claim that they were performing investigative work during that time that they worked as a dispatcher and so do we want to do that or is this let's at least turns on the on  they answer these nine one one calls engage in the very same sort of work they always ask questions of the caller how many assailants are what kind of problem arose if there was a shooting how many shooters were there with which way did they read i was sort of questions always come up and i'm not sure whether your position is that when those questions are asked that person is in teaching investigative work and therefore qualifies under the succession right there i think they do and the reason i say is that a that paragraph that you're relying on of course that you stress and rely heavily on the word investigate i have i know you do but there's an interesting little there's a recommend you think there is the word safety appears in that earl ok that you never made an argument that the safety carried over to one place of the city presumably if you were at the spache or for the county police yeah you could you could use the word safety yes but you can single officer come in give it up but did buy it but collins herself cannot qualify both the claim and an officer because we're not talking about what she does as an officer we're talking about what she did before she became an officer and to that extent she's now testifying as an officer she's testifying as a as an individual as an aide to seek now to tack on that work to her pension as an officer she's  that only officers actually enter and to that extent it requires more training more knowledge and the eight isn't given that sort of responsibility she simply passes it to the this batch who in and now you can also introduce yourself without referring to those rule twenty three is that we've heard enough about in the briefs what circumstances what circumstances do you believe would qualify as investigative work to allow someone who is not a question to answer because all of these cases your position on that i think all of these cases are fact intensive and they're fact intensive and the board has to listen to them but let me just i want to get a response in this case th for for four police officers testified that as a result of the work that they did with her it was their opinion that she was doing investigative work no such officer to that fact in this case in dietrich the officers testified she was me you officers testified that not only did she initiate questions that they didn't think of that she also read prepare a speech on the questions that you also judge credibility of the witnesses and of the people that were being interviewed that she relayed those credibility assessments to the for the question is maybe we should be guiding the board still further maybe we should be finding those elements a little bit more and in fee for appointments because the pension mark should be liberally construed well liberally can choose what they literally construe to help an officer but they're also the fund has two purposes one to help the retirees to help the officer and secondly to preserve the funds and not aware of benefits when benefits are not proved to be that something isn't better to them just because an officer appears in the law says live really can sure that doesn't mean bend over backwards break your back and affect other officers who  counsel or perhaps after investigated bodies that weren't officers but likely would go on to become officers and therefore be entitle to attack on this plan this war if you have any kind of legislative history that would and that that was what it was intended to cover and it now was now seeking to be expanded out into infinite all the way out wherever if i if i adopted mr bolen's  if i follow the logic of this case i suppose the only civil service employee were assigned to the police department who wouldn't get a benefit would be somebody who was assigned to fix computers or do janitorial service because everybody of argument if she engaged in any kind of investigative work based on her testimony that went beyond the job description that she had for the position she fell and therefore she's not entitle to claim credit for that work because the job description itself doesn't involve investigative work and to the extent that the police department is the employer of this civilian employee eak they should determine what sort of work this person should get credit for one of the job description number one that as you pointed out before it doesn't contain anything to do with investigative work if i suppose i suppose and understand i'm determining that citing these cases as important i would suppose that of some would come in and testify and have support of other officers in testifying that they did certain work which was beneficial to the officers in the pursuit of the case that the board i guess i'm kind of used to this as you point out but really this book is comprised of i think very key to this case is the legislature did not give us a definition of o in this case seven members aside this case for whom i policeman one representing retire each one representing lieutenants one bit of representing patrolm to say that they have a definite and firm conviction that the board has ever in it that analyzing this particular case i believe that the board's decision should be affirmed well thank you very much this because an individual such as this sounds was mandatorily retired as opposed to allowing her to continue serving as an officer so that she could have gained her ful then pension benefits she had to quit early after a fall of your service and had she been able to tack on that prior service she might have she would have gotten the full benefit that she would have wanted to be had she been