behind why the legislature passed section two two one and two one zero nine and the illinois toward immunity act to provide immunity for those types of decisions while the counsel refers to steven may as director of public wor there is no dispute it is in the record that he was and the engineer for the village and made policy determinations on that basis the case law in this area and discretionary immunity type cases  question that caused the plaintiffs to accident and determine policy in deciding i have this much time to fill potholes on the street do i do the oyster do i put the asphalt in how to do those types of things they are  it's a much stronger case than even the roble case because we're talking about someone that is establishing policy they didn't address the issues but it takes into consideration the budgetary constraints what he's allowed to do under the that issue in his policy decision to make it safe and see required to follow the t c t standards that's a good question he the standard yes but there were no standards that appl laws broken with respect to constructing this new black crosswalk no no it were not he repeatedly agreed with me that guidance is our ground amended by now mandatory practices and conceded in the record that of course he used his engineering judgment when approaching his decision making with regard to business cross walk so on so you can he can decide not to follow recommendation just based on is collective that's required to have an independent study that your position that's exactly my position that's correct and right away the reason he explained that the reason that you do with engineering study is actually to determine the outcome i guess train traffic in the area the traffic on the roadways in the area to determine whether a traffic control device is required or not required because the determination it already been made that they wanted t crossfire or any other new traffic control device you know i don't think that there is a i think it's sad role basically extended if you will i think the immunity the discretionary immunity it's  we are kind of dealing with a maintenance issue which largely in the past in these discretionary immunity cases wasn't always the case they distinguish between was it actually just doing our ministerial  much more larger improvement project that is clearly there's so many engineering type decisions that have to go into a crosswalk like this he put in ramps and e lighting was that there's a sufficient issue with regard to bad lighting not be operable at the time of this accident on but even if you take them out of the equation whether there may be an issue of fact there there certainly is no i am sure constructive notice to the village were guarding any sort of lighting issue on the only real evidence we have regarding any maintenance records steve may have looked at the village engineer and determine that there had been no maintenance on this area there there's no evidence and i think it's the plaintiff's burden to establish constructive or actual notice under the burke case and he has no lading may have been out but it was raining there was poor visibility in general that she indicated that the police officer officer that arrived at the scene after the accident and he agreed with that statement address the failure to provide any advance warning sign in this case is there's absolute immunity for that amount that was raised in an affirmative defense in front of the trial court is part of the record and  it please pick up the manual he has a working knowledge of the manual and his testimony is very clear in saying that he relied on now here in new t c t the south lament but also his engineering knowledge over the years and in touring why are they why is this structure set up this summer mandatory some are recommended and some are merely optional right you seem to be arguing that we should take that which is a guidance and make it