other two provide some additional context for this court one component excluded from user participation all of county board members who were elected after the effective day of the public at august th two thousand and sixteen th it right ensure reform there is nothing that the plaintiffs would you will or the reduction of the cost of living increases in carmichael there's nothing that the plaintiffs would do to get their service credit for the time spent in position in it created a mechanism a process for determining whether the individuals in those positions met the out of the standard if the certification requirement had actually terminated benefits and there would not be any participating county board members in substantive rights it away under the legislative change that was champ in this case the substance of rights of participation if you met the eligibility requirements already in statute they didn't change just the process  st participating police officers and firefighters by doing so the employer the city of springfield was conveying the pension funds that no one over the age of sixty could a group through additional service  now stating that they will no longer ball viper additional service credit and this court said that that was ok this court said that public employment isn't stagg and there are a number of factors that might require that a public constitutionally protected benefits that's a change in the position so what the of the legislation the legislative treaties was trying to accomplish was trying to get information about those issues that there was clearly some sort of skeptic adopted by statutory change now as an employee of the fund i certainly think that the fire was closer to the ground and may have a closer i ask what would be easier for a ministration would be a better approach or a good approach but that doesn't that's not the issue is with that one if the issue is that just two weeks later three weeks later after the deadline passed the county board passed resolutions that here i'm a physician is followed by the issues with the deadline there's nothing in the pension employers response provides the factual information to determine legal eligibility for the function of what the legislation was looking for was a factual determination by the county boards and the reason but i believe to be the reason why elected officials are treated differently than operate agencies is because elected officials are responsive to the public if there every board members of his board the process was that the governing board itself at the table actually had a public meeting if you adopt a resolution stating that members of the governing board are in a position are certain critical facts that are just ignored by the appellants and the critical fact is st of all what does it take to be a member of the pension plan is a county board member when these men were st elected thousand dollars and more in this position if they did and turned in the time sheets with their their participation terminated well if they would rather they spent two hundred and ninety nine thousand one hundred  the issue that i have before you in this court doesn't address whether or not that was a constitutionally permissible new requirement for continued participation and the reason it's not before you is because we provided those those records if we had not then there would be a question about is this a new requirement that is unconstitutionally why but that's not before you because that's not an issue we know and they know that it  that's that's it this honest statement if anything because the way the pension plan works and you know it because it's not different from any of the other patients you review over and over again this and that's the reason they haven't questioned it that there was a diminishing of what these real people's rights are in the case of marlowe he can't even get a pension hopeful i don't think it's a little bit of that the spirit really that terminations impair their benefits the issue is whether the inequity of the statute impair their benefits in the cases that we've reviewed that the nd those statutes became effective people's benefits were either benefits or potential benefits d by your summary here is that while all we did was set up a new condition for continue that this is asian which was not satisfied by february six thousands  them at that time now and when the legislature sus now the rules are different if you want to stay in the fine your employer not you but your employer must make s logical reason to to think about this suppose that in considering the reductions and benefits that the court dealt with in re pension reforms case the legislature it simply said well each of the respective parties needs to take three steps and notify the respective employers must notify these people within ninety days or one hundred and twenty dollars days of this contractual relationship of the employee with the pension fund i don't see how you could reach that conclusion and part of that the dilemma that i have here is the way council confuses who marla can't accrue a service credit needed to get the eight years that he needs to a payment and the way he's been terminated terminated not by his action and here i could distinguish conduct that and to claim that this is somehow reliance issue on eighty nine communication just isn't excessive but is better argument is not that it's better to sit well with a deadline deadlines mean what they mean are defined by the rights that exist when they join and that's what i think is the rest of the holdings of your various cases and here for these three pla with even though you continue to be on the county board even though you continue to provide a one thousand hours of service now in terms of deadlines i don't think i'm not sure that we haven't seen it tested but i don't think it would be unconstitutional and i'm sure they could give the reasonable time to do that but it's not the split this as public employees that failed to give county board members were not providing the number of hours that i don't know where that comes from it's not in the record it's not in the legislative history that i see but regardless of that regardless of what suspicion i may have they can't change the case what the manual says is if the elected official no longer qualifies for participation the governing body that's not the boy in the governing body should pass a resolution to terminate their failure their failure was the terminations this notion that the employee had a contract all right and the employer failed well in this case that's a distinction without a difference unlike some of the county board has to answer with respect to the certification requirement is whether the position normally requires is not whether you divisional works enough hours in that position it was required over the position and this simply show up to the office more in order to become eligible that's why we have this requiring the county board determine what's required of the position to get together at a public meeting has a resolution saying this position requires spent some time discussing that the respectful findings and the underlying record that notice wasn't given to the county board now i don't i don't believe the notice is an issue with this particular constitutional  so they either have notice of half of the law of some of the law or they have noticed the lawn didn't comply and again i don't believe that notice is necessarily important for the constitutional provision but ellisville so it does impact membership eligibility correct now let me ask you this mr prosser made the comment that when these three members became members of the i m f they only had to do two is met and that's the important distinction in this case versus all the preceding case that would be for the support system and actually it's a process procedurally for us to gather information to determine whether the existing eligibility requirements that are already in the state