1. NOTICE OF FILING
    2. RESPONSE TO CITY’S MOTION TO RECONSIDER DISCOVERY RULINGS
      1. OBJECTIONTO DEPOSITIONS
    3. AFFIDAVIT OF ELIZABETH HARVEY
    4. EXHIBIT
    5. AFFIDAVIT OF CHARLES HELSTEN
ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
/~PR
292003
COUNTY OF
KANKAKEE, COUNTY
BOARD
OF
KANKAKEE, and WASTE
MANAGEMENT
OF
ILLINOIS,
INC.
Respondents.
)
RECE1~VED
CLERK’S
OFFICE
STATE OF ILLINOIS
)
PCB 03-125
Pollution
Control Board
)
PCB 03-133
)
PCB 03-1 34
)
PCB
03-1 35
)
(consolidated)
)
(Pollution Control
Facility Siting Appeals)
)
)
)
)
To:
(See attached Service List.)
NOTICE OF
FILING
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on this 29th day ofApril
2003, the following County’s
Response to City’s Motion to Reconsider
Discovery
Rulings
was filed with the Illinois
Pollution Control Board, attached and herewith
served
upon you.
Elizabeth
S.
Harvey
SWANSON,
MARTIN & BELL
One
IBM
Plaza,
Suite 2900
330 North Wabash Avenue
Chicago,
Illinois 60611
Telephone: (312) 321-9100
Firm
I.D.
No. 29558
COUNTY OF
KANKAKEE
and
COUNTY BOARD
OF
KANKAKEE
By:
01 98-001
CITY OF
KANKAKEE,
Petitioner,
V.
EIiz~jeth
S. l1arvey/
I
One of Its Attorneys’
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, the undersigned non-attorney, state that
I served a copy of the described document in the
above-captioned
matter via
messenger to
the
hearing
officer
and
via
facsimile/U.S.MaiI
to
all
counsel of record
on April 29,
2003.
-
J
a
tte M.
Podlin
x
Under penalties as provided
by law
pursuant to 735 ILCS
5/1-109,
I certify
that the statements set forth
herein
are true
and correct.
SERVICE LIST
KANKAKEE
COUNTY/WMII LANDFILL SITING
Bradley P. Halloran
Hearing Officer
Illinois Pollution
Control Board
100 West Randolph Street
Suite
11-500
Chicago,
IL 60601
Charles F. Helsten
Richard
Porter
Hinshaw& Culbertson
100 Park Avenue
P.O.
Box 1389
Rockford,
IL 61105
Kenneth A.
Leshen
One Dearborn Square
Suite 550
Kankakee, IL 60901
Donald Moran
Pedersen & Houpt
161 North Clark
Street
Suite 3100
Chicago, IL 60601-3242
George Mueller
George Mueller, P.C.
501 State Street
Ottawa, IL 61350
L. Patrick Power
956 North Fifth Avenue
Kankakee, IL 60901
JenniferJ. Sackett Pohlenz
Querry
& Harrow, Ltd.
175 West Jackson Boulevard
Suite 1600
Chicago, IL 60604
Keith Runyon
165 Plum Creek Drive
Bourbonnais, IL 60914
Kenneth A. Bleyer
Attorney at Law
923 West Gordon Terrace, #3
Chicago,
IL 60613-2013
Leland
Milk
6903 5.
Route 45-52
Chebanse,
IL 60922-5153
Patricia
O’Dell
1242 Arrowhead Drive
Bourbonnais,
IL
60914
0198-001
CLERK’S
OFFr~
ILLINOIS POLLUTIONCONTROLBOARD
I~PR2
92003
CITYOF
KANKAKEE,
)
STATEOFIJLI
-
POllUtiOfl Contro/Bo
d
Petitioner,
)
PCB 03-133
ar
PCB 03-134
v.
