—~
RECE~VED
CLERK’S OFFICE
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
AU6
062004
~ UI- ILLINOIS
WASTE MANAGEMENT OF
Pollution Control Board
ILLINOIS, INC., A Delaware
)
Corporation,
)
)
Docket Number:
PCB 04-186
Petitioner,
)
(Pollution Control Facility
vs.
)
Siting Appeal)
)
COUNTY BOARD OF KANKAKEE,
)
)
Respondent.
)
NOTICE OF FILiNG
TO:
See
Attached
Service List
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on 6th day of August, 2004, we filed with the Illinois
Pollution Control Board, the attached document entitled:
MICHAEL WATSON’S MOTION
SUBMITTED TO THE HEARING
OFFICER TO LIMIT THE SCOPE AND DURATION
OF SUBPOENAD DEPOSITION,
a copy ofwhich is hereby served upon you.
Intervener, Michael Watson
By:
~)1LfljOQ~)
One ofhis attorneys
Jennifer
J.
Sackett Pohlenz
Erin S. Keane
QUERREY
& HARROW, LTD.
175 West Jackson Boulevard, Suite 1600
Chicago, Illinois 60604
(312) 540-7000
PROOF OF SERVICE
Karen Gryczan, a non-attorney,
on
oath, certifies that she served the foregoing
Notice ofFiling, and document set forth herein, on the attorneys named on the attached
service list via U.S. Mail at 175 W. Jackson Blvd., Chicago, Iqinois this 6th day of August,
2004, before the hour of 5:00 p.m.
xl
Under penalties as provided by law pursuant to
IL. REV. STAT. CHAP 110 SEC 1-1091 certify
that the statements set forth herein are true and correct.
SERVICE LIST
Illinois Pollution Control Board
Clerk’s Office
James R. Thompson Center
Ste. 11-500
100 W. Randolph Street
Chicago, IL 60601
One Original and 9 copies
Donald Moran
Pedersen & Houpt
161 North Clark Street, Suite 3100
Chicago, IL 60601-3242
312-261-1149 Fax
Representing Waste Management ofIllinois,
Inc.
Via U.S. Mail
Charles Helsten
Hinshaw & Culbertson
100 Park Avenue
P.O. Box 1389
Rockford, Illinois 61105-1389
815-490-4901 Fax
Representing County
Board ofKankakee
Via U.S. Mail
Keith Runyon
1165 Plum Creek Drive
Bourbonnais, IL 60914
Pro-Se
Via U.S. Mail
Christopher W.
Bohien
Barmann, Kramer & Bohien, P.C.
200 East Court Street, Suite 502
P.O. Box 1787
Kankakee,
IL 60901
Representing City ofKankakee
Via U.S. Mail
Bradley Halloran
Illinois Pollution Control Board
Hearing Officer
James R. Thompson Center
11th Floor
100 W. Randolph Street
Chicago, IL 60602
Via
Hand
Delivery
Elizabeth S. Harvey, Esq.
Swanson, Martin & Bell
One IBM Plaza, Suite 2900
330 North Wabash
Chicago, IL 60611
312-321-0990 Fax
Representing County Board ofKankakee
Via U.S. Mail
George Mueller
George Mueller, P.C.
501 State Street
Ottawa, IL 61350
Representing Interested PartyKarlock
Via U.S. Mail
Kenneth A. Bleyer
Attorney at Law
923 W Gordon Terrace #3
Chicago, IL 60613-2013
Representing Interested Party
Via U.S. Mail
Printed on Recycled Paper
Document #: 934021 vi
CLER~S )
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD.
P~th3ii ~
WASTE MANAGEMENT OF ILLINOIS, INC.,
)
TPrE OF ~
S
troi
A Delaware corporation,
)
pottutloci Con
)
Petitioner,
)
)
Docket Number:
PCB 04-186
)
(Pollution Control Facility
)
Siting Appeal)
COUNTY BOARD OF KANKAKEE
)
Respondent.
)
___________________________________________________________),
MICHAEL WATSON’S MOTION SUBMITTED TO THE HEARING OFFICER
TO LIMIT THE SCOPE AND DURATION OF SUBPOENAED DEPOSITION
Now comes MICHAEL WATSON (“Watson”), by and through his attorneys,
QUERREY & HARROW, LTD., and moves the Hearing Officer assigned to this matter by the
Illinois Pollution Control
Board (Board)
to limit the scope and duration of the subpoenaed
deposition served upon Watson requiring his appearance on August 10, 2004 pursuant to 35
Illinois Administration Code 101.616(d). In support of this motion, Watson states as follows:
1. Watson was a participant in the underlying local County proceeding now on review in
this case, as well as the prior proceeding on Waste Management of Illinois, Inc.’s (WMII)
proposed expansion of Kankakee County RDF, Case No. 03-125, 133, 134, 135 (consolidated
(hereinafter referenced as “WMII I” or “Case No. 03-125, 133, 134,
135”).
2. In Case No. PCB 03-125, 133, 134, 135 (consolidated), WMII’s local siting approval for
a landfill expansion was vacated by the Board on the basis WMII had failed to satisfy the pre-
filing notice requirements set forth in 415 ILCS
§
5/39.2(b)
as respects a homeowner and citizen
named Brenda Keller.
Printed on Recycled Paper
3. WMII I was filed by WMII at the local level on August 16, 2002, and the decision was
made by the County Board on January 31, 2003. During the local County hearing on WMII I,
Watson brought a motion asserting WMII’s failure of to properly notify Brenda and Robert
Keller. During the Board’s review of Case No. PCB 03-125, 133, 134, 135 (consolidated),
although WMII certainly had the opportunity to, it served no subpoena for the deposition of
either ofthe Kellers, nor did it subpoena Watson or any ofthe other citizens who may be subject
to WMII’s current subpoenas in this case.
4.
After the IPCB reversed the local siting approval in WMII I (PCB 03-125, 133, 134,
135),
WMII again filed a siting application seeking to expand Kankakee County RDF on
September 26, 2003, which was denied by the Kankakee County Board on March 17, 2004.
WMII now seeks review the County Board’s denial ofits siting request in this appeal, PCB 04-
186 (WMII II). WMII alleges in WMII II that the decision to deny its request on Criteria 1, 3
and 6 was against the manifest weight of the evidence and fundamentally unfair. (WMII’s
Petition to Contest Site Hearing Denial, ¶7, April 22, 2004).
5. WMII now seeks the depositions ofnumerous citizens including the Kellers and Watson.
The
Subpoena Duces Tecum
issued to Watson on July 7, 2004 orders Watson to appear for a
deposition and bring and testify concerning:
a. “All documents, including but not limited to letters, articles, memoranda and
telephone bills, relating to any communications between August 1, 2003 and May
30, 2004, that you had with any member of the Kankakee County Board regarding
the proposed expansion of the Kankakee Landfill.”
b. “Any and all documents, including but not limited to letters, articles, memoranda
and telephone bills, relating to any communications between August 1, 2003 and
May 30, 2004, that you had with any of the following persons regarding the
proposed expansion of the Kankakee Landfill: Mayor Donald Green, Bruce
Harrison, Ronald Thompsen and Keith Runyon.”
2
Printed on Recycled Paper
6. Pursuant to 35 Illinois Administration Code 101.616(a), all
relevant information
and
information calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant information is discoverable.
However, the hearing officer may, on the motion of any witness, issue protective orders that
deny, limit,
condition or regulate discovery to prevent unreasonable expense, or harassment,
or
to expedite resolution ofthe proceeding. 35 IAC
§
101.616(d).
7. This is not the first time that a Board Hearing Officer has been petitioned to issue an
order to limit discovery in the PCB’s review of WMII’s expansion attempts, albeit in different
cases. In WMII I, the County Board of Kankakee filed a motion to quash the subpoena for
deposition served by Watson on Efraim Gil (a former employee or contract employee of the
County). During the hearing on that objection, the County Board claimed that they represented
Mr. Gil, but at a subsequent hearing denied that claim.
(See
Hearing Trans. May
5,
2003, 1 p.m.,
pp. 134-137, Case No. PCB 03-125, 133, 134, 135 (consolidated)).
Regardless, the Board
Hearing Officer granted the County Board of Kankakee’s motion and allowed Watson to serve
only written questions to Mr. Gill, despite there being absolutely no verified evidence presented
from any medical professional that Mr. Gill was physically or mentally unable to sit for his
deposition as would be required for such a request if pending in Circuit Court.’
(See
Hearing
Officer Order, May 1, 2003, attached hereto as Exhibit
A),
(See also
735 ILCS
§
5/2-606,
requiring a party to present an affidavit to support this contention) (note that although a letter
was presented by an asserted medical professional on Mr. Gill’s behalf stating that he could
By reference to these orders in WMII I, Watson is not waiving any argument he has contrary to
those orders in WMII I, however, given that those orders are currently precedent, they are
properly cited herein having not been overturned.
