your question that might serve us all if not feel free to start where you would prefer from of the point that you would prefer there are eight different grounds here that the other six although they would perhaps satisfy the definition of misconduct were that to be determined as the fact that those are  subject to the manifest weight of the evidence standard and probably would not be worthwhile pursuing on appeal because there at least was some evidence to support the even so even there with regard to that there was the testimony of anderson that there was no inappropriate conduct so that bad the warrant the exclusion of the finding where hete least has some support and some have other words if there was a decision that there was that that was those were the facts it wouldn't be against the manifest weight of the evidence having have some allow the evidence i suppose a standard would be harmless error if it met the criteria for harmless error which obviously you will see good because perhaps this area needs something like overwhelming up an ounce or something issue which is essentially bill by regarding armored vehicle and if i may just explained that a little bit of the facts behind that again well let me break into that like with regard asked to when the hummer was selected and under what circumstance ok was the selection made three months earlier when the plug when the  was attributable i mean he's being very careful here because there is an explanation that price the soffit of the statements or are spin the statements in certain directions and i don't want to interfere with that  ok let's give that your stand your all that she would have sat that that was the only vehicle available as opposed in other words there was nothing wrong per se with renting the hum ok and a matter for which at least  all matters related to their point history can we take a step back the concept that this is a lie seems to me to be premised on the comparison of two statements and the conclusion that both of those statements cannot be true is that fair it in your referring to the statement of it was the only available vehicle vs i rented it three months prior right correct but as the state points out it hits brief back depends on the interpretation or is just discordant was  referring to alluding to the spin on which you put those statements in other words it's not the same as the light was green the light was red there is room for at least some director and he's concerned about why did you rant and expensive vehicle he doesn't care if it's an expensive escalate versus a hummer he just wants the explanation why did you write an expensive vehicle and in response to used that was the only available here but isn't it possible as the state suggests that within the context of acceptable vehicles that would transport the equipment isn't that what they're suggesting and and is there something in the statements or even adding in the context that you're arguing that would make that impossible i  of what she actually said the words that came out of her mouth at first we take issue with the fact that the court just flat out just for guarded that it considered everything that we had put in with respect to the right i don't think there's much doubt here that to the extent that we're dealing with a witness is rep or tosh of the claimant's words that we're not dealing with  right i don't think unless the state wants to make an issue which i fully understand i don't think we have spent time and your honor given that i  purpose of bed in our mind is the idea that she was using that statement to deflect the causation here why did you run this vehicle why didn't have a choice it was your vailable when she made a developed enough to for me just to stand here and say which i do see the universities is footing the bill there may have been some contribution i thought it was they were paying for the transportation and housing of this of the athletes and staff i think that's right again i don't know for sure i don't think the record is developed enough to say exactly how much money was allocated by the fund raising to this particular vehicle but again it  the the inability to preserve or to make a for the record with these other witnesses in your arguments related to that or if there's something else you'd like to say about this issue we'd be happy not having sufficient time it's our viewers an arbitrary decision to say well pick two we had six pick two you only get two and in effect the referee stated this is cumulative i don't want to hear this anymore it's covering the same ground that was the rationale given by the referee for the exclusion well what about the lack of what we could be termed as the tail offer one in that issue your honor there's a couple things first of all if you look at phish at the record very clear that the referee was was dismissive of that effect there was an offer proof with respect to play forty campbell that she was going to testify and i think it's on page two of five of the record she was going to testify about the the issue on the couch and she was also going to cry about how she was personally interrogated by th player what she was intending to say at referee said look i don't want to hear it let's move on i guess my question is and most lawyers have been in this situation i know when i was practicing it happened  of the judge presiding or in this case referee might be behaving in a way that the lawyer might interpret as being impatient  hopefully you're not getting that today because we're not but the job of a lawyer in that circumstance is to protect the record and say i'd like to make an offer of proof as to what these witnesses would say so that it could be preserved for reviewing courts or or panels to say well this would have been useful this might have made a difference and there doesn't seem to be any statement directly to that that i can recall where the lawyer stands up to the hearing officer referee and says no i'd like to make an offer proof as to what each of these witnesses would say so that we can preserve that issue here is just to two things i met number one there was a history of six of the record a formal jackson stated end of the hearing about the fact that these witnesses were not allowed to testify  other three witnesses even though there was no formal offer me the subject of their testimony it was self evident from from the hearing you know explain the other witnesses were michele serious she was the individual  for the terminations clearly she's going to talk about her own personal knowledge of that situation the other two witnesses are player probably in the way me and her mother who was actually present on the trip as well but they