positions were confidential positions within the terms of this court's walkerton station to begin with it's a very high salary the employment the command the position pays over ten thousand dollars a month which is a pretty high salary by police officers standards the to levels down from the from the chief of people for whom there is a eligibility exam you have to take this test that these are these are confidential assistance of the  the way the charter is set up the commander position is a civil service position but it is specifically written into the charter through the rule of three most corps that the chief has discretion to select from among those people who are eligible to select to pick if you look at the standards set by this court in the water versus lake walker case and look at nine criteria they set out you will find it in the record almost all of those nine criteria have been met by the commander supposed to have leadership qualities however the point of the plaintiff's testimony was that the commanders were supposed to have more of these leadership qualities than the people who were there subordinate officers indeed the evidence is that that there are only vice eligibility requirements there are other requirements and you seem a bit different to me and some third tier position you can i appreciate the arguments on the face of the record but it seems to me that you can make those arguments about the whole host of subordinate positions in government because we expect people to have enjoyed confidence to give advice some policy when asked and so forth but there's a difference between civil service positions on those in which that are not civil service positions that are true understand but it wasn't clear to me that just having a confidential policy making position trumps every first amendment klein even one that has nothing to do with p in this record this is not it depends what kind of retaliation you're talking about ok let's not get this case was before you get there though doesn't it depend on the type of speech involved i mean it don't you after peppering palin saying in any event and he gets that far and it was totally unrelated to the the what the next step was what actually happened in this case of course we need a spirit that there's no evidence in the record that the speech or union activity had any impact position to which the promotion is being made is the promotion being made to a confidential policy making position then the issue of retaliation is going to drop out is it being promoted to him on policy or or policy making position then you you continue along on the pickering balance has to figure out whether or not the employer or the employee has a greater interest  you believe the rule is that one can one may discriminate in promotions for to confidential positions and you may not discriminate as for those positions in terms of terminations i don't think it's decisions were made and frankly there is no evidence in the record that that was the criteria in fact the evidence in the record is exclusively that chief parks is using other criteria including the recommendations of his deputy chief  let's just let's just assume that that's how we come out and that would that would be then i mean you have no other argument beyond that you have no argument beyond that if we think that the jury could view