city has about fifteen hundred employees it's the best majority of them are represented by a little over two dozen bargaining units and then there's a few hundred nine union workers rather th negotiate separately on the health benefits for each individual bargaining unit in the nonunion the city and the unions that read a number of years ago to take that responsibility to a standing committee that was the original joint committee since it was created in two thousand and two the city considered those meetings of the original committee to be exempt from the open meeting  either because either under the negotiating matters exception to the open meetings act or section twenty four of the labor relations act like shit it excludes negotiations from the open meeting th issue never really a rose until january of two thousand and twelve when the original committee met and deliberated on whether to extend health coverage benefits to civil union  issue coming out of the may seventeenth twenty twelve twenty thirteen hearing was whether or not art was the issue of attorney's fees that was the formed the second committee whether or not the second committee is exempt from the or i may i obviously think that it is but that's not an issue before this court it's not an issue that's been decided at the lower court ye that issue is one that the city believes that there is no jurisdiction at this time to hear because all your issues were resolved once once they work entered its orders of july twelve of twenty thirteen and enter tours the attorneys fear issue and it dismiss the petition for a rule to show cause at that time on july too have been violated it doesn't necessarily preserve in perpetuity the current case which was dismissed subject to the taking wonder rule to show cause why the city and why the new committee doesn't comply with the injunction that has been dissolved it's it's the city's position that is that second petition does not raise a post trial motions the court as soon as we got the transcript of  to the new action the petition for rule to show cause involves a new committee members that serve new committee members and it's essentially asking them to defend and  held in contempt for violating an order that was entered and rescinded before they were joined in r t i think a party defendant is entitled to have a clear out clear allegations against is to promote harmonious labor relations here in the interests of promoting efficiency and harmonious labor relations the city and a number of unions representing various bargaining units of employees joined together to establish a multi unit labor management committee for health care the second committee is made up solely in representatives of the city and the union parties to agreement and negotiate on an ongoing basis only over health care benefits and insurance for the city employees represented by the unions who are agreements reached by the committee or subject to ratification by the city in an open meeting of city council and any decision by the city to extend to any nine units of employees or retirees any negotiated benefits negotiate by the committee for union court could order private corporations to already record their meetings hundred open meetings act their their number subject to open meetings act then this committee gets or vice versa the trial court's order to make or any recordings also requires the applicable labor law precedent the mere recording of the meetings itself inhibits and prevents good faith collective bargaining while the public policy of open meetings act is in favor of government reading setting up into the public the legislature decided that the public policy collective bargaining that would not be held in open meetings standard of review is deferential on both the first issue whether the court had jurisdiction to order the audio recording or whether there was previously a final order that was entered depends on whether finality exists and finality depends on what the court wanted to do the intentions of the court so we have to look at the actions and the words  existing rushton agreed that that party could be dismissed out but what's important about this case is that reston had sued both the first committee and the city and the point of suing the they do it again in the future if the new committee created is again in your opinion mr craven in violation of your meetings and you seek the same relief you successfully my question to you is why are we here why didn't you do it again why don't you file the same position for to your own for poor mary injunction that succeeded the first time so we don't have to deal with these abstract in and in between there were various proceedings that happened after the may twelfth hearing and everybody actively participated we filed we felt pleadings they responded and we would have maintains actually dismissed the entire suit then it would have been inconsistent with the merits and that barricade made for everybody all of the or by opposing parties now telling the courts and as to continue to actively pursue this litigation without ever for almost a year and a half raising the issue of jurisdiction that is exactly that have a case for which the vestment doctrine is designed it is as  be allowed to what do these really those two motions for i'm sorry to what the motions themselves to whom to what is that they second independent was the city of springfield and that this allusion did not apply as to this city obviously because there was no need and if their motion to dismiss also did not apply to the city because the city had already imagined this second committee which that that the legality under though it may have which had yet to be decided and that court and its council agreed that that issue would be decided of later time and at the later time i mean in this litigation it's obviously anybody can always bring in open meetings act if you say that you can later means absolutely nothing and i think it doesn't make any point to and interpret you're right i think there are the record here is it seems to be him that that the court first there's various examples of the court saying that it had never ceased to have jurisdiction and then at at  twenty actually is quite forgetting and therefore either subject or not subject to the open meetings act this audio recording order is in the nature of the discovery order illinois  which is that collective bargaining is taking place here that determination was never made by the trial court it's simply an issue that the trial court never got to reach because this appeal happened they are also distinguishable because the recording there was i would be happy to entertain any follow up questions if there are no waiver so it shows up in court saying by the way we're here round two for tea or implement a injunction there will be no arguments