modify decisions unless there's something in the act that so provides an outcome you know i thought i read those cases this suggests that the final means the parties don't have the right to ask for reconsideration that's that's the party don't have that right here i don't read those cases that say that the agency itself cannot revisit its decision what i think what you're dealing with this you've got it some agency decisions where there's a sole individual a sole party with no other competing interests involved and if an agency is in  process and it has a rule of procedure that it wants to modify while it's in midstream then yes i think the agency has some discretion to do that but when the rules are so clear that says the decision is final and when you go to section five twenty two point heyday at the priority really remains until that decision is final five twenty two eighty eight is what says we recognize  epic and standing in line and we have to make of mining the c m we have to move on otherwise we'll have the situation a decision nine months later how much longer to c b s wait for their permit a year and a half next especially when we act in the regulations recognize there will be competing interests for the same decision it's interesting in this case a deal submitted their application on the application based say c b s has a sign on this property from the beginning of the first process there was a recognition that c b s had an interest and the regulations when you go through them five twenty to sixty three and l four it's basically directed at what should we do when we have competing decisions well we take the first one we go through the process we have a notice of intent to deny if we have to deny that's gone you agreement expired in two thousand and nine i mean first thing to do and then you that ok well anyway but so it seems like this is really boils down to a dispute between applied next door and so deal had an application pending they were entitled to your the decisions made to the night week ok now i understand now let me ask you this the othe says deals application was first even though we already ruled on it we're still going to maintain that priority because we also ruled on c b s is now they have a rule of ours were still pending waiting for i i thought they  or they gave you know sort of test that night and we responded and they gave us a second notice to intensive it tonight and we respond and they've taken away action it so you don't have a final decision in yours and therefore result would have priority over the one that was incorrectly to you don't deny that it was incorrect yes it was incorrectly denied on to the regulations and if you look at l three l for the priority change then i doubt she'll look to the priority application a priority application is that second efficacious when you go to l four five twenty two sixty l for it's true it creates you're right that's all you can do all you can do is find that the administrative rules are valid you can file and you should find that the rules were not followed a final decision is final and invalidate the grants of the permit that permit gets invalidated i doubt about looks to the next priority of a case in which is ours in terms of the fairness deal had to be opportunities to to make their that this permit should have gone the deal if it were not for the fact that there was a clerical error in this him if you start from the perspective that we had a sign that i had that said hester come down because it doesn't have fifteen items only let's say let's say that was you allow that sign to stay up there it still feels property i mean that's what i was talking about deal being very silly if deal does not get if it target if they terminate the lease properly and they terminate our rights we do not have the right to go there and because it's such a competitive business and it's a five hundred square foot space and there's multiple properties were assigned company can be so when you go through those priority rules you might have three different properties in  sixteenth their rights to to enhance their file terminated on august sixteenth and then you're like that's enough already let's go on to the next guy by september twenty first when i don't says this file is closed  will speak separately the way we thought it was best to buy character enough is that the department's authority what it can or cannot do under its rules the regulations in the law the department in the statement and i would address the standing argument and really factually as they say what which is the permit for the property to deal well and and deal asked for whether that was properly granted i doubt and i think the second question is can this court say in contravention to what the trial court said that the department's decision was clearly erroneous i believe not and if you look at the facts of the case with deference to counsel i don't think it's quite the way it was set out i'll let let's let's address the least one of those points and that is what we're really dealing with here are we particular case that they did it they as the courts say see that there was a core to which is event that you page sent the wrong zoning to them and then they went to correct that they were looking at the backs and they were applying it to the authority and the power twelve eight ninety four ballot aspires to work in june twenty sixth a phone i'm and intend to deny comes out in july based primarily not upon the north versus south clerical error we heard about but the incorrect information letter that you page sent and we say that's the problem it's an error page corrects that error and then ultimately they go through the amended and restated application to grant next week if i'm just looking out at the  know what they do is they deny based upon the wrong information the technician and what happened is two letters crossed in the mail to discover that their denial letter sent on the twenty first of second of september and request to them what were you based on and those crossed and that's when they first provided to us and then you were correct later which is on the fourteenth of october the technician says i'm sorry i did wrong so that's that's what happen us well but and that's my question really concerns how quickly they did it and whether they had a right to do it nine months later as opposed to upon receipt of your letter showing me incorrect rules there and they have their camera right to reopen a final final decision but at some point that final decision is going to happen now or they were not going to just let it go on for nine months a year and we get the denial letter after we've asked them what's wrong and they merely respond here's what was wrong with application and we come back and say that that's an