another and though then you would have the court review and i knew the documents in the material that's been excluded when that put you in a better position very much i think that is sufficient and dignity in the end that you can read it that way now i would say that it's also to your point that when i began the schools of action to thousands see and the here they didn't agree and i understand so that puts the issue before us that wasn't the other kid yes but how do you differentiate those informal opinions in those other cases from what we have here though lead us to the conclusion that the legislature expected that there'd be some recourse if people weren't satisfied with what the p c did and then but that it provides that  if it were to provide the p c can issue a nine binding opinion that you'd be sort of stuck there be in limbo it would never be able it going any further than that you wouldn't be able to ask for any relief from that nine minute opinion and doesn't seem to fly in the face statutory question here is whether in non binding letter similar to what the package you hear is in fact the means of resolution other than the issuance of a binding a pen and based upon the plain language of the statute in the happens the answer that question is that it is a means of resolution other than issuance of binding opinion and that's the end of the issue now if it seems to me that if you're going to give a narrow one panel from this court has already recognized that the pac has the authority to issue non binding determination was it actually accurate the issue was it before them it wasn't squarely presented it was because nobody was answering the question because nobody very clear spread with the fourth district who ruled that you could not have a viable action against the pac if the pac did not issue a binding decision so it seems to me the battle that decision would necessarily be wrongly decide seems to be a fairly strong rebuke of another member held this court i'm certainly not taking the position that it that decision binding on this court on that question but it seems to me that the very least there should be a compelling reason and it should people two sites talking we're otherwise informally resolving the dispute and you're saying that informally resolving the is this dispute is a nine issue in a non binding water without any consultation without any back and forth without any talking to anybody without trying to work out the came to none of that none of that happens you just look at the documents and issue it at nine by any opinion or by issuing a by any opinion and your reading or otherwise informally both you get the benefit of both you get to not issue a binding opinion that you're stuck with it could go to administrative review but you don't really have to talk to anybody else you don't really have to deal with these messy details you can just issue a non binding opinion most is if mr garlock had raised this issue and said i want to invalidate the proceedings below based upon this procedural defect that he might have had a viable option for doing that he hasn't done that yet he's actually as brief express said that in the additional interest of judicial economy he doesn't want to invalidate the proceedings below based on the fact that he didn't get an opportunity to file so i don't know that you can say based upon that procedural defect that somehow you could invalidate that issues at justice since a guy i would surely think so i would could represent the packers very careful and while when at present the pack receives i believe between two hundred eighty two hundred ninety four requests a month and so it is certainly possible that mistakes will be made and it is certainly possible that a litigant like mr garlock had he chosen to do so could go to court and try and invalidate the proceedings and say i want to go back to square one and get back in front of the pack that certainly plausible but he hasn't taken that option here and that's really the decision of the litigant and not something that again if this is not this is not a circumstance that would void the judgment if there weren't judgment of the pap and again i do want to come back to this idea that non binding arbitration is something that the general somebody very much in vision we cited legislative history from speaker madigan and he was very clear that he envisioned that advisory opinions quote be issued both in where the past office is created it said as in section two zero five seven c four through the public access council or the attorney general shall have the power to issue or advisory opinions with respect to otherwise and family resolving disputes well by issuing a binding opinion that term otherwise informally in resolving the dispute has to mean something but the school district position is is that that reads mediation or mediation they define the scope of those clauses i say we have that it only applies in the context of negotiated agreements between parties which in essence means mediation they would write out the  opportunity to efficiently and inexpensively resolve therefore it disappears that's where the sixty day provision is included in the statute for any binding decisions and it would entirely up and the general assembly purpose to say that you can't engage the concern here is that the two filings that went back and forth wouldn't be considered arbitration then i would suggest to you that i certainly would i'd certainly just simply disagree with the idea that those sort of violent back and forth to a informally resolved i think we can agree that's a little tiny bit murky we have to figure out with the legislature in that so you're saying you think that means some sort of arbitration and i'm saying ok you're british and usually involves both sides a little bit of give and take don't they normally agree to the result whereas the agreement on the result here there's just a letter from on high from the p c saying this is what's going to happen how is it arbitrary non binding arbitration often results with one party or another saying i don't like the say about it here or we have this the p c saying here's what's going to happen well if the again if the i suppose if the parties had done nothing receive this letter and done absolutely nothing then they would have i would assume at and here to the decision which is frequently out non binding arbitration works once fought the side has to affirmatively opt out so it seems to me that if they receive this letter it absolutely nothing at all then they would both have been effectively have effectively chosen to bind themselves to its problems and so i don't know that i entirely agree with the notion that this is really not a form of  resolved through informal decision making i will say a vast majority of those are