3
Printed on Recycled Paper
answer written questions, this letter was not an affidavit as would be required by the Civil
Practice Act).
8. Further, when Watson sought leave to submit supplemental written questions to Mr. Gill
that motion was denied, without any objection from or representation by Mr. Gill at that motion.
21n addition, in WMII I, the PCB Hearing Officer set a precedent for the duration of depositions
to be one hour in response to motions by the County of Kankakee and WMII stating the reason
for such limitation is that there was “no good faith basis” for taking the depositions and that the
purpose of the deposing the listed witnesses was merely a “fishing expedition” and should not be
permitted. A true and correct copy of that Order is attached as Exhibit B. In issuing the one
hour limitation order, the Board Hearing Officer explained that the one hour limitation was “due
in part to the time constraints.” Further, in that order, and significantly, the Board Hearing
Officer State that, “allowing Watson and the City one hour to uncover possible fundamental
fairness issues strikes a balance between their right to discovery and Waste Management’s
statutory right to an expeditious decision.”
9.
Finally, in WMII I, the Board Hearing Officer also granted WMII’s motion to bar the
deposition, as well as bar the subpoena to testify at hearing, of Lee Addleman, a WMII
employee, from whom Watson, among others, sought discovery to inquire as to his
ex parte
communications. WMII’s motions to bar or quash subpoenas related to Mr. Addleman were
2 Despite statements to the contrary when they brought their motion to quash Watson’s subpoena
of Mr. Gill, at the hearing on May 6, 2003, counsel for the County Board of Kankakee stated
firmly that they did not appear for Mr. Gil, explaining: “I don’t want the record to reflect that I
have any kind of appearance for Mr. Gil and I just need that to be clear.”
(See
Hearing Trans.
May 6, 2003, 9:15 a.m., p. 8, Case No. PCB 03-125, 133, 134, 135 (consolidated)).
4
Printed on Recycled Paper
granted despite there being absolutely no medical or other affidavit supporting the ~alleged
inability of Mr. Addleman to testify. Upon further motion to allow written questions from Mr.
Addleman, as was done with Mr. Gill, that motion was likewise denied by the Board Hearing
Officer.
See
735 ILCS
§
5/2-606.
Watson’s Deposition Should Be Limited to One Hour
10. A
Board
Hearing Officer previously limited depositions to a one hour timeframe in
WMII I, based on allegations of the County of Kankakee and WMII that the depositions were
merely a ‘fishing expedition,’ a recognized form of litigation abuse. The County cited Yuretich
for support, which held, “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.” Yuretich v. Sole,
259
Ill. App, 3d 31 1(4th Dist. 1993).
11.
Additionally, the County argued that the depositions remaining in WMII
I
should be
quashed because there is “no good faith basis” for taking the depositions. The County
distinguished a recent JPCB action involving the Town & Country, Inc. application to site a
landfill where the County ofKankakee conducted discovery of the hearing officer and the Mayor
of the City regarding prefihing contacts with decision makers. The County successfully argued
that in that case, there was evidence of a specific and direct communication that the applicant
had in front of the decision makers two weeks before the application was filed.
12. Likewise, at least in WMII I, the Board Hearing Officer has placed limitations, in fact
completely barring testimony, due to unverified statements of medical inconvenience, without
any showing of physical or mental inability.
5
Printed on Recycled Paper
13.
As such, certainly other forms of inconvenience serve as like justification for a similar
time limitation on a deposition, particularly where there is no evidence of
ex parte
communications occurring between the witness, here Watson, and the County Board
ana’
where
case law is clear that, as long as an applicant, such as WMII, has been given a fair opportunity to
be
heard and present evidence during the siting proceedings, the decision will not be overturned
because of
ex parte
communications between citizens and the decision makers. Land and Lakes
Co. v. Village of Romeoville, PCB 92-25, June 4, 1992, p. 15,
citing
Fairview Area Citizen’s
Task Force,
555
N.E.2d 1178, 1183 (31d Dist. 1990).
14.
WMII is not entitled to have required Watson to be deposed for any longer than is
necessary for him to provide testimony limited to discovery on the issues relevant to this appeal.
The deposition should be further limited because WMII has presented absolutely no evidence
that Watson engaged in any
ex parte
contact with the County Board concerning the landfill
expansion, and, further, communication with the named individuals in WMII’s subpoena duces
tecum
is not
ex parte,
as none of those individuals are members of the County Board. This
deposition is clearly nothing more than a fishing expedition and intended to do no more than
inconvenience and harass Watson.
15. Thus, the Hearing Officer should, as was done in WMII I, at the very least, order the
duration of Watson’s deposition to be limited to one hour.
Watson’s Deposition Should Be Limited to the Scope of the
Subpoena
16.
The subpoena seeking Watson’s testimony is specific that it seeks information and
documents related to
ex parte
communications, if any, occurred. 1-lowever, subsequent to the
issuance ofthe subpoena, in correspondence concerning the scheduling ofthat deposition, WMII
6
Printed on RecycledPaper
has indicated that it does not intend to abide by the subpoena it issued in terms of the scope of
the deposition. Attached as Exhibits C
and
D are true and correct copies of correspondence
between counsel for Watson and WMII, respectively, related to deposition scope and scheduling.
17. Mr. Watson is currently a defendant to a lawsuit seeking an accounting, which Kankakee
County has initiated against him personally, subsequent to his participation in the
aforementioned landfill hearings, even though Mr. Watson is not a party to the contract under
which an accounting is sought.
See
County of Kankakee v. United Disposal, Inc., Michael
Watson,,
et.al.,
04-MR 427. Further, the corporation of which Mr. Watson is a shareholder and
officer, United Disposal of Bradley, Inc. has been pursued in various manners by Kankakee
County, since Mr. Watson’s participation in the WMII landfill hearings. It is believed by Mr.
Watson that WMII has been a part of this pursuit of him, personally, and the corporation of
which he is a shareholder and officer. In fact, Lee Addleman, the employee of WMII whose
deposition Mr. Watson was barred from taking in any form (including written) in WMII I, has
made statements to the press and it is believed the County showing that he, at the very least,
instigated the accounting action referenced above. A true and correct copy of one article with
such statements is attached as Exhibit E.
18.
WMII has a right to discovery in
this case,
but neither WMII nor the County individually
or through WMII should be allowed by this Board’s Hearing Officer to abuse the discovery
process herein, to either harass Mr. Watson or attempt to “fish” for information in their other
causes of action they have brought or are intending to bring against Watson. Further, neither
WMII or the County should be allowed to act out any personal vendettas they may have against
Mr. Watson, as a result of Mr. Watson expressing his personal views as an adjacent landowner to
7
Printed on Recycled Paper
the property that WMII sought to place a landfill expansion, and participating in the public
hearings, by labeling it “discovery” in this proceeding. The purpose of discovery is ~‘to
illuminate the actual issues in the case rather than to harass and obstruct the opposing litigant”.
Delvecchio v. General Motors Corp.. 255 Ill. App. 3d 189, 202 (5th Dist., 1993),
quoting
People
ex rel. General Motors Corp. v. Bua, 37 Ill. 2d 180, (1967).
19.
Further, although the right to discovery of evidence is basic and fundamental, that right
is limited to disclosure regarding matters
relevant to the subject matter of the pending action.
Pemberton v. Tieman, 117 Ill. App. 3d 502, 504 (1st Dist., 1983).
20. Therefore, WMII and anyone else who is allowed to question Mr. Watson at his
deposition should be limited to
exparte
communications, if any, as the
only
subject matter, as (a)
that is the only matter addressed in the subpoena under which Mr. Watson is sought to be
deposed and (b) that matter is the only issue WMII has raised in
this case
related to fundamental
fairness.
21. Thus, Watson asks that his deposition be limited to
exactly
what was sought by WMII
in
its subpoena and nothing beyond that scope without a showing that it is relevant discovery in this
matter.
22. Finally, if the Hearing Officer assigned to this matter will allow or require a hearing on
this Motion, the movant respectfully requests that the hearing be held on Monday, August 9,
2004 at any time during that day.
8
Printed on RecycledPaper
WHEREFORE, MICHAEL WATSON respectfully prays that the Illinois Pollution
Control Board grant this Motion and limit the scope and duration of subpoenaed deposition
served upon Watsonas referenced herein.
Dated: August
5,
2004
Respectfully Submitted,
MICHAEL WATSON
By:____________________
One ofhis attorneys
Jennifer J. Sackett Pohlenz
Erin Keane
Querrey & Harrow, Ltd.
175 W.
Jackson Blvd., Suite 1600
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Phone: (312) 540-7000
Facsimile: (312) 540-0578
Document #: 947405 vi
9
Printed on Recycled Paper
~E~
CE IV~P
~FF1CE
ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
- 1
2~Q3
May 1,2003
STATE OF ILLiNOIS
Pollution Control Board
CITY OF KANKAKEE,
)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
v.
