ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
April 23,
1992
HEICO INCORPORATED,
)
Petitioner,
PCB 90—196
v.
)
(Permit Appeal)
ILLINOIS ENVIRONNENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY,
Respondent.
CONCURRING OPINION
(by B. Forcade):
I respectfully concur with the majority to express my
frustration with the position the parties stated in the motion to
reconsider.
This proceeding was filed on October 26,
1990.
On
April
9,
1992, one and one-half years later
(531 days to be
exact),
the record contained no filings by the petitioner except
continued waivers of the Board’s decision deadline.
The record
did contain four separate letters from the hearing officer
attempting to set this matter for status conferences and hearing.
(letters of January
2,
1991; July 24,
1991; August 5,
1991; and
January
13, 1992).
With this background, on April
9,
1992, the
Board ordered this matter set for hearing or it would be subject
to dismissal for want of prosecution.
The motion for reconsideration says, in essence
—
how dare
you force our case to hearingL
The reconsideration motion states
that the Board action “was improper” because it was not made in
writing or orally at hearing.
The parties further argue that the
parties were not served or given
7 days notice of the action.
They assert notice and opportunity for response were totally
lacking in this case.
The parties appear to be arguing for due
process.
There is a substantial difference between “due process” and
“overdue process”.
After languishing for one and one—half years
with no action on the record,
this case is clearly in the latter
category.
I can reluctantly support this one last extension.
However,
I urge the parties either to settle this case promptly
or litigate it promptly.
Bil
SFox~cade
Board Member
133—129
I, Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certify that the above Concurring Opinion was filed
on the
_9~7J
day of
__________________,
1992.
~
Dorothy M.,4~inn, Clerk
Illinois ~91lution Control Board
133—130