ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    October 7,
    1993
    SANGAMON
    COUNTY,
    )
    )
    Complainant,
    )
    v.
    )
    AC
    93—42
    )
    (Administrative Citation)
    NORMAN
    CLARK
    and
    BRENDA
    )
    (SCDPH-93-AC—9)
    BERTRAND,
    )
    )
    Respondents.
    ORDER OF THE BOARD
    (C.
    A. Manning):
    On September 27,
    1993, Norman Clark filed a letter
    requesting a hearing on this administrative citation.
    In this
    type of proceeding before the Board, the respondents
    (Mr. Clark
    and Ms.
    Bertrand) have the burden to establish at a formal
    hearing, by oral testimony under oath or by properly submitted
    written documents,
    that the violation did not occur or was the
    result of uncontrollable circumstances, under the terms of the
    Environmental Protection Act
    (Act) (415 ILCS 5/1
    ~.
    ~g.
    (1992)),
    and applicable regulations.
    The Board hearing is not an informal informational hearing
    at which Sangamon County will explain its actions.
    The hearing
    is more in the nature of a court proceeding with testimony under
    oath and questions of the witnesses.
    This Board cannot provide
    legal advice or legal assistance to the respondents.
    The initial burden at hearing to explain why the violation
    should be upheld is upon the complainant
    (Sangaluon County).
    (415
    ILCS 5/31.1(d)(2)
    (1992).)
    At hearing, the complainant will
    provide testimony in support of the alleged violation detailed in
    the administrative citation.
    For the Board to uphold the
    administrative citation, the complainant must show that the
    alleged facts represent a violation of the provisions of the Act.
    In order for the Board to dismiss the administrative
    citation, the respondents must present facts and arguments to
    show that the facts alleged in the administrative citation are
    inaccurate or that the allegations do not constitute a violation
    of the provisions of the Act or that the violation resulted from
    uncontrollable circumstances.
    A representation that compliance
    has been achieved
    (i.e. removal of litter) subsequent to the
    issuance of the administrative citation is not a defense to a
    finding of violation.
    (415 ILCS 5/33
    (1992).)
    The respondents
    bear the burden of providing information in an acceptable form to
    support its position.
    2
    To avoid any confusion about what could happen in this case,
    the Board wishes to make it clear that if a petition for review
    is allowed to be filed,
    Sections 31.1 and 42(b)(4) of the Act
    provide for only two outcomes:
    1.
    The Board can find that there was no violation of
    Section 21(p), or that the violation resulted from
    uncontrollable circumstances.
    Then, the person filing
    the petition pays nothing.
    2.
    If the Board finds that a violation did occur,
    and that
    there were no uncontrollable circumstances, the person
    filing the petition pays the fine plus hearing costs.
    Hearing costs usually average from $200.00 to
    $1,000.00,
    and must be paid in addition to the penalty.
    If respondents do not wish to proceed with this matter, they
    may file a motion to dismiss
    (reference Sections 101.241 and
    101.242 of the Board’s rules and regulations for filing
    procedures).
    If a motion to dismiss is not received by the Board
    prior to November 15,
    1993, this matter will be set for hearing.
    IT IS SO ORDERED.
    I, Dorothy M. Gunn,
    Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
    Board, hereby certify,~,thatthe above order was adopted on the
    7~
    day of
    ___________________,
    1993, by a vote of
    7c)
    /LJ
    Dorothy M. ,4~nn, Clerk
    Illinois P
    lution Control Board

    Back to top