)
PCB 03-135
)
(consolidated)
COUNTYOF
KANKAKEE,
COUNTY
)
(Pollution Control Facility SitingAppeals)
BOARD OF
KANKAKEE,
andWASTE
)
MANAGEMENT OF ILLINOIS, INC.
)
)
Respondents.
)
RESPONSE TO
CITY’S MOTION
TO RECONSIDER DISCOVERY RULINGS
Respondent COUNTY BOARD OF KANKAKEE
(“County”), by
its
attorneys
Hinshaw
&
Culbertson
and
Swanson,
Martin
&
Bell,
hereby responds
in
opposition to
petitioner the CITY OF KANKAKEE’s (“City”) motion
to reconsider discovery rulings.
1.
Initially,
the
County joins
in
the City’s request (made in the City’s notice of filing,
rather than
in
the
motion
itself)
that the
Board
rule
on
the
City’s
motion
at
the
Board’s May 1, 2003 meeting
if possible. The motion involves issues regarding
who may be deposed during this proceeding, as well as the time
limitations
imposed on the depositions themselves.
Because the Board hearings in these
consolidated appeals begin next week, on May 5, 2003, time is of the essence in
resolving these issues relating to discovery. Among other things, resolution of
the deposition issues bythe Board, prior to hearing, will reduce the issues on any
appeal ofthe Board’s decision.
2. The
City’s
motion,
titled
“motion
to
reconsider
discovery
rulings”,
is more
appropriately labeled an appeal of the hearing officer’s rulings on deposition
issues.
(See
35 Ill.Adm.Code 101.502.) The City appeals several rulings made
by the hearing officer on April 24, 2003, regarding appropriate deponents and the
length of depositions
in this
matter.
3.
The
City
sought
to
depose
attorneys
Mr.
Moran
and
Mr.
Wilt
(who
represent
Waste Management
of
Illinois,
Inc.
(“WMII”),
as
well
as
Kankakee
County
attorneys Ms. Harvey and Mr. Helsten. The hearing officer upheld objections to
those attorney depositions.
Attorney depositions are held
in
disfavor by the
Board and by
the
courts:
the
practice
is
disruptive of the
adversarial
process,
and
raises concerns regarding
preservation
of the attorney-client privilege.
The
deposition of opposing counsel should
be allowed only when: (1) no other means
exist
to
obtain
the
information
than
to
depose
opposing
counsel;
(2)
the
information
sought
is
relevant
and
non-privileged;
and
(3)
the
information
is
crucial
to
the
preparation
of
the
case.
Citizens
Against
Regional
Landfill
v.
County Board of Whiteside
County,
PCB 92-156 (February
25,
1993).
(Also see
the County’s Objections to Depositions, attached as Exhibit A.)
4.
In
its motion to
reconsider, the
City asserts
that
WMII
has
“acknowledged”
substantive contact between its attorney, Mr. Moran, and County
attorneys.
The
City seeks to depose the attorneys regarding these allegedly improper contacts.
However, the City’s claims
fail.
5.
First,
the County
disputes
the
City’s
characterization
of
the
January
2003
contacts between Mr.
Moran
and
Ms.
Harvey
as
“substantive”.
To the contrary,
the sole January 2003 contact between Mr. Moran and Ms. Harvey was non-
substantive,
and
consisted
only
of
Mr.
Moran’s
procedural
inquiries
of
Ms.
Harvey.
(See
Exhibit
B, Affidavit
of Elizabeth
Harvey.)
Mr.
Moran
placed
a
call
to
Ms.
Harvey,
in
which
he
inquired whether WMII
would have
an opportunity to
address the County Board
(or the Regional
Planning Commission
(“RPC”),
which, under the County procedures, considered the record of the siting process
and prepared
a recommendation to the
County Board).
Ms.
Harvey
informed Mr.
Moran that no such
opportunity would
exist,
as the
record
had
closed.
There
2
was
no discussion of substantive issues in that single phone call.
6.
The non-substantive nature of the phone
call between
Mr.
Moran and Ms. Harvey
was
discussed
with
counsel
for
the
City,
Mr.
