he does it again this year because that's what he does he does a lot it's in fact the problem here john been committed and as a result of his audit it led to new procedures and new protocol that had to be followed it doesn't take a leap of logic to understand that it would be appropriate for the scene to be monitoring what the regulators are doing within their offices so entire that entire boat second ball the only evidence was his testimony where he said that he knew it was not monitored third the only statute makes it clear the bag is not to be anybody else who was there he was very hardworking he was very knowledgeable every single one of these categories work see the expectations knowledge of the job under see any everything exceeded expectations this is the one here one played out of the last say that the administrative offices of the game board were concerned about corruption within the game agency and they wanted to monitor those agents ok i think a scenario which you talk you they were going to do that then they would be the ones who would install the humerus very human ones who would be doing the monitoring of that videotape is in question here all the videotapes that john ever accessory are be if you ever access reached in the statement of law section and so i think it becomes problematic to simply say what she's looking at these findings of fact because these findings of fact are limited and i don't think that they're for example defining the fact that  i think that is that is backing his ultimate conclusion of the recommendation and so we want to rely just on the actual claim that i mean i think that that's probably an appropriate thing to do arrived to work and started working on a work computer without logging and this is higher the regular procedure i should be employees have to log in through system that requires them to put two different passwords in before they can access their a email account and when he was unable to download the stick reports state whitehurst information center he contacted the department of revenue used computer helpdesk and then this represented his own identity as and this is all on the record and they all j found that this testimony was more credible than going to explanation then your right to work and had blurry vision because his father had just passed away your view on this issue as to whether the department is true is charges against skinny ted is to determine whether that finding is against manifest weight of the evidence the question is does the record demonstrate that an opposite had pending against the state of illinois in the department of revenue that with respect to the surveillance cameras in the game or if there were innocent rounds cameras in the game i think that's undisputed in the record but what is also undisputed is that there's no tars e mail account and knew that he was on the terms and now there are c c no surveillance video tapes are retained for fourteen days and after fourteen days some sometime around that time those videotapes that video surveillance equipment is properly functioning that the surveillance tape is a proper law now he says and he's performing on it that he had conducted similar to what he had conducted in two thousand and six well the two thousand and six audit lasted four hours i don't think it's a very hot issue that the department has proved the charges against the new tech again the commission's findings are given deference it is the fact finder and it made explicit credibility terminations to give new tech was not credible an incredible makes it not trustworthy and compromises his ability to serve as a sworn law enforcement agent of the department of revenue and the game and what i believe happened here was the commission failed  police officer he has access to confidential information is involving sensitive and confidential investigations and he showed an attitude to take what information he can and use it for his own personal gain again suspicion that somebody is out to get that there is some old tarrier motive by the department that he wants to find any information that he can they can place the department in a negative light now an employee who conducts himself in this manner certainly cannot be employed anymore might harm them again there is a public record now that explicitly found him to be not credible if going to is involved in any other investigations that isn't pietschmann evidence his investigations will be compromised we believe that the commission did not give adequate consideration to these issues now what the commission found was discharge was not appropriate because there was no condition precedent on discharge of requiring an actual game moreover the commission is misleading anyway why an actual gain is really relevant the fact they do take thought he would gain we thing is sufficient for destruction one ever no written record no written opinion exists that's because the statute creates the discretion for the civil service commission to determine what is the appropriate level of discipline  suggest that the hallway are has anything to do with you in this region or unfortunate of the riverboat and this was a confidential document that contained personal information of an illinois state employee illinois state police employee so that is not actually the law authoriz section eight illinois mr cote one point one seven zero subsection a lays out that you have a process for this subsection b states that the commission must first initially determine whether terminations employment is immediately warranted based on the misconduct committed and then if terminations in the medium term a nation is not warranted then to move forward in determining whether past performance in a prior work history requires us to mitigate against him and