)
PCB 03-125
)
(Third-Party Pollution Control Facility
/ tA
COUNTY
OF
KANKAKEE, COUNTY
)
Siting Appeal)
BOARD OF KANKAXEE,
and WASTE
)
MANAGEMENT
OF
ILLINOIS, INC.,
)
)
Respondents.
)
MERLIN KARLOCK,
)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
PCB 03-133
v.
)
(Third-Party Pollution Control Facility
)
Siting Appeal)
COUNTY OF KA1’~KAKEE,COUNTY
)
BOARD OF KANK.AKEE, and WASTE
)
MANAGEMENT OF ILLINOIS, NC.,
)
)
Respondents.
)
MICHAEL WATSON,
)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
PCBO3-l34
v.
)
(Third-Party Pollution Control Facility
)
Siting Appeal)
COUNTY
OF
KANKAKE.E,
COUNTY
)
BOARD
OF
KANKAKEE, and WASTE
)
MANAGEMENT
OF ILLINOIS,
INC.,
)
)
Respondents.
)
~BIT
KEITH RUNYON,
)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
PCB03~I35
v.
)
(Third-Party Pollution Control Facility
)
Siting Appeal)
COUNTY OF KANKAKEE, COUNTY
)
(Consolidated)
BOARD
OF
KANKAKEE,
and WASTE
)
MANAGEMENT OF ILLINOIS, INC.,
)
)
Respondents.
)
1-IFARING
OFFiCER ORDER
On May 1, 2003, a telephonic pre-hearing conference was held. Petitioner Keith iRunyon
did not appear. Discussions and arguments were entertained on a n~riadofissues and motions
pending as summarized below. Rulings were made on the motions as set forth below.
On April 24, 2003, the City ofKankakee (City) served by facsimile a motion to compel
invoice production. On April 29,2003, the County Board of Kankakee (County Board) filed its
rt~sporise. The motion to compel involved certain invoices that related to the City’s document
requests. The City. however, represented at the pre-hearing conference that its motion to compel
is moot because
it
has ~.owreceived the requested invoices. The hearing officer found the motion
moot as we~iarid did r1o~rule.
On April 29, 2003, Merlin Karlock served by facsimile a notice to produce at time of
hearing naming six people. One ofthe named is Esther Fox. On April 30, 2003, the County
Board filed a motion to quash the notice to produce Fox. At the pre-hearing conference, it was
agreed by Karlock and the County Board that an evidence deposition would suffice in lieu of her
appearance at the hearing. The evidence deposition is scheduled to take place on May 1, 2003, at
6:00 p.m. The hearing officer found the notice and the motion moot and the hearing officerdid
not rule.
Named in Karlock’s notice to produce at time ofhearing are Brenda Gorski, Bruce Clark,
Charles Heisten, Edward Smith, Elizabeth Harvey and Donald Moran. On May 1, 2003, the
County Board filed a motion to bar Gorski, Smith, Helsten and Harvey from appearing as
witnesses at the hearing. Also on May 1, 2003, Waste Management of Illinois, Inc., (Waste
Management) filed a motion to quash Karlock’s notice to produce Moran.
3
As set forth in the hearing officer order ofApril 30, 2003, Donald Moran is the attorney
ofrecord for respondent Waste Management. Elizabeth Harvey is an attorney of record for
respondents’ County ofKankakee (County) and County Board. Charles Heisten is an attorney of
record for the County. Edward Smith is the State’s Attorney for the County ofKankakee.
Brenda Gorski is a County of Kankakee Assistant State’s Attorney. Smith, and by extension,
Gorski, are duly elected officers representing Kankakee County.
The Board has held that requiring the deposition ofopposing counsel is limited to
situations where it is shown that: (1) no other means exists to obtain the information than to
depose opposing counsel; (2) the information sought is relevant and non-privileged; and (3) the
information sought is crucial to the preparation of the case. Citizens Against Reeional Landfill
v. The County Board of Whiteside County and Waste Management ofIllinois, Inc., PCB 92-156
slip. op. at 8, (Februarv25, 1993). Furthermore, “unbridled depositions ofattorneys constitutes
an invitation to delay, disruption of the case, harassment and perhaps disqualification of the
attorney to be deposed.” Id. These holdings logically apply to opposing parties requesting that
the attorneys appear at the hearing to testify.
Here, Karlock does not argue that, absent their testimony, the information sought is
crucial or even relevant to his case. The hearing officer hereby adopts and incorporates the
reasoning on this issue in his order of April 30, 2003, and grants the County Board’s motion to
bar and Waste Management’s motion to quash. Gorski, Helsten, Smith, Harvey and Moran will
not be required to testify at the hearing in this proceeding.
The hearing off’cer further finds that Karlock failed to follow Section 101.622 (a) and
1111.302(d) the Board’s procedural rules. Section 101. 622 (a) states that the Clerk will issue
subpoenas for the attendance of witnesses at a hearing or deposition. It appears that Karlock
merely issued his own notice. Section 10 1.302 (d) requires that filing by facsimile will only be
allowed with the prior approval ofthe Clerk ofthe Board or the hearing officer assigned to the
proceeding. Karlock failed to receive prior approval to file by facsimile.
On April 30, 2003, Michael Watson (Watson) filed a subpoena for testimony at public
hearing for Saundra Listenbee and Mary Ann Powers. On May 1, 2003, Waste Management
filed its response. Also on May 1, 2003, Watson filed his reply to Waste Management’s
response. In Watson’s reply, he states that “counsel for City Colleges ofChicago (ofwhich
Daley College is one) has contacted counsel for Petitioner Watson, accepted service on behalf of
Saundra Listenbee and Mary Ann Powers and is fully cooperating with the request that was
made.” Based on Watson’s representation that Listenbee and Powers are represented by counsel,
Waste Management’s motion to quash is denied for lack of Waste Management’s standing to
make the motion.
On April 30, 2003, the County Board filed a motion to quash subpoena for deposition
served by Watson on Efraim Gil. Watson orally argued its response at the pre-hearing
conference. On May 1, 2003, the County filed a letter from Gil’s doctor Dr. David Edelberg
indicating that Gil is under his care and due to Gil’s mild stoke and a list of other maladies, it is
impossible for Gil to participate in any court proceedings. However, the doctor states, that Gil is
medically capable ofresponding to questions in written foim.
4
At the pre-hearing conference, Watson first argued that the County has no standing to
represent Gil because he is no longer an employee of the County Board. However, due to the
fact that the information sought from Gil arises from when he was employed by the County
Board, the hearing officer finds that the County has such standing. Based on the representations
made by, Dr. Edelberg, the hearing officer finds that it is unreasonable to require Gil to attend
the hearings and testify if called upon. However, as indicated by Dr. Edelberg, Gil is capable of
responding to written questions. The County Board’s motion is granted in part and denied in
part. Gil is not required to attend the hearing, however, Watson may obtain the deposition of Gil
on written questions.
Finally, and on May 1, 2003, the City served the hearing officer via facsimile with a
motion for sanctions against the County for failure to comply with discovery. It appears that the
County had failed to produce the requested audio and/or video tapes ofthe various committee
meetings. Watson voiced his objection as well regarding the failure to produce the tapes at the
pre-hearing conference. The County represented that it has now produced the requested tapes to
the City. Further, it will make a second copy ofthe tapes and forward them to Watson by the
end ofthe day. No further discussion was held regarding the City’s motion for sanctions.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
_•~~~)
~
1\
ç.~~_’
/—)
\~J~
,/ ~.
____-__
Bradley P. Halloran
~‘
Hearing officer
Illinois Pollution Control Board
James R. Thompson Center, Suite 11-500
100 W. Randolph Street
Chicago, Illinois 60601
312.814.8917
5
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
It is hereby certified that true copies ofthe foregoing order was faxed and mailed, first
cI~ss,to each ofthe following on May 1, 2003:
Richard S. Porter
Charles F. Helsten
Hinshaw & Culbertson
100 Park Avenue
P.O. Box 1389
Rockford, IL 61105-1389
George Mueller, P.C.
