ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    February 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 3. Theodore Meyer):
    This matter is before the Board on two matters.
    On December
    28,
    1992,
    complainant the People of the State of Illinois
    (People)
    filed a motion for leave to file second amended
    complaint.
    Subsequently, on January 5,
    1993, the hearing officer
    issued an order denying the People’s oral motion for continuance
    of the December 30,
    1992 hearing, and recommending that the Board
    dismiss this matter for want of prosecution.
    We will first
    address the hearing officer’s recommendation.
    This case was filed by the People on March 28,
    1991.
    Between July 9,
    1991, and December 30,
    1992, nine hearings were
    scheduled on this matter.1
    The first three of those hearings
    were cancelled; the next six hearings were convened, but no
    substantive testimony was given.
    At the July 20,
    1992 hearing,
    the hearing officer stated that the parties had agreed that they
    would be prepared for “trial” or for a settlement on September
    21.
    (Tr. 7/20/92 at 5.)
    At the September 21,
    1992 hearing, the
    parties agreed that the matter should be continued to October
    16,
    1992 on a preliminary settlement.
    (Tr. 9/21/92 at 18—21.)
    That
    October 16,
    1992 hearing was continued on the record until
    November 10,
    1992.
    (Tr. 10/16/92 at 4—5.)
    On November 10,
    1992,
    the hearing officer continued the hearing until December 8,
    1992,
    but stated his concern that “this matter has been dragged on too
    long and if the matter
    is not settled by December
    8,
    it will
    proceed to hearing, there will be no further continuances with
    the matter.”
    (Tr. 11/10/92 at 5.)
    At the December 8,
    1992
    hearing, the hearing officer stated that the parties had advised
    him that they had tentatively agreed upon a stipulation and
    The dates of those scheduled hearings were July 9,
    1991; March 19,
    1992; June 9,
    1992; July 20,
    1992; September 21,
    1992;
    October 16,
    1992; November
    10,
    1992; December
    8,
    1992;
    and
    December 30,
    1992.
    0139-01e71
    2
    proposal for settlement, and that there were only one or two
    small items to be resolved.
    The hearing officer found that it
    would be in the interests of justice to grant the parties’
    request for a short continuance so that the stipulation could be
    finalized and reviewed by the parties.
    The hearing officer
    continued the hearing until December 30, 1992.
    (Tr. 12/8/92 at
    4—7.)
    At that December 30 hearing, the People stated that they
    were not prepared to enter
    a settlement agreement,
    indicating
    that the draft was still undergoing review in the Attorney
    General’s office.
    The People also stated that they were not
    prepared to go to hearing, and suggested a continuance until
    January 27,
    1993.
    (Tr. 12/30/92 at 4—5; 8.)
    The hearing
    officer, after reviewing the history of the case, denied the
    motion for continuance.
    (Tr.
    12/30/92 at 7—10.)
    He stated that
    “there has been an absolute untoward delay in this case.
    Completely beyond belief.
    I have been twenty years a hearing
    officer and I’ve never had such delay in a case such as this.”
    (Tr. 12/30/92 at 10.)
    The hearing officer stated that he would
    recommend to the Board that the matter be dismissed for want of
    prosecution.
    (Tr. 12/30/92 at
    9,
    13.)
    In response, the People
    asked that rather than dismissing the case, the Board enter an
    order giving the People twenty-four or forty-eight hours’
    notice
    to either commence hearing or dismiss for want of prosecution.
    (Tr.
    12/30/92 at 13.)
    The hearing officer entered his written order recommending
    dismissal for want of prosecution on January
    5,
    1993.
    He
    specifically found that “the procrastination in this matter is
    egregious and flagrant.”
    (H.O.
    order at 1.)
    On January
    7,
    1993,
    the People filed a written motion asking the hearing officer to
    reconsider his recommendation.
    On February
    11,
    1993,
    the hearing
    officer denied the People’s motion for reconsideration.
    After carefully reviewing the record of this case,
    the Board
    accepts the hearing officer’s recommendation and dismisses the
    case for want of prosecution.
    The hearing transcripts show that
    the parties continually represented that they were close to
    reaching a settlement,
    that they agreed to,
    and in some cases
    suggested,
    the date for the next hearing, and that the hearing
    officer warned the parties that the matter had dragged on too
    long.
    Nevertheless, the parties arrived at the December 30
    hearing without a settlement agreement,
    and unprepared for
    substantative hearing.
    The record does not reflect any
    indication from either party that a settlement, while
    progressing, would take some substantial amount of time such that
    hearings should be temporarily suspended.
    Instead, the parties
    continually stated that a settlement was very close.
    The Board
    finds no legitimate explanation for the continued delay.
    Additionally, we presume that when the People requested a
    0139-01472
    3
    continuance until January 27,
    1993, the People expected to have
    a
    settlement agreement completed at that time.
    It is now almost
    four weeks past that date,
    and there has been no settlement
    agreement submitted.
    We also note that although the People
    indicated,
    on December 30, that they could be ready for hearing
    with 24 to 48 hours’ notice, they have not moved for an
    additional hearing, nor in any way formally contacted the Board.
    In sum, the People have still not indicated that the
    circumstances of this case have somehow improved since the
    hearing officer issued his order on January 5,
    1993.
    This case is hereby dismissed with prejudice for want of
    prosecution.
    Therefore,
    the People’s motion to file a second
    amended complaint is denied.
    This docket is closed.
    IT IS SO ORDERED.
    Section 41 of the Environmental Protection Act
    (415 ILCS
    5/41) provides for the appeal of final Board orders.
    The Rules
    of the Supreme Court of Illinois establish filing requirements.
    (But see also 35 Ill.Adm.Code 101.246 “Motions for
    Reconsideration” and Castenada v. Illinois Human Rights
    Commission
    (1989),
    132 Il1.2d 304,
    547 N.E.2d 437.)
    I, Dorothy M. Gunn,
    Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
    Board
    hereby certify that the above order was adopted on the
    c~i~
    day of
    ~
    ,
    1993,
    by a vote of
    /
    ~
    ~.
    Dorothy M.~6unn, Clerk
    Illinois P~llutionControl Board
    0139-31473

    Back to top