directions of the law unfortunately the district court's decision turns owes notions on its head it does so what is the duty of the district court's decision due to the legislative amendments to subsection eighteen as compared to your theory police officer can be discharged by the chief without cause and until after a trial before the court here but isn't it your position that if the chief recommends they just charge then the officer should be paid until the time the board officers under fact you can't give me no for half suspended officers do receive pay the entire time that they're suspended if if the suspension is greater than you know six days which would mean that sixty to fifty would apply so the suspension whether they're suspended that's a sponge and isn't going to take effect until after the trial is heard before what procedures are in place before the chief either before the chief submits a complaint or takes whatever action is necessary to discharge sure it's on the record but if i may our internal affairs as an investigator they decide you know if there's a violation of the rule or order of the police department and then the chief reviews that makes a decision on discipline and then at that point the officer received notice hey you're going to be discharged do you want to make a response when they were when does that happen when is the opportunity to respond prior to issuing the discharge order of the personnel order stating discharge  you know sub eighteen at at all that allows for pay during the time an officer is suspended until the time of the board proceeding i mean the officer of course would receive pennie because he or she would not be  suspended until the port security right right theoretically but the discharges under eighteen discharge isn't covered under eighteen so if we if we say that eighteen is what matters with respect to discharges then we would render the language and eleven surprise it and going back to something you said initially judge or over the the poll rest of the state of wisconsin everywhere else the cheap merely recommend doesn't become final until trial before the board and those though that's not seven sixty two fifty that same provision is matched under sixty to fifty sublevel so if we say ok sub eighteen controls then sublevel in that language becomes nothing it becomes meaningless and if you look at it it says in some level no officer can be discharged by the chief and then it gives two things that the chief must do before the discharge can be done and he's because and a trial and needs to be done language you apply elsewhere it's the same thing if you look at sub twelve some twelve says that whenever a complaints made against an officer a trial is to be ordered that doesn't always happen and that's not the case and clearly no trials can be ordered if an officer doesn't dispute the discipline so we're not just going to discharge under sixty two fifty eight it involves all types of discipline so if someone is suspended five days and they say yeah i agree with that they're going to numbers are you gonna charge discharge are long term that's what we're talking about here with your client it ok i'm at the risk of brain this close to home to federal courts it strikes me that this is actually kind of like the difference between the the pretrial case management decisions that a magistrate judge the former version that is the chief's decision is effective in unless there's a request for a hearing or it should be effective under subletting if we look at the point x there you know and it's not ambiguous in this constant courts have held that unless the state a s i understand you love that phrase very well you've got the whole statute however to look right and so i'm asking you what happens if the officer doesn't request a hearing after ten days it would become a it would be implemented and if you look at the rest of the statute especially sub seventeen south seventeen a it shows that the chief's order discharge order is supposed to be just a recommendation because it calls a proposed discipline now if it was if the chief had the authority to implement the just one would say propose discipline the board would be ruling on the actual discipline and it wouldn't say alleged violation of the chief it would say the actual violation of the sustained violation of the chief now i don't has some portions that seem to favor your view some portions that seem to favor the city's view and the most specific provision we seem to have is that it least from my view as i understand it is the legislative amendment that would district judge rely  to remove the provision for pay pending terminations and i'm a little surprised you didn't address that in your opening book well what i would say to that is is that we're supposed to take the statute as it's written by the legislature and i briefed it brief the subject that we're not supposed to the court isn't supposed to choose what we want to pick over what we think we should pick it's the legislature's choice and they chose to leave in southern lebanon when they modified seven eighteen and some eleven still says the chief can't discharge anyone until after trial for the board so it's unclear why why that language isn't being being given any treatment or any meaning why we're going to just let that go and say ok the chief can effectuate a discharge even before trial before the board if if that's the case then that language should be removed but the legislature chose to keep it and by by following that by following our interpretation it doesn't impact sub twelve sept thirteenth of fourteen the words after trial mean in sixty two i now left and let's just do it that way no member of the police force maybe just charge by the chief except for clause and after trial under the section under this section refers to sixty to fifty as a whole it doesn't refer just to sixty to fifty so eleven what it means is that sixty to fifty sets forth the complete disciplinary system it starts with a discharge by the chief and it is a discharge a number of wisconsin courts which i've cited in my brief and which were cited by the district court have upheld the chief's power to discharge in milwaukee secondly if you look at the remaining sections of sixty two fifty that were cited in my brief including some thirteen sub seventeen and sub eighteen they affirm repeatedly that the chief discharge is subject to appeal and i believe that your honor and judge hamilton referenced that it does so repeatedly the entire idea of a structure of sixty to fifty years to set up a true face disciplinary system  discharged by the chief in the case of a discharge and appeal should the officer who has been discharged file for an appeal before the board of fire police commissioner's sub thirteen deals with the chiefs power to discharge subsegment team deals with proceedings before the board in the event of an appeal phase one phase two furthermore if you take a look at sub seventeen eight it refers to reinstatement to a position in the event of a discharge indicating that this is a discharge and appeal system it's not a recommendation subject to review by the fire and police commission and ultimate disposition are very distinct procedures and furthermore and as the court noted sixty two fifty eighteen it is decisive in crucial to this case now i realize that my  seeks to make it irrelevant it's not irrelevant it's determinative sixty two fifty sub eighteen for years reference both suspension and discharge and it was deliberately amended by the legislature to take out the class of discharged officers from its coverage what does that mean it means that suspended officers continue to receive pay and benefits during the period between their suspension and  date on which their suspension is ultimately resolved by the board of fire and police commissioners where his discharge officers do not there cut off the payroll that is a deliberate intent on the part of the legislature and we believe that there were prop that that process was properly followed in this case finally and this is the last point i need to make this system has been in effect for about eight years this court in the rams kugler case and twenty thirteen recognize that sixty two fifty eight did not apply the discharge papers and this is the first challenge we've had at least of this type during this entire period so this system is not new and as a consequence we believe that the district court got this exactly right that this case is about pay and benefits because those are the emoluments of continued employment post discharge by the chief and that the district court ought to be affirmed and i'll take any questions gladly that the court may have  shell immediately be reinstated in his or her former position without prejudice and how the district court discusses this at length the problem here is it doesn't include whether it's you know a lot of times in officers he has multiple charges against them they could have a five day charge they could have a ten day charge and the board may sustain one or not sustain any but if you have a five day suspension or ten day suspension or even a twenty five day suspension you don't need to be reinstated to your former position even if the board sustains the charge so tak x it does not acknowledge that the chief has that authority just merely states that that's what happened and in three of those cases the chief it was under the old stature provisions of the chief all the discharge the i have good trip back the case of the can under advisement i want to tell you something that made me very happy about the two of you you actually sat to get there