Attorney at Law
501 State Street
Ottawa, IL 61350-3578
Elizabeth S. Harvey
Swanson, Martin & Bell
One
IBM
Plaza
Suite 2900
Chicago, IL 60611
Karl Krause. Chairman
Bruce Clark, Kaakakee County
Clerk
Kankakee County Board
189 Court Street
Kankakee, IL 60901
Edward Smith
Kankakee County State’s Attorney
450
East Court Street
Kankakee, IL 60901
L. Patrick Power
956
North Fifth Avenue
Kankakee, IL 60901
Leland Milak
6903
5.Route45-52
Chebanse, IL 60922
Keith Runyon
1165 Plum Creek Drive
Bourbonnais, IL 60914
Donald J. Moran
Pedersen & Houpt
161 N. Clark Street, Suite 3 100
Chicago, IL 6060 1-3224
Jennifer J. Sackett Pohlenz
1
75
W. Jackson Blvd.
Suite 1600
Chicago, JL 60604
Kenneth A. Bleyer
923 W. Gordon Terrace, ~3
Chicago,
IL 60613-2013
Patricia O’Dell
1242
Arrowhead
Drive
Bourbonnais, IL 60914
Kenneth A. Leshen
One Dearborn Square
Suite 550
Kankakee, IL 60901
6
It is hereby certified that a true copy ofthe foregoing order was hand delivered to the
following on May 1, 2003:
Dorothy M. Gunn
Illinois Pollution Control Board
James R. Thompson Center
100 ~V.Randolph St., Ste. 11-500
Chicago, Illinois 60601
Bradley P. Halloran
Hearing Officer
Illinois Pollution Control Board
James R. Thompson Center
100 West Randolph Street, Suite 11-500
Chicago, Illinois 60601
312.814.8917
Respondents.
ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
April 30, 2003
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
PCB
03-125
(Third-Party Pollution Control Facility
Siting Appeal)
w7~
1)
~ECE1V~D
CLERK~S~PP1CE
1~PR30 20~3
STATE OF IWNOIS
Pollution Control Board
COUNTY OF
KANKAKEE, COUNTY
BOARD OF KANKAKEE, and WASTE
MANAGEMENT OF ILLINOIS, INC.,
MERLIN KARLOCK,
)
)
Petitioner,
)
•
)
PCBO3-133
v.
)
(Third-Party Pollution Control Facility
)
Siting Appeal)
COUNTY OFKANKAKEE, COUNTY
)
BOARD OF KANKAKEE, and WASTE
)
MANAGEMENT OF ILLINOIS, INC.,
)
Respondents.
)
PCB 03-134
(Third-Party Pollution Control Facility
Siting Appeal)
COUNTY OF KANKAKEE, COUNTY
BOARD OF KANKAKEE, and WASTE
MANAGEMENT OF ILLINOIS, INC.,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CITY OF
KANKAKEE,
Petitioner,
V.
MICHAEL WATSON,
Petitioner,
V.
Respondents.
2
KEITH RUNYON,
)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
PCBO3-135
v.
)
(Third-Party Pollution Control Facility
)
Siting Appeal)
COUNTY OF KANKAKEE, COUNTY
)
(Consolidated)
BOARD OF KANKAKEE, and WASTE
)
MANAGEMENT OF ILLINOIS, INC.,
)
)
Respondents.
)
HEARING OFFICER ORDER
As an initial matter, on April 17, 2003, the Board severed PCB 03-144 from the
consolidated third party appeals. This is reflected in the caption of this order.
On April 22, 2003, petitioner City of Kankakee (City) filed its list ofpotential deponents.
On April 23, 2003, respondent Michael Watson filed his list .ofpotential deporients, naming
Bruce Clark in add i~ionto the deponeuts named in the City’s list. Respondents Waste
Management Of Illinois, Inc., (Waste Management) and County of Kankakee i~County)filed
their respective objections to the petitioners’ lists of deponents on April 23, 2003. Watson and
the City filed their responses on April 23 and 24, 2003, respectively. On April 24, 2003, a
telephonic conference was held where the hearing officer made rulings as set firth below.
The City’s list is comprised of 22 deponents, to wit: Donald Moran, Karl Kruse,
Elizabeth Harvey, Mike Quigley, Elmer Wilson, Chris Richardsen, Juanita Baker, Dennis Wily,
Chuck Helston, Mike VanMill, Doug Graves, Leo Whitten, Dale Hoekstra, Edward Smith,
Effraim Gill, Brenda Gorski, Shakey Martin, Chris Rubak, Chris Berger, Pam Lee, Geor9e
Washington, Jr. and Wes Wiseman. On April 24, 2003, a telephonic conference was held where
the hearing officer made rulings as set forth below.
Potential
Attorney Deponents
Donald Moran is the attorney ofrecord for respondent Waste Management. Dennis Wilt
is Waste Management’s general counsel. Elizabeth Harvey is an attorney of record for
respondents’ County and County Board of Kankakee (County Board). Chuck Helston is an
attorney of record for the County. Edward Smith is the State’s Attorney for the County of
Kankakee. Brenda Gorski is a County ofKarikakee Assistant State’s Attorney. Smith, and by
extension, Gorski, are duly elected officers representing Kankakee County.
The Board has held that requiring the deposition ofopposing counsel is limited to
situations where it is shown that: (1) no other means exists to obtain the information than to
depose opposing counsel; (2) the information sought is relevant and non-privileged; and (3) the
3
information sought is crucial to the preparation ofthe case. Citizens Against Regional Landfill
v. The County Board ofWhiteside County and Waste Management of Illinois, Inc., PCB 92-156
slip. op. at 8, (February
25,
1993). Furthermore, ~‘unbridleddepositions of attorneys constitutes
an invitation to delay, disruption of the case, harassment and perhaps disqualification of the
attorney to be deposed.”
I~.
Here, Watson and the City appear to argue that, absent receipt of the discovery sought,
they cannot claim that the information sought is crucial or even relevant to their case. But there
appear to be other means ofobtaining the sought after information, at least with respect to Moran
and Wilt. The City in its response appears to represent that it seeks to elicit information
regarding the County’s Solid Waste Plan in an attempt to uncover fundamental fairness issues.
As noted in the hearing officer order of April 17, 2003, procedures employed regarding the
County’s Solid Waste Plan is beyond the purview of the Board. The County’s and Waste
Management’s objections to the depositions of Moran, Harvey, Wilt, Helston, Smith and Gorski
are sustained. These persons will not be deposed.
Potential Other Deponents
As to the remaining named deponents, the County’s and Waste Management’s objections
were granted in part and denied in part. Named deponents Kruse, Quigley, Wilson, Richardsen,
Baker, VanMill, Graves, Whitten, Hoekstra, Gill, Martin, Rubak. Berger, Lee, Washinginton,
Wisernan and Clark’s deposition were allowed to go forward. However, the hearing officer
directed that the depositions will be no longer than one hour each. This limitation was imposed
due in part to the time constraints where the hearing in this matter commences May
5.
2003, and
the Board’s decision deadlines of August 7, 2003. Allowing Watson and the City one hour to
uncover possible fundamental fairness issues strikes a balance between their right to discovery
and Waste Management’s statutory right to an expeditious decision.
Waste Management, in its objections filed April 23, 2003, alleges that the City named
Lee Addleman on its list ofdeponents. It represents that Addleman underwent a liver transplant
on February 17, 2003, and that his condition prohibits him from participating in this matter. The
list ofdeponents that was served on the hearing officer makes no mention of Addleman.
Therefore, the City has waived this discovery. In any event, and based on the representations of
Waste Management, the City is barred from deposing Addleman.
The parties or their legal representatives are directed to participate in a telephonic pre-
hearing conference with the hearing officer on May 1, 2003, at 10:30 a.m.
To
participate, dial
(888) 622-5357 and then enter participant code of 535916.
IT IS SO
ORDERED.
4
Bradley P. Hall~i~n
Hearing officer
Illinois Pollution Control Board
James R. Thompson Center, Suite 11-500
100 W. Randolph Street
Chicago, Illinois 60601
312.814.8917
5
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Richard S. Porter
Charles F. Heisten
Hinshaw & Culbertson
100 Park Avenue
P.O. Box 1389
Rockford, IL 61105-1389
George Mueller, P.C.
Attorney at Law
501 State Street
Ottawa, IL 6 1350-3578
Elizabeth S. Harvey
Swanson, Martin & Bell
One
IBM
Plaza
Suite. 2900
Chicago, IL 60611
Karl Krause, Chairman
Bruce Clark, Karikakee County
Clerk
Kankakee County Board
189 Court Street
Kankakee, IL 60901
Edward Smith
Kankakee County State’s Attorney
450
East Court Street
Kankakee, IL 60901
L. Patrick Power
956
North Fifth Avenue
Kankakee, IL 60901
Leland Milak
6903
5.
