0001

ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

4 WASTE MANAGEMENT OF ILLINOIS, INC., )

)

Petitioner,

)

) PCB 04-186

)

10 COUNTY BOARD OF KANKAKEE COUNTY, )

)

Respondent.

)

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS had before HEARING

15 OFFICER BRADLEY P. HALLORAN, taken stenographically

16 before TERRY A. BUCHANAN, CSR, a notary public

17 within and for the County of Will and State of

18 Illinois, at 189 East Court Street, Kankakee,

19 Illinois, on the 6th day of April, A.D., 2005,

20 commencing at 9:15 o'clock a.m.

0002

1 A P P E A R A N C E S:

ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD,

100 West Randolph Street

Suite 11-500

Chicago, Illinois 60601

(312) 814-8917

BY: BRADLEY P. HALLORAN, HEARING OFFICER

PEDERSEN & HOUPT,

161 North Clark Street

Suite 3100

Chicago, Illinois 60601

(312) 261-2149

BY: MR. DONALD J. MORAN and

MS. NANCY RICHARDSON

Appeared on behalf of the Petitioner,

0003

HINSHAW & CULBERTSON,

100 Park Avenue

Rockford, Illinois 61105

(815) 490-4900

BY: MR. CHARLES F. HELSTEN and

MR. RICHARD PORTER

Appeared on behalf of the Respondent.

10 ALSO PRESENT: Ms. Brenda Gorski

0004

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Good

morning everyone. My name is Bradley

Halloran. I'm the hearing officer with the

Illinois Pollution Control Board. I'm also

assigned to this matter, Waste Management of

Illinois, Inc., petitioner versus County

Board of Kankakee County, respondent,

PCB 4-186. It's a pollution control facility

siting appeal. It's April 6, 2005. It is

approximately 9:14 a.m. This hearing has

been scheduled in accordance with the

Illinois Environmental Protection Act and the

Pollution Control Board rules and procedures.

It will be conducted according to the

procedural rules found at Sections 107 and

101(f) of the Board's rules.

I do want to note I see some

possible members of the public back there,

they're encouraged to come up and make a

public comment or a public statement. You

can either just stand up here and give your

comment or stand up here and be sworn in by

the court reporter and that would be subject

to cross-examination. Depending on your

0005

decision, the Board will weigh your comment

or testimony accordingly.

I do have a sign-up sheet on the

last table in the room, feel free to sign up.

If anybody has an emergency, they have to go

to work or something like that, let me know

and I can squeeze you in before the case in

chief, just raise your hand and I'll

acknowledge it.

I think the majority of the people

here are already familiar with this process.

I will not be making the ultimate decision in

the case, rather it is up to the Pollution

Control Board, which is comprised of five

members. They will take a look at the

record, study the transcript and look at any

post hearing briefs before rendering the

decision.

My job is to ensure that this

hearing is orderly and the record is clear

and developed so that the board can have all

the proper information before deciding the

case.

Right now I guess I will allow the

0006

attorneys, Mr. Moran and Mr. Porter to

introduce themselves.

MR. MORAN: Yes. My name is Donald

Moran, I represent the petitioner, Waste

Management of Illinois, Inc.

MR. PORTER: Good morning,

Mr. Halloran, and the Pollution Control

Board, Rick Porter on behalf of the County

Board of Kankakee County. I will also be

accompanied by Attorney Chuck Helsten and

the State's Attorney's office I will allow to

introduce themselves.

MS. GORSKI: Good morning, Officer

Halloran. This is Brenda Gorski, assistant

state's attorney for the County of Kankakee

on behalf of the County Board of Kankakee

County and representing Ed Smith, the state's

attorney of Kankakee County.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: While we're

at that juncture, I would ask Mr. Porter and

Ms. Gorski to file an appearance. I don't

think Mr. Porter's appearance is on file as

of yet. I think Mr. Helsten's is, but it's

better to have both.

0007

In any event, we had a telephone

status conference yesterday between the

parties, Mr. Moran, Mr. Porter, myself, a

couple of things we discussed. Mr. Moran had

filed a motion to compel on March 15th, 2005

and that motion was to compel answers to

questions that are posed in discovery

depositions taken between June 22nd, 2004 and

I believe January 2005. These questions

related to reasons why certain members of the

respondent, County Board of Kankakee, had

voted against the siting application at issue

here.

On March 30th, 2005, Mr. Porter

and the County filed its response.

Yesterday I ruled that Mr. Moran,

Waste Management's motion to compel was

denied. With that, Mr. Porter had questioned

whether or not an offer of proof -- it was

going to be allowed. At that juncture

Mr. Porter stated he was going to file a

trial brief, which he has given me and I have

marked it Hearing Officer Exhibit 1. I noted

to the parties yesterday that they would be

0008

allowed to embellish the arguments and

Mr. Moran would have an opportunity to

respond this morning.

The other issue out there,

Mr. Porter had file a motion in limine again

yesterday, I think it was April 5th, 2005,

and Mr. Porter can talk about that in a few

minutes.

But right now, Mr. Porter, would

you like to embellish, I guess, on your

argument that Waste Management should not

have an opportunity to question the witness

even under an offer of proof?

MR. PORTER: Certainly, Mr. Halloran.

Thank you.

Quite simply stated, we've already

addressed the issue of whether or not Waste

Management can even conduct discovery as to a

County Board member's mental impressions or

deliberative process in coming to the

decisions that they came to in regard to the

nine criteria and this hearing officer

appropriately ruled that the integrity of the

decision-making process of the Kankakee

0009

County Board requires that mental processes

of decision-makers be safeguarded here.

Petitioner, Waste Management, has made no

strong showing of bad faith or improper

behavior to justify inquiry into the

decision-making process. What Waste

Management I understand is proposing to do is

to conduct offers of proof in the sense of

asking the witnesses to go ahead and respond

to questions that delve into mental

impressions or deliberative process. That,

if it was allowed, would obviously completely

obviate the hearing officer's order and

essentially allow Waste Management to conduct

discovery into the mental impressions and

deliberative process of Board members.

Particularly regarding decisions that were

made over a year ago, the Board members would

be in the unenviable position of having to

recreate how they came to their decisions,

which is exactly what the (inaudible)

precedent and the Morgan -- the United States

Supreme Court Morgan case have held is

inappropriate. What I have provided last

0010

night and in a copy of a trial brief today to

Hearing Officer Halloran is some relevant

authority and the case that jumps out to me

is the County of LaSalle versus Illinois

Environmental Protection Agency case, PCB

81-10, which I do have copies of if

Mr. Halloran needs them. In that case, and

I'll quote, the hearing officer in general

should allow offers of proof where there is a

reasonable doubt as to admissibility. We

have no reasonable doubt here that the mental

impressions and deliberative process of Board

members is absolutely inadmissible and if we

were to allow or direct the witnesses to

answer those questions, that would be putting

them in the unenviable position of having to,

I guess, be held in contempt in order to

bring the issue to an Appellate level, which

is simply unnecessary. We know that the law

is clear, you cannot delve into mental

impressions and deliberative process and

therefore it would be highly inappropriate to

allow an offer of proof on those very

subjects. If we're going to allow an offer

0011

of proof, I think the only way it can be

accomplished is to allow Mr. Moran to give a

narrative offer of proof of what he hoped or

thought the evidence would show as opposed to

directing the witnesses to answer. At this

point, I have no further comment.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Thank you.

Mr. Moran?

MR. MORAN: Mr. Hearing Officer, I've

just been handed the trial brief literally

moments ago. I am reading it as I hear

Mr. Porter make his argument.

The one thing that comes across

very clearly to me is that the offers of

proof as they have generally been applied in

these proceedings would be to address the

very situation that we're dealing with here

and that is a situation in which there has

been a seed change in consideration and

decision of a siting application for

expansion of a landfill, which completely

reversed from a decision on the same siting

application a little over a year prior.

You, Mr. Hearing Officer, decided

0012

our motion to compel and determined that

indeed we had not established an appropriate

basis to determine why there was this seed

change in vote on what was the same

application. It is this very issue about the

question of whether such evidence should be

admitted and considered for the very reason

that there would be no other way to evaluate

and determine whether the Board's ruling on

what I will refer to as the 2003 application

properly and appropriately considered those

factors, those facts, that evidence that was

presented of record, which make the decision

fundamentally fair and a valid decision.

There is indeed, in my view, much

room for difference of opinion on whether

this particular question and the question of

the reasons for the change could be delved

into.

Your ruling establishes that at

least at this point that showing has not been

made and that inquiry cannot be made.

However, based upon our

contentions in this appeal, we will argue

0013

that indeed there were no legitimate bases

for the reversal of position by County Board

members other than improper influences and

improper factors that were taken into account

and as such with our appeal either the

Pollution Control Board or an Appellate Court

would need to have before it the evidence of

such reasons given by the County Board

members so it may properly evaluate whether

your ruling was accurate and whether indeed

that evidence is relevant for purposes of

ruling on and evaluating the issues we've

raised in this appeal.

The case that I'm very familiar

with that's cited in the trial brief is the

Tazewell County case, which, in fact, was one

of the first appeals that was brought under

the Siting Act back in 1982 and that case

also involved a very unusual series of

developments by way of the local county

decision. There the County Board had

initially approved the siting application and

upon a motion filed by the city of East

Peoria, which was a participant or at least

0014

an entity that wished to participate in the

hearings, the County Board reconsidered its

decision and reversed its decision and turned

an approval into a denial and that denial was

appealed and the Pollution Control Board had

before it a motion that was filed by the city

of East Peoria to introduce additional

evidence into the record. Something that by

all accounts, looking at the Act, considering

the past practice was something that clearly

should have been excluded as additional

evidence offered pursuant to an appeal before

the Pollution Control Board and indeed the

ruling by the Board was that that evidence

would be excluded. The city of East Peoria

then made an offer of proof and said we'd

still like to be able to at least establish

what we would have presented and what would

have been the evidence had we been given the

opportunity to do so. That offer of proof

was allowed and that offer of proof was

provided, the appeal proceeded and I think

the rest of us are aware of how the Appellate

Court ultimately decided the question, but in

0015

that instance, as in many other instances,

this is precisely the kind of case where an

offer of proof provides that measure of

reviewability and perfectibility of an appeal

so that there can be a complete and thorough

review by an appellate body, both the

Pollution Control Board and the Appellate

Court for purposes of this very critical

issue.

So in our view clearly the request

to deny the right to provide an offer of

proof is clearly without basis and ought be

denied.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Thank you,

Mr. Moran. Mr. Porter, anything further?

MR. PORTER: Yes. Mr. Moran even

admitted in his discussion right there that

there must be a strong showing of bad faith

or improper behavior before any inquiry into

the decision-making process can be made, yet

he's trying to put the cart before the horse.

He's trying to get the inquiry and then

hopefully that will then justify his position

that there's some improper conduct. That's

0016

exactly what your ruling has prescribed and

restricted. You cannot do that. If he had

some basis for improper conduct, then and

only then would he be allowed to conduct

inquiry into mental impressions. What this

would do is open up the flood gates for all

of these cases now. Whenever an applicant is

denied, he'll then be allowed to ask the

board member why they came to the decision

that they did in the auspices of an offer of

proof and then hopefully by the time he gets

to the Pollution Control Board he's got a

case piecemealed together. It doesn't work

that way. He has to have some evidence of

some improper conduct and then and only then

can he conduct that inquiry.

So, again, I think the only

appropriate method of an offer of proof, if

you're going to allow any, would be for

Mr. Moran to give a narrative of what he

believes the evidence would show. He cannot

use this proceeding to conduct discovery.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Any

follow-up, Mr. Moran?

0017

MR. MORAN: Well, certainly from the

standpoint of my providing a narrative of

what I believe the evidence will show will

necessarily be incomplete only because as in

all these cases, there is very rarely, if at

all, any direct evidence provided by

individuals as to their admission that there

has somehow been improper influence, improper

behavior, bad faith in one sense or another

and that that information can really only be

gleaned based upon the statements made by

individuals who were involved in the review

and the decision-making process or if it

relates to ex parte communications, those

communications and the only way you can

perfect an appropriate record to allow for

that kind of reviewability is to have the

specific Board members address and testify

what the basis was, what the reasons were for

this reversal and I disagree entirely that

somehow allowing offers of proof here will

open up the flood gates in every siting case

for any disappointed applicant who may wish

to challenge a decision to somehow say we

0018

want to be able to explore the mental

processes of decision-makers and the reason

we're not going to see that is because we're

not going to see, in my view, in many

instances, what occurred here, where you had

an approval of a siting application in

January of 2003 and 14 months later a

reversal on very similar criteria of the same

application, which itself raises very

significant questions and which has been the

first time in my experience any such result

has occurred. So it isn't going to be a

situation where we end up basically opening

up the possibility that any disappointed

applicant is going to be able to just simply

say I want to be able to present an offer of

proof and perfect my appeal rights so that I

can explore mental processes. It ain't going

to happen, but this case is different and

this case supports the view that in order to

properly review and consider the issues we

have raised in this appeal that that offer of

proof be allowed for these County Board

Members.

0019

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Thank you,

Mr. Moran. I've heard enough and to digress

a tad, I sympathize with your just being able

to read the trial brief this morning as have

I, however, Mr. Porter did cite two of the

cases yesterday during the telephone status

conference, PCB 81-10, which is the County of

LaSalle and also Waste Management, PCB 82-55,

which is also cited in his trial brief and I

did take a gander at those.

Secondly, I think both parties are

at fault for all these 11th hour filing and

posturing. Again, as I've stated numerous

times and also in my motion to compel order

that this case was filed April 2004. These

deps could have been finished August,

September. This is not the Enron case. You

know, this didn't have to happen, but it did

and if this ever gets to part three of this

matter I definitely will set deposition

deadlines, motion deadlines, discovery

deadlines, but as I was told during the

numerous telephone status conferences,

everything was going well.

0020

With that said, and I'm looking at

the County of LaSalle, PCB 81-10, second

paragraph, the hearing officer in general

should allow offers of proof where there's a

reasonable doubt as to its admissibility.

I find that there is substantial

case law that supports the County argument.

I don't find there is any reasonable doubt

here and I agree with the County that in

order to get to step two, you have to pass

step two to the threshold. I don't believe

Waste Management has shown any strong showing

of bad faith or improper behavior. Merely

because members have changed their vote

doesn't pierce the vail, if you will.

There's case law out there on that and I

think have been filed with the Board. Again,

the decision-makers are presumed to make

their decision without bias.

So, therefore, with that said, I

will grant the County's motion and I will

deny any offer of proof on the mental

processes of the County Board members.

With that said, I think we also

0021

have Mr. Porter's motion in limine that was

filed April 5th, 2005, which was yesterday.

Mr. Porter, do you want to expound on that,

please?

MR. PORTER: Certainly. We can take

this up now or immediately before

Ms. Bernard's testimony.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Let's take

it up now.

MR. PORTER: Okay. The general gist

is that Waste Management, petitioner, has

supplied in a production response several

documents that make it clear that they are

going to attempt to admit evidence concerning

statements that Ms. Bernard made while she

was running for the Illinois state

legislature, plus those questions came up at

her deposition. We are merely seeking a

motion in limine to bar them from delving

into those issues. It's well established

under Section 39.2(d) that the fact that a

member of the County Board or governing body

of the municipality has publically expressed

an opinion on an issue related to a site

0022

review proceeding shall not preclude the

member from taking part in the proceeding and

voting on the issue. Furthermore, the U.S.

Constitution expressly allows federal and

governmental employees to express opinions on

political subjects. That's Amendment I.

It's axiomatic that an individual running for

public office has not only a right, but a

duty to inform the public of their position

on issues and particularly in this

legislative district, landfilling is a very

relevant issue that the public wanted and

needed to know and Ms. Bernard has testified

that when, at deposition, that when asked

questions concerning her stance on

landfilling she would respond. That was

perfectly and absolutely appropriate and

should not and cannot be used in this

proceeding as a basis for somehow trying to

give a suggestion of improper ex parte

communications. Those communications were

given as a candidate for legislative office,

not as a member of a County Board with a

pending siting application and that's why

0023

those questions and those documents that

Waste Management has supplied concerning her

bid for the legislature should be barred.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Thank you.

Mr. Moran?

MR. MORAN: The applicable provision

of the Act at Section 39.2(d) states as

follows and I'm quoting, the fact that a

member of the County Board or governing body

or municipality has publically expressed an

opinion on an issue related to a site review

proceeding shall not preclude the member from

taking part in the proceeding and voting on

the issue, close quote. What we have from

Ms. Bernard, although they certainly in some

respects are comments that were made during

the course of her campaign for state

representative, her statements are clearly

not simply expressions of opinion about

whether she favors landfilling or whether she

favors some other alternative means of waste

disposal or otherwise, these statements

indicate a specific opposition to a specific

proposal that has been made and has been

0024

pending before her sitting in her adjudicata

capacity as a decision-maker on a siting case

and that's a very significant difference.

Certainly what the legislature had in mind

here was that in the process of campaigning

for office or even if you weren't

campaigning, simply expressing opinions about

landfilling, the process of waste disposal,

whatever it might be, you may have opinions

that aren't consistent with allowing

landfilling in a particular area, but these

opinions are expressed with respect to the

generic or general category of landfills or

otherwise, not the specific proposals that

have been made to approve a specific facility

and when someone as Ms. Bernard did and did

repeatedly, to come out and indicate that she

was opposed to this proposal, that she would

fight against it, that she was strictly

objecting to it and had found it to be

inconsistent with any supporting evidence or

criteria that would allow for its approval,

we're not talking about a mere expression of

opinion, we're talking about someone who has

0025

prejudged a specific application, which is

something that clearly she's unable to do and

these types of comments and these statements

she made unequivocally show that she was

opposed and would vote against this specific

proposal before the evidence was in, before

the County Board voted, before she voted and

that's why this evidence is very critical to

the question of whether she prejudged this

application. Had it been a mere expression

of opinion, we wouldn't be seeking to

introduce it. It relates to this specific

matter and it relates to her specific

decision to oppose this proposal. So we

request that this motion in limine be denied.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Thank you.

Mr. Porter, any follow-up?

MR. PORTER: On the latter issue, when

we get to the specific documents perhaps this

is better addressed as specific items of

evidence are sought to be admitted, but we

will see that the vast majority of the

purported statements post date the close of

the hearing. For example, one of the primary

0026

documents that Waste Management is apparently

relying upon is Ms. Bernard's general

assembly questionnaire, which she filed on

January 8th, '04 and if it's a statement made

of an opposition to their application after

the close of evidence, so be it. One, she

has a right of freedom of speech to make

these statements running for office and

that's the primary basis. We don't want to

quell that freedom of speech when someone is

running for public office, but two, the

evidence is closed and so where is the harm

at that stage. So I don't believe that

Mr. Moran's statement that these were made

before they had an opportunity to present

their case is accurate and I think that can

only be addressed on a piecemeal basis, but

beyond that, though, the reason we brought it

in limine rather than doing it as each piece

of evidence is submitted is because of the

overall prescription on the 39.2 of barring

someone from testifying -- or from deciding

an application merely because they stated an

opinion and that's exactly what they're

0027

attempting to do here by bringing out

Ms. Bernard's web page when she was running

for office as well as her legislative

questionnaire.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Thank you.

One more response, Mr. Moran?

MR. MORAN: Yes. The document that

Mr. Porter just referred to, the answers to

the questions which specifically indicated

her opposition to this proposal dated January

8th, 2004 was a week before the hearing

began. So clearly we're talking about

statements that were made prior to this

hearing even beginning and there isn't, at

least in our view, any question that the

comments made were indicative of a

prejudgement by Ms. Bernard.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Here's what

I'm going to do, I'm going to grant

respondent's motion in limine. I do find and

I still -- from the premise that a

decision-maker is presumed to act without

bias, however, with that said, I will allow

Mr. Moran, under an offer of proof, to

0028

solicit any information regarding the

argument that you so chose. Again, I grant

the motion in limine, but Mr. Moran may pose

it in an officer of proof setting and I'll

let the Board decide. Let's take about a

five-second break, I need some coffee, and

then we can go back on the record.

(Whereupon, after a short

break was had, the

following proceedings

were held accordingly.)

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: We're back

on the record. I do want to betrust my

ruling, my first ruling on the mental

processes, I'm looking at the Board rules,

procedural rules Section 101.626(a) where

it says evidence, the hearing officer may

admit evidence that is material, relevant and

would be relied upon by prudent persons in

the conduct of series affairs unless the

evidence is privileges and I did find that

the evidence was privileged.

With that said, there is a

gentleman in the back row, he wants to come

0029

up and make a public comment and if you

could, state and spell your name for the

court reporter. You don't want to be sworn

in?

MR. BRUCK: I don't know -- I'm not a

lawyer so I don't know whether it's a good

idea or if it's necessary, let's put it that

way. Do my comments carry more weight if I'm

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Yes, sir,

if you're sworn in.

MR. BRUCK: Then I'll swear in.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: And then

you're subject to cross-examination.

MR. BRUCK: Well, it doesn't -- sure,

if we want to do that, fine. I don't care.

I'll swear in.

(Mr. Bruck was sworn in.)

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: State you

name and spell it for the record, please.

MR. BRUCK: I'm Darrel Bruck, Junior,

that's D-A-R-R-E-L, Bruck, B-R-U-C-K, and I'm

a life long resident of Kankakee County.

I noticed some inconsistencies in

0030

Mr. Moran's statements this morning. In his

first motions he talked about that the first

application -- or the second application was

essentially the same as the first and

because there wasn't a consistent vote by the

County Board the second time around in favor

of the applicant that it could -- that

demonstrates potentially problems with the

decision-making of the County Board's, then

when he talked about Ms. Bernard who voted no

at the first hearing to the landfill -- to

the criteria and she was consistent and

voted no at the second time around, the

second application he contends that her

consistency shows that she was biased. So

I'm -- you know, it doesn't make a whole lot

of sense to me. Either consistency is good

for one if it's in the favor of the

applicant, but if it's not in the favor of

the applicant, then it's not a good thing.

Thank you.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Thank you.

Mr. Moran, any questions of this witness.

0031

C R O S S E X A M I N A T I O N

by Mr. Moran

Q. Mr. Bruck, did you attend the hearings

4 on the siting application filed in 2002?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. And you attended the hearings on the

7 siting application that was filed in 2003?

A. Yes.

Q. Were you able to determine if there

10 were any differences in the two applications that

11 were filed?

A. There was some differences, yes.

Q. What were the differences?

A. They were not major differences, but

15 there was a little more in-depth exploring of the

16 criteria.

Q. Which criteria?

A. The criteria regarding public safety

19 and the criteria regarding traffic, also the

20 criteria in real estate, the property guarantee.

Q. Well, isn't it true that there was

22 some additional data that was submitted in support

23 of the need criterion for the second application?

MR. PORTER: Mr. Hearing Officer, I

0032

guess I'm going to voice an objection now

though it's unusual because this is just a

member of the public, but I can see this

coming up quite a bit. Application and the

hearing transcripts and the underlying first

hearing and second hearing, all of that is

already in the record, so we don't need to be

spending a lot of time throughout this

hearing discussing what was different between

one and two. We already have that in the

record. So I think it's arguably irrelevant

to the fundamental fairness of the proceeding

and at a minimum it's redundant and so I'm

going to voice that objection now.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: It's

overruled. Mr. Moran, you may proceed.

17 BY MR. MORAN:

Q. Mr. Bruck, do you remember my

19 question?

A. No.

Q. Okay. Isn't it true that there was

22 some additional data presented in support of

23 criterion one, the need criterion in the second

24 application?

0033

A. There was a -- yes, there was

2 additional data presented that allegedly supported

3 it.

Q. And was that also true with respect to

5 criterion three, the real estate impact, there were

6 some additional property sales that were submitted

7 in support of criterion three?

A. Allegedly, yes, they were allegedly in

9 support.

Q. And, in fact, there was no new data or

11 information presented with respect to the design or

12 operation of the facility in the second application,

13 was there?

A. I believe there was.

Q. And this was submitted by whom?

A. I think it was in regards to answering

17 questions that was presented by the objectors in

18 regards to inspecting of truck loads of garbage and

19 so forth.

Q. Was there any additional data

21 submitted with respect to the traffic criterion?

A. I believe there was by objectors.

Q. By whom?

A. I believe -- by Mr. Carlock and

0034

1 Mr. Watson regarding school bus traffic and so

2 forth.

Q. Are you just speculating now or do you

4 actually remember that --

A. This is as I recall it, yes, because I

6 was there.

Q. Other than those items that we've just

8 identified, do you recall any other new information

9 or data being submitted in support of the second

10 application?

A. In support, yes. Waste Management did

12 present some new data and information to answer

13 questions of the objectors. They explored things in

14 more detail.

Q. On which criterion?

A. Transportation, property guarantee,

17 public safety questions, need, need was very much --

18 was very much discussed in detail. That's all I

19 recall at this time.

Q. So is it your testimony that the

21 objectors had more questions regarding those

22 criteria for the applicant in the second application

23 than they did in the first?

A. Yes.

0035

MR. MORAN: I have nothing further.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Thank you,

Mr. Moran. Mr. Porter?

D I R E C T E X A M I N A T I O N

by Mr. Porter

Q. Mr. Bruck, I am going to ask you a

7 follow-ups.

A. Sure.

Q. In regard to the first criterion, I

10 understand you attended all the hearings, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Isn't it true that at the time that

13 this application -- Waste Management's application

14 was decided, the city of Kankakee had already sited

15 a landfill in the county?

A. Yes.

Q. In regard to criterion three, were you

18 present when the questioning of Ms. McGarr was done

19 by one of the objectors?

A. Yes.

Q. And there was substantially more

22 impeachment of her credentials in this hearing than

23 there was in the previous hearing, is that correct?

A. Yes.

0036

Q. And likewise, in regard to criterion

2 six, a whole new witness was put on concerning the

3 impacts to transportation, is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. And I think you even referenced, that

6 witness was particularly concerned about the fact

7 that the application did not take into account

8 school bus loading zones, is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. As a matter of fact, he also was

11 concerned about the size of the entry and exit way

12 from the landfill, is that right?

A. Yes.

MR. PORTER: Nothing further.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Mr. Moran?

