issue in this particular case and let me indicate where i am i believe and that this is a case that did not need to be here before the fourth district appellate court and i would indicate because i believe that the elderly supreme court and the commonwealth edison case director colors and administrative bodies as to the proper methodology to apply statutory amendments with filed thirteen seeking to compel arbitration i was not being clear about the manner in which i was approaching this issue nor the issues that were raised  are i would agree with that but i would indicate that i was concerned about whether in fact that's where we are because i would up until very brief that was filed by the attorney we all agree that it should and fact being defined prospect of life and the definition of perspective is the issue i'm prepared to address that indicated that ride of that observation that there isn't any down applying the amendment that was passed by the legislature and public act ninety seven eleven ninety three supreme court case in deciding the correct analysis specifically states that the largest category of cases in which we have applied to presumption against statutory was hopeful that we could address this by means of a declaratory judgment action and goes directly to arbitration and i mentioned in my present tory remarks about my client being a not for profit organization that would be th president in university or trustees they just ignored the issue completely and let me indicator and there was some distortion of the union's due process rights in that particular case that were particularly egre believe that in light of the purely legal issue that was a volved in determining the upset to build me a statutory amendment in conjunction with the petition and let me indicate rod a unique certification petition is supposedly a way appropriate and three circumstances this court expanded that with respect to the issue of confidential excluded because they're managers or because they're confidential employees or there's a unit that combines both professional and professional employees disaster units are the cation is intended to do here there isn't any need because the changed my position nor have i cited new case law i had in my original petition files indicating this a truly legal issue and it's only one issue that the court was asking to side not something about having to do with the i labor case indicate and i thought that would be the most fast sile have a crib side a purely legal issue and then submit it to arbitration if i was wrong and i've indicated throughout this pursuit in  every form if i am wrong if the union is has a distorted perspective of rocky i don't want supreme court intended then just indicate such and then explain why but  on the old school what with all due respect when you have the united states supreme court decision and then only supreme court decision that says this is an area that small is not simplistic as the all i labor relations board has your all see indicated we don't have to look at those cases but if it's a complex area there's competing equal opposites rania's says that you applied a law that that exists at the time that the the court reviews the issue and the other one is retroactivity and whether it's fair it's proper to apply things retroactively and i don't change my perspective and i decided that the best possible way for my client the cheapest possibly the most direct route was to have a territory judgement on the purely legal issue and then have the core issue of the summary decision to have an arbitrator decide the contractual violations alleged and i think that's reasonable and again when there's doubt about the administrative bodies even having jurisdiction over and right of the legal issue that has to be decided i think that's the appropriate methodology of which to follow indeed if i am correct about the declaratory judgment action that has nothing to do with administrative law in order to facilitate mitigation and save the client money i think that's the appropriate avenue and in this particular case unfortunately that to preserve judicial resources and exercise to exercise review of a judicial or legal purely legal issue and i would indicate that the commonwealth edison agreement comes in here and with in the public sector it is just it is troubling and nine months of spending my past monies and then on the day after they made their concessions and signed the contract with all the sudden this legislation that got ninety percent to one bargaining unit and eighty five percent of the other bargaining unit and completely throws  out all the work that we did not any indicator on not only did that happen but the contour didn't wait to find out whether it was appropriate target is they cut off all dues well counsel your time board of the labor board or the circuit court should decide the effective date of the amended section three end of the act the control over the board in the circuit court all agree that the board should decide this issue in the context of a human verification  well the controllers office had argued that the union needed to exhaust its administrative remedies first and that's the basis of the circuit court dismissed petitions on that it also agreed that in the context of unit clarification petition t see motion cause of action but this case should be dismissed because the state labor relations board should hear is that correct yes i mean obviously we apologize now be sure to remind amendment however you know as you pointed out that issue soon to be in front of this court as part of the direct administrative review of the board says it's all the reason he has the file review it is seems to me that if i'm the clean case like that and you know we obviously would have no problem with you applying a discretionary standard of review because it's even more favorable to us but you know we're content which you know well because we did argue failure to exhaust before the board own act although it's still going over and you can you're free to disagree with that so the reason that the controller went to the board is because you didn't perfect haitian proceedings are one of the central functions of the board  and here there certainly was a significant change in the all these people the p s a public service administrators were considered to be public employees for purposes of the act to april fifth twenty thirteen and then as of that day going forward there were no longer  doing that in most cases the circuit court can decide whether something is persuade the circuit court that it didn't matter that discretion that was required to make that decision in fact looking at the record you'll see that i specifically adequately objected to it statutory monument and that the only supreme court has already indicated the regal methodology by which to assess those that indeed judicial resources should have eight  decision which it may not have primary jurisdiction over any jurisdiction decide and i raise that issue now one other thing that i would like to emphasize when the attorney  say they haven't changed their position that is absolutely incorrect or my frustration your honor i was saddled with every possible argument that i could have possibly been saddled with and the university of illinois case so that there was no doubt about the position i was taking i would change the role and have until today in fact the only relation where he attached their decision to