[00:00:00] Speaker 02:
Our final case this morning is number 23-19-10, Long v. Department of Justice.

[00:00:07] Speaker 02:
Okay, Mr. Muser.

[00:00:10] Speaker 03:
Good morning, Your Honor.

[00:00:12] Speaker 03:
May it please the court.

[00:00:13] Speaker 03:
My name is Tom Muthra.

[00:00:14] Speaker 03:
I'm representing Tasha Long, petitioner in this matter, former case manager with the Bureau of Prisons at the US Bureau of Prisons at MDC Los Angeles.

[00:00:28] Speaker 03:
The petitioner's position that the MSPB judges, and in this case, the final decision of the MSPB's decision

[00:00:39] Speaker 03:
to sustain the agency's demotion action was an error and that this court should reverse that error.

[00:00:46] Speaker 03:
I have made, in my briefing to you, two specific arguments as it relates to that.

[00:00:51] Speaker 03:
The first one relates to whether or not the agency was able to establish, through substantial evidence, as required in the Federal Circuit's case, that reasonable performance standards were provided to Ms.

[00:01:09] Speaker 03:
Long at the beginning of the appraisal period at issue.

[00:01:13] Speaker 03:
And while most appraisal cases are somewhat basically going to apply to one year, this is a little bit different because there's two periods of appraisal that I believe are directly related to Ms.

[00:01:26] Speaker 03:
Long's case.

[00:01:28] Speaker 03:
In 2020-2021 appraisal year, that's a one-year period that spans two calendar years, Ms.

[00:01:36] Speaker 03:
Long received a final appraisal.

[00:01:39] Speaker 03:
That's provided for in the record at Appendix 151.

[00:01:43] Speaker 03:
And in that appraisal, she was given a minimally satisfactory for the work that she performed.

[00:01:50] Speaker 03:
The record, unfortunately, is devoid of any evidence of a performance standard being given to Ms.

[00:01:56] Speaker 03:
Long, any written evidence of performance appraisal being given to Ms.

[00:02:00] Speaker 03:
Long for the year in which she was demoted, and that would be the 2021 and 2022 appraisal year.

[00:02:07] Speaker 03:
There was testimony of hearing from her supervisor that he gave her this performance standard at the beginning of the year.

[00:02:16] Speaker 03:
However, there was no evidence presented to this.

[00:02:19] Speaker 03:
So at this point, we're left to assume what was contained in the 2021-2022 performance appraisal.

[00:02:26] Speaker 03:
in the MSPP judge's decision that he determined that the supervisor's testimony was sufficient enough to establish that these performance standards were given.

[00:02:38] Speaker 03:
And so in that regard, we do believe it's notable and it's questionable as to whether or not why the agency didn't really be able to produce these standards

[00:02:48] Speaker 03:
at hearing, we move forward with the additional assumption and the assumption raised by the MSPP judge because that's where we believe that his error occurred.

[00:03:00] Speaker 03:
The performance standards

[00:03:03] Speaker 03:
Excuse me, that were given in 2020 and 2021.

[00:03:05] Speaker 03:
And as the administrative judge found, were woefully inadequate in and of themselves in what was contained in the documents, woefully inadequate to provide reusable notice of these performance standards to this law.

[00:03:21] Speaker 02:
Do you contest the notion that performance standards can be given other than in documentary form?

[00:03:28] Speaker 03:
I do contest that, sir, in terms of the way in which, in this case, the Bureau of Prisons issued them.

[00:03:38] Speaker 03:
We do have the 2020-21 written performance standards.

[00:03:41] Speaker 03:
Those performance standards are issued on an annual basis.

[00:03:46] Speaker 02:
That precludes oral performance standards supplementary to that?

[00:03:50] Speaker 02:
Yes, sir.

[00:03:52] Speaker 02:
In terms of supplementing and clarifying.

[00:03:54] Speaker 02:
What's the authority for that?

[00:03:55] Speaker 03:
There is authority, sir, that willfully inadequate performance standards given at the beginning of the year can be clarified through subsequent agency action later on.

[00:04:05] Speaker 03:
That's absolutely true, sir.

[00:04:07] Speaker 03:
And that's, in fact, the crux of our case.

[00:04:09] Speaker 03:
Because the administrative judge found... Can the cases say they can be supplemented?

[00:04:16] Speaker 03:
They can be clarified, yes, sir.

