ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    June 23, 1992
    DALE DETTLAFF and
    )
    DEBORAH DETTLAFF,
    )
    Complainants,
    v.
    )
    PCB 92—26
    )
    (Enforcement)
    EDUARDO P. BOADO and
    EPB
    PARK
    SERVICES, INC.,
    )
    )
    Respondents.
    ORDER OF THE BOARD (by J. Theodore Meyer):
    This matter is before the Board on complainants Dale
    Dettlaff and Deborah Dettlaff’s June 19, 1992 motion to
    “reconsider” the hearing officer’s denial of the Dettlaffs’
    motion to reschedule hearing. Hearing on this matter is
    currently scheduled for June 30, 1992. On June 1, 1992, the
    Dettlaffs filed a motion to continue the hearing with the hearing
    officer. The hearing officer denied that motion. The Dettlaffs
    now ask the Board to overrule the denial of the requested
    continuance. On June 23, 1992, respondents Eduardo P. Boado and
    EPB Park Services, Inc. filed an objection to the motion to
    continue hearing.
    In the instant motion, the Dettlaffs note that this is the
    first requested continuance in this case, and argue that
    continuance should be granted because: they require time to
    conduct discovery; a key witness for the Dettlaffs is testifying
    before the Illinois State Board of Education on June 30 and is
    therefore not available for the Board’s hearing; the Dettlaffs
    attorney is subject to time constraints detailed in the previous
    motion to continue and has two additional matters scheduled on
    June 30; and the parties will not be prejudiced by a short
    continuance. Therefore, the Dettlaffs ask that the June 30
    hearing be continued and that hearing be rescheduled for a date
    not earlier than August 3, 1992.
    Respondents object to the motion, maintaining that the
    Dettlaffs’ failure to conduct discovery is an inappropriate
    reason to delay the proceedings; that the fact that the
    Dettlaffs’ attorney scheduled additional matters for June 30,
    even after filing his original motion for extension is his own
    fault; that the potential witness~ whose relevancy is not stated,
    could either reschedule her other matter or testify later in the
    hearing day; and that respondents would be prejudiced by the
    delay, because respondents’ attorneys and witnesses have
    rearranged schedules and arranged for time off of work. Finally,
    respondents note that the parties were informed of the June 30
    134—33
    5
    2
    hearing date nearly three months ago.
    After reviewing the arguments of the parties, the Board
    declines to overturn the hearing officer. The motion to continue
    hearing is denied.
    Finally, the Board notes that in the June 1 motion to the
    hearing officer, the Dettlaffs waived the “120 day statutory
    decision rule”. The Board points out that there is no decision
    deadline in enforcement cases.
    IT IS SO ORDERED.
    I,. Dorothy N. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
    Board,)iereby cert~y that the above order was adopted on the
    ~
    day of
    _______________,
    1992, by a vote of
    7~c~
    Control Board
    13 4—3 3 6

    Back to top