man it is slightly different but i think that the language of the two of the two sections is similar enough that we do know at least make an analogy well i discovered there that point ok because it's similar because i believe claim or liability or for the appropriation of money and i believe that you know i'm not privy to this to the city's accounting system but i do believe that the legal fund is something separate from the general appropriation of the fund where they would for example get the money to purchase city services i think that i think that the discussion in the wheelin what they were acting as the city council as a whole but then there are lies the whole issue but i do believe that the distinction between a settlement agreement versus a contract and other types of contracts that is word well i don't think they're in conflict with each other frankly so i don't think one has to translate either he did say only that it only requires the consent of the city council which i believe we have here and i think that if the ecb and specifically need a formal vote in compliance with the plain language of the state or this you can have the members buying the whole city council in the whole city he's fired you know the old members not that they were here but you who go off without your story of the whole city definitely and part of that from his comments he said i'm numerous occasions everyone thought this was settled mr parcher just statements were unequivocal we all thought there was a settlement he made those upon calls to the council members we all thought this was settle this also that what happened here runs contrary to the asserted rule of the local rule eleven point zero three which says it had pretrial sodomy conferences before the court you must have parties with element already present in person or on the phone and in this case jane means my client was present you know was available by phone we had to take breaks and speak to our clients on the phone the five city council colden regulation committee members were also present by phone and mr he comes back he makes an offer the judge struck that the trial for the calendar in which he said i don't do that unless i know what's happening here i mean i think we i think we're all right we're right there with you i mean there is nothing more frustrating than being a trial  heard something on the radio today they were talking about the whole thing with with israel and they said how do you negotiate the wire and i thought you know isn't that true i mean how in the now in the future is somebody can negotiate city of ads they ask you were they asking you questions about it's it's a sherman upon you the burden is on you to show us that this was indeed in fact a custom in the practice because that would allow you to get around three point saying that the that the municipal ordinance today to seven seven trump that and he couldn't get around that language but i think consent if the city had intended that you needed a full vote to approve a don't need it as a city attorney without without getting any sort of consent is the word that they use of the city council can settle a lawsuit under twelve thousand five hundred for everything over that they need consent and i'm saying what they had here was consent they had the word of five different on the fact that a settlement agreement is different from a contract for the purchase of city services let me ask you one final question ok even if we don't if we don't find we don't buy your argument that the  let me ask you this were the committee members required to vote on the approval of the settlement agreement consistently with their previous approval at the pre transplant they absolutely were and that's my that's another one of my arguments is that those those meet the definition court here and you know i didn't actually label it as a topic or emission but i argued those elements so i do believe they couldn't take they can't turn around and act contrary to the statements that they cost the city attorney to make talked about how this property that would was going to be axed the defense attorney stated to the court his intention to annex the property consistent with what it said in the sun in agreement he made that statement in court several other types of debts for city services and i think that's the way you reconcile how we deal with the city from now on it's by saying that whatever those city council code regulation committee members tell the city attorney and cause him to say to the judge and open court their  trial court he wasn't willing to listen to their argument at that time but we did ask him that ye in the chamber the five that were sitting before that just us who sat there and settled the case to the attorney for the city rocker to sell a case and then come back and say you know we changed our mind isn't under two nineteen don't think they c fund is different and that's that's that's why the settlement of ongoing lawsuits is so different from the creation of a contract to fire city services i guess that's why i keep relying very strongly on the distinction that the that that was itself contained no contingency language whatsoever and i think i cited in my brief i won't i won't go over that again but the offer was made very clearly in consideration for dismissal of this lawsuit and we're six hundred thousand dollars you know  chaska i think that you statements were the clearest indication of at least his understanding of everyone's representation representation in court that day and i think the report of the record of proceedings pages thirty eight through forty contains all of his statements where he says mr partridge was unequivocal he called los city council members he got their approval he made you know that everyone was clear we all knew there was a settlement it was on a medical i think that there was it you know i think that that was clear you know and there was no contingency post thank you so much for your union saying thank you so much for you