[00:04:18] Speaker 03:
In terms of change, that's a different question, but vague standards can be clarified.

[00:04:23] Speaker 01:
Do you agree that they weren't clarified sufficiently?

[00:04:26] Speaker 03:
That is correct, yes, ma'am.

[00:04:28] Speaker 01:
How do we review that?

[00:04:29] Speaker 01:
What is the standard of review?

[00:04:30] Speaker 01:
It's fairly differential, right?

[00:04:32] Speaker 03:
It is.

[00:04:33] Speaker 03:
There's a substantial evidence standard for reviewing those.

[00:04:37] Speaker 03:
We believe that the evidence of record in this case was not met.

[00:04:41] Speaker 03:
And in fact, what happened in this case was that the performance standards, rather than being clarified through subsequent action,

[00:04:47] Speaker 03:
were in fact modified and changed from a forgiving standard that allowed untimely submission of work to an absolute error, where untimely no errors could be produced or provided by Ms.

[00:05:02] Speaker 03:
Long.

[00:05:02] Speaker 03:
And the reason why we reached that conclusion as outlined in our brief is the fact that

[00:05:08] Speaker 03:
Ms.

[00:05:08] Speaker 03:
Long, again, with the assumption that the two-year standards were identical, Ms.

[00:05:14] Speaker 03:
Long received a minimally satisfactory rating for 2020 and 2021.

[00:05:19] Speaker 03:
The agency went on record formally and indicated that despite performance councilings relating to unsuccessful, or I'm sorry, unacceptable performance relating to timeliness prior to that time,

[00:05:31] Speaker 03:
And despite the fact that the performance appraisal in 2020-21 documents consistent untimeliness on her part, the agency still gave her a minimal satisfactory for that period.

[00:05:44] Speaker 03:
What the agency was saying is, we don't like unacceptable, we don't like untimely performance.

[00:05:51] Speaker 03:
That's clear.

[00:05:52] Speaker 03:
There's no dispute about that.

[00:05:53] Speaker 03:
Ms.

[00:05:54] Speaker 03:
Long was not expecting to get an outstanding performance cradle.

[00:05:57] Speaker 03:
an excellent performance appraisal.

[00:06:00] Speaker 03:
But what she got was a minimally satisfactory.

[00:06:02] Speaker 03:
In essence, the agency was saying that when you submit untimely work while we don't like it, you can still be minimally satisfactory.

[00:06:10] Speaker 03:
And that's exactly the message she took in 2020, 2021.

[00:06:14] Speaker 03:
Subsequently, the agency issued a performance counseling a month later.

[00:06:19] Speaker 03:
And during the rating year, May 2021, in which she was also counseled on untimely performance, but indicated in that counseling that her performance was, again, minimally satisfactory.

[00:06:32] Speaker 03:
The key that I'm trying to make here is that in order to create an objectively reasonable performance standard, the line has to be drawn somewhere.

[00:06:41] Speaker 03:
The employee doesn't get to draw the line.

[00:06:42] Speaker 03:
We know that.

[00:06:44] Speaker 03:
The agency draws the line.

[00:06:46] Speaker 03:
And what the agency was consistently telling Ms.

[00:06:48] Speaker 03:
Long throughout this period, until the very end, until the PIP was issued in September, and she was given a very short period of time in which to correct her performance.

[00:06:58] Speaker 03:
the agency was indicating that you were performing at a minimally satisfactory level.

[00:07:03] Speaker 03:
Your performance would not result in your removal from federal service or demotion from federal service.

[00:07:09] Speaker 03:
So that was the message that she was taking.

[00:07:11] Speaker 03:
This is diametrically opposite to the determination that the administrative judge made, which was that that clarified it and, in fact, helped her understand that she was under an absolute standard for the entire period of time that she was degraded.

[00:07:29] Speaker 02:
Well, I'm not sure that I read it as saying that there was an absolute standard in the sense that no errors were permitted.

[00:07:39] Speaker 03:
That was the conclusion that the administrative judge reached in his decision as you read the performance.

[00:07:46] Speaker 03:
And again, the only place this is in writing that actually I... Would the H.A.

[00:07:50] Speaker 02:
say that there was an absolute performance standard?

[00:07:56] Speaker 02:
Sir, I can turn that.

[00:08:13] Speaker 03:
It's appendix 24.

