and the effect of her conduct on the students of this district particularly last instructional time we concluded the evidence included in the record shows that were found it was detrimental to the best interests therefore sufficient cause was present dismissed as fast as a teacher in the district and it our opinion we believe that the best interests of the schools require and so your honors throughout a long history of this t litigation it has been the primary focus of the board of education throughout that the best interests of the students must  and maintained and in order to do so it had no alternative but to dismiss mistakes and it is the board's hard and earnest desire that this court affirmed the board's decision the sweeping changes embodied in the two thousand and eleven a legislative reforms make the board the final agency decision maker without question with regard to miss facts employment not the hearing officer only the board's decision is appoint judicial review with regard to that ultimate decision now before addressing the a few facts that i think are critical to the disposition of this case i feel compelled to state that a fair reading of the hearing officers recommendation reveals that he was very much motivated by sympathy for ms baggs personal life challenges that she faced i'm sure the court is aware that mr baggs was struggling during work or employment with a very ill mother her mother subsequently passed away none of us in this room can feel anything other than sympathy for ms bags as she endured those struggles but focusing on mistakes life challenge has unfortunately resulted in a gross distortion of what should be the focus of this case this case cannot be about mistakes life challenges this case must be about whether or not the poorest decision that mr beggs conduct adversely impacted the students in their district in the first hour geometry class whether that decision by the statute imply the statute does not say that the court should give them the same weight because the legislature chose the words give consideration to and the same time your honor and is it true for question i think shock the review of cases brought or circuit courts teleports with regard to final agencies and your honor also i think you need to read the nine in context with all the other references to the decision of the agency versus the recommendation of your and by the way here's stating at this point reminding all of us that i think after wish under the statutory scheme that we're looking at the or then reviews that those findings of fact and that recommendation and makes its only findings of the w administrative law with regard to this process and we're with you it's clear that the sweeping legislative reforms that were enacted in two thousand and eleven were intended to do a very profound thing and that is to return to the locals who are the power to make the decision as to whether or not a teacher should be terminated in essence those legislative reforms gave life to section ten dash twenty two point four which i read to us the outset that a school board has the power to quell dismiss any teacher whenever in its opinion the interests of the schools require to the end of that period it's undisputed that there was the luminous testimony and evidence supporting that conclusion this hearing officer had before who testified that she observed in the classroom on march nineteen students sleeping on cellphones not a gauge and of critical  she immediately reported this to her soup her versus her which superiors usually and so what we have this evidence that not only someone who could observe what was going on in the class saw what was happening but qualified to make a determination as to whether or not students were sleeping or on their cell phones i'm mystified by credit to to a friend as as bob dylan would say you don't  whether meant to tell you which way the wind does blow you don't need to be a teacher to know whether or not someone is sleepy you don't need to be certified as a math teacher and certainly the fact that she was so troubled that she complained about it immediately is incredibly powerful proof but more than that we also had the poor had before it also evidence of numerous students who confirmed that mistakes did not teach held on march  remember what's going on in march nineteenth this is after the notice of remedial warning had been given to miss the final word and that final warning said  the next day the board also found that begs myspace field to report to work on that day by at least eight fifteen as she was required to do here it hearing officer actually agreed with that but concluded as did the lower court and the court of appeals that it could be considered by the board because superintendent grody who communicated with her on that they had excuses but if you look at the evidence carefully arar's you'll find that in fact there's no testimony or evidence that superintendent brody excused the fact that this begs the rap and on that morning to call in said if mr grody did not excuse the fact that she would arrive after me and so here's the superintendent of the school he's faced with this option either i let her come in after eight fifteen team or a class that is already behind other geometry classes as no teacher no lesson plan and it's another last decision and order which is part of the record of the he document it lists findings of fact one after another that is the and isn't a part required what the statute talks about incorporating the hearing officers findings of fact unless the or it is opinion and that's a key phrase that we're there we're looking at here unless the board in his opinion determines that the finding of fact border but your point we have if findings of fact which under standard administrative law are rules and regulations must be accepted by those who are their prime aphasia true and may only be rejected by this hearing officers findings of fact recommendation and also the findings of fact of the agency here the board and the decision of the agency there's really nothing terribly new about your honor the key is it hearing and in some material respects that was gone and so this corps and all courts in reviewing the final decision of the agency the school must look at and board and all that is what is review there is not a separate review and there is no deference given to this hearing officers findings of fact and recommendation if the legislature wanted to say the reviewing where shall give deference to it could have said that and it finally in truth of the last factual piece i would say it's critical to remember what happened on march twenty first and twenty second and that is that the clearly shows that chief that his bags failed to have lesson plans available or classroom on that day and in fact that that is also what the hearing officer also found that that happened on that day and lesson plans are because they tell a substitute teacher how to teach that class and each of those students and there's a mountain of evidence that supports that including contemporaneous notes from mr grocery on the the twenty second which to my friends argument i ask if we consider amongst ourselves whether or not in this case sympathy has a proper role the sympathy for the struggles that she endured justice is  justice is blind to discrimination it's blind to the eyes and it's blind sympathy