using the procedures in section thirty forty three of the illinois school code and not the procedures identified removing a teacher tenure teacher or principal for cause under section thirty four dash eighty five let me ask you have there been other in almost every year couple times a year sometimes sometimes not during year but these are all schools that are on probation that's correct eight point three your and only under the auspices of eight point three if your school's on probation and it has to be first a number of consecutive years or was it just one year believe that he was making a ruling a ruling first impression that he was deciding that the two sections had to be read together and that thirty contract that was new the performance contract allowed the board to terminate her contract for a number of reasons independent reasons i think it was b was thirty forty five insect subsection g of the contract section cited terminations section is the that the principal would have at least a year to do this that's correct the board has to wait for a year before it would move under eight point three d but for any of the actions the dramatic and other dated is a day or she'd earlier than that now she dr young gives an accepted and started her tenure as a principal january two thousand and eight the c e o the hearing was held out of the story for two thousand and nine she was removed october two thousand and nine but they make a point to one of the things that she's accused of not doing was implementing a program that wasn't funded until thirty seven days after she took office right to the bird the c e o do not seek removal for failure to implement the sepah which you could have done eight point three identifies several ways in which you become a probationary school the educational you need to hire a lawyer your principal in the city chicago no i don't as otherwise the point can pretty much as i think her argument this is that basically you're using this whole procedure was a subtext not the one from julian high school you're using it as a subtext to get rid of principal who was that i guess over policy matters with the part of education i did i strongly disagree i know you do this affects their argument and it seems to me that there is some substance to their argument when you read the fine print and their motion to dismiss this principle did not evaluate one teacher in fifteen months at that school you cannot improve the academic community the environment of a school if you are not going to discover and root out i'm satisfied yet again the focus is on earth not on the school the principal is responsible for teacher evaluations nobody else can do that at the school your honor so there there's certain points that she's going to have to meet during that initial period in order to retain her position if she doesn't meet those points then the board looks closely at whether the school is making progress and the exist just about every facet of our lives now and maybe principals do need lawyers to look at the contract but the contract is a contract and it's finding and both are right that's exactly right t ask you this in the remediation and probation of detention centers provision of eight point three where it talks about what the superintendent can do in terms of her schools it says that they can order a news new local school conference or council elections removing and replacing the principal and then there's a section replaced with a faculty members subject to the provisions of twenty forty five i was looking at that what does that what does that even teachers and a teacher's like this principal hired for this particular probationary school or do you know what this section was meant to to do the one that involves faculty members as opposed to principals i have that seeing hearing pursuant to de three and my time at the board but i know the twenty four eighty five refers to an satisfactory performance of teachers and the process that they have to receive before they are removed but this is relating to probationary schools and if you look at that section twenty four a five it seems to be that there are certain procedures that can be used for teachers as well as principals that three it wouldn't well i'm just asking you know if there's some meaning to this section that ha seems that the principles position here is that the other section trumps this eighty eight point three the thirty forty five and that's what the judge seems say that they have to be read together but this this statute was created after that right this statute came in to be in the late eighty's early ninety's it's titled this radiation and probation of attendance and it's the focus of this statute is on the schools and on improving the students opportunities and bet if because this is the point three came into existence after thirty four thirty five people was already in existence there would be no need to have a provision for the removal of the principal if the only way to remove the principal is for cause that's correct the we believe the general assembly knew what it was doing that it was part of a broad arm plan to restructure the schools and make it easier and required the c e o to do  money to do hearings for all to report in schools nor should there be that kind of evidence that was introduced explains why the c e o s decision i was made at this we believe that this this principal is not going to be a believe the school of probation there were allegations of clause in this point i believe the are the testimonial but from her supervisor explains puts the reason in context why they yes this was on probation but we have a lot of probation or schools but we're moving here today to remove this principal because she has demonstrated through these actions she's not focused and understand progress to some extent the cause doesn't go to grounds for removal it goes to grounds or it goes to whether or not she's making any progress and points that levy speaking york based on your brief and you indicate that it's actually point three it was not followed and my question is are you saying that it wasn't followed regarding the principal or was it not followed gricar did not apply because the school was not technically under the probationary provision that eight point three  well i think it wasn't followed in the sense that od on february twenty fifth of two thousand and nine the order pick asian finally approved the funding that was necessary to implement typical improvement plan that was thirty seven days before my client was removed to the board off she was removed on april third but was it was it was that they said was that a basis for the remov well of mr humans letter of july twentieth two thousand and nine starts this whole thing off and the first paragraph and i realize i'm not supposed to read but i have to do it  getting the school off of beijing but that's not the way the letter is written no way says in addition well these other things have contributed to the problems we're having with julie and then when we get to the hearing what evidence do they  had with insubordination and hasn't been dealt with but was referred to and i think this makes a purely a thirty four eighty five case and not any point three case let me ask you as i saw in that what is the basic due process difference that that that's a the main difference whether any other differences in terms of what takes place at the hearing in terms of due process rights of the of the principle you know we we didn't have the hearing and i just hated those but i would believe that but nothing in the hearing officer himself or herself was there any real substantial difference between the two hearings i think you're allowed to present testimony and evidence and i don't let you get well but i think it was more of an adversarial type of testimony with cross examination and things of that nature which didn't occur in this particular hearing occurred in this particular hearing she could have cross examined on him to all of the witnesses  with fear hearing when you when the decision maker it's like talking to a wall because you think hey by oneself let's end the preceded let me ask you this are you saying or do you believe that eight point three does not allow for that dismissal of a principal without a cause i mean are you saying that these two have to be read together and that there can be no procedure where an attempt can be made to remove a principal from a probationary school for something well