and to six nineteen on the grounds that what transpired were able fifteenth two thousand and ten constituted a final decision subject to administrative review it was no decision subject to administrative review to dismiss that count precisely because there was no final decision subject with ministry to review the defendants have contended in their brief that that was not the reason why that that count was dismissed that it was dismissed because the plaintiffs failed to serve the proper parties to secure it ministry to review that issue is a red herring the issue is whether what transpired on april fifteenth constitutes a final decision subject with magistrate to review whether some or all or none of the potential defendants were served does not change the nature of that decision and whether it meets the legal standard to be a final administrative decision this court addressed that issue in the stern decision and ruled that where there is no record amenable to judicial review there is no final decision noted there was no hearing no evidence no findings hence no record what do we have before us for the record supporting what transpired on april fifteenth two thousand and ten we have a formal hearing three additional exhibits were marked but not received that's at page eighty it was a proposed decision for a position of administrator a proposed organizational chart and  proposed fire chief job description well kelso if with the pension board if i asked them if they needed to make a record to properly fulfill there would be a joint effort and of hundred seed of that they would reconvene in here make a record deliberate an issue with decision never happened january twenty seventh the notice to the public was of a meeting and which is the only meeting that occurred no evidence no testimony on reaction all that happens is their counsel pensions were counsel tells them that they should accept the recommendation from the department of wasn't by no rationale nothing explain just accepting the recommendation of counsel that you read no evidence no testimony rubber stamp it doesn't constitute a final decision because they acted on a resolution from a third party without making any fine yeah to see jewel procedurally it also again the agenda makes no reference to here there is no evidence that mr crown hall or counsel for the fire protection district is a party who served with notice of here there's no record of a motion to reopen the hearing being made there's no decision prepared and served on anyone and that's crucial because as we know under the administrative review of the thirty five the clock doesn't start to run until you're served with a decision no one is served the fact no one is served is demonstrated by the argument put forth by the pension board well mr crowley was present being stare this case also presents another issue that this court dealt with and i suggest should be dealt with in the same matter here and that's not meet the standards set by the appellate courts in this state including this court for a final decision subject to administrative review because there's no evidence there's no testimony there's no findings there's no conclusions nor was there any notice of hearing nor was a decision ever served so there's no final decision that places the issue of whether mr chrono we entered fire protection service to be ineligible to receive an agent in legal limbo if this case can't go forward that issue will never be subject to resolution and it's a statutory violation clear statute says pension payments shall how we enter fire protection service so as to disqualify him from receiving pension if we resolve the issue of  we know the consequences of the pension board's failure to act just as in brand with the contract analogy you know the consequences of whether or not it has been written and brand itself involved to six fifty motion i was the court is well aware of the standard in dealing with the six fifteen to six nineteen motions we are entitled to have in our case and allegations viewed in  most favorable and dismissed was upheld only if we can prove those that back and that's what this is this is a two six liking to six can we prove set of facts absolutely the other arguments made by the pension board are ignore the findings of the illinois municipal retirement fund they have no bearing on this pension we're not suggesting they have they are what we're suggesting is you're not eligible for the i m r s to be covered by if you were performing fire protection duties for an entity that has a title for pension fund that's what discloses all the facts none are omitted when you are represented by counsel all the facts of what he does are out they work out and if you lose you was he was performing fire protection we have stated the cause of action under the two six it please the court counsel melinda chorost on behalf of the defendant pension board and its individual members that's been displayed both in the briefs and oral argument today in trying to avoid application of the administrative review law and its requirements clearly there's been no assertion either in the briefs or today that the necessary defendants were joined to that action as required under the administrative review law and therefore plans have lost their ability to challenge the pension board's decision at issue here with that basic understanding i'd like to specifically address some of the points that were raised by plaintiff's counsel and my defense counsel will address some of the other point the sturm case that's been referred to repeatedly here today was a notice of empowerment of horses for injury main treatment and this court found that a notice sent to the horse's owners about impoundment for inhumane treatment did not qualify as a final administrative decision i submit to your honor's that that case is quite far removed from the factual circumstances that we have before us today cases that are involving the type of decision