is performing whether the chair does it himself or herself or whether the chair delegates it to somebody else the chair ultimately has to decide whether to retain their graduate student or let their graduate who graduate soon go after the semester how about a faculty member retention of a graduate student yes now some what you'll probably hear is that some chairs may decide to collaborate with their faculty and it's find out whether or not that that will be a good fit but yes at the end of the day the university maintains it responsible party and the teaching research and scholarly activities of the university the statutes provide that each cowlitz or other academic unit seven government internal administration i the faculty pursuant to bylaws that are  faculty under the shared governance model chairs work with the faculty of their department and operating the department as dean or manager describe it they are spokes person for the department and expected to take a leadership role in making sure that the department complete responsibilities and communicates information to the university but in that role they represent the department higher levels of university management not the other way around as the university statutes provide chairs act independently faculty to make those decisions their role is not in directing the faculty it is being coordinated in the work of the department with the faculty additionally it's important to note that chairs rotate chairs faculty regular tenure system battle to remember and that's what the department chair this particularly popular with dean and as far as the faculty are concerned there's no longevity sure they could they could serve it they typically serve a three year term but they can serve multiple three year terms but ultimately the faculty can choose to remove their chair they can vote their chair out and the appointment of a chair does not taking a vote on it or they're not even consulted about there's no evidence of that in the record that evidence there's no evidence that that dean could do that and the record of the evidence in the record suggested that chairs have done that they have made the decision to remove a chair and appoint a new one and have informed the dean that they made that decision but there's nothing in the record indicating that the dean is there anything in the record about the chancellor provost that we're be calling the department has together  hey guys you might have been in this instance with this particular campus fundraising is an issue department jitters because they are the voice and  of that department are going to have to begin to engage in fundraising and friend raising in addition to urging faculty to do saying is there anything in the record like that or that that being a responsibility that is delegated down or directly down from deans or the pros and not not that i'm aware of i guess i'm not really sure we can th fundraising for andrew now i'm not really sure i understand your question well since universities now probably receive less than twenty percent of their funding from the state even universities they're well off with funds sometimes find it necessary to engage in capital campaigns or fundraising efforts and you can't just have that done or the movement is not to just have that done by development officers and presidents and provosts the development is chairs do it because department chairs want unrestricted funds to spend on travel for graduate students or unrestricted funds to help with things going on in the department and i'm asking if those and maybe even that didn't come up in this case but the department peers would have to take an active role and making sure that they and their faculty members in gauge the public how to fund raising campaign sure that's not in the record but apart from that from the evidence in the record and from the way that the university is structured in the university statutes are structured if that is something that authority given to it by the department back up to you to determine how that department was going to represent itself and accomplish the objectives that higher levels of university administration have acquired and that is why  chairs are not managerial employed the hallmarks of manager status are final responsibility and independent authority to establish an affectionate policy and the consequent alignment of bad employees interest with management and there was no evidence of that in the record here rather here in the chairs for part of their department and representing their departments up to higher levels of university administration while never said what percentage of faculty total i looked at it and i just guessing the percentage forty plus percent of the faculty did would be supervised by department chairs as a whole or non the tenure track possibilities of the chair of self and only most of the chairs testified that only about a third of their employment time is spent and share responsibilities with the other two thirds going to their regular teaching in some of their insurer said it was more than fifty percent one of the chairs that was the only one said that it was more than fifty percent the average was about a third of their employment time and so when you when you couple that with the sort of non managerial but not at the responsibilities that the chair has with respect to chair duties that are not related to their responsibility in hiring and retaining adjuncts then it becomes clear that that that the hiring and retaining adjunct is not uppermost in importance or influence with respect to their job responsibilities the employees at issue were already determined to be supervisors they were already did they already had authority to discipline employees and also to adjust grievances and so the determination that you were competent to employ is based in part on those factors which is different than what we have here and your system faculty members are not subordinates of the chair their colleagues of the chair and there's nothing in the record indicating that chairs have any authority to discipline other faculty members and there's not there's no reasonable there was no evidence suggesting a reasonable expectation that they would actually be adjusting grievances and therefore obtaining the type of confidential information that would make them confidential employ all right indra thank you for your style have more time rhythm or no you w is to take a look at what the undisputed evidence is with respect to what shares do chairs have faculty appointments almost every chair spends at least half of their type teachers and all of the chairs who testified including the chair is called by marriage but had active research and service responsibilities now in addition of that there are some duties the chairs have that are different than faculty but that are not so for example chairs have more responsibilities with respect to faculty advice and that faculty advising this is a coup or faculty obligation under university of illinois statutes and under the faculty personnel po chairs are responsible for pushing paper they're responsible for keeping the faculty