AUG—2~(—U3 WED u~:u~
i~ii
EGbbL
FAX
NO,
~1b~~Ub~
F~
U~
~ECE~VEE~
CLER1’~ Oj~p~p
‘I’JIE~ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
AUG27
2003
CITiZENS AGAiNST LANDFILL
)
EXPANSION (CALE),
)
STATE OF ILLINOIS
ollutjon Control Board
Petitioner,
)
)
v.
)
PCB 03-236
)
(Pollution Control Facility
AMERICAN DISPOSAL SERVICES OF
)
Siting Appeal)
ILLINOIS, INC.,
and L1VINCSTON
)
COUNTY BOARD,
)
)
Respondents.
)
NOTICE OF FILING
‘i’O:
See Attached Service List
Please take notice that
on August 26, 2003,
1 caused to be filed by overnight mail with the
Illinois Pollution
Control Board an original and
four copies ofthe attached Respondent American
Disposal Services orillinois, Inc.’s Opposition to
Petitioner’s Motion to Compel.
AMERICANDISPOSAL SERVICES OF ILLINOiS,
INC., Respondent
By EHRMANN GEFILBACII BADGER & LEE
Douglas B. Lee
1)ouglas
E. Lee
Ehrrnann Cichlbach Badger & Lee
Attorneys for Respondent American I)isposal
Scrvic~s
ofillinois,
Inc.
215
B.
First Street, Suite
1 00
P.O. I3ox 447
Dixon, IL 61021
(~15)
288-4949
(815) 288-3068 (FAX)
AUG—21—03
WED
03:03
FlI
EGbUL
H-IX
NO,
bib
b.~Ubb
I),
U~
STATE OF ILLINOIS
COIJNTY OF LEE
)
)
Proofof Service
The undersigned, being first duly sworn, states that
on August 26, 2003, a true and
correct
copy ofthe
foregoing Notice of Filing, together with the Motion to
Compel attached thereto, was
served upon the followingpersons, at the addresses indicated, by overnight mail and that prior to
3
p.m. on August 27, 2003, saId Respondent American Disposal Services oflllinois,Iric.
‘
s Opposition
to
Petitioner’s Motion
to
Compel was
sent by e-mail
to the Hearing Officer
and counsel for the
parties, at the e-mail
addresses indicated:
Dorothy M. Gwin, Clerk
illinois Pollution Control Board
James R. Thompson Center
100W. Randolph, Suite
11-500
Chicago, IL 6060 1-3218
C. Thomas
Blakenian, Esq.
Strong.
Blalccman,
Schroek &
Bauknecht, Ltd.
307 W. Washington St.
Pontiac, IL 61764
toni@shslld.com
George Mueller, Esq.
George Mueller, P.C.
501
State
SI,’
Ottawa, IL 61350
gmu ellcr@.rnchsi.comn
BradleyP.
Halloran, Hearing Ofliôcr
Illinois Pollution Control Board
James R. Thompson Center
100W. Randolph, Suite 11-500
Chicago, IL 60601
halloraiib~ipcb.state.il.us
Subscribed and sworn to before me
this 27~’
day o1August,9~003.
~tary
Public
Carolyn K.
Gerwin, Esq.
705
S. Locust St.
Pontiac, IL 61764
gerwin@m chsi ,corn
Larry M.
Clark, Esq.
700
N. Lake St.,
Suite 200
Mundelcin, IL 60060
LClark55@ao1.com
Claire A.
Manning, Bsq.
Posegale & Denes, P.C.
111
N. Sixth
St.
Springfield, 1L 62705
Cl aire~posengate-denes.com
I
,(yii~&~,i
j~,i~IIjII\99
i~O\VCD
Ap1cuI\~i~Li~curnIin~D.I
wpd
2
AUG—2’I—U3
WED
U3U3
FM
EGUOL
1~AX
NO.
bib~bb~Ubb
F,
U4
THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
CITIZENS AGAINST LANDFILL
)
EXPANSION (CALE),
)
)
Petitioner,
)
v.
)
PCB 03-236
)
(Pollution Control Facility
AMhRICAN
DISPOSAL SERVICES OF
)
,
Siting Appeal)
ILLINOIS, INC., and LIVINGSTON
)
COUNTY
BOARD,
)
)
Respondents.
)
RESPONDFINT AMERICAN DISPOSAL SERVICES OF ILLINOIS, INC.’S
OPPOSITION TO PETI’I’IONER’S MOTION TO COMPEL
Now comes Respondent American Disposal Sei~ices
oflilinois, Inc. (~‘American”),
by and
through, one ofits
attorneys, Douglas B.
Lee of lThrmann, Gehihach Badger &
Lee, and
opposes
Petitioner’s Motion to
Compel (“Motion”).
In support thereof, American states as follows:
I.
Introduction
While theIllinois Pollution ControlBoard (“theBoard”) provides parties theright to engage
in prc-liearing discovery, that right is not unlimIted.
Discoverydirected at substantive criteriais not
permitted because
the Board’s role
in reviewing the
substantive
criteria is
limited
to
the record
before the County Board.
See
415
ILCS
5/40.1(a); 1~and
and Lakes Co.
v. Illinois Pollution control
Bocirci,
252
TIl.