justice above all seeks to apply the rule of law and that is what we earnestly as this work to do as difficult as it may be thank them thank you very much two thousand and eleven school year she cared for her father on his last dylan's passed away in june of two thousand and eleven shortly thereafter the health of her mother and during the course of that school year her mother went from home in the hospital rehab center back to home and through that process and more than one occasion every step of the way she was by her  side providing care for and making sure that she received the necessary here anybody who has ever been through this and cells can certainly understand a physically and mentally  now most of us under these circumstances particularly being deployed in the same place for as long as she had and done as good a work as she had would have a sympathetic employer who would be supportive and sympathetic unfortunately lynn was not so it was understanding for well what she was going through this board of education and this is an illustration was neither sympathetic or support he issued a notice to remedy and after a notice to remedy consisting of four school days on which she was actually present they dismissed the hearing officer was mutually selected by the part that hearing officer sat through four days of testimony more than a dozen witnesses reviewed more than fifty exhibits and made back full findings and conclusion heels were subsequently filed to the circuit court and subsequently to the appellate court both of which reversed the decision of the board of education now this brings us to the question before the war and that legal that statute provided procedures not found anywhere else in the illinois demonstrated law provided a standard review his character from any others yes it would have been convenient for all of us if they just said this go ahead and do what you've been doing but they didn't do that we don't read out words in the statute furthermore they are meant to dish fog a statue the very same time totally different results and this is something else that you can't overlook the legislature used words with a purpose in mind when they enacted the statute they clearly understood the options available they made a decision and that decision was reviewed by or beginning in one nine hundred seventy five downstate teachers in one nine hundred seventy eight were teachers in the chicago public schools they created the position of an impartial hearing hearing officer heard the evidence made a decision and his or her decision was in reviewed by a court in one nine hundred ninety five with respect to the chicago public schools they made another of this event it didn't affect downstate teachers but it did affection of their retain the position of the hearing officer but the hearing officer heard the arguments made a recommendation to the general superintendent the board of education made the final determination that was  core understanding for well all of these options available to it the general assembly adopted none of them with respect to downtick teachers in public he said ok instead they created their own but they didn't abandon everything in the prior law the board a bit patient still has the burden of proof they must prove the factual basis for the charges and the proven  the person must have five years of experience in the employer employee relations and must be in number of it accredited national or creation so ca sion with its own separate education labor was nothing with respect to dismissal the hearing officer has to be impartial they may not be a resident of the school district and they need not have any financial or personal interest in the outcome of the case you tell the court said in bates case this is almost the exact opposite of the board of education the file the charges they prosecute the case in this particular instance where the board members actually testified as witnesses now they would ask you to give them the final keys to the kingdom and allow them regardless of what's on the record to make their own determination on facts and hearing officer also is the one by statute who actually hears and i know many of the members of this court previously service for outward judges so you understand what the awesome responsibilities of that  transcript or sees it through the filter dies its council or superintendent the actual findings of the hearing officer to be incorporated in the decision of the board it's not unless it's a requirement then it goes on to say that if the board believes that they against the manifest weight of the evidence it can supplement or modify those findings it uses the terms manifest weight of the evidence that's not a coincidence when it used those words and they're not found in the chicago statute which was amended at the exact same time when it used those words it knew what they meant it understood they were terms of art and it knew that this court of every other reviewing court advocates on both sides of the table doing administrative law would also understand what the board of education may only overturn the factual findings of the hearing the courts must give consideration to both the factual findings of the hearing officer and his and his recommendation as well as the factual findings of the board of education which happened corporator the hearing officer contesting is a right by making ten supplemental findings in fact in modifying two of the officers officer crystal's findings so my question is are are you saying that they were in error that it wasn't against the manifest weight of the evidence because they certainly made supplemental findings and modifications are you saying that they did not indicate it was against the manifestly no they they had the right to make supplemental or modified by means of that under one circumstance if that was against the manifest weight of the evidence and when this case goes forward to the reviewing course reasons that i'll get to in just a moment court uses the factual findings of the hearing officer throughout these proceedings to determine whether in fact they are against the manifest way the evidence and i'll come back to that point and it's just a moment although if you wa the normal process for administrative procedures it doesn't appear in chicago statute that was amended at the exact same time once again not with the death we can't read these words out of the statute just because they're inconvenient for one side of this argument it has meaning so how does this whole thing of why it's standard  coming back to what i said just a moment ago it's the hearing officers factual findings that are reviewed by the work the reason for that goes back to something i said earlier the board of education is the one that has the burden of proof the hearing officer is the one that is impartial and the hearing officer is the one who actually conducts this hearing and is in the best possible position to make those facts will determinations and the credibility determinations is so important those factual findings which the hearing officer made in this case and once again i go through them in my grief i don't have time to do it today if i didn't meet right and i was just thinking about this we have findings affect by the hearing officer we have modifications of those think you can test to modify and to supplement which they did