circumstances where someone files a request for review and what the request is is i want documents church i want some documents from some of that is in a public body or that are just so facially in a not subject to the act that it's not really it's just simply not appropriate for any sort of resolution if it is the submission of the school district but every one of those where you say no the act doesn't apply here must be issued as a binding decision you'll end up with a a body of binding opinions that would dwarf even anything issued by this court certainly the discretion that the pack exercises in terms of whether to issue a binding opinion or not is probably somewhat similar to the analysis you go through in deciding whether to issue a rule twenty three or and so the idea is simply not to over publish in any given area law because at some point it ends up not really being helpful to the public so that again if the school district is going to succeed in taking this very very very narrow interpretation of these broad phrases it ought to have  good reason for doing so it has to be a text based reason for doing so and it has to be extraordinarily obvious and overwhelming and demonstrate that the pac has acted on reasonable here and i submit that they haven't made that showing please the court the district there's been discussion this morning about the extent of the public access councillors discretion under section one point five f of the  district certain they concedes i think we must that they have discretion whether or not to issue a binding opinion school district is not and has never taken the position that the pac is forced by statute to issue a bind you know pinioning particular case mean one of the one of the key differences in my mind into something that the pac made issue or pointed out and it's pretty thin distinguishing what's different between this document and what it presents when it issues something that is a binding opinion in it it points at the outset this is intended to be advisory the parties are free to disregard it as they wish there's no presidential effect to this already or anything of the sort they the past would like us to read into the silence that it was intended to be advisory because he did not claim otherwise but they do claim otherwise when it is in the pink they have built through the differentiation between an opinion you know night in terms of the up that the pack uses again and unquestionably the pack has a particular format that not required by statute incidentally the particular format that they have traditionally adhere to with apparently with the exception of first couple that they issue and this is directly address this issue the fact is there there is a consistency here there have been two cases in illinois incidentally both came out while this judgment action a circuit court so i believe it's not a small difference the there was no administrative review claim in that case the current found sort of i would argue parent thought it clee that because  the court found that pinion to be non binding that there was no harm subject to that the that the plaintiff in that case would suffer so the court did find in that case that a similar style document was in fact a non binding to the extent that the brown or pena in this one follows all of the section nine point five  criteria for right a binding no pinion yes which incidentally is there's no adequate here it is about three or four points and i would argue that all of them are satisfied here with the possible question the timing issue in any event to the extent that brown presented similar factual circumstances i would definitely agree that it was wrongly decided in so far as a substantive open year in aligning with all the criteria required of a bind you know pinion must be treated as a bind outset the school district a name as you probably know to from the british found the circuit court was just to get some clarity on what the what the theory of action here was by the aggrieved requester in this case again is sorry to the school district is the chief reason that we want to make sure that the that the instrument issued by the pac not classified one way or the other as to being bind or not binding it was just a writing that analyze the issues and cry applied to legal analysis however brief and concluded with a directive that the as school district were as correct and that it was entitle just as easily require and frankly i think you would assess for clarity purposes the pact to say the reverse when i was taking the opposite position say at the outset of say destroy new wario pena and this is not intended to be a binding opinion this is clearly label it as such in because of the volume and everything else i don't understand why they have a label everything needs to be labeled it's very easy to know that it was binding means by you know those are very few and in between which you would expect brown and say that the pack writing if it doesn't have the labor binding opinion i think exact quote from brown this has no legal a fact one wonders why the exercise is taking place in the first place and regardless of the answer to that it seems to clearly fall short of the requirement that they resolve a request for review to me a reason a resolution of requests for review involves some record negotiated agreement between the p if because that's not within the paks control if that is not able to be achieved there are the option is to issue issue a binding opinion or certainly i believe do nothing at all i'm which would be within their purview more liberal relief for the requester because the judge is going to look at it they don't i'm not sure your honor i'm not sure i would agree with the position that a right dean which if we are to believe the hack has no legal real world legal impact on anyone i resolves the matter or even advances the ball in any notable sounds i'm not sure the pack as it's been represented accord apparently resolves the vast vast majority of its cases in this manner and based on the ruling in brown and if this this court is inclined to go the same direction as sets up a state of affairs in which none of the thousands of people that avail themselves of the session torah leave provided avenue for relief are any better or worse off at the end of the exercise is sort of renders the before the case was even brought short of that i think that there's no resolution and if there's no resolution i don't think the pac has done either of the options available available to and i would wonder if it's not a result of your own i find that it in fact was not a binding opinion and therefore under brown has no legal a fact at all that is a context in which we're saying there's no resolute there's no resolution here within the meaning of the act certainly nothing