years later after the supreme court even supreme court vend the county does what it's supposed to do and that's follows the same sort of pattern here is that my client had to force the county to do what it was and it was at that point after the county adopted the final warning that my client then fully appreciated his injuries to read a couple lines from the argument and starting page three line fourteen i say there wasn't any appreciable harm the judge follows me and says right there was continuing so really seems to be talking past each other at length or our page for rather the court's asking me and the other thing i want to make sure i'm clear on is the arbitration proceeding is a right that your client has under the labor agreements that was applicable to him but it was not a prerequisite to suit in other words he didn't have to do that he could have not arbitrated and could have filed super violation of the civil rights point and i say yes your honor but i think it's unclear enough that i was talking about  exhaustion of administrative remedies while he may have been talking about a cruel rightness but it's officially unclear especially when you take into consideration that later on in the opinion he reveals that he's been trying to apply in this case argues that there was a final decision from the county until after the arbitration and after the arbitrator had issued his recommendation we would disagree with that position or o is arguing that there was a final decision until after the arbitrator's award and after the county board of supervisors adopted the arbitrator's decision we have a different view of when the final decision came down that is like just like mr garcia lost in just record you know he can come here if he wants to be doesn't want to doesn't have to but it's not a collateral attack i think under the reasoning of judge fogel and the re was taken such as in this case couldn't influence or affect the decision by the sheriff's office itself it would be a collateral and a subsequent decision but that the actions that were disciplinary action that came out december seventeenth he would have brought a lawsuit some breakage in jewett then with your rights to say hey you're too soon you haven't lost yet you don't know what the arbitrator is going to do separate teams he brings an arbitration december nineteenth the files a lawsuit which you be well within your rights to say what are you suing me now we don't know you don't know you've lost yet i don't think we made made any decision prior to a final decision i think the issue here is the appellant is looking at a private grievance procedure versus when the final decision was made the board of supervisors from monterey county does not regularly make decisions concerning disciplining peace officers that decision is made by the sheriff's department any employee has a right to go to the board of supervisors is he them through a grievance procedure or directly to appeal a decision by the department i don't understand why that makes it some kind of already made not an opportunity to influence that decision in advance that here grievance was not only an opportunity to but period influenced the final decision of the does i mean so the question the question is then what if this if the if the sheriff's decision were the final decision then there is what's the  right what's what's the relationship between that decision and in the board of supervisors review after arbitration you know i would argue that the board of supervisors has a right to look at grievances from any let me let me ask you again i asked you before but it seems to me the worst fact for you is that mr pollard solo had already had money taken out of his check if we'd actually been damaged when he can try to appeal or to go to the arbitrator keep your fingers crossed or whatever he wants you know to try to get his money back i mean that he'd already not only had the letter from the sheriff but also suffered economic harm why doesn't that trigger the statute of limitations as you know the read this thing i mean that's why keep asking asking for the forty stuff to walk us through it i mean if i understand your position you're saying never mind the fact that the sheriff made a final decision never mind the fact that your client was docked in pay if it wasn't final because he did in fact pursue a grievance which he didn't have to do and therefore the statute you somehow told until the board of supervisors state supreme court finally grants that writ and the county has to adopt that they have to go forward and and and and give the norco the ability to divide their parcels  level in the county