two rules regarding the security the first required employees to carry their keys on their person at all times and the second prohibited employees from or leaving personal items such as keys in areas to which in its name of access all employees were made aware of these rules when they began working at western and scott was certainly aware of this role and she had been given an oral reprimand for failing to comply with that one month before the incident where she left repeated in the rest in addition the evidence is clear that mr wanted to avoid getting into trouble when she realised that her key had been found and turned into the warden's office she first asked harris and the correctional officer who found the key and turned it in and she would go whatever asked whether she would get in trouble if she asked to play the key and scott told her no that she would not trouble mistyped status as a department head is also important here she reported directly to the warden  accept your argument that cause existed to discharge that doesn't necessarily mean that the commission was wrong in not adopting the recommendation if the commission did not want to adopt the l g s recommendation and needed to make specific findings of fact or reasons of plot to depart and depart from its recommended discipline and it failed to do so so you do agree that it's not the end of the discussion you would say ok there was cause we have to go further and analyze whether or not it was substantiated the commission's decision because they have the authority even if no one can reasonably say well the cases who are discharged they have the sat that that has scott said that she didn't want asked me if i would get it for her i asked why she said if i went to get it she would get in trouble whatever then asked well i get in trouble and  is wanting to and i want to gloss over it to a certain extent says scott's attempt that the section did not come office insidious i don't understand what that means here that scott's intention and asking whether to go get the key for her was it she would that so that scott would avoid getting in trouble well if that's all that was said there's certainly an whether you know go get my keys your honor in addition however this guy testified that part of the reason that she asked webber to go get the keys for her is because whenever he knew about the past conflicts that scott had with the warden's office and knew that she had a bumpy relationship with the warden's office and this just adds to the implication that scott was asking webber to go to get big keys to claim them as her own so that in which the commission has imposed less than discharge the commission did not give any explanation of what cases it was looking at in its decision to impose suspension rather than just hardware they required and the other was from sayin something like there it's certainly not a requirement that the commission preference other cases and it's opinion but it is important that the commission explain what those cases were about in order to give the parties an ability to understand whether those if if become mission just if the commission decides to look at other cases and look at what discipline was imposed in those cases and deciding to disappoint them post here if the commission decides to do that then the parties need to know what those other cases involve the facts of those pieces whether they were similar to the facts of the case that bar and the commission didn't provide any kind of explanation about what those cases were about we don't know whether those cases substantial justification do we need to know this what a mess because those other cases were at least generally what they were and why how they compare with the  yes your honor in this case because they because they referenced these other cases that they were presumably relying on in reaching their decision as to discipline this should have been an explanation about what those cases involve again asked to support him to help cover for them when they made a mistake we just don't know based on the commission's decision as it stands now in addition the commission's decision stated that scott had no expectation would result from simply in the state again there are several parts of the sentence that are not clear and it's not clear what the commission is referencing when it stated game state and presumably that meant to read that they meant to reference just scott leaving her key in the restroom but then they don't explain why they annoyed the rest of the l g s findings regarding her interactions with stat i'm sorry with whatever and why that created a problem within the d o c and in addition when they said that scott had no expectation that discharge would result from simply a mistake they point is no evidence in the record source to support that finding that scott had example of a portion of the commission's decision not supported by a specific finding that says in determining the appropriate appropriate level discipline commission reference or nature of the offense the employee's performance record including district disciplinary history you agree that that's what coach says they need to consider that is what is just copying that language into its decision does that amount to substantiate the decision made by the rather than just charging it's appropriate and so the use of that language alone does not save it behalf of heidi scott and ask the court to consider what we're really reviewing in this appeal today because the sole issue is whether the ultimate decision on the level of discipline is arbitrary we're hearing a lot of argument about what the manifest weight of the evidence should be when there is no appeal on that issue  we of course reviewed that carefully because we did challenge that in the circuit court and made a conscious decision not to appeal and the reason is quite simply when you look at the record the evidence is somewhat conflicting and while i