argue our case are funny today and we will have one issue that's presented for review today and that's whether the circuit court there and not fighting that the fourth amendment to the superintendent's contract by way to section ten that's twenty and january first one nine hundred ninety eight so this stuff first time scores have an opportunity to interpret that statute and what happened as the legislators determine that any superintendent contract that's over one year what we have here has to be performance based contracts and the performers face contrast between specifically just student performance and academic improvement now to determine that there has to be both goals and indicators of student performance and academic improvement in the contract and specifically before such a contract would be whittled were are extended because prior to its schedule expiration date there has to be a fine by the school board that cause and the prior contract were met and to help with that discussion i think support is for a very very brief timeline so the court is completely aware of what happened in this case mr jackson first became superintendent proviso high school in july of two thousand that was one of the original creators and that was verified period of july of two thousand and two june of two thousand and three there was a first amendment a second but what's really important this court is the deals with the fourth amendment of the fourth amendment failed to comply with the statute and those of planter's i just discussed because the member did not include adequate performance goals and indicators and the second one which i talked about a little later as  just because they signed a contract doesn't mean it's true and the reason that is because it is and it was a legal in fact one possibility for ever gore's indicators of the third amendment to be met and i think it's a good point out restaurant argument two thousand five to june thirtieth two thousand set of the schedule expiration was june thirtieth two thousand and seven the statute dictates a we all know that and two thousand and three when a man was passed we have no idea how he's going to be able to evaluate student performance in two thousand or two thousand and five two thousand and six he didn't review their program the reports of the board in two thousand and three about and that is the problem despite the fact that his status as you point out the jets had to spike the fact that he says the third remember both remember it was impossible for him to be that now besides that problem there's another big problem and that's what the fourth amendment so the fourth amendment does not meet statutory requirements because it fails to numerate horrors at indicators that measure student performance and academic improvement that are required by the testimony at trial was a little unclear as to actually what counsel was there that was a factual determination that they got the judge determine that there was counsel present he said there was nothing wrong with that op but i think it really doesn't matter who drafted rates accelerate the number of students that find a college or things like that are in the contract so you have no way to measuring decreased by l i'm sorry this is awful but we need some sort of failure on it to measure that these when the legislature changed the law they were sending a message to school boards that needed that because he did have indicators he needed to look at those things and we don't want to just automatically new in contracts like we have in this case where the board decided you know what he said the contract for two more years we're the board wanted to be rid of the fourth amendment that it entered into with gregory jack said and it has searched desperately for the last four years to find it legal theory m which to get rid of that contract that it wishes it had entered into it started off this case with the theory that all of the contracts the original contract and all of the amendments were right is not complying with the school code and the that position testimony in this case didn't support that theory and you've heard counsel this morning acknowledged that the original contract in the amendments had sufficient goals and that there is an issue about their satisfaction of a school call the board filed the first amended complaint when the deposition testimony didn't support its the original theory claiming that the board didn't deliberate long enough between it in evaluating the performance of the third into the case by the by the board which is this theory that you've heard today that somehow the third amendment wasn't etic with me perform before the fourth amendment with an effort into so we've had this constantly shifting called the board has the discretion as the elected officials for the school district to decide what the girls are and how to measure that but if you want to talk about how to measure should students are ready for life you can look at things like  the exercise of puts discretion is the elected officials charged with the supervision of the school district but that's what they want it the superintendent to accomplish so the fact that there may be one good that is a little more amorphous than other goals should be a problem here and i think you could the fourth amendment is an amendment to the original contract and it specifically says that the other provisions in the original contract are first are still good and bad but so we still have the holes in the original contract as had not yet come into existence and it was impossible for the superintendent to be evaluated on the basis of years and calls that have not even come voted against the fourth amendment did sell not because they follow mr jackson's performance under the third amendment to be in adequate but you have one who said i wanted more tests i wanted to see test results we didn't have those yet we have approved now respect with respect your honor to your second the second part of your question about the future performance there was a lot of testimony about that a trial as all and what the trial judge which  between the third amendment in the fourth amendment mr jackson had done a substantial amount of work on revamping curriculum implementing that proposing in implementing plans for summer school programs all learning communities of writing about are things that were to link the exhibits that ed laid out on these plans which the board said we looked at we review we had in front of us we considered and decided to enter into the fourth amendment and and the majority of the board said we found that these plans met these goals and were sufficient for meeting his goals and therefore felt that we could find that the girls were satisfied and approved the fourth been met and that's what the board members found and again there's no basis i want that there's no basis your honour's or the trial court or for this court to say you abuse your discretion in finding that this work in all of by is meeting the goals complied with the board properly found the school code that mr jackson had performed under his contract and again this is nothing more than a change of heart by a board that did one thing and several months later decided that they now have the fourth book that they needed that i was mr jackson and they want to be part of his contract and that's all this case is about no matter how much you want to dress it up in the school code and all this other stuff this is how we get out and pay and this school board lawyer it doesn't represent this school district but he practices in the area school a lot he had a seat to a question that you asked your earlier your honor the he contracts approved in november it's not signed by the school board president it till december there's no indication what he did with respect to having that or its council review which are in that three week period ordered but but he clearly testifies i didn't try to strike that three week period between when to the board action took place when he actually signed the contract what we also have in the record your honor to you to your question about the change in the court happens or shouldn't use their election in april changes the composition of  now gone from november when the board but when the original board approves the contract for three to july when there's a new board in place that if it decides to repel the contract very doubt the contract by port of free  testified in court agreed with that it's a pretty easy question and because of that because the statute states that all former scores must have been met and because it's impossible in two thousand fork to meet a grant for two thousand five hundred dollars sixty thousand seven that is why it rises to the level of air the statute stop or we have the statute it doesn't make a difference the fact that these parties entered into the agreement voluntarily doesn't matter that the boat was forty three they passed it what matters is a statute because as you know a contract that is about their friends future so let's try to get into more years let's ignore the statute says let's ignore the fact he has two more years left on his contract that's going to two years now and extend him out in two thousand seventy thousand i so that's why you should pay attention your honor as to the elections that occur fourth amendment so i think you should pay attention for that reason and particularly how do you think it on the first place why did he get out i thank you ana for your time and are there any more questions years they didn't have that option they don't have the right to do that when they gave one of the extensions i say for example at the end of two thousand and two at that point they kind of sat down reviewed everything dead and they could get a five year contract but they didn't do that they gave me short two thousand and eight but not two thousand and nine the problem is when they extended the their amendment on the fifth amendment that time period not started and the law says a performance person indicators and the contract literally was from two thousand to two thousand and three and before the original contract ended they had all made the first amendment and the second amendment to the contract and you're not yet you're not challenging that and then when they