running up the agency and in essence the running of the show and fulfilling a major component of the p c these functions actually approach statutory responsibility they work together as a team board member or with other assistance so it's an integrated process and they have a close working relationship everybody there does if these are undisputed fish they're in a cohesive unit they act in tandem however whenever we're to want to say they're part of the team they're part of the team that actually i like making recommendations they actually formulate that policy in a way by participating in  formulation of the with their board members and the other  just having a divided loyalty is insufficient and and the ultimate determination is made by the board member as to what his position will be and then by the board itself as to a majority vote on who should i say that so if you look at the i c c just because somebody is a part of you in the process doesn't that doesn't mean that you haven't a certain formulated or participated in in the city of chicago case the court notes that first the organization claimed twenty two case was accepted because they are formulating the role they are formulating the decision by by the pollution can over with their member and with the other  they work with so it's like a team effort where they get the stuff and yes it's always subject to their members willingness and acceptance of suggestions in this process of course the board member has has the authority to determine what that board member will vote with in that aspect and of course so it's always something to the anything about managerial not the supreme court and in pages six eighty three six eighty two and sixty three of four forty four us says in dealing in dealing with the the university members these employees are quote much higher in the managerial structure and only a few represents management management and despite taking or recommending discretionary actions that effectively and pro or implement employer taking or recommending this discretionary actions that effectively of those on in here there has to be a rigorous rigorous separation of the of the functions of the board members work together to work together as truth in the federal system the managerial exclusion was adopted as a matter of federal common law but in illinois we have a statutory solution and therefore it's important to focus on the statute and not the general public policy the attorney assistance litigation before it was those typically played by traditional works there are similarities to be sure but i think most judges what are the differences that well it would depend on the particular judge clerk relationship for example here or there was testimony that all of the board members were careful to retain their authority there was can show that there's a sort of a practice such that even if they're now wielding the actual authority they're making recommendations they're adopted as a matter of course such that even if they don't formally have the authority they in reality are exercising the same kind of authority here it's clear that the attorney assistants do not have any formal managerial authority they don't set budgets they don't make hiring decisions they're not able to vote on that errors and as to  effective authority for the board they made no showing of proof as to how often the port members were relying either quantitative proof that you found an i c c case or even testimony from the p c b members as that the next week's action if we were to affirm what happened here i don't know why not well it would depend on certainly under the formal authority mine of judicial law clerks work and four of them use their attorney assistants and that way if either because he or she is misanthropic or thinks more of their own abilities than anyone else  do depends upon the personality of the perky person they're working for or does it depend upon the authority that appears to be vested in someone who has that role however the board member decides to  sounding board brainstorm research write rewrite edit talk to think through analyze piece together take apart that's what they do i mean that sounds like what they do i mean under the terms of fact they were designated professionals who applied technical expertise that's certainly the employer can always make an argument for the measure of a solution based on the particular facts of the case that the way this other cases you know based on the job responsibilities that one employee takes on and i think we see that you know the department of your vision big this is a this is a  arguably managerial employment employee giving this kind of advice to vis deputy department head versus somebody else functioning differently for this other depicting pretty department hit well there you sample a case that i had in this court recently there were two employees who had exactly the same job title it exactly the same agency and one was found yes well it's not so and it does happen but we don't like for you to cite are all cases back issues so i mean if you just go summer for two years they're capable or is it i don't know how we the the life of truth would you know you're asking me to speculate as to what arguments facts it doesn't seem by folks here that there might be particular facts and it doesn't seem like they would be excluded under there i mean if you look at the two statutory criteria they're not predominantly engaged in executive management functions statutory responsibility they are not approaching as warriors who are reviewing both either they were making or the cases i mean he was quite clear in his testimony and what are we looking at here in in the right way i mean it it's almost as if faith because here we get that advice but we sometimes might pick a law clerk it's the exact opposite of us to  discretion in terms of their profession their duties are not routine they are specialized that is the definition of a professional boy these are attorneys yes that is what they do whe not allow the attorney assistant to exercise discretionary authority on there and i would also like to point out that neither are certainly not the union i will say i'll put it that way th conceded that there is an issue of divided loyalty there is how did issue a different divided loyalty because the professional interests of the employee can't be separated from those of you where it's not the interests that they're dealing are are issuing decisions writing out decisions and the employer i mean the p c b are the ones who are making that determination voting not voting changing not changing i back i guess all i can say is the way the act is construed and set up is that it makes a big difference as to what the actual duties of the employees are i have heard what you described is the actual boy how they relate what their recommendations are how you go back and forth i don't know how i view the act i can't say whether or not they would or would that be considered an injury so you could have a one that i totally trusted him the same outlook on cases a wife and found their worth or their their work more persuasive and i think that it is person down to white wine to people who have the exact same kind of positions that different positions and agency where one is has winds provides one another in a different department have a group of attorneys here to use their professional expertise in order to get draft opinions and work with a particular board member  and that's how the opinions are formed i'm sure there are many like you are there are many suggestions or recommendations by the board that are except the by the