Power,
by
Ms.
Harvey
during
a
phone
call
on
or
about April
22,
2003.
Thus,
the
City
is
well
aware
that the
conversation
was
non-substantive,
and
cannot
support
its
allegations
that
the
phone call was improper.
7.
The
Harvey
affidavit
demonstrates
that
the
single
conversation
between
Mr.
Moran
and
Ms.
Harvey
was
procedural
in
nature,
and
thus
not
improper.
The
City cannot
meet
its
burden of showing
that no
other means,
except
deposition,
exist to obtain the information.
8. Second, as
to the requested
deposition
of Mr.
Helsten:
it
is
important
to
recognize that, during the siting proceeding, Mr. Helsten represented the County
staff, not the RPC or the County Board.
(See Exhibit C, Affidavit of Charles
Helsten.) Mr. Helsten did not represent the decisionmaker, so
it is difficult to see
how
contacts
with
Mr.
Helsten
could
have
been
ex
parte
contacts
at
all.
Prohibited
ox parte
contacts
occur between
decisionmakers
and
proponents of a
certain position during
a siting
proceeding.1
9.
In any event,
Mr.
Helsten’s affidavit
makes clear that there were
no
substantive
contacts between Mr. Moran and Mr. Helsten.
Mr. Helsten received a voice mail
message from Mr. Moran.
Mr. Helsten returned Mr. Moran’s
call, but did not
speak to him, instead leaving a voice mail message.
Mr. Helsten’s voice mail
message to Mr. Moran simply
stated
that
he
(Mr.
Helsten
)
did not feel
it was
appropriate to discuss the matter with Mr. Moran.
10.Again,
the
“non-contact”
between
Mr.
Helsten and
Mr.
Moran
was non-
substantive, as demonstrated
by Mr.
Helsten’s affidavit.
There
is
no
showing of
The
County
does
not
concede
that
contacts
with
Ms.
Harvey,
who
represented
the
decisionmaker but was not a decisionmaker, could have been improper.
3
any improper contact,
and the
City cannot
show that the information
it seeks
is
available only through
Mr. Helsten’s deposition.
11. In sum, as to the depositions of Ms.
Harvey and
Mr.
Helsten, the
hearing officer
appropriately precluded
those depositions.
That ruling should
be upheld.
12. In the
alternative,
and without
prejudice to
its
position that the depositions of Ms.
Harvey
and
Mr.
Helsten
are
inappropriate,
the
County
seeks limitations
on
the
subject matter of the attorney depositions,
should the
Board reverse the
hearing
officer’s ruling.
If allowed, the depositions of Ms.
Harvey and Mr.
Helsten
should
be
limited
only
to
the
January
2003
phone
contacts
(or
non-contacts) with
Mr.
Moran.
Any inquiry beyond that issue exceeds the
City’s stated
basis for seeking
the depositions, and could violate attorney-client privilege.
13.As
to the
City’s
appeal of the one-hour
time limitation,
the
County
states that it
believes
that the depositions can
be completed within
the time limits
imposed by
the
hearing
officer.
Given
the
extremely
short
time
frames
available
for
depositions
(less than one week),
and the
large number of depositions sought by
the
City2,
the
time
limitation
is
reasonable.
Although
the
City
states
that
depositions
of certain
witnesses
should
be
allowed
to
proceed
for three hours,
the City fails to explain why that additional time is needed for those witnesses.
14. Finally,
as to the
proposed deposition of Mr. Addleman,
the
County sees no need
for a physician’s affidavit, but
believes that WMll’s representation
by counsel that
Mr.
Addleman
is
medically
unable
to
be
deposed
is
sufficient
to
exclude
Mr.
Addleman as a deponent.
15.Jn
sum,
the
County
asks
the
Board
to
uphold
the
challenged
rulings
of
the
hearing
officer
in
their
entirety.