clearly would have testified about that particular situation said i don't think this is a question where there's any doubt in anyone's mind about the subject matter that the testimony of these witnesses you directed to so i that the failure of a formal offer you're really doesn't affect the outcome here because i think it's obvious what these individuals would have spoken to again are dealing with a situation where the board said well you have  hearsay and we had a an opportunity the witnesses were present that they to correct that very situation but in a live testimony to deal with that issue and we were prevented from doing so with the board  of that there wasn't sufficient evidence in the record in fact if you look at its record page three seventy one it's the third page of the board's decision we're in the second paragraph to borders and  view that there are speaking to in essence the entire presentation that record you had that everything that we put forward with with rare exception was the testimony of the actual decision maker as to what he area fundamentally and just stick to conclude my presentation here in this issue we have a situation here where there were a number of reasons for the tourney and because of bad requires fish time to develop yes things but betting into the record it is sort of a paradox i mean that the more reasons you have behind cision the more time you need to put that in it's not something that can be done in a twenty minute hearing to speak off the record so to speak i can give you an answer your question is if it's not based on the record i don't know if you might hear that i want to hear it but i deferential standard of review yes wait on the question of the i'm or age three but it's our contention that on the at question about what the hearing referee should have prevented and maybe clarify what we've been discussing this morning there's no there's no reason to look at this issue as one of spin war as i count up those in council referred to it lied is based on one of two i think either she didn't prearranged a rental car or secondly she did prearranged rental car but this was such an unusual practice planning in advance for everything they've abandoned that issue they recognize that it's a normalcy in twenty first century travel that people plan things people make arrangements especially when they travel fourteen others picks the hummer three months early to then say it was only available at it was the only vehicle available that the car owner that could do the job right that's the second statement you made it was the only vehicle available here so there were these two ideas that would be an irrelevance almost because it would only be relevant if you would now say well i thought at the last minute that maybe out of go somewhere else or take another car but it was the only one available but the answer is either one or the other or the other they're the two the get are not the good information but there's context here yes we have to remember that she reserved a vehicle class december fifteenth she researched this issue and she figured out that this class  it essentially said she had no choice at all never said that she essentially had no choice at all she laid it out for mr and then mr gephardt that she was contemplating the choices in december and this is the car that she ended up that was deemed to be a by the fact that when you ask a direct question you got an answer that was not true which i know presumes that that's what occurred in this case but if you take that  what nature with their have to be before that employer say i can't believe what this person says anymore and so i'm not going to continue to with the care and supervision of fourteen students and who was given the the right by the university or the privilege of the university to book trips incur expenses etc etc and if you felt that this person had to deliberately lie to you it's not much of a reach to say that that would be the continued employment that person that position would be hot that is the employee lied not about the expense per se or current certainly the employer said that she was sick she was actually working a second job that harms the bottom running objections but my colleagues ask you about the fundamental fairness and we have the abuse of discretion standard here of saying to a party who has been met arguably by hearsay objections preventing him from bringing in certain facts i say ok well here are witnesses the witnesses are known to everyone we'd like to present and being told no sorry we're going to decide the case without hearing these witnesses yes let me address second a couple of practical ways on this this debt that that's the will work load their schedule back to back to back by posing counsel makes it sound like hearing referee had a lunch appointment or something personally she was one after two hours on the first day of hearing thirty with it in this they were in charge of their own strategy they had every opportunity to present a full case and the due process for farmers don't dictate  record shows that they did disclose three witnesses the day before the for a period to see eighty six and then one more they say the second one was not seven more but see fifty defects to  just want to address a couple of the points that were made on the issue of this hearing in normally the thirty minutes and so forth some of these are argument notice it's basically to beef paraphrased maybe just read restated it would be when every half break and anticipate a short hearing to put these witnesses on and bring the people with firsthand knowledge your side was surprised by a ruling from the referee and  given latitude and when given latitude and having the hearing extended for another day brought undisclosed witnesses and at some point we're told that fortuity if the if the hearing officer said you know i'm just going to push off everything else on my schedule let's go you still don't have those witnesses they're not there because they're here because you're sorry that you yourself dissipated that the doing here i just want to make one final point if i may be the issue was brought up on the why regarding the home or about these over each explaining that well this was just the best vehicle for the cost and and  needed cetera i submit to you that that's just another example is misspoke which is dissembling here if she makes a statement to mr going in when she got to the counter that was the only available vehicle that they had left that the county anything about this is the best fit for the cost and for that the number of people etc is a contradiction that because he was asking her for the reason why she rented their vehicle and she told