run in this particular case the committee of ten filed a request for a boundary change for the regional superintendent of schools there was a hearing that was conducted on this in twenty fourteen adopted for the conduct of the area and that's significant to a certain extent because it calls and the like o motions to reconsider are done and so forth now after june ninth hearing only th  members voted we were of the petition to change the bound out of the seven other board with a one person or being one vacancy you know her decision it clear you have to have a majority board that would have been forma it's now despite that the board in a position granted the boundary change into law twenty fourteen or at some point there to i think the school regional supercenters will work realized wait a minute we screwed up only three numbers voted we needed four so there was a hearing on a motion to reconsider on polls taken at the july twenty by the administrative review acts we put a surcharge complaint in there because we think there are things out sign of the actual position of the regional superintendent of schools but the trial court into to look at and among your position it's almost because we counterintuitive because of if the decision is through the administrative review and correct you're basically saying everything before that you could be in the history i mean th true but we don't know that because we have haven't had all the ravenous yet we're in a motion to dismiss states not when it's talking about something where there's already been a hearing witnesses will talk about some of these issues we're not at doesn't mandate that they do so they ruled that shop that it's the board shall do it ok as if that has to be done but of course we have all that there could be a lot of reasons why they don't do it first it's now three groups so we could never agree on after she had resignation that she passed away she was not a purpose and not in the hearings at all that's why when the group was there and it was the father that the did they bother with read who everybody started cheering issue i believe it is at this point i would not necessarily see why not under three or four it don't think the three or four the order should have been granted but that's my fault i'm just a normal country lawyer sometimes simply say all you have to do is read some and see and this concise it is in accord with the civil practice act is a matter of fact it's far  better written in the complaint and the complaint has all kinds of you know allegations here and there and whatever and and really i believe that if you look at it you'll see that that's  in on a couple of our allegations where we said we don't have information and belief to check to remember this complaint was filed against the original or school cross and the committee of ten i will present the committee of t not the regional board or school trustees and those that particular allegations were simply didn't have the information the issue of off or off on we're all really properly directed regional board of trustees court for review then all the legal issues and all the factual issues are briefed and argued to the trial court all right so and in essence wh judge there's not a jury number one and number two they can't possibly be prejudiced by some of the allegations we read because most of them are just simple you know that one of this is that because article six was not adopted and we go back before the trial court we have a hearing on this in the newsroom or the school code is very specific that the situation the decision of the school board is what is reviewed out of the administrative review where there is not going to be anything in the decision about illnesses and bacon season things like that and we want those to be before the trial court because it has raises issues some of that in the record but if one of the trial court when they look at what is covered by the administrative review act we're talking about the decision didn't a straight agency now i understand the whole record are going to be brought up but there's an argument that can be made that you know some of these extraneous things about the world are not covered by the administrative review act because number one those are article six issues that the administrative review act is not adopted and number two i would ministry to review a lot of these things that we're talking about are more probable we don't have a remedy for under the administrative review act and that's why we pledged and asked for so sharp which is to allow resume for things that may not be covered but those are the things that you're talking all i realize there's an end to get in there and i have been for this court on several different occasions and i do understand what the what the court is asking with regard to that i can only go by what is in the order of what the court said should be reviewed and that ruling about the amount motions strike was included in that