In
the
alternative,
if
the
Board
reverses
the
hearing
officer’s
ruling
on
the
depositions of
Ms.
Harvey
and
Mr.
Helsten,
the
2
The hearing officer has allowed the depositions of seventeen witnesses.
4
County
asks
the
Board
to
limit
the
subject
matter of those
depositions
to
the
January 2003 phone
contacts with
Mr.
Moran,
and to impose the same one-hour
time limit
on those depositions.
Charles F. Helsten
Richard Porter
Hinshaw & Culbertson
100 Park Avenue
P.O.
Box 1389
Rockford, IL 61105-1389
815/490-4900
Respectfully submitted,
COUNTYOF KANKAKEE and
COUNTY BOARDOFKANKAKEE
By:
Elizabeth S. Harvey
Swanson,
Martin & Bell
One IBM
Plaza,
Suite 2900
330 North Wabash Avenue
Chicago, IL 60611
312/321-9100
5
HINSJI4W
& CULBERTSON
Fax:815—953—9989
Aer
23
2UU~
iU:~u
CITY
OF
KANKAKEB,
Petitioner,
vs.
COUNTY OF KANKAKEE, COUNTY
BOARD
OF
KANKAXEE, and WASTE
MANAGEMENT OF ILLINOIS,
INC.
Respondents.
MERLINKARLOCK,
Petitioner,
vs.
PCB 03-133
(Third-PartyPollution Control Facility
Siting Appeal)
~.
LJ~
ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
)
PCBO3-125
)
(Third-Party Pollution Control Facility
)
Siting
Appeal)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
...
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
COUNTY OF KANKAXEE,
COUNTY
BOART) OF KANKAKEE, and WASTE
MANAGEMENT OF ILLINOIS, INC.
Respondents.
PCBO3-134
(Third-Party Pollution Control Facility
Siting Appeal)
vs.
COUNTY OF KANKAKEE, COUNTY
BOARD
OF KANKAKEE, and WASTE
MANAGEMENT OF iLLINOIS, INC.
Respondents.
PCB 03-135
(Third-Party Pollution Control Facility
Siting Appeal)
vs.
COUNTY
OF KANXAI(EE, COUNTY
BOARD
OF KANKAKEE,
and
WASTE
MANAGEMENT
OF
ILLINOIS,
INC.
Respondents.
MICHAEL
WATSON,
Petitioner,
KEITH RUNYON,
Petitioner,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
1
~~PR
23
‘03
10:21
815
963
9989
PAGE.02
-IINSHAW
&
CULBERJSON
Fa~:8J5—gb3—Sg8g
Apr
23
2U03
lLJ:2U
i-’.Ui
OBJECTIONTO DEPOSITIONS
NOW
COMES
The County of Kankakee, by and through
its
Attorneys,
HJNSIJAW
&
CULBERTSON,
and
illes
its
Objections
to
the
list
of Deponents
proposed
by
the
City
of
Lankakee, and in support thereof, states as follows:’
I.
On March 22,
2003
the City of Kankakee served
its
list
of deponents (attached
hereto as Exhibit A).
Included in the list
are State’s Attorney for County ofKmikakee, Edward
I).
Smith,
Assistant
State’s
Attorney
Brenda
Gorski
and
Special
Assistant
State’s
Attorney
Charles Heisten, and Bli.zabeth I~Iaivey.
2.
Upon receipt of a
previous Notice ofDeposition of State’s Attorney Smith the
undersigned
attorney
on
behalf of Kankakee
County
spoke
with
counsel
for
the
City,
Mr.
Kenneth Leschen,
to
determine the purpose of the proposed deposition.
Attorney Leschen, on
behalfof the
City, only offered an explanation that be wanted to inquire into the passage of the
Kankakee
County
Solid
Waste
Management
Plan
which
designates
that
only
the
current
Kankakee
County
landfill
shall
be
expanded,
which
is
operated
by
Waste
Management
of
illinois.