may think in heidi scott certainly thinks if the evidence weighs her favor it's conflicting and it's not going to be found by the court be against the manifest weight of the evidence so we're here dealing with what the commission's responsibilities are under the personnel code and i think the arguments that we've been hearing focused more on the commission's role as if the commission merely sat in review of a to substantiate that it has to give some explanation is what the law has evolved into describing so for example the bell decision from i think more than twenty five years ago reveal commission commonly did in that time period which would be to say that we adopt that portion of the administrative walk just was called a hearing officer then the hearing officers recommendation to the extent not inconsistent with our opinion and then announce an opinion and there was no explanation that was clearly found in in l for example to be arbitrary the has to be some explanation  beyond what it was required from bell and some of the progeny first of all they made three major rulings the first when they said they adopt the findings of fact now that's just the facts be partially adopted the conclusions of law and then they said third we modified that the recommended disposition and this is where the commission fulfilled its statutory role to be the decider of the ultimate judgment in the case and then as to do that they are required to list factors and they listed factors for all of them one with some parts first they said they did review the nature of the fence  and contrary to the argument about what this is go back and look at the charges and in the charges themselves have to be specific and have to be proven the charge about the keys and word and simply slip him across the desk that was his account now later they quote the wording to saying how important security is but it was so unimportant that he simply slid them has given guidance and approved or disapproved of findings of the commission the arguments that do you see it making would infer the role of the administrative law judge and the commission they're asking this court to require the commission to do what it practically can't which is go through in miniscule detail and point to in quote from the transcript various factors that they rely on when they are entitled to exercise the ultimate judgment comes from like the nature of the offense i don't know that there's more specificity that they have to give other than they gave back consideration to pets important like they're supposed to consider past performance evaluations which they did in this case which were that her performance evaluations were always exceptional the five specific ones in example they think testimony that for fifteen years that's what she had they're supposed to use the words of a liar discipline their order doesn't say that oh good you're that would then turn the commission into a requirement that for all of the cases they have to decide that they've now got to start making detailed minuscule reference points any time that they reach some slightly contrary or opposite conclusion to the administrative law judge in welsh we've both breathed in welsh they've commission characterize the byelection so the case is minimal we're as the  j call them consequential and there was nothing else to explain why they thought that in the record wouldn't be clear the appellate court reversed in that case but in the juvenile justice versus civil service commission case the commission said that the factors they relied on in approving suspension instead of discharge was and i'm quoting due to the employees fifteen years of continuous service w prior discipline and a finding that they had not proved that this was a premeditated act those of the only explanations that they give the civil service commission and that was that was then  serious in nature and yet even the l j and the camp and that commission found there was no cause for discharge clearly the civil service commission in this case dealing with much more minor offens required to discharge a home wrecker is that correct they desperate they are not required to do so the definition of cause for discharge is a legal question that has a very important threshold and the commission in its own written portion of the order said that that threshold in their mind was not met and they decided appropriately this was a serious offense that would get and what they gave was the maximum suspension that the personal code allows a maximum suspension other than going to discharges ninety days and employees are suspended pending discharge up to thirty days so that's a four month suspension hi scott received here pretty significant if it were determined that ok we want to accept that it was at this time then you know you say that you are magically lose if they if they prove that if we were to side with opposing counsel say if the discharge of the fans and you lose the head the commission decided that discharge was appropriate we would have pursued the appeal from the circuit court ruling yes and here's why the undisputed evidence in this case about the key file was in fact that it was just a mistake everyone treated it as a mistake including of course the warden who was the highest ranking official testifying and a non issue when tammy weber came into the room it was an issue when he learned that it belonged hi scott and secondly the second charge was that she asked a subordinate to lie a commission rules are very specific about pleading and the personal rules mandated to charges be specific even the a l j couldn't reach the conclusion to me that can be whatever was asked to that the responded argued that there wasn't proof to support a finding that she lied and then he said the evidence does in part supports it it does not support such an extreme interpretation of the  meat was made and heat he ended up stretching in my country to my argument that they didn't