contract extension with a wage increase of 4 percent over two years. There was no mention of the binding interest arbitration initiative.

On April 1, 2004, RNPA representative Knox and county representative Louis Chiaramonte spoke by telephone. Knox expressed her concern that nurses’ salaries stay “within the industry standards.” She mentioned a recent contract negotiated by Stanford nurses giving them raises totaling 12 percent in the first two years of their three-year contract. Knox suggested a two-year contract extension for the RNPA with raises of 6 percent each year. After the telephone conversation, Chiaramonte “did a quick salary comparison to see what the community had for wage increases.”

On April 7, 2004, county representative Chiaramonte presented the RNPA with a written proposal for a two-year contract extension with raises (wage increases and “alignments”) totaling 6 percent in the first year and 6 percent in the second year. When presenting the proposal, Chiaramonte characterized it as incomplete, since “a component involving binding interest arbitration [was] to follow.” A draft version of that component was reflected in a handwritten document, which Chiaramonte read aloud; it prohibited the RNPA and its leaders from initiating or supporting a ballot measure for binding interest arbitration. As described by Chiaramonte in trial testimony: “That aspect was pretty much a conceptual discussion and at that time I had advised the association I didn’t have anything that was finalized, it was still in draft form, and that I’d be giving it back to them at a later date.”

On April 8, 2004, the County formally extended the proposal made the day before, including both the same schedule of raises and a separate, typewritten agreement for nonsupport of the binding interest arbitration initiative.

The RNPA rejected the County’s April 8 proposal. The parties finally reached agreement on a successor contract approximately a year later, in April 2005. The successor contract did not include any provision concerning binding interest arbitration.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Pleadings

In June 2004, plaintiffs filed a verified complaint, which asserted causes of action for (1) unlawful waste of public funds; (2) unlawful restriction of political activities; (3) declaratory relief; and (4) writ relief. The complaint includes allegations concerning the County’s bargaining with the DSA, the RNPA, and the CPOA. As relevant to this appeal, the complaint accuses the County of “interfering in the electoral process through the unauthorized expenditure of public funds and public resources to fund a series of wage and compensation and benefit increases for County employees represented by the DSA, the CPOA, [and the] RNPA, ... as a quid pro quo for an agreement not to support the qualification or passage” of the arbitration initiative, Measure C.

In July 2004, the County answered the complaint. It interposed six affirmative defenses, including lack of standing and failure to state a cause of action.

Pretrial Proceedings

When plaintiffs filed their complaint in June 2004, they also applied for a preliminary injunction. Opposition and reply papers were submitted. Plaintiffs later sought permission to submit additional evidence based on the October 2004 e-mail by Supervisor Alvarado. Thereafter, on October 26, 2004, the trial court granted plaintiffs’ application for a preliminary injunction. The County then petitioned this court for a writ. We stayed the injunction and requested opposition. Plaintiffs opposed the issuance of a writ, and the County replied. Ultimately, we denied the County’s writ petition in June 2005.

In December 2005, the County moved for judgment on the pleadings. Plaintiffs opposed the motion, and the court denied it in March 2006.

In June 2006, a complaint in intervention was filed by the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB). PERB and plaintiffs filed cross-motions against each other for judgment on the pleadings. In September 2006, the court granted plaintiffs’ motion, denied PERB’s motion, and dismissed PERB as a party.

In October 2006, the County filed a motion for summary judgment. Plaintiffs opposed the motion, and the court denied it in March 2007. The County then petitioned this court for a writ and for a stay, which we denied in May 2007.

Trial

The matter was tried to the court in late May and early June 2007. After pretrial motions and opening arguments, both sides presented testimonial and documentary evidence.

Among plaintiffs’ witnesses were union members and officers, including Calabrese and Fitzgerald of the CPOA, Knox of the RNPA, and David Notari and Joseph Charvez of the DSA. Under Evidence Code section 776, plaintiffs called Kristina Cunningham, chief of staff for county Supervisor Blanca Alvarado, as well as county officials Kutras and Leung. The defense witnesses included a union negotiator for the DSA, Ronald Yank, and three county employees who had negotiated with the RNPA and the DSA, Chiaramonte, Kenneth Phillips and Brian McKenna. Defendants also presented two expert witnesses, Arthur Agnos, former state Assembly member and former San Francisco Mayor, and William Gould, Stanford University law professor and former chair of the National Labor Relations Board. The parties’ documentary evidence included the County’s April 2004 proposals to the CPOA and the RNPA, the April 2004 side letter agreement with the DSA, and the October 2004 e-mail sent by Supervisor Alvarado.

Following the presentation of evidence by both sides, the court requested “closing argument in written form.” The parties complied, submitting written arguments in June 2007.

Thereafter, in late June 2007, the court considered plaintiffs’ application to reopen the record, in order to submit evidence of their standing as taxpayers. After granting plaintiffs’ request, the court stated: “The matter remains submitted. And the Court will continue to work on its decision in this matter.”

In July 2007, the court filed its statement of decision, ruling in the County’s favor as to all causes of action. As relevant here, the court determined (1) the County did not improperly use public funds for partisan electoral purposes in its bargaining with the unions, and (2) the e-mail sent by Supervisor Alvarado was not an illegal use of public resources for campaign activity.

Judgment

Judgment for defendants was entered in September 2007. An amended judgment was entered the following month.

Appeal

In November 2007, plaintiffs brought this timely appeal. Plaintiffs seek reversal, based on their contentions that both the County’s bargaining activity and Supervisor Alvarado’s e-mail constitute illegal expenditures of public funds. The County defends the judgment.