personal process on track even though they don't have any more voice than other faculty members in terms of who gets hired to a regular facts weighed the conflicting testimony weighed the impact of the university statutes is clearly erroneous and i submit given the undisputed facts about what we're actually all cheers do with their time really support service and in addition to that number one in most departments they rotate we had a couple of long serving chairs who testified but in most departments they were ok and in number two the faculty in a department  get rid of their chair if they don't like it and we even have a concrete example of that in the testimony in this case with the department of legal studies matt they decided he didn't like their chair they decided  to take the chair out of the chairmanship put somebody else him and inform the d n c office and they went on with their other departmental duties and there was no evidence that the into office had any say whatsoever in what that department is the specifically deal with the power of the chair and the power of the faculty and they say that chair shall have power to act independently in such manners as are delegated to the chair by the executive committee of the department of executive committee of the ordinary faculty of that are they further say that for example on budget that the chairs job is to collaborate with the executive committee in the preparation of the budget and be responsible for the expenditure of funds for the purposes approved by the executive committee and they further say that the chair together with the executive committee is responsible for the organization of the work of the department and for the quality of efficient progress the late eighty's with the center directors the court looked at the issue of managerial and it said it was a close question because the center director said half time faculty appoint its in this case the all of the departments yours most of continue to teach two or three classes yes yes and they continue to have we had to research agendas and they continue to have service to the university community that if you're a full time faculty member you'd be required to say that right that's right so if you only teach tuesday part share your faculty responsibilities have been somewhat reduced they have you know for purposes of research advancement and educational purposes you do research all right that's right ok that's right that's right the point being that if you look at the word predominate in the managerial job the court in the prior case in the fourth district held that fifty percent boy that was really close to predominate and here of the evidence quite clearly indicates that chairs have faculty personnel policy and the fact the personnel policy provides that if a chair was somebody to teach an extra class they can call that person ask or and if the person says no i don't want to do it then the person can be given an overload departments the chair does have responsibility for determining you know who gets hired off a last year's list and who comes back from year to year there was no evidence in this case with respect to the amount of time that discreet function top ten and there was plenty of evidence that university wide chairs had responsibilities that faculty responsibilities and well exceeded fifty percent so so if you take the lack of evidence put out by the university and the positive evidence put on by the chairs of this case then your issue really is  management support to prove the exclusion and i don't think that the agency clearly error when it determined that management had not carried that for you and thank you your honor and appreciate  yes thank you just to clarify one or two things that were mentioned during the response there is testimony in the record as to whether or not the dean can remove a chair and peach tree eighteen of the hearing transcript the who was actually once a dean himself mr permitting or actually testified as follows twelve if the dean believes that the chair should be removed they may discuss that with the department the department may or may not agree with the dean but the dean may still move forward and remove the chair and at that point an election for a new share would take place that is not contradictory so just to clarify that one or two other points of clarification i believe it was mentioned that the non tenured faculty such as adjuncts are organized that you are yes they are not organized they are not currently part of the bargaining unit but you i see they are but not at you i asked and also to address one or two other minor points there was some talk just just now about whether or not cheers rotate and the frequency with which chairs will ascend the position of a chair  it is very good there was some testimony that in one of the departments and i believe steve was right legal studies that they actually had a crack this of rotating because of the time commitment that the pitted duties took i think you heard testimony during the hearing you'll see that in the transcript that certain faculty don't like to do it it's it's a burden it takes them away from their teaching responsibilities and so they decided to share that so after so many  years the faculty would vote another one of them one of their own fellow members to actually ascend and be a chair that is not how it's done in other departments other departments they have very long term chairs who everybody is comfortable with the chair is comfortable with his duties  that chair remains in that position long term the one piece of evidence that was cited about the department notifying the dean i remember that discussion very clearly i just reviewed it last night the testimony and cross examination was that faculty did not know what if any review or what if any interface there had been at the dean's level and all so for that as as far as the record shows the dean approved the replacement of the chair there is no indication that the department did it independent of or in lieu of the chairs oversight ability with that with those few points of clarification i would just like to renew this with a long canned speech i just want to make a couple of points and i answer any questions your honour's might have you've already gotten a lot of brownie points for just starting off the way they are not going to be a long game speed big here on earth really what this case seventy seven it amended section eleven dash four zero three of the motor vehicle code to make it a class a misdemeanor now as anything shows a section had been the elements that are required to be satisfied under section four one but by adding a penalty to it they created a separate offense that's essentially identical statute i guess your honor i don't think so because he would in any case if you say what happened in this case knock someone off their bike or or or smack them in their car you are required to stop you know you're required under both statutes at least to enquire as to whether the person needs aid and you're required to stay on the scene until that terminations been made but the personal injury component or a woman is