Dec. 614, 319
Ill. App. 3d41, 743 N.E. 2d
188 (3~
Dist. 2000).
WhilcPctitioncris
entitled
to
discovery of facts
relevant to
dIscrete issues ofjurisdiction and
claimed fundamental
unfairness, Petitioner is not entitled to subject eithcrRcspoiidcntto
a fishing expedition.
See
35111.
Mm.
Code 101.616(a).
ThatPetitioner is engagedin such expedition is evident from its Motion to
Produce, where it admits that its fundamental fairness claim is based, at least in part, on “any such
other bases offundamental unfairness
as mayhereafter be discovered and established.”
Board rules establish
that
a hearing o Ificermust manage the hearing“to ensure development
AUG—27—03
WED
03:03
PM
EGBBL
FAX
NO.
8lb2883Ub’B
P.
Ub
ofa clear, complete, and concise record for timely transmission to the Board.”
35 Iii.
Adm.
Code
101 .610.
This duty is especiallysignificant in a landfill sitinghearing, forwhich the legislaturesets
a specific time frame for Board decision and forwhich the courts have clearlyheld that the Board’s
role is one o Ireview ofthe local government’s decision on the criteria, based upon the recordcreated
at the local hearing, on
a
manifest weight ofthe evidence standard.
SeeLand and Lakes, supra.
Thus, to tlie extent information sought to be discoveredby CALE, from eitherRespondent, is
information relevant to thestatutory criteria, the B caring Officershould deny Petitioner’s request to
produce.
See
Section II.A. below.
To do otherwise is to
present the Board
with
a different record
thanthe one presented to the County, a result directlycontrary to that envisioned by thelegislaturein
establishing the landflhl
siting review process.
in
addition to seeking the production of evidence concerning the criteria, Petitioner casts a
wide net in
i Is attempt to require theproduction ofnew evidenceunder the guise ofjurisdiction and
fundamental
fairness.
The Hearing Officershould not be misled by suchattempts hut should focus
instead on the specific jurisdictional and fundamental fairness caims
macic by Petitioner,
To the
extent
CALE
attempts
to
discover new
evidence regarding
any
claimed jurisdictional
defects,
American
asserts that
all
information
relevant to
the Board’s decision on this
question has been
produced.
Sec Section
IJ.B. below.
To tlic extent CALE attempts to discover new evidencebased upon claims of fundamental
unfairness, the Heai-ing Officer must not allow the Petitioner to engage in a fishing expedition but,
rather,
must
focus on
Petitioner’s
specific claims
of finidamental unfairness
as it applies to
the
County’s hearing process and decision, in
light aithe wealth of Board and court decisions
on the
question oIwhat does and
does not constitute fundamental unfairness,
To do otherwise is to deny
the l3oard a concise record ofrelevant information upon which to base its decision.
2
AUG—27—03 WED 03:03 PM
EGBBL
FAX NO.
81b2883UU8
P.
06
Theonlyargument Petitioner articulates regarding claimed-fund~rncntaIunfairness isthat ilic
County Board members
pie-judged thestatutoxy ci~teria
because theywereoverly concerned
about
the
money the Countywould receive from the expansion.
In
the Motion,
for example, Petitioner
claims the process was
fundamentally unfair because
many
members of the siting authority pre-
judged
or
filled
to
judge
whether
American
had
satisfied
the
statutory
criteria
“due
to
an
overpowering desire to obtain
the $162 million host fee that, was previouslynegotiated.”
On thebasis ofthis proposition, Petitionerseeks to discover a myriad ofinformation related
to each County Board member’s individual review ofthe record, attendance
at
thehearing,reasons
for approval of the
expansion,
and
pre-filing
contacts.
The
Hearing
Officer
should
deny such
attempts
to
invade the mind of the
County Board decision makers
as it
is wholly antithetical
to
Illinois’
landfill siting process and the years a lease law that serve as the basic foundation for this
process.
In one of the earliest Board cases on landfill siting review, the Board wisely recognized
that
local authorities will not be held to be biased simplybecaus~f
a-financial benefit which the
county
or
municipality
might
derive
from
site
approval.
“County boards
and
other
governmental agencies routinely make decisions that aff~ctth&revenues
.
.
Public officials
should be considered to act without bias.”
E&Ellauling,
116
111. App. 3d 586,
451 N.l~.2d
555,
71111.
Dcc,
587
(2fld
Dist.
1983).
In
1h~ir
adjudicatory role, the decision makers are entitled
to protection of their internal
Ihought processes.
This principle ofnot invading the mind ofthe administrative decision
maker has been articulated in
Ash
v. Iroquois CountyBoard, supra;
in
Gitizens to Preserve
Ovcrton Park, Inc.
v.
Volpe,
401 U.S. 402 (1971),
and
in
UnitedStates v. Morgan,
313 U.S.
409 (1941).
Sea DiMaggio
v, Solid Waste Agency ofNorthern Cook County,
PCB 89-138 (1990).
Soundly adoptedby theIllinois courts, this earlyBoard principlestill serves as thc foundation
for landfill
siting
review.
See
E&E I-/aiding,
Inc.
v.
PCB, supra,
affirinec!,
E&E Hauling, Inc
v.
Pollution
?.‘ontrol
Board,
107
flI.
