morning after you've identified yourselves for the record please be aware that we do not utilize time clocks but we do stick to the to the kenny on behalf of defendant john birch ok value your honor we've agreed to try and divide our time as evenly as possible give her take a few moments i plan to go first however if the panel would rather hear from the board first so it's well then i think i'll go joining generally refers to one of the declaratory judgment an injunction something that goes through the chance record as opposed to the county division which would ordinarily here at the ministry to review and enjoy needs an it doesn't speak in terms of administrative review it does now that it does now there are several provisions in the code which also give authority to the board to resolve matters affecting the fine and then section when you proceed through that section  i think there were two parts to that to the circuit court decision the first kairos she looked at the statute we were we were being sued under the section one dash one fifteen which is that it's facebook provides for section a circuit court but she also went to the separate provision consider this a direct attack or collateral the time when i when the case was initially found in the trial court i wouldn't consider her a direct attack or a lateral check this because i think what we're attack which was not allowable under there was the second part of the circuit boards analysis i think the first part is what i what i said to respond just scare cia and the second part was to say look there's already been a resolution with that with the circuit courts now since the first is that we were now parties to that proceeding that went before the board right so so we did not have the opportunity that that everybody said from being either collateral or direct is that what you're saying that is what i'm saying that because it's it's allowed it through to continue that is the pension benefits it resolved the question by not strike you down in that sense at least let me ask you this up any idea why the board attorney general's office would take would depend on the outcome before the board well as a matter of comedy and prudence the attorney general i think it makes sense to allow the administrative agency to consider an issue i mean what concurrent jurisdiction is a competing jurisdiction we don't have any interest in racing the board to a decision i don't understand where where the issue to get a good story nature of the board somehow deprives the attorney general's office of involvement  we don't we want to find out whether if i a lesion has occurred and the only one who can tell is whether a violation is occurred is the board by deciding or not deciding in the center or letting things remain as they in a new attempt who was convicted of a felony arising from his service as a police officer and we think those elements are all mad and the payment is violated what about section one eighty two or section section one eighty two  that that doesn't make sense as far as i can see the pinup the pension benefits was done many many years ago and it's not as if the board has to knew its decision every year that can't be a violation of of the code that what what seems to be a violation of the code is is the board's ruling that allows the pen to pick up the pension benefits to continue as violated one eighty two as well they didn't explain their interpretation of one eighty two which may very well yours or may very well be mine which is to say that any time a post brought that's going to result in the pain of money you have to have a majority we would love to get  i've got to stop you because the problem with debt view is that you've got to have any decision by the board to give you work in the world would you allow a civil action to occur and i don't understand why that should be if  do we write it that way let me say how do we save that how do we say that there's also a violation here on this board diminishing the the the broad authority one  with with the absence of a majority vote your sort of imputing to the board that it has an obligation to consider this well i did have an obligation to really address the issue and could have that the their dad whenever i don't know what the circumstances would be where you you're saying that a majority of the vote has to be had has the fault in the book in one way or the other i don't know what section you're relying o quorum for the transaction of business and any meeting about it that no pension or benefits shall be allowed are granted and no money shall be paid out of the fine unless ordered by our vote of the month or two of the members of the board as shown by roll call into the pot on the official record of proceedings of the meeting at which such action is taken for a meeting shall be open to the public five dash dash one eight t guy don't think it presumes that if they do it if they go and consider an issue and then they allow a lot of money to go out of the fund without a majority then they know they could have by could simply have decided not to have heard this at all and denied the the composition of the board being an even number and that is a conscious act by the legislature that it's and the fourth floor is always a possibility and so how do you does that nullify every other four to fo pay to an individual who clearly committed a felony and that was connected to his service the attorney general when you were right there when you use the word clearly then it goes to the yet your ticket story meijer of the board and the and to the board to allow you to proceed before then and present all these facts and let them vote in new what are you asking us to do to allow you to proceed on your complaint and allow the circuit court to make that determination and make this y that's correct the problem is and there always has to be this problem where is the administrative review record is there record pending before the circuit court the ministry of review record to allow the court to determine what appellate you will have an additional ten minutes in order to make up for the five minutes that he went over and his five minutes rebuttal so you will have a total of twenty five to divide between the two of thank the question before the square on appeal really comes down to the