at issue here are the sole a case and the fields case that are discussed in our brief these cases involve applications for benefits before administrative agencies charged with making those decisions and those cases that what you must have in order to have a final administrative decision  follows an application for benefits here we had that mr conne home life or his pension benefits we have to have a definitive action by the administrative board here at the april fifteenth hearing and meeting of the board as described and recorded in its minutes the board made two findings number one there was no entry into active service and number two no week of benefits paid in the interim period between november and april would be sought now plaintiff might be correct that those decisions were erroneous certainly it's his right and their position to argue that but that doesn't mean that there wasn't a final mistreated decision rendered and that's really what's at the heart of this case he had the plaintiffs had the opportunity to pursue administrative review all they needed to do was file a complaint within the thirty five dave raid which in fact they did recognizing the requirement that they seek ministry of review where they failed was in joining the necessary parties defendant for some reason unexplained in the briefs and unexplained today they failed to name mr home they failed to name the district and they failed to name the individual board members until the time period for doing so had lapsed that's the reason for the creative arguments that have now been expressed and i'll just go through some of them there's been all this talk be required and proper notice of a hearing there is no requirement that you must have a hearing in order to have a final administrative decision no requirement whatsoever there's argument in the briefs about a court reporter being required there's no requirement under illinois law that you must have a court reporter present formal motions to reopen plaintiffs are arguing that the fact that this issue was placed on the meeting agenda was discussed and voted on by a formal vote process of formal motion and a formal roll call and a formal vote that somehow that isn't sufficient they are wrong that is the fish and service of decision that's also not required plaintiffs are making the argument that mr cron home who sat in attendance both at the january fearing and at the april meeting who was advised to listen to the vote where the board the pension board ruled there's been no reentry into active service and we will not seek recoupment of the intervening benefits paid but somehow that was insufficient that he's not been notified that a formal letter or something typed up had to be served on him i submit to your honor's that that's really straining the bounds of credibility here he was in attendance the key thought decision must be communicated to the party seeking benefits well it was mr kronk home who was seeking benefits and the decision was certainly communicated to him as he sat there and listened to the vote or again the order to affirmatively stated there's been no entry and there will be no coup recruitment of benefits paid sought the other point that i'd like to discuss in my limited time is the issue about some how this is a rubber stamp approval process that is not so when one reviews the g n you wary i'm hearing transcript there was a lengthy discussion on the record fully transcribed about this entire process and the events leading up to it there was discussion of the original department of insurance opinion that was sought based upon the original job description presented to them there was discussion of the department of insurance initial opinion which said this would qualify as a reentry into active service and the department of ship insurance specified some of the issues why it felt there would be a re entry under these circumstances then there was a discussion of how the the district the fire district was going to change the job change the description hire a new fire chief realigned the organizational chart remove any even arguably fire protection duties so that there would be no re entry into active service there was a discussion that the board and the district would submit the new job description to the department of insurance the regulator and advisor by statu to the to the pension board they went through the appropriate channels and then when the decided again by formal vote that when the department of insurance issued its opinion that they would reconvene and consider that opinion and then issue their own decision and that is precisely what they did at the april fifteenth meeting they reviewed the decision of the department of insurance which affirmatively stated there is basically all that is all they did but you had all this action leading up to it so we're here and i'm the one they reviewed the original job description of the chief administrator position they review the original department of insurance letter that says we find this would constitute a rianne treat and there were specific observations made by the department of insured insurance as to what those problems were there's no new fire chief being hired you organizational chart is unacceptable this looks too close to the old fire chief position so they had that knowledge then they reviewed what are the changes going to be made going forward and it was hiring the new fire chief removing any of these even argue over fire protection duties realigning the organizational chart and a decision was reached we will reserve met the new job description to the department of insurance and we will await very decision and we will discuss it at that point and when they got the decision back that there was no re entry under the department of insurance as you it was with in their discretion and purview to say we will accept that finding and that the cases that we've cited in our brief say you have to have an application for