2d
33,
481
N.R.2d
664,
89
III.
Dec.
821
(1985);
Waste
3
AUG—27—03
WED
03:04
P~
EGBBL
FAX
NO.
81b2883068
P.
07
~anage/ne1itofIllinois,
Inc
v.
PollziIio,z
~on1roIi3oard,175
111
App
3d
1023, 530N.E.2d 682,
125
111.
Dcc. 524 (2~
Dist.
1988),
appeal denied,
125
111.
2d
575, 537
N,R 2d
819,
130
111. Dec.
490
(1989).
Furthermore,
to
the
extent Petitioner claims bias
on
the part of any one of the
County
decisionmakers, such claim has been waivedbecause it was not made to the County Board prior to
its decision.
See WwteManagement
v. Pollution control Board, supra.
These basic p rincipl
Cs
h avebeenspecificallyembedded in.land-fi+1-sit~ng-caselaw througliout
its
history, and thc Hearing
Officer should avoid Petitioner’s overreaching attempts to invade such
basic principles.
See Fairview Arca Citizens Thsli/hrce v, Illinois Pollution Control Board,
198
111.
App.
3d 541,
555
N.E.2d
1178, 144
111. Dcc. 659
(3rd
Dist. 1990),
appealdenied,
133
11.
2d
554,
561
N.R2d
689,
149
111.
Dec.
319
(local
siting authority
can properly consider economic benelit
to
comim.mity as a factor
in
approval ofsite, so long as statutory criteria aremet)~
City ofRoc/~ford
v.
C:’ouizty of Winnebago,
186
111, App. 3d 303,
542
N.E.2d 423, 134 III. Dcc,
244 (2’~
Dist,
1989),
appeal dented,
128 111. 2d 672, 548 N.~.2d
1Q67, 139 111.Dcc.
511
(board members arc not required
to avail themselves a ‘the
opportunity to review therecord);
E & EHauling, Inc.
v.
Pollution control
Board, supra
(lundamontal fairness doesnot requirepersonal altendanceofBoard meflhers-at
siting
hearing);
E & El-lauling, hw,
v
Pollution Control hoard, supra
(county
board is not disqualified as
decision maker because county will receive revenues
from
the
landfill).
See
also
Woodsrnoke
Resorts, Inc. v. City ofMarseilles,
1 74111, App. 3d 906,
529
N.E.2d 274,
124
ill. Dcc. 454
(3”’ Dist.
1988)
(city is not disqualified
from
reviewing application for site approval of landfill because it
stood
to
gain
$8,000,000
in
waste
fees,
and
city’s
plans
to
annex properly is
not
evidence of
adjudicative prejudgnient).
Based
upon
the
above,
the
Hearing Ofilcer
should
deny
Petitioner’s
broad
attempts
to
asceijain through discovery facts regardingbroad allegations ofbias and prejudgment on the part of
4
AUG—27—03 WED 03:04 PN
EGBBL
FAX
NO.
8ib2883068
F.
08
the
County
Board
members.
Further,
regard lug
Petitioner’s
rc~ucstcddiscovery of
evidence
concerning pre-fihing contacts, uiiless a specific claim ofprejudgmentofadjudicative lactshas been
made byPetitioner, as itwasmade recently in theBoard’s review ofa landfillsitingdecision,hut has
notbeen
made here, the T-Teai-ing 0 Ificer should deny suchrequest.
See County ofKankakee v. City
of
Kanlc’akee,
PCB
03-31
(2003); Section 1I.B.2 below.
11.
Argument
A.
Petitioner Is Not ~ntitied To Discovery Directed At
r1~11e
Substantive Siting
Criteria._________________________________________________________________________
As Petitioner concedes in its Motion, InterrogatoryNos. 6 and 19 are directed at
Criterion
3
(specifically, American’s real estate study).
Interrogatory Nos.
13
and
14 are similarly directed at
Criterion
1
and
American’s
needs
analysis.
The
record
on
these
substantive
criteria is
closed,
however, and discovery on these
issues is not permitted.
Land and Lakes Co.
v. Jilinots
Pollution
Control Board, supra,
Under Illinois law,
Pe1it~oncr
did not have the right to compel American to
produce documents during the siting hearing.
Petitioner, however, had the right to cross-examine
American’s witnesses on the real estate arid needs issues and it did so.
Petitioneralso had the
right
th introduce its own evidence and public comment on these issues, which it did.
The
fact that the
Board’s rules permit discovery on some issues, does not re-open therecordregardingthe s ubstaiitive
criteria,
The Motion as to
Interrogatory Nos.
6,
13,
14,
and 19 should be denied,
B.
Through
Its Motion, Petitioner Seeks Information That Is Neither Relevant
Nor Calculated To
Lead To Information Relevant To Issues OfJurisdiction
AndFundamental F’aimes~.
1.
The Inlormation Petitioner Seeks Regarding Notice is frrelevant To
The Board’s Determination Of Jurisdiction.
-.
In Interrogatory No.
4,
Petitioner seeks iniorruation
regarding communications between
American
and Amoco or BP Oil from
and after January
1, 2002.
American has responded that no
5
AUG—27—03 WED 03:04 PN
EGBBL
FAX
NO,
8152883068
P.
