ILLINOIS
    POLLUTION
    CONTROL
    BOARD
    May
    12,
    1971
    ENVIRONMENTAL
    PROTECTION
    AGENCY
    )
    )
    )
    v.
    )
    1
    71—25
    )
    )
    CITY
    OF
    MARION
    )
    Opinion
    of
    the
    Board
    (by
    Mr.
    Currie):
    This
    is
    a
    complaint
    by
    the
    Agency
    charging
    water
    pollution
    arid
    related
    violations
    at
    the
    City’s
    sewage
    treatment
    plant.
    At
    the
    hearing
    the
    Special
    Assistant
    Attorney
    General representing
    the Agency, without consulting his client, agreed to a purported
    settlement of the case.
    The City admitted the violations alleged
    and stated that it was ~~undersboodR
    that plans would be submitted,
    a contract let, and the needed facilities completed by specified
    dates.
    The Special Assistant Attorney General further urged that
    no penalties be imposed on the ground that the City had not received
    timely notice of the requirements in question.
    No order was
    proposed.
    Two days after the hearing we received a letter from the
    Assistant Attorney General in charge of environmental control
    for the Southern Region of the State advising us that the Agency
    disapproves of the proposed settlement and urges us to take
    appropriate action on the basis of the complaint, which in the
    Agency’s view would include both a cease and desist order and
    money penalties.
    It
    is elementary that an attorney is not to settle cases
    without the consent of his client.
    Our Procedural Rule
    333
    makes clear that no case is to be settled without a Board order
    based upon a written statement by the parties to the case setting
    forth the justifications for the proposal.
    It is the Agency,
    not its attorney, that is the party complainant in the present
    case, and the Agency’s approval is a prerequisite to our consideration
    of any proposed sett ament.
    Since the parties have not agreed,
    there is no settlement proposal for us to consider.
    For futur~guidance we point out also that Rule
    333
    requires
    the parties to submit to the Board adequate information on which
    we can base an intelligent evaluation of whether any proposed
    1-591
    settlement is in the public interest.
    After all it is the Board.
    and not the Agency or its attorneys that is given statutory
    responsibility to determine whether a violation exists and what
    is the appropriate remedy.
    Cf.
    Environmental Protection Agency v.
    City of Springfield) 1 70—9, decided May 12, 1971.
    Such information
    must contain a full stipulation of the relevant facts pertaining
    to the
    nature,
    extent, and causes of the violktions, the nature
    of the respondent’s operations and control equipment, any
    explanations of past failures to comply, and details as to future
    plans for compliance, including descriptions of additional
    control measures and the dates for implementing them, as well
    as a statement of reasons why no hearing should be conducted.
    Opportunity will also be provided by the
    Board
    for individual
    citizens to express their views as is contemplated by the statute.
    The Agency asks us to pass on the case on the basis of our
    present information, but that information fails in a number of
    respects to satisfy wha
    we need to make an intelligent decision,
    and the respondent is entitled to its day before the Board.
    A
    new hearing will be scheduled as expeditiously as is convenient
    for the parties; no second twenty—one—day notice will be necessary
    since the respondent has long been on notice of the charges
    against which it must defend.
    It is so ordered.
    I, Regina E. Ryan do hereby certify that the above Opinion
    was approved by the Board on this
    12
    of
    !5!._.’
    1971.
    I

    Back to top