indemnify i think in the minutes or whatever document reflects this vote then it's very specific yes to things that that includes including attorney states correct i believe the motion the legal fees related to this matter now the issue is that section twelve point one day is very brawl it is it is qualified and it is discretionary and its qualified in team order of the judge and correct correct why didn't was there no motion to reconsider that order or appeal well because the district believe that the order is a fourteen rolls around if you had been in this field wanting to have been around for some time we are now in twenty eighteen and it's still around why didn't they are mine wasn't there some other attorney and confesses error it emits a violation under the act with the understanding that last attorneys will not see was looking for it's the minutes from the may fourth two thousand and ten meeting where the three trustees who are also the defendants in this case both there are three of them so i fourteen order if there were issues at the time better order was entered and you believed or that the district believed it to be too broad saying is the court could not enjoy the vote put us in contempt for that old a lot of these issues about allowable whether or not you allow the district to withdraw down do what's been granted to them and now it's our burden to to exercise her discretion whether or not it's a good idea or whether or not it violated you know due process rights or something along impinging upon their discretionary authority when it became problematic is when they took the seventeen seventeen billion in when fourteen order when the two thousand and fourteen border was used to appropriate the discretion moscow on everything except what we do or what we do what happens to all of the contracts that were introduced to with the law firms that don't relate to back order trustees three years after that the district fall they were never appealed never questioned to this court whether or not the judge would have a correct and said in march of twenty seventeen the district voted to just go went from one side to the other side and said we don't agree with his and we you're right judge you know there are we're out they vote that is a change that occurred a significant change at the position of the existing board to take it take a part of the benedictine university and make it on my or store and gas station and the supreme court said to try to move so they could do that and that was a significant issue on behalf of my her benedictine university and the people who thought that it was a good idea but she could have it could change because if the board changes and they do not abuse it's their discretion they can make exercising their discretion if the general assembly intended to put in the concerns that you're raising they had the ability to put that in the statute but they didn't they didn't and so that's what we're here today so talk about what what love discretion and the trial court didn't entertain the procedure then should it be remanded soviet procedure can be i don't think it should be remanded it should there should be would you agree that the separation of powers has its limitations and one of them is the intervention of the rights of various parties that might preclude or raise stockholm or a latch let's just say that since there's a court order that was entered and i believe it was by agreement with the party your argument that they need to bring a separate cause of action instead of attempting to ameliorate the effects of their judgment  you said that they could kill the bird with one of two stones either a declaratory or believe they did if we find it was an error and the argument that what the did was in error was because their court entered  order i believe fails to take into account that the order was agreed or was it not and i don't want to state something i'm not sure on the ok but i think at the time it was entered it was an liabilities so far as the federal government has said but whatever the legislature congress decides to do that day isn't going to stop congress from doing something in a year or five years down the road unless of course they're intervening change your mind but there may be intervening rights then video to go back to the trial for the point the fact that you've done something and the trial where should maybe be sued or the whole ball of wax which is now only whether or not things have changed but whether or not there are substantive rights to regardless of any change would have intervened to move the effectiveness of what your actions were