09
conimrtnications
occurred
related to anyissue raised
in
thePetition forReview. In InterrogaloryNo.
12,
Petitioner asks American to identify all contracts between American
arid the
owner of
thetank
farm.
American has responded that no
contracts currently are in force.
Petitioner complains that
American’s answers are not
fully responsive.
As
is
set
forth
in
Petitioner’s
responses
to
American’s
discovery.
Petitioner
claims.
American’s notice to theowner ofParcel No.
09-33-200-002 was
defectiveinpartbecauseAmerIcan
“presumably would
havehadcontacts that could haveprovidedinIomration-aboutthe
co-rreetidenthy
and
address of
the owner of the property.”
See
Peitioner’s
Responses
to
American
Disposal’s
Intcrrogatorics at No. 2.
What American’s employeesmight ormight nothave surmised about the
identity and address of theowner of thetank farm, however) is irrelevant
to whether notice was
properly served.
Section 39.2(b) olthe Illinois Environmental
Protection Actidentifies onlyonesource forthe
con’ect
names
and addresses ofthose
property owners
required to be
served
—
‘~thc
authentic tax
records olihe County
in
which such facility is tobe located.”
415
ILCS 5/39.2(b). Americanwas
under no duty,
as Petitionersuggests
in its
answerto lnterrogatoiyNo. 2, to “make reasonable fwiher
inquiries” regarding theownership olthetank firm
aflerAmerican’s timelyserved
certi lied
mailings
were returned.
Indeed, as the Board recently has held, American’s service was effective upon
mailing
the notices by certified
mail,
return
receipt
requested.
See
City
of Kanlcaicee,
sup/’a.
Interrogatory Nos. 4 and 12 arenot calculated to lead to information relevant to the names and
addresses
contained
in
Livingston
County’s
authentic tax
records.
Petitioner’s
Motion
as
to
Interrogatory Nos.
4 and 12 should be denicd,
6
AUG—27—03
WED
03:04
PM
EGBBL
FAX
NO.
8152883068
P.
10
2.
The
Jnfoimation
Petitioner
Seeks
Regarding
Pie-Filing
Contacts
Between
American
And
Members
Of The County
Board
is
Not
Calculated ToLeadTo
Information Relevant
ToWhetherThe Siting
Hearing
Was Fun
an~çj~j1y
Fair.
In
the
Motion,CALE addresses in narrativepi-e-filing contacts, contracts, anddocumentsand
objects to Americaifs limited answers to Intcrrogatories
7, 10, and 11. JntcrrogatotyNo. 7 seeks
in form
ationregarding all meetings between County Board members and American sinceJanuary 1,
2001.
This encompasses a period of almost Iwo
years before the filing of the
siting
application.
CALE does not restrict or I
mm
it the subjectmatter ofsuch meetings
Interrogatory No.
10 is really a
refinement of Interrogatory No,
7
in
that it seeks information for the same time period regarding
communications or meetings between the Livingston County Board and American relating to
any
earlierapplication, thcpeimdjng application, host fees, the proposed expansion, and opposition to the
expansion.
This Interrogatory, however, is also an expansion ofInterrogatory No.
7 in that it seeks
information related
to meetings and communications between consultants for American
and
consultants for theCounty Board. interrogatory
No.
11
seeks identification ofdocumentsrelatedto
time subject matter of Interrogatoty No.
10.
None ofthe three disputed Interrogatori es seeks information-regarding
a-speci-fic- p-re~fihin
g
event or contact.
Rather, they arc broad
flshing expeditions
intended to cover all
contacts over a
Iwo-year period.
This is particularly important because CALE never alleges, either in its Petition for
Review nor in its
answers to American’s discovery requests, that American or its agents ever did
anything
improper
to
irmiluence
the
County
Board,
In
fact,
CALE’s
Answer
to
American’s
Interrogatory No.11 is that it has no knowledge ofanyimpermissible
exparte
contactbetween any
member of the
County
Board
and any
representative of American.
Moreover,
when asked
to
describe the factual and legal bases for its claim that members of the County Board prejudged the
7
AUG—27-03
WED
03:04
PM
EGBBL
FAX
NO.
8152883068
P.
11
siting application,CALE lists 18 specific instances olbias, noneofwhich are alleged to berelated
to, or resulting from, pre~fihirig
contacts with American.
instead, the 18 cited instances
ofbias deal
generally with the County’s deliberative processes, its relianceupon its own technical consultants,
and
most significantly its desire to receive the
host fees associated with the proposed expansion.
An
applicant’s
prior participation and
involvement
in
the
legislative
processes before
a
countyboard doesnot support aninference
that theboard prejudged the application.
E
&EHauiing,
Inc.
~
Pollution conirol Board, supra.
There is
a presumption that administrative officials are
objecti~’c
and capable of fairlyjudging a particular controversy.
Waste Management vs.
Pollution
ControlPoard, 175
ilI.App.3d I 023~
530N.E2d 682, 125 Ui.Dcc
524
(2~
Dist. 1988). TheBoard
previously relied upon these decisions to preclude altogetherdiscoveryregarding certain-categories
ofpre-fihing contacts between an
applicant
and
a decisionmaker.