we're not to take into account those facts when they have the final decision on administrative review we're supposed to go back only to the hearing officers badge which have been supplemented in modified jury required who consider those facts but your group view them through the prism of whether or not they're factual not of their facts a lot of patients of supplement or of education but what you actually end up reviewing against is this manifest weight of the evidence and here is the factual findings of the here but let's talk about some of those facts one of the things that the hearing officer said was that relied upon was that the teacher in question came in and took fifteen to twenty minutes to review the sub's notes and that's why class started late right or it i s it your contention that it is only against the manifest what weight of the evidence for the board to consider that fifteen to twenty minutes might be in order to mount a time to review notes you know what i'm saying is and this part is not particularly tested class starts out with a pledge of allegiance it's followed by announcements that takes about eight to ten five to eight minutes the  after that she does we teach the the aide says that she didn't start class for ten to fifteen minutes into the class on one single class hearing officer concluded that she didn't properly use this time because of the requirements of taking attendance reteaching at separate sec so that's where the difference that's where the difference what do we do with them in fact it was mentioned by post in council what do we do with the fact that the hearing officer indicated that the aide shouldn't be able to testify that there wasn't teaching going on in the classroom are we the records i refute so that's where the difference is it's not strictly because she couldn't observe a something it was on herself that's that's the difference i want to make one final point and that has to do with how you apply the facts to the law of cause i would say that substantial deference or at least equal weight has to be given to hears the one that is in the best possible position to make those difficult inclusions not the board of education and particularly in this case where it is well reasoned and detail as to how  that i have attached is part of this record and he speaks not only to this issue but also speaks even more importantly to the issue of what happened on the first day that she was absent because her mother was in critical health and the issue of just you know just in the back otherwise there's no purpose of having a hearing you merely go back to the system well you don't even go back to the system prior to nine hundred seventy five you just have a decision made by the board of education we're going to dismiss this teacher for what ever reason we don't need it here and that's clearly not what this is what the what just like thank you opinion as me because it doesn't say for instance if the hearing officers findings of fact are against the manifest weight which would by judicial review of you certainly can look at the decision to determine whether or not it complied with the statute and form and the board or of the opinion that the hearing officers finding was against the manifest weight you have against and i'm glad you asked that question because paragraphs of findings of fact of the board and they in to your point justice thomas the that the board explicitly detail where it determined that a supplemental fact was relevant or a finding of fact by the hearing officer was against mephisto yes i mean there's absolutely no question that they were comply with the statutory obligations in this and so rails with regard to giving deference to reading in deference to the findings of fact and a recommendation of a hearing officer that's completely at odds with twenty four twelve and particularly with regard to the three times in september two times i'm sorry three times in october two thousand and eleven three times in november two times in december three times in january two thousand and twelve so concerned was the district that they  written letter of concern on january thirtieth and said you must address these concerns immediately and after that the theory annex on the second version of february she was late this is in the hearing officer sign and then warning number three on feb second a letter from superintendent wrote it said you must comply with our requirements giving her yet another chance to fix the problem and by the way i haven't said this yet but this really has to be i think remember as to why it was neither arbitrary nor pressures of the of the board to distortions that they her and gave her leave to deal with her crisis at every turn or my friend to suggest that the board of education was unsympathetic well it's really unfair they gave her leave in fact a board member at and then the fourth warning that she was given was this notice of remedial warning and one of the profoundly stunning facts in this case to me is that in the face of a notice of remedial warning the hearing officer suggested in his recommendation that she should be the last chance and she think given that she had been given a notice of remedial warning that said this is your last  and yet on the day she returned as you know that justice thomas mentioned she returned and her classroom was in disarray to the extent that the teacher eight was perfectly co to determine whether or not kids were on cell phones or falling asleep was so disturbed by it she went and immediately complained and it didn't end there on the next day she was late and threatened the superintendent that she recalls and it didn't end there the next two days she did have the hearing officers findings as to whether they're against the manifest weight or do we review the opinion whether the school board had a legitimate reason for its opinion that the modifications and supplemental  nature correct my suggestion is that the court need only go so far as to determine whether or not the school board exercised its judgment and formed appendix sixteen through the end of the decision in order which is the most thoroughly prepared and carefully and meticulously written document by a school board i've ever seen i mean it goes through line by line justice are exactly what the reasons are for its decision exactly what the reasons are for any findings contrary to i mean a perfect example of this again is to return to the example just on this brought up which is the events of march nineteenth where the the school board could not simply could not agree with the hearing the officer sensed that you have to be a certified teacher to know whether a student is sleeping or student is on a cell phone and so of course that plus a mountain of other evidence supported the finding of the of the district of the bor that she had violated the notice of remedial warning that she's given in numerous ways numerous instances and therefore unfortunately she had to be discharged  well the board in this case made it to dismiss respect for all the board had before the testimony of a certified teacher who was concerned so concerned about mistakes of conduct that she kne were the students sleeping on cellphones the board had were information that numerous students confirmed those concerns about what happened on monday march nineteenth many saying that the class didn't get started