court however this argument today will focus on two main areas that he contends requires this court to overturn the employee it kills or its decision the first and most egregious error arises from the board's failure to address in your brief you i believe the way you framed it was that the forest reserve district lacked authority that is kept under the civil a letter was returned by the superintendent of the forest preserve just tracked to sergeant genius saying he would consider his request that was the first response sergeant genius had received during that five year period and shortly thereafter within a couple of weeks actual initiates the administrative leg of this these proceedings  notice of intent to pursue disciplinary charges or whatever they have had it entitled that it also then filed and a grievance because he was unclear about what avenue he was able to pursue at that point whether it would be through the civil service commission or the employee appeals board so he was and would have that i he received a letter from the attorney at a for the in play appeals court indicating that that was not the proper  venue for his complaint it would be remanded or sent to the civil service commission to be h going forward but that was dismissed and we were we were told by the the district court that the civil service commission was where we should be and we were and who is next on tell me what happened here  since they have finally now initiated the action before the civil service commission that is your proper venue you with us this morning we're asking that the entire her proceedings be prevented from occurring right  i'm sorry i can't give you more information on that the rules of the civil service commission of the county of cook were enacted to protect the rights of employees and provide a concrete guideline for their due process for employers to follow it is uncontroverted that sergeant genius was suspended without pay without written charges from june seventeenth one thousand nine hundred sixty until may twenty fifth of two thousand and one when he was finally served with a notice of intent to seek discharge as the trial court found and this court should similarly fine the district had  no authority to suspend sergeant genius for almost five years without written charges the first preserve district to not follow any of the due process rules outlined in the section of the civil service rules that addresses disciplinary action specifically rule nine rule nine section one unequivocally states that no one claimant no employees shall be removed discharged or suspended from or that they're just you're not making a claim that this was a due process violation that's not how issue correct what you've said is in your brief that this conduct of suspending him without following the the civil service rules was an act outside of their e certainly that was part of our argument and i would argue that the inherent lack of authority to suspend a police officer who clearly has a property right in his pay and his job that in and of itself is the due process violations of the bush were to raise the grosser under under our arguments that the district lacked authority to act in the manner that they did they failed to provide him well certainly the fact that these due process rules were provided and they were violated i and i believe we did address in the briefs that it was in fact at that violates his just agree that he had remedies and for a number of reasons first of all with regards to the mandamus i know that was something that the court requested in the supplemental brace sergeant genius did not feel that mandamus would have been an appropriate remedy to request at that point first of all there was there the court is i'm sure familiar with the four  but how to get to that point he he would have been seeking to require the district not to do a ministerial but it would have required the admin not a criminal charges were resolved in his favor he would be reinstated and given all back pay so sergeant genius i was told by a representative that they would do this act it's genius was suspended in one thousand nine hundred six he was told that the bases have his suspension where the criminal charges and vermillion county those charges were her official misconduct or using his position as a police officer ultimately those charges were dismissed ultimately the board just missed those charges now for that five plus year period of time sergeant genius was only relying on the fact that the case against him the potential case against him i guess i on the districts was based upon these criminal charges and then all of the sudden he is hit with these other misconduct charges now ten to thirteen years that had occurred ten  his own recollection he testified that he couldn't recall a few things mr wilson testified he couldn't recall a few things there was apparently and we didn't find out some of th stuff until actually during the hearing there is apparently a witness to mr wilson's initial statement that we were not even allowed to inquire as to who that witness was we were it able to get any information about who he was to even try and question him the board shot the routes that it's cracked and apparently there was a witness to that statement and and certainly sergeant genius have the right to inquire as to as to the circumstances of how that statement was given whether there's promised me that type of thing but sergeant genius wasn't given the information he couldn't have followed up on that additionally sergeant genius argued that  just charge it clearly did not detrimental to fact the forest preserve just for police department during that period of time so how eleven to thirteen years later that that all the sudden constitute charge are different because excuse me for just charge so certainly sergeant genius did not have an opportunity to gather the evidence that he potentially could have gathered i mean ten years after the fact it's not and he didn't mind th was in the early ninety's had to not as if everything was computerized it's not as if you know things were kept and available as they are now things are are much different now than they were than and the sergeant genius was quite frankly blindsided by those charges and that that in and of itself as as an equitable and not just ok thank you thank you originally he was suspended without pay nine hundred eighty six yes the civil service commission and its rules applied to him yes and then we know that nothing occurred the charges were filed for the first time yes they were filed where we thought they were served mr genius and my understanding of what happened was that this not appear in the civil service rather correct so when the board found that he could not raise the issue of back pay because he did not appeal that would not be correct under the civil service commission  matter should be heard as a civil service matter in fact every week this court in a proceeding in two thousand fired for whatever reason look ultimate hearing by the employer appeals board they may have replaced the civil service commission but i believe that the term the way they conducted their hearing was actually the same all of the procedures under the can't argue that point with you you're right the only thing i can can imagine that happened is because the action was initiated in the eight hundred ninety six when mr genius was suspended and then they won parole process was completed and of the district was served with the request to reinstate him by mr genius they then took the next step and filed before almost charge and conducted a pre term anation hearing and then ultimately got to the filing of the charges with the commission the