ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    March 25,
    1993
    PEOPLE OF THE STATE
    )
    OF ILLINOIS,
    Complainant,
    V.
    )
    PCB 91—53
    )
    (Enforcement)
    ENAMELERS
    AND
    JAPANNERS,
    )
    INC.,
    an Illinois
    )
    corporation,
    )
    Respondent.
    ORDER OF THE BOARD
    (by J. Anderson):
    This matter is before the Board on a March 15,
    1993 joint
    motion to reconsider.
    Complainant the People of the State of
    Illinois and respondent Enamelers and Japanners,
    Inc. jointly ask
    the Board to reconsider its February 25,
    1993 order dismissing
    this enforcement case with prejudice.
    Attached to the joint
    motion is a stipulation and proposal for settlement.
    The parties
    state that if the Board vacates its February 25 ruling, the
    parties are prepared to file this document with the Board for its
    approval.
    The Board grants the motion to reconsider so that we
    may address some of the issues raised by the parties.
    The parties contend that the February 25 order dismissing
    this case for want of prosecution should be vacated because:
    1)
    the parties are joint movants on this motion;
    2) the Board failed
    to follow its own rules on continuances
    (35 Ill.Adm.Code
    103.143);
    3) the Board erred in entering the dismissal of this
    case with prejudice; and
    4) the Board failed to follow its own
    rules on the amendment of complaints
    (35 Ill.Adm.Code 103.209).
    The Board is not persuaded by the parties’ arguments.
    We
    continue to believe that dismissal of an enforcement case which
    had nine hearings scheduled over seventeen months, at which no
    substantive testimony was given,
    is well within our authority.
    The parties argue that dismissal of the case is in direct
    conflict with the purpose of the Environmental Protection Act
    (Act), and suggest that a Board order setting the case for
    hearing would have better served the interests of justice and
    accomplished the purpose of making cases move with due dispatch.
    We fail to see how an order setting the case for hearing would
    have remedied the problem in this case, where nine hearings had
    been scheduled.
    The parties had not presented any substantive
    evidence of any kind, but continually represented that they were
    close to reaching a settlement.
    Indeed, the parties contend,
    in
    the instant motion, that their representations to the hearing
    officer that a settlement would be reached “should be sufficient
    to negate any allegation of intentional delay.”
    (Motion at 8.)
    C) ~O-O187
    2
    We believe that the parties have missed the point of our February
    25 dismissal: that it was those continued representations that a
    settlement was near, with no concrete progress reflected in the
    record, that resulted in the dismissal.
    Nevertheless, because the parties have now submitted a
    signed stipulation and proposal for settlement, we will grant the
    parties request to vacate the February 25 order, although not for
    the reasons given by the parties.
    The February 25,
    1973 Board
    order of dismissal in this matter
    is hereby vacated, and the
    Board accepts the filing of the settlement agreement.
    IT IS SO ORDERED.
    J. Theodore Meyer dissented.
    I, Dorothy M.
    Gunn,
    Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
    Boa~d,hereby ceriify that the above order was adopted on the
    ~2~7—
    day of
    ~/7—t_~~/
    ,
    1993, by a vote of
    -/
    /2
    ~
    ~
    Dorothy M.
    nn,
    Clerk
    Illinois
    o lution Control Board
    ORO-0188

    Back to top