The Board stated
There is no authority for applying
cx porte
restrictions concerning Pollution Control
facility
siting prior
to
the
filing
of an
application
for
siting
approval.
Because
evidenceo these
contacts arenot relevant to the siting criteriaand arenot indicative
of irnpermissible pre-decIsional bias ofthe siting authority, we find that the County
Hearing
Officer’s
failure to
allow testimony concerning
these allegations did
not
render the proceedings fundamentally unfair.
Similarly, the
contacts between the
applicant
and
the County
Board
prior
to
the
filing
of the
siting
application
arc
irrelevant
to
the question
of whether
the siting proceedings, themselves, were
conducted in a fundamentally fair manner.
Rc?sklentsAgailzstA PollutedEnviroiunent v. county ofLaSalle &Landco,np corporation,
PCB 96-
243
(1996).
Based
on its beliefihat the decision
in Land&Lakes Company vs.
PUB,
supra,
“implies hat
evidence of pre-fihing contactsbetween
the
applicantand
the actual decision maker.
.
.
may factor
irito
the
fundamental fairness calculus,”
theBoard qualified its previous ruling in
ResidenisAgainst
A i’ollmjtedEnvironmeiit
by finding that pie-filing
contacts
“may?’ be probative of prejudgment of
adjudicative facts in
County ofKankakee.
S
AUG—27—03
WED
03:04
PN
EGBBL
FAX
NO.
8152883068
P.
12
The holding in Coin?
tyofKanl~ake~
should not be viewedasoverruling time
ResidentsAgainst
A
PollutedEnvironni ent
but ratlmr as qualifying and cxp-iainingtheearlier decision. The facts ofthe
instant
case
closely mirror
the
situation
in
Residents Against A
Polluted Environment
and
arc
completely
unlike the facts that caused the Board to qualifyits earlierdecisionwhen deciding-county
ofKcuikqkec,
In
ResidentsAgainstA PollutedEnvironment,
lie
petitioners sought broad discovery
related to
I~andcornp
Corporation’s prior participation in the County’s legislative process, adoption
of the Host Agreement,
amendment ofthe Solid Waste Management Plan,
and the like.
That is
precisely the
kind of infoirnation
CALE
seeks
here,
arid
theproduction of such information by
American is not oniy irrelevant but
also would he onerous in light oNhe fact that American and
Livingston County
haveenjoyed anon-going
businessrelationship based upon American’soperation
ofthe existing landfill.
In
County of Kanka/cee,
on
the other hand,
the
applicants
sought
to
introduce
evidence
regarding specific pre-fihing contacts
that
were both
very close in
time and
content to
the siting
process.
These
included evidence of Town & Country’s attorney
drafting
the
Siting
Hearing
Ordinance and evidence of a pie-filing presentation regarding
the
application made by Town &
Country to the City Council.
In light ofthese directlyrelatedpre-uili ng contacts very close in limo to
the filing ofthe application, the Board in
(ouiity ofKankakee
determined that the evidence ofthose
contacts should at least be consideredon the issue o Iprcjudgmcnt. It is noteworthy to point out that
the ~3oard
ultimately found that
no prejudgment occwred.
Accordingly, American maintains
its
objection to
discovery ofpre-filing contacts
in time
broad, unrestricted, and general fashion CALE attemptshere.
Evidence ofpre-flling contacts should
onlyhe admissible
when they are closely related
iii
lime to the filing of the siting
application and
when a petitioner canmake at least a preliminary showing(as was done by thepetitioners
in-County
9
AUG—27—03 WED 03:05 PM
EGBBL
FAX
NO.
8152883068
P.
13
of Kwikalcec)
that the subject matter of
the
prc-Iiling contacts has some logical
relationship to
the
siting hearing
process.
Lastly, Americanpoints out that discoveiyregardingpre-fihing contactsbetweenthetechnical
consultants for the parties is entirely improper and not authorized by any previous decision of
the
courts
or the Board
To the contrary, the decision in
Land
& Lakes C’ompany vs. Illinois Pollution
Control Board,
.cupra,
is unequivocal that in
the absence of any pre-filing
collusion between an
applicant and the actual decision maker, pre-fihIng contact between an applicant and consultants for
the decision maker
cannot
depriveany opponentoffundamental fairness.
CAL~1mas
failed to allege
even
time possibility
ofsuch collusion.
Instead, CALEalleges
that the
County
Board improperly desired host fees from
American.
The
receipt ofeconomic benefitby a decisionmaker, however,cannot legallyheused
to support
an
mfèrcnce ofhias orpre~udgment.
Fczirview Area Citizens’ Task Force vs. Illinois Pollution Control
Board,
198 ilI.App.3d
541,
555
N.E.2d
1178,
144 ill. Dcc. 659
(3Td
Dist.
1990).
In addition to
seeking to
inquire into
“potential
bias,”
CALE
also cites in
support of.its
Motion
hmquiiry into
financial interest ofCouutyBoard members.
This is not abasis for compelling
furtheranswers to Interrogatory Nos
7,
10,
11, however, as theissue offinancialinterestofCounty
Board members, and oven their consultants, is completely answered in Interrogatory Nos, 9,
16, and
17.
The Motion as to
IiiterrogatoryNos. 7,
10, and
11
should be denIed.
3.
