the record which is the first estimate you will see that the bottom line number is that mr sharp was estimated to receive two thousand nine hundred seventy dollars with sears providing two thousand four hundred thirty nine dollars of that amount and i am being as the made to provide the balance if you look at the second estimate letter from july two thousand and ten which appears some one thousand of the record it's very similar the bottom line number is two thousand eight hundred ninety seven dollars was applied for several i soon applied for separately by mr sharp and awarded separately by o'mara so he is in addition to the sears awards receiving an i am or a pension of somewhere in the order of five hundred fifty dollars  and so if you look at the be incorrect award that we're seeking to correct here that would require sears and sears alone not i am already to provide mr sharp three thousand one hundred forty eight dollars per month and what we are trying to correct it is to provide mr mr sharp two thousand four hundred ninety six dollars per month and approximately twenty four hundred dollars per month and the same is true of his revised war indeed his revised the war would actually be higher than either of the estimated awards that of the awards he would receive under his as and so we stand by our position that mr sharp is under the erroneous award that we're seeking to correct his receiving money which he is not entitled to under the statute and that is welling access of what is permissible under illinois law now fundamentally of course as i said in the outset this is an issue of statutory interpretation and so the question presented to the floor is whether or not the general assembly granted  proposition that the general simply has to give the board the authority to correct errors indeed that is certainly true as matter of illinois law and seems beyond reasonable its dispute box it need it is not the make a mathematical mistake and shall never issue an award that includes the mathematical state certainly it would be implicit in that if a mathematical mistake were discovered down the row that they would expect that that mathematical mistake would not be perpetuated and here we have at least three into which we believe are individually sufficient but three express provisions of article fourteen of the pension code which we believe legislature was that in active the the relevant stash and it's difficult to see and i think it's also pretty fundamental that we don't look to subsequent laws that were not passed by subsequent legislatures as a way of gaining insight into what was intended why was it for the most overpressure code provisions well i think the answer to that question has to do with the way the general assembly addressed these pension that the various articles in the pension code individually rather than holistically and i think it reflected individual  that legislation can in theory be more explicit right roy explicit there's nothing i can say that is it drifted a bill to achieve this goal and quite see it right there's nothing to achieve this go never before seen justice type and our view is that while it may not be explicit it certainly implicit with by making the board a fiduciary requiring that ministers upon exactly is required in the code and by asking that they conduct done for clearance to make us like these other well forbes just disconnected this court were to hold that they lack the statutory authority that they need then i think it may not fail to do sherry obligation but it would certainly be wise for the board to seek that statutory power but again the question here is whether the existing statute implies it's authority or not whether it could be set back and so i still come back to the fundamental question which is he is inconceivable but the general want you to carry out a certain set of duties and responsibilities and in order to do they legislated against the backdrop of the implied powers to and the implicit within that is the expectation that the screeners there would be correct if for instance a clerk had permitted the decimal point for mr sharpe's a war instead of receiving two thousand four hundred plus dollars a month he was receiving two hundred forty three thousand dollars a month i tear because mr sharp has never disputed that he is receiving money to which he is not entitled he's never made an argument that his pension is properly calculated is only hard when it is but there is not a thing that any one can do requirements under the act in o'grady the belief that these individuals had qualified under the specific statutory standards for merit protection those are mistakes of fact those are  the more credible and equitable stoppel argument might be at some point i suspect an individual could show such undue hardship that perhaps they could get the stoppel against the government but i don't think mr sharp has made that showing  that there is any undue i don't think i've been in a showing here way of some sort of manifest injustice that will result either in in him being forced to pay the money back the restitution every relief we're seeking or by prospectively getting only back that a ward which he statutorily tight but i think someone ten years twenty years down the road who had made certain five who had made it to make a showing in a record of having made certain financial decisions of being you know if it was a choice between declaring bankruptcy or having their work produced and that individual may well have a very strong case for equitable stoppel circumstance but i don't think the back has any bearing on the fundamental statutory question here and i think the factual questions in this case  required to satisfy the standard for equitable stoppel justice contract i think that we would probably concede that he would be able to successfully invoke that certainly that's what happened in the ross that case where an individual was told one thing in one thousand nine hundred four and the thirty five day period of review comes from the administrative review were and so it seems to me that that you have a specific statute here which is order for fourteen of the pension code and if it allows constitutional sort of significance that we would not be able to i think our argument that since the president has abrogates the administrative review in that respect thirty five day review period i think would apply to anything that ordinary scrivener's error or a negligent national arab is a negligent misrepresentation again we believe this is a very modest house that the board is claiming to have and it's one that's been recognized in the only two cases we believe are truly on point thank you may please the co argument that you just heard really shines a spotlight on the plight of a citizen dealing with state agency you're a retiree facing a never ending the not that the agency has acted and it's an unusual case that individual is able to mount such a challenge and confront an agency that exceeds its powers in such a gross way as this record reveals and when that happens addresses the reasons why the administrative procedure act specifically required the proper adoption of rules and prohibit enforcement of policies that meet with definition of rules and are never promulgate secondly there's nothing in the decision that s e r s issued stating there is no support in the record for the claim that the figure now being used twenty four ninety six and eighty five cents in fact is only an s c r s and the reason that we're stuck with not knowing the answer relates to the administrative procedure act violations having a verbatim record that the a p a mandates be done and this says that it will instead produce a bystander's report and of course in mr sharp street we did point out that even to that rule no such bystanders report was even offered or attempted to give some explanation the way various wires record the rules the rule cannot prohibit it because it's that would be the rules and testimony can be preserved and this rule just completely now agency but it's not possible