[00:08:42] Speaker 03:
that portion of the initial decision served, the Administrative Judge appears to be indicating that absolute standards are reasonable so long as, as he cites to the Federal Circuit as well as to MSPP case law, they are applied in a reasonable way.

[00:09:02] Speaker 02:
So, I mean, we don't have a situation in which

[00:09:07] Speaker 02:
she was being fired for a single mistake, right?

[00:09:10] Speaker 03:
Well, she was demoted, sir.

[00:09:12] Speaker 03:
But no, the allegations were that she had made multiple.

[00:09:18] Speaker 03:
However, the standard is what we're at issue here.

[00:09:21] Speaker 03:
We're looking to what was her objectively reasonable criteria.

[00:09:25] Speaker 03:
Was it going to be multiple mistakes, or was it one mistake?

[00:09:29] Speaker 03:
And what the administrative judge interpreted, and what I quite frankly interpret, is that come the pit,

[00:09:36] Speaker 03:
the performance improvement plan that was issued in September of 2021, she was put on notice for the first time that she could make no mistakes.

[00:09:48] Speaker 03:
And that is an onerous task, given the fact that up until that point in time, she was allowed.

[00:09:55] Speaker 01:
Just to clarify, make no mistakes.

[00:09:57] Speaker 01:
You mean complete tasks and meet deadlines.

[00:10:00] Speaker 01:
Complete all tasks, meet all deadlines.

[00:10:03] Speaker 03:
Correct.

[00:10:04] Speaker 03:
So as it was applied and as you read the PIP language, there was no indication of you must do this 99% of the time, 95% of the time, you must do this period.

[00:10:19] Speaker 03:
And there was no indication in the PIP as to when her failure to do that would constitute unacceptable.

[00:10:28] Speaker 02:
This is a little bit of a confusing situation because it's an absolute performance standard only in the sense that your goal is to make no mistakes.

[00:10:39] Speaker 02:
That's not quite the same thing as saying your performance is unsatisfactory if you make an occasional mistake.

[00:10:45] Speaker 02:
And I agree, sir.

[00:10:47] Speaker 03:
And if this was given to her at the beginning of the year as part of a performance appraisal where it says, in order to have outstanding performance, you must make no mistakes in order to identify the different layers and actually explain what it means to have unacceptable behavior.

[00:11:05] Speaker 03:
But that wasn't done.

[00:11:07] Speaker 03:
That wasn't done according to the judge, according to the clear documents that are in record.

[00:11:11] Speaker 03:
So we believe that because it was being given as a performance improvement plan, the context is what's most important here.

[00:11:18] Speaker 03:
There is a statement saying you are performing at an unacceptable level in order to perform at an acceptable level, not outstanding, not acceptable, in order to pass this pit.

[00:11:30] Speaker 03:
This is what you have to do, and you can't make any mistakes.

[00:11:33] Speaker 03:
You can't make any errors.

[00:11:34] Speaker 03:
To me, that is an absolute standard, sir.

[00:11:41] Speaker 03:
The other aspect of this pick that I believe was in error, the judge's decision was in error, was finding that the performance improvement plan gave Ms.

[00:11:56] Speaker 03:
Long an opportunity to improve after proper notice, a reasonable opportunity to improve after proper notice.

[00:12:03] Speaker 03:
And as I've detailed in the brief,

[00:12:05] Speaker 03:
The PIP that was chosen was for 30 days.

[00:12:08] Speaker 03:
So again, in the context of what's happening, she has been allowed to and been told that untimely work is minimally satisfactory.

[00:12:18] Speaker 03:
At a certain point, the agency gets tired of this, maybe rightfully so.

[00:12:23] Speaker 03:
And they decide, no, now we're going to put you on a PIP and we're going to tell you you can't make any mistakes, which is exactly what they did.

[00:12:29] Speaker 03:
You can't make any timely errors.

[00:12:31] Speaker 02:
Where do they say you can't make any mistakes?

[00:12:33] Speaker 03:
So I believe it's in the context of the PIP letter itself.

[00:12:37] Speaker 03:
And I can... It's at appendix...

[00:12:45] Speaker 03:
So, uh, 135.

[00:12:50] Speaker 02:
And with essentially the agency... Where does this say on 135 you can't make any mistakes?

[00:13:10] Speaker 03:
Yes, sir.

[00:13:11] Speaker 03:
And it's a multi-page document.

