supplies and on three days of absence two of which were the consequence of his thievery that got him arrested well the question becomes first of all in terms of the never t deciding official as the penalty relied on both the business about the toilet paper and and the a will turn to yes and the point that i'm making them is that although circumstance if you were falsely charged with whatever and you if you if you could have called him as a witness separate hearing if you thought that his check marks were somehow misleading or employees or fraudulent some sort of cross examine him about what he really considered specifically when he was d war but what about the problem of running a hospital where custody you'll cleaning and may not show up with no advance notice and therefore there's no chance for the hospital to call in pinch hitters in order to maintain adequately timely and thorough cleaning of important parts of the hospital that sounds that sounds like a fairly important thing if they're ten plus those are workers and five of them don't show up on a given day are always those asses before the issue i'm not talking about the actually says that he was warned about i'm talking about the one day separate from the arrest two days for the arrest one day was that the arrest was the one day unrelated to the rest before the day is here and that's what i thought this was so you're in effect saying if i understand you correctly that hey if they had to fire people because of a wall they the penalty could have been a suspension or it could have been a removal and maybe a better wiser fairer nicer choice might have been a sixty day suspension that seems to be part of what you part of but yes but but but the problem i have with that is it may be that it would have been a wiser choice for to have for example a sixty day suspension rather than a removal but the question we have to answer is whether on these facts by selecting removal when it could have been a sixty day suspension the agency when so far out of the range of reasonable choices as to be engaging in a penalty that's grossly disproportionate to the sum total of the found charges that's a much more difficult standard to meet it certainly is but the key in what you say is this is not it's not reasonable well policy is it the case that at least this agency would view a wall for whatever reason you were incarcerated but a but not sanctioned with a fine or the motion or remov if the pattern of a war continues certainly the agency would be justified in saying at some point look at mr soandso one more able and we're going to fire it and then if there is one more on excused a will and they fire him how could he complain how could there be any lack of clarity but as i understand it that's nothing like that happened here he went from some warnings in the form of letters in his file automatically reasonable under our case law simply because it's on the tape if it's off the table there may be an inference of an reasonableness but it doesn't become per se reasonable just because it is on the table correct  shorts in the book it's in the in the employee book let me ask you this aside from whether a warning might have been a appropriate intervening communication here when i when i read the  ministrative judge's penalty discussion it's really very terse is page eight of the special appendix of most of the pages just boilerplate what the law is and then page nine mostly discusses the various things to which mr hetrick testified and then it seems like the decisional part with respect the penalty was not unreasonable for the to sustain charges and i declined to mitigate the panel e period end quote so this is big discussion of what the hospital administrator testified and then a conclusion i find not unreasonable how can we review that sure you can review that i consider the board session of directors testimony documents what i'm saying is that based on that data that i didn't put the had to make an analysis that led to a conclusion we've got the conclusion we've got the input but we don't have any analysis in between remembered it all reviewed the testimony in her mind read the documents had all the input but the problem is there's no analysis and your honor my explanation or my for example look at the final sentence in the panel with paragraphs on the agency cannot perform its mission without employees being present and working well of course but that's a truism but the logic of that would be any a wall or maybe even late arrival in every case should lead to removal and obviously that's not the way it is that's not the way it's supposed to be so why what makes the analysis is interfering with the description of the facts and testimony and can be fairly understood to be an agreement by the administrators the board here that the analysis or the explanation given by the agency is an acceptable analysis and is reasonable and the ministry of judge considered this testimony consider the testimony that it starr mr holder answered whether th four minutes are remain seems to me as i read the two page discussion of penalty a little more than than that it seemed to me that she for example on page the next to last page she talks about a comparison between mr had taken and ms moore and the other employees involved in the the incident and says well ms moore was given a lesser penalty because this is no pa record no opinion charge and no access to the agency's supplies and then goes on to say that here he has this prior incidents and he also is in effect in a position of trust