It is Mr. Lescben’s position that somehow the passing ofthe
Solid Waste Management
Plan
is
relevant
to
an
alleged
pre-adjudication
of the merits of application
by
the Kankakee
County Board.
3.
The
depositions of the State’s Attorneys
should
not be
allowed
as they
are an
obvious attempt at harassment and seek irrelevant inadmissible evidence.
4.
The Hearing Officer in its
April
17, 2003
ruling held that discovery shall not be
aiiowed regardingpassage ofa solid waste managementplan orits amendments.
5.
It
is
well
established
that
evidence concerning
the
passage
of a
Solid
Waste
Management Plan is not admissible in a Section
39.2 hearing, and that discovery on how the Plan
Mx. Watson agreed
to
accept
the production
response of the
County
of
Kankakee
by
receiving
the
documents
by
overnight
mail
on April 22, 2003.
Therefore, the
County
agreed
to service of Mr. Watson’s deponent
list
on April 23, 2003
and
the
County will file its
objections to
that
listupon
its
receipt.
2
PP~23
‘03
10:22
815
963
9999
PAGE.03
HINSHAW
&
CULBERTSON
Fax:815—953—gggg
Apr
23
2803
18:21
P.04
was passed is not allowed.
Residents Against Polluted Environment v.
County of LaSalle,
PCB
26-243, pg.
2
(1996).
6.
Furthermore,
the
Illinois
Pollution
Control Board
has
already
ruled that
it
is
inproper to
seek
a
deposition
of a
State’s
Attorney,
even if that
State’s
Attorney
voices
an
epinion on
an application.
ESG Watts Incoiporated v.
Sangamon County Board,
Respondent,
KB
98-2
(December 3,
1998).
The only
issue is
the alleged bias or conflict of interest ofthe
decision maker or hearing officer, not theiradvisors.
Id.
7.
If the
puwose of the
attorney
depositions
is
to
detennine
whether or
not
the
Attorneys had any non-privileged communications with the decision-makers after the application
was
filed,
such
can
be
accomplished
by
written
interrogatory
which
the
City has
already
propounded.
Attorney Leschen has indicated that perhaps there may be some
evidence ofpre-
adjudication of the merits by the decision maker before the application was filed.
First,
this is
complete conjecthre and there is
absolutely no
evidence ofsuch pre-adjudication.
Second,
the
State’s Attorneys
Smith,
Gorski,
Helsten,
and
Harvey,
were
not
the
applicant
at
issue,
and
therefore even if they bad any
conununications
with the decision-makers, before the application
wasfiled, such is irrelevant to the instant proceeding.
8.
Another obvious basis fbr quashing
the proposed depositions is
the attorney-client
privilege.
“Courts have looked
with disfavor
on the practice ofdeposing opposing
counsel,
and
find
that such practice is
disruptive of the adversarial process and lowers the
standards of the
legal profession.”
Citizens ofRegional Landfill v.
CountyBoard of Whiteside County and Waste
Management ofillinois Inc.,
PCB
92-156(1993).
Not
only is
there a concern of the right of a
client
to
have
unlettered
representation
by
his
attorney,
but
“experience
teaches
that
countenancing unbridled depositions of attorneys constitutes an invitation to delay, disruption of
the case, harassment, and perhaps disqualification ofthe attorney to be deposed.”
Id.
The IPCB
has acknowledged that “it
is
appropriate to require the party seeking to depose
an attorney to
3
APR 23 ‘03 10:22
915 963 9999
PAOE.04
HINSHAW
&
CULBERTSON
Fax:815—953—9959
A~r23 2003
10:21
P.05
establish a legitimate basis for the request and demonstrate that the deposition willnot
otherwise
~roveonly disruptive or burdensome.”
Id.
(emphasis added).
9.
The
Illinois
Pollution
Control
Board
has held
that
the
deposition
of opposing
counsel
should only be allowed when: “(1) no
other means exist to obtain the information than to
depose opposing counsel; (2) the
information sought is relevant arid non-privileged; and
(3) the
information is crucial to the preparation ofthe case.”