Route
45-52
Chebanse, IL 60922
Keith Runyon
1165 Plum Creek Drive
Bourbonnais, IL 60914
Donald J. Moran
Pedersen & Houpt
161 N. Clark Street, Suite 3100
Chicago, IL 60601-3224
Jennifer J. Sackett Pohlenz
175 W. Jackson Blvd.
Suite 1600
Chicago, IL 60604
Kenneth A. Bleyer
923 W. Gordon Terrace, #3
Chicago, IL 60613-2013
Patricia O’Dell
1242 Arrowhead Drive
Bourbonnais, IL 60914
Kenneth A. Leshen
One Dearborn Square
Suite
550
Kankakee,
IL 60901
It is hereby certified that true copies ofthe foregoing order was
class, to each ofthe following on April 30, 2003:
faxed and mailed, first
6
It is hereby certified that a true copy ofthe foregoing order was hand delivered to the
following on April 30, 2003:
Dorothy M. Gunn
Illinois Pollution Control Board
James R. Thompson Center
100W. Randolph St., Ste. 11-500
Chicago, Illinois 60601
________-
Bradley P. Hallor~n
Hearing Officer
Illinois Pollution Control Board
James R. Thompson Center
100 West Randolph Street, Suite 11-500
Chicago, Illinois 60601
312.814.8917
Via Facsimile Only
Donald Moran
Pedersen & Houpt
161 North Clark Street, Suite
3100
Chicago, IL 60601-3242
Fax: (312)
261-1149
Jennifer J.
Sackett
Pohlenz
Direct Dial: (312) 540-7540
E-Mail: ~pohlenz(ii~guerrey.com
July21, 2004
Querrey ~ Harrow
Querrey&Harm~,~Led.
Other
Offices:
175
WestJackson
Blvd.
Crystal Lake,
IL
Suite 1600
Joliet, IL
CJiicago.
IL
60604-2827
Waukegan, IL
-
Whearon, IL
TEL (312)540-7000
Metriliville, IN
FAX (312) 540-0578
New York, NY
—
Repsesentatiw
www.querr~com
UK
Office:
London
Re:
WMII v. Kankakee
County
Board,
04-186
Our File #:
65448
Dear Mr. Moran:
I am writing in response to your phone message of yesterday. I am not available on
July .22 or
23~d
for the deposition of Mr. Watson
in
this matter. However, I propose that you
reschedule his deposition to take place on August 10 at 11:00 a.m.
The scope of Mr. Watson’s deposition will be limited to the topic raised by your
subpoena of him, namely questioning as to whether he’s had any
ex pane
communications.
Additionally, I ask that we limit
the deposition time
to one hour. It is my recollection that this
was the previous time limitation imposed by the Hearing Officer in
03-134,
et al.
Please provide me with your response to the proposed date, time, scope and length of
this
deposition.
Sincerely,
EXHIBIT
I
~**4*.**~******
—COMM. JOURNAL—
*********~***4(*$~*
DATE JUL—21-2aO~
***~*
TIME la:a6
***
P.øi
MODE
=
MEMORY TRANSMISS:ON
START=JJL-21 ia:05
END=JUL—21 1O~5
FILE NO.= 219
STN NO. 0DM ABBR NO.
STATION NAME/TEL. NO. PAGES DURATION
OK
~G544B~2h2611149~
~O2’Oa2 EB:20’39”
—Querre~
a.
Ha”row
***5e********************,,*****~***
—Ch~ca~o
1SSIJ
—
—
312 54a
a578—
**~ov**s
Querrey ~ Harrow
Qu~gcy& 1-Iserow.
Lid,
Privilei’ed &
Confidential
~
175
Wc,tluckson
Boulcv~rd
C1ysnaI Lake, IL.
Sure 1600
JolictIL
CIriesgo, IL 60604-2827
M;rrillvillc, 0’4
-
New York, NY
TEL (312)540-7000
Waukcgan, fl.
FAX (312)540.0578
Wheulon, IL
Jensifer J. Saukesi Pohleno
Rcpvescnlaf:ve
U.K Office:
Direu DtsI~(312)
SdO-1S40
London
E-ma~I:
ioohIenz(~querrev.com
FAX TRANSMISSION SHEET
DATE:
July 21,2004
TO:
Donald Moran
FA~X
NUMBER: (312) 261-1149
FROM:
Jennifer J. Sackett Pohlenz
USER
NO.: 9328
CMRNO.:
65448
NUMBER OF PAGES BEING SENT (INCLUDING COVER SHEET):
2
IF YOU
HAVE
ANY DIFFICULTY IN
RECEIVING
THIS TRANSMISSION
PLEASE
CALL
312-540-7619 IMMEDIATELY
RETURI~
TO:
FOR
SENT BY: Karen Gryczan
COMMENTSJMULTI.PLE
SEND:
Please see correspondellce dated
July 21, 2004 enclosed,
The information contained
in
this
facslmilg communication is attorney privileged
and confidentiai information
intended only for
the use of the individual or entity to ‘whom or to which it is addressed. if the recipient of this ~ansmissionis not the intended
recipient, the
recipient is hereby notified that any dissemination. distribution, or rcproduction of
this communication is
strictly
prohibited. If
you have received this communication in crior, please
notify QIJERR.EY & IARROW, LTD.
at the above
telephone number
and
return the communication to
QUERREY
& HARROW, LTD. at the above address via the U.S. Postal
Service. Thank you.
JUL
db ~
•1~d5
FR
TO
2149 2~933~??8~tP.02/e2
PEDERsEMiioIII1I~
July 28, 2004
Donald
J.
Menu
Atloniey
at
Law
312.261.2149
Fax
312.261.1149
dmoran@pedersenhoupt.com
Via Facsimile
-
(312) 540-0578
Jennifer J. Sackett Pohlenz
Querrey
& Harrow
175 W.
Jackson Boulevard, Suite 1600
Chicago, ~L60604
Re:
Waste
Management ofIllinois
v.
Kankaliee
Countj’ .Baurd
No. FCB 04-186
Dear
Ms. Pohlenz:
I have received your ktter dated July 21, 2004
concerning the deposition of Mr. Watson.
I agree to resthedule Mr.
Watson’s
deposition to August 10 at
11:00 a,m. The scope ofMr.
Watson’s deposition will include any matters related to or concerning the fundamental fairness
of
the $iting proceedings before the Kankakee County Board
in the above
appeal. These will
include, but not be limited to, any
cx
parte communications
in
which he participated or
had
knowledge.
I do not
agree
to Limit the deposition to one
hour. There is no applicable rule
or
reason
to so limit
the
deposition. It is my hope that the deposition
might be concluded in one hour,but this will
depend
on the
responses and
testimony of
Mr. Watson. The only limitation to Mr. Watson’s
deposition is the three-hour limitation provided in Supreme Court
Rule 206(d)
and Section
101.622(f) ofthe Pollution Control
Board Procedural Rules.
Please confirm your agreement with the terms ofthis letter and your
client’s attendance on
August 10 at 11:00 a.m. in the
Kankakee County Adminisiration Building.
Donald
J.
oran
DJM:vlk
DiM
393856
vi Ju1y28,2004
Suite $100 1161 North Clark Street
I
Cl-~ca9o,IL 60601-3242 I peder5enhoupt.com I 312 641 6888 1 Fax 312 641 6895
A
ProJ,rsJen,I toiior~tie,
*.* TOTAL PRGE.02 **
CoUnty
dumps
re.cycnngnauie
u~pu~
:~I~qj~~
QLptJ
L
~
by
Kenneth
Gragga
Waste
Managemeat(WM),the
being
picked
up
in
posa~
the
Kerald
reporter
multi-billion
dollar
company
I
Bourbonnais,
Manteno
and.
spokesperéonfar
Part
one
in
a
series
which
also,
according
to
some,
other
locations
finds
its
way
to
-WM
stated.
The
recent
ousting
of
United
plays
a
major
role
in
the
story,
the
transfer
center.
If
these
The
WM
Dispo~a1
as
carrier
of
re-
opted
to
remain
anonymous.
-
allegations
were
true,
United
spokesper±
-
cyclablesforKankakeeCounty
In
plain
words,
this
is
acorn-:
would
be
in
violation
of
their
.
added
that
nutu
-
~a
rife
with
allegations,
peud-.
plex
story,
often
with
players
permit.
.
•.
berahaveproven
iiig
litigation
and
•badblood
hopingtonianipulatethefacts,
Docinnentsdãtedfromjanu-::.
that
the
transfer
Ii
with
a
back-story
fuflof
the-figures
and
opinions
in
their
ary2a,2OO3fon~tbeKankakee
..
center
has
over-
same
iui*ture.
.
..
.~.
favor.Theeisenoughgarbage,
County
Health
Department
:
extended
itself
In
February.
of.
2004,
the
:..pardonthepun,tofflhtwolañd
~-claim
that
‘sat
the
time
of
~:aUd.thusviolated
county
dissolved
its
contract
fills
apection
apparent
vtalatkons
~
permit.
Nuin
-
with
Bradley
camer
United
It
should
also
be
noted
that
were
observed
and
the
facility
hers
point
to
a
Dtsposai
and
signed
a
six-
billions
of
dollars
are
at
stake
appeared
not
to
be
in
cumph-
discrepancy
be-
month
agreementwithAandJ
here
This
fact,
for
most,
is
once
with
their
permit
tween
Dispoaaltopickuprecyclablea.:
likely
obvious.
