violation of a residency rule i and it's our position that the two full pastors has not been met here i'm going to get into the standard of review like to review some of the facts that i think stanley that the decision point to be reversed in the two step process the first step of the process is whether or not the underlying charge is proved to the administrative agency  and in this case the governor was born in harrison county and lived in jefferson county his whole life he was hired jefferson county worked as a firefighter was promoted to lieutenant have for all of his life with the exception of the twenty moved around within the bounds of jefferson county but matters came to a head for him in june of two thousand and nine he did not hear the resources will board an independent residency and  yeah this is a forty two year old man divorced me and three children and the issue gives whether this twenty month period of living with his parents in hamilton county constituted a change of residence which brings us to the standard i am contending that the standard should be applied is that clearly erroneous standard i must say i whether the standard this court it down will change its opinion i'm not completely clear but i do think the clearly erroneous standard has the right one because the question here vs applying the facts of this case to the wording of the ordinance as to maintaining his residence as a condition of employment and it's the it's circumstances require that he in fact physically be located with his parents to have a place to live for free it's a safe place to bring his children and it was all his intent to leave his parents lead the board tries to make light of this argument on the basis that they claim to be are trying to convert residents who may have a mere ten right that's really not what what what is trying to be accomplished here the point that's trying to be accomplished here is is that mr scribner was in an emergency situation if it did grant guy but he never intended to permanently live with his feet his parents and  clothes i don't think people have anywhere whether hamilton county were jefferson the fact is that a fact of lee mr misters from her home i mean he he was living in a fire station still in moved in with his parents and service f a a firefighter after lieutenant with mount vernon and those facts were given absolutely no way whatsoever by the war those are a different standard of review for the decision to he had a number of hours to to sign releases but the promises became it became evident were on him and that's not clear from the briefs it's phrase the way you just said that it became evident that so we don't know what time like there was well i don't think he talked about it to the to the department because by that time there was already the order that there was going to be a formal interrogation and he already you know all the people had already geared up so the subject of the property was the property was on the habitable that's true so one might consider at least the charges seem to indicate that he was obstructive in the process as to them in fact he had signed the lease it's it's his testimony that he intended to sign a lease and move into the premises and the only discovered later the problem and at the formally here occasionally they acknowledge but the idea that a firefighter who was under formal investigation is scheduled for a formal interrogation on the firefighters disciplinary act would independently visit with the cheap actually counsel for either side i don't think that's a second prong of the test his parents premises and i must admit i'm not sure that this final process was going through the plaintiff's head when this was all coming down my suspicion is that that his thoughts were far more chaotic than this but his parents address this really four tenths of a mile outside town so i don't think i mean i don't want to argue to the court that a residency requirement can be satisfied by getting close but not going over the count i think disciplined as it is is arbitrary and unreasonable well that is the discharge is a pretty serious matter for leave importance of a mile across the county line but what about the fact that the ordinance itself i mean there ordinances that just say you must do this or you shall not do that or whatever but this ordinance goes on in sin as you're subject to discharge if you do this but difference does it make a  difference i do think it makes a difference yeah i mean the other words the ordinance itself says you have to live within the county and if you don't you're subject to destroy i mean it doesn't say you're subject to discipline and it might be suspension or it might be includes lesser disciplinary inforce that in the light of the facts of this case it's the position of the plaintiff that the imposition of discharge was was  it unreasonable and arbitrary under the under the circumstances i think sir thank you in this state is very clear and none of them will inconsistently up holding in this of the residence requirements and yet to find a case where an individual it in the back not comply with the residence requirement and a two step standard of review i don't see a need for when you walk through the consistent affirmation certainly as to the residency cases and the dishonesty integrity cases where there is a very factual fine violation there and the boards of civil service is some super personal the part that you certainly don't said is some super super personal that were above that the purpose of the civil service commissions is to ensure that there is a full due process we're hearing henri kind of nails those two or takes care of those two things together i think i think in order to make sure the president going forward doesn't become confused in this they think or she continue to hold to the two stepping worry relative to mike mangles where he was serving the president of the country are often some elected office for example in washington d c otherwise we're serving in the military in the city of melbourne has had employees serving in the military we don't sue th issues that provide independent justification for the discharging the fundamental question that the imbalance the issues become pretty straightforward there's no dispute that he violated the rules there totally disagree that there are or are not similar cases where the courts have reversed on the basis of arbitrary reasonable discipline involving of allegations of  discipline but it didn't really happen in order for the board to consider reducing discipline and camp was a fellow who was pled guilty to illegally selling firearms which did involve inherent dishonesty there's also the chrysler case the cost base there are cases where there are severe allegations of criminal violations of violent behavior on the part of the employee that aborts degree verse so i disagree with the assessment of counsel and finally