DISCUSSION

We analyze plaintiffs’ appellate contentions in turn, first addressing their claims concerning the contract negotiations and then turning to their arguments about the e-mail. As to each, we first set forth the governing legal principles. Next we summarize the relevant facts, as determined by the trial court. Then we apply the law to the facts.

I. The County’s Bargaining Conduct

A. Legal Principles

1. The Stanson Rule

Under the Stanson rule, “at least in the absence of clear and explicit legislative authorization, a public agency may not expend public funds to promote a partisan position in an election campaign . . . .” (Stanson, supra, 17 Cal.3d at pp. 209-210.) That prohibition does not apply to informational or educational expenditures, however. (Id. at p. 221.)

Stanson was a taxpayer suit against the Director of the Department of Parks and Recreation, which alleged the department’s improper expenditure of more than $5,000 of public funds to promote the passage of a ballot proposition for a recreational bond. (Stanson, supra, 17 Cal.3d at p. 209.) The trial court sustained the defendant’s demurrer and entered a defense judgment. (Ibid.) On appeal, the California Supreme Court reversed. (Ibid.)

In its analysis, the Stanson court discussed its earlier decision in Mines v. Del Valle (1927) 201 Cal. 273 [257 P. 530] (Mines). (Stanson, supra, 17 Cal.3d at p. 216; id. at p. 226 [partially overruling Mines on other grounds].) The court also examined case law from other jurisdictions. (Id. at pp. 216-217.) After doing so, the court observed that “every court which has addressed the issue to date has found the use of public funds for partisan campaign purposes improper, either on the ground that such use was not explicitly authorized [citations] or on the broader ground that such expenditures are never appropriate.” (Id. at p. 217.) The court stated: “Underlying this uniform judicial reluctance to sanction the use of public funds for election campaigns rests an implicit recognition that such expenditures raise potentially serious constitutional questions.” (Ibid.)

In Stanson, the court found it unnecessary to “resolve the serious constitutional question that would be posed by an explicit legislative authorization of the use of public funds for partisan campaigning, because the legislative provisions relied upon by defendant Mott certainly do not authorize such expenditures in the ‘clear and unmistakable language’ required by Mines.” (Stanson, supra, 17 Cal.Sd at pp. 219-220, quoting Mines, supra, 201 Cal. at p. 287.) The court thus concluded “that defendant could not properly authorize the department to spend public funds to campaign for the passage of the bond issue.” (Stanson, at p. 220.) On the other hand, as “reasonably construed,” the pertinent statute provided “the department with authority to spend funds, budgeted for informational purposes, to provide the public with a ‘fair presentation’ of relevant information relating to a park bond issue on which the agency has labored.” (Id. at p. 221.) However, because the appeal arose on demurrer, the court had “no occasion to determine whether the department’s actual expenditures constituted improper ‘campaign’ expenditures or authorized ‘informational’ expenses.” (Id. at p. 222.)

More than a decade later, the California Supreme Court revisited Stanson. (Keller v. State Bar (1989) 47 Cal.3d 1152, 1170 [255 Cal.Rptr. 542, 767 P.2d 1020] (Keller), revd. on other grounds sub. nom. Keller v. State Bar of California (1990) 496 U.S. 1, 17 [110 L.Ed.2d 1, 110 S.Ct. 2228].) In Keller, the challenged material was an “educational packet,” funded by the State Bar and “sent to local bar associations and other interested groups” prior to the 1982 judicial retention election. (Keller, at p. 1171.) The packet included a copy of the State Bar president’s inaugural speech, given “about three months before the 1982 election,” which “clearly referred to that election.” (Ibid.) In addition, the packet contained “a sample speech . . . , sample letters to organizations which might provide a speech forum, and a sample press release. It also included fact sheets on crime and conviction rates, judicial selection and retention, and judicial performance and removal criteria. It concluded with quotations concerning judicial independence from Hamilton, Madison, Jefferson, and others.” (Id. at pp. 1171-1172.) The court described the contents of the packet as “the kind of material which a state election committee distributes to local committees to aid them in the campaign.” (Id. at p. 1172.) In the court’s view, although the packet was “intended to educate the reader because its authors believed an informed campaigner would be a more effective campaigner, its primary purpose . . . was to assist in the election campaign on behalf of the justices.” (Ibid.) Citing Stanson, the Keller court concluded that “the nature and timing of the 1982 publication . . . indicate that it is a form of prohibited election campaigning.” (Keller, at p. 1172, citation omitted.)

The California Supreme Court again revisited and reaffirmed Stanson in its 2009 decision in Vargas, supra, 46 Cal.4th 1. At issue in Vargas were expenditures by the City of Salinas for communications concerning a local initiative, Measure O, which would have repealed the city’s utility tax. (Vargas, supra, 46 Cal.4th at p. 7.) Claiming improper use of public funds, the plaintiffs in Vargas challenged three particular communications: information posted on the city’s Web site, articles in the city’s newsletter to residents, and a one-page summary of anticipated service cuts if Measure O passed. (46 Cal.4th at p. 35.) The high court rejected the plaintiffs’ challenge, ultimately concluding that “the City engaged in permissible informational rather than campaign activity . . .” with respect to the Web site postings. (Id. at p. 37.) The court reached similar conclusions concerning the newsletter and the one-page summary. (Id. at pp. 37-38.)

a. Distinguishing informational and campaign activities

As Stanson, Keller, and Vargas teach, there is a critical distinction between expenditures by a governmental body for informational activities, which generally are permissible, and expenditures for campaign activities, which generally are not. (Stanson, supra, 17 Cal.3d at pp. 220-221; Keller, supra, 47 Cal.3d at p. 1170; Vargas, supra, 46 Cal.4th at p. 35.) As the Vargas court explained, “because of potential constitutional questions that may be presented by a public entity’s expenditure of public funds in connection with a ballot measure that is to be voted upon in an upcoming election, there is a need to distinguish between (1) ‘campaign’ materials and activities that presumptively may not be paid for by public funds, and (2) ‘informational’ material that ordinarily may be financed by public expenditures.” (Vargas, at p. 7.)