R E C R O S S E X A M I N A T I O N

by Mr. Moran

Q. Mr. Bruck, at the time the County

19 Board considered the second application, the city's

20 approval of the Town & County application was under

21 appeal to the Pollution Control Board, is that

22 correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And for the first Town & Country

0037

1 siting approval by the city of Kankakee, that

2 approval was reversed by the Pollution Control

3 Board, wasn't it?

A. Yes.

Q. With respect to the testimony of

6 Mr. Culter, who was the transportation expert

7 offered by one of the objectors, Mr. Culter

8 presented no new data or information with respect to

9 the traffic report, did he?

A. I believe he did.

Q. What did he present?

A. He talked about bus -- the number of

13 buses as well as the truck traffic that's already on

14 49/52, the highway.

Q. That information was already in the

16 application, wasn't it, Mr. Culter just missed it,

17 isn't that right?

A. That, I do not know.

MR. MORAN: Nothing more.

MR. PORTER: No follow-ups. Thank

you.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Thank you.

You may step down.

Anybody else before we get started

0038

with Waste Management's case in chief? It

doesn't look so -- it doesn't look like

anybody is raising their hand, so Mr. Moran

you may do your opening if you so chose or

call your witness or Mr. Porter.

MR. MORAN: We will waive any opening

at this time.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Mr. Porter?

MR. PORTER: Likewise.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Mr. Moran?

MR. MORAN: We have subpoenaed three

witnesses who I believe are all here at the

moment. Mr. Porter has indicated that

Ms. Hertzberger apparently is only available

this morning to be examined. I frankly can

begin with Ms. Hertzberger or I can begin

with the witnesses that we have subpoenaed.

Have those subpoenas been filed with you with

respect to these witnesses?

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: I don't

know what witnesses you're talking about.

There has been some subpoenas filed.

MR. MORAN: The witnesses I'm talking

about are Mr. Runyon, Ms. Bates and

0039

Mr. Keller.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: I believe

so. Yes. Three came in, I think, Monday or

last Thursday. In any event, yes, they have

been filed.

MR. MORAN: With that, I'm certainly

prepared to proceed with Ms. Hertzberger.

MR. PORTER: We would appreciate the

accommodation. Ms. Hertzberger would like to

get this out of the way so she can get back

to work.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Okay. So

agreed.

(Ms. Hertzberger was sworn in.)

D I R E C T E X A M I N A T I O N

by Mr. Moran

Q. Can you tell us your full name and

18 spell your last name?

A. Karen Hertzberger, the last name is

20 spelled H-E-R-T-Z-B-E-R-G-E-R.

Q. What is your address?

A. 179 South May Avenue, Kankakee.

Q. How long have you lived there?

A. About nine years.

0040

Q. What is your occupation?

A. I'm the managing broker of Coldwell

3 Banker Residential Brokerage.

Q. Are you a member of the Kankakee

5 County Board?

A. Yes, I am.

Q. When were you first elected to the

8 County Board?

A. In 2003, December 2003 -- November

10 started -- is that right? Yeah.

Q. Would it have been December of 2002?

A. 2002. I'm not good with dates.

Q. You were elected in November of 2002

14 and you were sworn in as a County Board member in

15 December of 2002?

A. Yes.

Q. And you've been sitting on the County

18 Board since that time?

A. Yes.

Q. Are you familiar with a site location

21 application to expand the existing Kankakee

22 landfill?

A. Yes.

Q. And that application was filed by

0041

1 Waste Management of Illinois, Inc., correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, are you aware that there was an

4 application filed on August 16th of 2002 for the

5 expansion of that facility?

A. Yes.

Q. And I'll refer to that as the 2002

8 siting application, fair enough?

A. Yes.

Q. You were sworn in as a member of the

11 County Board after the hearings on the 2002

12 application, is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you attend any of these hearings?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you vote on the 2002 siting

17 application?

A. Yes.

Q. When?

A. I believe it was in January of 2003.

Q. It was, in fact, on January 31st of

22 2003?

A. Yes.

Q. How did you vote on the 2002 siting

0042

1 application?

A. I voted yes.

Q. Did you vote to approve each of the

4 nine statutory criteria?

A. Yes.

Q. Prior to January 31st of 2003, did you

7 receive any phone calls from any individuals

8 regarding the 2002 siting application?

MR. PORTER: Objection, irrelevant.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Mr. Moran?

MR. MORAN: The question of

communications, discussions, ex parte

contacts or otherwise are relevant to a

determination of the fundamental fairness of

this proceeding and looked at in terms of

this entire process which as you, Mr. Hearing

officer, have pointed out is really a

continuum beginning the 2002 application and

continuing through the 2003 application and

the question of whether there were -- whether

there was fundamental fairness in this

proceeding, that is the 2003 application, is

certainly affected and implicated by what

occurred on the vote on the 2002 siting

0043

application. I believe I'm entitled to

establish the foundation for making those

arguments based upon what's occurred for the

siting applications in this case for this

expansion.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Mr. Porter?

MR. PORTER: I would just submit that

any communications that occurred before the

application was filed are irrelevant.

There's no suggestion that the decision

regarding the first application was

fundamentally unfair. Indeed, Waste

management never appealed that decision

because it was approved.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Bear with

me for a minute.

(Brief pause.)

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: I'm going

to overrule your objection, Mr. Porter, at

this point. Mr. Moran can proceed.

21 BY MR. MORAN:

Q. Ms. Hertzberger, do you remember my

23 question?

A. Could you repeat it, please?

0044

Q. Did you receive any telephone calls

2 with respect to the proposed expansion prior to your

3 vote on January 31st, 2003 on the 2002 siting

4 application?

A. Not that I recall.

Q. Did you receive any letters or any

7 written materials from anyone regarding the proposed

8 expansion prior to your vote on January 31st, 2003?

A. That's a possibility, but I couldn't

10 tell you from who because we were all receiving

11 letters.

Q. Would it be fair to say that as you

13 sit here today today you don't recall having

14 received any specific letters or written materials

15 regarding the 2002 siting application before you

16 voted on it on January 31st, 2003?

A. I couldn't pinpoint that, no.

Q. So it would be accurate to say that

19 you don't recall any as you sit here now?

A. Yes.

Q. That is correct?

A. That is correct.

Q. Did you become aware that at some

24 point the approval of the 2002 siting application

0045

1 was vacated or invalidated?

A. I'm sorry, could you ask that question

3 again?

Q. Yes. At some point did you become

5 aware that the approval of the County Board on

6 January 31st of 2003 was subsequently vacated, a

7 term lawyers use, invalidated decision?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you become aware of a siting

10 application which was filed on September 26th, 2003?

A. Yes.

Q. I'll refer to that as the 2003 siting

13 application.

Did you attend the hearings on the

15 2003 siting application?

A. No.

Q. Did those hearings take place in

18 January of 2004, to the best of your knowledge?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you vote on the 2003 siting

21 application?

A. No.

Q. At some point you voted on the 2003

24 siting application?

0046

A. I voted on it yes, sorry. I'm sorry.

Q. And you voted on the 2003 siting

3 application on March 17th, 2004?

A. Yes.

Q. And in voting on the 2003 siting

6 application, you voted to deny certain of the

7 criteria, is that correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. And you voted to deny certain of the

10 criteria that you had approved when you voted on the

11 2002 siting application, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. And those criteria that you voted no

14 on were criterion one, relating to need, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. Criterion two, relating to the design

17 and operation of the facility, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. Criterion three, which related to

20 whether the facility was located so as to minimize

21 any incompatibility with the character of

22 surrounding area, minimize affect on property value,

23 correct?

A. Correct.

0047

Q. You also voted no on criterion five,

2 which referred to the plan of operation of the

3 facility such that it would minimize any danger to

4 the surrounding area from fire, spills or

5 operational accidents, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. And you also voted no on criterion

8 six, which is the criterion related to traffic

9 impact, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. Now, was there a motion to renew

12 consideration of the County's March 17th, 2004 vote

13 on the 2003 siting application?

MR. PORTER: Objection, irrelevant.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Mr. Moran?

MR. MORAN: It's very relevant. It's

part of the decision-making process that

occurred here. There was a decision on the

17th of March, there was a motion to renew

consideration that was considered and voted

on by the Board subsequently.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: I'll allow

it. You may proceed.

0048

1 BY THE WITNESS:

A. Could you repeat the question, please?

3 BY MR. MORAN:

Q. Yes. Was there a motion to renew

5 consideration of the March 17th, 2004 vote?

A. Yes.

Q. And was the vote on that motion to

8 renew consideration, did that take place on

9 April 13th, 2004?

A. To my recollection, yes.

Q. And you voted on the motion to

12 reconsider, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you know an individual by the name

15 of Bruce Harrison?

A. I know who he is.

Q. Who is he?

A. Let me put it this way, I know he's a

19 guy. I met him. That's about what I know about

20 him.

Q. When did you first meet Mr. Harrison?

A. I don't know exact dates. In between

23 the January vote and the March 17th vote, sometime

24 in between there.

0049

Q. So in that 14-month period between

2 January 31st, 2003 and March 17th, 2004 you met

3 Mr. Harrison?

A. Yes.

Q. Did Mr. Harrison come to where you

6 were when you first met him?

A. Yes.

Q. So he approached you?

A. Yes.

Q. And where did he approach you?

A. In my office.

Q. And your office is located where?

A. In Bradley on Route 50.

Q. Did this first meeting occur at some

15 point during January of 2004?

A. I really don't recall.

Q. Was it before January of 2004?

A. I really -- I really couldn't tell

19 you.

Q. All you can tell us is that the

21 meeting occurred sometime prior to March 17th of

22 2004?

A. Yes.

Q. Can you tell us how far before

0050

1 March 17th that was, a few weeks, couple of months?

A. I really couldn't get specific.

Q. Was Mr. Harrison with anyone when he

4 came to see you at your office?

A. No.

Q. Did you allow him in your office?

A. I couldn't stop him. I wasn't in the

8 front. In my office I have two administrative

9 assistants. People walk in the door. We have

10 customers and clients that walk in the door. He

11 walked in the door. I was in my office.

Q. What did he say to you?

A. My AA paged me and said I had a --

14 someone that wanted to see me up front. I came up

15 front. As usual, there's always people that want to

16 see me, salesmen, other clients because I'm the

17 manager. I didn't know who he was. He asked me if

18 he could speak to me for a second. I took him in a

19 conference room thinking it was a client of one of

20 my agents and he had a complaint and he proceeded to

21 tell me he was there to talk to me about the Waste

22 Management siting application.

Q. What did he say to about the Waste

24 Management siting application?

0051

A. I told him I couldn't talk to him

2 about it.

Q. What did he say to you about it?

A. He said he wanted to talk to me about

5 it. I told him I couldn't talk to him about it.

Q. Did he say anything else to you?

A. He tried, made attempts.

Q. And what did he say in making these

9 attempts?

A. That he was against it, tried to

11 persuade me to vote no.

Q. How did he try to persuade you to vote

13 no? What did he say to you?

A. He didn't say a whole lot. He just

15 said that he felt I should vote no on the -- because

16 I told him I couldn't talk to him. So most of the

17 time was spent telling him I couldn't talk to him.

Q. And he would just talk and you would

19 just listen, correct?

A. Well, I wouldn't just listen. I would

21 try to just politely tell him that I couldn't talk

22 to him.

Q. Did he make any reference to the

24 proposed Town & County landfill in the city of

0052

1 Kankakee?

A. No.

Q. He was only talking about the proposed

4 expansion of the Waste Management landfill?

A. Yes.

Q. How long did this meeting with

7 Mr. Harrison last?

A. Couple minutes.

Q. Did you then ask him to leave?

A. Yes, I did. I said I can't talk to

11 you. I stood up and he stood up and he stayed well,

12 sorry to bother you. Thank you for your time and

13 he left. I didn't really have to ask him to leave.

Q. Did he say anything to you about his

15 having talked or spoken to other County Board

16 members?

A. He tried to mention that, yes.

Q. And what did he say?

A. He said that he had spoken to other

20 County Board members.

Q. Did he identify any of them by name?

A. No.

Q. You didn't ask him?

A. No.

0053

Q. Did he say how many he had spoken to?

A. He may have mentioned a number, but I

3 couldn't tell you what it was.

Q. Did you have another communication

5 with Mr. Harrison?

A. Mr. Harrison attempted to contact me

7 maybe three or four times after that.

Q. How did he attempt to contact you?

A. He would either call me and I would

10 tell him I can't talk to you and I would hang up or

11 he would walk into my office and I would see him and

12 I ask him to leave and he would leave.

Q. How many subsequent times did he come

14 to your office and try to talk to you?

A. He probably just came to my office

16 maybe one or two more times before that.

Q. And these would have been prior to

18 March 17th, 2004?

A. Yes.

Q. And the phone call as well was prior

21 to March 17th?

A. Yes.

Q. Was there more than one phone call?

A. Maybe two.

0054

Q. Where they at your home or to your

2 office?

A. I believe they were at my office, but

4 he may have tried to call me at home.

Q. During either of these phone calls or

6 the meetings, did he say anything more to you about

7 his opposition to the proposed expansion?

A. No.

Q. Were there picketers outside this

10 building on March 17th, 2004?

A. Yes.

Q. Was Mr. Harrison among them?

A. Probably.

Q. Did you see any of the picketers?

A. Yes.

Q. Were any of them carrying signs?

A. Yes.

Q. What did the signs say?

A. I don't recall.

Q. Did they say no dump, no Chicago

21 garbage?

A. Possibly. I don't recall.

Q. By the way, did you see signs anywhere

24 in the area prior to March 17th, 2004 that said no

0055

1 dump, no Chicago garbage?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you see those on individual's

4 properties in the area?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you see them at places of

7 business?

A. Yes.

Q. How many people appeared to picket, at

10 least the ones you saw, the day of March 17th?

A. Not very many, eight or nine maybe.

Q. You saw eight or nine?

A. That's what I saw, yes.

Q. And you don't recall having seen

15 Mr. Harrison?

A. He probably was there. It wasn't like

17 I made a mental note is Mr. Harrison here, you know,

18 I just walked the through people.

Q. Did any of the picketers speak to you?

A. Not a whole lot, not really.

Q. Did any of them say anything to you?

A. I think one of them may have said

23 hello, but that's about it.

Q. Was that somebody you knew or someone

0056

1 you did not know?

A. I know a lot of people, so it's --

3 some people recognize me and I don't recognize them,

4 so it's possible that I know that person.

Q. Had you ever heard Mr. Harrison tell

6 any County Board member that Mr. Harrison would work

7 to oppose that County Board member's re-election?

A. Only one instance.

Q. Who did Mr. Harrison say that to?

A. Carl Kruse.

Q. And who is Mr. Kruse?

A. He is the chairman of the County

13 Board.

Q. Did that occur at some point prior to

15 March 17th?

A. I believe so.

Q. Now, is it true that Mr. Harrison

18 works at United Disposal Company or has worked at

19 United Disposal Company in the past?

A. I've heard rumors to that effect. I

21 don't have proof to that.

Q. And United Disposal is a company owned

23 or controlled by a Michael Watson?

A. Yes.

0057

Q. Is that your understanding?

A. Yes.

Q. And who is Michael Watson?

A. Other than he owns United Disposal, I

5 have no idea.

Q. Are you aware of whether Mr. Watson

7 was an objector to this 2002 and 2003 siting

8 application?

A. Yes.

Q. And you know that because?

A. County Board meetings.

Q. Now, prior to March 17th of 2004, did

13 you receive any phone calls from anyone regarding

14 the 2003 application?

A. I'm sorry, say that again, the dates.

Q. Prior to March 17th, 2004, did you

17 receive any phone calls from any persons regarding

18 the 2003 siting application?

MR. PORTER: Other than Mr. Harrison

she's already testified to?

21 BY MR. MORAN:

Q. Other than the number of calls

23 Mr. Harrison placed to you.

A. Not that I recall.

0058

Q. Did you receive any letters prior to

2 March 17th, 2004 regarding the 2003 siting

3 application?

A. I received letters, yes.

Q. I think you said you received many

6 letters, is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And all of these letters were in

9 opposition to the 2003 application?

A. I have no idea.

Q. You did read some of those letters,

12 didn't you?

A. One.

Q. And was that letter opposing?

A. I didn't read it all the way through.

16 I just opened it and noticed it had to do with the

17 landfill, quit reading it, put it back.

Q. Okay. Do you have any information or

19 facts to believe that any of those letters that you

20 received were in support of the proposed expansion?

MR. PORTER: Objection, calls for

conjecture.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Could you

read the question back?

0059

(Whereupon, the requested

portion of the record

was read accordingly.)

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: I think she

can answer if she's able and after her

answer, I'm going to take a quick break, a

five minute one. Thank you. You may answer.

8 BY THE WITNESS:

A. Do I have any facts?

10 BY MR. MORAN:

Q. Do you have any information to lead

12 you to believe that any of those letters you

13 received were in support of the 2003 application?

A. No, not that I could produce right

15 now, no.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: All right.

We're going to go off the record for a

second. Thanks.

(Whereupon, after a short

break was had, the

following proceedings

were held accordingly.)

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: We're back

on the record. Thanks for your indulgence.

0060

In any event, Mr. Moran will continue his

direct of the witness.

MR. MORAN: Thank you.

4 BY MR. MORAN:

Q. Ms. Hertzberger, just going back to

6 Mr. Harrison's visit to your office. Did you see

7 him writing any notes during any time that you were

8 meeting with him?

A. No.

Q. Now, with regard to this letter that

11 you said you opened and you started looking at it

12 and you didn't do anything further with it, although

13 my understanding is you still have that letter, is

14 that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. You never turned it into anybody or

17 told anybody about it, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. I believe you also indicated that in

20 beginning to read the letter you concluded that from

21 reading the part of the letter you did look at, that

22 it was opposed to the expansion, correct?

A. It was an assumption on my part.

Q. Your assumption was based upon your

0061

1 reading that part of the letter which you actually

2 looked at it, correct?

A. No.

Q. Do you remember appearing for your

5 deposition in this proceeding back on August 4th,

6 2004?

A. Yes.

Q. And at that time you took an oath to

9 tell the truth and respond truthfully to the

10 questions asked, is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And you did that, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. At that deposition were you asked the

15 following questions and did you give the following

16 answers with respect to this letter. Question: And

17 the letter that you opened and read, that part of it

18 that you read, did you conclude that the person who

19 wrote the letter was opposed to the expansion?

20 Answer: I assumed that. I didn't conclude that. I

21 just assumed that. Question: From reading that

22 part of the letter that you looked at? Answer:

23 From -- right. Did you give those answers to those

24 questions?

0062

A. If you say I did, I must have.

Q. Now, all of those letters that you

3 received with regard to the 2003 application, you

4 still have those letters?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you also receive any letters after

7 March 17th, 2004, but before April 13th?

A. Yes.

Q. And how many of those letters did you

10 receive?

A. I never counted them.

Q. Were there more than ten?

A. I never counted them.

Q. So you have no idea how many there

15 were?

A. No, I have no idea.

Q. Do you still have those at home?

A. Yes.

Q. Were these thank you notes?

A. I opened one, one was a thank you

21 note. I assumed the other ones were.

Q. Did you receive any postcards?

A. Not that I recall.

Q. And the thank you notes that you

0063

1 reviewed, what were you being thanked for?

A. For my vote.

Q. For your vote on the 2003 application,

4 denying it?

A. Yes.

Q. And who was that letter from?

A. I have no idea.

Q. Did you receive any thank you notes

9 for your vote on January 31st, 2003?

MR. PORTER: Objection, irrelevant.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Overruled.

12 BY THE WITNESS:

A. I don't know. I don't know. No, I

14 guess not.

15 BY MR. MORAN:

Q. Were there any picketers outside the

17 County Board meeting on January 31st, 2003?

A. Not that I recall.

Q. Do you recall having seen any signs,

20 no dump, no Chicago waste on or before January 31st,

21 2003?

A. Yes.

Q. And where did you see these signs?

A. People's yards.

0064

Q. This is back before the first vote on

2 the 2002 application?

A. Correct.

Q. And how many such signs did you see

5 prior to January 31st, 2003?

A. I really didn't count them. I believe

7 most of them were in Otto Township.

Q. Could those signs have been placed in

9 or around the proposed Town & Country site located

10 in the city of Kankakee?

A. I don't know.

Q. So whatever signs you saw, did you

13 have any understanding as to what they were

14 referring to?

A. Did I?

MR. PORTER: Objection. Right now

we're asking for -- I'm going to withdraw it.

Go ahead.

19 BY THE WITNESS:

A. Did I know there was opposition to the

21 landfill before January, yes.

22 BY MR. MORAN:

Q. No, that wasn't my question.

My question was whatever these

0065

1 signs were you saw prior to January of 2003, did you

2 know if these signs were referring to the proposed

3 Town & Country landfill in the city of Kankakee or

4 the proposed expansion of the Waste Management

5 landfill?

A. I had no idea.

Q. Okay. Prior to January 31 of 2003,

8 did anyone come to your office to talk about the

9 proposed expansion of the Waste Management landfill

10 for the 2002 application?

A. No.

Q. Did you receive any communications

13 from any individuals prior to March 17th of 2004

14 which said dump the dump or we'll dump you?

A. No, not that I know of.

Q. Not that you recall?

A. Not that I recall, no.

Q. Ms. Hertzberger, what factors or

19 information did you consider in deciding the 2002

20 siting application?

MR. PORTER: Objection. That violates

the motion in limine.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Terry,

could you read that back, please?

0066

(Whereupon, the requested

portion of the record

was read accordingly.)

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Sustained.

5 BY MR. MORAN:

Q. What was the source of the information

7 or factors that you considered in deciding the 2002

8 siting application?

MR. PORTER: This is the exact same

road I went down in the depositions where

Mr. Moran will rephrase the same question

several different ways. It's the same

objection.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Any

response, Mr. Moran?

MR. MORAN: Well, I believe these are

questions to which I, based upon our

contentions about fundamental fairness of

this proceeding are entitled to get answers

to. I understand your ruling with respect to

both the motion to compel and the motion in

limine. I'm my record now.

Now, we can certainly go through

these questions for this witness and with

0067

your approval simply identify these for each

of these witnesses so that I can establish

this record in as much as I'm not going to be

able to present offer of proof on them, but I

believe I need to do this for purposes of

making my record.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Mr. Porter,

any response?

MR. PORTER: Well, I'm afraid I don't

understand what Mr. Moran is proposing.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: I'm a

little confused as well.

MR. PORTER: If he's proposing to do

it one time with this witness where I'm going

to make an objection, assuming it will be

sustained, okay, but if we're going to go

through the same exercise with every witness,

that's a complete waste of time and that's

what happened to me at the deposition as well

and I would strongly object to that and

besides that, all it results in is whether or

not I, as the attorney, can stay on my feet

enough to miss an objection and I've already

had a motion in limine and actually it's

0068

improper now to be asking these questions

once the hearing officer has already ruled on

the issue. So I guess the only thing I would

agree, if that's what I'm being asked to do,

would be this one witness. Other than that,

I think it's too onerous of a burden on the

County.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Mr. Moran?

MR. MORAN: I have no problem with

going through the list of questions I think

I'm entitled to ask and which I'm entitled

the answers and for purposes of stipulating

that these would be the questions I would ask

of each of the County Board members based

upon your ruling on both the motion to compel

and the motion to exclude an offer of proof

to make my record in that fashion.

Otherwise, if you don't think sufficient, I'm

happy to go through it with each one of these

County Board witnesses, those questions,

because I need to make my record.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Mr. Porter,

you're comfortable with that with a standing

objection?

0069

MR. PORTER: Absolutely, with one

witness I'm perfectly comfortable with that.

We're not going to repeat it every time a

witness comes up is what I'm understanding

Mr. Moran to be saying, is that correct?

MR. MORAN: Well, if Mr. Halloran

agrees that I don't need to do that, I think

I do, but if everyone can stipulate by asking

these questions, which would be the questions

I would ask each County Board member as an

offer of proof, we can do it in this fashion

and stipulate that these would be the

questions for each County Board member with

your approval, I'm happy to do that. Without

your approval, I'll go through it with each

witness.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: I'm

inclined to approve it.

MR. PORTER: I agree.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: We'll make

it clear on the record what we're doing. So

you'll ask these questions of this witness,

the questions that have already been ruled

upon and sustained and then we'll just apply

0070

it to the witnesses that you so say in the

future. That's fine.

MR. MORAN: Yes.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: So I assume

all these questions are going to be a

standing objection and I was going to give a

standing sustainment.

MR. MORAN: Based on your ruling I

think that's probably right.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Thank you.

MR. MORAN: Could you read back my

last question?

(Whereupon, the requested

portion of the record

was read accordingly.)

MR. PORTER: Same objection.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: That

objection is sustained.

MR. PORTER: Same objection.

20 BY MR. MORAN:

Q. Did you consider any factors or

22 information outside the record in rendering your

23 decision on January 31, 2003?

MR. PORTER: No objection.

0071

1 BY THE WITNESS:

A. No.

3 BY MR. MORAN:

Q. The factors that you did take into

5 account in voting on the January 31, 2003 vote, from

6 what source or sources did you obtain that

7 information?

MR. PORTER: Same objection, invades

the deliberative process.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Sustained.

11 BY MR. MORAN:

Q. What information or facts did you

13 consider in voting on the 2003 siting application on

14 March 17th, 2004?

MR. PORTER: Same objection.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Sustained.

17 BY MR. MORAN:

Q. What factors or information did you

19 rely upon in changing your vote on criterion one

20 from an approval to a denial for the 2003 siting

21 application?

MR. PORTER: Same objection.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Sustained.

24 BY MR. MORAN:

0072

Q. What facts or information did you

2 consider in changing your vote on criterion two from

3 an approval to a denial for the 2003 siting

4 application?

MR. PORTER: Same objection.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Sustained.

7 BY MR. MORAN:

Q. What facts or information did you

9 consider in changing your vote from an approval to a

10 denial on criterion three for the 2003 siting

11 application?

MR. PORTER: Same objection.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Sustained.

14 BY MR. MORAN:

Q. What facts or information did you

16 consider in changing your vote from an approval on

17 criterion five to a denial of criterion five in the

18 2003 siting application?

MR. PORTER: Same objection.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Sustained.

21 BY MR. MORAN:

Q. What facts or information did you

23 consider in changing your vote from an approval to a

24 denial on criterion six of the 2003 siting

0073

1 application?

MR. PORTER: Same objection.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Sustained.

