reductions in force called refs our interpretation of that legislators of that section is that the legislature changed the rules in the case of a ref and employee at will and in the exercise of its unfettered discretion dismissed that in other words they are no longer exists that's their position we submit there were fo provisions in the statute languages statute which are irreconcilable with the district statutory construction and the decision below first unfettered discretion part if the circuit court decision is correct and upon one a valuation they can dismiss the teacher this provision in section five twenty four a has been rendered meaningless and has  dismissals in the spring semester as a result of a decision of a school board to decrease the number of teachers employed by the board but there was no such decision in the spring semester because of the uncertainty of funding and romans in the decision in the spring was to compile a eligibility list of teachers sufficient in number notices because it cannot legally dismiss a teacher in fault when it is full information or in summer if the teacher has not received that notice so what you have is year after year they issued these spring notices in the past it has just been one painter teachers but they issue them in abundance number so when they determine what their funding is they will be in a position to decide who one through four based upon evaluations that means that the non tenured group one teachers must be dismissed before the teachers in group two such as the point will or a regular if the district sees an interpretation of this statute giving it the unfettered right to dismiss tender teachers in the absence of any due process or teachers could be dismissed at the discretion to the board in the absence of a real it would not have written all of these other provisions which i have referred to in the many pages of this section of the school system by assuring the teachers of experience and ability and continuous service and rehiring based on their this this procedure here is he a better a better way of rehiring teachers on in force the way they thought was best the balance sort of the rights of the teacher and the rights of the poor and i think here you could you can quibble about whether the statute went too far or not far enough i think mr fel almost argument but i don't think he agrees at all i think here is the position that they're really this kind that really was no reduction in force because nobody ever really  properly dismissed these teachers and it wasn't fraud it wasn't peters it was a legitimate need to follow the statutes reduce this officer felt as coming up with a concise construct which is really which is not mentioned in the some more than others but that is that is the statute it's not written it's not revoked look to the end of the school year before we decide it was a real river in the sense that he's arguing in a different way is i want recall rights for these people and this case of the for if we if we go by his theory or their brief we're going to have results that are going to cause havoc in the school system because i can be rid i can be dismissing the teacher because they don't need those services their whatever program music artist say which is always under attack we're going to have this for the same money we're going to have to reduce those teachers but because of that because of kindergarten kids coming into the system we may need to hire more teachers and will wind up with more teachers than the ones we just piss on their history because because we vote on the number there's the over rit we don't have to keep the i have to keep those teachers and there's nothing in the statute that says i somehow can get forty five days before the in the school year is a protection for the teachers fill out them noticed there that they're going and they can look for another track so it's a balancing of interests that this is i think it was up to the boards they would prefer not having to make that decision until the end of the summer this is a construct usually of the teachers you know we've done them they used to be sixty days now then the forty five days and this is just you know just the balance we would prefer i think something else you know years of service there's plenty of times where boards have missed the fourth of may not my client side of the aisle this bill this fix have missed the forty five day notice or sixty notice as a result and keep that feature so i think if if i were arguing here to change the statute better result for the for the school system meaning that we wind up with teachers different type different types of teachers the wrong teachers in the wrong p rights come back they have we have to hire the class qualified are mainly the higher the best qualified teachers for bakers so they're put in that pool and i suspect teaches are not the best teachers even compared to new teacher thank you mr fel argument and that is we're not talking about recall rights we're talking about what is required in the initial dismissal not the real rights the chicago case which he cites if you like to read that case you will see that what the court help the supreme court was that there were no rules or statutes governing the situation and that the request of the plaintiffs to create in process rules out of nothing was not and the the problem of the joint committee is that it doesn't impact on the discretion of the board because the board has fifty percent of the votes so in order to change anything through the joint committee you've got to get votes from the is to load up the the notices to employees in spring because you gotta do that to protect yourself from them all if it turns out only have enough money to retain them that's done every year and what they do at the end is to recall the probationary as they want to recall and in this case what they did is by manipulating the situation they recall the four groups and that you can't keep the probationers in group one and dismiss the tenured teachers children who are in group two because as they indicated before the board had the absolute discretion rewrite the order and there it doesn't make any difference if the teacher is there or twenty years and every year god in excellent or satisfactory evaluation this they did not dismiss people because of having anything to do with the refs they just that what they did was to create a group eligible for the special if they didn't have the money and had to red and that decision as to whom and when to dismiss was made after they found out what money what fund they were going to get and how much money they had what they had to do and then this iteration would be did they have all of these notices went out adopting a statute there's nothing in this statutes to suggest that all of the ten year related provisions in this section of the code somehow have been have been  have been dismissed repealed and no longer an impact and yet what the board of suggesting is that none of them mean anything because the board can dismiss tenured teachers at it's that or discretion