“Frequently, however, the line between unauthorized campaign expenditures and authorized informational activities is not so clear.” (Stanson, supra, 17 Cal.3d at p. 222.) “In such cases, the determination of the propriety or impropriety of the expenditure depends upon a careful consideration of such factors as the style, tenor and timing of the publication; no hard and fast rule governs every case.” (Ibid., fh. omitted; accord, Vargas, supra, 46 Cal.4th at p. 7.)

In determining whether partisan campaigning is implicated, another consideration is the audience to which the communication is directed. (League of Women Voters v. Countywide Crim. Justice Coordination Com. (1988) 203 Cal.App.3d 529, 550 [250 Cal.Rptr. 161] (League of Women Voters)', see also, e.g., Santa Barbara County Coalition Against Automobile Subsidies v. Santa Barbara County Ass'n of Governments (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1229 [84 Cal.Rptr.3d 714] (Santa Barbara); Yes on Measure A v. City of Lake Forest (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 620, 626 [70 Cal.Rptr.2d 517]; Miller v. Miller (1978) 87 Cal.App.3d 762, 768-769, 775 [151 Cal.Rptr. 197].) Where the audience “is not the electorate per se, . . . there is no attempt to persuade or influence any vote.” (League of Women Voters, at p. 550, italics omitted.)

b. Neutrality

As stated in Stanson: “A fundamental precept of this nation’s democratic electoral process is that the government may not ‘take sides’ in election contests or bestow an unfair advantage on one of several competing factions.” (Stanson, supra, 17 Cal.3d at p. 217.)

But as the Vargas court explained, that statement “properly must be understood as singling out a public entity’s ‘use of the public treasury to mount an election campaign’ [citation] as the potentially constitutionally suspect conduct, rather than as precluding a public entity from analytically evaluating a proposed ballot measure and publicly expressing an opinion as to its merits.” (Vargas, supra, 46 Cal.4th at p. 36, italics omitted, quoting Stanson, at p. 218.) In other words, “Stanson does not preclude a governmental entity from publicly expressing an opinion with regard to the merits of a proposed ballot measure, so long as it does not expend public funds to mount a campaign on the measure.” (Vargas, at p. 36.)

“Indeed, upon reflection, it is apparent that in many circumstances a public entity inevitably will ‘take sides’ on a ballot measure and not be ‘neutral’ with respect to its adoption.” (Vargas, supra, 46 Cal.4th at p. 36.) “If every citizen were to have a right to insist that no one paid by public funds express a view with which he disagreed, debate over issues of great concern to the public would be limited to those in the private sector, and the process of government as we know it radically transformed.” (Keller v. State Bar of California, supra, 496 U.S. at pp. 12-13.) “Thus, the mere circumstance that a public entity may be understood to have an opinion or position regarding the merits of a ballot measure is not improper.” (Vargas, at p. 36.)

c. Legislative authorization

In Stanson, the court set forth “the general principle that expenditures by an administrative official are proper only insofar as they are authorized, explicitly or implicitly, by legislative enactment.” (Stanson, supra, 17 Cal.3d at p. 213.) Thus “officials are not free to spend public funds for any ‘public purpose’ they may choose, but must utilize appropriated funds in accordance with the legislatively designated purpose.” (Ibid.)

Concerning the more specific question of expenditures for partisan campaigning, Stanson “reaffirmed the holding in Mines that in the absence of clear and unmistakable language specifically authorizing a public entity to expend public funds for campaign activities or materials, the entity lacks authority to make such expenditures.” (Vargas, supra, 46 Cal.4th at p. 24.)

In this case, the County relies on the MMBA as authorization for its conduct during collective bargaining.

2. The MMBA

The county and its unions are subject to the MMBA. (Coachella Valley, supra, 35 Cal.4th at p. 1077.)

“The MMBA has two stated purposes: (1) to promote full communication between public employers and employees; and (2) to improve personnel management and employer-employee relations within the various public agencies.” (People ex rel. Seal Beach Police Officers Ass'n v. City of Seal Beach (1984) 36 Cal.3d 591, 597 [205 Cal.Rptr. 794, 685 P.2d 1145] (Seal Beach).)

One key provision of the MMBA is its meet-and-confer requirement. “Section 3505 of the MMBA requires governing bodies of local agencies to ‘meet and confer [with employee representatives] in good faith regarding wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment’ and to ‘consider fully’ such presentations made by the employee organizations.” (Seal Beach, supra, 36 Cal.3d at p. 596.)

A related provision broadly describes the scope of representation by employee organizations (unions) to include “all matters relating to employment conditions and employer-employee relations, including, but not limited to, wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment,” with the exception of matters committed to management prerogative. (§ 3504; see Seal Beach, supra, 36 Cal.3d at pp. 601-602; Claremont Police Officers Ass'n v. City of Claremont (2006) 39 Cal.4th 623, 628 [47 Cal.Rptr.3d 69, 139 P.3d 532] (Claremont).)

