the court the illinois pension co or if it's the teachers retirement system from assessing an employer contribution healthy yes keep the horse up a little bit fred that's not a microphone it's recording device from assessing an employer contribution or a multi against a school district that provides salary increases pursuant to a contract that's entered into before june first two thousand by a section sixteen dash one schomberg school district fifty four provided salary increases to seven administrators pursuant to a contract that was entered in with jeanne first two thousand t r s assessed a contribution of penalty against my client anyways and the t r s administrative decision that upholds that contribution against my client is legally incorrect and should be overturned at issue in this case the the district's voluntary retirement and whether or not that's a contract entered into before june first of all our position is that undergoes hear us the plain language of tear us written regulations as well as all first i guess i should talk about the written regulations there are two written regulations that section sixteen fifteen point four three and point four eighty four these have been around since two thousand and five when they were approved by t r  s and they state that t r s will accept an employment policy as an exempt contract pursuant to the rule of sixteen dash one fifty eight there are a few conditions for that to occur first as the policy had to be in effect before june first two thousand and five in this particular case the voluntary retirement program was approved by the board almost a year before that in two thousand  it provided for all the retirement incentives that were at issue in this case which were provided to the administrators of the district second the employer must provide notice of intent to retire under the terms of that policy here did provide that notice of intent to retire pursuant to the terms that calls the policy set exactly one people had to provide their notice of intent to retire and it said exactly the benefits that would that they would get and w if they did and all the administrators met those conditions third if the policy is governed by the provisions in the employer's collective bargaining agreement then the in the exemption from contributions lasts for the same length of time as that collective bargaining is free now collective bargaining agreements have what's called extended grandfather they're exempt from contributions for three years after the expiration of the collective bargaining agreement but no later than june thirtieth of two thousand and eleven in this particular case the voluntary retirement program was governed by the terms of the certified staff collective bargaining group therefore the voluntary retirement program itself has an exemption from contributions for the same length of time until june thirtieth two thousand and eleven all of the administrators at issue in this arrest attempts to escape the plain language of this written regulation by pointing to section sixteen fifty point four eighty four and they say that under that subsection these rules don't apply if an administrator is covered by an employment tract and that's a correct reading of the record because section fifteen or sixteen fifty four forty four a sense it doesn't apply to administrator as that employment contracts but there is no evidence in the record or under law that these individual administrators had employment contracts therefore sixteen fifty or forty four somebody at all i believe they have that right school districts have herad rights under illinois law that are implied from all of the expressed statutory grants that they have and i believe the emperor's you know case that you say supports that ok well i guess i would point to ten best twenty point seven of the school code which allows school districts to appoint certificated staff and fix their salaries and i would point to the inverse your case which gives school districts rod powers that expiring out of the express grant of statutory rights i believe the that the purpose of ten best twenty three point eight days to state the rules that apply to administrat contracts that exist there's nothing in there that says you must offer an employment contract to your employees there are plenty of employees in the state of illinois that don't have employment contracts how many s know multiple school districts that employ school administrators without an employment contract they're put into a position they're informed what their salary is and they work and they might have ten here and i'll talk about tenure in a minute tenure gives you does not create private contractual rights and i believe that's important here because otherwise c e o s could presume that ten dash twenty three point eight a a stablish is an employment contract but the  supreme court said no that's not what a statute does if it doesn't state that it's establishing a contract it doesn't and we cite a similar statute dealing with chicago public schools where it was very clear what the three point eight a so i think the legal presumption is that no private contractual rights employment contract and i think one case that year s and the district both cite is are owed when it is specifically a case where the administrator at issue refused rejected an employment contract similar to the bond decision that we cited in those cases the court said they didn't have to accept that employment contract and because they didn't that employment contract that was offered to them was not effective well if they have instead they had ten years they had job security under the teacher tenure why yes there are certain procedures that have to be followed to be able to terminate a tenured teacher but teacher tenure even give an administrator the right to serve as an administrator teacher tenure under twenty four dash eleven simply gives them a job in the school district as a certified employee and our citation to the lame decision  the ten year only gives you the right to occupy a desk somewhere as a certified employee within the school district doesn't give you rights to stay as an administrator and short  believe that these administrators did not have them on tracks and therefore the regulations apply and the employment policy has to be accepted as an exempt contract let's assume for a minute that this regulation was never  bargaining agreements that were entered into before june first of all five doesn't just say particular types of contracts frankly there could be more simple different types of contracts that a school district has for its employees it could have a contract for health insurance it could have a contract governing sickleave it could have contracts governing their work status the contract that's at issue in this case is one that provides for retirement centers it was the voluntary retirement there was careful to note this is a quote they said by continuing meaning molina's employment with and heizer bush plaintiff both accepted the offer and provided the necessary consideration weena supports the proposition that continued employment counts as acceptance in consideration and under the old allow the same area of same same area of nazareth hospital if you have a policy that's disseminated to employees and it can be reasonably understood as an offer and as long as you have the elements of offer acceptance and consideration that's a contract under go this particular contract said exactly what the salary increases were there's no dispute about that it says exactly how you had to qualify for it said when you had to provide the notice of intent to retire and it also stated how long the program remained in place it said the program would remain