not say that an employee who commits this act cannot work for the district unlike what the school district has said the controlling spirit we think that the language is clear to that that the language is clear that it only applies to those people who may lose their certificates to its teachers and administrators and if you read further down in that statute it also mentioned certain independent contractors mistake hamilton however is not a teacher mr hamilton simply is the count complain for the district's decision to terminate mr hamilton after learning had been convicted under the controlled substances act under a specific section that is  there precludes employment anybody in a you know school district in illinois is that the two count complaint the distinction between the two count complaint is a little long clear but the but the gist of the complaint was that the school district had no ability to next question what i think happened and i don't know this but i think the prior h r director may have misunderstood what section applied what section where that w want in school districts and some of those convictions some felony convictions carry a seven year cooling off period so after the seven years of after conviction of certain felonies then you're eligible again clean  g and haven't had any other problems but then they have other convictions that's they say these are all almost all sex related crimes or drug related crimes or they say that's it you can't go into the school districts you cannot go into schools and be around children and mr hamilton's conviction in one thousand nine hundred four and then subsequent biological is one of it's false firmly in that category it's they've never even disputed that his conviction in one thousand nine hundred four is one of the crimes that precludes any employment that's right or wrong i think we go across the street but it is one of the laws license suspension or revocation so how does that apply go into ok so in that i believe certainly in front of judge kelly that was i believe the gist of mr lawrence art so if you step back and you read and i didn't write the section that you and i know it could be written probably better but if you read twenty one point nine in its entirety twenty one point nine a starts out by saying non certified applicants for employment for the school district excuse except school bus driver applicants are required as a condition of employment to authorize a fingerprint based criminal history records check to determine if such applicants have been convicted of any of enumerated criminal or drug offenses in subsection c section then you go down to see and it says and i think this is the important language and see no school board shall knowingly employ a person who has been convicted of any events that would subject him or her license suspension or evocation pursuant to twenty one b eighty then we get a twenty one b eighty there's never been a debate that mr hamilton's conviction in ninety four was would be the purpose of having even a non certified employees have to go through the background check and why does twenty one twenty one point nine eight say we're doing this background check to make sure these applicants that we might decide as the school district that because you're not a licensed or certified way we would like to hire you it could be theoretically  convicted of these atomic bomb crimes whether they're sex crimes or dark crimes the state legislature's been very clear that there are certain controlled substance act violations certain sexual violations if you're convicted of these why's it i respectfully i disagree i think when you read twenty nine twenty one point nine a in coordination with seed they were saying look even non certified applicants you're going to be held by the same employees and we can say whether the lunchroom or whether they're on the grounds like you said there's nothing to say that hey once you get a certain further proximity school districts you can you can you can use your discretion there's nothing that says that and if and when you couple a and section and see together there would be no purpose for the background check under the statute as it's written other than to make sure everybody's covered by  employees again confusing if someone on the grounds was convicted of one of these more serious offenses you can then use your discretion whether it's seven years ten years whatever history there's a period where somebody is shown that they've got their act together you can use some discretion they absolutely have said that wire the word certified in license even present you don't want anybody else i mean the whole it would seem the purpose of th it's not there's not there's not much there but like if you look at twenty one point nine in its entirety there is legislators clearly drawing out groups of people  and can't be employed by school districts and under under what circumstances there are the atomic bomb crimes then there are the the crimes the felonies for which you get seven years you get what you're saying is and twenty situations where somebody has been hired first to civic position and maybe they have you know prior convictions and years ago they were missed i mean or is but there for i don't know to the real result after writing a bad check or something like that and they consider isn't going to teach in the classroom and again we're talking about a misdemeanor and they  stoffel argument that this fellow goes higher and continued working even though according to your interpretation the statute he was prohibited from being employed but he was maintained on the  police officer who was they waited for five years to terminate him for the use of excessive force is the case on point here and mr hamilton worked at the district he didn't rely on and if he was paid for his work  i don't think the latches of the equitable stoffel argument were here also if you again based on the interpretation of the statute you would be requiring the school district to continue to act in a way that is a violation of the law and you know you can take a completely different circumstance so if they say they accidentally hired you know a sex offender and then you said well you hate x you're you that person then that person stays there unless they get fired for of anything were to happen in the future exactly and more importantly what about that student who got hurt you know i know it's liability but also just that you know it's not say and i think that's why the if you look at the crimes that that that the legislator use of the atomic bomb is a serious crimes serious so the as we said that the statute twenty one point nine a and c must be read as a whole there is no there's been never been an argument that that mr that the crime for which mr hamilton was convicted is included in the crimes listed in twenty section twenty one b eighty and those those crimes those convictions preclude employment at one point mr hamilton in his brief focus was on the the difference between the terms employed and higher i don't disagree that they can be used synonymously the higher means initiate employment to initiate your employment employer which is what the statute says it doesn't say hire it says employ continued employment and and when you find out someone has as as violated one statutes are violated when the criminal role model sections that preclude employment they can no longer be employed in the future i do want to point out one one error in my brief i did say that mr hamilton never raise the issue of public act ninety four to one thousand are public at ninety six zero or three one in his are in his br substance of the change anything that had to do with the prior convictions or who was covered by the picture also the path of the appellant has never explained how any of the changes even from their point of view and they tell you precisely what they were intending to do now mr krause is right i searched up and down the tried to find the history because i started out with the