“Thus, under MMBA the governmental employer has a duty to meet and confer concerning all matters within the scope of representation of its employees by the union.” (Fresno, supra, 71 Cal.App.4th at p. 92.) There are mandatory and permissive subjects of bargaining. (Id. at p. 93.) “Interest arbitration clauses are a permissive . . . subject of bargaining.” (Id. at pp. 96-97.)

B. Trial Court’s Determinations

In its statement of decision, the trial court explained its rationale for upholding the County’s bargaining conduct, saying “the MMBA provided the County with statutory authority to collectively bargain over terms and conditions of employment, which included the issue of binding interest arbitration and a union’s waiver of collective activity. Thus, the County was free to expend public funds and resources to support this objective.”

The trial court disagreed with plaintiffs’ contention that “the County’s actions went beyond its legislative authority in the MMBA because it attempted to ‘purchase the political silence’ of’ the DSA, the CPOA, and the RNPA. The court rejected plaintiffs’ claim that the County offered a “quid pro quo arrangement” of higher wages for the three unions’ “agreement not to support binding interest arbitration.” With respect to the DSA, the court said, “as a fundamental matter, since the County was acting within the scope of its collective bargaining authority under the MMBA, the mere suggestion of quid pro quo is nothing more than a recognition that the parties were actively engaged in bargaining. [jQ Moreover, the evidence failed to even demonstrate the existence of a quid pro quo arrangement with regard to the DSA side letter.” The court made similar findings concerning the CPOA, stating that cited evidence “belies Plaintiffs’ suggestion that the County offered the wage increase specifically to purchase the CPOA’s non-support of binding interest arbitration.” Likewise, with respect to the RNPA, the court found: “The evidence failed to demonstrate that the increased wages offers were predicated on the binding interest arbitration provision.”

C. Analysis

Applying the governing legal precepts to the facts adduced at trial, we find no basis for overturning the challenged determination. As we now explain, (1) the County’s conduct was statutorily authorized, (2) there was no quid pro quo arrangement, and (3) the County did not engage in campaign activity.

1. Under the MMBA, the County was authorized to discuss the arbitration initiative.

According to plaintiffs: “One of the most important issues on this appeal concerns whether the duty to ‘meet and confer’ and bargain under the [MMBA] authorized the County to bargain with the unions about their support for the taxpayer interest arbitration initiative.” Plaintiffs frame this question as one of law. In plaintiffs’ view, “the County’s efforts cannot be categorized as ‘mandatory’ or ‘permissive’ bargaining and because the MMBA does not authorize the use of public funds for partisan purposes it cannot authorize the kind of unlawful ‘bargaining’ the County conducted here.”

a. Appellate review

Whether the County’s conduct was authorized by the MMBA is a matter of statutory construction. It thus presents a question of law subject to our independent review. (Smith v. Superior Court (2006) 39 Cal.4th 77, 83 [45 Cal.Rptr.3d 394, 137 P.3d 218].)

When construing a statute, our task is to ascertain the intent of the Legislature, thereby giving effect to the law’s purpose. (Coachella Valley, supra, 35 Cal.4th at p. 1083; San Leandro Teachers Ass'n v. Governing Bd. of San Leandro Unified School Dist. (2009) 46 Cal.4th 822, 831 [95 Cal.Rptr.3d 164, 209 P.3d 73] (San Leandro).)

b. Binding interest arbitration as a proper subject of collective bargaining

Among its purposes, the MMBA aims to “to promote full communication” and “to improve . . . relations” between public employers and employees. (Seal Beach, supra, 36 Cal.3d at p. 597.) Consistent with those purposes, the MMBA “provides for negotiation (‘meet and confer’)” as a means of resolving public labor disputes. (Fire Fighters Union v. City of Vallejo (1974) 12 Cal.3d 608, 614, fn. 4 [116 Cal.Rptr. 507, 526 P.2d 971].) “The meet-and-confer requirement is an essential component of the state’s legislative scheme for regulating . . . employment practices.” {Seal Beach, at p. 599.) “The duty to meet and confer in good faith is limited to matters within the ‘scope of representation’ . . .” however. (Claremont, supra, 39 Cal.4th at p. 630.)

The broad statutory definition of “scope of representation” includes matters concerning “wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment,” while excepting certain management matters. (§ 3504.) “The definition of ‘scope of representation’ and its exception are ‘arguably vague’ and ‘overlapping.’ ” (Claremont, supra, 39 Cal.4th at p. 631.) But there is a significant body of federal law “interpreting the meaning of the federal act’s ‘wages, hours and other terms and conditions of employment.’ ” {Fire Fighters Union v. City of Vallejo, supra, 12 Cal.3d at p. 616.) And California courts “have frequently referred to such federal precedent in interpreting parallel language in state labor legislation.” (Ibid.)