in place until january second of two thousand and not all these individuals provided their retirement incentives for soon to that and once that program was disseminate them in two thousand and four a year before the penalty statute was enacted by the general assembly once that was disseminated and these individuals continued their appointment you had offered sept and some consideration you had a contract just like they probably had a contract for health insurance terms they may have had i don't know what other contracts they may or may not have had this out of the record but a school district can have multiple contractors it could decide not to have employment contracts it have contracts for retirement incentives or not these particular administrators didn't have employment contracts but they did have a contract for retirement centers the voluntary required retirement program that's the only contract at issue in this case it's the only contract in the record it was entered into before june first of all five talking about  just for collective bargaining agreements it specifically says contracts or collective bargaining agreements this is a contract this is this exemption for grandfathered status is for both contracts and collective bargaining agreements doesn't have to be a collective bargaining agreement and c e o s throughout all the materials they cite they hear us would agree that an administrator can have an example contract whether or not they're covered by the collective bargaining philosophy and i have to pay attention to it because it is from this court and it's cited in the record at one thirty nine to one forty eight of the record but there are several reasons why that case is distinguish the superintendent administrator that was involved in the home with phosphor case was not tenured and the court was careful to note that i think the situation here is vastly different when we have tenure to administrative as they had every right to believe that the written employment contract in writing symbol to your contract the retirement policy and home and foss more there was no evidence that was governed by the terms of a collective bargain so it wouldn't have gotten extended grandfathering protection and it was and then for there was no evidence in the home of foss more case to support the view that another document could have been an agreement between the parties here we have another document between the parties the voluntary retirement program it can reasonably be understood as an offer it was accepted it was supported by valuable consideration it was added into before six one of the five under both the statute and the regulations it's a grandfather contract for that reason t o s isn't mistreated decision is legally in correct and this court has the power of the administrative review law and should reverse that excess of six percent salary the facts in this case are relatively simple and straightforward but extremely or involve seven administrator all whom fourteen pleadings filed by the school district had continuing year to year contracts none of the in ministry years had a written contract but that doesn't mean they didn't have a contract they did not have performance space cracks or your performance space contracts nor were they covered by a collective bargain all the administrators gave their notice of intent to retire sometime between december of two thousand  and november of two thousand and seven and all of them retire either effect of june or july one thousand nine or july one thousand yen and receive salary increases which she went to  retirements and is between the days of the notice of intent to retire their retirement in excess of six percent and that essentially allow this school district to only employ ministre two ways they must either employ them on a multi year performance based contract in which case they give up tenure for purposes dash one fifty eight and that provides that if the contract is entered into amended or renewed prior to june one two thousand and five then it's considered grandfather clear language of the legislation they were employed under your contract which means that the exempt contract in this case was a two thousand and four two thousand and five  if you remember correctly stipulations of record make clear the notice of intent to retire as well as the payments were made after that exam contract expired and really i don't know that the court as important to rest his primary argument is based upon here rest rule sixteen fifty point four eight four and that provides under some limited circumstances that it only applies to members not covered by collective bargaining agreement or by employment now these particular seven administrator is not under not only are covered by  forty four a doesn't say it has to be a written contract it just says it has to be an employment contract sixteen dash one fifty eight she talks about a contract doesn't talk about a written contract so we don't even reach any beyond that the first provisions of section a because forty four doesn't apply in this and it says employees operating under point policies will be deemed to employed be employed under a one school year contract for exemption from the employer contributions and this pertains to as well even if we assume that there is no contract then this only gets this only creates an example or grandfather contract for one year which is a two thousand and five two thousand  subsequent to that so even with that assumption they still don't win so let's go on to the next level which is the next level they're talking about  whether or not policies are governed by the provisions of the employer's collective part look back at the stipulation that was interest in parties where the parties have stipulated that these people were but even if you want to say that under some circumstances it could be a stand alone contract there's nothing in that regulation which would that policy which would prohibit the school district  from changing it pertaining to these administrators so at most it would be a year to year kind of exam contract or two thousand four thousand five or two thousand by two thousand and six so even if you accept all of these preliminary premises from the post now so it's still these payments were still not made pursuant to grandfather and for all of these reasons we thank you just a couple points the first is that let's assume argue windows that there is in the record a written employment contract for each of these individuals there's not let's assume there was then at best that would remove the analysis of the tear us regulation six hundred fifty point four four and i would agree it illinois contract law applies to everybody that wants to establish a contract it doesn't just apply to at will employees it doesn't cease to apply to tenured administrators it applies to everybody  land and if these individuals had offered acceptance and consideration they could form a valid contract and under this president we've cited including molina b n hisor bush that contract was entered into before the finally opposing counsel notes correctly that the administrators at issue were not covered by the terms of the collective bargaining agreement but that's arguing the wrong way because that's not what the regulation requires for extended grandfather regulation doesn't require the administrators to be covered by a collective bargaining agreement the regulation requires the power to see at issue to be governed by the terms of the collective bargain and in this case the teacher's union and the school district came to a collectively bargained agreement that this bond hearing tyrant program which covered all certificated staff administrator and teachers alike would remain open