you should rule in favor have plans for the following reasons so that you see when mr case is to what extent can a township board arbitrarily modify a road district budget submitted by a highway commissioner without making any findings there all as to whether all or part of the budget is necessary or on worth very now the highway commissioner believes that the township or does he have significant discretion with there are a number of different cases that tell us that courts declined to address budgetary issues where the budget you're in question has already passed so if the budget year in question has already pas effectual relief can we offer even if you were successful so this would fall under the the public interest exception to the moon a factor and because this is a situation where this issue fully briefed once oral arguments and ultimately an election transpired and the newly elected board there ultimately just decided every consider a new a new township officials everyone is just going to just miss that case and be i'd like to hear what you have to say about jurisdiction all right than most respected jurisdiction we believe that we should be able to proceed for two reasons st of all for the reasons that we articulated in our reply brief with respect to this was not at all raised on appeal by the apple wants it any part prior to the reply and it's really a related geisha of the motion to reconsider that they filed previously in this situation in the circuit court that's the sort of court's opinion to it and incorrect or drash and we never received it we heard from our client that he had heard that there had been a ruling which triggered my colleague miss johnson and we received ultimately the court order from her we found the appeal within two days when we actually read the opinion so for the reasons that we stated in our original motion filed before the court we you can test anything procedurally that one off i think technically well it depends if you would characterize this as a procedural impediment or not i think what they fail to do here was make any determination as to what part of the budget was necessary or not necessary and they're asking the court to imply that just because they say yes reduced that the reason for that was a decision that it was unnecessary but i don't i don't think that's the correct analysis here there's nothing in the record to show that they performed any analysis of what part of the budget was necessary or unnecessary and there was nothing stipulated to between the parties about at night i think he had that happened a lot a lot of this case you want this amount for a snowplow we don't we don't think that's necessary that type of analysis which would have been proper didn't occur here so instead what happened is there was just a kind of global reduction of certain line items and that's what we believe stipulated that the township modified the budget by reducing it by two hundred and forty nine thousand five hundred dollars which is a thirty seven percent reduction to the budget now absent from the record here is any kind of analysis by the township artist to what was necessary and what what was not necessary and i think the delos in the details with this because certainly it's important to projects anything like that so i think it's completely reasonable that the general assembly intended to have this checks and balances system where we don't we don't want highway commissioners to be little dictators where they present their budget and then they the authority to pass a budget but on the other hands if we were to take the position that the circuit court took in this case which is that well they can reduce whatever they want and they can do it for whatever reason th want that is really taking the role of the highway commissioner in managing the road district operations let me see if i'm understanding your position are you saying bend that if they had given an explanation for why would they modify these three amounts it's ok that they actually perform modifications of line items are you saying that they are not they don't have the authority to modify line items at all whether they have an explanation or not i believe that st of all i would i would change what you said just a little bit i'm not saying that they had to give an explanation i believe they had to make a finding as to whether parts of the budget were necessary  i necessary and they wholly fail to do that i understand your question about line items because in our response to a motion for summary judgment when we were discussing the emraan test case that is how the circuit court in that case proceeded and we believe that that was a more sound application than the then the other case but no i believe that they would have gone through and they would have said oh here there is you proposed one hundred thousand dollars for the road district budget what did that include in the high with mr said well that's i project for twenty thousand dollars each and they would say well we only think through those projects are necessary this year and we're going to take forty thousand dollars out of your budget i want to figure out whether you're modifying your position somewhat because your very st argument is that section six thousand five hundred and one c does not provide the township board with the authority to modify a line item in the highly commissioner tentative budget period not that they don't have authority without giving actual nation or they have to provide some reason or they have to classify it as necessary or necessary your argument in your brief is essentially under those under the heading argument subsection one zero yes ok so if you look at the nd paragraph under that or maybe maybe the title of the argument didn't specify it accurately but if you look at the section down there we are he this provision gives the township feet if they give you an explanation then they can go ahead and make modifications so why not as long as they give you an explanation oh ok let me clarify i don't i might have misspoke if i said as long as they give an explanation i meant to say they budget appropriation orders or any part is the board of trustees deems necessary so we i mean we're not disputing that that's not what happened here though so there what they're saying is because we adopted a reduced budget we have the ability to do that without the article if there had should be a presumption if the reason that we did that was that we found it unnecessary and i don't think there's i don't think the record supports that because they're being represented few sheeting township officials for over thirty years there are often instances where people holding the the purse strings power you have the ability to jam up people at their discretion and has nothing to do with necessary necessity of expenses sometimes it's political retaliation or they don't like the person or now and you wonder why there's a whole clamor for are