noncompliance with the university of illinois rules really neither here nor there for the th amendment as you said there are basic constitutional requirements which is the only thing we would be focusing on rushing off and rendering the decision they take some time this court often takes some time we get written submissions we have what's all in all of relatively brief oral exchanges people and it can be months before we come out with hopefully that means we've been thinking about it i don't have any issue with regards that they took another four or five weeks surrender decision but i think when you look at the facts in the testimony it wasn't the board that rendered decisions mr kennedy spoke to the fact that the board did not do not communicate in between they issued an opinion on the very next meeting and in between mr wilson's billing records show that he was working five thousand and sixty hours on the case and you actually met on the very day issued their opinion on th day which mr wilson's working properly five hours a week or a few hours and the opinion gets it right or that kennedy testified that they didn't write the opinion that's our point based on the facts of the record that wilson issued the opinion and why that matters is st of all behalf of the president's the president's office sending drafting their statement of charges revising it with the help of capturing the johnson johnson as well had a responsibility at that point to render the cast opinion as to what should be done and procedures a little bit and just ask about of a matter of federal civil procedure for you have to challenge the denial of your motions to compel discovery those are decisions made by the magistrate judge in the case that's correct or i didn't see anything in your brief that responded to the qualified immunity defenses with respect to due process and i really didn't see anything in your brief that showed a case that would show th case as well the person was trying to say yeah maybe it looks as though it's grounded in personal things but actually you know i was trying to raise a broader point there are a lot of cases that work with that line and you don't address identified as the president of the student organization coming into his office where he questioned her and she began crying he claims that it was a matter of public concern because it related to university staff faculty interfering with the student work but he had no need to publish any student private information if that was the case he only talks about him his expression of the award hearing at which instead of what the commission which is to create separation of function at the administrative level so that counsel for the council that's prosecuting a charge before the commission whether it's not fair or consumer deceptive practice or whatever it may be separated from the commission commissioners have their own advisers their own attorney advisers and the back because there isn't prosecuting arm service speak and that's the president so can you talk a little bit about whether mr wilson was blurring these functions to a degree that we should be concerned yes  mr wilson was hired i believe in january of two thousand and thirteen at a time when it was determined that this matter would be referred to or of trustees for final decision he was hired to represent not just the port of trustees but being the president who is taking the position very valuable rights taken away from the professor namely his tenure in his job he was not representing a dean or president or any of the individual scientists in this the procedures and so far else presenting the evidence to the board of trustees was that the president would draft a president's statement in support of the charge that was drafted by the  considered inaccurate with respect to the cast report and he brought that up with president chris wilson met with the three of them to facilitate a change to the president's report that more accurately authorities the university looks into it disagrees changes the grade back to something acceptable in any race is the discipline the professor thinks that's wrong it's a terrible injustice and it's been done because the parents of the student are major donors to the university so it's something that the professor could take public he certainly could take it public and the question would be whether or not there if he's disciplined for doing that it would be a violation of grades because they're getting big donations from people right and that's similar to what's going on with the scandal in people getting their children into schools why does it matter whether it's a matter of public concern professors so this case all of the speech by professor was the act concerned the effect of the student or process on him personally none of that concerned well would you be speaking part of the institutions life and if it is then whatever he likes or doesn't like about it it's part of his job and the car sitting against the are required him to take down matters on the internet that he posted when he posted the transcript and all of the evidence at the cafeteria the care for committee as an advisory committee to the president of the university the student crying in the student's identification and for that reason there was no prior restraint by half committee with respect to our wilson and her correspondence with the plaintiff to take down information he posted was based organization he was complaining about the university or fear it with an independent organization so wasn't just part of your job per se it had nothing to do with him interacting with the students what's his at the time or anything related to his