that the injury requires immediate professional treatment in a medical facility or doctor's office and that is not informed foodie that's true your honor however the n s a can effectively different terms of the seriousness i mean they're trying to say if the person is her so that they require medical attention and they actually go did that's worse than the other whine if there's any injury whatsoever you must if there's any injury whatsoever on her for all three you must stop and beats offer assistance regardless of the severity of the injury and when i was preparing for this argument you know it occurred to me that this might be an avenue of questioning from you and i just go back to the fact that for one has incorporated for all three and but doesn't if a prosecutor is trying to decide how to charge and the person is not injured all but you violate the provisions for free but in the other instance the person has to be taken what section i'm going to bring it under the other things that the people have done have been similar in this and you know they did stop or they took off with him give their name i think if if there was no injury you would you wouldn't bring it under either of these sections because you're but this personal injury is one that you can have a personal injury without requiring the medical treatment or being taken to the pool or make it immediate professional treatment in a medical facility or a doctor's office that's pretty specific you're bleeding it in my response to that is you cannot make that determination until after you've stopped which you're matter what now the fact is there there may not be a there may be an injury which ultimately doesn't require immediate medical attention i mean this would be alternately you would be willing to hear this fellow that that got hit in this case he walked away yeah he required medical attention and i think the way this these this statute is drafted this and i understand what you're saying there but i don't think that this the superiority of the injury it's based on the subjective determination of the person who asked to stop you have to stop if had run off and my client's truck with damage to the tables would have been turned but i think you know that the getting caught up on the the fact that one statute encompasses more   is in a condition to receive or understand information that you would be exchanging and no police officers present after your brand of assistance you can go report it to the police so yes but the order of the injury makes the elements of four over three different than the elements of or one well i would argue that the second paragraph for a three encompasses i mean i'm not a doctor but if i hit somebody and they're in no condition to take my driver's license information that certainly i think constitutes an injury that requires immediate medical attention i don't know if i'm making sense but if you look at the second  but i don't believe that the definition of injury and for one defeats in the question of the defeated it means that the statutes are not identical and the single factor grasping how that's a proportionate penalty issue but if it is not an excuse it's not explicitly stated in section four of three that the injury has to be x y or z but the fact that the second paragraph of three addresses the circumstance in which someone is in basically it says you know if they're not in a condition to receive and understand such information freedom you are permitted to leave in four zero three the big key trigger there is for that offense also is you have to report it to the police you can believe in both of these circumstances you know section b a one has that saving sentence if the last i believe the last sentence up for one b says something along the lines of if you comply with section b then you can't be held responsible for violating  if not explicitly but i don't believe you can exchange information or render aid without stopping and staying and you know that the state brought this up in their brief i mean not to be flip but you're not going to throw some band aids in your driver's license out the window as you drive past the person you laid out in the street and that i believe that element certainly in my mind is identical it need not explicitly be spelled out well they charged it did have to say this is the driver of a vehicle involved in a motor vehicle accident who let's use this circumstance if you're going under for three resulting in injury and he didn't stop and render aid and he didn't which is what my client was convicted of he didn't report the police under that statute so yes sure there is an injury in in both of these but in four three they would have to show that it was an injury requiring immediate question of treatment and medical so your doctor thought well i would argue that under four of three would you would have to show that if you know the if the person was in no wonder what i think your honor is this the amendment before three i think was done without necessarily thinking through the consequences nothing has changed as far as i can tell and i look back to the motor vehicle code of one thousand nine hundred fifty seven with few exceptions the language for one has remained the same the penalties have gone up a little but they did not they were not it was not amended at the time for free was a man d and i think that the issue is as i've said the injury isn't compassed in the language of four or three as as i also said i don't i don't have a jury instruction one i can certainly see unless your honour's have any other questions really i understand the you're the sticking point for your honour's unless you have any other questions  that's what you're saying but if that's one of the first things that leaps out at these three dollars we have to decide ok if that's the first thing that leaps out it just seems  distinguishing factor between the two sections that are at issue here this afternoon the question is whether or not you can charge one without having violated the other and i think that the court has brought up yet another indication or scenario  which that can be done the prosecutor would have to prove under for one that a personal injury pursuant to the definition provided in that statute has been suffered by the offended party that's not part of or three we think there's another distinguishing factor says well we think you can't be charged with world three without being charged with or one you could be on the scene refused to give information but you could stay on the scene until dismissed by the police officer that would make you world three so we think there are in addition to the fact or a personal injury brought up by the court this afternoon we think there are distinguishing elements between both offenses we did not find the two offenses to be i four of three by staying on the scene and not you know not as i said in the briefs for one six explicitly incorporates for three so you cannot stay on the scene and comply with  one without complying with or three or vice versa so that's all i wish to say and that's your honour's have any other questions thank you but no thank you