the abolition of local governments including road districts and some townships are trying to abolish road just rips through the budgetary process which i don't believe is proper because there's another statutory scheme that actually allows that but if we have the position of the township in this instance and say that they can just  take a budget and they can pass whatever they want and they can just reduce it because that means if they reduce that that that they just found it was unnecessary we could end up with a really illogical situation where they've arse about parents rates special taxes they can impose general system facts and then it includes with the section so this is the section of the law because township governments the ability to levy for real districts are adopt a levy proposed by the highway commissioner than it is in the highway code section where it talks about this discretion they have over it actions of all or all part of the budget but i think this supports our position in th since because it would be ludicrous to say a highway commission or can produce a budget that basically says he wants a one million dollars and the township can cut that down to two hundred thousand dollars just based on their discretion but if he wants to let me for a one million dollars he can still do that under the section of the township  girls would be the position that we're taking that there are you can just have this arbitrary percentage reduction throughout the budget without any articulated basis and with without making those kind of findings if we were forced to choose among certain court opinions which i don't think this court is required to do then i would say that that's where that issue with amaranth test and the line items came up but i don't think the individual members of the township board very briefly the st issue i would like to address is the court's jurisdiction to hear the matter well i do understand that this court has liberal authority with either still and we're talking about plain meaning in the merits of this case it still provides that a reasonable excuse be made from my review of the case law on this issue i have not found any court to hold the fact that opposing counsel did not receive a copy of the order alone in an of itself not combined with any other special circumstance to be a reasonable excuse  have a question about the jurisdiction issue and so basically you're coming from the standpoint that counsel has an obligation to follow their case and stay on top of that and they should have been checking that's correct this was not a day or two or i know there's a case that says you know an attorney missed calendared or doc docketed the reply to the appeal date for two days after the court said that was a reasonable excuse they filed a motion with the court fifty four days after the order was issued we subscribed to judiciary i was notified on the day the order was entered the only excuse is that they physically didn't receive a copy of the order in the mail we gave our proposed orders in july july of two thousand and nineteen and we had the order in october and i didn't hear from them until december so we had proposed orders we knew this was coming through and there was absolutely no call no check whatsoever for from july to december when we asked the procedural question we're not arguing back at the time you might have made an objection to that or filing a late notice we've allowed them to file a late notice they have filed within the sixty days that they were allot so now you're asking us to reverse are finding that they had a reasonable basis or a reason for it because we've already approved so what's your burden at this point you're he's not just arguing well we don't think it's reasonable we've already gone past there the courts already determined it was there was a reasonable basis and allowed them to file their appeal wait so now we're step beyond what 's your burden of this i don't think of it really in terms of my burden to me jurisdiction is the court has it or doesn't have it so i'm i mean i just don't think we already decided we did so now you have to argument by mr craft kefir to have conceded that the township doesn't fact have authority to modify leinart it sure sounded like it to me your honor and in fact judge trumper in the trial court order she addressed this issue of whether or not the board had some obligation to have findings or give a reason for only partially approving certain line items she specifically address that in her order when she discussed the current decision and what she said was in that particular case the kerning court found that the illinois legislature specifically chose not to include limiting language when roads are managed by township highway commissioner and the road district budget is adopted by the township had the legislature and this is from judge trump or intended for the board of trustees to simply be able to approve or disapprove the highway commissioner's budget then certainly the legislature would have asked the board to specify in writing the reasons for disproval and recommended necessary changes for the road district budget as we see  county superintendent of highway budget without giving me specific reasons in writing so there is a statute very similar to the one we're discussing in this case and that one it specifically provides that they have to give their findings they have to provide reasoning so judge dredd judge trumper rightfully so is that the legislature could have done the same thing in this case and that language is you know obviously missing from fifty six dash five all one see or any part as the board of trustees deems necessary that sounds like wide eyed striking to me i would agree with you your honor that is our argument as the police in this case that the board had the authority had every right to approve portions of the line items that were submitted by the highway commissioner how lentz implying that it's a modification and because the word modification or the word amendment does not exist in six thousand five hundred and one c then the board is not allowed to modify or meant as judge trump or said in her order it's not a modification it's not an  partial approval and that is directly in line with the language that you just read your honor approved you know in part except parts dreamt and you know the statutory can says we can't read a statue in such a way as to render a portion of it completely meaningless and if you say if you take the appellant's position and you read the statute as they would have you read it meaning the had that why would that mean that you could decide amounts but then it's left to the discretion of the highway commissioner to figure out how he's going to  apparently arguing you can decide how much amounts might be in minutes but as far as making actual changes to line items which is what was done here they changed amounts in three different locations and they added