i as a court is aware of the appeal of this appeal arises from a three day suspension that was imposed on officer michael gently by the city of crystal lake police department so cheap linares my investigation consisted of taking in my statements he had sworn police personnel under his command take statements from those complainants and also take statements from question their their statements now having done so the board certainly would have had to contemplate whether it would have been appropriate to anything ever happens to me my wife on the city now as a single one of these statements has anything to do with his investigation of this burglary because you know these statements could be an attempt to keep the trial  statements were not sufficient to warrant that discipline he didn't say that all of you know but the statements as a whole i did not warrant discipline and he kind of felt like that the hearsay issue parsed out the statements and since we could only consider a couple that wasn't enough for the discipline and now we of course very strongly disagree with the trial court's determination that the court could not consider hearsay statements that there is no right to an  official capacity as the chief of police of the city of crystal lake huron of the city in the chief fully support the arguments that have been made by the board of fire police commissioners not to burn you with repeating those arguments of course if you have any questions for the city to emphasize the point from the cities perspective that wasn't mentioned by the four and that's the prejudice to the city in this case the city did nothing wrong the city investigated officer judges misconduct citizens of crystal lake to me and deserve the highest standards of professional conduct towards a police officers officer generally because discipline for this incident is going to be removed from this file under the sort of the court's decision discipline sure gently committed an act of misconduct and he would get off scot free now because he was innocent but because of a procedural error that was complete levy on the city's control and so that's the prejudice that you're  suspension not a hearing to do a three day suspension it's a review of a three day suspension meeting everybody who opposes discipline the law enforcement or governmentally agency there has to be some history of making bizarre statements of similar nature in the past showing disrespect to people in the past in other words absent that history the board may well have requested more information but they felt they didn't need additional possible to have a disciplinary appeal not without here what i'm saying is that in this circumstance there was no way to do it properly if they hadn't acted her ass if they had sworn testimony if they have turned over evidence and we were able to properly deal to investigate that all those things prohibit us from ever even being able to fairly investigate all the real defend this matter that's why to blow this off and say this is simply some procedural niceties significant prejudice here to office reject flicka in that we never had an opportunity to fully develop the record and with regard to whether or not they're entirely to a hearing is a certain bizarre aspect of this entire process which is history and hearsay evidence a long while uniformed officers the right to administrative review of suspensions of less than five days are right everyone here agrees that he has otherwise officers are held to a totally during the city's investigation when we interview the boss or just link up he admitted to making that statement the plaintiff has now admitted that discipline was appropriate in this case given his lengthy disciplinary board if the court decides that those hearsay and statements are appropriate it's for the board to decide whether they're mean not hearsay statements justified discipline or whatever to this whether to say you know what we those emissions aren't enough or we can't tell what the board would have done with those emissions that are working this out they need to hear it for that purpose i also like to respond to a couple of the specific statements made by council first there was a suggestion th zero eleven the act that's the only time the three point eight is triggered it wasn't triggered in this case there was also a suggestion that the plaintiff never had a notice about who made the complaint and that is again untrue if you would mention it yes he had a notice about who the complaint was coming from