[00:13:13] Speaker 03:
And the first two pages essentially reflect the errors that Ms.

[00:13:22] Speaker 03:
Long has alleged to have been making, the performance issues.

[00:13:25] Speaker 03:
And you will note that there's only three specific problems identified in elements.

[00:13:30] Speaker 02:
Why does it say that your performance is unsatisfactory and that you made any mistakes at all?

[00:13:38] Speaker 03:
It says, so on the first page it says, this is a notice your performance is meeting the below listed critical job elements for your position.

[00:13:49] Speaker 01:
That doesn't say no mistakes.

[00:13:52] Speaker 03:
If you look to what is required of her under the clip, which is later on in the

[00:13:58] Speaker 03:
It starts on page 137, the tasks identified below are part of the standard duties.

[00:14:04] Speaker 02:
Tell us where it says you can't make any mistakes.

[00:14:07] Speaker 03:
Okay, so it lists all of these duties and you go to the bottom.

[00:14:15] Speaker 01:
Doesn't it say, like, in this paragraph you identified on 137, it says, the event you miss a program review docket deadline, you shall immediately notify me and provide a written explanation indicating the reason, date of the task will be completed by, and your correction plan.

[00:14:33] Speaker 01:
Right?

[00:14:34] Speaker 01:
It says, OK, you missed a deadline.

[00:14:36] Speaker 01:
Tell me why you missed it.

[00:14:37] Speaker 01:
Tell me when you can provide the work product to me.

[00:14:41] Speaker 03:
Yes, I believe if you read further and if you could tell me where you're reading from.

[00:14:44] Speaker 01:
It's the same paragraph you were looking at on page A137.

[00:14:48] Speaker 01:
It's the first full paragraph about midway down and it starts with in the event, which I think is

[00:14:57] Speaker 01:
That sentence suggests the opposite of you make no mistakes.

[00:15:02] Speaker 01:
It says, if you fail to meet a deadline, let me know.

[00:15:05] Speaker 01:
Let me know why.

[00:15:06] Speaker 01:
Let me know when you are going to be able to provide that work product.

[00:15:12] Speaker 03:
And I read the sentence that immediately follows that to be the absolute.

[00:15:16] Speaker 03:
So in conjunction with that, the next statement is to bring your performance to at least a minimally satisfactory level.

[00:15:23] Speaker 03:
You must review and complete the following items by the identified dates.

[00:15:29] Speaker 02:
Okay, all right.

[00:15:32] Speaker 02:
Thank you.

[00:15:32] Speaker 02:
Will you give me two minutes for a rebuttal?

[00:15:44] Speaker 02:
Yes, sir.

[00:15:45] Speaker 02:
Ms.

[00:15:45] Speaker 02:
Pizak?

[00:15:54] Speaker 02:
So again and again in these MSBB cases, we have situations where an employee has been disciplined, terminated or otherwise disciplined, and the employee is given satisfactory, minimally satisfactory ratings during the period when the performance is said to be unsatisfactory.

[00:16:16] Speaker 02:
Why is this going on?

[00:16:18] Speaker 02:
And then it seems like a significant management failure.

[00:16:23] Speaker 00:
Well, Your Honor, first, let me point you to a illuminating part of the record.

[00:16:28] Speaker 00:
And that is the- You're not answering my question.

[00:16:32] Speaker 00:
I'm attempting to, Your Honor.

[00:16:33] Speaker 00:
I think that the overarching answer to your question is that these tend to be graduated situations, where if you have an initial failing, there is an attempt to have that failing rectified to provide further

[00:16:52] Speaker 00:
training to provide further support to ensure that it doesn't happen again.

[00:16:56] Speaker 00:
And then there is a cumulative effect at some point where the unsuccessful performance needs to be addressed in a more formal way.

[00:17:07] Speaker 00:
And I think that's illustrated by the performance elements in this case, one of which I'll point out on appendix 488.

[00:17:14] Speaker 00:
This is the list of the unacceptable

[00:17:19] Speaker 00:
aspects, description of what unacceptable means for element one of Ms.

[00:17:25] Speaker 00:
Long's performance standards.

[00:17:27] Speaker 00:
And one of those aspects of an unacceptable performance is changes or improvements are lacking and monitoring of operations and programs are insufficient.