Under state law, although interest arbitration is not a mandatory subject of contract negotiations, it is a permissive subject about which the parties properly may meet and confer. (Fresno, supra, 71 Cal.App.4th at pp. 96-97.) Likewise, under federal law, binding interest arbitration “is not a mandatory subject of bargaining, since its effect on terms and conditions of employment during the contract period is at best remote.” (N.L.R.B. v. Columbus Printing Pressmen and Assistants’ Union No. 252 (5th Cir. 1976) 543 F.2d 1161, 1166.) “It is well settled in the federal courts that interest arbitration is a permissive bargaining subject . . .” however. (International Ass'n of Firefighters, Local 1264 v. Municipality of Anchorage (Alaska 1999) 971 P.2d 156, 157.)

c. Propriety of the discussions here

While acknowledging the general principle that binding interest arbitration is a permissive subject of bargaining, plaintiffs nevertheless argue that it was improper for the County to negotiate over it here. According to plaintiffs, “an interest arbitration clause in a contract itself might have constituted a permissive topic of collective bargaining. But in this case the interest arbitration measure . . . was a constitutionally protective initiative measure presented to the voters by taxpayers. This placed it outside the confines of union-management collective bargaining and within the broader arena of the electoral process.”

We find that argument unpersuasive.

For one thing, as California Supreme Court precedent recognizes, the electoral process and the MMBA can coexist. In Seal Beach, the corn! held that “the city council was required to meet and confer with the [unions] before it proposed charter amendments which affect matters within their scope of representation. The MMBA requires such action and the city council cannot avoid the requirement by use of its right to propose charter amendments.” (Seal Beach, supra, 36 Cal.3d at p. 602.) As plaintiffs point out, Seal Beach concerned a mandatory subject of bargaining. (Id. at p. 595, fn. 2.) Moreover, it did “not involve the question whether the meet-and-confer requirement was intended to apply to charter amendments proposed by initiative.” (Id. at p. 599, fn. 8.) Even so, the reasoning of Seal Beach undercuts plaintiffs’ assertion that collective bargaining and the initiative process are mutually exclusive.

In any event, plaintiffs’ appellate contention is contrary to the position that they consistently urged below. “It is a firmly entrenched principle of appellate practice that litigants must adhere to the theory on which a case was tried.” (Brown v. Boren (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 1303, 1316 [88 Cal.Rptr.2d 758].) In the trial court, plaintiffs recognized the propriety of bargaining over union involvement with the binding interest arbitration initiative. Plaintiffs expressed that position most succinctly in their closing arguments, in which they acknowledged that “the County could legitimately negotiate with a union to withdraw from an initiative,” but nevertheless argued that the County exceeded those bounds in an attempt to “stifle partisan political participation by the unions” and their members. Plaintiffs’ closing argument echoed the view expressed in their opening statement at trial. It was reinforced by the trial testimony of plaintiff Knox. And it was consistent with pretrial arguments made by plaintiffs in opposition to the County’s summary judgment motion.

The position espoused by plaintiffs at trial comports with our construction of the MMBA, which recognizes interest arbitration as a permissible subject of collective bargaining. (§§ 3504, 3505; Fresno, supra, 71 Cal.App.4th at pp. 96-97.) We therefore affirm the trial court’s conclusion that the MMBA authorized the County’s discussion of binding interest arbitration at the bargaining table, even though the subject was presented as a proposed voter initiative, not as a contract clause.

That said, however, we find nothing in the MMBA that explicitly authorizes public expenditures for partisan campaigning in the requisite “clear and unmistakable language” that binding California Supreme Court precedent demands. (Mines, supra, 201 Cal. at p. 287; see Stanson, supra, 17 Cal.3d at pp. 219-220; Vargas, supra, 46 Cal.4th at p. 24.) Therefore, we must consider whether the County’s conduct during collective bargaining constitutes impermissible partisan campaign activity. As we now explain, it does not.

2. The County did not offer higher compensation as a quid pro quo for the unions’ political silence.

Plaintiffs contend that the County “coupled the offer of substantial pay raises in exchange for, and as part of, an indivisible ‘package’ that included a prohibition against joining or supporting the taxpayer initiative.” While disclaiming the need “to establish a quid pro quo ... in order to show a Stanson violation” in this case, plaintiffs nevertheless contend that “contrary to the trial court’s ill founded conclusions there was substantial evidence in the record” to support their quid quo pro claim.

a. Standard and scope of appellate review

As both parties acknowledge, we review the trial court’s determinations on this point for substantial evidence. Those determinations are essentially factual. (Cf. Miller v. Miller, supra, 87 Cal.App.3d at p. 772 [“question of whether a given public communication is ‘informational’ or ‘promotional’ is ... a factual issue”].) The substantial evidence rule governs factual determinations. (Nordquist v. McGraw-Hill Broadcasting Co. (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 555, 561 [38 Cal.Rptr.2d 221].) Under that deferential standard, when “the evidence is in conflict, the appellate court will not disturb the findings of the trial court. The court must consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party, giving that party the benefit of every reasonable inference and resolving conflicts in support of the judgment.” (Ibid.) In other words, “findings must be sustained if they are supported by substantial evidence, even though the evidence could also have justified contrary findings.” (Yield Dynamics, Inc. v. TEA Systems Corp. (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 547, 557 [66 Cal.Rptr.3d 1].)