a thousand dollars here that took out two hundred thousand dollars there and they said well you can't make the decisions with regard to individual why you can make decisions with regards to the the full budget itself so you can say ok you want five hundred thousand no we're going to give you three hundred thousand now goes back to the highway commission or and he decides he or she decides how they're going to distribute that money within their line items since are responsible for the day to day operations which seems to that by saying rejecting other parts when you strike a line item you're rejecting that you are is that what you're saying no your honor and i'll just  for example what happened in this case in particular just as one of the items he proposed five hundred and fifteen thousand four hundred dollars and eighty cents for his general road fun and just as an aside i want the court to understand that the highway commissioner chooses those categories in his budget not the township board so council mentioned earlier you know we could talk about a snowplow or we could get into the subcategories that was his choice his choice was to make a generic large general road fund and a proposed requested him out was five hundred and fifteen thousand approximately we approved two hundred and sixty four thousand and five one hundred we approved it so it's just a matter of semantics which is the argument in the brief we didn't reject it's that the glass half full glass empty approach so we approved two hundred and sixty four thousand five hundred of it judge trump cove it happened and i don't know if that thing is in committee i don't know if it's going to come out i don't know if it's going to get adopted or rejected or not so if it does if it doesn't go through that doesn't pas issue that has the township officials in the state of illinois we've heard from various township officials attorneys for townships this is a big  political kagi if you will it creates a law in past it creates a lot of contention and everybody just wants an answer you know even the courts you've got amaranth court doing one thing and then you've got you know  yeah you've even got the judges going you know is this really you know trying to figure out what was really intended legislation was proposed basically gives the and one and then it mirrors that to that township taxing section and then adds additional language the way i look at the two hundred and thirty five which is what the court asked us to look at in council is correct that is part of the township code and so if you can think about it in terms of an index the township code it really requires a section that addresses living taxes for township roads and then you go over to the on highway code and it really needs the section which addresses how do we fund our highways so to thirty five dollars is the general statement of this is how we are going to levy taxes by this method to fund these roads and then it says as provided in six thousand five hundred and one c you go to six final one c and that takes that general grant and it gives much more specific instruction with regard to how the process works so publication public hearing it in fact six thousand five hundred and one goes into how much the county clerk can actually levy it caps it at a certain percent so it's much more detail but it should be read certainly together but but we still are going to come back to six hundred and fifty one see we're always in a come back to that because that's the more specific manner you there are three arguments in support of our position we believe that the actual language of sixty five a one c allows a township board to accept portions of the highway commissioners budget basically  reduction or a striking to us is equal to accepting of a portion and that's the discussion we had earlier we believe it's exactly the same thing it's just a different way to say it the next argument not allowing the township bo approve portions of the line items as the opponents would suggest renders that portion of the statute quote or any part as the board of trustees deems necessary meaningless rd argument not allowing the township board to approve portions would create an absurd result counsel trying to make the argument that proving portions would lead to this constant back and forth it's actually quite the opposite if they reject the entire budget because they are not satisfied with a particular line item then we have this budget going back to the highway commissioner continually being amended going back to the board where they're just going to continually reject it as a practical matter that political  in several townships is going to lead to no funding for the road district and we have to have roads fixed you have to have road work done we have to have our capital improvements done everybody would agree to that so if you don't have t approve portions you just keep going back back and forth that circular the th argument in support of our position is that the legislative history and those st three arguments are you know they're intrinsic aides the are you know statutory construction canons and and terms of an extreme sic eight we really have to look at the legislative history here specifically portions of the debate on the drafting of six  see where they specifically discussed the possibility that someone could give this language could be interpreted to give the highway commissioner total authority over the budget and preempt any approval power or approval ability of the board senator schumer and specifically made it clear in the discussion we've included this in our brief as well that the language did not detract from the power of in the last sentence it references that it has also comply with six thousand five hundred and one c so we just come right back around to the exact same argument i would say that think it's clear is it could be but it looks like the legislature is clearing that up but i certainly don't think it would be a permissible under the way that it's currently written by the same token the commissioner could ask for twenty million dollars and if we were accept the appellant's argument we would have to rubber stamp that we have tiny townships they don't have that kind of money legislative act can we just imply behind their reasoning behind their action what's right the reason for that was and i think the answer is no which of those it goes back to the part of the adoption of the budget of all or as part of staging necessary i don't think it can be implied that just because they reduced it at ment they thought it was not necessary governmental bodies under the open meetings they actually have an obligation to take all their legislative action openly in transparency and they can only take final action at public meetings so if they pass a budget at a public meeting and they don't say anything about a public meeting they don't make any finding they don't have any discussion about this