can keep your voice that might appreciate it's a big one even though we have a microphone we also do have people in the band who i'm sure would like to hear everything that said next time i have a water bottle i have to drink pretty frequently because of side effects from believe it was what really can be career incident this point and that issue almost supersedes the others because last april there was an election and all of the officials who are parties in this case are now out of office two weeks legislative act this political or good example is the illinois pension reform of the supreme court overturned it's a legislative act by the corner absolutely has the power and the dignity to review legislative acts to make question it's a legislative fact they have discretion and it's not the courts it's not within the porch power to injure you but if what they did was legal so under the trial court ruling when you say what they did was legal and talking authority to add anything to the budget or to move the lines around i think they either approve what was submitted or a reduced amount but they can't be shifting amounts around i think that goes beyond their powers so we would be asking  it's the actual strategic cuts that happened you know a road district operates to maintain and improve the roads they have functions are replacing stop signs they get knocked down t research two different phones and got salaries for road workers there's a line in the administrator farm for the secretary but the workers are in two different farms and there were a little over four hundred thousand dollars excuse me and the budget for this fiscal year and i were a commissioner got everything he asked for so there's no disputes over this year and just because the injunction is moot and then mrs mode i still think that i think that goes to the move notice and i would just make the analogy to the abortion cases they could not finish the appeal before the baby was born and i think in this case we cannot finish an appeal before fiscal here and and this is something that is kind of almost all of the surface and over fourteen hundred townships every year town more instinctive that you need something to control the road districts which you have no power over in any manner other than approving the budget commissioners around the state you can tell from the amicus briefs are very interested in having some precedents so that this doesn't go on again and again because under the trial court ruling there's nothing to stop the necessary is an interesting word he is making lot of definitions but it is that is that the issue that really the need his briefs are going to end you're talking about why can't the board of trustees do what is necessary well it is definitely a discretionary act and i believe the town board one after have the power to decide on their own what is necessary and i think it's a gray area because it's a discretionary act according really can't substitute is it on july first so what they did was june thirtieth this is one fourth of the way through our fiscal year alone through june third they cut the road district budget by seventy five percent of that he could get through june done and sign on with the city they tr force him into that in very much which they have no power to do by a budget manipulation and and so that's why the seventy five percent happened and the road how we commissioner is now willing to enter into an agreement early legal career but can you township itself contract for services so  i have one other question does on section six final one see or any other provision that's relevant to find any standards or criteria that would even according to reviewing the townships decision as to what was necessary in a think that there can be a real clear rule but there can be some limits fed and if nothing else before you can say it's not absolutely between discretion you've got to give up enough to perform is essential to this and  saw evidence of one body in order to determine what is necessary it should not be arbitrary wouldn't it make sense just to follow up on the question that the town the board of trust case absolutely not your honor i mean this is clearly classic case of controversy there is no basis for declaratory judgment because of that but i think the admissions we just heard from counsel for the road district make clear that  requires it to go back one fiscal year look at the decisions that were made by a township board that conducted two days of hearings and gather tons of information before i ma really is because they never get to a semi timely fashion during their budgets so we always are looking at what happened and was the issue with the in this statute to read through the legislative authority because of the public believe that the nature of the question lends itself because of the unique circumstances not only because it's a prior years budget but also because this quarter originally agreed to handle this matter on an expedited basis but then the the road district council asked for additional time to present its brief there was no sense of urgency and i would submit that the core are that this issue could have been resolved within the current budget here it almost was  so i don't believe that there is an emergency i don't believe that is an issue that's not capable of being resolved within the budget year i also believe that it's appropriate for this court to say no this isn't an open and appropriate public interest exception because the circumstances have changed there is a subsequent bicycle gave the road district one hundred percent of its budget and the possibility that this comes up in other districts there's nothing to document how often that's proposal to to push the road commissioner to enter into ninety eight was part of this in the well let me let me just say that that question i think presumes that that was the motive of budget to a level that it could still operate but a limiting the waste and that's reflected if you read the transcripts of the two day hearing it's also reflecting the most serious second affidavit paragraph thirteen c four hundred of the record which says inform the board's decision about what to include in the approved budget so yes there was a role by the city but you know actually the lieutenant governor's report on consolidation taskforce i don't love you for the reasons that i've got over that i think there's no case or controversy and i believe it's moot i don't think it's appropriate for the courts to render a decision on that basis for that reason  really does not lend itself to judicial determination and sure you're aware of the cases that are cited ad nauseum in our state guarding the political question this really starts with the baker there's absolutely no standard for this court to apply to get its arms around to get its teeth into in determining the correctness of the action i think it would be appropriate for this court to compel the township board to approve of us our district as well as elsewhere around the state and in the edgar committee for cause educational rights versus in their case a similar kind of sense where the court said you know we're not equipped to determine what constitutes a quality road district to take money from to fund the kind of government agreement that they complained about but it did not actually remove adjust the total amounts that were authorized to be spent by the road district so there was no addition to any  item in the road districts tentative budget what they are doing further scuse me there was no additional whining hymns headed to the road district budget i think a careful review of the budget that was actually adopted in filed with the township or with the row with the county clerk as well as the affidavits will clarify that issue there really is no fact issue about whether or not there's a new line items or increase line items and i would submit that it the thought process but if you look at the actual columns on the various pages of the budget you'll see that you can completely ignore the handwritten information relating to the the  prohibit a footnote and i think it's within their purview to annotate or footnote the budget as they see fit or certainly i don't think in any way that runs afoul of the very minimal direction that and i think it's clear that there was a very clear intent to approve less than all of the road districts budget wall observing the fact that they didn't want to create any line items or add to any light items and i think that you can you can see that if you look at the budget closely in the affidavits i also would like to just ahead an additional point regarding the political conduct hearings would it allow expert testimony would have let anybody in the state is impacted by the educational system testified how to conduct this process of determining what the what the definition of quality in a way to determine something that if that were found was within the province of the legislature in our case very similarly the directive is clearly to the legislative body improper for this from the perspective of their authority to approve whatever portion of the budget they felt was necessary and if they felt that a twenty one percent cut in whatever line items they chose council earlier this morning  counsel also talked extensively about what can be zero well i don't believe that's the case i think it could be zero and i think it's up to the voters and the the residents of that community to have a stake in the decisions being made by their elected officials to make the call on whether this right or not not a judiciary body that can properly develop the facts necessary to make the right decision and so historically and traditionally local and legislative rather than perform this work for these services at a reduced amount less one can fix barriers why is it why can't they say it's no longer necessary stunt the main reason is that one of the biggest factors in the budget is personnel and city employees are in the union township's are not and city employees make a lot more all the other costs are almost identical we dozen other things that were absolutely our judging of all so he very reasonably said he was not going to enter into that agreement with the city but because it was a political stunt and everybody was jumping on the bandwagon in the townships of well we're just going to force you to cut your