As the County points out, “an appellant who challenges a factual determination in the trial court . . . must marshal all of the record evidence relevant to the point in question and affirmatively demonstrate its insufficiency to sustain the challenged finding.” (Yield Dynamics, Inc. v. TEA Systems Corp., supra, 154 Cal.App.4th at p. 557, italics omitted.) “If one is going to make a ‘the-facts-compel-that-I-win-as-a-matter-of-law’ argument, one’s brief must fairly state all the evidence.” (McCauley v. Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Ass'n (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 1255, 1266 [80 Cal.Rptr.2d 900].) Failure to comply with that requirement risks forfeiture of the claim. (Ibid.) The County asks us to find forfeiture here. In reply, plaintiffs assert that they “have more than forthrightly summarized and properly cited the evidence on this appeal.” We cannot agree. As a review of plaintiffs’ appellate briefs demonstrates, “the facts stated and the inferences drawn ... are those most favorable to [them] rather than to [defendants].” (Oliver v. Board of Trustees (1986) 181 Cal.App.3d 824, 832 [227 Cal.Rptr. 1].) Nevertheless, the County’s brief cites “considerable evidence supporting the order”—a circumstance that eases our task on appeal. (Ibid.', cf. Goehring v. Chapman University (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 353, 363, fn. 7 [17 Cal.Rptr.3d 39] [reaching the merits despite appellant’s failure to provide a record, where respondent “submitted an adequate record”].) For that reason, and without excusing the defects in plaintiffs’ briefs, we shall address their evidentiary challenges on the merits. (Wershba v. Apple Computer, Inc. (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 224, 237 [110 Cal.Rptr.2d 145].)

Plaintiffs’ quid pro quo claims in this court are directed to the County’s bargaining efforts with the CPOA and the RNPA. Although plaintiffs argued below that the County’s side letter agreement with DSA was an improper quid pro quo arrangement, they do not renew that argument here. We therefore limit our discussion to plaintiffs’ challenges concerning the CPOA and the RNPA negotiations. (Tiernan v. Trustees of Cal. State University & Colleges (1982) 33 Cal.3d 211, 216, fn. 4 [188 Cal.Rptr. 115, 655 P.2d 317]; Reyes v. Kosha (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 451, 466, fn. 6 [76 Cal.Rptr.2d 457].)

b. Negotiations with the CPOA

As the trial court noted in its statement of decision: “Plaintiffs infer a quid pro quo arrangement because the April 7 and 12, 2004 package proposals were the County’s first offers to increase wages in over a year of collective bargaining, and these proposals demanded that the CPOA agree not to support binding interest arbitration.” The court rejected that proffered inference. In the court’s view, “the evidence demonstrated that the County did offer the CPOA a wage increase of 18% over five and half years on or about March 29, 2004, a week before the April 7, 2004 package proposal.” Citing the testimony of Kutras, the court said: “This evidence belies Plaintiffs’ suggestion that the County offered the wage increase specifically to purchase the CPOA’s non-support of binding interest arbitration.”

Plaintiffs attack this finding, saying: “The sole evidence that the trial court offers for this version of events is the plainly incompetent testimony of County Executive Peter Kutras.” In challenging Kutras’s testimony that the first wage increase offer predated the provision concerning the binding interest arbitration initiative, plaintiffs assert that it was undermined by his later testimony and that it was “contradicted by the County’s written proposals” to the CPOA.

We find no merit in plaintiffs’ argument. Taken as a whole, the evidence does not compel us to reject Kutras’s testimony. Nor does the law support plaintiffs’ request that we do so. “Although an appellate court will not uphold a judgment or verdict based upon evidence inherently improbable, testimony which merely discloses unusual circumstances does not come within that category.” (People v. Huston (1943) 21 Cal.2d 690, 693 [134 P.2d 758], overruled on another ground in People v. Burton (1961) 55 Cal.2d 328, 352 [11 Cal.Rptr. 65, 359 P.2d 433].) “To warrant the rejection of the statements given by a witness who has been believed by a trial court, there must exist either a physical impossibility that they are true, or their falsity must be apparent without resorting to inferences or deductions.” (Huston, at p. 693.) Such cases are rare indeed. (Evje v. City Title Ins. Co. (1953) 120 Cal.App.2d 488, 492 [261 P.2d 279].)

This case does not warrant the conclusion that Kutras’s testimony was inherently improbable. The claimed falsity is not “apparent without resorting to inferences or deductions.” (People v. Huston, supra, 21 Cal.2d at p. 693.) “Conflicts and even testimony which is subject to justifiable suspicion do not justify the reversal of a judgment, for it is the exclusive province of the trial judge or jury to determine the credibility of a witness and the truth or falsity of the facts upon which a determination depends.” (Ibid.) In short, plaintiffs’ claim that Kutras’s testimony is inherently unbelievable cannot be sustained. It thus provides no basis for reversal.

Moreover, Kutras’s testimony is not the only evidence supporting the trial court’s determination that the County made no quid pro quo offer to the CPOA. The court drew inferences in support of that determination from several facts. One was that the County’s April 2004 wage offers were far below the union’s demands, “hardly the incentive necessary for the CPOA to accept both the wage offer itself along with the binding interest arbitration provision.” Another was that the April 12 proposal offered no increase in wages over the April 7 proposal, when the binding interest arbitration proposal was first introduced, which “suggests that the wage increase was independent of the terms of the binding interest arbitration provision.” The court also noted that the parties’ 2005 “successor MOU ... did not include a binding interest arbitration provision, but there was no evidence that the wage increase in the successor MOU was lowered due to removal of the binding interest arbitration provision.” Furthermore, though the trial court did not expressly rely on it, there was evidence that it was the CPOA that initiated discussions about the binding interest arbitration measure, not the County.

