concept of ethics until a state government this included sections fifteen to ten and fifteen twenty five which are issue of this bill which provide protection and a civil remedy state employees to do blow the whistle on public official misconduct and that his discharge reflected a retaliation against him with it began up two a look at that language and determine that that still fall short of the type of express waiver that was necessary in the legislature may want to do with some immunity at that time but they still feel sure because what they is a large act that has multiple sections and not just this whistleblower vision so there are other parts of it that allow for judicial review in the sort  right and then you go to the specific sections and see is there something here that would be this type of express waiver of sovereign immunity and you know that the legislature  retroactivity issue and there i think this sort of court was correct and looking to the version of the app exact that was in effect of the time of the two thousand and seven discharge not that's really saying oh that's just a procedural statute those procedures were in place we're going to use those procedures but that's what really supreme court said we don't use that analysis anymore we just look at the analysis that we don't use anymore there's also case law that talks about immunity as as a substantive matter and i've cited heard my brief we don't really use busted rights analysis anymore  issues that were raised in the circuit boards as a basis for dismissing the complaint and that's where here i think it's appropriate that the court consider employer was in retaliation for these disclosures well that's that's a conclusion and some places they will be taking out the conclusions and you look at what's left is there because of action i think we take out that one conclus but you also there are no facts to show that anyone who was involved in this investigation does i mean this is closure is that there was an investigation that was prompted by a complaint from his ex wife that he was spending time in her house improperly music comes out of the court were to agree that there are insufficient backs alleged should completely imagine he was not given an opportunity to man play and that's generally what happens i suggested that that might not be appropriate in this case and i go into this in the brief and this is first for the budget to think about the reason being that there were these two other proceedings the arbitration and the start of the proceeding and there's a lot of detail about particularly an arbitration proceeding about all of the facts that led up to this just charge about there's been problems going on for years on the part of police had made extensive  that it would be very difficult to have facts here without contradicting facts of the arbitrator found and that's the significance of the bakken case that i found that i cited in the brief which talks about how it's not appropriate to allow the mandate of a complaint why and that would result in contradicting findings that were made in an arbitration so the amendment is an issue to think about there the other issue are isn't it there are a couple of additional considerations just with respect to the arbitration and whether collateral estoppel would apply and the most significant one there is the question of whether the arbitration claim you know per se i think the problem here is more specific that there is a lot of very specific facts in the arbitration about the problems existing for years the extensive efforts at rehab the department made the play interest remains because the union was acting as his representative and wasn't a good representative of his interests even if he could not control every aspect of