witnesses who testified in opposition were up to traffic engineers who are at least nominally offline to offer testimony but one of them talked about traffic impacts in clear evidence that this landfill would have an adverse effect on the aquatic eco system there was public contest when wasn't there actually an application withdrawn so you're saying if they had analyze the evidence again then you were big to the first question yes but can you again articulate what you think the board should have done fair proceed because the whole purpose of the fun of the fairness rules is to make sure that they get it right and when there is a lot of believe that the decision was influenced by politics or  used in denying the site well they say that they should be allowed to ask the local decision makers why they voted the way they did federal case law and exemption if you know my freedom of information act i had a similar exemption so they were trying to shield the disclosure of documents in our case documents are not an issue what faction really wants to do with wanting to do what they ask the local decision makers to testify regarding their internal thought processes and we're not asking the courts to create a new privilege we're simply asking them for to do the response to fox rights argument is recognize the deliberate process privilege as it has been applied in the landfill citing proceedings for approximately thirty years now the offer just hutchinson on the criteria maybe you should because i'd be happy to address that you here if you have a question specific to that otherwise i can go right into what i think are the answers to some of the issues i believe there is a threshold requirement just to see you know the justices of course i believe undertone country there's also a threshold of analysis that has to be done by the pollution control board on every the court in town and country number two said our number one excuse me your honor said the pollution control board isn't running for office they don't have to please anybody in mobile so they should go through a think that is pretty important town country did not expand or change the standard i think they he is part of the argument and really in the decision over and over and living with that case for five or six years i think what they said is it needs to be defined in clarify because it's not being followed what we're hearing is a rubber stamp of the local siting before the outpatient was over filed and i said well there's you know the you know all the decisions been made before we ever got to the evidence in that case you're going to your point the their head to be a threshold evaluation i believe in prayer to or in a is first of all the county plan a political ok that goes to the first century of both thirty nine point two and criterion eight it says if the facility is to be located supreme court said of page one twenty three you must do a critical valuation in a technical review and they should have said either i think they could have decided in our favor on multiple rounds the first is a you can't but the but the other so so more than others and said this is what we heard during the twenty four days of testimony and this is why we think we should move up or down but they were reported to do that and this was one of the issues i think was a con