4 BY MR. MORAN:

Q. Why did you consider the factors that

6 you've identified in changing your votes on these

7 criteria from an approval to a denial in the 2003

8 siting application?

MR. PORTER: Well, that presumes

facts that are not in evidence and I guess

it's also the same objection, but she hasn't

identified any such factors, so it's not an

answerable question.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: You made

your record, Mr. Moran. Sustained.

MR MORAN: I have no further

questions.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Thank you.

Mr. Porter?

MR. PORTER: A few quick redirect.

C R O S S E X A M I N A T I O N

by Mr. Porter

Q. Did you ever ask Mr. Harrison to come

24 to your office?

0074

A. Never.

Q. Did you ever solicit him for a

3 conversation?

A. Never.

Q. Did you ever speak with him about the

6 substance of the application?

A. Never.

Q. Did you ever speak with anyone outside

9 of the record or the hearing about the substance of

10 the application?

A. No.

Q. Did you consider anything Mr. Harrison

13 said to be evidence?

A. No.

Q. Mr. Moran brought up letters that you

16 received and you indicated that you had no reason to

17 know whether or not those letters were in support of

18 the application. Is that because you didn't read

19 them?

A. Ask that question again, I'm sorry.

Q. Well, do you have any reason to

22 believe that some of those letters that you did not

23 read because you were concerned they had to do with

24 the application might have been in support of the

0075

1 application?

A. They could have been. I don't know.

MR. PORTER: Nothing further.

HEARING OFFICER: Mr. Moran?

R E D I R E C T E X A M I N A T I O N

by Mr. Moran

Q. Do you have any facts or information

8 to suggest that any of the letters that you didn't

9 open somehow supported this proposed expansion of

10 the landfill?

A. No facts.

Q. You have no other information to

13 support such a conclusion either, do you?

A. I guess not, no.

Q. Did Mr. Harrison's presence in your

16 office make you feel uncomfortable?

A. Yes, it did.

Q. Because he was not invited?

A. No.

Q. You didn't want him there?

A. No.

Q. He was someone who was strongly

23 opposed to this proposed expansion, right?

MR. PORTER: Objection, calls for

0076

conjecture.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: She may

answer if she's able. Overruled.

4 BY THE WITNESS:

A. I would have been uncomfortable with

6 anybody trying to talk to me about the landfill in

7 my office or anywhere when I wasn't supposed to be

8 talking about it, opposed or otherwise.

9 BY MR. MORAN:

Q. Mr. Harrison's appearance and then

11 re-appearance at your office was highly unusual,

12 wasn't it?

A. Since he's never been there before, I

14 suppose so.

Q. And he was there to try to persuade

16 you to vote against this proposed expansion, wasn't

17 he?

A. It's an assumption on my part. I

19 suppose. Maybe he was trying to date me. I don't

20 know. I am single.

Q. Did he ask to date you?

A. I didn't give him a chance.

Q. There wasn't anything in what he said

24 to you that led you to that conclusion, you're just

0077

1 speculating now?

A. I'm conceited. Who knows? I don't

3 know. It could have been.

Q. You've been a member of the County

5 Board since December of 2002, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Since that time has any person

8 approached you in the matter Mr. Harrison did to

9 address an issue pending before the County Board?

MR. PORTER: Objection, irrelevant.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: She may

answer if she's able.

13 BY THE WITNESS:

A. Not to do with the landfill, but sure,

15 people approach me all the time to talk to me about

16 issues.

17 BY MR. MORAN:

Q. But I asked you specifically whether

19 someone has come to your office unannounced and

20 requested an audience with you to talk about a

21 specific issue?

A. Yes.

Q. And have individuals done that on a

24 repeated basis after coming to your office, been

0078

1 told what you've indicated to the person, the person

2 keeps coming back?

MR. PORTER: Objection. I think that

-- he added the -- telling them what she told

-- hypothetical, which makes the question

vague and unanswerable.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: I agree

with Mr. Porter and not only that, aren't we

getting outside -- beyond the scope of these

questions? I hate to throw in my own

objection. Try to rephrase that.

MR. MORAN: He asked her about what

she considered with Mr. Harrison's comment.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Try to

rephrase that, Mr. Moran, the last question

and we'll see what becomes of it, please.

17 BY MR. MORAN:

Q. Ms. Hertzberger, have you had any

19 occasion when people have appeared unannounced in

20 your office about an issue relating to County

21 business?

A. Yes.

Q. Has there ever been a time when that

24 person has returned repeatedly to your office

0079

1 unannounced to address that issue?

A. That is a possibility, but I don't

3 keep count. The only place to find me is my office,

4 I mean, I'm there 60 hours a week. If you call me

5 at home, I don't answer.

Q. As you sit here now, do you recall any

7 instances of an individual coming to your place of

8 business uninvited, unannounced on repeated

9 occasions to address with you an issue of County

10 business other than Mr. Harrison?

A. As I sit here now, I could not pin

12 point that, no.

MR. MORAN: Thank you.

R E C R O S S E X A M I N A T I O N

by Mr. Porter

Q. Did Mr. Harrison coming to your office

17 in any way intimidate you?

A. Nobody intimidates me.

MR. PORTER: Nothing further.

MR. MORAN: I have nothing further.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Thank you.

You may step down. We're off the record for

a second.

(Whereupon, a discussion

0080

was had off the record.)

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: We're back

on the record. Mr. Moran?

MR. MORAN: Thank you. At this time

we would call Debra Bates.

(Ms. Bates was sworn in.)

D I R E C T E X A M I N A T I O N

by Mr. Moran

Q. Please state your name and spell your

10 last name for the court reporter.

A. Debbie Jane Bates, B-A-T-E-S.

Q. What is your address, Ms. Bates?

A. 1140 West Merchant Street, Kankakee.

Q. And is it accurate to say that you

15 were served with a subpoena to appear here today to

16 testify?

A. Yes, for 9:00 o'clock?

Q. I'm sorry?

A. For 9:00 o'clock.

Q. Yes. And you're appearing here today

21 pursuant to that subpoena, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. What is your occupation?

A. I'm a neurodiagnostic technician.

0081

Q. And are you currently employed?

A. No.

Q. How long have you lived at your

4 current address?

A. It's my family home. I've lived there

6 all my life.

Q. Are you familiar with a request that

8 has been made by Waste Management of Illinois to

9 expand the existing Kankakee landfill?

A. Yes.

Q. And when did you become aware of that?

A. I don't remember.

Q. Within the last couple of years?

A. Yes.

Q. You don't live anywhere near the

16 proposed expansion, is that true?

A. I live in west Kankakee. No.

Q. Well, how far do you live from the

19 proposed expansion approximately?

A. I don't know; six, seven miles.

Q. Do you know Bruce Harrison?

A. Yes.

Q. Who is Mr. Harrison?

A. He's a friend of mine.

0082

Q. How long have you known him?

A. I met him in 2003.

Q. And what were the circumstances of

4 your meeting with him?

A. I met him in church.

Q. Now, are you aware that Mr. Harrison

7 has participated in public hearings and the process

8 by which a request has been made to expand the

9 existing Kankakee landfill?

A. Could you repeat that?

Q. Yes. Are you aware that Mr. Harrison

12 has been involved in the request to expand the

13 existing Kankakee landfill?

A. That he was requested to?

Q. He's been involved?

A. Involved?

Q. In the request to approve the

18 expansion of that landfill?

A. No, I don't know that.

Q. Has he ever spoken to you about the

21 proposed expansion?

MR. PORTER: Objection, hearsay.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Mr. Moran?

MR. MORAN: Well, we're trying to

0083

establish here the relationship that she has

with him, her knowledge about his activities

and to the extent she has -- he has indicated

to her what he has been doing she can

certainly testify and address those

statements.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: I'm going

to sustain the objection. It is clearly

hearsay.

10 BY MR. MORAN:

Q. Ms. Bates do you have any information

12 of any kind that Mr. Harrison is opposed to the

13 proposed expansion of the Kankakee landfill?

A. Do I believe he's opposed to it?

Q. Do you have any information, do you

16 have any facts, have you learned from any other

17 people or from Mr. Harrison that he's opposed to

18 this proposed expansion?

A. No, I don't know if he is or not.

Q. You have no idea whether he's opposed

21 to it or not, is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Ms. Bates, during the course of July

24 and August of 2004, did you see Mr. Harrison at all?

0084

A. I don't remember.

Q. You don't have any recollection?

A. No, I don't.

Q. Do you have any recollection of a

5 person coming to your home and attempting to serve a

6 subpoena on Mr. Harrison?

A. No, I don't believe so. I don't have

8 any recollection of that. To serve him, no, just

9 me.

Q. And you were served with a subpoena?

A. Yes.

Q. Are you saying that the attempts being

13 made to serve subpoenas did not inquire about

14 Mr. Harrison or his whereabouts?

MR. PORTER: That's also calling for

hearsay. What purpose, I'm not sure even,

but I think it's irrelevant and calling for

hearsay.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Overruled.

She can answer if she's able.

21 BY THE WITNESS:

A. Could you repeat the question?

24 BY MR. MORAN:

0085

Q. Did anybody ask you where Bruce

2 Harrison was so that he could be served with papers?

A. They asked me if I've seen him when

4 they served me my paper and I said no, I don't know

5 where he is.

Q. Did the person ask whether

7 Mr. Harrison was staying with you?

A. No.

Q. Did you indicate to the person you

10 spoke to that Mr. Harrison was playing a game with

11 the process server and evading his attempts to serve

12 a subpoena?

A. No, I don't remember saying that.

Q. You don't recall saying that?

A. Huh-huh.

Q. I'm sorry, you need to answer yes or

17 no.

A. Could you repeat the question?

Q. Yes. Do you recall having told the

20 person who served you with a subpoena that

21 Mr. Harrison was playing games and trying to avoid

22 any service of a subpoena upon him?

A. No, I don't recall saying that.

Q. But you did say that, didn't you?

0086

A. I don't recall.

MR. PORTER: Objection.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Sustained.

4 BY MR. MORAN:

Q. Are you saying you simply don't recall

6 having said that or are you denying that you ever

7 told someone Mr. Harrison was playing games to try

8 to avoid service?

A. I don't remember saying that.

Q. You just don't remember saying that,

11 correct?

A. Yes.

Q. You're not denying that you said it,

14 correct?

A. I don't remember saying it.

Q. Have you seen Mr. Harrison since July

17 of 2004?

A. I saw him in October for about three

19 hours.

Q. Was that here in Kankakee?

A. Yes.

Q. At your home?

A. Yes.

Q. Did Mr. Harrison indicate where he was

0087

1 living when you saw him in October of 2004?

A. No, he didn't.

Q. You didn't ask him?

A. No.

Q. Since that time you have not seen or

6 spoken to Mr. Harrison, is that correct?

A. I have not seen him.

Q. You've spoken to him?

A. Yes.

Q. Since October of 2004?

A. Yes.

Q. By phone?

A. Yes.

Q. When?

A. It was February. He called me for my

16 birthday.

Q. Did he indicate where he was calling

18 from?

A. No.

Q. You didn't ask him?

A. No.

Q. You had no idea where he was?

A. No.

Q. And you don't have any idea to this

0088

1 day where he is?

A. Correct.

Q. Did you at any point attend any

4 meeting in which the proposed expansion of the

5 existing landfill was discussed?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. When was that?

A. I don't recall the dates.

Q. Where did this meeting take place?

A. In this room.

Q. In this room?

A. I believe so, yes.

Q. Who else was in attendance?

A. I couldn't tell you. I don't know who

15 was here. Bruce was here.

Q. How many people were here

17 approximately?

A. At one time, the first one, that back

19 area was filled, the second time the back area was

20 filled with Waste Management and everybody else had

21 to sit out by the elevators at the second meeting.

Q. So this could have been a County Board

23 meeting you're talking about?

A. It could have been, yes.

0089

Q. You just aren't aware of what the

2 meeting was?

A. Well, I thought it was because of the

4 dump, a vote for a dump.

Q. And who asked you to attend the

6 meeting?

A. Nobody asked me to attend.

Q. How did you become aware of it?

A. I just knew -- I mean, Bruce told me

10 that it was going to happen.

Q. Bruce Harrison told you?

A. Yes.

Q. Was Bruce at that meeting?

A. Yes, he was.

Q. And he was opposed to the landfill?

A. I don't know that.

Q. Okay. Do you have any information or

18 reason to know why Bruce attended that meeting?

A. I have no idea why he attended the

20 meeting.

Q. And you attended because you were

22 opposed to the landfill?

A. Yes.

Q. Were any other people attending this

0090

1 meeting that you knew or were acquainted with?

A. The pastor from my church was here, a

3 couple members from my church.

Q. What was your pastor's name?

A. Pastor Rick Sexton.

Q. And there were other members of your

7 church who were here?

A. Yeah.

Q. Anybody else here at that meeting that

10 you knew?

A. No, that was about it.

Q. And you don't recall when that meeting

13 was?

A. No, I don't have an idea what the

15 dates were.

Q. Do you know Mr. Robert Keller?

A. Yes.

Q. Who is Mr. Keller?

A. He's just somebody I met.

Q. You met him through Mr. Harrison?

A. Yes.

Q. In fact, did Mr. Harrison live on

23 Mr. Keller's property for a period of time?

A. That, I don't know.

0091

Q. Do you know if Mr. Keller was opposed

2 to the proposed expansion?

A. I don't know what he felt.

Q. Do you know if Mr. Keller lives near

5 the proposed expansion?

A. Yeah, I believe he does.

Q. He lives there with his wife?

A. I believe so.

Q. Do you know his wife?

A. No, I don't.

MR. MORAN: Thank you. I have no

further questions.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Mr. Porter?

MR. PORTER: I think I probably just

have one.

C R O S S E X A M I N A T I O N

by Mr. Porter

Q. The meeting you attended in this room,

19 was it the day that the County Board members voted

20 on the application?

A. Yes, I believe so.

MR. PORTER: Nothing further.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Mr. Moran?

0092

R E D I R E C T E X A M I N A T I O N

by Mr. Moran

Q. Which application did they vote on?

A. When you say application, there was a

5 series of things they were voting on, is that what

6 you mean? Is that an application, the series of

7 proposals?

Q. There were two votes by the County

9 Board on siting applications, one occurred in 2003

10 and one occurred in 2004. I'm asking which of those

11 applications did the County Board vote on when you

12 attended?

A. I'm not aware of what they were.

Q. Would it be fair to say that it would

15 have been the meeting that was held in 2004, about a

16 year ago?

A. I'm sorry, could you repeat that?

Q. Would it be accurate to say that the

19 meeting you attended was the County Board meeting

20 that occurred about a year ago, 2004?

A. I believe so. It was about a year

22 ago. I don't know dates.

MR. MORAN: Thank you.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Mr. Porter?

0093

MR. PORTER: No.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Thank you

very much, Ms. Bates. You may step down.

You may call your next witness.

MR. MORAN: Thank you. I will call

Mr. Robert Keller.

(Mr. Keller was sworn in.)

D I R E C T E X A M I N A T I O N

by Mr. Moran

Q. Please state your last and spell your

11 last name for the court reporter.

A. Robert Keller, K-E-L-L-E-R.

Q. And what is your address, Mr. Keller?

A. 765 East 6000 South, Chebanse.

Q. And you're appearing here today

16 pursuant to the subpoena that was served upon you?

A. Correct.

Q. How long have you lived at that

19 address?

A. Approximately five years.

Q. Do you live there with your wife?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. What's her name?

A. Brenda.

0094

Q. What is your occupation?

A. Stone cutter.

Q. And for how long have you been a stone

4 cutter?

A. Ten years approximately.

Q. When did you first become aware of the

7 fact that Waste Management of Illinois was proposing

8 to expand the existing Kankakee landfill?

A. No idea.

Q. Was it some time in early --

A. Within the last five years.

Q. It could have been some time early in

13 2002?

A. It could have been, yes.

Q. And how did you first become aware of

16 that?

A. Don't remember.

Q. Did you read it in a document? Did

19 somebody tell you? Did you hear it in a

20 conversation with somebody?

A. Do not recall.

Q. You don't recall?

A. I don't recall.

Q. Okay. Do you remember what you

0095

1 learned about the proposed expansion?

A. That Waste Management wanted to do 300

3 and some acres basically across the street from me.

Q. And you live right across the street

5 from the existing landfill, is that correct?

A. No.

Q. Could you describe for us where your

8 house is in relation to the existing landfill?

A. Approximately a quarter mile to the

10 east and to the north just, across the road to the

11 north.

Q. So you moved to this property after

13 the landfill had already been established, is that

14 correct?

A. The one that's there now, yes.

Q. Yes. And you heard that the expansion

17 was going to cover about 300 acres you said?

A. I believe that, yes.

Q. Did you receive at or around the time

20 you learned of the proposed expansion any written

21 materials regarding the proposed expansion?

A. No.

Q. Have you ever received any written

24 materials regarding the proposed expansion?

0096

A. Yes.

Q. What have you received?

A. Something about a guarantee on my

4 property, whether it would -- some kind of guarantee

5 that my property wouldn't lose value.

Q. And when did you receive that?

A. I don't recall.

Q. Was it shortly after you first learned

9 about the proposed expansion?

A. I believe this was on the latest

11 proposal. I believe it was then, but I don't

12 remember.

Q. Have you received any other written

14 materials regarding the proposed expansion?

A. I don't remember what I've received,

16 what all I've received, subpoenas from you for

17 different things, all of that is what you're talking

18 about or --

Q. No. I'm asking about any document

20 that in any way described or had information about

21 the proposed expansion?

A. I don't remember.

Q. Did you at any point receive any

24 notice of the intent to file a siting application to

0097

1 expand the landfill?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. Is it accurate to say that the first

4 of those notices that you received was in March

5 of 2002?

A. I don't remember dates.

Q. And you received that notice by way of

8 certified mail, is that correct, the very first one?

A. I don't remember.

Q. Do you know an individual named

11 Michael Watson?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. Who is Mr. Watson?

A. A neighbor to me.

Q. How long have you known him?

A. About the five years that I've lived

17 out there.

Q. Is he a friend of yours?

A. I would consider him my friend now,

20 yes.

Q. Mr. Watson owns United Disposal?

A. As far as I know, he definitely is

23 there a lot.

Q. And do you know what United Disposal

0098

1 is?

A. A garbage company.

Q. Where is it located?

A. In Bradley.

Q. Have you ever done work for United

6 Disposal?

A. I've drove a truck for them, yes.

Q. When did you first drive a truck for

9 United Disposal?

A. No idea.

Q. Was it after you first learned of the

12 proposed expansion of the landfill?

A. The first time I drove a truck for him

14 was when I asked him if I could have him help me get

15 my CDL from my place of business.

Q. And when was that?

A. Some time in the five years I've known

18 him.

Q. And what did Mr. Watson say?

A. Yeah, he could help me get a CDL

21 driver's license, he could teach me how to drive.

Q. And in exchange for his assistance,

23 you were willing to perform some services for United

24 Disposal?

0099

A. No. He just allowed me to do it.

Q. And then you simply offered to drive a

3 truck for United Disposal?

A. You have to -- to learn how to drive a

5 truck you have to have somebody in the truck that

6 has a CDL.

Q. And he has a CDL?

A. Yes.

Q. So you drove a United Disposal truck

10 with him?

A. Correct.

Q. So that you could get your license?

A. Correct.

Q. After you got your license, did you

15 continue driving a truck for United Disposal?

A. I have drove for him since, yes.

Q. And you drive whenever he asks you to

18 do that?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you receive any compensation?

A. Money, no.

Q. But you receive other compensation

23 from him for your --

A. Things of friendship, yes.

0100

Q. Can you give us an idea of what kinds

2 of things you get from him?

A. He allowed me to use his bobcat to

4 drill holes on my property to put up a fence, I've

5 used other equipment of his to move things on my

6 property, I've gotten hay from him before for my

7 animals.

Q. In addition to driving a truck for

9 United Disposal, have you also performed services

10 for Mr. Watson at the various properties that he

11 owns?

A. Yes.

Q. And those are properties that are in

14 and around the area of the existing landfill?

A. Yes.

Q. What types of services have you

17 provided for him on his properties?

A. Cut hay, help him bale hay, farm

19 stuff.

Q. Does he pay you for that work?

A. No.

Q. He just will provide from time to time

23 other --

A. Yes.

0101

Q. -- benefits to you?

A. Yes.

Q. And that's part of your friendship?

A. Yes.

Q. I think you said you would do

6 something along those lines for a friend?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, are you aware that Mr. Watson has

9 appeared to oppose the proposed expansion?

A. From the newspapers and stuff I would

11 know that, yes.

Q. Now, let's go back to the early part

13 of 2002. Your relationship with Mr. Watson, would

14 it be fair to say that except for those times when

15 either you're on vacation or he's on vacation, that

16 generally you will talk to him three or four times a

17 week either by phone or in person?

A. I don't remember about in 2002. It's

19 irrelevant for me to remember something like that.

Q. Well, isn't it accurate to say that as

21 your relationship with him has developed that over

22 the past two years generally you will speak to him

23 three to four times a week?

A. Yes, it's definitely inclined from the

0102

1 time I met him to now, yes.

Q. Okay. And at some times it may be

3 more than three to four times a week and maybe other

4 times it may be less?

A. Yes.

Q. But generally you're speaking with him

7 and dealing with him on a continuing basis?

A. Now, yes.

Q. And you said that you became aware

10 that he was opposed to the landfill by reading about

11 it in the newspaper?

A. I could have. It may have been that

13 he's talked to me and said something or maybe

14 somebody else, hearsay. I can't tell you exactly

15 when I learned he was opposed.

Q. And I believe you've indicated that in

17 early November of 2002 while you were driving a

18 truck for United Disposal -- or let me withdraw

19 that.

In early November of 2002

21 Mr. Watson asked you to drive a truck for United

22 Disposal so he could attend certain hearings, is

23 that correct?

A. If that's the hearings that I weren't

0103

1 notified of, yes. I don't remember dates, so I

2 can't...

Q. So he told you at that point that he

4 would like you to drive a truck because he was going

5 to attend hearings?

A. There was a point in time that that

7 happened, yes.

Q. And did he indicate to you that he was

9 attending these hearings because he was opposed to

10 what was being proposed?

A. I don't know if I knew then or if I

12 found out later. I can't tell you that.

Q. You don't recall him ever saying that

14 to you?

A. Saying he was --

Q. He was opposed?

A. I don't know if that -- I'm assuming

18 he said it because I know he's opposed to it, but I

19 don't know that -- was that time or what, no.

Q. And when he said to you he was going

21 to hearings, you asked him what hearings?

A. Yes.

Q. Because you hadn't heard about

24 anything, correct?

0104

A. Correct.

Q. And he asked you whether you were

3 aware of the hearings?

A. Yes.

Q. And you said no?

A. Yes.

Q. Did he then ask you if you had

8 received any notice for the hearing?

A. I don't remember the exact

10 conversation. At that point in time, somewhere

11 around there, is when he found out that I hadn't

12 been. I don't know if he directly asked me or if I

13 asked him or if somebody else asked. I don't

14 remember.

Q. Would there have been anybody else who

16 asked you about whether you had received notice

17 other than Mr. Watson?

A. I don't remember. I can't answer that

19 truthfully.

Q. After this conversation with him, did

21 there come a time when Mr. Watson gave you a

22 document titled affidavit for you to sign about

23 whether you had received notice?

A. Correct.

0105

Q. Have you ever talked to anyone about

2 what was to be in that affidavit before it was given

3 to you by Mr. Watson?

A. I don't recall.

Q. And you took this document and you

6 read it and you signed it, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. Is it also fair to say that a similar

9 affidavit was prepared for your wife to sign?

A. I know of that now, yes.

Q. But you didn't know about it then?

A. Correct.

Q. So during that period when another

14 affidavit had been prepared and given to your wife

15 you weren't aware of any of that?

A. Not then, no.

Q. And you don't know who prepared the

18 affidavit, either yours or your wife's?

A. I assume a lawyer did, but I don't

20 know, no. I didn't see somebody make it out, so I

21 don't know.

Q. And Mr. Watson didn't tell you --

A. I don't remember.

Q. I'm sorry?

0106

A. I don't remember. He may have. I

2 don't know.

Q. As you sit here now, you just don't

4 remember if he did tell you?

A. Correct.

Q. And you signed it?

A. Correct.

Q. Now, did you appear during any part of

9 those November 2002 hearings to testify or present

10 evidence?

A. I don't remember if I went to them or

12 not. I don't remember.

Q. But you did ultimately appear at those

14 hearings to testify about the matters in your

15 affidavit, correct?

A. I appeared at a set of hearings I

17 know. I don't remember if it was those -- yeah, I

18 believe that's true.

Q. And your wife appeared too?

A. Yes.

Q. To talk about what was in her

22 affidavit?

A. Yes.

Q. And you were requested to appear at

0107

1 those hearings by Mr. Watson, weren't you?

A. By Mr. Watson or his attorney. I

3 don't remember. Probably Mr. Watson and then his

4 attorney might have talked to me while I was there.

5 I don't remember.

Q. Do you recall who his attorney was?

A. A lady.

Q. You don't remember her name?

A. No -- Jennifer, yes, I do.

Q. And you appeared and you testified

11 just for the purpose of addressing your affidavit or

12 the matters mentioned in your affidavit?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you subsequently learn how the

15 County Board voted on the application for which you

16 appeared to testify?

A. Do I know how they voted?

Q. Did you subsequently learn how they

19 voted on that application?

A. Yeah.

Q. And how did they vote?

A. In favor of.

Q. Did you have any discussions with

24 Mr. Watson about the County's vote to approve that

0108

1 application?

A. I'm pretty sure I would have.

Q. What did you say to him in those

4 conversations?

A. I wouldn't remember. I don't remember

6 word for word, so I can't answer it correctly.

Q. Do you generally remember what you

8 said?

A. No.

Q. What did he say to you?

A. If he told me how they -- I don't know

12 if I read that in the paper how -- that they decided

13 or if he told me. I don't remember.

Q. Okay. And this is during the period

15 when you're talking to him three to four times a

16 week?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you appear at the County building

19 in this room when the County Board voted on

20 January 31st of 2003 to approve that application?

A. I don't remember.

Q. Did Mr. Watson attend?

A. I don't know.

Q. Did you become aware of an application

0109

1 filed by Waste Management on September 26th of 2003

2 to expand the landfill?

A. Is that the latest one?

Q. Yes.

A. Yes.

Q. How did you become aware of that

7 filing?

