service commission to enter a penalty less than discharge there was no additional hearings necessary finally to find that the matter was required to go back to the commission before being appealed would have then a waste of the  mission and the villages limited resources the commission filed a motion to stage the court's order in order to appeal this matter which was granted by the circuit board thus there is nothing there for the commission to do other than a feel what it believe arguments to the contrary must be rejected by this court because they were not properly before before this court and across the first and accepting the commission's factual findings and the circuit court's pacific findings that at how he was not treated differently than other employees he cannot now ask this or to find differently setting aside the argument agnelli of knowledge the fact that different individuals that the standard for determining when whether different individuals are treated differently and whether that's cause to overturn a discharge the standard it is not it is whether the individuals were treated receive different discipline in single identical completely related cases in this case that was not the situation at kelly was not in the same identical situation as firefighters reprimand which the other firefighters did not and in the cases those fire those situations would not be viewed as identical similarly situated situation or similar situated firefighters such that treating felt that the lower court this records decision was clearly inappropriate in this case in this case because it is a highly deferential standard to the administrative agencies decision not as part of what is cause for discharge and in this case the circuit court did not cite to any basis for why he believed by judge parties believe that the decision for just her was inappropriate just that he felt that it was that there was a discharge in this case and that the commission's findings to support the cause for discharge were not arbitrary or unreasonable   and they are those were those were within the scope of his appointment then they took place while he was operating an ambulance and one of which took place while he was he actually there was a patient in the back of the ambulance that was being treated by another firefighter and because those his misconduct took place in the scope of his employment the commission found that there was cause for for discharge in this case especially in light of his employment history he was given those opportunities he was given opportunities to work with the fire chief as well as he the other leadership in the fire department to improve his conduct  but he consistently failed to follow the rules and that was part of the basis for the commission's decision that there was cause for term nation in this case and based on that the  cause the discipline should be within the purview of the commission counsel cover those points but judge or t c you can only surmise thought it was just unfair a lot of opportunity for improvement and the chiefs of testimony is important because in the setting of a fire department you're not only go to work and go and then go home you live together and you fight fires  service his reputed testimony was he didn't remember that in of itself was a bit of a problem but the more serious incident occurred when the but well the disco there another fire service here to answer that call because he villager who was a deputy chief somewhat of an expert somewhat of a character witness when i asked him to meet is there ever a time it's appropriate to proceed lights only he said no and if there was saw cars you know swerving out of their lane that's pretty serious thing in an emergency vehicles are not supposed to do that just because it might get them home early or give the job over with difference between a day suspension or a thirty day suspension that this is an important matter to a case in the most out of cases he had his administrative hearing he had to review and the justice or sorry the judge in that case looked at it and said i've left the firm conclusion there was a mistake that was made here this wasn't expected to disposition with respect to the disposition that was not there this was not a mean and see case what should have happened is watch what he actually did happen and robin's robbins was a great example  robbins wasn't there are inherent in that additional testimony to be taken additional evidence to be taken up here i don't see any indication at the trial court was sending it back for new evidence sorry to cut you off but new evidence anything in addition to the record that was already there rather i saw it as the trial court saying arre commission to look at this again and come up with a a lesser actually robbins was remanded three times fact to the ministry by the st two times there were a lever procedures elaborate hearings that need to be completed but on the rd remand the judge ordered the case back to the administrative body affirmed that decision and that it was appealed to the appellate court this is where we should be we should be in front of the administrative board so they could have a hearing to make a determination on something that's that's different that is true isn't the original decision of the commission review review remands it back to the administrator body is with that is trying to make a determination that something else this is not that there's a gap between what the administration ordered might have done we don't know what they might have done i have i would imagine they're going to tell you today that they were to hold their own decision however we really don't know that because it never went back to that order for that process for the judge order to be followed after that decision it should have gone back to that judge for the affirmation and then file but instead of the