other than the cause here and that was not to be able to get the school and track what i think you have to look at thirty fo the at the serial nature of the thirty forty five theory as opposed to you saying this one wasn't adversarial i don't believe that stanley hill who represented her at the hearing was allowed to question anyone has he prevented from questioning i think the procedure was that the hearing not sure why i'm talking in the general sense and a principle be removed for not being able to get that school on track it's already on probation do you believe that this legislation allows for that if it's done right are ok and he got so we have to be you are agreeing that if you don't believe it was done right correct all right but he's only going to have to be for  court in this was a uniform principle performance patrick i thought it said that she could be discharged earlier than the end of the contract an talks about removal for costs and cost doesn't include everything that is in her contract is real shit is that what you do is that what you're asking for you're asking for a hearing for cause and allow the evidence to go forward in the proceedings that you've just described one of adversarial where her attorney would be able to cross examine and you want the hearing officer to make it at the hearing officer could determine in light of the evidence that there are grounds for removal for cause you think that your client's interests would be served by having a decision made for removal for cos i think that they didn't do it right and they shouldn't get another opportunity to do it right i mean i don't know why they have the authority to revamp this if if if if let's just disappear see it was saying is that if you're really looking for work boys hearing we certainly have the authority give us specific reasons you believe eight point three was not followed in light of what occurred below i don't think that she was given an opportunity funding she didn't implement the plan the funding the specific elements of that plan under her contract and i think i cited that in my brief until the board approved and i know that of that was presented if it was a motion to dismiss that her attorney was allowed to argue which ultimately fell on deaf ears and this same argument was may from the star thirty seven days is not enough time to do failure to make it vance's in light of that late provision of funds that in fact big they're not relying on her performance  advances she could have done with those funds i don't agree i think that if you look at that hearing and you look at the entire if you're in transcript they went through everything from dealing with what i would think would be a thirty four eighty five that procedure they can use what your argument would be then they all if there's a principle involved and that's going to possibly leave the principals remove all then they have to be used thirty four eighty five that's basically what the trial first eight point three can be i think that he went three maybe a little bit more specific as to a route that can be determined to be all those under thirty forty five but the procedure that used proceeding obviously the there it's it's quite a bit different then a proceeding under thirty forty five what how do you how did this proceeding follow how did the  process that was followed get decided upon i did how did the hearing officer get appointed how did you know the absence of cross examination did understood by the parties and the proceeding go the way it did without there being something to say that in fact that's the process that has to be followed all i can tell you since i wasn't obviously  proceeding is how did it start it started with mr huber ms letter of july twentieth of two thousand and nine indicating that he was going to have the hearing conducted before a hearing officer that he appointed and then he get to the hearing and there's a motion to dismiss the hearing based on the fact that things were not done the proper way and this hearing officer does the hearing the way he wants to do it and  and the there's an urgency to make progress in improving that school that you need it's clearly streamlining process to make changes in that school's administration that maybe thirty forty five doesn't provide well let's look at what happened to answer it that way what happened here is that on april third of two thousand limited and to the extent that her contract required that cheap aid means that the funds that would have to be paid to another principle might cause funds to be short somewhere  like i think that maybe that may be permissible can we talk about standard review for just a moment ok because that has to be one has never a case right right would you assume that it's de novo one this issue of whether a net thirty four eighty five or thirty forty point three that language and voluntarily dismiss this rule for a language that it's simply allows for piecemeal piecemeal appeal but it doesn't give you the appeal right itself unless the answer my question with respect to why standard or review for judge hymens decision that thirty four eighty five had to be read in herem material with thirty four point three and that she was entitled to a thirty four eighty five  here that is the insubordination and all of the rest of things that really nothing to do with the school and the kids it has to do with with dr young gibson what they're doing is they're trying to use  review to get rid of somebody where they should be using the other standard and based on everything that there is here i would ask you to a from what the circuit court did and put my client provisions of the administrative review law and all amendments and not patients thereof shall apply to govern all proceedings instituted for the additional review by either the employee teacher principal finally before we get there let me ask you this question if we really if we only review the board's decision does that mean that we can ignore judge hymens decision and simply not address whether he was right or wrong on whether eight three subsumed within thirty forty five and do you even want us to do that don't you want us to clear up the law and say what whether or not a principle can be removed so only under eight point three right we prefer question is really before it isn't the question that the judge i mean decide reinstating the principle or is it the question whether or not the board was right to remove or in the first instance under eight point three and if are only going to go to that second question that first question might be ignored entirely but it seems to me that it might be of benefit all parties if we address judge time its analysis as well i believe you should address both i believe the record of decision right when you're interpreting the statute it's you know when you're looking at thirty four point three compared to thirty forty five it's to know when you're looking at whether the decision by the board to terminate this woman's contract was against mathis where the evidence that is issue presented that the record supported the decision made by a public agency and i wonder if i could ask both parties i would i would like both parties to address the issue of the standard of review simultaneously filed you have two weeks left the standard to review what we are reviewing and of course the spring court has already said that the standard review differs based on the issue a point three d three the replacement of faculty members and i have to need to review that and if you look at the section that it indicates you should follow if you're going to remove facts members refers to the tenured teachers for mediation process principals don't get mediation so at that that set subsection does not apply principals so i believe that supports for the supports argument that a point three d to which allows the c e o through the board to remove and replace a principal is not subjected to the this it was not adversarial like thirty forty five there's no question it's a different process and i think that's intentional on the part of the of the legislator but she was allowed to present a evidence that she wanted to including her own test that's correct she testified that she called five witnesses introduce nine hundred documents and was just so it's clear we're not going to enter an order we're going to rely on the affirmation by the acknowledgment by each side that they will submit that memorandum ok that's right i think you