Id.
10.
In this case the City ofKankakee has provided none
ofthese three elements.
If
the purpose is
to
detenn.ine the nature of the communications ofthe Applicant with the State’s
Attorney and then determine whether
the State’s Attorney relayed these communications to the
County
Board,
such
can,
and
has
been,
addressed
by
Kankakee
County’s
responses
to
interrogatories.
(There were no
such communications).
Second,
there has been no
attempt by
the
City to
show
that
the
information
sought
is
non-privileged.
Third,
there
has
been
no
explanation as to how this deposition
is crucialto the City’s
case.
11.
The remaining depositions requestedby the City should
also
be quashed because
there is no
good faith basis
for taking the depositions.
Illinois courts have held that “A plaintiff
must
possess
a minimal level of information
indicating defendant is liable to
him
to
commence
his litigation
axid
force the dependant to undergo discovery.
Otherwise
Plaintiff
is
engaged in a
‘fishing expedition’ a recognized form oflitigation abuse.”
Yuretich v.
Sole, 259
II. App. 3d 311,
631 NE 2d 767, 772
(4th Dist.
1993).
“It is no justification that a
fishing expedition
might result
in
worthwhile
information;
the
possibility
of
success
must
be
sufficient
to
justify
the
inconvenience or expense to the opponent.”
Id
The City has provided no
explanation for the
proposed
depositions
other than an attempt
to
inquire into how the solid waste management
plan
was passed, which this Hearing Officer
and
the
JPCB
has already held is
inadmissible and not
discoverable.
4
APR 23 ‘03
10:23
915
963
9989
PAGE.05
HINSHAW
&
CULSERISON
Fax:815-953-9989
Aør
23 2003
10:21
P.05
12.
It is anticipated that the City ofKankakee might argue that in a recent PCB action
involving the application of Town & Country, Inc. to
site a tandñll in the City ofKan.kakee, the
County ofI~Zankakeeconducted discovery ofthe bearing officer and
the Mayor ofthe City abmit
prefiling contacts with the decision makers.
That
discovery is
distinguished
from the depositions
requested in
this
case because
in
Town
&
Count7y
there was
evidence of a specific
arid
direct
communication that the applicant had in front ofthe decision makers a mere two weeks before
the
application was
filed wherein the applicant presented evidence on the
Section
39.2
criteria
and impeached potential
objectors witnesses.
There is no
evidence of such a
communicationin
this case and
therefore no reason to conduct
this
fishing expedition.
WHEREFORE,
the County of I(ankakee
prays that
the request
of the
City to take
the
Depositions of those individuals
identified
on Exhibit A, be denied.
Dated
April 23, 2003
Respectfully Submitted,
On behalfofthe COUNTY OF KANXAKEE
By: Hinshaw &
Culbertson
ëharle~Heisten.
Richard S. Porter
IINSHAW
AND CULBERTSON
100 ParkAvenue
P.O. Box 1389
Rockford,
IL 61105-1389
815-490-4900
This
document utilized 100
recycled paper products
70358163v1
826549
)
APR 23
‘03
10:23
815 963 9989
PAGE.06
AFFIDAVIT OF ELIZABETH HARVEY
I,
Elizabeth
S.
Harvey,
being over the age of 21
and
having been sworn,
hereby
states the following, based on personal knowledge:
1.
I
am a
licensed
attorney
in the
State
of Illinois.
I
was
retained
by the
Kankakee
County
Board
to
provide
legal
representation
to
the County
Board
and
to
the
Regional
Planning
Commission
during
the
local
siting
proceeding
on
the
application
for
site
expansion
approval
filed
by
Waste
Management
of
Illinois,
Inc.
(WMII).
I
currently represent the County
in
this
appeal
before the
Pollution
Control Board.
2.
In January 2003,
I
received a
phone
call from
Mr.
Moran, counsel to WMII.
