that that that that distinguishing characteristic is determined to be in this case because it's in the middle and i'm quoting from the state's brief the these a l j start impartial independent for overbilling the program or suspension and terminations from the programs for providing quality care to patients and then also came from the states reform pages page twenty eight and twenty nine of the states where i'm holding one aspect of the apartments mission it's to ensure the provision of high quality medical goods and services to public the other important fact is that their determination are accepted ninety to ninety five percent of the time ninety nine ninety to ninety five percent now the in the briefs of staying in the union they are they have basically resurrected a number of rejected and yet we keep getting these these these kinds of analysis that those are contained on the state's briefing paper seventeen thirty seven four twenty or hearings referees happy department of health care and family services are eligible for collective bargaining the point found that under the factual record before it and this was a factual record created you have to remember from this court with orders for the  eleven concedes that they are not arguing in managerial as a matter of law in this issue in this case and the only issue is what do they do that why did you get yours i assume because they didn't feel there was an argument that their manager the l g recommended decision which was adopted by the board behind me me going through detail the details factual record distinguished the facts in that case as found by this court from the facts in this case for the board  work in the medical center hearing section which is one section of the bureau of ministry of hearings the other section the fair hearing section also has hearing officers who have been represented for some time to me those are not attorneys officers but they also which is an office within the agency so these employees hold hearings in what biffin one part of carrying out the function of a larger state agency i would note with respect to coun reference today to a prior decision involving th fs these employees at issue here were not an issue in that case the attorneys who were also public service that industry or option it up else in that case were attorneys in the office of the inspector general they are currently represented by another union this court affirmed the board certification finding that those attorneys are not managerial and in the general discussion of the functions of the agency mention and that they don't leave the bureau until she's got her into a preview and she testify that she asks for changes in two or three out of five of the wrong decisions which are the ones that result from an actual hearing alex the mission of the d h asked as an agency that rather a very have to find duties that they are attorneys so they're professionals they do professional work including legal research and drafting but if there are they are don't have any effective that the work that these sales is do does not rise to the level policy formulation or even policy recommendation that they write their decisions in a fairly rigid system of rules and checks and balances and line established policy and with respect to the supervisory status of mr purdie like the report found that any prior authority he had whether or not that was supervisory he didn't have any more he doesn't currently have any authority to discipline grant time just there for didn't spend preponderance of his time doing th so based on the factual record i see him as happy showing by preponderance of the evidence that the facts support the exclusions it asserted yeah and he bore it based on its consideration of the factual record found that in this case getting at is the relationship is a lot more collaborative an improviser e and the pollution control more board members are able to be persuaded they will buy probably more on the vice a very very old jays where is here the upper management idiot chavez is not looking to be persuaded by these a l j state these people do not have influence over their supervisors they're kind of expected to keep their heads down and to work within their own narrow purview and to issue draft in liability issue as the director put it on her own initiative and that's in the record volume six page four hundred actually the parties have raised during the proceedings but the astonishing part is the way she was kind of hauled out as if she were a various levels that goes through before it gets there but even then it's not a guarantee that it's going to be accepted some of them have been rehearsed and there are examples of record so it's that's what makes it so different from the i c c h r see there is there chief mr lead test testified that disagreements over the draft ideals are growing manacled stylistic or about different interpretations of the administrative code in addition requirement under that act again in the same section the fact that these in place to not do so independently is an important give them given that the act does not require independence and management functions were