ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    November 17, 1988
    IN THE MATTER OF:
    )
    3 AND R LANDFILL, INC.,
    )
    PCB tAC 88—23
    )
    PCB tAC 88—34
    Repondent.
    (88—3—SC—St. Clair Co.
    (88—6—SC—St. Clair Co.
    )
    County Docket)
    ORDER OF THE BOARD (by 3. Anderson):
    This matter comes before the Board on the Complainant’s
    Consolidated Motion to Reconsider the Board’s October 20, 1988,
    Order granting dismissal of this proceeding. The Motion to
    Reconsider was received by the Board on October 27, 1988.
    Respondent’s response to the Motion to Reconsider was received by
    the Board on November 2, 1988. Insofar as the Complainant’s
    motion raises an issue regarding whether the Complainant did, in
    fact, adequately respond to the Respondent’s original Motion to
    Dismiss, the Complainant’s Motion to Reconsider is granted.
    As noted in the Board’s Order of October 20, the Respondent
    alleged that Complainant failed to enclose, in its official
    service of the subject Administrative Citations, all of the
    information and documentation required to be included with such
    service pursuant to Section 31.1(b) of the Environmental
    Protection Act (Act). Such inclusion being mandatory and
    jurisdictional, the Board granted the Respondent’s consolidated
    Motion to Dismiss, noting that Complainant had failed to respond
    to the motion.
    Complainant alleges in the instant Motion for
    Reconsideration that it “did in fact respond at the hearing held
    in the above referenced matter at the St. Clair County Courthouse
    before the hearing officer, Todd Parkhurst, on September 28, 1988
    within two (2) days of the date of certificate of service
    attached to said consolidated motion to dismiss”. Complainant
    contends that it would be unjust for the Board to dismiss this
    action “on the basis that the Petitioner
    ...
    did not respond” to
    the motion to dismiss.
    Two salient facts should be noted here. First, two hours
    after the Board’s issuance of the dismissal Order of October 20,
    the Board received the transcripts of the September 28 hearing
    alluded to by Complainant. Second, that transcript (as
    Respondent notes in its response) discloses (pp. 6) that the
    93—499
    —2—
    Complainant did in fact address the Consolidated Motion to
    Dismiss and that the Complainant acknowledged that copies of
    inspection reports had not been appended to the Administrative
    Citations served upon the Respondent.
    The circumstances of this case amply illustrate the need for
    careful adherence to the Board’s procedural rules, particularly
    with respect to actions involving administrative citations.
    Board rules clearly and unambiguously require that all motions to
    dismiss shall be directed to the Board, rather than to the
    Hearing Officer (35 Ill. Mm. Code 103.140(a)). Equally clearly,
    Board rules empower the Hearing Officer to rule upon virtually
    all motions except for motions to dismiss or strike (35 Ill. Adm.
    Code 103.140(e)). Additionally, Board rules require motions
    directed to the Board to be in writing (35 Ill. Mm. Code
    103.140(b)) and require any party to file (as opposed to
    “present”) any response to a motion to dismiss (35 Ill. Mm. Code
    103.140(c)). The act of “filing” is governed by 35 Ill. Adm.
    Code 101.103, which recognizes only such submittals as are
    “addressed and mailed to or filed with the Clerk” of the Board
    (emphasis added). Unfortunately, Complainant in this matter
    failed to adhere to these technical requirements and thus cannot
    be said to have responded to the Motion to Dismiss.
    This conclusion is not warranted solely on technical
    grounds. As noted, the transcript of the September 28 hearing
    did not reach the Board until after the Board had ruled on the
    motion. As a practical matter, a transcript would seldom be
    received before the passing of two or more weeks after the
    hearing. This would amount to a delay—generating practice that,
    if adopted by the Board, would seriously compromise its ability
    to expeditiously resolve disputes and meet statutory deadlines
    for decision. In the case of motions to dimiss, which are
    required to be disposed of “prior to hearing on the complaint”
    (35 Ill. Adm. Code 103.140(a)), such a practice would be legally
    imperrnissible as well. Finally, since this is an action upon an
    administrative citation rather than an “ordinary” enforcement
    action, the requirements relating to filing of motions as well as
    the requirements relating to ser~rice must be construed
    consistently with the obvious legislative intent to facilitate
    more speedy administrative citation proceedings.
    One last point: It should be understood that the
    Consolidated Motion to Dismiss was granted, not because
    Complainant failed to properly respond to the motion, but because
    Complainant failed to properly serve the administrative citations
    upon the Respondent, thus depriving the Board of jurisdiction.
    The Board’s remarks concering the Complainant’s failure to
    respond to the motion related primarily to the reliance placed by
    the Board upon factual assertions and legal conclusions made by
    the Respondent in its motion. As noted above, the transcript of
    the September 28 hearing merely confirms the fact that the
    93—500
    —3—
    Administrative Citations were not accompanied by copies of the
    inspection reports when served on the Respondent.
    For the foregoing reasons, the Board’s Order of October 20,
    1988, dismissing these consolidated proceedings with prejudice is
    reaffirmed.
    IT IS SO ORDERED.
    I, Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
    Board, hereby certify that the above Order was adopted on
    the /7~day of ~~&~-
    ,
    1988, by a vote of 7~
    Dorothy M./Gunn, Clerk
    Illinois P’ollution Control Board
    93—501

    Back to top