stay in this in this case he's not available today for the oral argument but he will fully participate in these proceedings and of course the audio tape is available and  the audio on the supreme court website for oral arguments would be available for his review and i think that's all i need to mention at this point i would ask both attorneys that will be presenting oral argument step up and identify yourself for the record perfectly do appreciate having the chance to present this case it with oral arguments here and we consider this to be a very important case for several reasons one obviously it's important for my client because she lost her job law indicates losing your job is the death penalty and point cases that's the most serious result that you can have in your employment we also consider this to be a very important case because  what the court decides today could have a large impact on a lot of other teachers in the state of illinois the cases that we're going to be addressing today and the issues that we're going to be addressing today in large part this well check was a teacher for the chicago public schools for over thirty years in the almost thirty years she taught her different schools under different administrators and never once had a performance really review that rightfully should make it well who rightfully should make that determination or was there a procedural mistake in terms of once the board well they decided to terminate her right and i think that the question isn't whether they have the right that i don't think that there's any question about this but you're suggesting that well i've got the discusses how their process works and and what that ultimate decision maker needs to do in order to be in compliance with the only school code is this court know it's well settled in illinois findings and made a recommendation not to terminate mr long say they are free to ignore his findings and the and opinion because he lied in part on the testimony   the hearing officer and therefore they might invalidation of her well let me go through a few different reasons why we think it's wrong first of all on it's our position that under the statu only the hearing officer can make findings now in the current decision and introduction there was a reference that referred to the findings of fact by the hearing officers the recommendations there was no one else  it and if you look at the statue the statute very clearly does not refer to hearing officers findings of facts as being recommendations it refers to them as being finding that responsibility belongs to the hearing mr now when we look at statutes we have to use the well recognized principles of steps for interpretation one of those princip reject the findings of fact that say make you have to accept them isn't there some sort of ability to consider them and let's say that there's something x that would support the board's determination for discharge based upon the entire record and what was compiled by the hearing officer if there is some evidence to support their conclusion to discharge based upon the entire record of the two hundred forty pages are they able to do that well if there were findings of fact if it properly follow the steps which they did not do which means recognize and accept the findings of fact of the hearing officer that's the first step because that's the power of the statute only allows the work to do if they had done that and they'd say ok we've said all these findings of fact but we believe that some of those findings sopore a different that were overseen and handling this remediation hole in his opinion based on the facts here in the testimony seen the witnesses when the happens in his opinion the environment was absolutely no argument before the court is there they don't even have the role of fact finder here pay her and addressed the issue from a different perspective her own address to the issue of let's assume that you don't you take your argument if the stream then that would seem to take away the final decision the determination whether to fire or not to from the yes the boards can take the findings of back and say we agree with taking your findings of fact but we disagree that there doesn't support terminations and there may be cases of it ok maybe there are cases where there's even enough and she should be held that the board can say well we appreciate it that's your opinion but we think that evidence supports determination and that is how this process has to work and there's another thing if you look at it but if but you're requesting that we simply are not well we're not really looking at the circuit court's decision what are you requesting that we reverse the board's decision  of the reason your honor yes and that's what happened in the other decisions before you know there's been addressed in this these briefings that's what happened in the ruther case that they didn't send it back for rehearing this that's what happened in her and me both of these cases th so that's what we're asking for and if you look at the statute five thirty four eight fifty five six findings of facts the hearing officer recommend date and the know the pope or didn't send it back and say ok do it now they did not by our own decision which is very clear it's a very clear decision and then if you look at their decision there are many many findings  demonstrated demonstrated they are it's their decision was arbitrary was without cause and was in clear of use of the discretion that they had they had no discretion to do those things and blooming fault is a red herring ok he didn't find them credible he this this pool was a school completely out of control and that started at the top and immediately after that jackson was demoted to be an assistant principal she couldn't handle she asked for only for teachers to be remediated three of those for a while one was african american and she's african american that they care enough for him but those still found that there was no evidence that this decision was based on age or race to that makes the best reason to the argument that they have here we have a teacher who for thirty years had never gotten a none satisfactory rating and then we get a new principal one a political pressure then suddenly she gets an prince did you see any well i don't think it really matters i don't know that the decision could be based on this but as far as the mentor the the he blumenthal and if you look at that the board's decision to reject her as an expert after viewed by this court for an abuse of discretion and that was not an abuse of discretion as an expert what about the she was talking about well it was something sort of naturally questionable about a teacher that has satisfactory ratings for twenty seven years know if everyone's making the way you have to not have it said well let me ask you this is it a good process for someone who's been teaching you know within the last twenty five years who's that using the new or teaching method show the world has changed dramatically and for people that are not let's say technologically savvy is it that the kind of mentor that would be needed for that is not someone who's already like bor technologically savvy or has been involved with technology for ever versus someone who actually knows how to bend or and transition a person who's not technologically savvy i'm not sure that that way you can transform someone who didn't grow up in the computer generation i'm talking about you know remediation i don't know that someone who has a really  a really you know been there done that but who's brilliant and is great you know technologically speaking whether they can help remediate a person who needs to move into the next century because there are a lot of people out there you know th good he's found her willing if you say something different so in order to find her willing he would have to have listened to her her testimony and he is making a credibility terminations when he says that she was willing and able to learn that had to be based on what her testimony was so he is making a credibility determination there is big but he didn't find her credible and most importantly two really important issues and that was that she says i don't believe that jackson was racially biased or age biased against wall chick he's not saying that ms walsh it isn't credible he's because of this woman's age that doesn't mean that misquote chick is not believable that means he doesn't agree with her own subjective feelings you know we all we can say our declaration hates me because i you know i'm this or they are that's no discriminate against her on the basis of her age it's suddenly mysterious baltic is not credible first he's just saying he doesn't agree with her subjective beliefs about why the principles out together no your honor ok are you  one in the beginning one in the middle and one at the end right now this last one there were only two students there and in the principal's own record she said this setting was not appropriate really it's late anyway let me ask you this would would you agree that under her to rather that in this case when they issued their determination to discharge that they should have participated or allowed participation of a hearing officer because his his credibility terminations suggest that terminations was not appropriate i don't believe he ma i'm mean i don't know how you could say he didn't make them but let's assume just for the argument that he made that should the teacher be permitted to have a remain and for the limited purpose of the summarize the spirit of this the action that allows corporate irish credibility determinations to be made by the hearing officer but the final determination of whether to accept or reject where the third meeting was not procedurally proper because there were only two students present and miss jackson wrote that she thought that this wasn't the ballot in her own words