and that would seem to need to be in conflict with our own statute says survivors of them but those two decisions are quite frankly i've not been able to find other than those two officials to function in a way that they don't have to be afraid of soon and that's a good thing i don't quarrel but it doesn't and in illinois law here it doesn't protect livy of political they're called employees of the entity public they have to be working within the scope of their employment  the use of the rooted in line is not any doctrine that has been adopted by the state of illinois except in my opinion cept this this is the case and and we hours of your employment you have theoretical responsibility for the county twenty four seven during the length of your turf well and i don't just live with that some extent  through this case he certainly was not in charge of reporting the private business of employees or anybody else to other employees it obviously if he was a member of the employment committee would count and he got this information so just maybe within the scope of his appointment if he told the committee what he had found out but there business and it also was not in any way hansen the business of the county he was there simply to be disruptive oh yeah under the circumstances i think that's a factual situation to try he i think the evidence indicates at this point that you went in there he took the letter into the office i showed it to one employee that insane took the other employee met her in a conference room sort of the letter and he said that the interpretation of the word shacking up with and and that's open to interpretation as well only the only thing he said that's shaq you know she's shacking  things in my county as a county board member he did have a responsibility he was part of the county board that went to her she reported alternately to the county board you know he received this letter in september of two thousand and six they were pas kind the entire contents of the letter to the employee or employees if his purpose was simply to determine whether there was reason for him to go motivation and i think right now we're under oath and i can't sort of analysis to figure out whether he's focusing on well how do we unless we have all that evidence before us i mean the timing of what he did that words he between the parties prior to this because of some dispute between a supervisor of assessments and and a county board all that would go toward helping somebody answer the question as to whether or not he was trying to serve the master or whether he was in a tiff with this person or his moral code was a front there i mean all that sounds like that sounds like fact fin i mean it sounds like the thing that somebody would think about you have to decide as opposed to being a cut you know black and white community issue  disclosing this and doesn't care and doesn't believe that the carry word is ever going to destroy your because of this or do anything they might need a reprimand i don't know what the process would be and you could have a case where somebody is trying to be a good citizen and a good county board member and maybe he knows it poorly but still has good motive how do you know that  and she possibly hired somebody you know reasons that weren't necessary or whatever they were he took he took this letter to her office he was a county assessor was elected assessed so you knew  that's what he says he says i have to take this letter too that's always a story well and he says she shacking up with guns ticker she says yes for about chad turner the person who was fired you know these are statements that are coming from three points it would it would so i suppose when you have language is clear is that you know the court need look no further then the parasite complaint see that paragraphs ten paragraphs fifteen fact that he was sued in his official  work well he was doing it as a county board member but it was not it was not they owe a duty that he necessarily yes we have a different interpretation of the language but it was not intended to be that he was in fact he was a county board member and considered an employee under the act but even as an employee you still had to outside his responsibilities as