ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    July 10, 1997
    IN THE MATTER OF:
    PETITION OF RECYCLE
    TECHNOLOGIES, INC. FOR AN
    ADJUSTED STANDARD FROM 35 ILL.
    ADM. CODE 720.131(c)
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    AS 97-9
    (Adjusted Standard - Land)
    DISSENTING OPINION (by J. Theodore Meyer):
    I dissent from the majority opinion because I believe the Board’s procedural rules allow
    entities to appear before the Board in adjusted standard proceedings without being represented
    by an attorney. Section 101.107(a)(2) states that any person entitled to participate in Board
    proceedings shall appear as follows:
    A corporation, when a respondent in an enforcement case pursuant to 35
    Ill. Adm. Code 103, by an attorney at law licensed and registered to practice in
    the State of Illinois. In all other proceedings, a corporation may appear through
    any officer, employee, or representative, or by an attorney at law licensed and
    registered to practice in the State of Illinois, or both.
    35 Ill. Adm. Code 101.107(a)(2). Section 103 of the Board’s procedural rules govern
    enforcement proceedings. Adjusted standard proceedings are not part of that section; rather,
    they are dealt with separately in Section 106, Subpart G. Section 106, Subpart G is silent as to
    whether or not a corporation can be represented by a non-attorney. The Illinois Environmental
    Protection Act (Act) is also silent regarding non-attorney representation for corporations in
    adjusted standard proceedings. The Board has no authority to infer that an adjusted standard
    proceeding is an enforcement case and thus subject to the requirements in 35 Ill. Adm. Code
    101.107(a). Therefore, Recycle Technologies, Inc. should be allowed to proceed without an
    attorney if it so chooses.
    To rule otherwise is against Board rules, past Board practice and public policy which
    dictates that administrative agencies be less adversarial than court proceedings, and more
    “user-friendly” in terms of a non-attorney’s ability to appear before the Board. As a member
    of the House of Representatives of the Illinois General Assembly when the Act was passed, as
    a co-sponsor of the bill and as a member of the Executive Committee that approved the bill, I
    know that the legislative intent of the Act was to encourage citizen participation in
    environmental matters. With regard to the Board’s role in facilitating environmental cases in
    Illinois, the Act clearly intended the Board to be easily available to Illinois citizens. The Act
    was to be part of a new, more accessible way of governing; while the ramifications of the
    majority opinion in this matter harks back to an antiquated system of closed government
    proceedings, accessible only to specially educated lawyers and lawmakers.
    2
    For these reasons, I respectfully dissent.
    J. Theodore Meyer
    I, Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control Board, hereby certify that
    the above dissenting opinion was filed on the 11th day of July, 1997.
    Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk
    Illinois Pollution Control Board

    Back to top