the rule says and i think it's very very important because back to the way in which the service of the pac human upon a party by mail shall be presumed complete three days after mailing if proof of service shows the document was properly addressed this presumption navy overcome by  receipt or no receipt three days after maybe that's the way they want this regulation three in fact in their briefs they actually section two hundred thirty see the poor defined service when their disaffected by mail is occurring as of the day to the receipt second that's what the city of st charles sas it says that it's three days after that it's for king gage plus three days after the date of mailings the sit island has been denied so this is a final decision and the court says by providing for the presumption of service three d a sector failing these regulations in order to the benefit of the  establish actual service in order to preclude the presumption from taking effect we fail to find any explicit statement that actual service precludes the presumption from a right or that the address sure has the arguments that are being raised today and were rejected were raised in the city of st charles so in response according to the interpretation by the city of state court in the city of st charles it was going to be postmarked and january second and it was of actually sheet of a document control when service is affected not solved not so one of the language some wonder of the city of st charles case not so w here this is a technical issue and it is something my whole office was up in arms about which way which way how you interpret this language voice had no objection boyce no objection to this and very little said their members would be the ones that if anybody prayed and they didn't believe them nor have they come before this court who have they filed briefs before this court because they had no objections so there's there's really no injury and if you talk about injury in this case there were several continuous where agreed to by the part the first one was that the parties  there also extended the statutory requirement for the election itself thirty five days another thirty five days and it wasn't until two months after the petitions were filed that the administrative law judge entered the recommended solution in fact in most of the case where the idea would be there are several continuance page thirteen fourteen where the board in that case acknowledge that there are cases where quote the policies of the act would be better served by a post hoc when you have a suspension for responding  the court concluded that the provision which names the allegations of the claim to be admitted in the hearing the way the court apparently failed to consider this crucial aspect of the issue to put the sanction it was an really harsh and lay the mitigating circumstances the the exceptions were put in the internal mail system of the state of illinois and the one here now when you say internal mail system you don't mean what mean there's no there's no rebranding of any rule here the board does what it always does it looked at the circumstances here's our rule here's here's how we've been applying it here's our situation here  argument because because they don't argue to the board you know even if that's not t the rule the rule under the rule under the rule as it is now it was due on december thirty first yes yes acknowledge you know and c m s not only did they not argue that it was due on december basically this case should be about wasn't postmarked on december thirty first was he wins wasn't he loses now you're saying that we apply our discretion to which completely changes our standard her view of you know why i'm added which was that everybody knows white male so now we know we're going basically by data mailing it in three days now instead it's lists for elections voting in the election all those things it comes into place you know you've got a lot of different times when this rule is going to be  somehow you can't track there you know or or for whatever reason or something something didn't go out with you know that the tracking the green card and so you don't necessarily you don't necessarily know the fact of delivery and if if the address you can come back and say well you know here is i've got evidence that we received it five days after we mail or ten days here states up to the parties to make their decision is and make sure that things happen in the way that they need for them to happen the harm you know the  board has an interest in protecting the integrity of its rules and there is a public interest in public employee interest the public employee interest the board yes to consider the public interest which section two puts forth as you know there's public upstream cases you know case law is that your lawyers are responsible for what goes on in your office yeah and it's it's you know rule which says we have these exceptions but i mean i don't understand the board here its discretion in the interest of forcing yeah to if circumstances warrant out the last e mail or fax to all the employees same eight gets new year's eve today let's all knock her off early two o'clock this afternoon that didn't happen something else intervene entity like c a minus that is large point is is that a different standard than what some other small you know smaller entities that isn't going to have you know this this if they came and said well you know what tool discretionary actually could have taken one and stated that they heard another motion and that's under rule twelve hundred twenty one thirty five and in two places they refer to hearing it on their own motion even if there are no example we have an example it's in the state's attorney's office they filed they filed in essence i'm went over to the next state so they filed one day late same one this is still a same as occurred here and the court there help that it