Money
stands
Inspection
documents
reit..
amount
of
racy-’
The
diasolvng
of
the
con-
aa
an
important
part;
of
any
erate
this
allegationforthefol-.
~i1abIes.
at.
the
tract
did
not
turn
very
many
storyfraughtwith
life-altering
Iowingninemonths.Thedocu-
.
transfer
center
.heáds.~But
behind
the
scenes,
allegations
and
it
isno
differ-
mentswouldfurtberclaänthat
also,adiscuasion
the.actiOn,
according
to
some,
enthere.
.
-
.
truckswhichBevis
and
county
to
be
further
ex
-
was
made
for
selfish
and
niLe-
United
Disposal
.
sanitarian
Toni
Webster
fol-
~ined
in
next
ror
motIves—to
others,
the
The
traditional
-view
is
that
.
lowed,
brought
in
outaide
gar-.
week~s
article.
action
was
a
legi.tiniate
move,
there
are
two
sides
to
every
bage
to
the
transfer
center.
The
mystery,
since
it
was
claimed,
that
story.
For
Watson,
whose
fain-
These
documents
also
allege
Bevis
stated,
United
Dis~posa
was
network-
ily
ha~i
owned
United
Disposal
that
when
Bevis
asked
for
-could
be
solved
if
inginaccordance’withtbeper-
for
23
years,
this
customary
records
that
show
how
much
-
documents
for
mit
authorized
by
the
Illinois
view
holds
true
hare.
waste
bad
been
processed
at
the
amount
of
1:
Environmental
Protection
Watson
mamtains
that
the
Umted,hisrequestwasdemed
tonnage
were
Agency
(IEPA)
Kankakee
County
Health
Do-
Watson
agreed
that
he
had
provided
would
take
Machiavellian
Even
before
thecontraetwas
partment
and
WM
have
eerily
not
supplied
receipts
to
levis
“All
other
facilities,
mcfixd-
strides
to
get
what
they
want
dissolved,hoWeVer,UiittOdDiS-
similar
stones
and
eerily
sinu-
upon
being
a~ed
He
stead-
uig
Apollo
and
WM,
have
coop
The
recent
vote
by
the
county
posal
and
the
Kankakee
lar
agendas
fastl~
mamtams,however,that
erated
completely,”
Bevissaid
board
to
not
accept
the
land~
-
County
Health
Department,
Un~ted.,accordingtoWat.son
such
receipts
are
not
required
“But
as
of
September
2003,
flhl,wbetheritisupheldornot
who
a
ta
as
liaison
for
thelEPA,
had
been
picking
up
garbage;
.
-by
the
1EPA
or
anyone
else.
communications
with
United
was
due,
in
small
part
anyway,
-
had
been
in
meetingsfbrcvera
reporting
to
the
county
and
In
theiivc-pnge
1995
permit
have
deteriorated.”
.-
to
Watson’sl
objections.
‘
year
and
ahaif.
Andherein
lies
EPA,when
asked,
and
perform.-
there
is
n~i
ti~~
whi~±
states
-
Why
the
arilniosity?
Watson
claims
it
is
not
coin-
a
story
that
isjust
beginning
to
jag
their
duties
without
any
directly
thnt
tonnage
receipts
-
Throughout
-the
inspection
.
cidental
that
the
focus
on
his
take
shape.
hitch
for
eight
years
prior,
to
are
required.
reports,
w’hich
are
dated
from
business
came
as
these
impor
-
Because
ofpendmglltigation
the
“hassles”
which
arose
in
~‘The
EPAneedr’
analysis
for
January
2003
to
late
Septem-
tant
second
siting
hearings
~
against
United
Disposal,
which
January
of
2003.
a
transfer
cent~r---and
1.
will
her
2003,
there
is
mention
of
began
m-2003.The
inspections,
~
is
a
transfer
center.,
attorneys
United’s
permit,
issued
by
repeat
this
over
and
over—is
Watson
using
foul
and
abusive
as
was
mentioned
earlier,
were
the
county
have
remained
the
JEPA
in
1995
stipulates,
that
reporting
is
purety
volun-
language
when
dealing
with
prompted
by
an.
anonymous
somewhat
reticent.
United
,
among
many
other
rules,
that
tary,
period,”
Watson
-
said,
the
inspectors.
-
county
board
member.
Watson
Ui
owner’
Mike
Watson
has
been
the
transfer
station
would
not
Watson
points
to
the
Nonhaz-
Watson
does
not
deny
the
claims
that
WM
needed
the
as
candid’as
possible,
smcehe
accept
any
“waste
generated
ardous
Solid
Waste
Manage-
claims
that
he
was
not
fully
‘land-flU
for
the
Chicago
gar
-
too
is
part
of
pending
litiga-
outside
the
municipal
bound-
-.
ment
and
Landfill
Capacity
in
ccoperatiiie,
but
calls
most
of
bage
market
and
hoped
to
si
-
tion
Kankakee
CountyHealth
aries
ofthevillag~
of
Bradley”
lllinoi~
~01
aunLal
report
thec’nmty
nealthdepartment’s
lance
Watson
and
his
objet-
Department
director
of
elivi-
-
An
anonymous
county
board
which
stotes
“reporting
isvol-
actions
“entrapmenV’,
adding
tions
by
mtinndation.
WM
ronmental
health
John
Bevis
‘member,
whose
anonymity
is
untary,”
‘
.-
that
such
behavior
was
justi-
called
such
allegations
ndicu
-
provided
documentation
of
on-
-
illegal
according
to
Watson,
Bevia
refutes
this
statement,
fled.
Ions
and
unfounded.
-
--
—
-
L~ln~~d
claimed
that
United
wake
not;
-
-
however;
stating
that
though
From
the
beginning
of
the
One
source,
who
wanted
to
~
_.
.
-
-
‘-r,
.
.
-
...
4
--
,_
~
‘~,,s
-
-
Pholo
pror~ided
tn
The
Herald/Country
Market
This
photo,
taken
sometime
last
year,
shows
Rt,
45
and
its
center
-
line
covered
in
mud.
The
photographer
claims
that
Waste
Manage
-
ment
haulers
tracked
mud
onto
the
highway,
which,
if
true,.
would
bB
a
violatiqnaf
their
permit
and
Illinois
state
law.
It
Is
just
one
part
of
the
finger-pointing
in
which
Wasle
Management,
United
Disposal
of
Bradley
and
the
Karikakee
Health
Department
have
taken
part
over
-
the
last
several
months.
-
-
-by
t~~e
lEBAcer~a1~T~e
else.
communnaLiu~L~
~VL&
.....,..‘.
,
-
I
Spermit:
have
deteriorated.”
taWat-soniobiections.
there
is
-
win
hicli
states
-,:
Why
the
animosity?.
-
-
Watson
claims
it
is
not
coin-
dire
that
to
age
receipts
Throt.ghout
the
inspection
cide
us
on
his
are
require
-
:
‘
reports,
hiclI~.re
dated
from
-‘:
business
caine
ese
impor-
-‘
“The
needs’
alysisfor
January~O
at~Septem~
tent-
seco
siting
hearings
air
fer
er—and
I.
will
her
2003,
there
is
mention-of
.-bega
2003
-Theins
ons,,
rep
over
an4
over—is
Watson
using~bur~nd
abusive
as
was
men
tonedear
r,were
~
reporting
is
purely
volun-
language
..wIl~tn
dealing
with
prompted
b
-
anonymous
tary,
pe,
,
tson
-said.
the
~
-
,
county
member.Watson
H
Watson
points
to
Noxthaz-
Wat~~t
deny
the
eIaim~-tha4~WM--nee~ed
the
ardous
Solid
ta
Manage-
claims
that~Jie~as’
not
fully
‘land-fill
for
~~Qht~ago
gar-
-
ment
ndflll
Capacity
in
coopèr~i~jJiiit.salj~
most
of
bage
mark~en~I-h~d
to
si-
-
ofBradley.”
lw
nal
report
thecountyheaJthde~iartment~è
lence
W~tse~rflhiiI
his
~obJec
-
boathr~which
ates
~
is
vól-
actions
“er~apmeitt~adding
tions
by’intimidat~on.
‘WM
:
-
is
unta
‘
-‘
that
su~bthn’~i~
was
justi-
called
such
allegation~idicu
-
Bevi
s
atement,
~
-
,.:
bus
and
~ni~d-e~’
-‘
~
~
C)ae—set~?wite-waated
to
--
the
EPA’S
rules
for
docuinen-
landfill
siting-process,
Watson
remain
anonymous,
has
his
tation
are
ambiguous,
they
are
has
adamantly
opposed
the
~oWn
allegations
against
WM.
nonethe)ess
on
thebooks.
If
an
WM
land-fill.