A. Paper server came to my house and gave

9 me papers.

Q. Gave you a notice?

A. Yes.

Q. And you had discussions with

13 Mr. Watson about it?

A. I'm sure.

Q. Do you know whether Mr. Watson had

16 received a notice for the 2003 application?

A. I have no idea.

Q. You never talked to him about that?

A. No.

Q. Did you talk to Mr. Watson about

21 appearing at the hearings on the 2003 application?

A. I'm sure I did, yes.

Q. And you told Mr. Watson that you would

24 appear at the hearings to oppose the application?

0110

A. I don't know if I told him that. I

2 mean, he knows I'm opposed to it and I know now that

3 he's opposed to it.

Q. Did you appear at the hearings on the

5 2003 application?

A. Some.

Q. Who is Bruce Harrison?

A. Bruce Harrison.

Q. Do you know him?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. How long have you known him?

A. In excess of ten years.

Q. What does Mr. Harrison do for a

14 living, if you know?

A. Jack of all trades, master and on.

Q. Did Mr. Harrison live on your

17 property?

A. He has stayed there, yes.

Q. For what period did he stay on your

20 property?

A. No idea.

Q. Was it a couple of years, couple of

23 months?

A. In the months, on and off, not on a

0111

1 regular basis.

Q. When did he begin living on your

3 property?

A. No idea.

Q. Did he ask you if he could live on

6 your property?

A. He asked me to leave a trailer on my

8 property.

Q. His trailer?

A. Yes.

Q. And you agreed?

A. Yes.

Q. So he brought a trailer onto your

14 property?

A. Yes.

Q. And he lived there for some period of

17 time?

A. Lived there, stayed there, it's -- I

19 can't say that -- classify live?

Q. Resided there for some period of time.

A. He stayed there sometimes.

Q. So what you're saying is sometimes he

23 would come on the property, other days you wouldn't

24 see him at all?

0112

A. Right.

Q. He ultimately left your property?

A. Yes.

Q. When was that?

A. I don't remember a date.

Q. It was in April of 2004, wasn't it?

A. It could have very well been, yes.

Q. Isn't that went you decided he had to

9 leave?

A. At one point in time I decided it was

11 time for him to go, yes. I don't remember a date.

Q. And what were the reasons that you

13 told him to go?

A. Issues of a lot of trouble because of

15 the camper being there, people banging on my door

16 wanting to see him, it just starting bothering me,

17 using electricity, things like this.

Q. Now, Mr. Harrison was opposed to the

19 proposed expansion, is that correct?

A. I assume that.

Q. And you assume it on the basis of

22 what?

A. Hearsay.

Q. What's the hearsay?

0113

A. Hear people talking, heard you talking

2 about it, heard other people talking.

Q. Well, Mr. Harrison has -- or appeared

4 at the hearings on the 2003 application, correct?

A. As far as I know, yes.

Q. You saw him?

A. Yes.

Q. And Mr. Harrison has performed work

9 for United Disposal, isn't that correct?

A. No idea.

Q. Mr. Watson has never indicated to you

12 that Mr. Harrison has, in fact, done some work for

13 United Disposal?

A. Not that I recall, no.

Q. Are you aware that Mr. Harrison also

16 performs work for Mr. Watson at his various

17 properties in and around the landfill?

A. Bruce has been with me when I have

19 done stuff. I don't know if you would consider him

20 doing it or not.

Q. He was with you when you were doing

22 work on Watson's property?

A. Yes, and he's helped me whether it was

24 for -- if he had an agreement with Mr. Watson or

0114

1 something, I don't know.

Q. What was your understanding as to why

3 Mr. Harrison was with you while you were doing this

4 work for Mr. Watson?

A. He's a friend.

Q. A friend of you?

A. Yes.

Q. And a friend of Mr. Watson?

A. I assume, yeah.

Q. Did you have any discussions or have

11 you had any discussions with Mr. Harrison about his

12 opposition to the proposed expansion?

A. Yes.

Q. And, in fact, hasn't Mr. Harrison told

15 you that he has or he did contact various County

16 Board members to express his views on the proposed

17 expansion?

MR. PORTER: Objection, hearsay.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: I'm sorry,

could you read the question back, Terry?

(Whereupon, the requested

portion of the record

was read accordingly.)

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Mr. Moran?

0115

MR. MORAN: He's clearly indicated

that his communications and dealings with

Mr. Harrison include discussions regarding

their opposition, his, Mr. Watson's,

Mr. Harrison's and that his approach and

his intentions -- Harrison's intentions about

talking to County Board members and going out

to County Board members to try to persuade

them is something he can address by way of

Mr. Harrison's state of mind, his intent in

addressing these issues.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Mr. Porter?

MR. PORTER: It's an out-of-court

statement offered for the truth of the matter

asserted. It's the definition of hearsay

that meets no exceptions. Mr. Harrison is

not here to testify and I'm allowing

obviously the County Board members to answer

any questions concerning whether or not

Mr. Harrison contacted them because that does

fall within the exception based on the ex

parte communication that we all know we're

allowed to get into in these proceedings.

Asking this witness whether Harrison has ever

0116

told him he contacted a Board member, it's

hearsay.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: I would

agree with the County on that. I will

sustain the objection.

6 BY MR. MORAN:

Q. Mr. Keller, has Mr. Harrison discussed

8 with you his efforts to oppose the proposed

9 expansion?

A. One more time.

Q. Has Mr. Harrison discussed with you

12 his actions, his efforts in opposing the proposed

13 expansion?

A. No.

Q. Okay. Your testimony is he has never

16 discussed anything he has done or said in connection

17 with his opposition to the proposed expansion?

A. Not that I recall. Nothing that comes

19 right to mind, no.

Q. You were aware that he was opposed to

21 it, correct?

A. Yes, through the hearings.

Q. Well, isn't it true that Mr. Harrison

24 placed phone calls to County Board members from your

0117

1 home?

A. You told me he did.

Q. I told you he did?

A. Yes.

Q. When did I tell you this?

A. During the hearings -- or during our

7 depositions.

Q. And was it your agreement that

9 Mr. Harrison did place those calls from your home to

10 County Board members?

MR. PORTER: We're now getting into

what he testified to at the deposition when

it's not being used for purposes of

impeachment. I think that question can be

asked differently and I object. It's

improper impeachment, I guess.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Mr. Moran?

MR. MORAN: I simply asked him if he

agreed that Mr. Harrison placed the phone

call to a County Board member from his home.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: I agree.

Overruled.

23 BY THE WITNESS:

A. I don't totally -- do I agree that

0118

1 Mr. Harrison made the phone calls or did I agree

2 with him making the phone calls?

3 BY MR. MORAN:

Q. Do you agree with the fact that with

5 or without your permission from your home he placed

6 a phone call to a County Board member?

A. Just what I've heard.

Q. Is it accurate to say that

9 Mr. Harrison used your phone at various times when

10 he lived on your property?

A. Yes.

Q. Did he have permission to use your

13 phone during that period when he lived on your

14 property?

A. Did he ask me every time, no. Did I

16 have an objection to him using my phone, not then I

17 didn't.

Q. Now, isn't it accurate to say that

19 since January of 2004, a little over a year ago, you

20 had had communications with Mr. Harrison either by

21 phone or in person?

A. Yes.

Q. And you've had that those

24 conversations or communications with Mr. Harrison on

0119

1 the average of three to four time a week?

A. Now, no.

Q. Beginning in January of 2004 going

4 through the end of 2004?

A. No.

Q. At what point did those continuing

7 communications with Mr. Harrison end?

A. When he moved away.

Q. When was that?

A. I don't remember. You said a time

11 that sounded about right earlier.

Q. Well, you were deposed in this

13 proceeding in August of 2004, correct?

A. Deposed, what's --

Q. You came in for your deposition?

A. Okay. Yes.

Q. Do you remember that?

A. Yes.

Q. It was August 10th and 11th, 2004?

A. Okay.

Q. Correct?

A. If you say it was. I'm assuming this

23 on the basis of when the deposition was.

Q. And at that time you had discussions

0120

1 with Mr. Harrison about your deposition, correct?

A. If he was still in town I may have. I

3 don't remember.

Q. Didn't you tell us that, that you had

5 communicated with Mr. Harrison about your

6 deposition?

A. I don't remember.

Q. You don't have any recollection?

A. No.

Q. When was the last time you had any

11 communication with Mr. Harrison?

A. Three or four days ago when the

13 newspaper article came out in the paper about this.

Q. Did Mr. Harrison call you?

A. Yes.

Q. Where was he calling from?

A. I have no idea.

Q. You didn't ask him?

A. No.

Q. Prior to when you talked to him three

21 or four days ago, when was the immediately preceding

22 time when you had talked to Mr. Harrison?

A. I believe approximately a month ago.

Q. When you talked to him a month ago,

0121

1 did you know where he was then?

A. No, I did not.

Q. And you didn't ask him?

A. No.

Q. So Mr. Harrison called you three or

6 four days ago, you hadn't talked to him for a month

7 and the issue never came up about where he was or

8 what he was doing?

A. No. When Bruce Harrison left here he

10 said he was scared for his life from Waste

11 Management and he left and he says I'm not telling

12 you where I'm going, I don't want anybody to know.

Q. And when did he tell you this?

A. When he left my property or just -- it

15 was probably around -- it's when he came and got his

16 camper. I don't remember the date.

Q. Some time in the summer of 2004?

A. That sounds correct, yes.

Q. Didn't he take his camper and just

20 move it across the street on Mr. Watson's property?

A. When he came and got the camper from

22 that point in time, whenever that was.

Q. He just moved it across the street?

A. No. When he got it -- when he got it

0122

1 from across the street is when he told me that.

Q. I see. So just so we're all clear,

3 you asked him to leave your property?

A. Correct.

Q. We think that was some time in maybe

6 spring of 2004?

A. I believe.

Q. And then Mr. Harrison took his trailer

9 and just moved it across the street onto property

10 Mr. Watson owned, correct?

A. I'm at that assumption now, yes.

Q. And he was there for a number of

13 months, correct?

A. I don't remember how long.

Q. The point at which you're saying

16 Mr. Harrison told you that he was fearful for his

17 life from Waste Management is when he left the

18 Watson property?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And you're not sure when that

21 was?

A. No, I'm not.

Q. But it was probably some time after

24 August of 2004 when you appeared for your deposition

0123

1 in this proceeding?

A. Yes.

Q. And Mr. Harrison never told you where

4 he was going?

A. No.

Q. And was the reason he told you that

7 because he said he was fearful for his life?

A. Yes.

Q. So did you understand by that that he

10 was concerned that you might disclose his location

11 to Waste Management?

A. I assumed that, yes.

Q. What was your response to Mr. Harrison

14 when he told you that he was fearful for his life

15 from Waste Management? Did you agree with him?

A. Yeah.

Q. And what was the basis for your

18 agreeing with him that somehow he had some

19 legitimate fear about his life from Waste

20 Management?

A. Because I'm under the same problem,

22 but I live here and I own property here so I stay

23 here.

Q. And what is the basis for your concern

0124

1 and fear for your life from Waste Management of

2 Illinois?

A. The drive by my house daily when they

4 have no business being by my house, always looking

5 into my property, general nosiness of Waste

6 Management employees or thereof.

Q. And it's your conclusion that this is

8 the basis that you fear for your physical safety and

9 for your life?

A. That, yes.

Q. Now, this last occasion when you spoke

12 with Mr. Harrison about the article that appeared in

13 the paper, what did he say to you?

A. He said did you read the paper and I

15 said yes.

Q. And what did the article say?

A. It said --

MR. PORTER: Objection, hearsay.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Mr. Moran?

MR. MORAN: I'm just trying to get a

basis or a foundation for what the two

individuals were talking about

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: I will

allow a little latitude. Mr. Keller?

0125

1 BY THE WITNESS:

A. It said that somebody was -- something

3 about Harrison was being looked for or couldn't be

4 found or something about woes or something on the --

5 I believe the title was something to the effect of

6 landfill woes over not finding Harrison or something

7 to this effect.

8 BY MR. MORAN:

Q. And what did you say to Mr. Harrison

10 in this phone conversation?

A. I said yes I've read it.

Q. That's all you said to him?

A. Yep.

Q. What did he say to you other than have

15 you seen the article?

A. General friendship talk, what have you

17 been doing, how is everything going, how is your

18 wife, how is your kids.

Q. Did you ask him what he's been doing?

A. No.

Q. Did you ask him where he was?

A. No.

Q. Did he simply tell you where he was

24 and you're just refusing to tell us because he's

0126

1 fearful for his life?

A. No. It comes over my caller ID, it

3 comes over as a blocked call.

Q. Did you tell him you had been

5 subpoenaed to appear at this hearing?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. What else did you tell him about your

8 appearance at the hearing?

A. I hadn't appeared yet.

Q. Did he ask you why you had been

11 subpoenaed?

A. No.

Q. Did he tell you how to testify at the

14 hearing?

A. No.

Q. Did he suggest to you what you should

17 say at the hearing?

A. No.

Q. Did you ask him if he had ever been

20 served with a subpoena to appear?

A. No.

Q. How long did this conversation last?

A. A half an hour maybe.

Q. This was a half an hour conversation

0127

1 about you and about just general friendship things?

A. Yes.

Q. You had a half an hour to talk to him

4 about what you've been doing, how your wife was, not

5 addressing any other issues regarding the proposed

6 expansion?

A. No.

Q. Did you talk about Mr. Watson at all?

A. Don't know. Don't recall.

Q. Don't recall. Did he ask you anything

11 else about this proceeding or about your involvement

12 in it?

A. Not that I recall, no.

Q. Do you have a phone number for

15 Mr. Harrison?

A. No, I do not.

Q. You didn't ask him for his number?

A. No.

Q. So as you sit here now, you have no

20 way of reaching him?

A. No.

Q. You don't know where he is?

A. No.

Q. But you do know that he somehow got a

0128

1 copy of a Daily Journal article that appeared a few

2 days ago?

A. No. He said his daughter had seen it

4 and called him or he called his daughter. I don't

5 know which. His daughter had told him.

Q. And what's his daughter's name?

A. I don't know.

Q. How did you end the conversation?

A. Bye.

Q. Did you indicate to him that he should

11 call you again or you'd like to call him?

A. No.

Q. You have no indication or no idea

14 whether he's working now?

A. No.

Q. One way or the other?

A. Correct.

Q. Did he say anything to you about the

19 subpoena that had been served on Debbie Bates?

A. No.

Q. Was he aware of that subpoena?

A. I don't know.

Q. Did he at any time indicate that he

24 had been talking with Mr. Watson?

0129

A. No.

Q. Have you talked to Mr. Watson over the

3 last few days?

A. Yes.

Q. You talked to him about your

6 appearance here?

A. Yes.

Q. You talked to him about the subpoena

9 you received?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you tell him that you had heard

12 from Mr. Harrison?

A. Yes.

Q. You told him about your conversation

15 with Mr. Harrison?

A. I don't know.

Q. Did he ask you where Mr. Harrison was?

A. No.

Q. Does he know where Mr. Harrison is?

A. I don't know.

Q. Did he ask you why Mr. Harrison would

22 be interested in an article about this proceeding?

A. No.

Q. Did he talk to you at all about

0130

1 Mr. Harrison's interest in this proceeding?

A. I don't know.

Q. You said you had talked to

4 Mr. Harrison about a month before this call?

A. Yes.

Q. Did he call you?

A. Yes.

Q. At your home?

A. Yes.

Q. And that's where he called you a

11 couple of days ago, so he has your number?

A. Yes.

Q. What did he say to you during that

14 conversation?

A. I don't remember. General, what's

16 going on, how are you doing, a typical conversation.

Q. Any conversation related to the

18 proposed expansion or to this proceeding?

A. He may have asked what's going on with

20 the landfill or something. I don't remember.

Q. How long did that conversation last?

A. I don't remember.

Q. Half an hour?

A. Probably, I would assume.

0131

Q. Prior to that call, when was the

2 immediately preceding time you heard from him?

A. I got a message on my machine at

4 Christmastime, wanted to wish you a merry Christmas,

5 have a happy new year.

Q. But you didn't actually talk to him,

7 you just got the message?

A. Correct.

Q. The last time you've seen Mr. Harrison

10 was when he left Mr. Watson's property?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you actually see him leave the

13 property?

A. No.

Q. And since he left, you've spoken to

16 him by phone half a dozen times?

A. Three times. I only spoke to him

18 twice. He called -- Christmastime the third time --

19 was the third time.

Q. And you received no written

21 communications or letters or anything from him?

A. No.

Q. Did he send anything to him?

A. No.

0132

Q. You haven't placed any calls to him?

A. No.

Q. Do you have any information as to

4 whether Mr. Watson has been in communication with

5 Mr. Harrison?

A. No.

Q. Now, while Mr. Harrison was still in

8 the area he gave you a phone number where he could

9 be reached, didn't he?

A. I don't know if he gave me a phone

11 number or if I got something off of my caller ID. I

12 don't know.

Q. You had a number to reach him while he

14 was here, correct?

A. Generally I could find him.

Q. When you generally could find him,

17 where could you find him?

A. Either he'd stop by the house or I

19 could call around and try to see if anybody else had

20 heard from him or seen him.

Q. Now, you had a list of the different

22 County Board members that you used during the course

23 of the 2003 siting process, isn't that true?

A. Yes.

0133

Q. And you received that list from

2 Mr. Harrison?

A. I don't know if I received it from him

4 or Mike Watson or somewhere else. I don't know

5 where I got it.

Q. So you may have gotten it from

7 Mr. Watson, you may have gotten it from

8 Mr. Harrison?

A. Or somewhere else, yes.

Q. Or somewhere else. You just don't

11 recall?

A. Right.

Q. Did you give that list to anybody, a

14 copy of it or did you make copies of it and

15 distribute it?

A. I don't remember.

Q. Harrison had a copy of the list,

18 didn't he?

A. That would be an assumption. If I got

20 it from him, yeah, I would imagine he did, but I

21 don't remember.

Q. Did you prepare a letter to send to

23 each of the County Board members with regard to the

24 proposed expansion?

0134

A. Yes, I did.

Q. And your wife worked on that letter

3 with you?

A. Yes.

Q. You both put it together?

A. Yes.

Q. And you had Mr. Watson look at it?

A. Yes.

Q. And you had Mr. Harrison look at it?

A. I don't recall.

Q. Okay. Mr. Watson looked at it and

12 he approved it?

A. Mr. Watson -- I asked Mr. Watson at

14 times -- I asked Mr. Watson to proofread something

15 because I'm not real good at spelling. That would

16 have been the only reason he would have looked at

17 it.

Q. Did he approve -- did he say this was

19 okay?

A. He would have told me what was

21 misspelled in it.

Q. So if we find any misspellings in it

23 it's his fault, not yours?

A. Yep.

0135

Q. And what did you do with that letter?

A. I sent it out to each of the County

3 Board members.

Q. Did you send it out to each of them at

5 their homes?

A. Yes.

Q. You didn't send it to them here at the

8 County Board --

A. I did also send a copy to here, yes.

Q. When you say here, you mean to the

11 County Clerk?

A. Yes. Actually, I don't remember if I

13 sent it here or if I brought it up here.

Q. And your letter was your statements as

15 to why you opposed the landfill?

A. Yes.

Q. And it was your statement about why

18 those County Board members should vote against the

19 2003 application?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you have any discussions with any

22 County Board members prior to the vote on the 2003

23 application which was March 17th, 2004?

A. No.

0136

Q. Well, isn't it true you had

2 discussions with Ann Bernard prior to March 17th,

3 2004?

A. About the County Board meetings or

5 about the proposed landfill? I have asked her

6 whether she was opposed to it or for the County

7 Board -- or for the dump.

Q. And you did that prior to March 17th,

9 2004?

A. When was her election or her -- when

11 she was running for representative?

Q. You talked to her before her

13 primary --

A. While she was running --

Q. -- for state representative?

A. While she was running for state

17 representative I talked to her.

Q. So it would have been some time prior

19 to the primary election, which occurred in March of

20 2004?

A. I don't know if it was the primary or

22 the -- whatever the other one is.

Q. But there was an election in March

24 of 2004, she was running for state representative,

0137

1 is that your understanding?

A. That's my understanding, yes.

Q. And some time prior to that date you

4 talked to her about whether she supported or opposed

5 the 2003 application?

A. I asked her how she felt about it.

Q. And where did this conversation take

8 place?

A. At her running office thing over on

10 Kennedy.

Q. Is that the local democratic party

12 headquarters?

A. I don't know it's local democrat or if

14 it was just hers.

Q. How did you happen to come to be

16 there?

A. I drove over there to ask her how she

18 felt about it.

Q. Because you were trying to make some

20 determination as to who you would support in that?

A. In the state representative, yes.

Q. And you had a chance to talk to her?

A. Yes.

Q. Was anyone else present when you had

0138

1 this discussion with her?

A. I think there was a gentleman in the

3 office. I don't know who he was.

Q. And you asked her whether she

5 supported or opposed the 2003 application?

A. Yes -- well, supported or opposed the

7 landfill, period.

Q. By landfill you meant the proposed

9 expansion of the Waste Management landfill?

A. Any landfill.

Q. And what did she say?

MR. PORTER: Objection. That's to the

heart of the very motion in limine I filed

today concerning statements by Ms. Bernard

during her campaign for the state

legislature.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Mr. Moran?

MR. MORAN: Well, based on your ruling

that's correct. I obviously disagree with

the ruling. I think this is directly

relevant to the question of whether she

prejudged this specific application and that

it's directly relevant to that prejudgement.

I understand your ruling on it and with your

0139

ruling I suspect you're going to sustain this

objection and I think let me give an offer of

proof.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: If you so

choose. Mr. Porter's objection is sustained

and if you wish to continue your questioning

as an offer of proof, you may do so.

MR. MORAN: Thank you.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Just let me

know.

MR. MORAN: Here's our offer of proof.

12 BY MR. MORAN:

Q. Mr. Keller, what did Ms. Bernard say

14 to you when you asked her whether she supported or

15 opposed the proposed expansion?

MR. PORTER: I'm not going to

reiterate objections in an offer of proof,

okay, Mr. Halloran or do I need to?

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: I already

sustained your objection and we're proceeding

on an offer of proof.

MR. PORTER: I agree. I just wanted

to be sure I didn't have to reiterate my

objections.

0140

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: No, no.

Mr. Moran is going to let us know when he's

off the subject, but anyway, you may answer,

Mr. Keller, if you're able.

5 BY THE WITNESS:

A. That she's opposed to out of county

7 garbage.

8 BY MR. MORAN:

Q. She said she was opposed to out of

10 county garbage?

A. That's what I asked her, if she was

12 opposed to out of county garbage and she said yes

13 and landfills I asked.

Q. She said she was opposed to landfills?

A. Yes.

Q. On the basis of those statements, did

17 you conclude that she was opposed to the proposed

18 expansion of the Waste Management landfill?

MR. PORTER: Objection, irrelevant

what he concluded.

MR. MORAN: This is still the offer of

proof.

MR. PORTER: True.

MR. MORAN: Are you objecting now to

0141

questions in the offer of proof?

MR. PORTER: I agree.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Sustained.

Proceed under an offer of proof.

MR. MORAN: Could you repeat my

question?

(Whereupon, the requested

portion of the record

was read accordingly.)

10 BY THE WITNESS:

A. I would assume, yes.

12 BY MR. MORAN:

Q. In addition to what you heard from

14 Ms. Bernard when you met with her that day over on

15 Kennedy Drive, did you at any other point hear any

16 statement or read any statement that Ms. Bernard was

17 opposed to the proposed expansion of the Waste

18 Management landfill?

A. Yes.

Q. What did you read or see?

A. In the hearings here she denied -- she

22 said she didn't want them.

Q. You say the hearings here?

A. When they denied the application here.

0142

Q. So what you're referring to is the

2 vote on the 2003 application?

A. Correct.

Q. Which was on March 17th, 2004?

A. If you say that's when it was. I

6 don't know a date.

Q. You appeared on that date?

A. Yes.

Q. You appeared and held a picket sign

10 downstairs on that date?

A. No.

Q. Did you appear with picketers who were

13 outside the building?

A. No.

Q. Was Mr. Harrison there that day with

16 picketers?

A. I'm going to assume he was.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Are we

still in the offer of proof?

MR. MORAN: That's exactly my point.

I think I am, but I started to go beyond it

without -- I started to go beyond it without

telling you. I apologize for that. Let me

just try to stay on the offer of proof.

0143

1 BY MR. MORAN:

Q. Other than the statements she made to

3 you on Kennedy Drive and her actions here on March

4 17th, 2004, did you see, read or hear about any

5 statements she made indicating that she was opposed

6 to the proposed expansion of the Waste Management

7 landfill?

A. After the vote I read in the newspaper

9 who was opposed or against, that's the only thing.

Q. Other than that --

A. No.

Q. -- was there anything more?

A. No.

Q. Did you hear at any point anything

15 from Mr. Harrison in which he indicated that Ann

16 Bernard was on our side?

A. No.

Q. Did you hear any statement or

19 reference by Mr. Watson to the effect

20 that Ms. Bernard was on our side, was an opponent of

21 the proposed expansion?

A. No.

MR. MORAN: Offer of proof closed.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Thank you,

0144

Mr. Moran.

2 BY MR. MORAN:

Q. Mr. Keller, did Mr. Watson appear on

4 March 17th, 2004 for the vote?

A. Yes.

Q. Did your wife come to the vote on that

7 day?

A. I want to say yes, but I can't be

9 certain. I believe she did.

Q. Mr. Harrison we've established was

11 also here?

A. I believe he was, yes.

Q. And Mr. Harrison was one of the

14 picketers who was in front of the building that

15 morning, is that correct?

A. Very possible.

Q. Now, these signs that said no dump, no

18 Chicago waste, white letters on a green background,

19 did Mr. Harrison arrange for the preparation of

20 those signs?

A. No dump, no Chicago garbage.

Q. I'm sorry. No dump, no Chicago

23 garbage.

A. We're talking about the same signs. I

0145

1 have no idea.

Q. Did you have one of those signs on

3 your property?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. How did you get one?

A. I think I got it from Bruce, but I'm

7 not positive.

Q. Well, Mr. Harrison was distributing

9 them?

A. I could have got it from him, I could

11 have got it from Mike, I could have got it from

12 anybody else. I don't remember.

