court for example a person is innocent until proven guilty also allegations in and of themselves do not prove and crimes must be proved by more than a preponderance of yes the reason this case exists is that although the governor trader time and again stated that he was not convinced that officer welker committed a crime  not sure where you say it's generally accepted using a comparison if this were a criminal case someone's been convicted of a crime a case goes up s well i think you're asking me separate questions the the issue here from the governor trigger is whether or not the conduct of her right and he said that has to be proved by more than upon us is he right now or is there come from that's my view i suppose that's my question right but i'm just not sufficiently convinced i think that i clearly convincing this i think that's exactly what their peers did i think he said if this was a lower standard if this was a book on the standard i might have been but i'm not convinced as far as the terminator that's correct which seems to be going to different ways of saying yes and that's exactly what the position the trial court took but that is not what lou that some sort of other disciplinary sanction was appropriate of course they did those decisions because the courts were left with it's an all or nothing situation the courts case at ordinarily a court would be hard pressed to find a public policy barring reinstatement in the case in which an arbitrator has expressly or by implication determine that the employee subject to rehabilitation therefore not likely to  case he's a witness against a friend of his a police officer the city of the kid problems are the best soften it lies about it in a way that we regularly chastise defendants you know how would you be characterized would you change your testimony try but you know what you said that time what you say now how you changed your story how you back filled it no this isn't really what happened we didn't have that on the books that you couldn't terminate a public employee who got involved in several of these instances very closely together in time and also lied about it well i think it's i would describe it as lying about it clearly violates public policy the courts have crafted a public policy exception by which arbitration awards may be vacated even though they otherwise other essence from the collective bargaining agreement the have basis of the award is the courts of orange to enforce an illegal contract in this case a contract that violates public prior arbitration decisions where an arbitrator's determined that appropriate standard for an employer seeking to prove criminal conduct as a basis for discharge is binding on or is your it was the oil say no no it's got to be a group or part of the air but it's fair in this case maybe the different burden of proof differences might make a difference so here is almost the opposite you could read the arbitrator decision saying a reasonable person doing is from a preponderance situation would say that it happened and it happened to the point where i've got you something i've got required discipline because i think that what's fair is to require it to be proven by clear and convincing in order to terminate i'm going to use that standard and i'm going to choose to suspend and directly be remediated their attempts made to read and just disconnect i think that is a fair sum ation of the what appears to be to the extent that anybody can decipher it the arbitrator's reasoning what's wrong with that what's wrong with that is that it yet the trump card is that  court cannot be required to enforce an illegal contract the court cannot be required or will not with refused to enforce a contract that violate public policy and so while the arbitrator may well say  so the fact that the parties are free to choose arbitration arbitrations given great respect to the courts will interfere with an arbitrator's decision only i'm unusual circumstances  don't believe that the public policy exception is anywhere near that rot in the county at which case that the county deal with it was there was a case involving police officer who was actually convicted of policy favoring effective long for we can overturn an arbitrator's decision just because we disagree with absolutely absolutely not that that is correct that is the that that is the basis for the deferential standard a stagnant i'm not convinced that i would i don't find any precedent for the proposition that trial court or even the score may look beyond the arbitrator's findings of fact to the record that was before the arbitrator however in reading i suppose in the very many decisions that i've looked at when we do find is that courts in protecting their own willingness to enforce contracts to fire his broker so that he should just be suspended based upon a party of lesser standard but i understand you correctly your position is that for the courts applying for the public policy exception to apply provided the court finds say a dominant public policy and that the interpretation of the contract violates that public policy but it's so clear we only get to a public court found that the arbitrator's perpetration of a contract which effectively awarded additional benefits under the contract to illegally striking teachers by later public policy is their standard case that since if the conduct alleged by the city also happens to be a crime that this city need proof that the conduct occurred by cleary convince you have that is exactly what i'm saying but i think you were also suggesting that perhaps there are some arbitrators that do it that way and maybe the case doesn't make its way out for not precedent for one another so your conduct that was less reprehensible to his overarching public policy but in this instance because it's domestic violence and it's repeated and it relates to police officers we know there is no conviction here but if there's a conviction that is a very serious problem for for a law enforcement official that's what makes it  policy i think i think i understand your question and i think i agree my statement would be if this were a case before this court offering simply alleged violation of the contract that did not invoke any public policy considerations and one side or the other was dissatisfied with the arbitrator chose to require a clear and convincing proof i don't think this court would be able to afford any relief but it of legislative and act much of pronouncements on the problem on attempting to deal with the problem it's it's there's virtually no crime that i can think of were no actions that would be  criminal that i can think of that have drawn the same attention as domestic violence from the generals this is every bit of misconduct by police officer raised all students are absolutely award reinstating him was was upheld by the courts and i think that the missing element in that case was the public policy if i might conclude the award in this case the i'm sorry the arbitrator's interpretation of the collective bargaining agreement between the police concert things based on a preponderance the arbitrator is role is to determine if the destructor cases before it's his job to judge whether or not the facts and circumstances of the case the clearly convincing stand that was which he was in there for a lesser standard would be sufficient to impose a forty five day suspension but i think that would be a fair resolution of putting all this together however that because we're not reviewing whether the arbitration was problematic for the arbitrator's chosen published the there has to be some actual predicate because his duties are to his well there has to be some predicate finding that there was something happened to warrant some disciplinary sanction and the supreme court in this court both require that work discharge is not awarded that there is at least should be the option it's not an all or nothing situation there should be a middle ground that is what precedent  us but this middle ground is for the arbitrator only the sides what sanction is appropriate in his capacity and powers as an arbitrator as a score correctly pointed out we're not second terminated notwithstanding any of the collective bargaining agreement they rejected entirely is everything to do with everything yes and no they said the employee should have been punished and what they specifically said i and employees amenability to discipline as a factual determination which cannot be questioned or rejected by every court court cannot seize upon that other trainers terminations that this