school board that presided over dr long's hearing was an unreasonable risk of bias when they terminated when they conducted his due process hearing and third whether the reasons given for dr long term a nation where against the manifest weight of the evidence just to give you some background starting in two thousand and four dr long was a superintendent of the big school district on a five year contract during most of his employment dr long was not actually cause the district to have to buy out the rest of his employment on august thirteenth two thousand and nine the board issued dr long a series of several written reprimands and six days later the bo what commended dr long that sixty days later the point suspended dr long for the various charges and findings that he was issued a week before and for various charges and findings that they had made and the boy then recommended his germination and he was afforded the due process hearing at first whether the circuit court had jurisdiction to review that ministry of the station to terminate plaintiff's employment the fenton argues that terminations that violated his employment contract as noted by the supreme court of illinois certiorari review was developed in order to provide a means to review a positive judicial decision when an employee or petition minister to decision in this case dr long actually waived several rights under the administrative review law including the right to the administrative review law great to has to review his termination versus chicago transit authority as well as bono versus chicago transit authority those courts provide that one important factor to consider when determining whether a legislature intended to leave and then administrative decision to the complete unreviewable discretion of an agency is whether the statute is drawn so that there is no meaningful standard against which to judge the agency's exercise of discretion so as an example for the agency retains absolute discretion and can make subjects of decisions to terminate it's not appropriate to provide for search for every review because a judge would simply be unable to review that decision here the statute governing dr long's employment status and his employment will be specifically governed by his contract dr long's contract explicitly provides certain objectives not subjective standard standards that the agency must exercise and making his germination decision and terminating him and as examples his contract specifically states he must be terminated for cause he could only be terminated for moral turpitude or egregious conduct defendant does not argue that the argue is that if this court finds that the surgery review was unavailable to dr long there would be no way to ensure that the board was ever applying these objective and very specific standards the second thing that we brought up in our preferred is that the district violated dr long's due process right because the school board that presided over dr long's administrative hearing was not capable of judging him fairly as would be required by due process although there is a presumption that administrative officials are keep a pull of judging an employee's from a nation hearing fairly dr long can overcome this presumption if he shows that there was an unreasonable  that particularly if the officers a judge the facts prior to affording the employee a due process hearing the first thing i'd like to bring up is that first the same board that presided over dr long's hearing not only recommended his term a nation but suspended him after investigating and finding that he was guilty of certain conduct or guilty for lack of a better word of certain conduct prior to the hearing the president of the board went to the media announced through a newspaper that the board made a decision to find dr long guilty of certain conduct and that this decision was carefully made and carefully investigated then thought out aside from this joined the hearing itself the board members made specific comments that showed that they had prejudge the case as an example dr along with able to refute all the charges that were made against him appoint member stated it's my opinion that the rest of the charges are going to be answered in the same manner that it's not true and it didn't happen it should not make a difference whether we finish it or not and that's after he had requested a continuance around the same time a board member also remarked that dr long could conclude the hearing right then and there since it would probably already met the requirements for reporting him to pro due process hearing was not supposed to be a mere adjuster it was clear that the board considered it adjuster and already made the decision to terminate him after long before he was able to report all the charges that were made against him another factor that would indicate bias is that the board members were personally very involved in the charges that were made against dr long was clear that in the judith caters prominent involvement and charges against an employee makes it improper for him to preside over a hearing improper for them to preside over a hearing especially when the board members would have to determine their own credibility count two against dr long involved allegations that dr long improperly recorded board members count six involved the allegation that dr long light to the board count seven involve the allegation that he refused the doctor long refused to file follow the board's orders all of these counts involved dr long's credibility as countered by the board members credibility and it's simply unfair for the board members to preside over such a hearing and make those credibility determinations really dr long could not possibly fairly refute those charges finally the board's we argued that the board's charges and findings that supposedly warranted his term a nation workouts manifest weight of evidence plaintiff believes that all of the charges that were made against dr long were not supported by evidence were not adequately supported by evidence and even if they somehow could be in some instances dr long was never not once given the chance to remedy these charges as specifically were required by his contract in the past only courts have haven't hesitated to reverse cases when the evidence in the record did not fairly support the actions of the agency dr long's contract specifically provides that he could only term be terminated the record and two examples of this is two of the findings refer to the charge that dr long personally obtained money for two different rebates however no evidence was presented that showed that the rebate w or that dr long personally received the rebate that would be documented