clearly an outside exceeding has delegated authority and that's what all these cases talk about if you look at any of the cases according to my pre supreme court cases that aren't biomedical employee from doing something it's not a title this is not playing saying you've been do all these things that we don't like or doing or this is a physics project we have all three of these people who come up with this theory we don't like it and ju difficult proposition i understand i really feel but my take on this is i don't think you know public order a circuit court really should get involved in this in the truly academic decisions i think we're talking about how this panel arrived in this session so when there's a certain rules that i view as laypeople care to the people who do these cases at university i can read their menu i can see that it says you're supposed to have these rights and that's where the court has to help because if university is not in a position where any body can receive relief then these rules are meaningless that's really what my more my plan is right now the investigation still on going i who are she was a student doctoral student who was denied her ph d even though she complied with everything that case went to the seventh circuit court of appeals and evidence wrote the decision there and he said basically what the illinois courts are saying is we if you have the right to stick your nose somewhere that's one thing if you don't have the right to stick your nose somewhere will do something about it so here it seems to me this committee in these people have the right conduct the investigation and you're complaining sorts through these issues and you lose the investigation goes forward he looks what happens well i mean i've probably done or i guess i mean within the university he lives well degree probably not if he says i adopt these recommendations and we hereby sanction you for record no reproach or something probably but the real scary part of my perspective this court has recognized a distinction between misconduct within the scope of state officials duties and misconduct that is alleged to have been made by a state official is outside the scope of students t investigation self was something that was within mr gunter's duties the defendant our governor is a campus research officer it's his job at the university to do exactly what he was doing at the time the complaints filed and that is to investigate points of economic misconduct the core mission of the universities to manage its economic affairs and not miss more important than economic integrity  acted not on his own volition but only after receiving a very serious complaint of academic misconduct against mr todd yelling asian that he failed to follow the policies i mean conducting the investigation does not mean that in conducting the investigation exacting outside school students of the trial court was correct in finding that he did not exceed his authority for the sake of argument let's bring in let's assume everything that mr martin because as said is true that his client was denied access to his own materials in order to defend himself in the university process how does he ever get any help from anybody if he can't accused of misappropriating was located some that was found and this is in the service of the complaint at a computer that he controlled the university of tennessee somebody was found without attribution on publications  that he was using this ph d degree and they did not want to give him access to his computer with the possibility that he would copy things off the computer get it that they didn't want him to misappropriate but he would transfer it and so there was a delay getting him access to those computers that were sequestered he did get access ultimately but did not finally fashion in order to defend himsel debatable i suppose i mean there certainly would be a question about that but i think that the meticulous circumstances of this case as i understand it involving misappropriation of metadata which is exactly where they are before the final hearing and before any recommendation went to it by chance that he had the opportunity to use those materials to respond but i think mr murtha think it's that but again you know that's not part of this record and i think that the issue really before this court first of all is whether even if the policies and procedures were not followed  about access to those materials which apparently prove or disprove misappropriation and play dead or will part in the hearing process and in the recommendation how does it the actions of the state and could subject say to liability well as they indicated before core mission of the university is to manage its economic affairs to preserve academic integrity and that's exactly what was going on here to stop an investigation that was i'm going for over a year and our investigation so well i'm talking about the time the complaint was filed to stop that investigation at that point in time would certainly would be lost in ability to the ph d degree these are injuries paragraph one and one complaint that could be the subject of money damages and judge jones recognize that finding that not the complaint is carefully worded to try to avoid finding that it is a present claim but i think the judge the truck court judge in this case looked at the substance this but then they also know that the declaratory action involves a non discretionary duty in this case our gunther in conducting the investigation was exercising discretionary authority that he had asthe research integrity so at least has a lot of discretionary authority i think when i looked at the rules of procedure but there are certainly a few things in there that seem to me to be more you know ma let's say then discretionary the complaint doesn't really purse those out here it basically says that the policies and procedures were not followed in other words he did his job improperly or incorrectly but doesn't get around the that would be that would be a separate complaint or actually a separate investigation by you those two things are separate and how does how gunter acting is this academic integrity officer look investigation in a way that i think he felt was appropriate trying to balance all of the competing interests that's that's the most i can say would you concede that one of the competing interests was the financial interests of the university and its material you know i haven't seen financial versus academic i would agree that it was certainly the academic interest of the university not aware that this was a profit hours ago the academic interest in them and preventing that person from misappropriating misusing are moving things around were found a cat or something like that is what i mea had the one beating investigative process with members all expectations we didn't have any that i asked gunther to stop the meeting right there i was there and give us the dock city you can't do it so then after all this happens