[00:17:37] Speaker 00:
So I think those performance standards demonstrate that there is expected to be improvement if there is something less than satisfactory

[00:17:46] Speaker 00:
there is expected to be improvement in order to avoid a non-successful rating.

[00:17:51] Speaker 02:
Minimally satisfying.

[00:17:52] Speaker 00:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:17:53] Speaker 00:
And that specific rating is undefined.

[00:17:57] Speaker 00:
And the administrative judge explains how one can sort of extrapolate from the explanation of satisfactory and unsatisfactory, that there is this middle ground

[00:18:09] Speaker 00:
that in this case, it is pretty standard.

[00:18:12] Speaker 02:
It seems problematic to give somebody a minimally satisfactory rating and then tax them for unsatisfactory performance.

[00:18:22] Speaker 00:
I would disagree, Your Honor, respectfully.

[00:18:23] Speaker 00:
I think there is a difference here between the expectation, which was undisputed that this expectation was conveyed and that Ms.

[00:18:31] Speaker 00:
Long was aware of it, that your tasks are to be completed correctly and within the required time frame.

[00:18:38] Speaker 00:
Now, that doesn't necessarily mean that every single time you do that, or you fail to do that, you're going to be removed from your position.

[00:18:45] Speaker 00:
So there is a continued dialogue between Ms.

[00:18:49] Speaker 00:
Long's supervisor center.

[00:18:50] Speaker 02:
That seems to be completely unresponsive to my point.

[00:18:53] Speaker 02:
I apologize.

[00:18:53] Speaker 02:
It just seems to be a very bad management practice to tell people that their performance is minimally satisfactory, and then to tell them it's unsatisfactory, because those two things are not consistent.

[00:19:07] Speaker 00:
Your Honor, I understand the concern.

[00:19:10] Speaker 00:
I think that the narrative in that annual review, where she was given a minimally satisfactory rating, demonstrates the concerns that her supervisors had.

[00:19:22] Speaker 00:
They explained in that analysis of the minimally successful activities that she had time management problems, that she needed to meet deadlines, that she needed to conform to agency policy and facility policy

[00:19:34] Speaker 00:
in doing these things that she wasn't doing that, and that needed to be corrected.

[00:19:38] Speaker 00:
And then, again, this also we have to keep in mind that this is approximately six months.

[00:19:43] Speaker 00:
This first review that took place in April of 2021 was approximately six months after she became a case manager for the convicted inmate unit.

[00:19:53] Speaker 00:
And so it is reasonable that there is this sort of, I don't want to call it a grace period, but a graduated assessment of her capabilities.

[00:20:01] Speaker 02:
How much time elapsed between her last

[00:20:04] Speaker 02:
annual performance review or some other review and the imposition of the PIP program?

[00:20:12] Speaker 00:
Approximately four months.

[00:20:16] Speaker 00:
So the review took place in April of 2021 and the PIP was instituted at the end of, I'm sorry, five months, the end of September of 2021.

[00:20:26] Speaker 00:
And throughout that period, through the summer, spring and summer of 2021, there are additional instances in her performance log

[00:20:33] Speaker 00:
where she was notified that she was performing unacceptably, that there were instances where she failed to complete reports adequately, where she failed to complete them in a timely manner.

[00:20:46] Speaker 00:
And so she was very clearly on notice that that type of activity was unacceptable.

[00:20:56] Speaker 02:
But they also relied on incidents that occurred before the review, right?

[00:21:04] Speaker 00:
I don't know if that's true, Your Honor.

[00:21:07] Speaker 00:
I think that there are instances in the record of conduct prior to the performance review that was noted as unacceptable.

[00:21:20] Speaker 00:
For the PIP itself, I believe it was focused on the August and July and August 2021 timeframe in particular.

[00:21:28] Speaker 02:
Could we look at the PIP here and see what it said?

[00:21:31] Speaker 00:
Sure, and I may very well be wrong about that, Your Honor.

[00:21:39] Speaker 00:
So the PIP on 135 delineates activities that took place on August 31, 2021, August 23, 2021, August 20,

[00:21:58] Speaker 00:
August is 30, August 16, so primarily August of 2021.

[00:22:04] Speaker 00:
I'm looking at 135 to 136.

[00:22:06] Speaker 02:
And when was the performance review?

[00:22:08] Speaker 00:
September 28th was the start, September 27th.

[00:22:12] Speaker 00:
Oh, sorry.

