What is the test for establishing inadequate representation in a motion to amend the Oakland Municipal Guidelines?

Adequacy of representation is the sole element at issue here. To establish inadequate representation, Intervenors needed to make a "very compelling showing" because: (1) a governmental entity (Oakland) was already acting on behalf of their interests in this action: and (2) Intervenors and Oakland share the same ultimate objective of upholding the Ordinance and Resolution. See Arakaki v. Cayetano , 324 F.3d 1078, 1086 (9th Cir. 2003) (a "very compelling showing" is required to rebut a "presumption of adequacy" when "the government is acting on behalf of a constituency it represents" or when the applicant and existing party "have the same ultimate objective").