The Information
Redacted
From
The Contract
Between American
AndJeanne Rapp IsNot Calculated To Lead To In formation Relevant
To W~~eSg
Hearing Was Fundamentally Fair.
When producing a Contractbetwccn it and Jeanne Rapp, American redacted the agreement’s
financial terms.
In
its
Motion,
Petitioner
claims
these terms
are “highly relevant
to
issues
of
fundamentalunfairness and possibly to lbe real propertyvaluecriterion.” To the extent Petitioner’s
-
10
AUG—27—03 WED 03:05 PM
EG8BL
FAX NO.
8lb2883O~8
F.
14
claim relates to Criteria 3, it shouldberejected.
See
Section ll.A. above. Nordoesanybasis exist to
support Petitioner’s theory that the Contract
is relevant to evidence ol fundamental unfairness.
All
parties agree that
Ms.Rapp didnotvoteonAmerican’s Application.
The purchases pursuant to the
Contract were disclosed in
Ms. Rapp’s 2000
and 2001
Statements ofEconomic Interest, copies of
which were produced
by Petitioner and are attached hereto for the benefit ofthe Hearing Officer.
Any pot.ential bias Ms,
Rapp may have had thus was appropriately disclosed and
addressed
The
rinancial details ofthese transactions are not relevant to any fundamental fairness issue.
riheMolioll
as to the redacted Contract
should be
denied,
C.
Clarification By American Moots Petitioner’s Motion As To
Interrogatory
Nos_8Andl8.________________________________________
In its Motion, Petitioner
statesAm~rican’sanswer
to Interrogatory No.
8 “does not indicate
whether there are other such contracts with Board Members.”
To the extent American’s answer was
unclear, American states it is not aware of any agreement, proposed agreement, understanding, or
contract with any member o Ithe CountyBoard not disclosed in its answer to Interrogatory No. 8.
Tn
its
Motion, Petitioner also states American
failed
to
identify the “certain options to purchase real
estate”referred to in American’s answer
1.0
Interrogatory No, IS,
To the extent American’s answer
was unclear,
American states the options referred to
in
its
answer to
Interrogatory No.
18 arc the
options
disclosed
and
produced with
its
responses
to
Petitioner’s
discovery.
The Motion
as
to
Interrogatory Nos.
S and
18 should he
denied as moot.
11
AUG—27—03
WED
03:05
PM
EGBBL
FAX
NO.
8152883068
P.
15
III.
Conclusion
F’or all ofthe
foregoingreasons, American respectfully
requests that the Motion be denied
Respectfullysubmitted,
AMERICAN DISPOSAL SERVICES OF ILLiNOIS,
INC., Respondent
By
El-I RMANN GEHLBACI-I BADGER & LEE
By~~
-___
Douglas E. Lee
1)ouglas E. Lee
Elm rmann (ichibach Badger
& Lee
Co-Co tinsel for Respondent American Disposal
Services ofIllinois, Inc.
215
E.
First
St., Suite
100
Dixon,l~ 61021
(815) 288-4949
(815) 288-3068 (FAX)
12
AUG—27—03
WED
03:05
PM
EGBBL
FAX
NO.
8152883088
STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC INTERESTS
TO ~E
FILED WITH THE COUNTY CLERK
(TYPl~
OR
HAND
PRINT)
.J~ANNE
R~APP
(namc)
LIVINGSTON
COUNTY
BOARD
DISTRICT
TWO
MAR
2
.~
~yi~~it
~cunr,i,
LtloIs
-
(office or
position
of employment
for
which
this statement
is
filed)
-
21912j¼I~i710
EAST
RD~PONTIAC61764
(full
post office
ailclresa
to
which
notification of
an examination of
this statement
should.b~
sent)
GENERAL DIRECTIONS
The
interest
(if
constructively
conLrofled
by
the
person
making
the
statement)
of
a
spouse
or
a~yother
party,
shall
be
considered
to
be
the
same as
the
interest of
the
person
making
the
statement,
Campaign
receipts
shall
not
be
included
in
this
statement. If
a~IdiUoriil
~paceis
needed.
please
~ttad~
supplemental
listing.
1.
List
the
namc
and
instrumer~tofowncrship
in
any
entity
doing business
with
the
unit of
local
government in relation
to
which
the
person
is
required
to
file,
in
which
the
ownership
interest
held
by
the
person
at
the
date of
fIling
is
in
excess of
$5,000
fair
rnarkct
value or
Iron-i
which
dividends
in
excess
of $1,200 were
received
during
the
preceding calendar year.
(In
the
case
of
real
estate, location
thereof
shall
be listed by
the
Street
address,
or
if none,
then by
legal description.)
No
time
or
demand
deposit
iii
afiriuncial
institution,
nor
any
debt instrument
shall
be
listed.
Instrument
of Ownership
Business Entity
Position ofManagement
2.
List
the
name,
address
and type
of practice
qiany professional
organization
in
which
the per~otirriakiiig the statement
was
an
officer,
direclor,
associate, partner or
propr~çtoror
served
in
any
advisory
capacity from
which income in excess of
S1,200
was derived
dudng
the
preceding calendar
yesr.