Q. It could have been Mr. Watson, it

14 could have been Mr. Harrison?

A. It could have been, yes.

Q. And you don't know who prepared the

17 signs?

A. No, I do not.

Q. And the signs meant that the person

20 agreeing with the signs didn't want any garbage

21 coming from Chicago?

A. Correct.

MR. PORTER: Objection.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: He can

0146

answer if he's able.

2 BY THE WITNESS:

A. Correct.

4 BY MR. MORAN:

Q. And that was --

A. That was my assumption of the sign.

Q. Right. And was that your assumption

8 as to the statement by Ann Bernard that she was

9 opposed to out of county waste? Was it the same

10 view?

MR. PORTER: Again, I think we're

conjecturing upon conjecture now.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Could you

read the question back, Terry? I'm sorry.

(Whereupon, the requested

portion of the record

was read accordingly.)

MR. PORTER: Before you rule, I have

an additional objection, not only is it

conjecture upon conjecture, it also relates

back now to the offer of proof.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: I agree

with your second objection. I wasn't

comfortable with your first. Sustained.

0147

MR. MORAN: May I make an offer of

proof?

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Yes, you

may.

5 BY MR. MORAN:

Q. Mr. Keller, do you recall the

7 question?

A. Yes.

Q. Can you answer it?

A. The way I understood the question, do

11 I think Ann Bernard was against all dump and all

12 county -- out of county garbage, is that what you're

13 asking?

Q. Based on what she told you, yes.

A. Yes.

MR. MORAN: Okay. Offer of proof

closed.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Thank you.

19 BY MR. MORAN:

Q. Mr. Keller, did you prepare any thank

21 you letters going to County Board members who voted

22 against the 2003 application?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. How many did you prepare?

0148

A. How many County Board members are

2 there?

Q. In total?

A. Yes.

Q. Twenty-six, 27.

A. Probably 20, 25 then.

Q. Did you send thank you notes only to

8 those who voted against any criteria or any part of

9 the application?

A. I don't remember exactly which ones I

11 sent it to, but it would have been based on that

12 principle, yes.

Q. Based on the principle that somebody

14 voted against the county application, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Did anyone ask you to send out these

17 thank you notes?

A. No.

Q. Do you know whether anyone else sent

20 thank you notes to County Board members?

A. I believe so, yes.

Q. Who else sent such thank you notes?

A. I believe my mother did, my sister

24 did.

0149

Q. Did Mr. Watson send thank you notes?

A. I don't know.

Q. Did Mr. Harrison send out any thank

4 you notes?

A. I don't know.

Q. Did either of them suggest to anyone

7 that those notes be sent?

A. I don't know.

Q. Were you aware that there was a motion

10 to renew consideration of the March 17th, 2004 vote

11 considered by the County Board?

A. Was that here when they came back in

13 and -- are you asking me -- I know they came back in

14 to vote, to reconsider it.

Q. That's what I'm asking.

A. Yes.

Q. And you appeared on that occasion as

18 well?

A. Yes.

Q. And Mr. Harrison was here?

A. I believe so.

Q. And Mr. Watson was here?

A. I believe so.

Q. Did your wife appear as well?

0150

A. I don't know. It's a little harder

2 for my wife to get off work than it is for me, so

3 that's why I don't know if she took a day off or

4 not.

Q. Isn't it true that on the basis of

6 Ms. Bernard's statements to you, you contributed

7 monies to her campaign?

A. Yes.

Q. In fact, you individually contributed

10 $250 to her campaign?

A. Yes.

MR. PORTER: I'm again going to

object. Now we're getting back into the

campaign issues again.

MR. MORAN: This doesn't have anything

to do with what you've ruled upon and that is

that her statements about opposing the

landfill are not admissible. These questions

simply relate to his support of Ann Bernard

for state representative.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: I agree.

Overruled.

23 BY THE WITNESS:

A. Yes.

0151

1 BY MR. MORAN:

Q. Isn't it also true that your wife,

3 Brenda, donated $250 to Ms. Bernard's campaign?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, were those monies that you and

6 Brenda gave to the Bernard campaign your funds or

7 did Mr. Watson provide them?

A. Mine.

Q. Are you familiar with an individual by

10 the name of Don St. Germane?

A. No.

Q. Are you aware of whether Mr. Watson

13 contributed any monies to Ms. Bernard's campaign?

A. No idea.

Q. And Mr. Harrison didn't?

A. No idea.

Q. You don't know?

A. No idea.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Off the

record for minute.

(Whereupon, a discussion

was had off the record.)

23 BY MR. MORAN:

Q. Mr. Keller, other than what you have

0152

1 identified for us already, do you have any facts or

2 information that relate to Mr. Harrison's stated

3 concern that he fears for his life from Waste

4 Management?

A. No.

Q. Is it your understanding that the

7 reason Mr. Harrison has refused or has not provided

8 his address, has not provided a phone number, has

9 not provided any location as to where he may be that

10 he is fearful for his physical safety from Waste

11 Management?

A. Is that my assumption, yes.

Q. Is that your belief based upon what he

14 has told you?

A. Yes.

Q. And is it accurate to say, Mr. Keller,

17 that Mr. Harrison has not told you about any

18 specific acts or instances in which his life or his

19 personal safety was threatened by any person or

20 representative of Waste Management?

A. He is the one that told me and showed

22 me the truck that drives by my house and now I have

23 noticed it on my own daily from Waste Management.

Q. And when did he tell you about this

0153

1 truck?

A. When he lived there.

Q. When he was at the Watson property

4 or --

A. No, mine.

Q. And can you describe that truck for

7 us?

A. It's a maroon, I believe it's a Chevy,

9 I've followed it numerous times and they've pulled

10 back into the dump.

Q. You followed the truck?

A. I have, yes.

Q. So you have observed this vehicle

14 driving around the landfill, driving by your

15 property?

A. Yes.

Q. And you then elected to follow this

18 vehicle to see where it went?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you ever have any discussion with

21 anyone who was driving that vehicle?

A. No.

Q. Did you recognize the person in the

24 truck?

0154

A. No.

Q. Did that person ever make any threats

3 to you?

A. No.

Q. But this was the vehicle that Mr.

6 Harrison was referring to?

A. Yes.

Q. Are you aware of whether the

9 individual that drove this truck made any threats to

10 Mr. Harrison?

A. No.

Q. He didn't tell you he did?

A. No.

Q. And at what time of day did you

15 observe this vehicle driving by your house?

A. Generally in the morning.

Q. When in the morning?

A. Now I have noticed it mainly about the

19 time I leave for work, around 7:00 a.m.

Q. At the time Mr. Harrison was still

21 living in the area, what time did you notice the

22 vehicle?

A. He told me that it was in the morning

24 also.

0155

Q. Is that when you followed the vehicle?

A. That's when I started watching it and

3 I've followed it since. I don't remember a date,

4 no.

Q. Have you made any attempt to discuss

6 your observations with anyone from Waste Management?

A. No.

Q. Did Mr. Harrison ever make such an

9 attempt?

A. Don't know.

Q. He never told you that he did?

A. No.

Q. Are you aware that the operator of

14 that existing landfill, Waste Management of

15 Illinois, Inc., has certain obligations to monitor

16 in and around the site and the site area for any

17 litter or debris?

A. I would assume that.

Q. Mr. Keller, did you ever observe

20 Mr. Harrison making any threat to any person?

A. No.

Q. Can you describe for us Mr. Harrison's

23 physical characteristics; how tall is he, how much

24 he weighs, his body type?

0156

A. I would say very close to my weight

2 and height, beard and mustache.

Q. How tall are you?

A. 5'10", 5'9", somewhere in there.

Q. And how much does he weigh

6 approximately?

A. Mr. Harrison in the time I've known

8 him has gone all the way probably from 125 to

9 probably in excess of 230.

Q. And he has a beard?

A. During the time I've known him he's

12 had one and he hasn't had one. I've seen him with

13 long hair in a pony tail and I've seen him with

14 short hair.

Q. Is it your testimony that at no point

16 during the 2002 or 2003 siting applications that you

17 have spoken with any representative or employee of

18 Waste Management of Illinois, Inc. other than me?

A. Or her maybe -- I mean, no, other than

20 you two, no.

Q. Okay. As far as you know,

22 Mr. Harrison similarly hasn't spoken to any employee

23 or representative of Waste Management during that

24 period?

0157

A. Not that he's told me. That's the

2 only thing I can...

MR. MORAN: I have no further

questions.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Let's go

off the record for a minute.

(Whereupon, a discussion

was had off the record.)

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: We're back

on the record, Mr. Porter's cross of

Mr. Keller.

C R O S S E X A M I N A T I O N

by Mr. Porter

Q. So that we all understand,

15 Mr. Harrison is not a Kankakee County Board member,

16 correct?

A. Correct.

Q. To your knowledge, no County Board

19 member ever communicated with Mr. Harrison, is that

20 correct?

A. Other than him telling me they did.

Q. Okay. To your personal knowledge --

23 by the way, for the record, you were pointing to

24 Mr. Moran, correct?

0158

A. Correct.

Q. Waste Management's counsel?

A. Correct.

Q. Using your own personal knowledge, are

5 you aware of any County Board member communicating

6 with Mr. Harrison?

A. No.

Q. Other than when you were talking to

9 Ms. Bernard for her election, which we've discussed

10 earlier, you've never spoken to a County Board

11 member about the landfill applications, correct?

A. No, correct.

MR. PORTER: If I may approach the

witness?

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: You may.

16 BY MR. PORTER:

Q. There was some discussion about some

18 letters that you sent to County Board members and I

19 would direct your attention to record No. C2743.

20 What is that document?

A. The letter that I wrote.

Q. So the letter that's in the record at

23 C2743 is the letter that you sent to all the County

24 Board members, is that right?

0159

A. Yes.

Q. Let me direct your attention to

3 another document, which is record No. C2739. What

4 is that document?

A. That is my mother's.

Q. So that's the letter that your mother

7 sent to all of the County Board members, is that

8 correct?

A. Yes.

MR. PORTER: Mr. Hearing Officer, I

have a follow-up question that would be

within Mr. Moran's offer of proof. I'm not

withdrawing any objection to that material,

however, if we're going to be making offers

of proof, I think in the interest of clarity

and receiving an entire picture of the

circumstances I should be allowed to ask some

questions without waiving my objection.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: I would

have to agree in the event that the Board

rules otherwise. Mr. Moran, do you have a

big problem with that?

MR. MORAN: Well, it's highly unusual.

Clearly offers of proof are intended to

0160

provide a record and not to provide the very

testimony and cross-examination that would

have been appropriate had the evidence been

deemed admissible.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: It's not

unusual, at least not when you've been before

me. I've allowed exploration such as what

Mr. Porter's going to do in the event the

Board overrules my decision, we don't have to

come back here. I guess that's an objection.

It's overruled. Mr. Porter, you may ask your

question, but this is under an offer of

proof.

MR. PORTER: Thank you, Mr. Hearing

Officer.

16 BY MR. PORTER:

Q. When you spoke with Ms. Bernard, she

18 was speaking to you as a candidate for the

19 legislature, is that correct?

A. Correct.

Q. And at that time she did not tell you

22 how she was going to vote, did she?

A. No.

Q. And when I say how she was going to

0161

1 vote, you understood I meant how she was going to

2 vote on the County's -- strike that.

When you spoke to her in her

4 capacity as a candidate for the legislature, at that

5 time she did not tell you how she was going to vote

6 on Waste Management's application, did she?

A. Correct.

MR. MORAN: Objection, leading.

MR. PORTER: It's not my witness.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Overruled.

11 BY MR. PORTER:

Q. Are you aware that Ms. Bernard has

13 actually advocated in favor of a county owned

14 landfill accepting county waste?

A. No.

MR. PORTER: Nothing further.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Thank you.

That concludes your cross and the offer of

proof?

MR. PORTER: That concludes my offer

of proof and it concludes my cross.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Mr. Moran?

MR. MORAN: Do I get redirect in the

offer of proof?

0162

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Sure, sure,

and I assume this is it.

R E D I R E C T E X A M I N A T I O N

by Mr. Moran

Q. Mr. Keller, when you had this

6 conversation with Ms. Bernard, she didn't tell you

7 that she was giving you this statement as a

8 candidate for state representative, she didn't tell

9 you that when she told you her position on

10 landfills, did she?

A. My question to her was what was her

12 outlook on out of county garbage and landfills and

13 her outlook was opposed.

Q. Exactly. She didn't say to you I am

15 giving you this statement as a candidate for state

16 representative, I am not a County Board member when

17 I give you this statement? She didn't say that to

18 you, did she?

A. No.

MR. MORAN: End of my redirect on the

offer of proof.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Thank you.

Anything further on your redirect?

MR. MORAN: Nothing further.

0163

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Okay.

Mr. Porter?

MR. PORTER: Nothing further.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Thank you.

Mr. Keller, you may step down. Thank you

very much. What we're going to do -- let's

go off the record for a minute.

(Whereupon, a discussion

was had off the record.)

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: We're on

the record. We're going to take an hour off

for lunch, so I would expect everyone to be

back here by 1:15. Thank you very much.

(Whereupon, after a short

break was had, the

following proceedings

were held accordingly.)

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: We're back

on the record. It is approximately 1:30.

Mr. Moran is still in his case in chief.

Mr. Moran's next witness?

MR. MORAN: Yes. We'd like to call

Mr. Keith Runyon.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Mr. Moran,

0164

I would remind you, we're still having a

little trouble sometimes hearing because of

that truck traffic. That mic doesn't go any

closer unless you lay it on the table.

(Mr. Runyon was sworn in.)

D I R E C T E X A M I N AT I O N

by Mr. Moran

Q. What is your name and could you spell

9 your last name for the court reporter?

A. Keith L. Runyon, R-U-N-Y-O-N.

Q. What is your address, Mr. Runyon?

A. 1165 Plum Creek Drive, Unit D,

13 Bourbonnais, Illinois.

Q. How long have you lived there?

A. Approximately 11 years.

Q. How far is your residence from the

17 proposed expansion of the Kankakee landfill?

A. As close as my water faucet.

Q. In terms of feet, how far is that?

A. It depends upon how close I am to the

21 water faucet.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Can you

answer the question, Mr. Runyon, please?

0165

1 BY THE WITNESS:

A. Sure. Physically probably seven

3 miles.

4 BY MR. MORAN:

Q. What is your occupation?

A. I'm at this point retired.

Q. Where in relation to your residence is

8 the proposed expansion located; south, north, west?

A. South.

Q. Do you have any understanding as to

11 the direction of ground water flow from the proposed

12 expansion?

A. Yes, I sat through the hearings.

Q. And isn't is it true that based upon

15 where you reside your location is, in fact, up

16 gradient from the proposed expansion?

A. That's true, but that's not what the

18 problem is. The problem is that --

Q. Mr. Runyon, all I'd like you to do is

20 respond to the question and if there's something

21 you'd like to follow-up later, perhaps you could do

22 that in the public comment or otherwise.

A. Okay.

Q. When did you become aware of the 2002

0166

1 siting application?

A. I became aware of it when the county

3 was discussing an amendment to the solid waste plan

4 and presented -- and a subcommittee presented a host

5 fee agreement to the County Board.

Q. When did that occur?

A. I believe the amendment was, as I

8 recall, something like October 2001, as I recall.

9 I'm not sure of the date.

Q. Did you participate in the process by

11 which the solid waste plan was amended?

A. No. I did not.

Q. You would have liked to have

14 participated?

A. Yes.

Q. You were told you could not

17 participate?

A. All of that was done secretly in

19 closed door meetings between Waste Management and

20 the subcommittee of the County Board in violation of

21 the Open Meetings Act.

Q. And did anyone tell you that you were

23 prohibited from participating in that process by

24 which the county solid waste plan was amended?

0167

A. By omission because they never

2 announced the meetings.

Q. So no one has ever told you that you

4 could not participate, is that correct?

A. The meetings were never announced as

6 per the Open Meetings Act.

Q. And once you learned about the

8 meetings, did you complain to anyone at the county

9 about your inability to participate in these

10 meetings?

A. Through the hearings certainly.

Q. When you say the hearings, you're

13 talking about the hearings that took place on the

14 2002 siting application in November of 2002, is that

15 correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. So the first time you made a mention

18 to anybody of having been excluded from these

19 discussions or negotiations was about a year after

20 you learned of the existence of these meetings, is

21 that correct?

A. That was probably the first time I

23 made a public statement about it, yes, but I

24 probably did make statements to other board members

0168

1 prior to that.

Q. Can you recall any for us?

A. No, I can't recall exactly who, but I

4 know that at the time a number of us were alarmed

5 about the amendment that allowed out of county

6 garbage to come into the county.

Q. There were County Board members who

8 were alarmed by this?

A. Yes.

Q. Who were they?

A. I don't recall exactly who they were.

12 There were several who mentioned that they were

13 opposed to it.

Q. And Ann Bernard is one of those?

A. Yes.

Q. Shakey Martin?

A. Yes.

Q. Anyone else?

A. I don't recall who else, but there

20 were others. There was a lot of conversation among

21 a lot of people and I don't recall who all made a

22 note of it.

Q. And these statements by the County

24 Board members were made in your presence?

0169

A. Yes.

Q. Where did these discussions or

3 meetings take place?

A. Well, most of the time right here in

5 the board room.

Q. Were there other venues for these

7 discussions, restaurants, other places?

A. No, not that I recall.

Q. Mr. Runyon, how long have you known

10 Ann Bernard?

A. I'd say probably since about 1998.

Q. Was that before she became a member of

13 the Kankakee County Board?

A. I don't think so. I'm not clear on

15 what date she was elected to the board.

Q. How long have you known Leonard Shakey

17 Martin?

A. Since 1996.

Q. That was well after he had been

20 serving as a County Board member?

A. That's correct.

Q. Are you familiar with a process known

23 as closed loop gasification?

A. Yes, I am.

0170

Q. What is that process?

A. That's a process which transforms any

3 carbon based product into a gas by heating the

4 carbon based products to about 800 degrees and

5 evacuating 95 percent of the oxygen and over a

6 period of ten hours approximately it changes the

7 mass to a gas without combustion.

Q. Is it your position that closed loop

9 gasification is and can be an alternative to

10 landfilling?

MR. PORTER: I'm going to object. The

purpose of this proceeding is to supplement

the record regarding the fundamental fairness

of the County proceedings, not a rehash of

waste alternatives.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Mr. Moran,

where are you going on this?

MR. MORAN: Mr. Runyon has both

adopted and espoused the closed loop

gasification process both in the context of

the siting process and outside that process.

I'm laying the groundwork for an explanation

as to what this process is and how he has

promoted it in various respects in connection

0171

with this proposed siting application, this

proposed expansion.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: I think I

will allow it. Objection overruled. I'll

keep a close ear.

6 BY THE WITNESS:

A. I'm not just a proponent of that, but

8 of the 19 or 20 other alternative technologies and,

9 in fact, the first person to introduce these

10 technologies into the hearings was Mr. Adelman when

11 he invited Myron Brick from Cenrick (phonetic) in

12 the 2002 hearings to read a letter that Mr. Adelman

13 had written to him congratulating him on the process

14 and their implementation in Morris, Illinois.

15 BY MR. MORAN:

Q. Is it your position that closed loop

17 gasification is an alternative to landfilling?

A. That and 19 others could be

19 alternatives.

Q. Have you acquired literature, written

21 information that describes this process?

A. Yes, that and about 18 other

23 processes.

Q. And have you delivered any of this

0172

1 written information concerning closed loop

2 gasification to any Kankakee County Board members

3 over the last three years?

A. Not that I can recall. I've talked

5 about it in public meetings, but I don't recall

6 delivering any documents to them.

Q. Have you made any documents available

8 for any of the County Board members that describe

9 this process?

A. No, not that I can recall.

Q. Did you attend the public hearings on

12 the 2002 siting application?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. Did you attend the public hearings on

15 the proposed Town & County landfill located in the

16 city of Kankakee in June of 2002?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. And did you appear at those

19 proceedings to oppose that proposal?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. Did you appear at the public hearings

22 on the 2002 application here to oppose that proposed

23 expansion?

A. Yes, I did.

0173

Q. Did you also appear at the public

2 hearings on the 2003 application here?

A. Yes, I did. Are you in reference to

4 the Waste Management?

Q. Yes.

A. Yes, yes, I did.

Q. Did you appear at the public hearings

8 on the second Town & Country siting application

9 which occurred in June of 2003 for the city of

10 Kankakee?

A. No, I did not.

Q. Prior to March 17th, 2004, outside of

13 the public hearings on the 2003 application, did you

14 have any communications with any Kankakee County

15 Board member regarding either the proposed expansion

16 or the closed loop gasification?

MR. PORTER: I'm going to object to

the extent we have included closed loop

gasification. The question needs to be

geared toward communications concerning Waste

Management's application, not communications

concerning alternative waste means, which is

something that a County Board member not only

is allowed to look at, but has a

0174

responsibility to look at in their

legislative function and so it's irrelevant

to the present issue which is whether or not

he had ex parte communications with County

Board members concerning the application.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: I'm going

to allow, as I did before, Mr. Moran a little

latitude. Mr. Runyon, if you can answer the

question.

10 BY THE WITNESS:

A. The answer is no to both.

12 BY MR. MORAN:

Q. Are you aware that Ann Bernard was

14 running in a primary campaign for state

15 representative in 2004?

A. Yes, I am.

Q. Did you support her campaign for state

18 representative?

A. I put a little work in one day by

20 putting some labels on an envelope -- on envelopes.

Q. So you supported her candidacy?

A. Well, other than just that little

23 menial task, no. Did I campaign for her or

24 anything, no.

0175

Q. Did you ever learn of any information

2 or facts indicating that Ms. Bernard was opposed to

3 the proposed expansion of the Waste Management

4 landfill?

A. I knew that she was opposed to all

6 landfills that were to be sited over the major

7 aquifer that feeds the water supply.

Q. And when did you become aware of this?

A. I think that was after the 2002

10 hearing.

Q. The 2002 hearing occurred in November

12 of 2002?

A. Yes, that's correct.

Q. Was that some time prior to March 17th

15 of 2004?

A. Yes.

Q. Was it some time in 2003?

A. No. It was in 2002 -- well, maybe --

19 I can't recall when that county ordinance hearing

20 was held and the vote was taken.

Q. Was it your understanding that

22 Ms. Bernard was opposed to the receipt of any out of

23 county waste?

A. No, I was not under that

0176

1 understanding.

Q. Your understanding was just that she

3 was opposed to any landfills being located above an

4 aquifer here in Kankakee County?

A. The major aquifer that feeds the water

6 supply.

Q. And is it your understanding that that

8 aquifer is the silurian dolomite aquifer that

9 underlies basically all of Kankakee County?

A. Yes, but that's not the issue.

Q. Do you know an individual by the name

12 of Bruce Harrison?

A. I know of Bruce Harrison. I don't

14 know him.

Q. And when did you first learn of Bruce

16 Harrison or learn about him in any way?

A. At the 2003 siting hearings.

Q. And these were the hearings on the

19 2003 application that took place in January of 2004?

A. That's correct.

Q. Mr. Harrison did not participate in

22 any way with respect to the 2002 application, is

23 that correct?

A. Not that I can recall.

0177

Q. So the first time you became aware of

2 him was in connection with the hearings that took

3 place in 2004?

A. That's correct.

Q. And Mr. Harrison was opposed to the

6 2003 application?

A. He apparently was since he made

8 numerous public comments apparently stating his

9 opposition to it.

Q. Did you hear any information or did

11 you learn of any facts that Mr. Harrison was

12 contacting County Board members outside the context

13 of the public hearing?

A. No.

Q. You didn't hear that from anyone?

A. No.

Q. You had no information to indicate

18 that he was?

A. No.

Q. Is that correct?

A. I have no idea what Mr. Harrison was

22 doing.

Q. But you did know or you were aware

24 that Mr. Harrison was instrumental in putting up the

0178

1 signs in the area that said no dump, no Chicago

2 garbage, is that correct?

A. I heard that he was someone who was

4 doing it, but I have no direct proof. I saw no

5 direct information or I didn't see him -- I didn't

6 witness him putting any of the signs up. For all I

7 know, he could have put them all up or none. I

8 don't know.

Q. Isn't it true that you spoke with

10 Mr. Harrison and learned from him that he was

11 instrumental in putting up these signs all over

12 town?

MR. PORTER: Objection, hearsay.

Mr. Harrison is not an agent of the county

and therefore not a part. It's not a hearsay

exception.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Mr. Moran?

MR. MORAN: We're talking about what

knowledge Mr. Runyon had about Mr. Harrison's

efforts in terms of putting up these no dump,

no Chicago garbage signs all over town.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: I'm going

to overrule the objection. You may proceed,

Mr. Moran.

0179

1 BY THE WITNESS:

A. Well, I think I answered that. I said

3 so far as I know, he may have put them all up or

4 none. I don't know correctly.

5 BY MR. MORAN:

Q. Mr. Runyon, do you recall having

7 appeared for your deposition in this case?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. And that occurred on October 15th,

10 2004?

A. I believe that's correct.

Q. And at that time you took an oath to

13 tell the truth?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. And you, in fact, told the truth on

16 that occasion?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you recall having been asked the

19 following question and giving the following answer,

20 question: Have you ever had a communication or

21 discussion with Mr. Harrison? Answer: I spoke with

22 Mr. Harrison a couple of times out at the hearings.

23 I spoke with him a couple of other times and found

24 out that he was instrumental in putting the no dump

0180

1 signs and circulating some petitions. That's all I

2 know about what Mr. Harrison has done.

Did you give that answer to that

4 response?

A. If that's in the transcript I did,

6 yes.

Q. Now, you also referred to the fact

8 that you learned from him that he was circulating

9 petitions, is that correct?

A. Yes. I learned it from him, but I

11 also learned it from an article in the newspaper.

Q. And what did Mr. Harrison tell you

13 about the petitions he had gathered?

MR. PORTER: Same objection, hearsay.

15 BY THE WITNESS:

A. He said he was --

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Excuse me,

Mr. Runyon. Mr. Moran?

MR. MORAN: Yes. With respect again

to the actions Mr. Harrison took and

explained to Mr. Runyon by way of the

communications and conversations they had,

this is clearly relevant to those matters by

which Mr. Harrison himself acknowledged and

0181

admitted what he had done. It has nothing to

do with the county and whether the county was

involved in it or not.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: I think I'm

going to allow it in under Section 101.676, I

believe, so you may proceed. Objection

overruled.

