did not have student office hours if they did not work on committees under his assumption adjunct faculty only worked sixty two point five percent a as a full time faculty member assigned to the same credit our class his formula then took the credit hours worked taught by a chance and multiplied it by a factor of point six two five in order was a straight teaching load full time teaching vote for the former board faculty administrative review board review that grievance and recommended that the onus formula be discontinued the college president of the college then used a simple teaching load formal if a full time professor as low as fifteen credit hours an adjunct was limited to two thirds of that or ten hours the distinction between that teaching load form and the owens formula is critical to the court's review of the expected to meet with students outside of class hours and they in fact that's up to the claims committee exceeded its authority when endorsing the owens formula and drawing that fine line distinction between contractually retired percentage of time they were employed these percentages were entirely consistent with the teaching load formula contained in policy forty or fifty cents if an adjunct is assigned a five hour credit course it list on the assignment sheet that they had a thirty three percent of a full time bus the only contemporaneous documents that we have from the one thousand eight and the only testimony offered at the hearing miracles in the course of the hearing as the hearing was going on of moving to the next witness i realize that the evidence that has been presented panel has not been to admission so i moved to amend the entire evidence that has been produce find is the hearing officer that we were saying that the sense email was unsubstantiated and should not be relied on but it was my movement of the entire capital of the that they are bound by what the employer reports to them they are relying on statutory language founded fifteen dash one thirty one the pension but not fifteen dash one one fifteen dash one one three point one allows search participants to purchase a service credit for prior work performance when they were in well at least one half time before becoming a service p could pension benefits be different for people who did exactly the same work and did exactly have exactly the same teaching load depending on when they worked at college pager john would commute  that they go back to the teaching low formula because that group studied what other colleges were doing and said that's the consensus of what colleges are doing they're using that teaching load formula we should too and so you read the go with the kind of specificity that is required to bring an equal protection violation so they allege that these other individuals work at the same employer so they allege that they work on a part time basis in the one nine hundred eighty s the same decade percentage under either formula would be over fifty percent then would it make any difference whether they use the old one so so you don't believe that your  were the same hours during the same time period since he got a pension and the positions here don't the record is this not indicate that there was no testimony as to the specific hours class loads teaching hours nothing contact hours all this which basically goes to show that the opposing counsel spent a lot of his time going through the  college page came up with this part time percentage of reporting and that is exactly the kind of minutiae that the general simply did not want the board of certs to get into when they passed fifteen one thirty four point once some person creating this strange formula we have yes that is exactly true ok under under that's because  automatic deferment to what the employer reports the boss has or times they have no discretion in determining what percentage of person work that's entirely in the hands of the employer and therefore we believe that there is no equal protection by lation when it's really up to the college to report and drive the analysis here is that the boy did go into some detail about the significance of the organs formula to sense the formula because they were like you up just disconnect they were grappling with ok what is going on here but at the final analysis the statute basically says hey you have to rely on one of the employers says we there's no discretion to look behind that representation and that's exactly what happened in this case the employer reported a set of numbers in the late ninety's they came up with a new set of numbers in may two thousand and seven service that basically asked as t ok why is there a contradiction and the college to pay said basically works and they again revised those numbers to reflect the old ones if you look at fifteen one thirty four point one stubby the staff didn't do anything wrong they just basically relied on the latest representation of the college and they gave the college a reasonable question why do we have two sets of numbers here i mean that's i don't think that's what that amounts to an equal protection violation just to ask what's going on and giving the opportunity for the college to either say no those are the actually the right numbers or no we made a mistake let us fix and it is the latter circumstance that happened in this case i just like to briefly address the manifest weight of the evidence standard because i think i was not fully fleshed out by opposing counsel we believe that is the standard that most apply here because it is a factual issue whether the plaintiffs work at part time or full time that's what's going on here a being the facts being the law sees the outcome that c is not under dispute they're not they're not disputing that yes if they were at the college reported times under fifty percent that this would be the result or the reply produced zero percent times over fifty percent yet another result would come up that none of that is under dispute it's actually a the factual component that is at this view how the board it term and that these individuals work that less than fifty percent time and thereby making them in eligible to purchase services and as and again the board basically relied on a piece of evidence in the record which are actually multiple concerning what what the college intended to report there are the two sets of reports of the college i mean that's i think that's that's that opens and shuts the case for us but then in addition to that julie boyce the c human resource resources department said an e mail that the card was indeed made they made a mistake and they're reverting back to the so called old ones formula way of reporting things and third there's a email from the former college president soon you'll chant talking it out speaking as to the applicability of this new regime by saying that these new changes are going to be taking place at a prospective on a prospect the basis o what he says exactly is that the practice of this county of the present time should not not be continued effective data effective the date of this event or any time reporting that occurs on or after this date so the phrase should not be continue knowledge is that the organs formulas continual past practice up until that point and yet the email never condemns or that practice or directs that any retroactive action you take basically that you know simply says that going it's there to report things in a different way so we think that plaintiffs are in essence barking up the wrong tree if there's an equal protection violation if there's any anything wrong with the way that the figures reported the college is the one who should be making the corrections here they're the ones who were ultimately responsible for the part time percentage reporting and the board is just simply that other three individuals we named the individuals were treated differently so all of that is a mission service have to make any indication as to why they were differently situated and plain and they offered no evidence as to why the that sounds like a get post conviction which you may not know anything about the gist of the corny i mean it said hey these people and you are one impliedly you're saying either side you're the ones that that was used in the eighties though she benefited by apparently according to our understanding of the teaching of the teacher why didn't somebody say we need to know more well i can only go on