By’
doing
go,
The
source
provided
a
picture..
inspector,
in
this
case
Bevis,
‘Watson
claims,
he
has
created
to
The
Country
Market
(see
-‘
requestsdocumentatiouforany
many
erieniies—enemirts
who
photo’
above),
which,
they
activities
on
the
-permittéd-
have
created”unsubstantiated
claimed,
proves
WM
is
not
fbi-
,
-
property,
this
documentation
reports”iu
order
to
remove
him
lowing
their
permit.
The
photo
-
must
be
presented.
,
-
from
the
picture.
shows
Rte.
45
and
the
center-
-‘
-
Bevis
said
if
Watson
gave
‘
“’This
isabusiness
of
big
corn-
line
covered
in
mud
after
WM
reports
of
tonnage
for
the
last
panies,”
Watson
said.
“These
truckshadpulledontothehigh
-
year,
it~puld
Lkely
prove
that
claims
against
me
are
noth-
way
aviolahon
ofllhnois
state
the
transfercenter~s1
kingin
-~
ing
but
sabotage.”~
-
,
law.
WM
did
not
provide
pho-.
more
garbage
than
just
Brad-
During
interwiews,Watson
tographic
evidence
butinstead
-
ley
garbage.
-‘
-
-
has
attempted
to
create
anS
pointstonumericalfaetswhiçh
Bevis
stated
if,
hypotheti-
imageaaasmall,family-owned
they
say
prove
Uni±ed
was
not
cally,
it
is
found
Bradley
pro-
‘
busiriessbeingmolestedbythe
fulfilling
its
contract.
‘
duces
50
tons
of
garbage
in
a
corporate
giants,
namely
WM.
‘
For
more
on
the
dissolution
day
and
the
transfer
center
is
With
$16
billion
in
assets,
otUnited’s
contract
with
the
dealing
with
100
tons
of
gar-
there
is
tao
doubt
that
WMis
a
county,readnextweek’sCoun
-
bage
in
a
day,
then
a
discrep-
giant.
One,Watson
said,
which
try
Market.
ancy
appears.
‘
-
-
hi
order
tot
that
garbage
to
be
picked
up
legally
by
United
in
Manteno
or
Bourbonnais,
it
must
be
taken
directly
from
thathonne
or
business
toaland
-
fill,
according
to
the
WM
spokesperson.
Such
an
action
would
f
hen
require
a
-dump
-
tiØcet
for
a
six-wheel
truck.
No
proof
of
such
tickets
has
been
produced,
according
to
Bevis.
aOne
should
be
highly
suspi
-
ciousofactivitiesatUnitedDia
-
4~~Di
and
was
as
open
as
following
their
permit.
possible.
A
spokesperson
for
It
is
alleged
that
garbage
by
Kenneth
Grigge
Herald
reporter
The
second
in
a
two
-
part
series
In
February
2004,
the
Kankakee
County
board
opted
out
of
their
contract
with
United
Disposal
to
have
curbsidepiek-upofrecycl-abies.
-Doing
away
with
this
con
-
tract,
according
to
the
county,
was
based
on
substantial
evi
-
dence
that
United
was
not
ful
-
filling
their
end
of
the
bar
-
gain—most
importantly,
ab
-
sent
monthly
documents
prov
-
jag
the
tonnage
‘of
recycled
materials.,
County
board
member
Leonard
“Shakey”
Martin
was
one
of
the
few
board
members
who
voted
against
relieving
United
of
their
services.:
Martin
claimed
that
United
owner
Mike
Watson
“was
do
-
ing
the
reports
like
he’d
always
done
when
asked.”
Yet,
thecountyplanningde
-
partment
cited
that
none
ofthe
“monthly
reports,
records
over
the
course
of
four
years,
proof
of
Ii
ability
insurance
and
iclen-
-
tiflcation
of
all
recycling
cen
-
ters
used
for
the
term
of
the
contract”
were
provided
when
asked
for.
,
-
This
letter,
directed-to
United
Disposal,
was.
dated
October
2003.
At
this
same
time
,
communications
between
the
Kankakee
County
Health
Department
and
United
were
rapidly
deteriorating.
-
Conuningiing
,‘
As
cited
in
last
week’s
ar
-
ticle,
Watson
did
not
deny
his
lack
of
cooperation
with
direc
-
tor
of
environmental
health
John
Bevis.
Bevis
had
begun
monthly
inspections
of
United
board
meeting
when
the
con
-
tract
was
dissolved,
it
was
not
mentioned
the
planning
do-’
partment
was
seekingmonthly,
reports,
records
of
‘tonnage,’
proof
of
liability
insurance
or
a
list
of
recyelinj
centers.
The
planning
department
did
dis-
-
cuss
the
aforementioned
crite
-
United
Back to top
Disposal
Back to top
ousted
questions
and
requests.
Watson
said
he
does
nothave
-to
tell
anyone
who
he
sends
his
recyciables
to.
in
information
obtaine4
through
a
freedom
of
information
request,
the
only
recycling
center
documented.
was
Diversified
Recycling
in
East
Hazeicrest.
,
-
Watson
did
respond
to
the
na,
but.
no~
mention
was
made
October2003
planningdepart-
of
these
details
~tthé
regular..
ment
letter
but
did
not
do
so
board
meeting.
-
‘
until
January
of
2004.
The
let-
.
.
Watson
said
about
-~year
:
tsr
was
wntt,en
on
lus
behalf
and
~
half
mtff
the
contract,
by
attorney
Jennifer
Pohlenz
United,
began
recycling
:the
of
Querrey
and
Harrow,
Ltd,
pbper
at
the
facility
tmlaally,
Chicago
vihen
then
e~ur*jrsohd
waste
It
stated,
~It
is
unclear
why
coordinator
Efraim
Gil
asked
‘
the
county
is
now
seeking
to
United
to
collect
recyc)ables,
‘
,
Her~WCouat~
Ma~tal
photo
by
Kenneth
Griggs
apparently
enforce
a
written
-
none
of
the
recycling
was
to
~
This
United
Disposal
dumpster
is
one-of
many
in
Kankakee
County,’,
‘contract
against
United
Dis-
done
at
the
United
facility.
The
county
board
racently,dissolved
its
conlract
with
Unted
D~s-
posal,
which
is
currently
ox-
When
costs
started
to
be
~‘
.posal
for
curbside
pick-up
of
recyctables.
Finger-pointing
arid
bad
.:‘
pired
and
which
the
county,
curred,
Watson
said,
he
wanted
btood
have
surrounded
the
break-up
durmg
the
term
of
the
written
compensation
He
mamtams
-
-‘
When
documentation
quit
solved.
‘
‘
,
,
,
arriving
in
2001,
the
county
‘
“independent
voices
are
of-
probably
should
have
con-.
ten
come
down
hard
upon,”
front-ed
Watson
then.
But,
at.
Watson
said.
L.a
,.llillyca
-
thesametime,wheiithècounty
pable
of
enduring
the
stn.’~
‘~
—
asked
for
documentation,
Karl
Kruse
stated
thatprob
-
Watson
probably
should
have
lems
with
thuted
surfaced.
and
supphethttoavoidfurthercon-
the
county
board
took
action
sequences:It
seems
as
though
‘on
the~ep~oblems~iimedi’
-
both
parties
failed
in
their
re-
~atety
sponsibihbes
“These
problems
with
United
Numbers
and
more
-
:‘startedbeforeMr.Watsonever-.
:
allegaf3oiis
~--
-‘--
-
---‘-entered
the
racCfbr
the
county
The
last
percentage
for
di-
board
seat,”
Kruse,
who
voted
version,
or
recyclables,
in’the
in
favor
of
the
WM
landfill,
county,
was
slated
at
45
per-
stated.
.,,
.,
.‘
.
centin
Z001.AWaste
Manage-
In
conversations
with
soy
-
ment(WM)spokesperson,wbo
eral
individuals,
the
way
,WM
remained
anonymous,
‘said
uses
their
power
was
called
that
such
a
number
proves
the
into
question.
Stopping
short
wrong-doing
of
United
Dis-
ofsenióus
allegations,
the
mdi
-
posaL
The
county,
it
is
pro-
viduals
wondered
aloud
liow
jected,
generates
1,000
tons
of
the
$16
billion
corporation
al-
-
garbage
in
a
day.
WM
figures
-
ways
seems
to
get
what
they
1:.
proveabout45Otonsisbrought
want
-
to
the
current
landfill.
With
---
Watson
did
not
comthant
~
-~
-
~.
L
~
-
‘
‘‘
‘
“
-‘
-.
,.:
‘
-
-
by
cà~Mty,..á1iegations.
plle’..y.p
-
I
agreement,
paid
United
Dis-
that
he
made
very
little
profit
posal
in
flail
satisfaction
of
the
by
collecting
recydabies.