8 BY THE WITNESS:

A. I think I already answered it.

MR. MORAN: Can you read the question

back, please?

(Whereupon, the requested

portion of the record

was read accordingly.)

15 BY THE WITNESS:

A. He didn't tell me anything about

17 petitions he had gathered. He told me he was

18 circulating petitions.

19 BY MR. MORAN:

Q. And did he indicate what the nature of

21 those petitions were?

A. In opposition to the landfills.

Q. To the landfills?

A. That's my understanding, yes.

0182

Q. And what landfills was he referring

2 to?

A. I assumed the city and the county's

4 landfills -- proposed landfills.

Q. When you say the county's landfills,

6 you're referring to the proposed expansion of the

7 existing Waste Management, correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. And did Mr. Harrison tell you what he

10 was going to do with these petitions once he had

11 gotten them signed?

A. No, he didn't.

Q. Did you at any point learn what

14 Mr. Harrison had done with these petitions?

A. I have no idea of whatever happened to

16 them.

Q. Did he ask you to sign the petition?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you?

A. Yes.

Q. Did he ask any other persons in your

22 presence to sign that petition?

A. No.

Q. Did you read the petition before you

0183

1 signed it?

A. Yes.

Q. What did it say?

A. I can't recall.

Q. Generally?

A. Generally, it was opposed to any out

7 of county garbage, any landfill. I just don't

8 recall the specifics of the petition.

Q. So you didn't ask Mr. Harrison what

10 he was going to do with this petition you were

11 signing?

A. No.

Q. Did Mr. Harrison at any other point

14 ever ask you to do anything with regard to the

15 proposal for the expansion of the landfill?

A. Did he ask me to do --

Q. Was he asking you to either prepare

18 any letters, prepare any documents, contact any

19 people, talk to any people?

A. No.

Q. Do you know an individual named

22 Michael Watson?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. Who is Mr. Watson?

0184

A. He's a person who lives out in Otto

2 Township who has some farm land out there and also

3 runs United Disposal.

Q. Do you have any information or

5 knowledge to suggest that Mr. Watson knows

6 Mr. Harrison?

A. I assume they know each other. They

8 spoke at the landfill hearing.

Q. Do you know if Mr. Harrison performs

10 work for one of Mr. Watson's company?

A. Not to my knowledge. I have no idea.

Q. Mr. Runyon, what's the basis for your

13 statement that Mr. Watson lives in Otto Township?

A. Well, I believe that's where he lives.

Q. How do you know that?

A. Well --

Q. Did he tell you? Did you learn it

18 from someone else? Did Mr. Harrison tell you?

A. I was driven by his home last week

20 that was in Otto Township.

Q. You say you were driven by his home

22 last week?

A. That's correct.

Q. By whom?

0185

A. By several people in a car.

Q. Can you identify any of these people

3 who were driving you by Mr. Watson's place?

A. Andrea Taylor, Ron Thompson.

Q. Any others?

A. No, I don't think so.

Q. Now, Andrea Taylor was an individual

8 who also appeared for the 2003 application, is that

9 correct?

A. I think she was there making a public

11 comment.

Q. And she lives in Saint Anne?

A. Yes.

Q. Which is ten or 15 miles away from the

15 proposed site?

A. I guess, yes.

Q. She was also deposed as part of these

18 proceedings?

A. That's what I understand.

Q. And I believe you had talked to her

21 before she was deposed, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. You were giving her advice as to how

24 to testify at her deposition?

0186

A. No, I did not.

Q. You were giving her some suggestion as

3 to how she --

A. No, I did not.

Q. But you talked to her about her

6 deposition before she appeared?

A. I told her there was only one thing

8 she should do, it had nothing to do with her

9 testimony. I told her that if they ask you to waive

10 her review of the deposition that she not do that,

11 that she'd be able to read it before she signed off.

12 That's all I told her.

Q. Mr. Thompson is the Otto Township

14 supervisor, is that correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. He also appeared at the hearings?

A. Yes.

Q. And he's also opposed to the proposed

19 application?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you have any discussions with

22 Mr. Thompson about his communications with County

23 Board members outside the context of the public

24 hearing?

0187

A. No.

Q. Why did you drive by Mr. Watson's

3 house with Ms. Taylor and Mr. Thompson last week?

A. I wanted to see where he lived.

Q. You wanted to see Mr. Watson lived?

A. Yes.

Q. For what purpose?

A. Well, actually, it started off to be a

9 tour of Waste Management's landfill and Mr. Thompson

10 wanted to show me all the debris surrounding the

11 landfill on several different directions and what a

12 scattered mess it was and in so doing he said by the

13 way, Mr. Watson lives right around the corner from

14 there, so that was the purpose of the trip.

Q. Was the purpose of the trip in

16 preparation for these hearings?

A. No.

Q. Did you contact anyone from Waste

19 Management of Illinois to have a tour of that

20 existing facility?

A. Of the existing facility?

Q. Yes.

A. No.

Q. Because you described the purpose of

0188

1 your visit as a tour of the Waste Management

2 landfill, that's why --

A. No, no. We toured the periphery of

4 the landfill and the purpose was to look at all the

5 debris scattered from the landfill in the adjacent

6 properties.

Q. Which day was that last week?

A. I don't recall. I think it was

9 Wednesday maybe.

Q. Is that the day that the thunderstorms

11 went through?

A. No, it wasn't the day of the

13 thunderstorms. I think it was the 30th, March the

14 30th.

Q. Did you see Mr. Watson when you drove

16 by where he lived?

A. No.

Q. Have you subsequently been able to

19 confirm that he lived where you were told he lived?

A. No.

Q. Did you see any of the signs that said

22 no dump, no Chicago garbage in or around the area?

A. I saw the one -- very large one across

24 from the fairgrounds.

0189

Q. That's further north of the existing

2 landfill?

A. Right. I don't recall seeing any --

Q. It's probably closer to the Town &

5 Country site than it is this site, is that correct?

A. I don't recall seeing any of the signs

7 -- maybe one, just one, I think. I don't recall

8 seeing others. I was busy conversing at the time.

9 I really was not terribly interested in seeing the

10 landscape other than to look at the debris that was

11 scattered around the landfill.

Q. Did you attend the County Board

13 meeting on March 17th, 2004?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. And that was the vote to deny the 2003

16 siting application?

A. Yes.

Q. Were there picketers outside the

19 building that day?

A. I believe there were.

Q. Did you see them?

A. I did see some, but I came in the back

23 way so I just saw a couple of people out in the

24 front door, I didn't go out.

0190

Q. Did you see Mr. Harrison?

A. No, I didn't see him that day. I

3 didn't see him then anyway.

Q. You didn't see him at all that day?

A. Oh, I saw him later after the vote was

6 taken.

Q. And the picketers that you saw, did

8 they have the signs no dump, no Chicago garbage?

A. Well, as I recall they had a variety

10 of signs.

Q. But one of them was no dump, no

12 Chicago garbage?

A. I think that was one of them, but I

14 think they had a variety of signs.

Q. Do you recall any of the other signs?

A. No, I don't recall, but there were a

17 lot of -- it seemed to me that there was some

18 homemade signs, totally different. I don't recall.

Q. Did the signs convey messages that the

20 carriers of those signs were opposed to the proposed

21 expansion?

A. I think that was the general

23 implication that could be drawn.

Q. Was there a motion to renew

0191

1 consideration of the vote which occurred on

2 March 17th?

A. Yes, there was.

Q. Did that vote occur on April 13th of

5 2004?

A. Yes, as I recall, to the best of my

7 recollection.

Q. And did you attend that meeting?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. Are you aware that the 2002

11 application resulted in an approval on January 31st,

12 2003?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you attend that meeting?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. Did you at any point send any letters

17 or any written materials to any County Board member

18 relating to either the 2002 or 2003 applications?

A. No.

Q. And at that January 31, 2003 meeting

21 of the County Board, were there any picketers

22 outside the building on that day?

A. Not that I can recall.

Q. Did Mr. Harrison attend the

0192

1 January 31st, 2003 meeting?

A. I don't know.

Q. You didn't see him?

A. No, I didn't see him, but I don't know

5 whether he was there or not.

Q. Do you know Mr. Robert Keller?

A. I do.

Q. Did you learn about Mr. Keller through

9 your participation in the hearings on the 2002

10 siting application?

A. That's correct, that's when I first

12 knew of him.

Q. And, in fact, Mr. Keller testified in

14 this proceeding earlier today?

A. Yes, that's correct.

Q. Have you had any communications or

17 conversations with Mr. Harrison since the date of

18 your deposition in this case?

A. Yes. I had a phone call from him from

20 somewhere maybe a couple of months ago.

Q. When you say you had a phone call from

22 somewhere, what's the basis for your --

A. Well, he didn't tell me where he was.

Q. Did you ask him where he was?

0193

A. No.

Q. Did he indicate why he was calling

3 you?

A. He just wanted to know what was

5 happening and so I said well, things are just

6 grinding slowing.

Q. When he asked you what things were

8 happening, what was he referring to; things that

9 were happening in the county, things were happening

10 with regard to the proposed expansion?

A. He asked about the proceedings that

12 were going on, what was happening with the different

13 landfill applications, so I just gave him kind of a

14 quick summary.

Q. So he called to ask you about the

16 status of this proceeding?

A. Both of them.

Q. What did you tell him about this

19 proceeding?

A. I gave him a quick summary, I said

21 Volini one is in the Appellate Court, Volini two is

22 in the Appellate Court, Volini two has been filed

23 with the IEPA for permitting, but it's pending

24 Appellate Court resolution, I told him about Waste

0194

1 Management one going to the Appellate court and I

2 told him about the depositions that were going on

3 at the PCB for review and that's what I told him.

Q. Do you have caller ID?

A. No.

Q. So you would have no way of knowing

7 what number was calling you when Mr. Harrison called

8 you?

A. No, I have no idea.

Q. Were you aware of the fact that the

11 petitioner here has attempted to bring Mr. Harrison

12 in and have him testify about all of his

13 communications with County Board members?

MR. PORTER: I object, assumes facts

not in evidence.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Mr. Moran,

any response?

MR. MORAN: I'm asking him whether he

was aware of this information, true, not

true, did he hear that, was he aware of that

in these discussions with Mr. Harrison.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Again, I'll

allow a little latitude. Mr. Runyon, you can

answer if able.

0195

1 BY THE WITNESS:

A. Well, I read the newspaper article a

3 couple of days ago and the last time I physically

4 saw Mr. Harrison was probably July or August of last

5 year and at that time he told me that he was going

6 to disappear because he feared for his life.

7 BY MR. MORAN:

Q. This is consistent with what

9 Mr. Keller indicated this morning?

A. That's what he told me and I said why

11 are you afraid and he said I'm afraid I could be --

12 end up in a landfill.

Q. Did Mr. Harrison give you any other

14 facts that supported his fear that his personal

15 safety and life was basically in jeopardy because of

16 Waste Management?

A. No. I pursued it a little bit, but he

18 wouldn't be specific.

Q. It was your understanding based upon

20 what he told you that he was in fear for his life

21 because of what?

A. Because of his opposition to the

23 landfill.

Q. So from what he told you, the basis

0196

1 for his fear was that because he opposed the

2 proposed expansion his life was at risk?

A. He seemed to have other reasons, but

4 he wouldn't be specific.

Q. But the only one he told you was what

6 I just indicated?

A. Right, that's correct.

Q. Do you have any reason to believe

9 that Mr. Harrison fears for his life?

A. I can only go by what he told me.

Q. So you accepted what he said?

A. I beg your pardon?

Q. You accepted what he said, the reason

14 he has disappeared is that he fears for his life?

A. That's what he told me.

Q. And you said you had this in a meeting

17 with Mr. Harrison the last time you saw him in

18 person?

A. Yes, I saw him --

Q. Where did this take place?

A. I believe it was at the fairgrounds.

Q. Is that the Kankakee County

23 Fairgrounds?

A. That's correct.

0197

Q. Was anyone else present for this

2 discussion?

A. No.

Q. How long did the discussion last?

A. About three minutes.

Q. How did you conclude this discussion

7 with Mr. Harrison?

A. Well, I had some other things to do

9 and I just said well, I've got to run.

Q. Since that date you have had just the

11 one conversation or communication with Mr. Harrison?

A. That's correct.

Q. When he called you?

A. Yes.

Q. To ask for a status on this

16 proceeding?

A. Right, on both proceedings.

Q. And you gave him the status on those

19 proceedings?

A. That's correct.

Q. Did you have any discussion with him

22 about whether he was employed?

A. No.

Q. Whether he was working or intended to

0198

1 be working?

A. No.

Q. Whether he ever intended to come back

4 to this area?

A. No.

Q. Do you have any reason to believe that

7 he was not in this area when he called you?

A. I couldn't conjecture where he might

9 have been.

Q. He could have been right next or he

11 could have been in Hawaii for all you know, correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. When you were asked about

14 Mr. Harrison's whereabouts during the deposition you

15 didn't disclose this. Was there any reason you

16 didn't tell us about this --

A. Yes, because the call came after the

18 deposition.

Q. I'm talking about the meeting at the

20 fairgrounds where Mr. Harrison told you he was going

21 to disappear because he feared for his life.

A. Right.

Q. That occurred -- I think you said

24 August of 2004?

0199

A. Yes, that's correct.

Q. And your deposition, you may recall,

3 was in October of 2004?

A. That's right.

Q. My question was, why didn't you

6 indicate at your deposition when you were asked

7 about communications with Mr. Harrison that he had

8 told you that he feared for his life and was

9 therefore disappearing?

A. Well, because I didn't think it was

11 terribly relevant at the time, but the more I

12 thought about it, the more I felt it was relevant.

Q. So you've agreed now to tell us about

14 this conversation because, in your opinion, that

15 information is now relevant and it wasn't before?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. What reasons led you to

18 conclude that now that information is relevant?

A. Because so much time has elapsed since

20 he told me that and he's been out of sight since

21 that time and that led me to believe that there was

22 credibility to what he had to say to me.

Q. Are those the only reasons?

A. Yes.

0200

Q. Mr. Runyon, has Mr. Harrison at any

2 point in any communications you had with him asked

3 you not to disclose or tell something he had told

4 you?

A. No.

Q. Did you have any discussion or

7 communication with Mr. Harrison after your

8 deposition on October 15th other than the one you

9 have told us about?

A. No.

Q. Did you have any discussion or

12 communication with Mr. Watson about your deposition

13 after October 15th of --

A. I mentioned that I had given a

15 deposition.

Q. You mentioned this to Mr. Watson?

A. Yes.

Q. In a phone call?

A. Beg your pardon?

Q. In a phone call with Mr. Watson or

21 face-to-face?

A. A phone call.

Q. You called him?

A. No. He called me about something

0201

1 else, but I don't recall what it was and I said oh,

2 by the way, I got deposed and it was some other

3 issue and I don't recall what it was at the time.

Q. Did you tell him how your deposition

5 went?

A. I just told him it lasted about an

7 hour and ten minutes or something like that.

Q. Did he ask you any other questions

9 about it?

A. No.

Q. Have you characterized your

12 relationship with Ann Bernard as her being a close

13 personal friend of yours?

A. She's a friend. I wouldn't say that

15 -- I don't know what your definition of close

16 personal friend is. You know, I've never attended

17 any functions with her. You know, my communication

18 has been about a plethora of County Board issues and

19 things like that, but I wouldn't say that we were

20 close personal friends, no. Good strong

21 acquaintances.

Q. Are you a close personal friend of

23 Leonard Shakey Martin?

A. Yes, I am.

0202

Q. Again, just calling your attention to

2 your deposition back on October 15th, were you asked

3 the following question and did you give these

4 answers? Question: Who were those County Board

5 members? Answer: Leonard Martin and Ann Bernard.

6 Question: Would you say they're very close personal

7 friends of yours? Answer: Yes. Question: Can you

8 describe for us what the nature of the relationship

9 is with both of them? Answer: We're very close

10 personal friends, however you would define a close

11 personal friend.

A. Well, I just differentiated from that

13 because as you asked the question the second time, I

14 realized that Shakey Martin and I are good close

15 personal friends, that we do go to functions

16 together, we attend basketball games and football

17 games and Ann is more like a strong acquaintance.

Q. Did you give this answer to this

19 question?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. Did you also say in response to that

22 question, this is on page 38, Ms. Bernard has been a

23 very good friend to me and most of the members of

24 the community and so just close personal friends.

0203

A. By that what I meant was a good friend

2 to the community because it appears that she is

3 always looking out for the best welfare of the total

4 residency and citizenship in the county. That's

5 what I meant by total friend of the community and

6 I'm included as one of those.

MR. MORAN: I have no further

questions.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Thank you.

Mr. Porter?

MR. PORTER: Just a couple quick

follow-ups.

C R O S S E X A M I N A T I O N

by Mr. Porter

Q. There was some discussion about

16 statements made by Mr. Martin and Ms. Bernard

17 against out of county waste. Isn't it true those

18 statements were made at the time the solid Waste

19 Management plan was proposed to be amended?

A. That's correct.

Q. That was quite a time before even the

22 first Waste Management application, is that right?

A. That's correct.

Q. There was a mention of a tour of Waste

0204

1 Management's landfill. That was way after the

2 County Board decision on March 17th, 2004, right?

A. So far as I can recollect, I heard

4 about the tour but obviously --

Q. I'm talking about the tour that you

6 took with Mr. Thompson of the perimeter?

A. Yes. That was March the 30th of this

8 year.

Q. And Mr. Thompson isn't even a County

10 Board member, is that right?

A. That's correct.

Q. You don't know if Mr. Harrison was

13 ever successful in any of his attempted

14 communications with County Board members, do you?

A. I have no idea, none whatsoever.

Q. And you never communicated with a

17 County Board member outside of the hearing process

18 about the siting applications, is that right?

A. No, I did not.

Q. You mentioned you're close personal

21 friends with Mr. Martin and had lunched with him

22 during those -- and gone to sporting events with

23 him. During those events had you ever discussed

24 siting applications while they were pending?

0205

A. No.

MR. MORAN: Nothing further.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Thank you.

Mr. Moran?

R E D I R E C T E X A M I N A T I O N

by Mr. Moran

Q. Mr. Runyon, the opposition of

8 Ms. Bernard and Mr. Martin to out of county waste

9 has continued to this day, isn't that true?

A. Yes.

MR. MORAN: That's it.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Mr. Porter?

MR. PORTER: Nothing further.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Runyon, you may step down.

Does anyone need a quick post

lunch break? I see some nods. Okay. Five

minutes. Thank you.

(Whereupon, after a short

break was had, the

following proceedings

were held accordingly.)

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: We're back

on the record. Before I forget, are there

0206

any members of the public that would like to

stand up here and make a comment or

statement? I see no hands. All right.

We're going to continue with Mr. Moran's case

in chief. I believe it will be his fifth

witness --

MR. MORAN: Fourth. Fifth I guess.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Thank you.

In any event, you may proceed.

MR. MORAN: Thank you. We would call

Mr. Gibbs at this time.

(Mr. Gibbs was sworn in.)

D I R E C T E X A M I N A T I O N

by Mr. Moran

Q. What is your name and could you spell

16 your last name for the court reporter?

A. Larry Gibbs, G-I-B-B-S.

Q. Mr. Gibbs, what is your address?

A. 13217 East 6000 South Road, Saint

20 Anne, Illinois.

Q. And how long have you lived there?

A. At that particular address?

Q. Yes.

A. About 15 years.

0207

Q. What is your business or occupation?

A. I've worked with the state and I'm

3 currently now -- as a result of the election, I'm

4 the township supervisor of Pembrook.

Q. Are you a Kankakee County Board

6 member?

A. And I'm a Kankakee County Board

8 member, yes.

Q. When were you first elected to the

10 County Board?

A. I think it was in 2002, November

12 of 2002.

Q. So you would have been sworn in in

14 December of --

A. December the 4th I think it was, in

16 December.

Q. Are you aware that a siting

18 application to expand the existing Waste Management

19 landfill was filed in August of 2002?

A. I learned that as I came on board,

21 yes.

Q. Are you aware that the hearings on

23 that 2002 application were conducted in November and

24 December of 2004 -- I'm sorry, November and

0208

1 December 2002?

A. Could you say that again?

Q. Yes. Are you aware that the public

4 hearings on the 2002 application were conducted in

5 November and December of 2002?

A. Yes.

Q. Are you aware that the County Board

8 voted on the 2002 application on January 31st, 2003?

A. Yes.

Q. And you did not vote on January 31st,

11 2003, is that correct?

A. No. I was ill at that time.

Q. Are you aware that a second siting

14 application was filed on September 26th, 2003?

A. Yes.

Q. And that second application or the one

17 we've referred to as the 2003 application had public

18 hearings that took place in January of 2004, is that

19 correct?

A. Could be, yes. That were hearings at

21 that time, yes.

Q. Did you attend any of those hearings?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. Did you have any understanding as to

0209

1 whether the 2002 application was the same as the

2 2003 application?

MR. PORTER: Objection, couple of

grounds. One, it gets into mental

impressions of a decision-maker; two, the

applications speaks for themselves and that

is part and parcel of the underlying record

and is not relevant to fundamental fairness

of the proceeding.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Mr. Moran?

MR. MORAN: Well, clearly the question

of the similarity of these two applications

is something that the County Board members

can indicate without in any way disclosing or

revealing their mental processes in

evaluating and deciding the application which

is, as I understand it, the reason for the

ruling on the motion to compel. I think

certainly this witness and any kind of group

member can address the question of whether in

their understanding the two applications were

essentially the same.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: I'd have to

agree with you, Mr. Moran. It's pretty

0210

close, but I think Ms. Hertzberger also was

asked that question and I allowed it

to be answered. So with that said, your

objection is overruled. Mr. Moran?

5 BY THE WITNESS:

A. Could you repeat it again.

MR. MORAN: Could you repeat my

question?

(Whereupon, the requested

portion of the record

was read accordingly.)

12 BY THE WITNESS:

A. I assumed that it would be, yes.

14 BY MR. MORAN:

Q. Did you vote on the 2003 application?

A. Yes.

Q. And you voted on March 17th, 2004?

A. Yes.

Q. And did you vote to approve or deny

20 the 2003 application?

A. If I can recall, there was specific

22 criteria, but just an overall disapproval. I'm not

23 sure of whether we made a decision on the overall

24 disapproval.

0211

Q. Did you vote on each of those

2 criteria?

A. Yes.

Q. And did you vote to approve each of

5 those criteria or did you vote to approve some and

6 and deny others?

A. That could have been the case, yes,

8 some approve and deny some.

Q. As you sit here today, do you recall

10 which --

A. No.

MR. PORTER: Mr. Gibbs, if I may, with

Mr. Halloran's allowance, please wait until

Mr. Moran is done.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Thank you,

Mr. Porter.

17 BY MR. MORAN:

Q. Mr. Gibbs, was there a motion to renew

19 consideration of the March 17th, 2004 vote?

A. Yes.

Q. And that took place on April 13th,

22 2004?

A. The specific date, I'm not sure, but

24 it did occur.

0212

Q. And did you vote on the motion to

2 renew consideration?

A. Yes.

Q. Prior to March 17th, 2004, which was

5 the date on which you first voted on the 2003

6 application, did you receive any phone calls from

7 anyone regarding the 2003 application?

A. As to the dates I'm not going to say,

9 but I did receive some phone calls -- a phone call.

Q. Who did you receive that phone call

11 from?

A. From a Mr. Harrison -- I learned that

13 it was from Mr. Harrison.

Q. Is that Mr. Bruce Harrison?

A. Yes.

Q. Did he call you at your home or place

17 of business?

A. At my home.

Q. What did he say to you?

A. Specifically what he said I'm not

21 sure, but he generally talked and when I learned

22 that he was talking about the landfill, the

23 conversation ended.

Q. How long did he talk to you before you

0213

1 realized he was talking about the proposed expansion

2 and his opposition to it?

A. I would say less than, but no more

4 than 45 seconds or so.

Q. And did you tell Mr. Harrison why you

6 couldn't continue the conversation?

A. All I said was I can't talk about that

8 and just hung up.

Q. And that call came in some time prior

10 to March 17th of 2004, correct?

A. The specific date I'm not -- I would

12 say it came --

Q. It came in some time before you voted

14 on the 2003 application?

A. Yes.

Q. And I know you said that you were ill

17 on January 31st of 2003 to vote on the first

18 application?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you receive any phone calls from

21 anyone regarding the 2002 application prior to

22 January 31st of 2003?

A. No.

Q. Did you receive any letters or any

0214

1 written materials prior to your vote on the 2003

2 application which occurred on March 17th?

A. Yes.

Q. How many such letters or written

5 materials did you receive?

A. It was numerous, but I'd say it was

7 less than 50.

Q. Something less than 50?

A. Something less than 50.

Q. And did you receive these at your

11 home?

A. At my home, yes.

Q. Were these letters or written

14 materials opposed to the proposed expansion?

A. I never read any of them but one.

16 When I first received them, I opened it up, looked

17 at it, scanned through a little bit, when I saw it

18 was for the landfill, I closed it up, sealed it back

19 and took it to the clerk and all the rest of them.

Q. The one that you opened, did you read

21 enough of it to determine that it was opposed to the

22 proposed expansion?

A. Whether it was opposed or not, I knew

24 that it was for the landfill, that's all I

0215

1 determined and I knew that it was time to close it

2 up and send it in.

Q. Prior to the vote on the 2002 siting

4 application, which occurred on January 31st, 2003,

5 did you receive any letters or written materials

6 regarding the proposed expansion?

A. Could you give me those dates again?

Q. Yes. Just going back to the first

9 vote on the 2002 siting application, which was

10 January 31st, 2003, the date you were ill.

A. Okay. Prior to that, no.

Q. Prior to that you didn't receive any

13 letters or written materials regarding the 2002

14 application?

A. No.

Q. Again, prior to March 17th, 2004, did

17 you have any discussion with any residents who were

18 opposed to the proposed expansion?

A. I had a few come up and talk with me

20 about it.

Q. And where did these communications

22 occur?

A. Just in passing, in general, they'd

24 see me out.

0216

Q. Out at your place of work or near your

2 home or county building, someplace else?

A. Just anywhere that I may be at that

4 time.

Q. And this was prior to March 17th,

6 2004?