-
-
Address
Type
of~’ractice
3,
List
the
nature of
professional
services
rendered (other
than
to
the unit of
government
in
relation
to
which
the
person
is
required
to
file)
and
the
nature
of
the entity
to
which
they
were rendercd if
Lees
exceeding 35,000
were received during the
preceding
calendar
year from
the
entity
for
profcs.sional
scrviccs
rendered by
the
person making
the
stziterncnt
(~‘Professiona1
sorviccs”
means
5cr-vices rendered
in
the
practice
of
law, accounting,
engineering, medicinc, architecture, dentistsy or clinIcal
psychology.)
P.
16
t~one
Th~sT,~
AUG-27-03
WED
03:05
PN
EGBBL
FAX
NO.
81b2b~3Ub8
F.
if
4.
list
the
ideniity
(including
the
address
or legal
description
of
reel estate)
of any capital asset from whkh
.a
ca&tal
gain
of
$5,000
or moro
was
realized
during
the
preceding calendar year.
Sale
of
7
residential
lots
to
Allied
Waste
~renspDrtatio~
Tn~
—
Lots
2,
3,
7,
13~
21,22,
ar~d23
in
Rapp~s
Whispering
Oaks
Subdivision,
Livingston
County3
Illinois
ns
iecorded
in
Pl~tB0o1
12
at
page
30
as
document
No.
457251.
5.
List
te
name of
any
enlity
and
the
nature of
the
governmental
action
requested
by
any
entity
which
has applied
to
ths
unit
of
local
government
in
relation
to
which
the
person
must
file
for
any license, franchise orperinit for annexation, zoning
or
rceoniing
of
real
estate
during
Ll~cpreceding
calciidar
yc~irif
the
ownership
intern~itof
the
person
filing
is
in
excess
of
$5~000
fair
market
yalu~
~t
the
Lime
of
filing
or if
income
or
dividends in
excess of
$1,200 were received by the
person
filing
rosa
the entity during
the
preceding calendaryear.
See
Number
4
6.
List
the
name of
any
entity doing business with’the unit
of local
government in relation to
which
the person
is
required to
file
from
which
income
rat ~~oess of
$1,200
was
derived
during
the
preceding
calendar
year
other
than
for
professional
services
am)
the
title
or
description of
any
position
held
in
that
entity.
No
time or
demand
deposit
in
a
financial institution
nor any debt instrument need bç listed.
See
Number
4
no
employment
relationship
7. List
the
name of
any
unit
of
governmenL
which employed
the
person making
the statement during the
preceding calendar
yeas other
than
the unit
of government
in
relation
to
which
the
person
is required
to
file.
None
8.
List
the name of any entity from which
a gift or
gifts,
or honorarium or honoraria, valued singly or in the
aggregate
in
excess of $500, was received during
the
preceding calendar year.
Nope
VERIFICATION
“I
declare
that
this
statement
of
economic
interests
(including
any
accompanying
schedules
and
statemeCts)
has
been
examined
by
mC
and
to
the
best
of
my knowledge and bellef
is a true, Correct and complete statement of
my
economic
interests
as
required
by
the
Illinois
Governmental
Ethics
Act. I understand
that
the
penalty
for willfully
filing
a
false
or
incomplete
sLa~cmentshall
be
a
fine
nol to cxc~ed
$1,000 or
imprisonment
in
a
penal
lnstitution other than
the
penitentiary
not to
exceed
one year,
or
both fine
and
imprisonment.’1
~
_______
(signature of pefy~inmaking
the statemes~)6’
(date)
AUG—27-03
WED
03:05
pf~’
EGBBL
FAX
NO.
8152883088
STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC INTERESTS
TO
BE FILED
WITH
THE
COUNTY
(TYPE OR HAND PRINT)
~m~—
-
~‘l.
Jeanne
Rapp
(name)
,
Cciunty
Board
(oftic~sor position of employment for which
t
his statement is filed)
21912 N 1710 ~ast Road)
Pontiac.,
IL
61764
(Cull post office address to which notifiè~tionof an examination of
this
statement should be sent)
GENERAL DIRECTIONS
The
interest
(if
constructively
contnolkd
by
the
person
making
the
statement)
of
a
spouse
or
any ~otherparty,
shall
be
considered
to
be
the
same
as
the
interest of the person making the statement.
Campaign
receipts
shall
not be included in
this
statement, II
addItional
space
isn~ded,pksse attach supplemental listing,
1.LisL
the
name and
instrument
ol’
ownership
in
any
entity ~I~ing
business wIth the unit of Ioèal government in relation to
which
the
person
is
reuitiircd
to
file1
in
which
the
ownership
interest
held
by
the
person
at
the
date
of
filing
is
in excess
of
$5,000
fair
market
value or (ronu which
dividends
in
excess
of $1200
were received during
the
preceding
calendar year.
(In
the case of real estate,
location
thereof
shall
be
histcd by the street address, or if none,
then by
legal
description.)
No
time
or
demand deposit in
a
finaneiah
inat~LuLion,nor any debt instrument shalibe listed.
I3usiness Entity
~o
U
e
h~stnunent
of Ownership
Position of Management
• Name
None
2. List
Lhe name, address and type of practice of any professional organization in
which
the
person making the ~tatemen~was
an ofCicer, director~associate, partner or proprietor
or served
in any
advisory
capacity
from
which
income in excess of $1,200
was derived during the preceding calendar year.