For all these reasons, we reject plaintiffs’ evidentiary challenges to the trial court’s determination concerning the CPOA negotiations.

c. Negotiations with the RNPA

With respect to the County’s negotiations with the RNPA, the trial court made these findings: “The evidence failed to demonstrate that the increased wages offers were predicated on the binding interest arbitration provision. The binding interest arbitration provision was not even a part of the actual April 7, 2004 package proposal, but rather, read from a draft County document. While the April 8, 2004 proposal contained a binding interest arbitration provision, the wage offer remained the same as in the April 7 proposal, and there was no evidence that the wage offer was necessarily conditioned on this provision. The fact that the provision was an ‘all or nothing’ offer was consistent with the nature of packaged proposals and does not suggest that the wage increase was conditioned on any one provision such as the binding interest arbitration provision. Instead, there was evidence that the increased wage offer was based on discussions with Knox regarding competitive salary rates of nurses in other local area hospitals, as well as salary comparison investigations conducted by the County between March 30, 2004 and April 7, 2004.”

Plaintiffs challenge those determinations, arguing that the trial court erred in not connecting the April 2004 offers of a pay increase and the introduction of the binding interest arbitration provision. In their opening brief on appeal, plaintiffs argue that “substantial evidence clearly refutes the trial court’s insupportable claim that the sharply increased wage offer to the RNPA was not tied to the new but absolute condition that the nurses’ association neither join nor support the initiative.” In their reply brief, plaintiffs rely on the “incontestable” fact that the County’s increased wage offer was “accompanied by the County’s non-negotiable condition that the union withdraw its support for the taxpayer ballot measure.”

Under the substantial evidence review standard that governs this challenge, plaintiffs’ arguments are unavailing. Here, as in many cases, the “trial court’s decision is predominantly based upon questions of credibility, weighing conflicting evidence and drawing reasonable inferences from the voluminous evidence presented.” (Jordan v. City of Santa Barbara (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 1245, 1254 [54 Cal.Rptr.2d 340].) “When two or more inferences can reasonably be deduced from the facts, the reviewing court has no authority to substitute its decision for that of the trial court.” (Shamblin v. Brattain (1988) 44 Cal.3d 474, 478-479 [243 Cal.Rptr. 902, 749 P.2d 339]; accord, Sav-on Drug Stores, Inc. v. Superior Court (2004) 34 Cal.4th 319, 328 [17 Cal.Rptr.3d 906, 96 P.3d 194].) In this case, the trial court’s decision was based on evidence that the County’s increased wage offer followed its receipt of information about the Stanford nurses’ recent wage increases and its investigation of comparable industry salaries. This evidence provides a proper basis for the court’s inference that the County’s offer of increased wages was not “predicated on the binding interest arbitration provision.” Contrary to plaintiffs’ contention, the fact that the proposed increase “accompanied” the proposed provision does not compel the contrary inference that the proposal was an attempted quid pro quo arrangement.

We therefore reject plaintiffs’ arguments concerning the RNPA negotiations.

3. The County did not engage in campaign activity by addressing the proposed initiative during collective bargaining.

Having confirmed that there was no quid quo pro arrangement, we now consider whether it was a misuse of public resources to discuss the initiative measure as part of the process of bargaining with the unions. That question “turns upon whether the activities fall within the category of informational activities that may be funded through . . . general appropriations or, instead, constitute campaign activities that may not be paid for by public funds in the absence of . . . explicit authorization.” (Vargas, supra, 46 Cal.4th at p. 35.)

a. Appellate review

The substantial evidence rule governs this issue. (See Stanson, supra, 17 Cal.3d at pp. 222-223 [determining whether defendant engaged in campaign activity would depend on proof of plaintiff’s allegations]; Miller v. Miller, supra, 87 Cal.App.3d at p. 772 [determining whether communication constituted campaign activity was “a factual issue”]; cf. McCauley v. Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Ass'n, supra, 68 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1264—1265 [concluding that substantial evidence supported the determination that a challenged communication was not express advocacy].)

In analyzing this question, we consider the factors enunciated in decisional law, starting with the type of activity or communication. (Stanson, supra, 17 Cal.3d at p. 221; Vargas, supra, 46 Cal.4th at pp. 24, 35.) Other factors include “the style, tenor and timing” of the communication. (Stanson, at p. 222; see Keller, supra, 47 Cal.3d at p. 1171; Vargas, at p. 7.) Another relevant consideration is the audience to which the communication is directed. (League of Women Voters, supra, 203 Cal.App.3d at p. 550.) We examine each of those factors in turn.

b. Type of activity

As explained in Vargas, “the Stanson decision explicitly identified a number of materials and activities that unquestionably constitute campaign activities (without any need to consider their ‘style, tenor and timing’)—for example, the use of public funds to purchase bumper stickers, posters, advertising ‘floats,’ or television and radio ‘spots’—and also identified a number of activities that are clearly informational—for example, providing a fair presentation of facts in response to a citizen’s request for information.” {Vargas, supra, 46 Cal.4th at p. 33, citing Stanson, supra, 17 Cal.3d at p. 221.)

Here, the challenged activity is the County’s conduct in discussing the unions’ nonsupport of the proposed ballot initiative as part of the collective bargaining process. Plainly, that conduct does not “constitute the kind of typical campaign materials or activities” identified in Stanson. {Vargas, supra, 46 Cal.4th at p. 35, discussing Stanson, supra, 17 Cal.3d at p. 221.) To the contrary, it more closely resembles pursuit of “a proper ‘informational’ role” by presenting the agency’s “view of a ballot proposal at a meeting of [an] organization” that has expressed interest in the topic. {Stanson, at p. 221.)

