immunity asserted in his motion to dismiss the deputy assessors st amendment political retaliation claims we are requesting that the court reversed a terminations the district court in this regard  motion to dismiss which means that we have to take the facts as alleged in the complaint and accept those as least for the time being obviously the facts and those facts show that the deputy assessors are performing ministerial work men deciding what the fair cash value of property is not something hopefully that discretion you're supposed to go out there and collect data and put it into a computer and it's very mechanical they're not chief deputies they are there they're just deputies assessors and so on and it just seems to me this qualified immunity effort is premature it might look different at the summary judgment stage of my certainly what really goes on as a matter of fact at this are clear the court wants st to statutes ordinances job descriptions to determine the the powers and duties of the position involved in the case and so when we look at the revenue code we know that the that the sat the elected assessor has the power and authority to appoint deputies that he or she deems suitable certainly you have to have a brain in your head to do that but it's not a policy making position i don't see where the policy making comes in when you're sent out to say here's a property such and such an address within  township just seems to be to be one of those professional things i'm thinking of davis against aquaman for example but it just doesn't seem to me like something that is a policy decision that would fall within the political patronage line cases judge what i would like in this position to is the the position of the assistant state's attorney in the leave this case all but i think my different from the position of the assistant state's attorney because assistant state's attorney have a huge amount of discretion to decide what cases to take to the grand jury what to decide you know well we've done enough investigation our resources simply won't permit going further on this maybe one state's attorney has a priority for gang crime and another one is concerned about domestic violence and there's a huge amount of discretion in the assistant state's attorney's office and i don't see anything close to that in these deputies setter's well the judge should be faster and the deputies have a significant amount of discretion in evaluation and they have to come up with an assessment the statute tells them you come up with spare cash value then you assess it thirty three dollars and a rd percent i believe is what it says but they're not making budgets they're charge when the when the deputies make the assessments or for that matter when the assessor makes the assessment they're making the s s men be half of a particular property owner but that they are making the assessment for the for the facts as alleged here in the complaint and reading the statute that's our posture and it seems to me when somebody is purely ministerial then they're not subject to political firing  and judge i i would point the court to the cup one case we cited in the papers were did an analysis of the relationship between the assessor in the deputy and the only supreme court has held that that position does not minister ariel that it is not said the position is not simply a clerk and i think that's that's underlined by the statutory scheme where the deput serve at the will and pleasure of the of the township elected township assessor but you're not me are you are you arguing that every person who works in a state of illinois public office whose employment is it will is a political appointee that would be a very very aggressive position to take i'm not sure that any law would support that no i do think though that that's a significant factor and that was a factor yes maybe it's not a significant factor because in the united states employment will is the default employment relationship sometimes people are union members or sometimes they have other protection typically people have employment will and my response is you know there are certain government positions like the state's attorney like the elected assessor where the exercise of of the several assessment approaches that the that the deputy can use to determine the fair cash value of property and so again that the deputy has  significant discretion and is making quite frankly government decisions not just providing input to the principle but making the government decision where there is  clearly room for principle disagreement as between deputies as between as between assessors ok now and save the rest and i'll give you a little extra time for rebuttal because i asked you a lot of questions well i have properties in that particular jurisdiction are assessed on uniformally or are assessed too high and if they're left it into office they're going to take a close look at those commercial property assessments and make sure they're in line with assessor would discuss with the with the newly appointed deputies that listen you know my my campaign promise i want you to get out in the field look at these commercial properties i want you to make sure that th these properties are uniform and that they're in line with the market conditions and i want you to use any and all recognise valuation approaches i'm going to let you be professionals in that regard but you know my pacifically found that the record was not properly replace developed at that point that the court without a good to take all the plaintiff's allegations as true at that point and give the plaintiff all reasonable  inferences and that the judge denied the motion to dismiss without prejudice to those arguments being raised at a later time as this court has pointed out repeatedly since alvarado and others  qualified immunity is rarely appropriate when to be granted on a motion to dismiss particularly where there are factual issues involved in this case the planet said as  articulated in great detail the nature of their political support for the former assessor they have articulated in detail and in fact included the affidavit of their declaration of the former assessor as to what they were and were not empowered to do the interesting i think i think about mr conway example that he gave at the end of his argument is that it really supports our position in american talking about an elected official being ushered into office having made campaign promises and it is the elected because when that deputy assent to then goes out into the field and use a particular piece of property his role is formulaic it is not discretionary not setting for alice and for the office although there may be a limited amount of decision making at the or she engages in in that process you know we the one of the interesting things about this case is indiana statute we do not have any pronouncement from the legislature that authorizes deputy assessors to engage in policymaking functions and in the absence here if i take it you would concede then and me since the supreme court has explicitly said that you don't that they are not limited to one qualified immunity appeal you can appeal from a denial of qualified immunity the motion to dismiss stage you can appeal from a denial of qualified immunity to summary judgment stage and perhaps and so on so you would concede that maybe at some later point the assessor could raise qualified   and the fact that there was in the district court you an incomplete factual record to be able to do to decide those issues you know again i would emphasize the  is not whether the deputy exercise discretion is performing some urgent task or duty but whether the deputy has discretionary authority to set the office policy another word is the qualified immunity appeal to have the court on and its appeal reviewed judge value decisions regarding the sufficiency of the complaint as a whole and that of course would be improper to do matter of moth on fifty or more years a flaw establishing that political decision making and political retaliation are inappropriate and that political some support pleading stage is that this is a case of st impression in the th circuit involving this particular government position whether or not it's a policy making position we know as we covered that th jury and judge dow and whether or not this position is a policy making position under illinois law and in looking at the most case we cited in the papers i do think that serves as a good model for this court to resolve this case on qualified immunity at this stage because in moss the court determines that it wasn't very clear from the policy policy description and the evidence whether the government position was was a policy making position fact that the court said this was a murky area of the law but but based on all of those factors that i just i just listed the court determined