evidence that was presented was that regional receipt that stated that a rebate could be obtained dr long testified that he didn't even have responsibility over obtaining repeats second doctor wrongs contract again specifically provided that the board could not penalize or suspend him for a matter that they did not first bring to his attention and give him a reasonable chance to remedy dr wrong was suspended on august nineteenth two thousand and nine and was never allowed to return to work dr long only received warnings about these charges that were made against him six days before he was suspended long was therefore not given an opportunity to remedy any of the charges made against him further there's absolutely no evidence in the record that the charges made against dr wrong were somehow not remedia statements are simply not enough and there needs to be some indication of reasoning and record in the evidence to support that determination finally many of the charges rest on dr long's intentions and i his doctor's advice to assist him with a disability he had memory and memory loss dr long testified that he never reported employees without their consent and that the and the board really didn't present evidence to the contrary further if the fact dr long recorded conversations or carried a tape recorder around was that all problematic no one ever talked to him about it so that he would have a chance to remedy it morning morning i will start as as i wanted with the issue of subject matter jurisdiction of course an important issue what's different about this case than any of the cases frankly cited by other parties is that we have a so in this case if we if we stop there if there was nothing more to the statute then the adoption of the administrative review act would be clear that there was no social every jurisdiction but instead dr long would have had a right to administrative review under the yeah under section ten to twenty three point eight of the school code a superintendent who accepts a multi year contract is required to repay to waive certain tenure rights under the act one of which is section twenty four sixteen the right to review under the administrative review act now i think it's significant that the court that the legislature chose the word waves up this is not a case where the legislature determined that the administrative review act does not apply to six superintendents on multi year contracts rather legislature decided that  with respect to the issue of the due process claims a certain will go away and incur some i think are all really controlling here in each of those cases the court recognizes the importance of the school the legislature in providing for policy making authority and school board there's no question that it's not a violation of due process for the same board to hear this is mention  superintendent's contractual agreement to subject he's issues to to review before the board of education same case here the contract specifies that these issues will be heard by the board of education back i can't say why i don't know what was going on or while back but what i do know is that the contract provides for dismissal not just for your remediable coddles but also for causes that are also refer to a statement by one of the board members at the hearing saying that all would make a difference if we continued with the hearing that it's just going to go the same way it has i think to to draw a conclusion from that one statement that process up at the time that comment was made there had been seven or eight hours of dr long testifying before the board and in a relatively slow process where his counsel would simply read the entire charge understanding is that this was a new board and shortly after this new board came on that the decision to dismiss dr long occurred and again as out that's the point of electing the board of education that's the point of giving them the policy making authority you know if the public is not happy with the way the schools are going to be run they elect a new board and the board does what it based public wants it charges and i think that's also a different take she relied on the banco case where there was a lot of actual interaction between one board member and the plaintiff it was a chief of police who had previously supervised the plaintiff and had imposed a one tables light duty restriction on him and then at the work they were deciding whether or not light duty was appropriate make comments that that effect this is a completely different story to the extent the board has any involvement in the charge is it in a purely official capacity there's no personal issue that these board members are facing and in fact that i'm on the question of lying to the board that too long admitted that he lied about you know his laptop being in his car trunk way he and he said it was at his house he admitted it in terms of the failure to follow directives but he didn't comply with the directives to submit boundaries by january and i t credentials and both of those cases he he pointed to underlings as responsible for those failures but he didn't deny her wig and short hair after chemotherapy the bungee cord thing threats to sue her and take everything she owns as as you go through the records you will see that the evidence more than adequately supports  beat the legislature in drafting that provision for waiver could have stopped at twenty four fifty it did not have to include the administrative review provision in brookline superintendent to wait on your rights it chose to do on the issue of surgery review we just like to emphasize that there was a waiver of a bundle of administrative review law rights there was nothing specific about how so sure of you or i bow out about oh there was no explicit provision completely there was no explicit and that's exactly what we have here and really his contract out to the wrongs contract would be unenforceable if there was no means of review or appeal also on the issue of bias i case is very similar to think well as well as many cases in that we were cited and i prefer not only did many of the charges directly have to do with the board members but the charges involved some of the charges involved comments that dr long we made about the board members themselves negative comments about the board members as well as the board members wives so it really was very personal and i would like to reiterate that there is a there are various things that make the boids because i think over the hearing biased the comments made  the hearing were were not the only evidence that we had and we did ask that you look at the brief and we do provide various factors that we didn't bring up today thank you thank you