The fact that the County’s conduct is not typical campaigning activity is not dispositive, however, because “the items listed in Stanson do not exhaust the category of potential campaign materials or activities.” {Vargas, supra, 46 Cal.4th at p. 35.) We therefore examine other pertinent factors.

c. Style and tenor

An examination of the style and tenor of a challenged communication necessarily begins with its language. Here, under the nearly identical proposals made by the County to the CPOA and to the RNPA, each union—for itself and for “its officials”—would have agreed not to “directly or indirectly initiate or support any effort to place binding interest arbitration on the ballot. As to efforts already initiated to place binding interest arbitration on the ballot,” each union would be obliged to “take immediate action to disassociate itself from such action.” Furthermore, the unions would agree not to initiate or support “efforts to place binding interest arbitration on the ballot” in the future.

Here, as in Keller, the “style and tenor” of the challenged material “is basically informative and factual, but without claim of impartiality . . . .” (.Keller, supra, 47 Cal.3d at p. 1172.) But the cases’ similarity ends there. Keller involved an educational packet related to an upcoming judicial retention election, which contained “the kind of material which a state election committee distributes to local committees to aid them in the campaign.” (Ibid.) Here, by contrast, the communications were not intended for further distribution or for direct use in the November election. Keller thus does not support characterizing the bargaining proposals as campaign materials.

Nor does Vargas compel a finding that the proposals’ style and tenor renders them campaign activity. In Vargas, the plaintiffs contended “that when the ‘style, tenor and timing’ of the challenged communications are taken into account, the communications should be viewed as improper campaign materials rather than as permissible informational materials.” (Vargas, supra, 46 Cal.4th at p. 35.) That contention hinged on the claim that the challenged communications failed to set forth the “competing views” held by the plaintiffs and other taxpayers, with the result that the materials “improperly ‘took sides’ on the ballot measure and should be viewed as improper campaign activity.” (Ibid.) The court rejected that argument, concluding instead that all of the challenged communications “constitute permissible informational activities—and not inappropriate campaign activities.” (Id. at p. 40.)

Here, as in Vargas, the fact that the County expressed “an opinion or position regarding the merits of a ballot measure is not improper.” (Vargas, supra, 46 Cal.4th at p. 36.) Furthermore, the County’s proposals were framed in the dispassionate language of contract, not in the exhortatory tone of persuasion. Thus, their “style and tenor is not at all comparable to traditional campaign material.” (Id. at p. 38.)

d. Timing

In this case, the challenged collective bargaining activity took place in April 2004, between the 7th and the 12th. That was after Knox filed the notice of intent to circulate a petition to qualify the measure for the ballot (Apr. 2), but before proponents began gathering signatures (Apr. 23), before the initiative qualified for the ballot (June 23), and before the county adopted a resolution placing the initiative before the voters (Aug. 3).

In terms of timing, this case is similar to Santa Barbara, supra, 167 Cal.App.4th 1229. There, the defendant agency “formulated a plan outlining the county’s transportation needs, and proposed a ballot measure that would impose a one-half percent sales tax to pay for the projects set forth in its plan.” (Id. at p. 1233.) The plaintiff sued, asserting that the defendant “unlawfully advocated and spent public funds for passage of the ballot measure.” (Ibid.) The trial court dismissed the suit, and the appellate court affirmed. (Id. at p. 1234.) In affirming, the court relied on two grounds: the existence of express statutory authorization for the expenditures and the fact that the challenged activity predated any campaign. (Id. at pp. 1239-1240.)

As relevant here, the Santa Barbara court concluded that the “activity challenged by appellant did not occur in an election contest or campaign.” (Santa Barbara, supra, 167 Cal.App.4th at p. 1240.) Rather, the court observed, the activity “occurred before . . . finalization of the ordinance placing [the measure] on the ballot, and before the county board of supervisors had adopted the ordinance and certified [the measure] for the 2008 ballot.” (Ibid.) For that reason, the court explained, Stanson and other decisions were distinguishable. “Stanson involved the expenditure of funds for partisan campaign materials and for speaking engagements to promote passage of a bond measure that had already been placed on the ballot and was the subject of a current election campaign.” (Ibid.) “The cases cited in Stanson and more recent cases also concern bond or other ballot measures that had already been qualified for placement on the ballot.” (Ibid.’, see also, e.g., League of Women Voters, supra, 203 Cal.App.3d at pp. 548-549.) As the Santa Barbara court acknowledged, “the drafting and sponsorship of a ballot measure is a necessary prerequisite to the election campaign that follows its placement on the ballot.” (Santa Barbara, at p. 1241.) But “ ‘prior to and through the drafting stage of a proposed initiative, the action is not taken to attempt to influence voters either to qualify or to pass an initiative measure; there is as yet nothing to proceed to either of those stages.’ ” (Ibid., quoting League of Women Voters, at p. 550.)

The Santa Barbara court thus concluded: “Nothing in Stanson suggests that the formulation and drafting of a proposed ballot measure before its qualification for the ballot constitutes partisan campaigning for the ballot measure.” (Santa Barbara, supra, 167 Cal.App.4th at p. 1241; see also League of Women Voters, supra, 203 CaI.App.3d at p. 548 [“the formulation and drafting of a proposed initiative does not fall within the purview of . . . partisan campaigning . . .”].)

For their part, plaintiffs rely on California Common Cause v. Duffy (1987) 200 Cal.App.3d 730 [246 Cal.Rptr. 285]. That appeal over attorney fees arose from a taxpayer suit against the Sheriff of San Diego County, John Duffy. (Id. at p. 738.) Duffy had appeared a