of the case that we're in right now is not about the question of whether or not funds should be spent to keep the circuit clerk's office open the question is before this court is simply a question of the source of those funds whether those funds are are to be general r two percent of personnel expenditures being allocated to this question what specifically do you mean my time to adjust to support your position that it would be unlawful to increase that percentage  interpretation it could only be interpreted one way in which case the trial court abused its discretion in granny injunction but right now i'm concerned and my my concurrence are to say it will relate to the issue of whether or not the trial services and they're doing so at a time when the circuit court is coming forward saying i think that get my work done i cannot accomplish statutory mandates with the level of funding that i have in the general fund right now that question the question of what level must constitutes a reasonable necessary level are you suggesting that the additional funding that is supposed to come from the county i assume the general fund is supposed to be paid out of the county general provided and what they talk about are and it's a level where you're avoiding cascading or growing delays these we don't understand it is if you accept that the circuit clerk's desk has paper coming in and paper going out if you file something heaping up with their workload the then any reasonable level service and that's the workload as a backlog of their two weeks behind but they're keeping up and they're holding steady in two weeks that's probably a serviceable level the problem state so licenses can be suspended or revoked so i'm safe drivers get off the road if that recording isn't happening for a period of weeks and then rolling period of weeks after the convictions occur those mandates are being performed  up to the circuit clerk to live with the budget at the county appropriate for her office i don't i don't think you can be quite that simple your honor in that the county has an absolute laid out before the circuit court any time when the counties putting her general fund budget and she's attempting to comply with that but it reached the breaking point where it wasn't possible where she was having this cascading delays where she wasn't performing mandates and where she face could not be expended for the screening process counsel opposing counsel i indicated or articulated that it's his position that the trial court made a mistake in turkey the legal reach of the special funds do to that point in a fiscal year twenty seven percent of total personal expenditures had been built against the special funds twenty seven percent from thirty two percent to five percent in this case  represent three hundred thousand dollars it's immaterial number because the total in rooms in this marriage about five hundred thousand dollars so serious  in what is obviously a competitive pressing buttons are difficult things is that there's substantial evidence substantial legal opinion to attorney general's opinion and a supreme court opinion findings and the trial courts you just may be allocated on should be used where there should be allegations of the special fons please explain how no reasonable person would have made that decision broad it's too broad disregard this gives your client is much discretion and as he possibly could which means that if you were worse he was basically giving you free rein now you're telling me that dan is an abuse broach the issue i raised the point is that if the preliminary injunction is so open ended and gives your client the ability to decide what ratio what allocation what portion etc it would make i think your opponent's attempt to hold your point in temp much more difficult because your client could say i have complied with this order because this order never said to me i have to spend thirty seven and a half percent of the other kid funds on automation for automation and i have to spend sixty seven or sixty eight percent discretion except only in that one instance because there is so much discretion given your client except for the one point and then this it's going to come from special funds but he's not telling her how much so how are you going to be found in temp to court if she is because they're not entered she hasn't made the propre entries and then she can make the appropriate dispersement and if it's because the entries are why can't she hire someone with