A. Yes.

Q. And were these on three separate

9 occasions that you met up with three different

10 people who talked to you about the expansion?

A. Right, separate times, yes.

Q. Do you know the names of any of the

13 people?

A. No. By that time they had learned

15 that I was a County Board member.

Q. And for each of these three residents

17 on these three occasions, you can go through each

18 one one-by-one, what did they say to you?

A. That, I couldn't -- I don't recall

20 exactly what they said.

Q. Generally?

A. Generally it was about the landfill.

Q. Was it that they were opposed to the

24 proposed expansion because they did not wish to

0217

1 receive any waste or garbage from Chicago?

A. That and among -- more or less, yes.

Q. Any other reasons they gave you?

A. No.

Q. Did you have any other conversations

6 or communications with any persons regarding the

7 2003 application?

A. No.

MR. MORAN: I have no further

questions.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Thank you,

Mr. Moran. Mr. Porter?

MR. PORTER: Thank you, Mr. Halloran.

C R O S S E X A M I N A T I O N

by Mr. Porter

Q. Did you ever do a line-by-line

17 analysis of Waste Management's first application

18 with its second application to determine if they

19 were the same?

A. No.

Q. You are aware that the two

22 applications had two separate hearings, are you not?

A. Yes.

Q. And there were different witnesses at

0218

1 those hearings, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you consider -- strike that.

You mention Mr. Harrison

5 telephoned you, is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you consider that to be evidence?

MR. MORAN: Objection. Based upon

your rulings I don't know how we can now ask

what this board member considered without

there being a waiver of the objection that we

can't ask what he considered and didn't

consider.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Mr. Porter?

MR. PORTER: If I may, the ruling, as

I understand it, is you cannot ask a board

member what he based his overall decision

upon, however, I have never objected to nor

do I believe I would have a basis to object

to Mr. Moran asking if a board member based

his decision upon an ex parte communication

or if his decision was prejudiced by an ex

parte communication, therein lies the

distinction. We know that we're allowed to

0219

conduct discovery and ask a question as to

whether or not an ex parte communication

occurred. We also know that the only time

that that would be -- that that would result

in some type of remand or reversal is if

there's evidence of prejudice from that

communication, therefore, I do not have a

problem with Mr. Moran asking nor me asking

whether or not an ex parte communication as

defined by the Pollution Control Board

prejudiced a decision. It's completely

inappropriate to ask what you based your

decision upon whereby we have to require a

Board member to look into the record and

remember what it was in the record that he

based his decision upon, however, when it

comes to whether or not he based it on ex

parte communication, I am willing to concede

that and I believe -- and that's why I did

not object to the one question

Mr. Moran asked earlier in his line of 20

questions that the objection was sustained.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: But isn't

it -- the question was did you base -- did

0220

you --

MR. PORTER: This particular question

actually is even narrower. All I asked him

is whether or not he believed Harrison's

telephone call was evidence. I didn't

actually ask him whether or not he prejudiced

him or considered it. I've even narrowed it

more than that, but I guess I just wanted to

address the issue with you, Mr. Halloran, so

that we don't have to keep going down this

every time.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: This was

kind of addressed in Rochelle. Mr. Moran?

MR. MORAN: Well, if he's allowed to

ask did you consider this as a basis for your

decision, a very limited ex parte

communication, it seems to me if he's allowed

to ask that question, I ought to be given --

to go back, if I can identify specific areas,

specific issues, did you consider this factor

or fact, whatever it is, there may be a whole

list of them, and to ask these witnesses on

each of those if I could possibly be

exhaustive about it a very limited area did

0221

you consider it, it ought to be permitted

because you then open the door to what have

you considered in this whole exercise it

seems to me has been based on the fact that

we cannot ask these Board members what did

you consider, what did you consider in your

decision.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: I agree and

there might be certain situations you can ask

that question, Mr. Porter. I don't think

this is a situation that allows it. So I

would sustain Mr. Moran's objection.

MR. PORTER: Now if I may confer with

Mr. Helsten. All right. Understood.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Thank you.

16 BY MR. PORTER:

Q. You never solicited Mr. Harrison to

18 talk to you about the siting application, did you?

A. No.

Q. And as soon as you found out he wanted

21 to talk about the application, you stopped his

22 attempted communication, is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, there was some mention of a few

0222

1 people that apparently stopped you on the street and

2 mentioned the landfill. Did you tell those people

3 that you could not discuss it?

A. Yes.

MR. PORTER: Nothing further.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Thank you.

Mr. Moran?

R E D I R E C T E X A M I N A T I O N

by Mr. Moran

Q. Mr. Gibbs, you told each of those

11 three people that you couldn't talk to them after

12 they told you why they were opposed to the proposed

13 expansion, isn't that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Mr. Gibbs, do you know whether the

16 applicant presented any different witnesses on the

17 2003 application as compared to the 2002

18 application?

A. No, not to my knowledge, no.

Q. The applicant didn't present any

21 different witnesses, did it?

A. Not to my knowledge.

Q. What witnesses were presented at the

24 hearing who were different in the 2003 application

0223

1 from the 2002 application?

A. None to my knowledge.

MR. MORAN: Nothing further.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Mr. Porter?

MR. PORTER: I'm going to let the

record speak for itself on the latter point

and ask no further questions.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Thank you.

Mr. Gibbs, you may step down. Thank you so

much.

(Whereupon, a discussion

was had off the record.)

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: We're back

on the record. Mr. Moran may proceed with

his next witness.

MR. MORAN: Mr. Romein would be our

next witness.

(Mr. Romein was sworn in.)

D I R E C T E X A M I N A T I O N

by Mr. Moran

Q. Good afternoon.

A. Good afternoon.

Q. Would you tell us your name and spell

24 your last name for the court reporter?

0224

A. It's Jamie Romein, that's R-O-M-E-I-N.

Q. Mr. Romein, what is your address?

A. 3954 South 8500 East Road in Saint

4 Anne, Illinois.

Q. How long have you been there?

A. Five-and-a-half years.

Q. What is your business or occupation?

A. I do some truck farming as well as I

9 work with my father doing plumbing, heating and I'm

10 also a Kankakee County Board member.

Q. For how long have you been a Kankakee

12 County Board member?

A. Almost two-and-a half years.

Q. Were you elected or appointed?

A. I was elected.

Q. You would have been elected in

17 November of 2002?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Were you aware that an application to

20 expand the existing Waste Management landfill was

21 filed on August 16th of 2002?

A. Yes, I learned of that.

Q. That would have been shortly before

24 your election to the County Board, correct?

0225

A. Yes, it was.

Q. Were you aware that the hearings on

3 that 2002 application occurred in November and

4 December of 2002?

A. Yes, I was.

Q. Did you attend any of those hearings?

A. No, I did not.

Q. Did the vote on the 2002 application

9 occur on January 31st of 2003?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you vote on the 2002 application?

A. Yes.

Q. Prior to January 31st of 2003, did you

14 receive any phone calls from any persons regarding

15 the 2002 application?

A. No.

Q. Prior to January 31 of 2003, did you

18 receive any letters or any written materials from

19 any persons regarding the 2002 application?

A. No.

Q. How did you vote on January 31st,

22 2003? Did you vote to approve the 2002 application

23 or to reject it?

A. Approve.

0226

Q. And did you consider each of the nine

2 statutory criterion at that time?

A. Yes.

Q. You voted to approve all nine of the

5 the statutory criteria on that date, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you become aware that subsequently

8 there was an application for expansion of the

9 existing Waste Management landfill that was filed on

10 September 26th, 2003?

A. Yes.

Q. I'll refer to that as the 2003

13 application.

Were hearings conducted on that

15 2003 application in January of 2004?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you attend any of those hearings?

A. No, I did not.

Q. Did you vote on the 2003 application

20 on March 17th, 2004?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you vote again on each of the

23 criteria for the 2003 application?

A. Yes.

0227

Q. Did you vote to approve or disapprove

2 that application?

A. There were certain ones that I

4 disapproved of.

Q. Do you recall which ones those were as

6 you sit here now?

A. No, I don't.

Q. I can go through them. Is it true

9 that you voted against criterion one, which is the

10 criterion that talks about the need for the

11 facility?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you vote against criterion three,

14 which was the criterion that related to the location

15 of the facility as minimizing any incompatibility

16 with the character of the surrounding area and

17 minimize any effect on the value of the surrounding

18 property?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you also vote to deny criterion

21 six, which was traffic criteria?

A. Yes.

Q. Were your votes on criteria one, three

24 and six to deny different from your votes on

0228

1 criteria one, three and six for the 2002

2 application?

A. I believe the criteria was different.

Q. That wasn't quite my question.

My question was, were your votes

6 on criteria one, three and six different from your

7 votes on criteria one, three and six for the 2002

8 application?

A. Yes.

MR. MORAN: At this time, Mr. Hearing

Officer, I just want to clarify that with

regard to those questions I asked, to make my

record, I would limit those questions to

criterion one, three and six. For

Hertzberger we had one, two, three, five and

six. For Mr. Romein they would only be one,

three and six.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Okay. And

this is based on what we stipulated -- the

parties stipulated to regarding the questions

asked of Ms. Hertzberger. I think you stated

there was 12.

MR. MORAN: I believe there were 12 or

13, yes.

0229

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: I just want

to make the record clear so the Board can

take a look. If this is a great way to go

about it, that's fine. Were you going to

state those again or just acknowledge on the

record that those are the same questions that

you would be asking Mr. Romein?

MR. MORAN: I just wanted to indicate

that those would be the same questions I

would ask him, but I would limit them to

these three criteria which he had changed.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Okay. And

those are the questions that Mr. Porter

objected to and I sustained based on my

motion to compel ruling?

MR. MORAN: That is correct.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Very well.

Thank you. The record will so note.

19 BY MR. MORAN:

Q. Mr. Romein, prior to March 17th, 2004,

21 did you receive any letters or written materials

22 regarding the proposed expansion?

A. Yes.

Q. And how many such letters or written

0230

1 materials did you receive?

A. Between 20 and 25.

Q. And did you receive these at home?

A. Yes.

Q. And you read the letters?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. Were all the letters opposed to the

8 proposed expansion?

A. Yes.

Q. And then I believe you said you took

11 those letters and conveyed them to the county clerk?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you recall any of the names of the

14 people who had written those letters to you?

A. No, I do not.

Q. Did any of those letters contain

17 statements that were to the effect that if you

18 didn't vote to deny this proposal, that the author

19 or others would work to defeat you if you were to

20 run for re-election of the County Board?

A. Not any of those letters, no.

Q. There wasn't anything that stated such

23 or anything to that effect in any of those letters?

A. No, sir.

0231

Q. Was there any postcard sent to you

2 prior to March 17th, 2004 regarding the proposed

3 expansion?

A. A postcard?

Q. Yeah. I asked before about letters or

6 written materials and I believe you said 20, 25

7 letters, now I want to know if there were any

8 postcards ever sent to you?

A. Not that I recall.

Q. Do you remember any statement being

11 made in any of these written materials you received

12 that said dump the dump or we will dump you?

A. Not to my recollection.

Q. After the March 17th, 2004 vote, did

15 you receive any thank you letters?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. How many such letters did you receive?

MR. PORTER: Objection, irrelevant.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: I'm sorry,

Terry --

(Whereupon, the requested

portion of the record

was read accordingly.)

MR. PORTER: My objection is relevancy

0232

because it's after the March 17th vote.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Well, you

know, I think that question has been asked

before without objection regarding thank you

notes or did you object and I allowed it in?

MR. PORTER: Well, as I recall the way

it went down he asked it regarding the 2002

application, whether there were any thank you

notes, I objected, it turns out there

actually weren't any anyway regarding that.

I don't think it's come up again. I don't

remember it being asked of Mr. Gibbs. This

is the first time I think it's come up

regarding the 2003 application and that's why

I'm objecting.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Mr. Moran?

MR. MORAN: Well, the question was

asked with regard to the 2003 application, it

was asked in connection with the motion to

renew consideration which was up on

April 13th and the point was that these thank

you notes were sent in that interim period

and reflected written communications prior to

the final vote on the motion to renew

0233

consideration on April 13th.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: I'm going

to allow it. I'm going to overrule

Mr. Porter's objection. You may answer,

Mr. Romein.

6 BY THE WITNESS:

A. Repeat the question again?

MR. MORAN: Can you repeat it, please?

(Whereupon, the requested

portion of the record

was read accordingly.)

12 BY MR. MORAN:

Q. These are the thank you notes.

A. I don't recall.

Q. More than ten?

A. Possibly.

Q. Less than 30?

A. I don't recall.

Q. Okay. Did you receive any letters at

20 any time from Karen Mallaney?

A. Not that I recall.

Q. Mr. Romein, would it be fair to say

23 that with regard to those letters that were sent to

24 you, as you sit here now, you don't recall any

0234

1 statements in those letters to the effect that if

2 you voted in favor of this landfill the author or

3 others would work to oppose your re-election to the

4 board? Would that be a fair statement to say there

5 were no such statements in any of the letters?

A. Sir, there was nothing in writing that

7 was down -- that was in writing that said anyone

8 that was going to get me out of office or possibly

9 try to interrupt me from being re-elected. I

10 believe you're looking farther down the line for

11 that answer.

MR. MORAN: We haven't yet identified

any exhibits, I don't believe.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Except for

my Hearing Officer Exhibit 1?

MR. MORAN: Correct. But my

understanding is we would identify our

exhibits as WMII exhibit --

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: If you so

choose. It would be Exhibit 1, I guess.

MR. PORTER: If I might approach the

witness?

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: You may.

24 BY MR. MORAN:

0235

Q. Let me show you what we have marked as

2 WMII Exhibit No. 1. This purports to be a letter

3 dated February 19th, 2004 addressed to the Kankakee

4 County Board, Dear Board members, and the author is

5 an individual named Tammy Focken, F-O-C-K-E-N. I'll

6 ask you to just take a look at that and tell us if

7 you have ever seen that before?

(Mr. Romein is reading the document.)

9 BY MR. MORAN:

Q. Mr. Romein, do you recognize that

11 document?

A. I do.

Q. That was sent to you at some point on

14 or about the date that it bears, which is

15 February of 2004?

A. That's the date.

Q. Did you have a chance to read the

18 letter?

A. I did.

Q. Does that refresh your recollection as

21 to whether the letters you received contained

22 statements in them indicating that if you did not

23 vote against the 2003 application that the author

24 would work to oppose your re-election?

0236

MR. PORTER: I'm going to object to

the extent that the issue is whether or not

the County Board member received an ex parte

communication that prejudiced his decision.

Mr. Moran has already pointed out this is

part of the record.

MR. MORAN: Well, irrespective of

whether a document is part of the record or

not, a communication made to a County Board

member, which was initially sent directly to

a County Board member, which contained in it

a threat directed to the County Board member

that if they didn't vote a certain way that

the author would work to defeat that

candidate is a matter that is relevant and

important to the question of fundamental

fairness.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: For what

it's worth, it's in the record. Mr. Moran,

you may continue.

21 BY MR. MORAN:

Q. Mr. Romein, does that refresh your

23 recollection?

A. It does, but I still didn't feel

0237

1 threatened.

Q. So would it be fair to say then that

3 you did receive letters prior to March 17th, 2004

4 which contained statements indicating that if you

5 did not vote to deny the 2003 application that the

6 author intended to take steps to work to defeat your

7 candidacy for the County Board when you were up for

8 re-election if you decided to run?

A. If that's what the letter states.

Q. So would your answer be yes?

A. I still don't think this letter is

12 threatening, so I don't feel threatened by it.

Q. That wasn't my question. My question

14 was, does this letter refresh your recollection that

15 you received letters containing statements in which

16 the author indicated if you didn't vote to oppose

17 the 2003 application the author would work to oppose

18 your re-election?

MR. PORTER: Objection, asked and

answered.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: I didn't

hear Mr. Romein answer yet. You may proceed.

23 BY THE WITNESS:

A. I said I didn't feel this letter was

0238

1 -- still not threatening. It says that God will be

2 the wrath.

3 BY MR. MORAN:

Q. Did you read the latter part of the

5 letter and this is in the last paragraph of the

6 letter, maybe you can just read that for us

7 beginning with as an elected official? Could you

8 read that out loud for us, please?

A. As an elected official, if you do not

10 speak out against this landfill expansion then I

11 will have no choice but to work as hard as I can to

12 make sure you do not get re-elected. The citizens

13 of this county will replace every one of you who

14 vote for this landfill expansion. We pray of you to

15 listen and vote no dump expansion.

Q. Does that refresh your recollection

17 that in the letters that you received there were

18 statements contained that indicated if you did not

19 vote against the 2003 application the author would

20 work to oppose your re-election?

A. Yeah -- yes.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Okay.

Now it's been asked and answered, Mr. Porter.

MR. MORAN: I agree.

0239

1 BY MR. MORAN:

Q. Do you know an individual by the name

3 of Bruce Harrison?

A. I know of Bruce Harrison.

Q. Did you have any communications with

6 Mr. Harrison prior to March 17th, 2004?

A. I believe he called my residence.

Q. And when did he call your residence?

A. Before March 17th, 2004.

Q. Did you receive any other phone calls

11 from other persons regarding the proposed expansion

12 prior to March 17th, 2004?

A. No.

Q. How many calls did you receive from

15 Mr. Harrison prior to March 17th, 2004?

A. One.

Q. What did Mr. Harrison say to you in

18 the conversation?

A. He talked about the no dump, no

20 Chicago garbage and I told him that that would be ex

21 parte communications, that I could not talk to him

22 and I told him he would have to see how I voted.

Q. How long did this conversation last?

A. Less than -- no more than two minutes,

0240

1 but less than -- no more than two minutes.

Q. You said Mr. Harrison talked to you

3 about the no dump, no Chicago garbage statement?

A. Yes.

Q. Was he referring to the signs that

6 appeared all over the area during that period that

7 said no dump, no Chicago garbage?

A. He was using that slogan or that

9 phrase so...

Q. And did he explain to you what he

11 meant by that phrase?

A. No.

Q. Did you have any understanding as to

14 what he meant by that phrase?

A. No.

Q. Did he indicate to you that he had

17 appeared at the hearings to oppose the 2003

18 application?

A. No.

Q. Did you simply assume by his statement

21 to you no dump, no Chicago garbage that he was

22 opposed to the expansion?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you discuss this conversation with

0241

1 Mr. Harrison with anyone?

A. Not that I recall, no.

Q. Did you have any further

4 communications with Mr. Harrison?

A. As far as when?

Q. Any time.

A. After the March 17th vote?

Q. Yes.

A. Yes, I did.

Q. When was the next occasion you had a

11 communication with Mr. Harrison?

A. It was at a construction site where

13 he was -- where I was actually taking a lunch break

14 and he was in the United Disposal garbage truck with

15 Mr. Watson.

Q. Where was this construction site?

A. It was over in Bourbonnais.

Q. What were you doing there?

A. Plumbing.

Q. You were doing plumbing work?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And at that time Mr. Harrison was with

23 Mr. Watson at this job site?

A. Yes, sir.

0242

Q. And Mr. Harrison was driving a United

2 Disposal vehicle?

A. Mr. Watson was driving a United

4 Disposal garbage truck and Mr. Harrison was the

5 passenger with him.

Q. And was Mr. Watson driving this United

7 Disposal vehicle to this job site to perform some

8 service?

A. No, he was not. There was apartment

10 complexes and he was going over to, I believe, dump

11 one of the dumpsters that is used by some of the

12 tenants. So it was not at the complex I was at, no.

Q. So you were on the ground at this

14 construction site or were you in a vehicle?

A. I was sitting in my truck eating

16 lunch.

Q. And your truck was parked near the

18 construction site?

A. In the parking lot.

Q. And Mr. Harrison saw you sitting in

21 your vehicle parked at the construction site?

A. Yes.

Q. And what did Mr. Harrison do?

A. He got out of the passenger side of

0243

1 the garbage truck and came over and was talking to

2 my -- talking to myself while Mr. Watson went ahead

3 and performed the services.

Q. And what did Mr. Harrison say to you?

A. He was talking about the -- general

6 conversation about the reconsideration of the

7 landfill.

Q. And what did he say to you about that?

A. I don't recall.

Q. What did you say to him?

A. That I was going to vote the way that

12 I wanted to vote and there was no one that was going

13 to sway my decision.

Q. And what was his response to your

15 comment?

A. Mr. Watson came back over and they

17 left.

Q. So Mr. Harrison had nothing to say in

19 response to your statement to him?

A. Not at that time, no.

Q. How long did this conversation last?

A. Maybe five minutes.

Q. And was the principal subject of

24 discussion the proposed expansion or the motion to

0244

1 renew consideration?

A. I believe it was, yes.

Q. Did you have any subsequent

4 communications or discussions with Mr. Harrison?

A. Afterwards?

Q. Yes.

A. Yes, I did.

Q. When did that occur?

A. That was before the April 13

10 reconsideration vote and I was stopped at a

11 stoplight on Route 50 and Grennel Road and I was

12 turning left onto Grennel Road off of Route 50 and

13 he came up next to me, walked up to next to the

14 passenger side of the truck and asked if he could

15 get in.

Q. Who is he, Mr. Harrison?

A. Mr. Harrison.

Q. Where did Mr. Harrison come from?

A. From behind. He was in a vehicle that

20 was driven by Mr. Watson. I believe it was a Yukon,

21 GMC Yukon that was driven by Mr. Watson.

Q. So the two of them were not in the

23 United Disposal vehicle the second time, they were

24 in what appeared to be a privately owned vehicle?

0245

A. I would assume it was Mr. Watson's

2 vehicle.

Q. And, again, Mr. Watson was driving,

4 correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Mr. Harrison was riding as a

7 passenger?

A. Yes.

Q. When you came to a stoplight -- were

10 you waiting at a stop sign or stoplight?

A. The stoplight was red. I was waiting

12 to turn left.

Q. And as you were waiting to turn left,

14 Mr. Harrison came up on your passenger side and got

15 into your vehicle?

A. He asked to get in the vehicle.

Q. And you allowed him to come in the

18 vehicle?

A. At that time the stoplight had turned

20 green and from being a volunteer auxiliary police

21 officer for Kankakee City Police Department I knew

22 that it was behoove of me to let him get in the

23 vehicle to get him out of the intersection so he

24 would not be hurt or cause an accident, so I let him

0246

1 in the vehicle.

Q. And then you made your left turn after

3 he got in the vehicle?

A. Yes.

Q. What did he say to you?

A. At that time he talked about the

7 reconsideration of the landfill and then he told me

8 that he has the power to run someone against me in

9 the election.

Q. Would that be the next time you were

11 up for election, is that what he was talking about?

A. That's what I would assume, yes.

Q. Did he identify who he had who could

14 run against you if you didn't vote the way he wanted

15 you to vote?

A. He never gave no name.

Q. You didn't ask him?

A. No.

Q. What was your response?

A. I told him that I was going to -- that

21 I was going to vote how I wanted to vote and there

22 was no one person that was going to sway my decision

23 and I got to my destination and I told him it was

24 time for him to get out and he got in the vehicle

0247

1 with Mr. Watson and left.

Q. So Mr. Watson followed your vehicle

3 once Mr. Harrison entered your vehicle?

A. Yes, it was for about three-quarters

5 of a mile.

Q. You said you reached your destination?

A. Yes.

Q. What was your destination?

A. To a plumbing and heating supply

10 house.

Q. So how long did this conversation with

12 Mr. Harrison last?

A. Roughly two to three minutes.

Q. How did you conclude the conversation

15 with him?

A. I told him that I had stuff I had to

17 do and it was time for him to go our separate ways.

Q. What did he say to you?

A. He didn't say anything. He went and

20 got in the vehicle with Mr. Watson.

Q. Before you approached the stoplight

22 where you were waiting to make your left turn, had

23 you noticed Mr. Watson's vehicle behind you?

A. I didn't know what Mr. Watson drove so

0248

1 I didn't notice that he was behind me until I looked

2 in my rearview mirror and seen that it was his

3 vehicle back there.

Q. So after Mr. Harrison told you that he

5 would have someone run against you, you reached your

6 destination, Mr. Harrison then said good bye to you

7 or did he not say anything and just leave?

A. He left the cab, he didn't say -- he

9 might have said good bye or I don't remember, but it

10 was nothing negative.

Q. He left the cab and he went into

12 Mr. Watson's vehicle?

A. Yes.

Q. And what did they do?

A. They left.

Q. They just drove away?

A. Yes.

Q. And you stayed at that location to

19 perform your job?

A. Yes, to get -- to retrieve supplies

21 there, yes.

Q. Did you receive or have any subsequent

23 communications with either Mr. Harrison or

24 Mr. Watson?

0249

A. I believe some time in -- I don't

2 recall if it was June, I was dropping a gentleman

3 off that works with us at his house and I was

4 getting ready to make another left-hand turn and

5 Mr. Harrison was out at the democratic headquarters

6 cooking and asked if I wanted something to eat and I

7 said no.

Q. Did you receive any letters of

9 congratulation from any persons after the vote on

10 the 2003 application?

A. Yes.

Q. How many such letters did you receive?

A. I don't recall.

Q. More than ten?

A. Possibly, yes.

Q. Did you receive one from Mr. Runyon?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you receive one from Mr. Harrison?

A. No.

Q. Did you receive one from Mr. Watson?

A. I don't recall.

Q. From Mr. Keller?

A. I don't recall the names, sir.

Q. Did you receive any letters of

0250

1 congratulation after you voted in January of 2003

2 for the 2002 application?

A. No.

Q. Prior to January 31 of 2003, did any

5 person approach you at your work or place of

6 business to talk about the proposed expansion?

A. No.

MR. MORAN: No further questions.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Thank you.

Mr. Porter?

MR. PORTER: Thank you. If I may

approach the witness?

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: You may.

C R O S S E X A M I N A T I O N

by Mr. Porter

Q. Let me show you what's been marked in

17 the County record as C2720 and 2721. Is that the

18 letter that you received from Ms. Focken?

A. I believe it is.

Q. And you'll notice -- and you know that

21 because you reviewed it at 2720 and it's the same

22 document that Mr. Moran had referred to earlier, is

23 that right?

A. Yes.

0251

Q. Though it appears in the record on

2 numerous occasions, do you think?

A. No, I don't know.

Q. You know it appeared at least on one

5 other occasion because he had a different number, is

6 that right?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, let me show you page 2721 and

9 it's a little difficult to read, but you see it's an

10 envelope or a photocopy of an envelope?

