end their careers in one force all men destroyed vision be done were suspended without pay in september two thousand and sixteen david evans was suspended without pay february two thousand seventeen we shall shaper was suspended without pay in july two thousand and seven and those days are very important because the st taylor decision from this word came down in september two thousand  with the composition which we should make is an authority to act based problem with this very board and on the cases went the nd problem is despite the guidance of court and this were contented with that issue and ultimately agreed in taylor the two times that the decision of taylor was for putting the sheriff on notice of this fraud but as we discovered in this case as  airport act the board must have a minimum of sat and that was the amended act does nothing to cure the problem of the officers suspended without pay until the amended act passed december two thousand and seventeen and that act as we are going to brief is not except for having the word amended complaint so they were a continuation of the complaints that have been filed in two thousand and sixteen for the plaintiffs in two thousand and seventeen for two of the others softly as in the st words boy we have a new complaint our officers suffered real wasis up to the filing and continuation of this case in two thousand eight hundred dollars they were suspended without pay ok if we should talk about the back people before we do that to the point you're making right or to this court was not to say you're free to go it was to say go back and try to piece again before so they didn't seem to adopt that position isn't that isn't what you're saying inconsistent with what happened in the process analysis in power and these are cited in a brace the way this is supposed to work under the counsel it says he can he could suspend for a time not exceeding thirty days without complain perhaps those kind of smaller suspensions you'll have to go through that your process you don't have to charge i'm going to be a merit board he can just do that but if he's going to suspend for more than thirty days ok well that's more serious because i could be up to be up to nine months whatever more much more seriously for those things you have to go through the board and my reading this from i'm with you so far ok and so your argument is that that that statue was in existence when each of these pla was suspended and when i think each of those was suspended it was for more than thirty days and there were and the sheriff tried to file charges to comply with the statute but those charges couldn't be deemed actually filed before there was no forty here that's a way of putting my argument i think that's correct and so therefore you're claiming anything after record and why what exception to the exhaustion required allows you to bring that claim right well there are several exceptions st of all the case  act based exceptions were valid bases to do this but by the way there's another reason we believe we didn't have to exhaust here and that goes back just to the plain language of the administrative review act which says at least six  articles and you've got this back pay thing which is kind of hidden that has some questions about already and it's slightly more than that i think we get that and then you've got to process this is i understand your due process i understand another one is being specific to this case this court is mad at us because we've been fighting them for us and so we don't think they'll give us a fair shake and then the rd thing i see that i think make your argument on lack of statutory authority the composition of the board i think we understand you're saying on back and due process let's just talk about your due process spencers right so one of them is we we can one of the motivating factors behind that allegation was that we were working on stuff more than several of these cases and the very word was joining the sheriff every single time without exception a get together to get our clients report and there's america work before they've had a thought was very comprehensive motion how are we going for at that time that we are going to fair what about this argument about the transfer fee ok they say during the middle of this this is not an issue involving see expertise so in summary there's really three exceptions authority to act exceptions so i should utility exception to exhaustion and agency expertise all of us have to exhaust roots are mr taylor here he had the opportunity to put a stop to this the problems of the court to basically say all to everything we're going to pull you out of this we're not going to suspend without pay maybe you will suspend with pay and this is in the previous number three we didn't do that and now we have all these officers who lost in the gore case more than a year of their livelihood just to find out about this or has been so if there is that which it does go to the de facto officer issue which again we felt we had to talk about this in the review because it's been coming up in other cases formally we don't believe that it back to walk a certain action applies at all in this case because again it's not wasser is if you raise you got to raise the issue at work near the time well we've done it over and over again at the board in the circuit court no one can say our plaintiffs did not raise this issue after the time we did it that's distinguishing present route are like his entire case that's distinguishing factor number two from the turn st to the issue of exhaustion there is a well established legislative framework for review of marriage decisions marriage where x gives the marriage work exclusive original jurisdiction over disciplinary cases for these officers and others of the airport in the circuit court there was a motion to quash pending in the circuit court at the time judge all dismissed this case for failure to exhaust so he doesn't make a facial challenge quite deliberately because he wanted discovery about  affirmative matter that was not in dispute that showed the airport was in fact you know just denying the motion pro forma was taking everything finds me considering the arguments against so the future of the you think if they are not to leave office to sit on that board if that's not a challenge to the jurisdiction based on lack of structure if it's not a challenge should the subject matter the legislature for its exclusive review before you go to circuit court but one example right i don't know that they would agree that authority to act and jurors already of it visual agency member to act versus  going to a final decision they were considering he says hey that sounds good i'd like it like a piece of them too and a lot of people that's not you know i'm not criticizing bruce but that's where the fact walks are government comes in and says we're not going to let everybody not do anything right because our board might not be valid well or least that's what it seems like from from the complaint and that would be a sensible reaction rather than let's just keep going forward but that's i think kind of making the but the fact was the rule says we can keep going with this illegal board going forward and so have to ensure the board was changed about sort of the but if it happened under your argument you could just keep going forever you know without ever it these twenty five separate challenges are speaking outside the record and outside the complaint or variations of the crews challenge because they know they have a problem with crews really a problem on staggering to the new sections that time period between when these people were suspended m d thirty one until that surety period don't they have a thing for reinstatement in there for back then no because there's no allegation here that they didn't that i'm not saying they're right or wrong that's their arrogance right i don't believe that it's supported the county code and it would in any event be a problem under the defacto officer darkens you would be carving out a new exception to the defacto officer  the st argument is that there are four democrats on the earth orbit that is somehow wrong the the statute says and i quote one half of the members plus one from the same political party so four democrats on a seven member board is fine