daughter in a play or some school activity and you know this is this and she claims that she is a community member but yet she references her position on the board so how does right but this report exonerated so why would she why would anybody not want that report part of this record other than a culture mean spirited and how can i mean this court is made up of three judges yes but we can all ask questions as members on this panel and why are we not then therefore members of this panel i mean i the word elected imply that she's acting within her authority and is a member of the board of war as an agent of the entire board well a lot of things about that number should be entered in favor of yes but i don't know i don't think that the answer to the question well has to be extraordinarily clear i think that as long as the facts are clear there's also requirement differently different arguments can run but more importantly here that simply wasn't just the situation it wasn't a yes no situation we made a motion for personal summ she did not run right but yeah point out all the complaints that were filed in the case so i hear her forced resignation investigating this complaint alone this policy has been in existence for sure it was designed for resolving grievance quickly and and he's a student but not exclusively there's nothing in the policy of factors express guessing because she's on the board and is well versed in all the policies that would be part of the job but i just it's my contention you don't have to be were meant to serve through someone in the act of i'm i'm counsel for the board they hire me to make opinions or to form opinions as to what does or doesn't qualify i miss and love at your time is up you will have a chance to  into evidence by the plaintiffs both in the summary judgment here in federal court which they then adopted as their summary judgment record for the circuit court as well as us at all stages of the proceedings of the federal courts and that's not saying or agree that that's what i said but i'll agree that that's what dr lipman's wrote down there is a difference your honor i submit that when a  party moves for summary judgment on the basis of uncontested facts and represents to a tribunal that none of the facts are contested and the facts are as presented in the documents which is what the plaintiffs wrote to the federal court and again to the circuit  and one of the documents is the whitman report and they do not make any objections to any theory say or any other statements contained in that document all of the information that document is in us and we response we requested an entry of judgment in our favor so that's what we do we requested an entry of judgment in our favor in addition to the motion to dismiss that we filed in the motion to  because it applied and because the board had the authority to create policy to sixteen and because it was a good application of the policy in the circumstances there were there were no facts left to try on count one and report are you saying that she gave her claim there were even participating that she gave up her claim that she was just a community member going to do the play no judge not at all i know what i'm i'm merely p out those facts to illustrate the point that she initiated this altercation she was a board member at the time she was also the chairman of the or policy committee and on that basis she approached easley flitters complaint that referred to these leaf litter as trespassers they compare them to vandals on their bait their position is basically that they had no legal right to be present on the property and that implies that this is namely it was somehow justified in  so they were the only people there who took upon themselves to challenge believe there is right to to do what they were doing didn't call the school principal who was there didn't call the superintendent dr law didn't notify the police to your honor's question just historians and if they're if they're not legally able to be there if they're trespassers you call the police if you think they're going to spray you know vandalizing property call the police that's exactly the point of what the letter to mrs manley indicated you overstepped their bounds in when school board members take their office their oath of office is actually set out in a provision of the school code sets out their oath in full it says article ten section sixteen dash five the school code and part of that oath of office says i acknowledge that as a school board member i have no legal authority as an individual they have to say that under oath when they take the office mrs namely violated that office that oh she overstepped their bounds and that was the entire just our or at least one of the claims made by the complainants ok let me ask you this under the policy if she is if she has no she not employed or an agent or the or board member then the policy it would not be and so the only reason that this applies to her is because she is a board member or because of what the statement that you attribute to her it's for two reasons because she is a board member as well as holds the particular office of the policy chair which she did she involves as part of her knowledge of how the policy for twenty should have been in her opinion applied as well as her effort to take upon herself the the to prevent belief that was from being there which was should have been if she had a legitimate concern about that should have been the job of the school principal of the police or some other school administrator to handle because board members don't have any that their office does not extend beyond making votes at properly noticed and call school board meetings they have no other duties and nor the beyond that limited scope and that's exactly what judge jean said in the t r o ruling and that was actually a finding that the plaintiff never appealed and therefore procedurally cannot even raise this argument before this court at this point having failed to here or what is your position on these reserved issues that should not have been washed away with this motion to dismiss and this other movie and that we've been discussing some point this is a five year old case you know it by the time that the really came up before just for ten it been nearly four years since the case was filed was he reserving these cases where he litigated anyway the federal courts were very clear they walked through every conceivable theory that the that the plaintiff threw at them about the few process violations that were alleged he rejected all of them based on the federal constitution yes but the federal constitution in terms of a free speech is very similar to the illinois e circumstances there was nothing like the anything resembling a need to prolong the proceedings after all the past history in given the lack of even they were quest for  sometime before these these series of motions were heard certainly it could have and should have been filed if there with the intent was to raise them later it could have been filed the earliest opportunity so after remember the federal court would have been the opportunity to opportunity you know discovery had been afforded to everyone in the federal court he never made any attempt for more discovery at the at the circuit court after reading he simply move immediately move for s in the court ruled on everything that was before what really we were asking for finding out why we also reserve issues on the room that we were looking for a liability frankly it was our position that people are so justified in jeopardy that was complained that was that was what the complaints i asked so how could i try and decipher what it is that you are relating you said you were seeking liability which seems to me from what i've gleaned is that the board didn't have the authority to inquire into and ultimately claim that your was that she wasn't an agent she didn't fit with then leave policy structures and in and you said the board members aren't because it's a board well and then you also said that and she's not an you're saying that because there was no stipulation it should be considered well should be considered for the proposition that there was a report but it shouldn't be considered for the truth you mean it was the substantive findings that were made there or you accepted the fact that she wasn't found responsible or she was not charged with violating but you won't accept any of the other statements to be honest i don't even recall th recall any authority that says that when a motion for summary judgment and exhibits are attached if there is any qualification other than this has been admitted into evidence and it can be taken  notice of whatever kuwait i want to as a judge give to the contents of the documentation because if supposedly there are limitations how am i supposed to know