ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    September 13, 1989
    COUNTY OF DUPAGE,
    )
    )
    AC 88-76, Docket A
    & B
    Complainant,
    )
    (No.
    88 CD 278)
    )
    v.
    )
    and
    E & E HAULING,
    INC.
    )
    AC 88-77, Docket A
    & B
    (Mallard Lake Landfill),
    )
    (No.
    88 CD 279)
    Respondent.
    DISSENTING OPINION
    (by J.
    Theodore Meyer):
    I dissent
    from the majority
    order
    in this matter because
    I
    believe that
    the majority should have taken
    this opportunity
    to
    provide
    for
    full
    recovery
    of
    all
    hearing
    costs
    incurred
    by
    complainant and the Board.
    Section 42(b) (4) of the Illinois Environmental Protection Act
    (Act)
    provides
    that
    in
    an administrative
    citation
    action,
    “any
    person found to have violated any provision of subsection
    (p)
    of
    Section 21 of this Act shall pay a civil penalty of $500 for each
    violation of each such provision,
    plus any hearing costs incurred
    by the Board and the Agency.”
    (Emphasis added.
    Ill. Rev.
    Stat.
    1987,
    ch.
    111—1/2,
    par.
    1042(b)(4).)
    In the past,
    a majority of
    the Board has narrowly construed
    “hearing costs” to include only
    the travel
    costs of the complainant’s attorney,
    and the Board’s
    hearing officer and court reporter costs.
    I believe that “hearing
    costs”
    as
    used
    in
    Section
    42
    includes
    other
    expenses
    such
    as
    attorney time, administrative and support staff time, and overhead
    costs.
    After
    all,
    the time spent
    by
    complainant’s attorney and
    Board staff
    in preparing for and reviewing the hearing could have
    been used to handle other matters
    if the instant hearing had not
    been held.
    State and local government
    is now often imposing a series of
    “user fees”, on the theory that those who use a service should pay
    for
    it.
    For example,
    most state agencies
    (including the Board)
    charge fees
    for photocopies of
    that agency’s records
    and files.
    Since those who do not violate the Act are charged such user fees,
    I believe that those who have been found to have violated the Act
    should
    be
    assessed costs
    to
    the
    full
    extent
    of
    the
    statutory
    authority.
    In this case, the Illinois General Assembly has stated
    that those found to have violated Section 21(p)
    shall pay hearing
    costs incurred by the Board and the Agency.
    I believe that this
    mandate should be given a broad interpretation, and all reasonable
    costs
    assessed
    against
    respondent.
    This
    case
    presented
    an
    opportunity to order the Clerk of the Board and the complainant to
    submit an affidavit of all hearing costs,
    and I believe that the
    Board should have taken this opportunity.
    103—101
    For these reasons,
    I dissent.
    JO
    Theoddre Meyer
    Board
    Member
    I,
    Dorothy
    M.
    Gunn,
    Clerk
    of
    the
    Illinois
    Pollution
    Control
    Board, hereb~ycertify that/the~bove Dissenting Opinion was filed
    on the
    ~
    day of
    ~
    ,
    1989.
    ~
    Dorothy M.
    Gui-in,
    Clerk
    Illinois Pol~tutionControl Board
    103—102

    Back to top