she was terminated of the board of supervisors right so why wouldn't for purposes of the ninety three action why wouldn't we declare that it is the board that is the final decision maker for purposes the final decision makers is you're alleging without complying with the federal requirement that the only way you get to the final policymaker is in support terminating employment and i don't think that the county has any dispute that all we need show from the poll liability is that there is a final policy maker made the decision or there's a custom practice or policy of records page thirty nine that she made the ultimate decisions regarding the method of settling employment disputes she also made ultimate decisions regarding pay increases she also made ultimate decisions regarding evaluation of employees perform will happen that clearly opens the door to it clearly puts the counting on is that she's not even sure that something will happen what will be the consequence will you just simply slap my hand how can she starts thinking i might get terminated but she's never told and that's why we're here she is never that's one of the major reasons we're here the three germination due process requirement if you told what the proposed discipline before i have to sign sure you can see a draft they then show her this and she wants to change some of the wording most importantly what she wants to do is talk to her attorneys about this and if you look at the record as the term or twenty fifth when she's handed those documents and she's actually given a document and wants to take it to her attorney i believe it was to turn her twenty fifth and then she was terminated on october eleventh between that period of time what happens is her attorney is attempting to contact the letter from mr connell's attorney to s that letter came and went in the mail as the determination was literally occurring now is there an obligation independent of sort of the notification of if you don't find something really bad is going to have is there an obligation on the part of the county or on question i guess what i'm trying to understand here is that the on the last meeting they said basically here is the agreement that we want you to sign correct and then she said well what happens if i don't sign it and knew the personnel rules and discover possible discipline for insubordination it's clear that she understood that there would be the most dire consequences and you know i think very latest the night before she sends an email  orally read to him the exact wording of the entire agreement and represented to him that there was no other information within the agreement that in any way related to misconduct so her attorney so when we're talking about pre term a nation we need notice of the charges against you opportunity to respond and i think that it's very clear that mrs connally knew that their design the agreement would be considered insubordination and that she was risking post deprivation hearings she received multiple hearings over multiple days first before hearings officer this person did make a decision in the middle and then finally the marriage council came in and made the final decision interesting to note th hearings officers original decision up hold the finding of insubordination however under the circumstances terminations was too harsh and she should be given another opportunity to sign and irrational request of the supervisor and if that employee refuses to make that promise i can certainly understand why that could be viewed as an act of his support vision or maybe terminations as the hearing officer comes to stronger sanction but i don't see anything in that document now that i've read the language that i mean it seems to me that this is making a great deal out of very little and in the document she was being asked to sign i think that there's nobody in this room your hon sign a document the third page of a document without reading the entire document she knew what was not mad but she didn't know what was in the remainder of the dot and i stated what i'd like to ask one question about she had a right to express concern about settlement agreements entered into with employees based on gender discrimination she had a right to be free of retaliation issue as far as clawson because again even if the policymaker prong isn't established we still have a claim against class and based on the first amendment and the way he got rid of the first amendment claim against  was and she was a meeting prior to that had already been canceled