prove she lied or told anyone to lie it was a slight conflict on that based on harrison's testimony alone but it can be weber very clearly said in cross examination i asked her you then why did you and she said no you didn't tell him that the keys were y was i don't understand the charges the civically there to falsely claim the key is what is that charge me during the hearing everyone understood to mean to make a false claim that those keys were  paret fourteen then goes on to say summarize that we argued that that charge wasn't proven and his words were to some extent responded discredit and then he went on to interpret it as an irresponsible act by somebody in a supervisory position which is not precisely what was in the charge now in in fairness i didn't pursue it because there was this brief testimony from ms harrison and i believe it's not credible but is there saying that she heard her far cry to take charge of this kind of deception and line when really the case is about a mistake in this placing keys and being a little irresponsible there and being what the administrative law judge said was he responsible ask tammy webber to be in that position to go get that he's going to she might have to explain something so with that i think the nature of the case ias this is not a case about lying it's not what the charges say and i think the commission's decision is fully supported in saying we looked at the nature of the case and it's not about lying it's about some level of lesser culpability which would be being somewhat you're responsible we're not in the charges the commission when on and look at what the law requires how the rights performance record and choir discipline they're required to do solos by the see the court notice that in the rules in this case we have an exceptional employee that's what she's told by her employer with sixteen years of service and the other requirement the rule and the personal code is progressive discipline and we're jumping here from an oral reprimanded department of corrections to discharge you know or get arguments why i'm in the commission sign that's my problem you're saying i think this is what they meant this they could have put something in this concise  of cases and so they're going to be cited early sure they are juvenile justice even in their case at least they said we're taking a look at the fifteen years and we're viewing it differently if it were fortunate to have such a requirement of such a record in administrative review law i practiced in this county for a long time and there were judges who regularly were known for simply entering a judgment with no explanation and on appeal this court is left with having to affirm that if there is anything in the record to support it and the judge has the circuit judge has no obligation to put these details in the commission's not required to cite all of its prior cases they're not published  indexed it's not easy to do but they're charged with being consistent and they know how they have regularly so they did look at length of service and commented on it and the exceptional performance which is what juvenile justice is all about and charge too wasn't proven was somewhat well taken there was no intent to lie and then they decided that weighing it all they have to weigh it and they waited and said this charge would be disproportionate to the unfortunately i have to agree with counsel and maybe some of you that the commission didn't say when it said mistake as to which count or both  which was obvious and the reason for the recommendation is what in the commission's decision is there i think that's a third of the nature of the offense which obviously is about poor judgement and the commission could rely analysis is the general simply gave the commission the ultimate decision howard in fact it's not now the case we cited but you know the case is the commission can make credibility determinations even though they're not in the room and it's their credibility determinations that survive they are given the responsibility to reach these ultimate decisions and they ultimately did only if only if the o c can point to prove that think that apart from the recommendation that they have this allegation to substantiate and they're not required nor did they adopt the conclusions or influences from that that's what the commission and i could look it up very quickly but you know that's why i don't recall it clearly enough that's why manifest with the evidence is not an issue here we didn't  decision to involve whatever in her attempt to avoid discipline specifically asking whether to go get the keys for her and scott herself testified the part of the reason she asked webber to get the keys for her was because whatever it was aware of the of law to support its decision to decrease the proposed level of this plan so it's that part of it that i want to focus on in its decision the commission asserted as one of its  conclusions of law i'm going to identify it as a conclusion of law even though the decision doesn't specifically identify it as such but a can a specific conclusion of law that  a conclusion of law specificity needed in order to change the level of discipline your honor i don't believe that that alone is enough to make the commission's decision sufficient because the commission also that doesn't invalidate what you have acknowledged is a specific conclusion of law justifying a change in the level of discipline that conclusion of law that would not be sufficient again because there was no explanation of other cases as it mentions other cases which it so it did take into account other cases where  discharges not impose it doesn't give us any idea about why what those cases involved with the facts and  council council mentioned that it would be difficult to require the commission to give details or minuscule that to support a decision to change the level of discipline imposed i don't believe that the department is asking for