ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    October
    19, 1995
    PEOPLE OF THE STATE
    OF ILLINOIS,
    Complainant,
    v.
    )
    PCB 96-55
    )
    (Enforcement-Air)
    LAFARGE
    CORPORATION
    a Maryland corporation,
    )
    ~espondent.
    CONCURRING OPINION
    (by J. Theodore Meyer):
    I concur with the majority’s acceptance of the stipulation
    and settlement in this case.
    However,
    I continue to be troubled
    by the absence of any mention of attorney’s fees and costs in
    these settlement agreements.
    Section 42(f)
    of the Environmental Protection Act (Act)
    provides that the Board may
    award c!n~t~
    and reasonable attorney’s
    fees in cases brought on behalf of the citizens of Illinois.
    (415 ILCS 5/42(f)
    (1994).
    This section should be construed
    broadly, and a violator of the Act should reimburse the Illinois
    taxpayer for all fees and costs incurred by the Attorney General,
    The concept of attorney’s fees should include the employer’s
    share of federal and Social Security taxes as well as health
    insurance and life insurance.
    Attorney’s costs should not only
    include direct costs incurred by the individual attorney, but
    also indirect
    costs
    such
    as~ travel time, administrative
    support, printing, copying and overhead.
    After all, the time and
    money spent by complainant’s attorney in prosecuting this matter
    certainly could have been used to handle other matters.
    Regarding costs, 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)
    should be a cost imposed on a
    party who has violated the Act.
    This case presented an
    opportunity for the complainant to submit an affidavit of all
    fees and costs, and I believe that the Board should have taken
    this opportunity to reimburse the Illinois taxpayer.
    In this case, the complaint requests that the Board impose
    such costs and fees; however, the stipulation and settlement does
    not refer to this request, nor explain whether some percentage of
    costs and fees was figured into the penalty.
    I continue to
    believe that costs ana rees should be pursued on behalf of the
    Illinois taxpayer, and urge the complainant to bear this in mind
    in negotiating and preparing future stipulations.
    2
    J. T1~èodoreMeyer
    Board Member
    I, Dorothy M.
    Gunn,
    Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
    Board, hereby certify that the above concurring opinion was filed
    on the
    3P~
    day of
    _______________,
    1995.
    A
    Dorothy M.,4unn,
    Clerk
    Illinois ~Ø1lution
    Control Board

    Back to top