think to clarify what the ways of accounting for a veterans assistance commission in a county more or less i think this case is about is the autonomy of these veterans number and i think that well albeit you know that the original every i believe it's a greedy in the pleadings and in the stipulation that all these organizations all these individual chapters and posts were members of the original thousand and eight was a member at that time at the time of mr munson's election of all four years before the election we're talking about in this case i believe that they were all members all the relevant chapters and posts were members of the posts and on their own volition or with the county boards permission separate themselves from one veteran's assistance commission and form a new one is it agreed that the original  that there's any there's any indication that specific people were denied only to vote in the election mr munson the most recent one i thought that was the allegation of why they form their own group was that they were not allowed to vote on this one i believe that the dismissed it was dismissed for us there were allegations and that and that case that dealt with voting rights and for the courts information i believe that they were arguing about the bottles is the bylaw fireman's of how many meetings you had with ten people work needed to be presented by the delegates in order to vote and some of the people felt that they were burying them through restrictive that they should not be in force but the themselves of for purposes of varying points had means of months they could mean that they could be changed within the organization within the commission and at the heart of our case i believe is that there is there is ample means to change the commission within the commission within the bottles that you don't need the county board first file from the county were can intervene and change bylaws and remove superintended and appoint a new superintendent i think that th been there and they have i don't think thinking on the ordinance itself says that they're giving this a lot of permission to all of the chapters and posts to reform the v a c which in my mind is a way to strike all the bylaws to strip all the elected officials of their titles and then to allow these individual chapters in post to start from scratch days so the ordinance itself didn't say mr munson is no longer superintendent but it more or less  is a financial partnership that the superintendent supposed to work with the county board and come up with reasonable compensation of the county board doesn't happen that the county board is a superintendent you high but they cannot say we're not going to be any expenses and we're not going to pay any salary you just you know i don't believe they can live with the case law in the statute itself mandates that the county board on what is just and necessary for these the county board and i believe that the caseload would say that they have to function as they would a similar officer in county government with similar duties and similar experience that's that's been the way they are they've said these things should be resolved is that if superintendent in the city cook county i may be compensated more than the superintendent and run the company because there's more veterans more responsibilities as a high level sophistication needed and maybe a lower population county it wouldn't be reasonable but the state doesn't say l we don't have to decide whether there could be one more than the county boys i think that the issue should be resolved i think that it may be possible to reach a decision without addressing it but it may not i would hope that the court what i of the truck court was asked to decide from the legitimate view see it so i think by implication if there could be to the vet and be the decision of a court right now i think i hope that the court addresses it because i think it's important to understanding reasonable to pay a full salary if there was two people doing the same job but i'd like to think this session is fairly clear that there can only be one commission and in fact the entire purpose of forming one is to make the administration of these expenses easier to manage technically i think that there should be no d c and each individual chapter and post can request funding from the county board with just my two requires a  and it allows i'm not sure if it the purpose of the statute and the primary purpose and the honey recognizes this purpose and wants to serve this purpose is to provide assistance to veterans who are in need of financial assistance or to their families who are needed financial is to provide just the necessary funding as well when is needed and how in terms what is just unnecessary on the is what information is provided to it from its own sources plus the recommendations from the military veterans tried by the superintendent and the veterans assistance commission doesn't leave room for more than i would argue no use that would be i would you i would argue that you have to look at section out of the statute and under section nine it talks about when you go to a veteran's assistance commission it talks about forming a central veterans committee it's sections of assistance commission in the county the word a statutory authority to do so as it must be comprised of one delegate and one culture from each post that are selected annually and they must have delegates and alternates that are determined by post not by the commission so you so the counties position is that regardless of whether the original b a c was properly formed initially it is not properly organized now because it's not what their position  is that there was a nice you that was rocking during two thousand and eleven there was a group of veterans organizations that are organizations in the county as the find by the statute who came to the county and said that they were c is a you know a local government as such as your local government under judge jones was cited in the briefs it only has the authority that it takes from statute and i say if you look at section nine it only has those authorities that the legislature has given it and it can on certain post to participate in their legislative discretion and said we're not following the statute you don't have the color of authority to act and therefore this group of other posts are coming anything they participate  clear what is the basis for the contention that you know what was the basis for excluding the various the statute that provide that if you're an employee of the d e c you should be out of this and if you are receiving benefits from the e c you should have been a veteran which ha not the legislative decision that the county or a legislative decision that they took was to read the statute and determine that one fact was not going was not conforming to this vacuum and the other back was saying that they would authority to make with respect to the appropriation and distribution of it's for mr mattingly why was the temporary restraining order action dropped that would seem to have been the appropriate way to deal page which is a supreme or he's that he's recognized that county board has certain discretionary ortiz with respect to its appropriation of funds and has the ability to make rules with respect to the like any county or wreckers elected representatives they got the opportunity to decide to recognize that and they decided later on and made a decision a legislative decision that they were going to vacate that they did that opportunity participate by sending a delegate voting in participat the problem which is the exclusion of my posts if my post had and excluded you would think democratically that would occur but in it it had democratically occurred and it was recognized by the county were that it didn't absence of the existence of a back it doesn't give the exclusive the already i think one can fairly read section two to say that they will make an individual post or a veterans commission that long period of time so the president back to his well we all would hope there would be there was probably wouldn't have heard we wouldn't be before the court but we don't get to choose the facts that brings in this building five in fact confirms that bylaws have been enacted by that existing v s e and were in full force in fact so all of those things i think were green by the parties before proofreading interviews to try so that there was a this central commit the central v a c there's been a lot of argument about the fact that they weren't allowed to vote first and i think as i argued in my brief i don't believe there's any evidence at all in the record of those people being restricted or not being l d but it certainly was included in a lot of the arguments in the briefs which i believe was improper because it's not supported by the facts in the record but secondly they're arguing that the bylaws are too oppressive and that they should not be enforce when in fact these were bylaws that were enacted by the individual jefferson posts and they've complained that they shouldn't have to present evidence that they were honorably discharged which i think is perfectly reasonable given the fact that they can't even give benefits to people unless they can prove that so you can't you can't think this dish requires someone to get out from this v c be honorably discharged and they're saying it's unreasonable to require the same thing of the delegates that are voting on the board that are setting policy for this bylaws and if they want to change the laws they were going to say she's themselves can do it if they're being unfairly kept from voting because they're not violating the vials were for some reason they're not being allowed to vote to amend the bylaws and someone has actually se control of this organization that cannot be changed in the program and it was the initial piece that was filed and the determination should not be made by the county or they see that the judiciary should not be the sole judge of the government that the legislature make judgments too but deciding how much they're going to spend isn't the same kind of judgment as is this local government being administered according to the law  five minutes of oral statement of the county board is not the kind of process of that we want making the determination as to whether the duly appointed statutory government officer is properly maintaining his office and doing one's to do according to the standard that's a decision for a judge that's not a decision for the legislature and there isn't any authority in the statute for the county board to do it anyway if in fact the said the county board if deciding that the v c is not properly formed shall be permitted to dissolve the v a c and ask them to reform or something and we wouldn't have an argument that it would be clear from the statute that the county board has that kind and it seems to me that if in the face of two v eight seeds the county board would have the ability to look at both of the v a sees and determined whether or not one or the other was properly organized so organized as in the statute and because they only have to give money to the veterans who are represented by one of those so it seems to me that they have the authority to make the determination of who to pay i don't think recognizing one or the other line in there and i think that probably