the petitioners do not argue in their brief to this Court that the decision concerning the allocation of moneys in this case was based on any “legislative facts” or the “establishment of a general policy.” Instead, insofar as the specific issue of legislative immunity is concerned, the arguments presented in the petitioners’ brief in the present case focus solely on the fact that the decision was one that would impact the City’s coffers. The mere fact that a potentially discriminatory decision is made through an exercise of control over the public purse does not insulate the entity making that decision from a claim that the action is administrative in nature. E.g., Trevino v. Gates, 23 F.3d 1480 (9th Cir.1994); Hughes; O’Brien v. City of Greers Ferry, 873 F.2d 1115 (8th Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>). The United States Court of Appeals for the
recognizing that an action will lie for conversion of money when its identification is possible and there is an obligation to deliver the specific money in question or otherwise particularly treat the specific money holding that it is the legislative authority of the union that must  make an act a crime holding that a failure to approve an expenditure of money is not necessarily a legislative act holding that a spouse is not necessarily an agent of the debtor recognizing that member of local governmental body does not necessarily act in legislative capacity when participation takes form of vote