arrives on the mississippi due process procedures and the real question here is whether or not the standards set by mississippi two thousand and twelve mississippi allowed the superintendents to come on the one standard education employment procedures law college known as e p o well that didn't settle well with many folks because but what happened was when they changed the law they did not provide any protection for superintendence as a consequence so the tellers were left out there with no process under state boys can terminate terminate the student in the end their contract and then the legislature went on to say however they cannot no longer have a right to appeal to the board unless the state statute is unconstitutional and if so did you argue that to the district court and in your brief or you saying something else well we're not saying is unconstitutional we're saying that the board in this instance had the power itself to grant the authority you've got to so you've got policies of the board and you have the legislature process and there was a fairly here after two thousand where on the part of the board created a property right and reasonable expectation of continued employment created a property rights interest in the job and once their property right is created then it's entitled to constitutional protection and then we invoke the fourteenth  to what caused met at that point we submitted to the court that the fed on the part of green is this the superintendent then request opportunity to respond to the decision of the boat they didn't feel that opportunity had they given him the opportunity to do so in writing and possibly even the board have to decide if it's optional for the board to give a hearing or not what makes them why would they want to give a hearing if they're trying to deal with their chief executive and they wanted to  right does not kick in i certainly do yes judgment before a fine and that there was a violation mr green due process right three terminations pre term nation due process because you believe he had a property interest in his continued employment yes but is it disputed by the other side whether or not he had a property you know all right i thought it was have cases that say even if you think it's going to be automatic loss you still have to exhaust through the process even if it's really abundantly clear that you're not going to get a fair shake or whatever you still have to go through the motions so that we're not federally interfering with the state process before it's exhausted that's true in many instances in this instance however that the exception is when you look at the statute twenty in the in the pre term a nation and certainly the court dismissed the other issues because a court said it didn't have jurisdiction that is in place present with respect to the space proceedings we submit that the case as ever if it's remanded there are issues numerous issues to be determined about due process and and other things but since we're going to all be six dismissal we take it as a property interest stated so the issue that i think before the court is not whether there was a the process about at this point whether there was a due process violation of the preterm a nation or post terminations whether assuming there was or salinger's a fact question that there was what the proper remedy wise and district court held in our position is that the remedy was for dr agreed to a statutory appeal to not requested in five days so there was no proof even even under the statute where it allowed a part of the superintendent to request a public hearing if he or she didn't request it or if they waived it there was no procedure for a record to be made in either so so i would think that the chance record has some leeway in him up on remand in fashioning what type of whether it's a hearing or a rehearing or a meeting with the illustrated by what the chancery court did in this case when dr green instead of following appeal filed the bill for discovery a complaint for discovery seeking the read seeking discovery into the reasons he was fired going back to his claim that it was not for good cause the chancellor didn't address whether the statute applied or not so that was maybe up to the legislature but ordered the district to provide written reasons with documentation for proof at a record or at a hearing on the record so i think the chancellor has some leeway in the remedy here she can fashion you're not suggesting that a letter it was to record the record would one day you know the record would just be this letter that said this is why you were terminated that's the that's the hearing that's the first theory that's what was done in this case absent that was one i was saying that was illustrated of what a chancellor could do but but even more important under section one thirteen not i don't and i don't know arm i don't know why i but i don't know why some of the statutory changes were not made either but would terminate or suspend an employee and then given the right to a public hearing so it's not approved it was not necessarily a pre term anation a remedy and then the employee could could elect to do it or not so what the legislature did in carving out the superintendents from that step is theirs but basically taken one step out of the other process they didn't take away a preacher emanation right because it's not pre term relations remedy under this was not  words together doesn't mean where and when are the actual words because what when i'm when i the way i read the statute is it doesn't address his point dismissed or suspended in a licensed employers shall be notified of the charges against and notified a right to a public hearing and then that weekend and what then the next thing talks about a skill superintendent is employment has been he's got a right to a certain amount not not a big macgill or just a small but it ate pre term anation hearing in the statute doesn't preclude that back to the federal a lot of the requirements of some operates some of this and some opportunity but the the district's point is whether it's bridge organization whether there was a violation of free terminations which there probably end and what we're going on is the facts clearly comply because it's not a summary judgment there is no evidence is that dr graeme was aware that there was a specially call board meeting and the sole purpose of so item on the agenda was his employment and it he was he was present at some part of it and i think it was an executive session call that he may not have been present in in that he was told he was being terminated for cause that's what's alleged in the complaint i think there were many other people there and it's probably still there are probably still fact finding missions to determine whether he was or was not but for purposes of today i think you got to concede that he pled that he was not but his his process his remedy if he were not provided pre term anation due process would still be the appeal statute it's the appeal statute section one thirteen it is a dual remedy it's not solely post terminations it certainly allows those terminations reviewed see if there was substantial evidence to support of the decision but it also allows the court or the change record if it determines there was a there was prejudicial error in the proceeding a court judge's reference to due process deficiencies it has the power to remand back to the school board to to try if that's your position it isn't any was not it's a it's audie while the legislature accepted or carved out superintendent from the right to request a public hearing they did not they the legislature did not car superintendents out as a defined employee for purposes of appeal in section thirty seven nine one of three in its report of the superintendent is defined as an employee and the reason that's important is that speculate on what the what is the chances of an employee of the other terminate employee or of having a change record reverse but that is the that's the mechanism that's in place and  provides that the employee be notified they're entitled to a public hearing and then it doesn't talk about one or more the board members be advised of the charges and have an opportunity to respond to that so i think it's a it's an opportunity for a formal hearing with the record but it was never a requirement under the statute it was the at the election of the employee and it could also be waves and it was not a guaranteed pre term anation remedy and so  i think we have your argument thank you or her with this see to the seat three c and so you go out and you say i don't have a good record i don't have any record but i'm here because this is where i have to go before i can go to federal court the rathjen case and the ellis case all sided by the district court to say that didn't matter what you could do in front of the chancery court you still have to go there because that's what mississippi law says