error i got these of you to zoning and i did that then allows us to move forward with what's  says you know i got actions are good or not good et expense of taking the states under i would support yes and it comes from a variety of issues number one they have under their statutory authority the ability to make the rules and regulations of the procedure before that agency i'd also submit by way of analogy just to sports to a four always has the inherent authority to determine how it's going to handle its procedures in front of it and that's all it did we have rules and regulations to do we don't make them up as we just say so yeah these rules are there but the the agency has a right to run them so the chief of fairness yes i think he put that in the context of the charge to that agency well the judge at the trial it was doing he was i want to fix it that doesn't have a whole to say what i doubt and what we're going to do instead is we're going to talk about something in the city of chicago in terms of zoning you know of course i can't do that but this is its core mission what it does in terms of billboard advertising sign and i think is terrific press to know that it has the ability to go as the agency not the party and say we made a mistake there we need to fix it in the way we're going to fix it is that the process that we adopted you know here is a problem and agree with you that now because when you look at the facts of priority here as i pointed out c b s filed an application before there was a final decision these are the your original deal application in june of two thousand  september i don't believe so because actually that was in the day that it would have expired on the nineteenth and they filed the same day so they overlapped now are we talking about timing that's very close and yet we are it nonetheless is what it is and so  or are there cases that say here's where they've done it before and get it right i don't know of any cases where they have done that before so when you say implied authority it's an implied authority first to ar case yes but it is implied within the statutory scheme and the regulatory scheme here under under you know in order for them to have been able to satisfy the various requirements of the statute and the regulation it was necessary that they don't have it because you've given it to deal with i mean it seems like this prejudice to the other parties trying to get it because you wait so late to make a decision but i don't think this impacts the other party discussions going on between the various individuals involved here for a period of time so in a year you seem to be suggesting that you know when you have the right party cast th right result because the mistake is not been made but mistakes happen then you know we say tough luck what's more important are the rules or regulations which everyone is bound to follow in and that's what we do out there a lot of cases that you know get decided one way in two or three years latest report says no the we're going to decide those cases a different way but that doesn't help the person that got the case decided the wrong way the first time and that's just a fact of life and so why shouldn't have fact of life apply here you know and you know why should why shouldn't i you know there is fairness in one way or fairness in the in the rules and regulations and why should the fairness of those rules or regulations that everyone has to follow dominate or trump the fairness that you're trying to give deal because it seems like the the the rules that their decision under these circumstances and because the legislature would have intended that the permit would have been granted had they had the correct information because the world you know it's all of them to this it seems to me that maybe maybe you go back and you apartment was trying to accommodate here the fact that that the state regulations require them to issue a permit if the application is correct and the fact that they have that they must consider it made the right decision so why should that decision stand even though it's mistaken as to its underlying facts but that those i didn't do anything wrong given the fact that it was c and so why should why should i don't say you know why should i doubt be able to change it's right decision but it was information it received from a third party to let them have the ability to hand and so again you know under this scheme i think the whole statutory particular case the statute has given the it department all of the authority to implement its provisions and the department has you know has an active a very simplified proceeding here and when you consider the fact know i think c b s is going to get up in a couple of minutes and say that's not necessarily fair because we had this on the hook for nine months we made other business decisions because we thought now deal was out of the picture and we were in priority and if you look at this if priority unless of course we decide and less of course you decide to revisit your decision it doesn't say that it says final decision go the next one so i don't see where the room the wiggle it's in there i would say that enter the unique circumstances is what is our standard of review here because you know i judge preston sits in chancery well respected judge and certainly heat was looking to see what was the equitable outcome in this case than what do we have deference illegal you go right yes you go to the next one that is correct that's why the  exist a little bit concerned about that argument because it traces back into the stand in question if if if it turns out that that seat i think it was correct if you go the next person that's  priority but it just kind of jumped in my head that if if if if if there were right and that you didn't vilification pending then you lose your standing in this case no because we had we had we had two epic ations and it's the ep location we had standing with our original application we had standing with our second poison of nothing deal did was wrong section five twenty two point five zero a the applicant so we quote here he at the application so require the applicant to provide specific information it lists the information one of which you go to two page county you get your letter and you bring it they decided to just what called to page county and do it for us they can do that they did that and they have to live with the decision is final i have nothing more that i can tell this panel about finality i don't know where to go if if if the regs don't give us priority and final isn't final but i do believe really can happen opposite of what i suggested before well i that is the only relief you can really get that the relief is that we can get is that you look at the rules and the regulations you were