The City also cites to cases where courts have been reluctant to invalidate votes of the electorate based on procedural irregularities. (See Amador Valley Joint Union High (1978) 22 Cal.3d 208, 242-244 [finding that Sch. Dist. v. State Bd. of Equalization although and summary were technically imprecise, they initiative measure’s title substantially complied with the law]; (1982) 30 Cal.3d 638.) Assembly v. Deukmejian decision, however, specifically clarified that its remedial authority did not extend PERB’s to invalidating the results of the municipal election. That remedy lies exclusively with the courts in an action in quo warranto. (International Assn. of Fire Fighters v. City of (1985) 174 Cal.App.3d 687, 698 [quo warranto writ is the exclusive method for Oakland appellants to attack amendments to the city charter based on failure to comply with city’s the MMBA].) Based on the foregoing, we see no reason why decision should not be PERB’s applied to the City under these circumstances. Decision on Defenses Not Raised by the City PERB’s In its decision, PERB held that absent a valid defense, a party subject to the requirement to consult in good faith must defer action on matters subject to the MMBA’s consultation duty until the duty has been exhausted. Accordingly, the decision went on to consider—and reject—several possible defenses to the actions. The City argues City’s that PERB should resolve, not find, issues; therefore, its additional analysis into these possible defenses, which were not briefed by either the City or the IAFF, was erroneous and deprived the City of due process and fairness as it was unable to prove these defenses before the ALJ and PERB. First, we note that the City does not provide analysis or citations to legal authority for its assertion that decision on these defenses violates due process and the PERB’s fundamental rules of fairness, aside to a lone citation to a PERB decision that states: province of the board is to resolve, not to find, Unified “[t]he issues.” (Tahoe-Truckee
The City also cites to cases where courts have been reluctant to invalidate votes of the electorate based on procedural irregularities. (See Amador Valley Joint Union High Sch. Dist. v. State Bd. of Equalization (1978) 22 Cal.3d 208, 242-244 [finding that although initiative measure’s title and summary were technically imprecise, they substantially complied with the law]; Assembly v. Deukmejian (1982) 30 Cal.3d 638.) PERB’s decision, however, specifically clarified that its remedial authority did not extend to invalidating the results of the municipal election. That remedy lies exclusively with the courts in an action in quo warranto. (International Assn. of Fire Fighters v. City of Oakland (1985) 174 Cal.App.3d 687, 698 [quo warranto writ is the exclusive method for appellants to attack amendments to the city charter based on city’s failure to comply with the MMBA].) Based on the foregoing, we see no reason why PERB’s decision should not be applied to the City under these circumstances. PERB’s Decision on Defenses Not Raised by the City In its decision, PERB held that absent a valid defense, a party subject to the MMBA’s requirement to consult in good faith must defer action on matters subject to the consultation duty until the duty has been exhausted. Accordingly, the decision went on to consider—and reject—several possible defenses to the City’s actions. The City argues that PERB should resolve, not find, issues; therefore, its additional analysis into these possible defenses, which were not briefed by either the City or the IAFF, was erroneous and deprived the City of due process and fairness as it was unable to prove these defenses before the ALJ and PERB. First, we note that the City does not provide analysis or citations to legal authority for its assertion that PERB’s decision on these defenses violates due process and the fundamental rules of fairness, aside to a lone citation to a PERB decision that states: “[t]he province of the board is to resolve, not to find, issues.” (Tahoe-Truckee Unified
H041407.DOCX