benefits a decision and a communication of that decision all of those requirements are satisfied this is not a case and plaintiffs were actually in attendance at that meeting as well they recognize the existence of a final administrative decision because they didn't fact file a complaint seeking administrative review they made a procedural error in that complaint and they're seeking to do an end run around it this is not a case where somebody didn't have proper notice or the there wasn't if this procedure was deficient if they feel that the board decided incorrectly that there has been a riyadh free haul these arguments that were raised today that needed to come up through the in a ministry of review channel that's the problem i'm not saying that they don't have arguments that could be made but they can't be made here they needed to be made in the administrative review channel and they just fail to satisfy the  so it was no discussion nothing further held it was just listed as an item the only thing that was done was the meeting minutes from the april meeting where then approved at the july meeting but there was no further discussion and i agree i think your point is well taken perhaps if the record reflected that further arguments were made at that point that might suggest that the april decision was not final but there was nothing further will it for the well now we have the april fifteen minutes which discussed that this department of insurance letter has been presented and there is the vote we don't it's not a verbatim transcript so we don't know if there was any certainly it would be it would be either it would be nice or if we had that type of record but it's not required if you look at the cases we've discussed in solon fields there's no hearing whatsoever these are decisions that are pieced together from the existing record and the court finds that that's a nuff to have a final administrative decision because really the key is the benefits are being paid the decision has been made to pay the benefits and i submit that here were on the record the that the tribunals the pension board says we are going to adopt the findings of the department of insurance that there's been no reentry that that is sufficient in the cloning case the the court ultimately in  holding with the illinois municipal fund board did in that case they relied on a hearing that was conducted by a village and they said we will adopt the case law says you can adopt that is reasonable and if you wanted to argue that that wasn't reasonable to adopt the findings of the department of insurance with the record that the department of insurance had before it then again that needed to be pursued who administrative review because we submit that the technical these there are not even technical formalities just the items that he's cherry picked are not required to have a final administrative decision thank you your honors for the other points we will rest on the items in our brief thank  january they decided to resume it and to see what the department of insurance said then when they found out what the department of insurance said the beneficiary was present and they decided we're not going to change your mind we're not going to say you what if an agency sends a letter to a beneficiary and says this is our action you want that person to be able to appeal it regardless of whether they sent notice to nothing hardy's whether they had reported whether they had rational decision making or not so again we we we now there's reason not to put on too many requirements for what's final decision employed and so they sent a letter saying you're not entitle to benefits and the  but i don't think it's the rubber stamping that's the problem it's just have we had a decision and we had it sent by the agency at back some of these rights and they said that in that case and romans did yes but that's not a hearing that's not a consideration that's not that's the findings or reckon or decision here except in your recommendation but they don't see why and they're saying council told th decision that letter is only advisory well so is the second so when fields did not involve and eligibility issues a fact based eligibility issue has there been if it added to her survivors from nine hundred ninety three for every year she received the three percent cost of living there was no record of the original decision to approve village employee not a pension board employee miscalculated his pension benefit increased it by forty three percent and gave him in two thousand six hundred in back benefits to which he was entitled again it's calculation not fact based week not a fact based eligibility as he reentered service that is why you need a record no one could determine on the record you have here whether or not he reentered circs and the department of insurance letter and which the board rely since the facts are omitted created because of that that doesn't change the fact that there is nothing here that constitutes a decision amenable to review by a reviewing court and i'm sorry there has to be a notice  and there's no notice of it here and as you pointed out if it was finally resolved and were here in the papers if it was finally resolved in april why in july nothing at this time why not and there's no reference made to it in connection with this test if you look at the minutes of the july twenty second it's released they go into executive session they come back and report what they've done to hire lawyers that's got nothing to do with whether or not  he finally decided his reaction if it were fifteen is more than thirty five days from july twenty second if it was one of the argument the brief is well he had to prove the minutes ok once you prove the minutes then decide it's concluded and if there's nothing to report then why do you go on in the very next item and go into executive session take a lawyer and come back and report what you do is the circuit court decision to not be