faculty at a university in the state of georgia they gave the letter to people having no supervision responsibility on the plight of those having nothing to do with the appeal and those having nothing to do with the election of her as department chair they distributed to other parliaments in the college of arts and sciences in those departments with including the english department the history department mathematics economics and so on before i do the allegations things tributed to other faculty in the university other department the allegations were been distributed to other people throughout the world not just limited to the people in her department or people having supervision over  him and confidential to the appeal process they also violated the confidentiality provisions of the sexual harassment policy and procedures of the university so winning the appeal leading the opposition to cities see this as department chair and going to fire romano dean and they did it in violation of university policy there are two all the plaintiff police officers of professional integrity during a homicide investigation made in retaliation for a complaint the plaintiff made against another officer so both of these statements  welfare or benefit of the university distributed other deeds other people that work related with this responsibility that he had in connection with this matter before the trial court was their counter affidavit general and to various i know persons at the university they did she didn't name names i mean that's would be part of the discovery process which we weren't allowed to to conduct will and that it's not part of their job to assign them to make copies of the letter of the senate all the other department chairs people throughout the university that's not within the scope of this duty or at least there's a factual issue about that a supervisor makes statements concerning a subordinate regarding work related behavior that that's protected by someone in unity with gardner as to whom these things are made to and regardless the hoffman case in the bush case was horrible case all say that if you make these statements in excess of your authority that you are not protected by sorry unity you're not doing this for the benefit of the university eighteen this is exactly what the plaintiff the lead additionally by defendants who knowingly making false allegations of sexual misconduct to the university officials defendants as the as a state employee made statements about another state employee the claim to the university officials with regard to her fitness to serve as a department chair where you're pulling a particular paragraph out but you're not trying to tell us or you get there on the allegations in this complaint that elaine is that your client made these claims to people other department heads to people outside administrative responsibility why would they not be a department i mean a university official well that's a good question and i think the fairest user is the complete doesn't tell us because it uses that that isn't that a function of discovery to flesh out who the other university officials are i am based on the discovery determination as to whether these people were in their constituency voting for a share of that particular department or whether this was spread outside of that department who were irrelevant to that particular election well i think and materials follow the support of the two six nineteen motion and in opposition to it and i don't think there's a need for discovery respect leader on these issues we were going to weigh the nature of the allegations or because that's really the touchstone of what the score wa some true there's no question the park i'm sure has certain administrative duties disciplinary duties whatever duties the the chancellor happens to give that particular individual but i think your focus was a bit too narrow i think you were talking about a broader universe and alum i don't think the paragraph that you cited paragraph eighteen of chair and people totally outside of the department and not part of the voting from stritch when seat or chair is included in that paragraph and i think you're you're trying to narrow the language where about an appointment to a state position and conduct by a state employee paid by the state that is the challenge by another state and in the main issue is where those was that conduct by the defendants outside the scope of their distributed the information to person to have a right to get that without dispute the point of his challenge where there are certainly allegations about this whole thing about the election and the appeals process and all that which sets the stage  named only the individuals are named ok let's just assume for a minute she's only seeking damages for the actions and conduct that occurred outside of this appeal process having to do with this selection tell me in a nutshell i had a hard anything whatsoever to do with the university they were acting outside of their employment and in excess of they were for if you're acting out of malice personal one time you're not acting within the scope