ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    February
    6,
    1986
    ILLINOIS
    ENVIRONMENTAL
    PROTECTION AGENCY,
    )
    Complainant,
    )
    V.
    )
    PCB 84—85
    VILLAGE OF ORANGEVILLE,
    )
    Respondent.,
    ORDER OF TEIE BOARD
    (by R~ C..
    Flemal):
    On January
    8,
    1986 the Village of Orangeville
    (“Orangeville”)
    filed a motion requesting re—hearing and a stay
    of the Board’s December
    5, 1985 Order
    in this matter,
    The
    Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (“Agency”)
    responded to
    the motion on January
    15,
    1986,,
    Orangeville contends that
    its “lack
    of legal representation,
    among other reasons” prevented
    it from presenting all of
    the
    evidence
    in its defense at the August
    21, 1985 hearing held
    in
    this
    case,,
    Orangeville claims that
    a re—hearing of
    the case
    would
    allow Respondent
    to present “additional evidence”, and
    requests
    a stay of the Board’s December
    5 Order
    until another
    hearing might be held.
    The Board does not find any merit
    in Orangeville’s position
    that because it was not represented
    by counsel before
    the Board,
    it
    is therefore entitled
    to hearing de
    riovo.
    The Board’s rules
    provide that parties
    to Board proceedings may elect
    to be
    represented
    by an attorney, but there
    is
    no inherent obligation
    to
    be so represented
    (see 35
    Ill.,
    Adm.,
    Code 101,106),
    If the
    Board were to accept Orangeville’s contention that
    it was
    prejudiced by electing
    to forego
    the utilization of counsel in
    its defense,
    such
    a precedent would ostensibly cause every party
    before
    the Board
    to represent itself initially,
    then if
    dissatisfied with the result cause another round of proceedings
    by simply petitioning
    the Board for
    a re—hearing as Orangeville
    now does.
    Such
    a scenario
    is untenable.
    Moreover,
    the findings of violation entered against
    Orangeville resulted from Agency allegations that were
    conclusively proven by facts entered at hearing.
    Thus
    it
    is
    difficult to see how representation by counsel could
    bring about
    a different outcome,,
    Respondent’s motion for
    re—hearing and
    a stay of the Board’s
    December
    5,
    1985 Order
    is denied,,
    —2—
    IT IS SO ORDERED.
    Board Members
    J.
    Theodore Meyer
    and Walter
    J. Nega
    dissented.
    I, Dorothy M.
    Gunn, Clerk
    of the Illinois Pollution Control
    Board, hereby certify that the abov~Order was adopted on
    the
    ____________________
    day of--~.~
    ,
    1986,
    by
    a vote
    of
    ______
    /
    Illinois
    Control Board

    Back to top