with your clients as you didn't have an agreement or a contract and the agreement that the document says it's not an agreement and it's not a contract it further says it's and guideline for day to day policies assuming it to be done is participating in this program does encourage them to work for the continuous number of years and is an incentive for them for their longevity to continue to stay with the county detective taking that away and would allow the family to dangle a carrot in front of the employees retroactively change trust to the green in that they entered into and the promises that they made to a county employee would in effect allow them to go to the contract and change the terms of the contract making the contract or the agreement in this case  sick days and even haitian days don't say that those days and that tyreese are either however in this case to page county paid those a big question is whether the call was involuntarily terminated under the terms of the agreement well the employee retention bedford program doesn't specifically address turn a nation of a sheriff's deputy we know that a sheriff's deputy is a public employee and has a property interest justices giving please the court thank you for the opportunity to be able to address any of your questions in one of the issues i wanted to be initially address is this standard of review as we indicated the county indicated in their brief it's our position clearly that the standard is whether the court's determination was contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence and would think for purposes of getting paid for the work that you would have done the hours you put in there is an implied contract i think it best that even though there is no employment contract or any other kind of agreement when to establish that it was compensation under the act i think he failed and i think that was certainly implied it indirectly if not directly by the ruling after the bench trial is that there was no employment agreement the unpaid suspension but beyond the end of peace any discipline including termination and then he has to file written charges before the mayor commission what he had to do in this case is that paul doesn't cloud toward a dead process by suggesting some weeks he agrees placed on administrative leave stripped of all those police powers she said oh wait a minute i'm going to retire therefore making my deputy sheriff under these circumstances if they think that they are what it was it wasn't discipline it was really no longer a hail of confidence authority in your acting is deputy sheriff i'm going to take their power away from you is there a difference between a retirement and a resignation he can only think if the letter was written by actually the line it was written his side retired as opposed to resign i think that ultimately whether you're separated from your employment you know there would be no difference between retirement and resignation it is curious in my mind and i think it was argued why poll done tower issued a letter that said effective may third i retire in this was pointed out in the trial court he was now in trouble for retirement benefits if they had time he wasn't old enough why he did it instead of resigning i don't know but i do think that it's material or relevant for the determination of the trial court made in to that it doesn't form a basis for this court to find that the trial court's ruling was clearly erroneous so we w that paul doesn't cause testimony at trial was it he decided on his own for personal and family reasons to move on with his life i think was his actual testimony at trial so again to your point it because you all know it's a longer process for an investigation of serious criminal manners in the end this was just at the beginning but it was significant enough that the sheriff s is supported by the record in the law in this court should sustain they have but your argument here today is that and volunteer it separation really is a firing and that couldn't have been done under the circumstance then you might never find you know i think we did say that it was in fact an involuntary terminations therefore call done kawas in an eligible for this retention benefited by the clear terms interest me an attorney fees are surely illegitimate is sure that we have from the very beginning which continues up to now and we should never have to pay the attorney fees and interest on the amount in this case where there's really a dispute at the trial court jester whether there was an involuntary terminations making him in algebra i know there was an argument made by the plaintiff that we said that county undertook to say it doesn't apply to any employing that was hired after two thousand and two ending also amended it to say if you're convicted of any crime including a misdemeanor you're not going to be eligible for  component to this even if you were to make that determination he's ineligible because he was in fact in voluntarily terminate this or anything else april twenty sixth two thousand and seven hauled off of tender his letter of resignation to the sheriff and to the county even upon notification from paul that he indeed that he was planning on voluntarily separating technically correct the city your client is not necessarily title to it the fact that they gave it to you means that there is no contest so one doesn't necessarily follow you over because to my knowledge there is nothing