but first i would like quote from the brief of the of the union at page twenty one the facts set forth by c m s are also insufficient show the employees that issue  subject to review only by the agency and stop such description of the i c c a l j is a description of employees involved in carrying out  formulating their agency next i would like to read a short excerpt from the supreme court's decision in the cook county state's attorneys that page three the system of offenders as stated like the relationship between the state's attorney and his or her assistance the state's assistant public defender stacked on behalf of the public defender in carrying out the statutory duties of the public defender's office and truly that is the grab them and that is the crux of the issue discretion i i've been a prosecutor and i've been a judge now for thirty four years as a prosecutor i have lots more discretion lots more opportunity to set policy decide what it's going to j first and then i would go through the supreme court cases and review them with three j set eyes you know have to find the manager employ as an individual's engaged predominantly  executive and management functions and second which is what is involved here it's charged with the responsibility and directing the effectuate a management policy and practice how  that's what that's their function in their continuing to try and employee may be excluded as managerial only if you represents management and despite taking or recommending discretionary action that effectively control and here's the key words or implement employer policy or this junket so as long as they implement the policy and they do it in  case and they applied it correctly in that case the poor shall investigate such a position and if it has reasonable cause to believe that a question of representation exists shall provide for  requested here yes now if you were to be given the hearing what additional information or evidence or what work with you here provided but with the hearing of actual number although there's a representation as to what number are adopted by the commission that we have you know actual number of how many cases they handled and i mean where that was the procedures  lean from those readily learned actually the absolute almost absolute discretion these people have and what and what they do in terms of line the law with with what the law isn't these cases the fundamental disagreement is this is that the standard to be a pike do these people but what's happened is that now we have such a narrow exception that there really is nobody that can come within that formulating policy to the contrary they adopted the standard india shiva case law by the supreme court of the united states which had exactly what i said here they within they final responsibility an independent authority to establishing a actuate policy for the you know nothing in the two supreme court decisions say anything about it whatsoever it wasn't decision before the supreme court predominately in executive management functions and exercises responsibility for directing the affection of affection ration of management policies and procedures and the old rigor you know what's the first part of the test whether they do the things then this can't apply when you're moving over it seems to me into the alternate turn of the test because you have to keep them separate and the alternative test a supreme court  really in both of it's decisions state's attorney and public defender yet it's narrowly interpreted and it's these two particular classes of attorneys who are operating basically as effect of what the agency's doing that duty is when an issue has come before in this case the commerce commission for a decision a particular issue for how are you going to get to that to that decision all the parties are going to come in anybody with an interest in this you know looking at those commission orders that were submitted they're very technical and there's a lot of people who are interested in each one of those and they take they take evidence following up on just the simple to this question on get so wild here and decides in favor of a t n t where you know the staff says eighteen thousand really ought to lose em i wouldn't imagine that if they act in the exercise of their professional discretion that they are sick and an ex you know technical expertise that they are supposed to bring to the child the professionals you have a problem in the state of illinois with this very wide judges getting fired because they make unpopular decisions i have not heard of down but you know the case is going to go to the commission i will first of all there's no there's nothing i mean that's that's a statement that was just a general statement given to support based on what make a new broad new rule that all employees who carry out policy or carry out duties of an agency or managerial such an argument would exclude almost all public employees it's managerial it's almost up with employees carry out the policy of their agency well the script the supreme court stressed in both cases that its decisions for narrow and limited to the particular employees at issue there and stressed that it wasn't partial investigatory function where they can call their own witnesses and ask for evidence and then there make doing an investigatory function to the extent that they do get in there are by public employees including state police investigators who perform an invest council also referred to the fact that the supreme court cases and public defender and state attorney i relied on the u s supreme court you see for case but that case did not also did not create a broad manager as a definition and the argument that its definition is too narrow you know then that should be addressed in legislation out of this court the fact that people who may not previously thought you were presented or now see can be representing these issues are coming up or not managerial these employees have to have highly technical own professional billet is to carry out their duties with respect to the issue of the right to a hearing  lly with what it's seen nested in this case if it is through large numbers of paper at the border agent and said that should be enough for a hearing and they were a half a dozen lengthy decisions which actually are commission orders they're not actually l j recommended orders their commission orders the word agency asked for specific affidavits or evidence discussing the documents submitted showing how they need them and how they would support an argument that the managerial definitions matter and that my knowledge is actually only based on what's in this record so you're familiar with that organization beyond bianca beyond the record i mean it's i think i don't want to make a statement the commission members don't have time to conduct hearings lasting months involving all sorts of technical expertise these are the people that they rely upon to perform their function and