here memorandum i mean there were references to the react and one stage with potential and then it became the damage and i presume you were speaking in the civil action would have been if they had found  non selection for the other position in my view is kind of a separate thing but outside of the transfer if you can the extent that you were seeking to challenge before the end of the propriet paragraph on ninety nine in the appendix all of those allegations or charges with respect to wrong competitive area performance ratings is that's not non selection those are sort of charges as to the failure to observe arguably allegedly at least there were some failure in following procedures is that something that the boy over which the board has difficulties of there's no in this case we have the we have a complaint which on its face and looking at what was it ninety six to one hundred of the jo learned face of a number of a number of issues are raised which appeared to be fair game to challenge a risk with th fraud i know you may very well be correct with respect to what you've said about the memorandum of agreement and certain other things you might well be correct but the problem is shouldn't really the board address the additional claims in the first instance in the complaint or problems we have no no decision from the board which tells us why jurisdiction is lacking based on these other items and wouldn't it be better for us to have the board tell us why there is or is not jurisdiction based on these things and that in that forum mr urban and the board you or someone else i suppose would be able to make the appropriate arguments to the board so we don't promise it doesn't seem that all the jurisdiction issues have been joined the board level here that's what you're telling us that based not on the decision of the board namely you're not seeing the board determine these things and here's why they're correct you're telling these things in response you're telling see things sounds appropriately to be challenges to a riff the don't send the discrimination in the board hasn't told us anything as to why he loses on those points and again might in all your arguments might be right on target but we don't know we're not hearing it from the board of the board hasn't addressed it in the first instance what harm is there with having the board just tell us right or wrong because this is exclusive just now is that statutory or is that based on some memorandum what the basis of collective bargaining agreement this was negotiated between the union and that's that's that's that's the problem you make some some fine arguments here and there may well be correct but the problem is we don't have the board having addressed these other issues i think that's the that's the difficulty again if it goes back to the board and these issues are ventilated it might well turn out exactly as you say but we're in a little bit of a difficult situation i only speak for myself for us to rule on the grounds that you're urging the things you said to me in judge procedure jury when the board hasn't said so there's not really much of a record before us on those items it's not your fault it's just you know sort of the circumstance of the cases the presents itself  statutory rights to appeal to the board on these issues i and i'm not saying that i believe that there's actually a party for treating alleged violations that represented are those all in the context of age discrimination or all of the allegations about improper competitive areas improper