This
call
occurred
after
the
January
16,
2003
meeting
of
the
Regional
Planning
Commission
(RPC)
and
before
the
January
31,
2003
meeting
of the
County
Board.
The
call consisted only of Mr.
Moran’s questions regarding procedure.
3.
Mr.
Moran inquired whether there would
be
any opportunity to address either the
RPC
(which was preparing a recommendation to the County Board
regarding the
siting application)
or the
County Board.
Mr.
Moran stated that
he
believed that
WMII
could
clarify
certain
issues
for the
RPC or
the
County
Board,
regarding
special
conditions
which
the
RPC
had
discussed
at
its
meeting
regarding
the
siting
application.
Mr.
Moran
did
not
specify
which
conditions
WMll wished to
address, nor did he indicate the subject matter of WMII’s desired discussion.
4.
I
informed
Mr.
Moran that
there would
be
no opportunity for WMII
to address the
RPC or the County
Board, as the
record was
closed
and
no
further information
was allowable.
5.
Mr.
Moran
indicated
that
he
understood
that
neither
WMII
nor any other
party
could address the RPC or the County Board, and the phone
call ended.
6.
There was no
discussion
regarding any
substantive
issue
in
that
January
2003
phone
call with
Mr.
Moran.
7.
I
had
no substantive
discussions with
Mr.
Moran, or any other person other than
my clients, at any time during the siting proceeding.
8.
I
related the above
information,
during
a
phone
conversation,
to
Mr.
L.
Patrick
Power, counsel for the City,
on or about April 22, 2003.
Further affiant sayeth naught.
Sworn
to before
e this
EXHIBIT
I).
UZ
run
~
LUL~tHJ~UN
rax:bIb—~bj—~~
~
zuu~i
~i:u~
AFFIDAVIT OF CHARLES HELSTEN
I, Charles
F.
Heisten, having
been sworn,
hereby
states
the following:
1.
I am a
licensed attorney
in
the State of
Illinois.
I
was retained
to provide
legal
representation
to
the
County
staff
during
the
local
siting
proceeding
on
the
application
for
site
expansion
approval
tiled
by
Waste
Management
of
illinois,
Inc.
(WMIJ).
I
currently serve as
co-counsel
for the
County in this
appeal before
the
Pollution Control Board.
2.
As
part
of my
representation
of
the
County
staff,
I
provided
legal
advice
and
representation
regarding the preparation of the
staffs
summary and report on the
application.
That
summary
and
report was
filed,
in
the
public record with the
County Clerk, on January 6, 2003.
3.
During
my- representation
of the
County
staff,
while the
application
was
pending
before
the. County
Board
(August
16,
2002
to
January
31,
2003),
I
had
no
substantive contact with the
County
Board or the
Regional
Planning Commission
(RPC)
regarding
the
application, nor
did
I
provide
legal
representation to either
entity.
4.
In January 2003,
I
received
a
voice
mail message from
Mr.
Moran,
counsel for
WMII.
Mr.
Moran’s
message made
only a
general
statement that the
subject of
his
inquiry was
certain of the special
conditions
being recom~nendedby
County
staff in the summary
and report which had been filed for the record on January
6,
2003.
5.
I
returned Mr.
Moran’s call,
but did notspeak to him.
I
left a voice
mailmessage
indicating that notwithstanding the fact
I only represented County staff on this
matter and nor the Regional Planning
Commission or the
County Board,
nonetheless,
I did not feel it was appropriate to discuss this matterwith
him.
6.
I had no
substantive conversations with Mr. Moran at any time
while WMII’s
application was pending.
Further
aff,ant
sayeth naught.
Ch
r es F.
elsten
Sworn
to beforeme this
~9~ril~2003.
~“
“OFFICIAL
SEAL”
JOAN
LANE
J
MyCommissionExpires4~23j2OO5
rEX~BIT
APR 29
‘03 11:09
815 963 9989
PAOE.02

Back to top