[00:22:12] Speaker 00:
The performance review was April of 2021.

[00:22:14] Speaker 00:
OK.

[00:22:17] Speaker 00:
I also want to point the court's attention.

[00:22:20] Speaker 00:
I know Judge Stoll you noted that the language on page 137 of the PIP

[00:22:24] Speaker 00:
discussing what happens if a deadline is not met.

[00:22:28] Speaker 00:
There's also further explanation on page 139.

[00:22:34] Speaker 00:
Similar language, it explains that if you miss a deadline you need to provide a written explanation.

[00:22:40] Speaker 00:
It also says on this

[00:22:42] Speaker 00:
I'm looking at the full paragraph at the bottom of the page in the middle.

[00:22:46] Speaker 00:
I will consider your explanations as part of the evaluation process.

[00:22:49] Speaker 00:
However, your notice and explanation does not relieve you of the deadline in this letter or the dates established in policy.

[00:22:55] Speaker 00:
Failure to meet policy dates provided the required documentation or certifications identified above may result in failure of this opportunity period.

[00:23:05] Speaker 00:
So again, she was required to provide an explanation if there was a deadline missed and that explanation would be considered.

[00:23:11] Speaker 00:
in determining whether or not she had successfully completed the period.

[00:23:15] Speaker 00:
And ultimately, there were numerous instances of failures to complete tasks, to complete trainings throughout this just 30-day period that were documented in both the letter recommending her removal and the decision to remove her.

[00:23:30] Speaker 01:
Were there explanations provided?

[00:23:32] Speaker 00:
There were explanations, Your Honor.

[00:23:35] Speaker 00:
There was a detailed explanation in the proposed removal letter.

[00:23:41] Speaker 00:
And that begins on sentence 131.

[00:23:44] Speaker 00:
There isn't a lot in the briefing, because before this court, Ms.

[00:23:48] Speaker 00:
Wong is not alleging that she successfully performed the pick period.

[00:23:54] Speaker 00:
The only other point that I'd like to make, unless the court has any additional questions, is that as the first argument made that the standards were not conveyed, as we've argued in the brief, we believe that the standards were extrapolated upon by

[00:24:10] Speaker 00:
Ms.

[00:24:10] Speaker 00:
Long's supervisors, but there is evidence in the record that the written standards were provided to her in April of 2021 and that the fact that it is testimony provided by her supervisor did not undermine the fact that it is evidence and that the administrative judge found that to be substantial evidence and sufficient to support that finding that those standards were provided to her.

[00:24:38] Speaker 00:
Unless the court has any further questions,

[00:24:40] Speaker 02:
we would ask that the decision will be approved.

[00:24:46] Speaker 02:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:24:57] Speaker 03:
I just want to make a couple of points, and I highlighted that same section of the PIP on Appendix, page 139, that Council pointed out.

[00:25:06] Speaker 03:
Again, I will consider your explanations as part of this evaluation process.

[00:25:12] Speaker 03:
However you are on notice, an explanation does not relieve you of the deadlines in this letter or the dates established in the policy.

[00:25:21] Speaker 03:
Lotion, the sort of controlling case involving this, specifically talks about this opportunity to have reasonable performance standards communicated at the beginning of the appraisal period.

[00:25:37] Speaker 03:
This is the best the agency came up with in September in terms of communicating actual standards.

[00:25:43] Speaker 03:
And this was, in my estimation, based upon the reading here, was an absolute standard.

[00:25:49] Speaker 03:
Prior to this time, it was truly, and as the performance counselings reflect,

[00:25:54] Speaker 03:
truly arbitrary, based upon an individual supervisor's decision, this untimeliness is minimally satisfactory, this untimeliness is unacceptable, with no explanation in the record as to what makes the difference between minimally satisfactory and unacceptable performance.

[00:26:13] Speaker 03:
To me, this is the epitome of arbitrariness and what the statute and what this Court has said is not appropriate.

[00:26:22] Speaker 03:
in the federal performance sector, performance appraisal system.

[00:26:28] Speaker 03:
Based upon that, we ask again that you reverse the MSPB's decision.

[00:26:32] Speaker 03:
Thank you very much, unless you have other questions.

[00:26:35] Speaker 02:
Okay, thank you.

[00:26:35] Speaker 02:
Thank you, Chancellor.

[00:26:36] Speaker 02:
That concludes our session for this morning.