interpretation was influenced by the february nineteen letter from the fun it was and so there is that aspect of it it isn't simply the statute itself but the latter and whether or not how that letter complied with the statute and so the letter had certain language and that language seemed to  with the statute and that language was connected to that lower figure and the  your contribution is three hundred seven million four hundred eighty five thousand dollars and that's what they did but that's what the court gave but the letter refers to three hundred seventy million  minimum contribution number and that in the actuarial valuation was three hundred ninety three million dollars it's set forth in the water the letter reads the actuary has calculated the total employer required contribution for fiscal year twenty ten three hundred ninety three million two hundred sixty six thousand dollars now but it's also it's not unlike someone saying just give me the bottom line and that's what i thought  e board will say just give me the bottom line in they read the bottom line to be that three hundred seven billion in accordance with the letter that the the fun wrote what would be more favorable for them to read the bottom maybe that is the amount that you're sort of fine in that's not the stature required the fund certified the contribution to bring the fund ninety percent now the statute does not what their contribution is going to be until after that date precisely and what your certification as their current on the as the february twenty eight and they took that three hundred  asserted the reliance argument on the specifics of its budget is not a risk you take when you file cross when there are cross motions for summary judgment that there simply is no discovery whatever the position they claim they're there taking is a position you have to accept on other here's the problem when when you file for us motion for summary judgment you're basically telling the court it's a it's a matter of law up and we don't need any additional information and you can't and you know when things are looking bad need for discovery and everyone agreed that it was presented purely a question of law the font did not read when the board filed its summary judgment all she wants later that there were no  come in from the state and you know to the extent that those contributions kamen and i actually see they operate as a credit account but the board would have to pay the board doesn't have to necessarily pay anything until the last day of the school year and usually doesn't so there is a over a year and four months difference between the time when the certification letters issued and when the fiscal year close there's plenty of opportunity for them or say here's three hundred ninety three million dollars that we have a budget for and to that go ahead and do it but meet let me take advantage of your your your your words a plenty of opportunity i because i thought that i got this plan to make solvent the teachers pension fund was a forty five your point is there's something to that effect in your briefs there is all right and the crowd judge sad or believed i don't addressed in the course of future years to make up the thirty seven million dollar deficiency that you believe exists for fiscal year twenty two there's nothing   other somethings would include the contribution made in prior years by the board as being sufficient to be obligation and in regardless of how it's interpreted the application of the statute is entirely in the in the in the fellow's hands you can you guys get to certify whatever amount you believe is the correct  we do and we certify that it was three hundred ninety three the statute section one twenty nine p five provides that any contribution by the state to work for the benefit of the fog including without limitation is referred to under section seventeen as one twenty seven shall be a credit against any contribution required to be made by the board under the subdivision b it says that the board gets a credit for contributions by the state it doesn't say the that are and no application to the duty of either party under the statute and we sometimes learn from twenty twenty hindsight and that's that's just going on now but if you're out of the file estimate let me ask you what hot hot how do you think the board should have should've taken that courtesy he wants the boys to deal with that courtesy that you're getting to reduce the amount that they have to budget between the fondant and the board and it was done as a courtesy to say here's what we expect in historically in the past we've been receiving these miles from the state we expect it these involves from state in the future and if we do is what created vicious fun fixed by sending out the second letter in august which reiterated that total contribution was still three hundred ninety three billion dollars but notified for what your m play a great doesn't play a role in our decision that's correct and so i won't waste rubbish time but i would urge your outfit to read what was set up page sixty five getting in line eleven it's interesting but what there's nothing in the statute section one hundred ninety eight that the court was relying on that would allow for these deficiencies you made up in the subsequent year section one twenty nine ne applies phone cannot require really do anything to make the board pay the contribution make up deficiency and oh so you're anything like that what was hoping to have in place that whole that there was some kind of a scenario where the fun could be just the numbers for the next year and then the deficiency would be taken care of but what would happen likely is that if that amount is not paid by the board and the deficiency for  springfield if the timetable they set for you certify by february twenty eighth and they don't provide you with the information and it's ours their contribution is by that date then the legislature should make allowances t two bodies politics as described in your in your brief because once you delve into politics you know that's why we have a legislature  turned out to be inaccurate and really the board if everything had been done properly if if if all the calculations had been upfront where they had that information prior to february one thousand when they issued a letter that you you board would be only another thirty seven million some hundred thousand dollars right so you can see that right absolutely and and so how is that money to be made up if if you really all that money now and it then it and it's just a matter of of the the language in the letter of february nineteenth that that you say allows you to postpone making their contribution i think it is the board eventually going to make up that nine specifically one one twenty nine b well the the whole one section seventeen dash one twenty nine provides that every year the fund is supposed to  by using actuarial methods estimate the amount that will bring up the funds total asset to liability up to ninety percent by the year as of the filing is recognizing that it is incrementally you know they're looking at the budget for the parties and they're looking at the fact that yes this will be made up assuming that  the stock market doesn't do better in one year and the fact is every year the fund is to look at their liabilities as a whole and the buy deliveries from the previous year will be factored into that so and so how do we  says specifically they're asking the funder to certify to the board of education the amount of the required board of education contribution that's not the total contribution the total contribution which is set out at page eleven of the actuarily or report