any at that point in time there was no longer a civil service commission i cannot say anything may twenty fourth of ninety ninety six he was informed by his then chief that his chief intended to terminate him and then he had an opportunity if  to to have an internal conference with the department head of his chief to discuss it before any any type of discipline was imposed approximately a week later there was a correspond well he we believe he could have asked the commission for a hearing we believe he could where does that go yet it doesn't come specifically from section two but he could have done it and short of that he could have under section two there is no direct revenue or what took place i cannot state otherwise to this court us dealt with pretty terminations hearing specific way the case that really controls this type of setting would be the case of gober versus homer and in that case we had an arrest we had an indictment of a police officer and a good court found that because of the fact of the of the arrests and because of the effect of the indictment they were they were assured that the suspension was not base back or back pay for the period of time he had been suspended between may of ninety three ninety six and i believe it was august of two thousand and one when the  formal charges were filed there was no cleaving effect i have my record copy of the record of the civil service or series that i can't find anywhere the motion to dismiss has been referenced i'm in terms of a remedy if he if they had found that he was not properly or he was not subject to discharge then i think he would be able to claim his fair pay but pay determined other than the fact that they indicated that that mr wilson stated that he was shown a badge that he was told by mr genius that he was a police officer and that there was and then no they were i believe they look at the totality of the evidence with with with which they were presented and determined that they conduct their first probably believe mr wilson's testimony over mr cheney says testimony on the credibility they believe that what was done was authorized and was inappropriate or an individual  using you either with no weapons or you can i don't believe i don't i do not agree that there was no evidence to support those charges or rather i believe the testimony indicated that he had his badge he had a scanner he was in a vehicle that was inside of a specific ways a police vehicle and that he gained access to forest preserve district property and drove onto the property and committed done the proof is sufficient to substantiate the fact that this gentleman had a substantial shortcoming that did not well that's what people here are that i think that's the standard go that has to be weighed when determining if dish charge is appropriate and they looked at this and they said wrong was proven here in conjunction with the forgery what was proven in conjunction with the forgery was sufficient it's almost like oh you can't may not be able to prove every specific act but this is not a criminal charge this is a civil proceeding it's an investigation and they found enough based upon their investigation which is what a civil service proceeding years they found enough there just substitute to clearly substantiate the charges these charges that were filed against mr genius the other thing i'd like to point out and this is important with introduced into evidence other documentation that had mr serge uses signature on it and that's decked out that documentation and the exhibits there were two exhibits were used in compared think you know i would like to address a couple of issues that were raised by the court first of all and believe justice huff and head indicate had questioned under what mechanism sergeant genius had raised  this issue of baquet where the civil service rules do not provide for sergeant genius to file a counter claim or anything of that nature they just provide that he is entitled to be heard in his own defense that is what he dead that is when he suspension or in this particular case a case by support said and certainly it's it's well established that the remedy would have been reinstatement if the charges were not shown backpay and appropriate and that he was he was acting to pursue his hobby it wasn't misconduct in any way shape or form so so yes although that was part of the charges what he was ultimately discharge for was not genius attempted to get his process on a number of avenues has we referenced in our supplemental brief when he was ultimately notified by the superintendent he wasn't he wasn't notified under what authority they would be proceeding simply that they were intending to discipline him and sergeant genius then received a notice of a pretty disciplinary hearing at that hearing sergeant genius was represented by counsel counsel repeatedly requested underwent authority are we proceeding today whether is it the appeals board is of the civil service commission what are we doing here and i'm at each time it was raised the attorney for the forest preserve destroyed took it as an argument said if you have a question with our authority we're not going to answer this today this is simply an arraignment on your charges alternately as sergeant genius received a letter from the attorney for the employee appeals board o that's what sergeant genius did he had waited over five years for her due process at that point he was being provided with an avenue and he pursued that avenue with everything that he possibly could have pursued it and that is why we're here today  just briefly i would like to address the gilbert case that council has cited in a supplemental brief in that case an officer was arrested for a drug felony he was immediately suspended without pay and the judge drug charges approximately five days later the officer suspension continued after the charges were dismissed and less than one month later he was provided with an opportunity to tell his side of the story he was then demoted within thirty days of his original suspension i would argue that this case is not necessarily applicable to sergeant genius's case for a couple of reasons first of all in gilbert the officer was given an opportunity to meet with his superiors and tell his side of the story within three weeks of being process prior to his suspension is relatively insubstantial well sergeant genius didn't get a prompt post suspension hearing five years after certainly could not be considered prompt for a further the gilbert suspension without charges was less than thirty days from his initial suspension to the time of his demotion the gilbert officer received back pay at the rate of a police officer and night at the read of the groundskeeper that he was  noted specifically that an immediate suspension in such a case and certainly i'm not whirling with the fact that a police officer facing criminal charges should probably be removed from his position but by in this case the court noted that an immediate would like to point out two specific issues that make that not applicable to the case of our footnote twenty two of that case the civically provides that there was a collective bargaining agreement that provided that an employee was not entitled to a hearing until the criminal charges have been resolved so that employee had bargained away his rights that is not the case that we've got here before us further the collective bargaining agreement in santana specifically allowed that an officer could be suspended without a hearing if he was facing felony charges and again that it's not the case here there was no collective bargaining no rules no provisions nothing that would have allowed that thank you very much for your time