ashley counsel responded and asked me believe that perhaps quote the governor and his power see team quote unquote would not be included because they report directly to the citizen but that most of the members of the state plays that became unionized were about ninety i think the close to ninety eight percent of one time about fifty to fifty thousand employees of the fifty five thousand have people who could manage who could supervise who could be confidential employees in that state that were not were not being unionized and that's the very bill we're talking about right now and particularly section six point one m of the and pray that is at issue in this case that's what we're talking about america but that but the union use that interfax that that language that phrase now before you in this case we're dealing with the pollution control but at this this was the first case decided by decisions involving the precise same question by the precise same agency this court the future should defer to the most recent case and in this case the most present oral argument which was stop but in in this case there was no oral who right in the next case which we cite the was an oral hearing provided and and  rb itself said we're revisiting the situation because we didn't give we didn't provide an oral hearing and then they heard evidence extrinsic of them asked to the legislative history regarding regarding the process but it said it had to buy it had to follow its own rules in the i c c case in this case the rule say there's a question they have to give you hearing but notice that this that that's under the rule and all we're saying as i say we have now a statutory right to do that in the past to show and in providing the state to press under the statute we believe that hearing was required in these circumstances  in sections six point one it state agency you know and three to five of section three of the following word ending his or any way to read that other than they're not responsible actually given what what to the governor otherwise why would it be phrased that way or that that day that the hope the whole reason i'm  by other wise i just don't understand how you can say that the way that is written the way it's structured that is it reasonable interpretation because if you take because otherwise  with the whole point was that they added these these words adding these boards are basically amending the reorganization at to include within the agencies directly responsible for the government have and i believe he didn't have any to say and he said it's probably no harm no foul and they're using that here to say well this should be overturned because we didn't get a chance to put in evidence that they didn't have to put in in the first place right now although we have two amendments that have more than two amendments but but when they did this the definitions of public employees and several instances which include the definition of state agency that was an amendment in its entirety a q five to include definitions and use the term state agency for legislative liaison or chief information officers for a variety of other positions with an eye on the state government that  they decided should be with the legislature these should be excluded and they also came up with something that is not really consistent with the because the act is there to her mad people who are public employees to exercise their rights to collectively bargain and be represented based on a variety of factors putting other cases before this and other courts in the board there's the situations have been made that oh can't we have to tamp down this number the union so something extraordinary we the legislature are going to give you the governor the authority should be out of the union in those agencies that are directly responsible to you now the only thing i can say is that all the arguments that have been raised by c n n s and these cases are that you should ignore that language that this is limited to those agencies directly responsible to the company and i mean that makes sense because if you look at the statute which is the executive talks about agencies directly responsible government lived right out that's the language in that statute it says we're going to say these are not directly responsible to the governor because these are should be and are intended to be independent have stayed in you know i c c is is set up by statute to be separate and they hire their own the government in higher than things of that nature so it makes sense makes sense  forward you have to go forward where there is going to be a full hearing where the board is going in you know use their normal powers that's it there have been given to them get them by the legislature exercise for thirty years then legislature is the plain language of the statute and if it's unambiguous it needs to be enforced as it's written it's our position that it's an ambiguous and needs to be in force as it's written so it does not apply to these eleven positions in this case and very minute number of other positions because they're not big agencies i mean it's not as if the governor wasn't permitted and didn't dead doesn't weigh out you know thirty three thousand two hundred other positions talk a here because this is you're talking about a thirty percent shins all together even using all the case so in this case it seems very rational and reasonable that the legislature would say you know what we're going to give this authority to the governor but it's only going to be to those that are directly responsible to him he can call and say three thousand five hundred eighty decisions he did not designate three thousand five hundred eighty but with the exception of these either eleven or thirteen every other position that was designated was unfa in terms of the this issue so this very narrow issue and of these few agencies there are actually more than sacks serving there is there's these three cases which are consolidated to one there's a next group of three cases that's on appeal in the first district that was consolidated into one and in that one i think there are six ways all together that are at issue in that appeal there were i believe but generally speaking one employee so the number is extremely small in comparison to what the governor's authority is right i mean you  handful of people that are affected because they also have the other requirements and these are just these agencies but they were also requirements so in a fact you know we're not they are given an oral argument they made their arguments that there was no that which is what the board decided there are no facts that are relevant i mean under abrahams and you don't have to have an oral hearing in this court is held you don't have to have an oral hearing to provide here you can't provide hearing by allowing submissions is a legal case it's a legal argument and so i don't believe that the issue i was going back to the the organization act when you look at the list of and i should have said this all of that could be listed in that state agency nation for the purposes of the act in general so not a six point one but for the act in general the amendments to the act to which it applies are listed with the exception of  two and those two one there's another provision of the act which takes them out of the coverage of the board of elections and the second is the state board of education which is covered under the education so for the purposes of the act in general not six point one there was an amendment that included these agencies who put it agencies directly responsible to the governor and these agencies for the purpose of this new provision six point one and limited provision the legislature did not shape and these other agencies just said directly responsible  the only other thing i want to discuss very briefly as the issue of the other cases so i have to take issue with counsel's representation that th court can take to dish will notice of the record in the other cases although the court an obviously can take judicial notice of other decisions of other courts or of other it out the administrative agency agencies under the jurisdiction of the governor we must look to section six point one it is infectious if by one that we find the concept of movement of oriel as it may a unique statutory creation that differs from any language as the majority presume we believe that the phrase quote within state agencies directly responsible to the governor was intended to exclude the other constitutional officers and to indicate that the unique statutory rape created by section six point one was only to be utilized by the governor with regard to the state that c c represents and collective bargain this interpretation were easily harmonize with  interpreted such a way we do not believe that the action be interpreted in such a way as to lead to absurd results however that is exactly what the majority of the board simply cannot turn a blind eye to the