which is and have the of of the board's brief that sets out that the total contribution sets out the state's contributions pursuant to section seventeen dosh one twenty seven the board of education is required contribution percent to seventeen dash one twenty nine c the section we're talking about today and the board of education is contributions pursuant to a whole other section of the code which is one twenty seven point two all right this is the first year that this sort of information was conveyed by the fund to the board christ didn't happen it's happened numerous times groomers years in the past and it's also probably accurate to say that that the board over the funding has relied on estimates in the past and maybe the estimates have been accurate in the past that they weren't accurate this time because of the budget problems in springfield but the board is aware that estimates have been here years and so why and and so that this is the first time the estimates are falling drastically short why shouldn't the board say our practice is always going to rely on us in that sense and we rely on those estimates they relied on those estimates this time the estimates turned out to be wrong and we're going to accept your letter of august nineteen saying we had it we should have contributed more because the pension code doesn't allow them to to do that to amend their february nineteenth contribution requirement that only applies if in fact the amount that you believe was certified is the three hundred seventy or whatever that mom has and in fact if you give the board could have been could have been persuaded to say you know we now understand that three correct certified amount was three hundred ninety three lowered by the actual contributions made by the state and  to pay that amount the board is required to pay the board of education required amount not the total amount and the total amount is derived by the funded sac based on their actuary which the pension called requires them to use an actuary for this for you so you just you just triggered a question and that is i be required to pay that amount or are they required to take into consideration an amount in setting their own budget and the amount doesn't really stay fixed it is simply something that the that the board is entitle to rely on in setting its own budget and if it had s its own budget on three ninety three it would have the funds available to make up the the shortfall from the contribution from the stay in place to that the reasonable interpretation of the stand because  the board of education recently relied on the language of the statute which says you have to certify to us the board of education so you're not sure you had to know that sort of thing that three hundred seventy million dollars was n fixed amount because the it was really it was breached by using estimates and estimates are by their very nature estimates that they can they're subject to change so you know that three hundred seventy million was not a fixed amount it wasn't a certified amount in that sense nothing is absolutely certain every year there could be different there are changes in the asset valuation the board of education from one year fluid doesn't it make the point that the the the old statement we reasonably relied maybe isn't a solid as you might think it is because you know when you get that number that the top number is three ninety three and you know that the way the statutes designed is that your contribution is only going to be the number that number minus the other contributions that comment and since you know that that's a fluid number how can you say you reasonably relied on the three all seven because we have to rely on what the actuary takes into account to the actuary has to take into account the possibility that the state won't come up with the amount of money that the state has told the fund which the fund has then told the board of education they will pay we have to be able to rely on what an actuary comes up with based on actuarial tables and by the way right by the way a council is kept referring to facts that weren't in the record but that one of the facts that the board's sad that they had to rely on in order to be able to create their own budget for the next year is teacher salaries and that is a fact in the record that there was an estimated basically one billion was they claim that that means that that raises a material issue for i don't agree with that why not because we have to but it's just common sense you have to be able to rely on the amount of the required an employer contribution in order to create the board of education's on budget what about the what about making it up if it can't be made up in the future the way a candidate and assuming that the fund then takes that thirty seven million dollars from this particular fiscal year and factors that in as a liability into the following fiscal year it because that liability just as it has other life build is just as they're picked at least the ten percent this is a liability when it's only when the go up when the goal is to fund the pension by ninety percent right where once it gets up to ninety percent then i think if there are the requirements to stop our well how would you suggest that we ask you to to be the warrior for the that you otherwise wouldn't have to make cuts so it seems to me that what in the one hand you're saying we don't want that letter on the other hand you're saying we want to rely on the lower number and it seems the big you want your cake and eat it too because my cake is the three hundred seven million dollar figure which is based on what the statute requires and you've already set the three hundred seven million dollars is not if it is not the accurate amount had the statute been followed in accordance with what they're obligated to do which is certified the amount that you're actually going to have to pay now i'm sorry if i have if i have said that that three hundred seven million is not the correct number i did well i need it in the sense that we all acknowledge that given the contribution by the state three hundred seventy isn't what has to be made up by the party here cook county it's three hundred thirty  deficiency is supposed to be made up in the following fiscal year which the pension code allows for the pension code does not allow them it's like it's like a credit you want you want credit or you can pay it off gradually i want to pay what the what the pension code requires us to pay which is not the total employer required contribution it is the board of education required to let's go back to justice palmer's question then and justice lincoln's contribution how could be a how could they  have done a better job given in this case given that the certification has to be issued by february twenty eighth and no one knows what the actual amount the state is going to  we are because that was an actuarial actuarial figured employer required contribution  now with hindsight what sort of letter you going to issue next time around or you should have issued a letter that doesn't impose too great a burden on them which is they don't want that three hundred ninety three million dollar piece certified because then that would impact their budget me and it really is an accurate figure the total where contribution is what it is and in response one state was consummated she said nothing is actually the certain there is something that's absolutely certain it's absolute certainty not total  their history in terms of when that contribution is actually made by the state by the state is that after february twenty eighth it's the fiscal of the year before the fiscal year begins it is it is after the