ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
Nay 4,
1995
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
)
Complainant,
)
V.
)
PCB 92—164
(Enforcement-Water)
BERNIECE KERSHAW
AND
DARWIN DALE
)
KERSHAW,
d/b/a KERSHAW MOBILE
)
HOME PARK,
)
Respondents.
DISSENTING OPINION
(by J. Theodore Meyer):
I respectfully dissent from the majority’s order.
The
opinion and order issued on April 20,
1995 should have been
modified because
I believe legal fees
in this case were much more
than $5,190.69,
and the Board should have taken this opportunity
to impose an even higher penalty on the Kershaws,
a party who
lacked due diligence and good faith during the fourteen-year
history of this case.
Section 42(f) allows the Board to assess attorney’s fees and
costs incurred by the Office of the Attorney General.
I believe
that this section should be construed broadly, and that a
violator reimburse the Illinois taxpayer for all costs incurred
by the Office of the Attorney General,
including indirect
expenses such as travel time, administrative support, printing,
copying and overhead.
After all, the time spent by respondent’s
attorneys in prosecuting this matter over the years certainly
could have been used to handle other cases.
In addition, the now common practice by state and local
governments of charging a “user fee” to those who use a service
(such as paying for photocopies)
is certainly a cost that should
be imposed on a party who has violated the Act.
Especially in
light of the Kershaw’s blatant disregard for the Act, this case
presented an opportunity to order them to pay for all costs--both
direct and indirect--incurred by the Office of the Attorney
General and I believe that the Board should have taken this
opportunity.
For these reasons,
I respectfully dissent.
J.’Theodore Meyer
Board Member
2
I, Dorothy N.
Gunn,
Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board,
hereby certify that the above concurring opinion was filed
on the
//tZ
day of
_______________,
1995.
Dorothy M.4unn,
Cl’erk
Illiois P~4utionControl Board