administrative court jumped the gun here rather than making any decision at all it filed its notice of appeal then after it filed this notice of appeal turn that that man was maintained however the the cause is that nd element that whenever under the clearly erroneous standard what the courts need to look at is they need to look st at was a rule that was down the street that there are some verbal instructions that they should avoid that street and drove down it and he said yes i did do it and you're right i did not have my emergency lights on i have superior officer in the back who  in doing that the circuit court was telling the administrative board you need to make further proceed decisions you need to determine the level of punishment based upon the allegations that are that are filed against mr m that sheaf had the authority to file an appeal and that's the same piece here when you have a ministry of review you don't have just to hear perce you have the chief you've got civil service court and you  charge less than terminations sent back to the board in the board issued a new decision and their new decisions basically said no we don't agree with the court we're rendering a decision  after that new deal was filed so there's different processes by which commissioners or chiefs of police can handle this but what they cannot do is they cannot avoid going back to the court that they were ordered to go back to and that's what happened here the circuit court ordered them go back to the administrative order back to the ministry of body in get a new decision and then after that if you don't like it we can affirm that decision to have this report there has to be a final decision at the circuit court in order for there to dispute and those issues are what should this this punishment be who is not inherent when that commission files its noticeable appeal that it has is inherently reiterating the same decision we've reconsidered here's our notice of appeal why wouldn't we just assume that i mean the courts don't make people jump through hoops that are pointless that's never part of a court's decision so can we assume that  i understand what you're saying your honor i don't agree that this decision of something less than this charge was trivial but not seems trivial i'm suggesting that to make the board r to simply say you know we've looked at it again this is our decision inherent in that in filing their notice of appeal that is their decision but the amount of time and effort i am perfect i did everything right view of the entire ten year history does and all of the prior discipline and prior opportunities for improvement and the conclusions that the board or commission draws from that that's where i don't substitute my judgement i have to look at their findings from that and then based on that behind it that it's arbitrary and i understand react well fs tells us that it doesn't tell us just to look at that nd incident there was somebody in control of the scene the paramedic in back there's ample testimony that says that that paramedic had the authority to make whatever decision he wanted if this was dangerous what firefighter moloch out of was doing why did he sit in firefighter drink or observed from sitting in the back of the ambulance and seen that that the vehicle driving lights on that whatever risk that he saw obviously was not enough to overcome embarrassment not i mean firefighter morgado said i didn't i don't you know he didn't give us a really great reason as to why he was driving those lights on he was transporting a patient to the hospital there are plenty of testimony in the record about how he and other firefighters at different occasions on which coach should we go should go cold recall one and ultimately the paramedic is in charge in that scene who was in the car in the event the ambulance and could have said t was pointed out if the courts have given some guidance that you're not to substitute your judgment for these of ministry boards because they are expertise in serious if once you read the entire record you see very early on and i think th his this case is a personality case at the end of the day you were the like by a few he was liked by several others wasn't liked by a few and after one about the seventeen that would work with there's there's not any evidence of who the sudden you know there are there are three people who are identified in the record that identified nonetheless when i take the testimony of face value and she says at seventeen people i had to read rearrange history who would work thank you very much f not arbitrary or arisa gold which is the standard and they felt that the the circuit court decision was clearly erroneous and therefore the appropriate the appropriate place for the decision to be reviewed was before the spoke therefore we do know in fact that the commission would not have issued a different decision other than just charge had the case gone back to them for reconsideration on the panel furthermore there is nothing in the  that does not require any additional hearing therefore under the standards there was nothing further for that there are no for the proceedings for the commission to take therefore this case is properly before the the issues there would be you know no issue for a hearing the commission would have to either enter eight decision other than discharge or again i think we would still consider whether it would be appropriate to kind of been glossed over it's just it's a very residential street with a school so they're supposed to be going there you know kids are attracted to virgins equipment you know that they've never been out of there in the waving o scary moment when you ever have to get off the site but when it's done in a rented this way wrinkle couldn't reach through the back and grab you and say stop it he was treating the patients and therefore we didn't take this job