inclusion of ten words in the illinois and chain code and those words are relating to or arising out of or in connection life there is for example from that's infection two to seven pension board members of the ones who did not prevail before the court would have been in a position to secure administrative review but your honor as in any hearing under two to seven it would arguable issue whether continued pain is an arguable violation at yahoo i believe that the continued payment is at most it's a decision a decision made by the board of indecision go was that not a violation well if i can i'd like to address that in two parts first in order for the ballot to reach a decision majority or by by vote by a split vote as occurred in this case nothing in the statute that says that if you just have a time vote then the status quo remains that's not what it says it says in order to pay out these monies you have to have a majority vote where is it argument whether or not there was a required majority vote to me now as hasn't been addressed also let me ask you this why is it that the one fifteen statute and  challenge to a violation and application of a current provision such as two to seven is not a violation even with a bad application is around here somewhere there's a disagreement with that  you consider a violation that the attorney general could pursue action i'd rather your honor if there's a requirement under the code that say there's a requirement for a notice and he notice a violation so i'm still waiting to hear what a violation really means in the way you want to restrict one one five because like notice doesn't rise to the level of a violation if  whether or not he should be continued to receive his benefit now we talked about this four to four vote you have to understand he was getting the benefit the vote had to be t to continue to receive payments that was a paying out of his pension and in order to pay out some majority vote according to one time before the pension and sometimes they come down to four to four and what happens then the pension continues right and the eight turning generals office doesn't come in there and say there's been a violation right  where the board had the problem here's where the situation arises you have a situation where the man was convicted fifteen years later of giving false testimony in a in  other hand there could be a group of people would say well that's frost testimony had its origin to the time he was a police officer so it should involve two to seven so you have a a case statute bred that conviction of any felony forfeit your benefit and the board granted him a benefit once or if he meant give the attorney defining violation are you saying that a file a should is a point decision and not an erroneous decision you're making that distinction because you apparently it appeared in the decision but a bad decision is reviewable now the attorney general let me ask you this is there any reason why a one fifteen and the pension board statutes cannot exist concurrently cannot have concurrent jurisdiction they can exist if the if the action if the action under one fifteen constitutes a please answer this question you know so this is hall i have to forgive myself i forgot the question is how can i understand like not that i think so i just wondered if it was it was less of a question more of a existence since nineteen eighty two so the fact of the matter is that there is not wholesale abuse by the attorney general on this particular statute and the past why if it had been john birch we wouldn't be here well john purchased the vehicle but we're trying to figure out what the contours of one fifty really are and what the authority is that the attorney general's office really is and  think the supreme court the u s supreme court says that you know we don't have to be just like justice always pointing out we don't have to a lot we don't have to address them to the slide or the opening of the door thank you thank you your honor i liked it initially at the outset make the point that we we can win this case that the payment of funds to purchase was a violation now and five twenty two i realize that there is not the interpretation of five twenty two and we don't need that when i be happy to get a concurrence on that issue but our primary argument and our principal issue is that the payment of money to birds is a violation and where that comes down to and what  apply the statute through the facts of that case to make that determination so there's not really a principle distinction between what he claims to be a violation and what we're adjudicating or what we're seeking to achieve to kate here let me ask you because i don't really know what says whenever there is a decision sir before that allows tensions to continue then we have a right to file civil action how do we how do we prevent that from happening under this argument that you're present actions that are duplicative of actions other people have brought in other forms and then number of aquittal and common law concepts that do limit the ability of people to bring those actions and they would apply i mean really whether you want one under one one five anyone can bring and the attorney general can pray but he has not yet brought the prior to this they an action i'm sure one one five challenging violation any violation of the pension code not just one eighty two but the payments all of these things that if they can identify a then it could be utilized and this is something that is not new is that correct is that nineteen eighty two perhaps when this statute came into effect and my second question is the legislature now almost sent these statutes exist and tandem because the pension board statutes were in active and one nine hundred sixty three for almost twenty years prior and then having just conduct on the part of the board with the attorney general isn't sitting in her office looking for reasons to to attack the municipal passion boys but when there's a greedy scab that abdication of responsibility a complete failure to consider relevant issues we have a perception that the legislature understood the content of the existing statutes and wanted to superimpose a new new approach for a new cause faction and i'm top of them and it should see accepted as its plain language provides