for this court to accept the answer that was given there is no record that supports out and that is one of the problems that mr sharp faces the only written document he got was that his pension was being reduced question that the court asked was very important because if the court yes the circuit court did simply addresses the statutory authority and finds the risen up doesn't that often  the need for further analysis and in this case no a mr sharp has a right under the new strait of review law to challenge all parts of the administrative decision that he confronted and let's look again at what had happened mr sharp received this unilaterally issued a letter about nine months after his initial pension award was determined by the administrative process it's all one paper but it's an administrative hearing process it receives this unilateral change and it's then placed on him the burden to challenge it and he does so and as he challenges it he challenges the wall of forty to engage in this activity in the first place it's fundamental to his claim and he has a right under the administrative review law to have all the questions raised by the record review and it's crucial that it be done because in a situation like this change it in a way that it would never do for citizen affected by an erroneous decision that went the other direction he had to challenge that and he finds this policy that date that there's an the administrative procedure rectifying said as a rule and mandates and if there's some kind of discretion or an assumption of some implied power that there be rules outlining the boundaries of the exercise of such a rule if there's going to be a policy about recalculating benefits after a final administrative decision is issued then there must be some kind of rules to occur when it's going to happen can't happen twenty years out and in fact one of the other stage tory amendment specifically says no in place a strict time limits to make sure that there's not a supply and tremendous burden placed on thirty on that the fact that s r s claims to exercise this imply power is in fact an invalid rule so when the court rules you have no such power the court is in fact dealing with that question  you know maybe have gone down this path without without challenge now that's not that's not a basis for this court ruling but in this case david schardt saw the error in it and addressed it and has a right to a ruling on it and then the second thing is the only he got a chance to get to court was through the administrative review law process and he faced there the same problem of what is this miscalculation how did it come around there's constant claims chair there's nothing in the record to support that nothing whatsoever look at the process that used there's a state and it's all right now begin in the written final decision that the board adopted were counsel for s r s wrote that staff review this in submit a report to an executive committee the executive committee is charged with reviewing it adopting a motion to put it on the board agenda for final approval and then the formula mr sharp is entitle to we still can't tell because it's c r s didn't put on evidence during the hearing s r s didn't submit any exhibits s r s didn't submit any calculations even though it initiated this process well it presented nothing it said and this is typical of the hearings and up a departure from the record a second because i have done other hearings like this it's a firy userfriendly if you will kind of hearing because the executive committee sits around of listens to what you have to say but never in my experience has the or offered any exhibits or had any testify right to try to make that right to try to correct their let's let's look at the statutory power that was argued as the basis for correcting that and that also dealt with the fact that two other retirement thing does happen and this court knows when it comes to trials with a b even criminal cases with constitutional law questions there are only so many opportunities better judicial system gives for further review an outlet here to use their own hearing procedural rules to have reopened the case on stuff or in something new now require something new i don't know if that would apply we would have defeated but but look they haven't ruled it already thought about the need to reconsider and they chose how to draftable not the general someone and they drafted it with a ninety day time limit and this is nearly nine months not ninety days after the fact  the use of this is still current and that's what's also wrong about this it's a rule relying on imply power argument never properly defined and that's why it's an uncomplicated rule but a rule nonetheless and rule that has to be declared illegal and that's what mr sharp really is he asking for fundamentally in this case is to get that determination correctly made who can and should  some appropriate legislative authority for this sure and should those rules have something to balance these equitable interests s r s is claiming that they're the victims of an inequity that they initiated and try to place the entire burden on mr shier who has no opportunity to go back to work and earn the additional law enforcement service credits that he needs about a year year and a half short you reduce the berlioz arguments plots of that kind of thing all the agencies do i think we can take that salt cited in two thousand three and and this clearly is a case that proceeds through an administrative determination so how much more notice than they if they don't have this power and the big certainly can't exercise it more than thirty five days after their final administrative decisions if if there's any that would be that would be to be looked at it's certainly not that mr sharp is taking advantage of the retirement system it's the other way around because if there are going inequity where is the aim that woody of changing the pension and not allowing mr  sharpton to realize i need or service credits let me go back to work in earn them and when you're dealing with that with a whole principals you've got to put the parties back to the point where that dispute happened in order for equity to be given this isn't however equity in all my years of dealing with administrative law we deal with the harsh realities that the administrative review law under our constitution provides a statutory system that has to be strictly followed and this is the first time i've seen a state agency asking the court yes it's to excuse its failure to comply with that law when ordinarily that's what's applied to citizens in the state and we did ask you to reverse that part of the decision not addressing the invalidity of the rules and remain for f but most importantly in the award notices a work sheet that relationship breaks out exactly how the math works he is for it he was free to look at those work she's they provide all the information anyone could need about how the bottom line number was reached and she could challenge it or make the argument that the sheet attached to what we've called your roni as a word is actually correct and he's chosen not to do that so in addition to the argument that this is not a scri might be the basis for the by standards rested you could certainly do that but the question is whether the a p a able quite and i think the answer that questions now if e p a doesn't require it and the rule doesn't violate the a p a and the rule does not come  to correct it but it may well have statutory obligation to do so and the attorney general's office may well have power to compel an agency to complete bring itself in compliance so if they made this claim thirds six authority to correct the error just as it would if the bit that's whole point was off the other way and indeed it has gobbled patient to get things right at what i do when i guess i close with with on this point is that there is no dispute you haven't heard prohibited by the statute from bringing itself into compliance with the statute that seems to me to be a strange position