Address
Type of Practice
3, List the nature of prokesional services rendered (other than to the unit,of government in relation to which the person
is
required
to
file) and
the
nature of
the
entity to which they were rendered if Lees exceeding $5,000 were received
during
the
preceding calersdar year from
the
entity for professional
scr-vkes
rendered by theperson inalcing the statement. (ttprofesrnorsal
scrviccs~’
means
services rendered in
the practice of law, accounting
engineering, ,nedici~e,architecture, dentistry or clinical
psychology.)
P.
18
APR
28
2000
None
AUG~21—03WED 03:05 PN
EGBBL
F~XNO.
8152883068
P.
19
4.
UsE
the
identity
(including
the
address or
legal
description
of teal
estate)
of any
capital asset
from
which
a
capital
gain
of
$5,000 or more
wes realized during the
preceding calendar year.
Sale
of
B
residential
lots
to
Allied
Wasta
Trans_portation,
Inc.
—
Lots
1)
4, ~
6, 9~
10,
19
and
20
in
Rapp’s
Whispering
Oaks
$ubdjvision,
Livingston
County,
Illinois,
as
~cordedii~~i~E
Book
12
at
Page
30
as
DoctsmentNo.
457251.
5.
List
the
name of
any
entiLy
and
the
nature
of
the governmental
action requested
by
any
entity
which
has applied to
the
unit of local
government in
relation
to
which the
person must
file
for
any
license,
franchise
or
permit for annexation, zoning
or
rczor~ingof
reel
estate
during
LIme
preceding calendar year
if
the
ownership
iimtcrmnmt of
the
pcrsorf
filing is
in excess of
$5,000 fair market
value at
the
time of
filing or
if income or dividends in
excess
of
$1,200 were
received
by
the
pcrson filing
frora
the
entity during
the
preceding calendar year.
See
Number
4
6.
List the name of any entity doing
business
with
the
unit of local
government
in
relation
to
which
the person
is
required
to
file
horn
which
income
ir~-~xces5
of
$1,200
was
derived
during
the
preceding
calendar
year
other
than
for professional
services
and
Ike
title or
description of
any
position
held
in
that
entity.
No
time or
demand
deposit in
a
financial
institution
nor any
debt
iimstrurnent need be
listed,
See
Nun~ber4
no
employment
relationship
7.
List
the
n~irncof
aimy
unit of
govemnmenL which employed
iii~
person
making
the
statement
during the prccedin~
calendar
year
other than
the
unit of government
in
relation to
which
the
person is
required ~ofile.
None
8,
List
the name of any entity from which
a gift or
gifts,
or
honorarium
or honoraria1 valued singly or in
the
aggregate
in
excess of $500, was received during the preceding calendar year.
——
None
—•
VER.IFICATION
“1
declare
that
this statemCnt
of OconOrniC intcr~sts (including any
accompanying
schedules and statements)
has
been
examined
by me and
to
the best
of
my
knowledge
and belief is a true, correct and complete statement of my economic
mterests
as
required
by
the
Illinois
Governmental
Ethics
Act
I
understand
that
ti-ic
pei~alty
fot willfully
filing a false or
incomplete
statement
shall
be
a
fine
not
to exceed
$1,000
or
imprisonment in a penal institution other
than
the penitcn~inry
not to esceed
one year, or
both
fine and imprisonment.”
(‘V.
/
~
-
~Q
00
(signatu’re ofperson making the s atC
ent)
(date)
AUG—27—03
WED
03:03
Pfl
EGBBL
F~XNO,
8lb2883U~B
P.
01
CLI!RK’S
OFFICE
I~UG27Zoo3
~TAT~
OF ILLINOIS
EIlRwi,vN
GE/i/bA
c/i
B,lcIqER
J~!utII~EoIBoard
.215 E,
F/ncr Srj,
SuitE 100
Divot~.
IL 61021
815~28&-4949
FAX:
815-~28ö’J06ö
FAX
TRANSMISSION
COVER
SHEET
I)ate:
Au~rust
27, 2003
To:
Bradley P.
1—falloraji,
Hcaring ()fJlccr
1-312-814-3669
Re:
Livi~zgstonGounty Lun4fihl
-
Opposition
to Petitioner’s Motion
to
(2onipc~l
Sen dci’:
Douglas E.
Lcc/cke
YOU ShOULD
RECEIVE
j~J
PAGES,
INCLUDING
THIS COVER SHEET.
IF
YOUDO NOTREGEIVE ALL ll-JEP~4GES,PLEASE C/ILL 815.288-4949,
V
CONFIDENTIALITY
NOTICE:
The information
contained in this
facsimile
message
is
ATTORNEY PRIVILEGED
AND CONFIDENTIAL
INFORMATION
intended onhr
for the
use
of the
individual
or entity named
herein.
If
the
reader
of
this
message is
not
the
intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering
it to
the
intended recipient, you arc hcrcby notified that any dissemination,
distribution,
or
copy
of
this
communication
is
strictly
prohibited.
if
you
have
received
this
commumcatmri
in
error,
please
immediately
noti~rus
by
telephone
and
return the
original message to us
at the above address via the
United
States Postal Service.
Thank
you.