In
serviceaprovided.Canyoupro-
-:
fact,
he
dirt
tha
service
after
vide
an
explanation?”
-
the
county
mid
(ii
personally
ters
i~sed
for
the
-
f
~
contract”
wer~prov
ed
when
asked
fork
‘
‘
This
I
,
d
ted-to
lJnited
Di
,.
as.
dated.
October
2003.
‘hia’same
-
time,
comm
ionsbetween~
the
eCo
ealtit
Departmen
and
U
d
were
rapidly
deterior~ing.
Co~infingling’
-
-
.Asci
‘
mlastweek’sar
-
tide,
tsou
did
ii
y
his
lack
a
nwithdirec
-
tor
environmental
health
via
had
begun
“In
January
of
2003,
prompted
by
an
anonymous
countyboard
member’s
tip
that
United
was
not
complying
with
their
per
-
.xnit.
.
-
The
county
board
member
in
a
letter
to
Bevis
arid
the
health
department,
stated
Unitedwas
not
following
the
guidelines
of
their
permit.
It
alleged,
also,
:-United
bad
been
~‘commin
-
gling”
recyclables
with
other
waste.
-
‘
In
the
first
inspection
report
dated
Jan.
28,
2003,
Bevis
stated,
after
following
a
truck
inBradley,
that
agarbage
truck
‘picked
up
“what
appeared
to
be
green
designated
recycle
bags,
which
were
commingled
with
the
residential
waste.”
Later
in
the
same,
report.
Bevis
stated,
“I
asked
what
or
who
hauls
the
recyclables
and
he
Watson)
was
evasive
in
hIs
answers,
only
stating
that
they
were
hauled
away.”
-‘
Almost
all
of
the
inspection
reportS
which
follow
for
the
next
nine
months,
sometimes.
occurring
twice
a
month,
echo.
the
same
sentiments.
Often,
-
-
the
reports
claim
Watson
used
foul
language~and’
refused
to
cooperate
with
inspector’s
floth
parties
raneri
in
i~ieu~
~
,
ca~j.
.,.__
sponsibilities.
‘:
-
‘~Th
itllUiiited
Nuinb,~gr~4~u~ore’
.
‘~
,dbe!qja~M~.
Watson
ever
-
-
-enter~tli~raceforthecounty
-
The
last
pere&itage
for
di-
-
bo
~jeat,”I
sé~Wl1~,voted
I
~versio-~recyçl~es,
in-the
in
favor
of~
WWlandfill,
county,
was
slated
ac~45
per-.
-~
state4.,-~
.
:.
-
centin
2001.
AWa~ite’Manage-
~
sev-.
mentC~M)~k~person,who
eral
indivi~uala~t~E~
way
,WM
reniain,Ø-inouymous,
-said.
uses
—power--w~s
called
that~li.a-a~inbei-p~oves
the
into
question.
-
ping
short’
wrong-doing
oL.Uai~ted
Dis-’:
ofseriO
egations,
the
mdi
-
posal
Tb-c~iihty,
at
is
pro-
vidi
won
er
how
Dis-
thatj~~g~~-titt1iiproflt
jected
esate,1,OQO
tons
of
the
$16
hi
oration
al-
-by
itf~~l~es.
In
garbagein~d~y~W~Iflgures
way
,eemsto
fact,
h~-’dTd
~
prove
aki5uit.4~tjjoias~
Drought
want
-
the.ç~unlaJ-personfflIy
f
n~J~4fil~”’W~th
-
Watrrili~ot-commen
-orl
Despite
Pohlenz’s
argument
asked
him
and,
as
he
put
it,
the
diversion
rate
at
45
per-
WM,
but
did
say
lie
hoped
to
-
that”foreachmonth,forwhich
“stepped
up
to
the
plate
forthe
cent,
that.
would
mean
about
see
the
county
“come
up
with-a
you
apparently
now
seek
du-
community”
100
tons
of
garbage
would
‘be
solid
waste
plan
that
people
placative
documentation,
Documents
to
prove
the
ton-
leitbetween
the
othertwohaul-
take
part
in
developing”
United
Disposal
previously
nage
of
paper,
plastics
and
all
ers
an
the
county,
Apollo
and
Bevis
said
he
finds
it
suspect
supplied
information
thatwas
recyclables
collected
are
re-
United.
An
Apollo
spokesper-
thatWatsonwassoadainantly
satisfactory
to
the
county,
as
corded
from
Sept.
20,1999
un-
son
stated
th~tonaverage,
they
against
the
WM.landflhl,
bUt-
-
-
evidenced
by
the
county’s
pay-.
til
Sept.
30,
2001,
on
average
dsal
with
80
to
100
tons
of
not
against
the
city’s
lanifilL
ment
to
United
Disposal,”
the
‘
about
Ill
tons
a
month.
After
‘garbage
a
day,’
United,
again
Bevis
said
there
are
selfish
rea
-
‘county
did
away
with
United’s
Sept.
30,
however,
United
pro-
has
stated,
has
not
provided
sans
Watson
would,be
opposed
-.
services.
The
contract,
which
vidednodocumentationfor
ton-
daily
tonnage
documentation
to
one,Iand
in
favor
of
anothe~.
started
in
September
of
1999,
nage.
Term
number
four
cfthe
and
refused
to
talk
about
these
“1
am
against
Chicago
gai~
paid
United
$2,500
a
month
original,
contract
states,
-
numbers.
However,
simple
-
bage,”
Watson
saicL
“And
that’
-:
for
the
service.
‘
.
“United
shall
keep
accurate
‘math
shows,
that
somewhere
shouldclearupwhyl’mforone
The
Feb.
4,2004
recommen-
-
records
as
to
the
weight
ofeach
.
the
numbers
are
not
adding
and
didn’t
step
out
on
the
-
dation.
from
tue
planning
do-:
type
of
recyclable
material
re-.
.‘.~.
.
-:
-‘,
:
‘
‘
other.”
partmentreads,
“knowing
that
‘.
calved
each
month
and
an
an-
WM
points
to
these
figures
‘
But,
if
Town
and
Country
-
the
potential
existed
that
the
counting
of
transportation
es-:
as
proof
that
United
is
coin-
builttheirlandfluinthecityof
current
facility
United
Ills-
perises.
and
shall
submit
these
minng.therecyclable8
W1th
Kankakee
they
would
accept’
posalj
would
no
longer
allow
-
-
records
to
Kimkakee
County
other
waste
material.
-
-
garbage
primarily
from
-
recydablestobebroughtthere
on
amonthlybasis,onorabout
-‘
,~The&iversion
percentage
Iroquois
and
Kankakee
coun-
,,:
.‘.
-
forfree—~-theplanningdepart-
-
the
first
of
each
month.”
.
-
.
--
can’tbeanywlrerénear45per---
tieswIthanoptionfor.sixaddi-
.-:~,
ment
quickly
acted
to
seek
out
Why
then
in
Srpt
~J~01
re-
cent,”
the
WM
spokesperson
tional
i.ounties
a
alternative
solution.”’
-
-
portawerenciongorbeingMed
said.
-
“
-
-‘
.
‘
Allegations
from
both
sides
This
alternative
was
to
hire
is
somewhat
of
a
mystery..
‘
A
democrat,
Watson
has
en-
‘continued
untilpress
timewith
-
A
andJ
Disposal
to
a
six—month
Watson
said
ho
and
Gil
tered
the
race
for
a
seat
on
the
each
player
jockeying
for
posa
-
contract
l~r
$2,500
a
month
to
worked
out
a
system
by
which
county
beard
in
district
11,
a
tiori.
Based
on
factual
informa
-
pick
up
curbside
recyclables.
tonnage
was
reported
at
the
sent
currently
held
by
county
tion,itisdifilculttoplaceblame
Watson
points
out
A
and
J
is
conclusion
of
each
year.
When
chairperson
Karl
Kruse.
or
point
a
finger
at
either
side.
-
receiving
the
same
amount
of
Gil
left
in
early
2003,
coinmu-
Watson
said
he
finds
it
ironic
With
competition
and
money
-
money
for
their
work,
but
are
nication
slowed,
according
to
that
he
has
been
hassled
ever
to
remain
at
the
forefront
of:
servicing
Bourbonnais
,and
Watson,
and
the
tonnage
and
since
entering
the
race.
About
this
battle,
there
is
no
doubt:
-Kankakee,
not
all
three
corn-
the
receipta;r~inairi
missing.
the
time
Watson
entered
the.
thetruthwillhoveraomewbere
munities
as
United
haddone,
Gil
was
unavailable
for
corn-
prunary,inwhichberanünop-
between
two
diatinctlydiffet’-~
During
the
regular
county
ment.
posed,
the
contract
was
dis-
ant
points-of-view.
-:
‘.
-
‘
-
‘—‘‘———
‘,
