ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    June 17,
    1993
    PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF
    )
    ILLINOIS,
    Complainant,
    )
    v.
    )
    PCB 92—164
    (Enforcement)
    )
    BER.NIECE KERSHAW and DARWIN
    )
    DALE KERSHAW d/b/a KERSHAW
    )
    MOBILE HOME PARK,
    )
    )
    Respondents.
    ORDER OF THE BOARD
    (by G.
    T. Girard):
    On June 9,
    1993,
    the People filed a motion, pursuant to 35
    Ill.
    Adm. Code 101.241(c),
    for leave to file
    a reply to
    Respondent’s Memorandum in Opposition to Complainant’s Motion.
    The Kershaws filed a response in opposition on June 16,
    1993.
    The People state that:
    If the Board denies complainant’s Motion to
    Disqualify without having allowed complainant
    an opportunity to present its entire argument
    with respect to the issue of Mr. Kuntz’s
    qualification to represent the respondents,
    the interests of the parties and the public
    and the integrity of the Board’s proceedings
    may be compromised
    in the manner more fully
    described in the complainant’s Motion to
    Disqualify.
    Any minimal delay which would
    result from complainant’s being allowed to
    file a written reply would be substantially
    outweighed by the prejudice which could
    result if the complainant is not allowed to
    file a reply.
    In response, the Kershaws contend that:
    Complainant’s Motion fails to demonstrate
    material prejudice.
    Rather, the motion
    asserts that complainant has not presented
    its “entire argument,” Notion at par.
    4.
    Complainant’s failure to present the entire
    argument in its motion should not allow it to
    circumvent the Board’s rules.
    These rules
    were intended to avoid the kind of piecemeal
    181
    2
    briefing complainant now seeks,
    and to
    provide for the speedy determination of Board
    proceedings.
    Complainant, having
    substantially delayed reaching the merits of
    this proceeding by filing its original motion
    to disqualify, will obtain additional delay
    if the instant motion is granted.
    Indeed,
    it
    will be respondents who would be materially
    prejudiced by an inability to respond to any
    new arguments raised by complainant,
    and,
    having had their resources significantly
    diverted from the merits of the case by
    filing of the Motion to Disqualify, will be
    forced to shoulder a further burden.
    As
    suggested in Respondent’s Memorandum in
    Opposition, to the extent the Board desires a
    further airing of issues which transcend the
    instant case,
    it may wish to initiate inquiry
    hearings on the matter.
    The People’s motion is granted.
    The motion to disqualify
    poses a matter of first impression.
    The Board believes that this
    is a circumstance where allowing a reply will aid the Board in
    its determination of this issue,
    and is the type of situation
    envisioned by the Board when the “leave to reply” rule was
    adopted.
    However, the Board does not intend to allow “piecemeal”
    briefing as the Kershaws fear.
    The reply must be limited to
    addressing points raised by the Kershaws in their response; no
    new points may be raised.
    The People’s reply must be received by
    the Board on or before June 25,
    1993.
    This will allow the Board
    to consider the substance of the motion to disqualify at its next
    scheduled meeting on July
    1,
    1993.
    Any minimal delay in reaching
    the outcome of the motion to reconsider the default order
    is
    outweighed by the benefits to the Board’s deliberative processes.
    IT IS SO ORDERED.
    I,
    Dorothy N.
    Gunn,
    Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
    Board, hereby certi
    that the above order was adopted on the
    /~~day of
    __________________,
    1993,
    by a vote of
    7-~O.
    ~
    A.
    ,~
    Dorothy N.
    unn, Clerk
    Illinois
    liution Control Board
    U
    4
    u
    u
    h

    Back to top