ignored secondly is the briefs point out there was not a final decision there was a court of illinois law the decision must be in writing it must be subjected to a vote process the district court's holding here clashes with those cases along with rebirth christian and change in the defendants that offer nothing to the contrary now to be sure pr be minimal but it can't be nonexistent the may sixteenth letter said nothing it was a bland thirty six words you're on leave don't show up to work and that said there was nothing in the letter indicating why mr bradley was on leave for how long it doesn't offer him an opportunity to respond doesn't explain his rights let alone reference  mr bradley did not know whether was too late he didn't know anything other than he was placed on leave no no rationale as to why no timeline just again you're on you're on leave don't come to work and that's it and under this court's precedent that's insufficient that there's no process identified in that letter again so he's told nothing and is this court recognizes a meaningful opportunity to be heard before an employer decides to terminate is in the court's words a critical protection it provides a check against mistaken decisions and it's also the last best chance to invoke the discretion of a decision he could have taken i don't know what he would he contacted you or when you got involved in this early on but to wait and bring a federal claim in the district court was pretty  bailey just he gets the terminations and runs to federal court that's that's not what happened here at all secondly i would again point to the decisions of shoals of law viney that specifically state you  cannot summarily fire an employee it violates due process and kill her which you described amounts to a pretty elementary violation of due process rights here  context when there's a new mayor new mayors have an opportunity to appoint new chiefs and that there are time limits on such the validity of such contract your honor during i believe her first term she then was a was reelected as a corn points out it's far is the contract goes i would recognize that the mayor does have the ability in some six the mayor was never supposed so we only know some of the machinations of what was going on with the village board and the mayor one one those who are member of was deposed and he did explain that there was a lot of things going on a lot of contention not necessarily involving mr bradley between board members and the mayor so there were a lot of moving parts going on with regards to the mayor and her appointments just kill her could you with respect to the villages reliance of fund the parrot against you or exception to what are ordinary procedural due process requirements to  situation that plain if the adoption agency had i believe five or six different remedies that essentially mirrored the federal court remedies so the state i think was or seat of the court i think  comfortable in sending that plaintiff to state court because most of the remedies available there in state court were available here as far as the mic to which case again i mean we in the district court and then again in this practical reason why the point of could not have had a hearing before he was terminated but from the state's perspective it was from the villages perspective the villages perspective now so it's different from parrot in that respect district court level as well to merit it was to carry to the defendants agree that they breached his contract and violated stable or well given that the state law claims are viable still i don't know and there was an argument your honor brought up the subject of i believe we're going towards with one of the questions to mr kelleher involved in the mayor's turf and whether or not the mayor has the right in a new term to appoint new people and that argument was brought up in the context of the qualified immunity portion of this case that the municipal code does allow contracts that exceed  may or are can be considered void and that was actually a provision that was invoked in one of the letters that went to mr bradley and i'd like to go back to parent because even under par how can we say that this was a random and an authorized act when it was the mayor who fired bradley mayor copping to maz after all an ultimate decision maker with final authority over significant matter i think the point is that from the state's perspective we have a sting attitude and a code which plaintiff has not attacked the constitutionality of there not that that argument actually flies in the face of monroe against pa you seem to be arguing that if we if if the defendants are violated state law then they are no longer acting under color of state law and that was rejected back in one nine hundred sixty one if memory serves correctly and gave rise to the modern defendants are the policy makers for the village that the mayor and the village board are the policy makers for purposes of manelli and steve york city i would agree with that except that i do agree with that but there's  against clayton indiana that's eight thirty nine of second of three seventy five that para does not apply to monella claims when the power the violation in essence is a policy decision by policy maker and that is certainly what this looks like if the up were what this complaint alleges this would be different but here there is no there are no allegations in this particular complaint that allow for the invocation of any exceptions  doctrine and we acknowledged in our brief what your honor is saying that yes no no in that instance is an exception to parish i'm sorry actually calling it karate you know i'm different pronunciations we've also acknowledge that in a situation where there is a statutory scheme that gives unbridled discretion to a decision maker or i think that that would be an instance in which one could claim i'm challenging a stablished state but we're so far beyond what this complaint alleged here the complaint just says the coldly is out of procedure for the removal of a police chief and mayor covington didn't follow it who does this sort of federal constitutional coin it not one that's liable does it invoke the constitution it does ok so marriage summary firing of somebody who's got a property interest in their job without notice and an opportunity to be heard generally violates the due process clause and parrot we have treated repeatedly as a narrow exception in essence when pre death pervasion hearings are not practical here obviously we would have been practical see our opinions in armstrong  voluntary commitment somebody to a mental hospital the supreme court explained there that petitioners cannot characterize their conduct as an authorized in the sense the term is used imperative hudson the state delegated to them the power and authority to effect the very deprivation complained of here purchased confinement in a mental hospital and also delegated to them that can comment a duty to initiate procedural safeguards set up by state law to guard against  awful confinement that seems to describe the mayor situation here knows her responsibility to initiate the process why is that not not the case it's it used her responsibility to initiate the process however the statute is written in absolute terms and it's unambiguous it can be contrasted council product a recent decision of the court the simpson b brown county case is that there is where well i would argue for the opposite because it is what i want to make as a contrast in point is what i should say that in that particular case the statutory scheme was ambiguous here the statutes written in absolute terms you i don't believe so isn't that an ok in that case particularly if you take a look at that question was addressed and simpson against brown county so where does that leave us in terms of  adequate post a provision remedy well if the act doesn't provide it then i would look at the writ of mandamus which here we have a complaint that attached a letter the letter that was brought up from the attorney that wrote after  obviously fulfilling the requirement for the notice the filing of the charges those sort of things right but here i mean again for rule twenty six purposes the letter which we mentioned contains that information if the letter talk about paris certainly but but i would also just point out that it clear that that contention in this court clashes with the district her contention that the mayor did not violate the law as far as the mayor we do assert that she is and ultimately decision maker