A. Yes.

Q. And it's from Ms. Tammy Focken, do you

13 see the return address?

A. Yes.

Q. And who is it addressed to?

A. Bruce Clark.

Q. And you'll notice at page 2720, is

18 there a file stamp on the letter from Ms. Focken?

A. Yes.

Q. And who stamped it filed?

A. Bruce Clark.

Q. And who is Bruce Clark?

A. The county clerk.

Q. So as far as you know, Ms. Focken sent

0252

1 that same letter to the county clerk and was put in

2 the record, is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, there's a statement at the bottom

5 of the letter that Mr. Moran directed your attention

6 to of -- that Ms. Focken would have no choice but to

7 work as hard as she can to make sure you do not get

8 re-elected. Did that statement threaten or

9 intimidate you?

MR. MORAN: Objection. We're again

asking what he considered and how he

considered it.

MR. PORTER: No, I'm not. I'm asking

if he was threatened or intimidated by a

statement made in the letter.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: You know,

regardless, I think Mr. Romein has already

answered that question when he wasn't

answering in a yes or no question earlier.

He kept saying he was not threatened by the

letters so it's already in the record.

Objection sustained.

23 BY MR. PORTER:

Q. Now, every letter you received you

0253

1 gave to the county clerk to put in the record, is

2 that right?

A. Yes.

Q. Did every letter you receive have that

5 same statement in there about working against you to

6 get re-elected?

A. No.

Q. Now, there was some discussions about

9 Mr. Harrison's attempts to communicate with you and

10 I think, if I heard correctly, only once did

11 Mr. Harrison try to call you before March 17th,

12 2004, is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. And you refused to talk to him at that

15 time, is that right?

A. That's correct.

Q. So you would agree, would you not, you

18 did not communicate with him before the vote?

A. Correct.

Q. And the other two times that you saw

21 him when you were out in traffic, did you ever ask

22 him to come over and talk to you?

A. No.

Q. At any time did you feel threatened by

0254

1 the conduct of Mr. Harrison?

MR. MORAN: Same objection.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Mr. Porter?

MR. PORTER: Again, I'm not asking

what he based his decision on. I'm merely

asking if he felt threatened.

MR. MORAN: He's asking what he didn't

consider.

MR. PORTER: No. I'm merely asking

whether or not he felt threatened.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: I think I'm

going to let him respond. I'm going to

overrule your objection, Mr. Moran.

14 BY THE WITNESS:

A. Absolutely not, no.

MR. PORTER: Nothing further. Thank

you.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Mr. Moran?

R E D I R E C T E X A M I N A T I O N

by Mr. Moran

Q. Mr. Romein, I'm going to show you a

22 letter I referred to earlier that came from Karen

23 Mallaney dated February 18th, 2004, we've identified

24 it as Waste Management of Illinois Exhibit No. 2.

0255

1 Let me show you this and take a look at it and when

2 you're finished, let us know.

(Mr. Romein is reading the document.)

4 BY THE WITNESS:

A. Okay.

6 BY MR. MORAN:

Q. Does this refresh your recollection

8 that there were indeed a number of other letters in

9 which there were statements made to the effect that

10 if you didn't vote against this, the author would

11 work against your re-election?

A. I think I already answered that.

Q. And what was your answer?

A. I didn't feel threatened by the

15 letters.

Q. That wasn't my question.

My question was, does WMII

18 Exhibit 2 refresh your recollection that the letters

19 you received contained statements indicating that if

20 you did not vote to reject the 2003 application the

21 author would work to oppose your re-election?

A. This letter, as far as my knowledge,

23 unless I'm reading it wrong, does not contain

24 anything about --

0256

Q. Well, let me direct your attention to

2 the last paragraph of this letter and if you could

3 read out loud for us beginning with I was lied to.

A. I was lied to and I feel betrayed by

5 the people who we elected to look out for our

6 health, safety and welfare of our community and I

7 swear I will effortlessly try to oust any Board

8 member who thinks they can shove this down our

9 throats. Pay attention to the people and hear what

10 we are saying. No dump and no Chicago garbage. I

11 was reading that wrong, I apologize.

Q. Okay. So does this refresh your

13 recollection that there were letters sent to you,

14 other letters that contained statements saying that

15 if you didn't vote against this application, that

16 the author would work to oppose your re-election?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Without trying to belabor the

19 point, I'm just going to show you one more, Waste

20 Management Exhibit No. 3, a letter from Linda Olson

21 of Saint Anne, if you could take a look at that for

22 us, please.

(Mr. Romein is reading the document.)

24 BY THE WITNESS:

0257

A. Okay.

2 BY MR. MORAN:

Q. Does your review of Waste Management

4 Exhibit No. 3 refresh your recollection that the

5 letters sent to you contained statements that if you

6 didn't oppose the 2003 application, the author would

7 work to oppose your re-election?

A. Yes.

MR. MORAN: Nothing further.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Thank you.

Mr. Porter?

R E C R O S S E X A M I N A T I O N

by Mr. Porter

Q. Before Mr. Moran showed that to you,

15 did you remember either of those letters?

A. No.

Q. Do you recall ever being threatened by

18 those letters?

A. No.

MR. MORAN: Same objection.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Overruled.

MR. PORTER: That's all. Nothing

further.

MR. MORAN: Nothing further.

0258

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Thank you,

Mr. Romein. You may step down.

(Whereupon, after a short

break was had, the

following proceedings

were held accordingly.)

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: You may

proceed, Mr. Moran. I think this will be

your seventh witness.

(Mr. Wilson was sworn in.)

D I R E C T E X A M I N A T I O N

by Mr. Moran

Q. Good afternoon, Reverend Wilson.

A. Good afternoon.

Q. Could you tell us your name and spell

16 your last name, please?

A. Elmer E. Wilson, W-I-L-S-O-N.

Q. Reverend Wilson, what's your address?

A. 384 North Dearborn, Kankakee,

20 Illinois.

Q. And how long have you lived there?

A. Thirteen years.

Q. And you're a member of the Kankakee

24 County Board?

0259

A. Yes, I am.

Q. For how long have you so served?

A. '95.

Q. Were you elected or appointed?

A. Appointed first time, after that

6 elected.

Q. When does your current term expire?

A. 2/7.

Q. Were you aware that an application to

10 expand the existing Waste Management landfill was

11 filed on August 16th, 2002?

A. Yes.

Q. And that hearings on that 2002

14 application occurred in November and December

15 of 2002?

A. Yes.

Q. And that you voted on the 2002

18 application in January of 2003?

A. Yes.

Q. And you voted to approve the 2002

21 application?

A. Yes.

Q. Are you aware that a second

24 application was filed on September 26th of 2003?

0260

A. Yes.

Q. That the hearings were conducted in

3 January of 2004?

A. Yes.

Q. And the County Board voted on the 2003

6 application on March 17th, 2004?

A. Yes.

Q. And you voted to approve the 2003

9 application?

A. Yes.

Q. Were the 2002 and 2003 applications

12 the same?

MR. PORTER: Same objection as before.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Overruled.

15 BY THE WITNESS:

A. To my laymen's knowledge, I would say

17 yes.

18 BY MR. MORAN:

Q. Prior to the vote on the 2003

20 application on March 17th, 2004, did you receive any

21 phone calls from any persons regarding the proposed

22 expansion?

A. Yes.

Q. How many such communications did you

0261

1 receive?

A. I cannot recall specifically at this

3 point.

Q. Approximately?

A. Maybe half a dozen.

Q. Did any of the people who called you

7 identify themselves by name?

A. Yes.

Q. And who contacted you by phone?

A. I do not remember.

Q. What names were you given?

A. They gave their name, identified

13 themselves, purpose, I made my statement, end of

14 conversation.

Q. Was Mr. Bruce Harrison someone who

16 called you?

A. Not specifically at this particular

18 time.

Q. Did you have any communications with

20 Mr. Harrison regarding the proposed expansion?

MR. PORTER: Regarding which proposed

expansion?

23 BY MR. MORAN:

Q. Regarding the 2003 application.

0262

A. That was later on, the sequence of

2 events.

Q. I'm sorry, what was later on?

A. About the landfill.

Q. Let me go at it this way: When did

6 you first meet or have any communication with

7 Mr. Harrison?

A. The specific time of that is vague,

9 but the first time that I met Mr. Harrison was at

10 Uncle Johnny's, I was having a meeting there with

11 labor, the bus drivers, he came in, came over and

12 said he'd like to speak to me.

Q. What is Uncle Johnny's?

A. It is a restaurant, East Court,

15 Kankakee, Illinois.

Q. And was this during the week?

A. During the week.

Q. The day, the evening?

A. In the a.m. -- I would say a.m., after

20 9:30 I would say.

Q. Was it before the 2002 application to

22 expand the landfill?

A. The first meeting was.

Q. And you were at Uncle Johnny's with a

0263

1 few other people to discuss a labor issue?

A. Yes.

Q. And Mr. Harrison approached you?

A. Yes.

Q. What did he say to you?

A. I'd like to talk to you on a personal

7 matter.

Q. Did you agree to talk with him?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. At Uncle Johnny's?

A. At Uncle Johnny's.

Q. And the matter that you discussed with

13 him on this occasion, did it have anything to do

14 with the proposed expansion of the landfill?

A. No.

Q. It was a spiritual matter?

A. Yes.

Q. Subsequently, did you have any

19 communications or discussions with Mr. Harrison

20 about the proposed expansion?

A. I didn't. He tried to.

Q. When did he try to communicate with

23 you?

A. The second time he called to meet with

0264

1 me, same place. My reference to that meeting was

2 parallel with something of the same nature I

3 thought, but when I got there started talking about

4 spiritual matters, then he drifted.

Q. So initially your understanding is

6 that Mr. Harrison wanted to meet with you to discuss

7 those spiritual matters that he had previously

8 talked to you about?

A. That's right.

Q. But when you got to Uncle Johnny's and

11 he started talking to you, once he finished up with

12 the spiritual matters, he then started talking about

13 the proposed expansion?

A. Yes.

Q. And what did he say about it?

A. He wanted to know my position. When

17 he mentioned that I told him you know I can't talk

18 about that.

Q. What was his response to your telling

20 him you couldn't talk about it?

A. He continued to talk and I continued

22 to give him the same statement.

Q. And what did he continue to say?

A. That he had talked to people about

0265

1 support and my reference always was are we talking

2 about the same matter and he'd say yes, and I'd say

3 you know I can't talk about it. Thank you for the

4 meal.

Q. Now, when he said that he was talking

6 to you about people who supported whatever it was he

7 was referring to, what did you understand him to

8 mean? Did you understand him to mean that he had

9 obtained other people who were opposed to the

10 proposed expansion as he was?

A. I would assume that at that time.

Q. And is that how you came to conclude

13 that he was opposed to the proposed expansion?

A. Not really. I was listening to what

15 he said.

Q. And what did he say that led you to

17 conclude he was against the proposed expansion?

A. All he was talking about was trying to

19 get my support on that particular issue and that was

20 a dead issue and he knew that within a certain

21 period of time.

Q. He was trying to get your support to

23 oppose the proposed expansion?

A. Yes.

0266

Q. And this was another meal at Uncle

2 Johnny's?

A. Yes.

Q. That he paid for?

A. Yes, he paid for it.

Q. How long did the lunch last?

A. How long does a bowl of oatmeal and a

8 piece of toast last to eat it? Maybe about 15, 20

9 minutes.

Q. Did you have any communications or

11 discussions of any kind with Mr. Harrison after that

12 meeting with him?

A. Same approach, same subject matter.

Q. And when did that occur?

A. Well, if you're talking about the

16 specifics of the time, date and place, I'm just --

17 the reference of when it occurred is more clear. I

18 did meet with him again. It was after a meeting

19 here in the hallway he wanted to talk to me and

20 he chatted and I told him then, you know, I couldn't

21 talk about it and he just followed me around and

22 thank God I was a minister. After that the big

23 meeting came up, I was coming to the Board meeting,

24 he met me outside, approached me with a group of

0267

1 people and said this is Reverend Wilson, he's a fair

2 man, et cetera, et cetera, handed me a whole bunch

3 of stuff, petitions, and I took them and he followed

4 me up to the door and went back with the people that

5 were carrying all those signs or whatever.

Q. Was this on March 17th, 2004, the day

7 that the County Board voted on the 2003 application?

A. Yes.

Q. What did you do with those documents

10 that he gave you?

A. File them, file cabinet -- what do

12 they call that, 13 or something?

Q. You pitched them?

A. I pitched them.

Q. And these were petitions allegedly

16 containing signatures of people who were opposed to

17 the application?

A. Yes.

Q. How many documents did he give you?

A. It was a bunch, about a half inch. It

21 was quite a few.

Q. When you said he was following you

23 around, did you mean by that he was simply being

24 persistent in trying to communicate with you about

0268

1 why you should vote against the application?

A. Yes.

Q. And that occurred prior to March 17th?

A. Yes.

Q. Did he bring any other individuals or

6 people to you to try to get them to talk to you

7 about the proposed expansion?

A. No.

Q. It was just him?

A. It was just him.

Q. Going back just for a moment to the

12 January 31, 2003 vote on the 2002 application.

A. Okay.

Q. Was there any picketing that was going

15 on at the County building on the day of that vote?

A. Not at that time.

Q. And you didn't have any communications

18 or discussions with Mr. Harrison about the 2002

19 application on or prior to January 31st?

A. I didn't, no.

Q. As far as you knew, Mr. Harrison

22 wasn't really part of that 2002 application, he

23 didn't participate in that process, did he?

A. I can't answer that. He wasn't

0269

1 following me around just to be following me around.

Q. Had you had any discussions or

3 communications with Mr. Harrison since March 17th,

4 2004?

A. No. It's like he dropped off the

6 earth.

MR. MORAN: Thank you.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Thank you.

Mr. Porter? Mr. Helsten?

MR. HELSTEN: Thank you, Mr. Halloran.

C R O S S E X A M I N A T I O N

by Mr. Helsten

Q. Reverend Wilson, you never approached

14 Mr. Harrison, he always approached you, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. And each time he attempted to talk to

17 you, you told him you couldn't talk to him about the

18 landfill expansion?

A. Correct.

Q. Did you attempt or did you end the

21 conversation in each instance as soon as you could,

22 as soon as it was polite and courteous to do so?

A. Correct.

Q. Did you feel threatened or intimidated

0270

1 by anything he said to you?

A. No.

Q. Okay. Reverend Wilson, had you

4 previously been instructed not to talk to members of

5 the public about the proposed expansion?

A. Yes.

Q. And not to engage in any communication

8 with them over the telephone either?

A. Yes.

Q. By the way, were you threatened by any

11 of the petitions that Mr. Watson handed you?

A. No.

Q. Did you even look at them?

A. No.

Q. Did you immediately throw them into a

16 waste paper basket?

A. Yes, I did.

MR. HELSTEN: Thank you. That's all.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Mr. Moran?

R E D I R E C T E X A M I N A T I O N

by Mr. Moran

Q. Reverend Wilson, despite your best

24 efforts to tell Mr. Harrison that you couldn't talk

0271

1 to him, he ignored that statement, didn't he?

A. Yes, he did.

Q. He kept talking?

A. Yes, he did.

Q. He kept trying to persuade you?

A. Yes, he did.

MR. MORAN: Thank you.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN:

Mr. Helsten?

R E C R O S S E X A M I N A T I O N

by Mr. Helsten

Q. And, Reverend, you referred to what

13 you called a dead issue, every time he tried to talk

14 to you, you said that's a dead issue. What did you

15 mean by that?

A. He needed to shut up.

Q. It means it's dead on arrival and you

18 weren't going there?

A. Correct.

MR. HELSTEN: Okay. Nothing further.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Thank you,

Reverend Wilson, you may step down. Does

anybody need to take a five-minute break?

Okay. I hear yes.

0272

(Whereupon, after a short

break was had, the

following proceedings

were held accordingly.)

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: It's 4:00

o'clock. Mr. Moran is to about call his

eighth witness. You may proceed.

MR. MORAN: Thank you. At this time

we call Mr. Scholl.

(Mr. Scholl was sworn in.)

D I R E C T E X A M I N A T I O N

by Mr. Moran

Q. Please state your name and if you

14 could spell your last name for the court reporter.

A. Bob Scholl, S-C-H-O-L-L

Q. What is your address, Mr. Scholl?

A. 9301 West 1000 North, Bonfield,

18 Illinois.

Q. How long have you lived there?

A. Approximately 30 years.

Q. What is your business or occupation?

A. I'm a retired high school teacher.

Q. You're currently serving on the

24 Kankakee County Board?

0273

A. Yes.

Q. How long have you served?

A. I was appointed to fill George

4 Hoffman's term. I took the position October

5 of 2003.

Q. So this would have been shortly after

7 the siting application that was filed on

8 September 26th, 2003, is that correct?

A. I believe that is correct.

Q. Did you attend any of the hearings on

11 the 2003 siting application?

A. Yes.

Q. And did you vote on the 2003 siting

14 application?

A. The 2003 -- the vote came in 2004?

Q. Yes.

A. That is correct.

Q. The vote was on March 17th, 2004?

A. That is correct, yes.

Q. And did you vote on each of the

21 statutory criteria?

A. Yes.

Q. And how did you vote on those

24 statutory criteria?

0274

A. I voted negative on three and positive

2 on the remaining.

Q. And when you say three, you're talking

4 about three separate criteria?

A. That is correct.

Q. And were those criteria criteria one,

7 a need; criteria three, property value and criteria

8 six, traffic?

A. I believe so.

MR. PORTER: I would suggest that the

roll call vote speaks for itself, but in

reality it was one, two and three.

MR. MORAN: And we will submit that

roll call vote. I apologize for not doing

that.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Thank you,

Mr. Moran.

18 BY MR. MORAN:

Q. Mr. Scholl, prior to the vote on

20 March 17th, 2004, did you receive any phone calls

21 regarding the proposed expansion?

A. Prior to the vote?

Q. Yes.

A. Yes.

0275

Q. How many phone calls did you receive?

A. I received one phone call.

Q. From whom?

A. It was from a trucking business that

5 was in support of the landfill.

Q. And was that call received at your

7 home?

A. Yes, it was.

Q. Do you know an individual by the name

10 of Bruce Harrison?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. Who is Mr. Harrison?

A. Bruce was a former student of mine in

14 Hersher High School.

Q. Did you have any discussions with

16 Mr. Harrison about the proposed expansion?

A. I wouldn't label it as a discussion,

18 but at the Quality Inn he came up and introduced

19 himself and made comments expressing his opposition

20 to the siting.

Q. And he expressed those statements to

22 you during a break in the hearings?

A. Before the hearings actually started.

Q. Before the hearings began?

0276

A. Yeah.

Q. And you recognized Mr. Harrison as

3 your former student?

A. I recognized -- physically I

5 recognized him, but I couldn't put a name with him

6 and he came up and introduced himself.

Q. Did he provide any reasons as to why

8 he was opposed to the proposed expansion?

A. The one thing that was mentioned was

10 the clutter at the present site.

Q. Was there any discussion about receipt

12 of out of county waste?

A. No.

Q. Had you seen the signs that appeared

15 throughout the community and in and around the area

16 of the existing landfill that said no dump, no

17 Chicago garbage?

A. Driving anywhere in the Kankakee area

19 you would see the signs, yes.

Q. So during that period from January

21 through March 17th and maybe afterwards -- shortly

22 afterwards in 2004, you saw those signs all over the

23 Kankakee area?

A. They are still there, yes. Some of

0277

1 them are still there.

Q. Could you estimate for us how many

3 different signs you saw during that period?

A. I wouldn't have any idea.

Q. More than 50?

A. I wouldn't say that many, no.

Q. Somewhere between 20 and 40?

A. I really would not have any idea.

9 There's small signs stuck in different yards.

Q. And all of them said no dump, no

11 Chicago garbage?

A. I would not say all of them said that.

13 The ones -- the green ones which were obvious, that

14 was a slogan on those signs, yes.

Q. What did that message mean to you?

A. What did it mean to me?

MR. PORTER: Objection, irrelevant.

It also delves into mental impressions of a

Board member. We're not going to allow

questioning as to whether or not an ex parte

communication affected their decision or

prejudiced their decision --

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: I don't

know if Mr. Moran could rephrase that

0278

question or you meant to, otherwise I sustain

Mr. Porter's objection.

3 BY MR. MORAN:

Q. Did you have any understanding as to

5 what the sign no dump, no Chicago garbage meant?

MR. PORTER: Same objection. What his

understanding was is his mental impression.

Again, I'm reluctant to make the objection,

however, because I believe that -- you know

what, I'm going to withdraw the objection.

Withdrawn.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Go ahead,

Mr. Scholl.

14 BY THE WITNESS:

A. I would basically, as it says, didn't

16 -- did they have any affect on me, no.

MR. MORAN: I'm going to move to

strike that answer. It wasn't my question.

19 BY MR. MORAN:

Q. All I asked was, do you have any

21 understanding as to what the sign no dump, no

22 Chicago garbage meant?

A. I assume it means precisely what it

24 said, no out of county garbage.

0279

Q. Did you receive any letters or written

2 materials regarding the proposed expansion prior to

3 March 17th, 2004?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. How many such letters did you receive?

A. I could not put a numerical number or

7 count on it. There were quite a few of them. I put

8 the letters in a manilla envelope and that was it.

Q. Did you read any of the letters?

A. I glanced to see what they pertained

11 to and put them in the folder.

Q. And what did you do with them?

A. It is my recollection I brought them

14 into the county clerk's office.

Q. The letter that you did open and read,

16 did you --

A. Excuse me. I did not read it. I

18 glanced at the letters.

Q. In your glancing at a letter, were you

20 able to determine whether the author was in support

21 of or opposed to the proposed expansion?

A. Those which I noticed would be opposed

23 to it.

Q. And you can't identify for us an

0280

1 approximate number of letters you received?

A. No.

Q. Did you receive any thank you notes

4 after you voted to deny the application on

5 March 17th?

A. Yes.

Q. How many?

A. That, again, I would not put a number

9 on them.

Q. Was it about the same number as the

11 letters you got prior to the vote?

A. There were quite a few, but other than

13 that, I could not put a number on it.

Q. Do you know the names of any of the

15 individuals who sent you thank you notes?

A. No.

Q. Did you say you turned those thank you

18 notes into the clerk as well?

A. No, I did not.

Q. You just threw those away?

A. Yes.

Q. And you received those thank you notes

23 some time between March 17th, 2004 and April 13th,

24 2004?

0281

A. That is possible.

Q. Did you observe any picketing that

3 occurred on March 17th of 2004?

A. Yes.

Q. How many picketers did you observe?

A. There were people in front of the

7 building and in the alleyway. A number, I could not

8 give you a number.

Q. Were they carrying signs?

A. Yes, they were.

Q. What did the signs say?

A. There were a variety of different

13 signs is all that I noticed.

Q. Were all the signs opposed to the

15 proposed expansion?

A. I believe so.

Q. Did you talk to any of the people who

18 were picketing?

A. Yes.

Q. How many of the people did you talk

21 to?

A. Coming up the alley I said good

23 evening to a couple that was there, I spoke -- Bruce

24 waved at me and I waved at him and that was about

0282

1 the extent of it.

Q. You said good evening to them, but

3 wasn't the vote in the morning on March 17th?

A. Good morning. It is evening now.

5 Yes, you're correct.

Q. After the March 17th, 2004 vote, have

7 you talked to any persons, other than your lawyers

8 and other than me about your vote on that day?

A. About the vote, no.

Q. Did any persons stop by your house to

11 talk about the proposed expansion?

A. Yes.

Q. When did that occur?

A. It was prior to the vote. I couldn't

15 give you a date when it occurred, but I informed the

16 individual that I could not speak to them about this

17 topic.

Q. Who was the person?

A. I just got his name tonight. It was

20 Mark.

Q. I'm sorry?

A. Mark. I don't know his last name.

Q. Mark Benoitt?

A. I don't know the last name.

0283

Q. He came to your house some time prior

2 to March 17th, 2004. Do you know how far in advance

3 of March 17th; a couple of weeks, couple of days?

A. A couple of days I would imagine. I

5 really couldn't give you the date.

Q. Did he come during the week or on the

7 weekend?

A. Evening.

Q. During the week or weekend?

A. I think it was during the week.

Q. He came unannounced?

A. Yeah.

Q. You didn't invite him?

A. No.

Q. What did he say to you?

A. He introduced himself and asked if he

17 could speak to me about the dump and I informed him

18 that we are ex parte or under court order and we

19 couldn't discuss it.

Q. What else did he say to you?

A. He was concerned or didn't understand

22 why that was the case, but that was the case and was

23 respectful of it and shortly thereafter left.

Q. Did he make any statements to you

0284

1 indicating why he was opposed to the proposed

2 expansion?

MR. PORTER: Objection, assumes facts

not in evidence.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Terry, can

you read that back, please?

(Whereupon, the requested

portion of the record

was read accordingly.)

MR. PORTER: I didn't hear the witness

testify that that individual ever said he was

opposed.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: I'll allow

you to answer. Overruled. If you're able.

15 BY THE WITNESS:

A. Can you rephrase that or is the

17 question was he -- did he speak in opposition to?

18 BY MR. MORAN:

Q. My question was, did he state any

20 reason to you as to why he was opposed to the

21 proposed expansion?

MR. PORTER: Same objection.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Overruled.

24 BY THE WITNESS:

0285

A. At that time, no.

2 BY MR. MORAN:

Q. Did he at some subsequent time tell

4 you the reasons why he was opposed to the proposed

5 expansion?

MR. PORTER: Same objection. We're

assuming that this individual is opposed. I

still haven't heard that testimony yet.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Mr. Moran?

MR. MORAN: He indicated not at that

time. We had somebody coming over and

wanting to talk about the landfill who is

Mark Benoitt apparently. Mark Benoitt is

someone who is opposed to the landfill.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: You know,

I'll let you continue if you wrap it up in a

hurry.

MR. MORAN: That's what we're looking

to do.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Okay.

Terrific. Mr. Scholl?

22 BY THE WITNESS:

A. At a subsequent time he brought some

24 literature over that was off the internet pertaining

0286

1 to landfills and a problem with capping of

2 landfills.

3 BY MR. MORAN:

Q. And was this material supportive of

5 the proposed expansion?

A. It had nothing do with the proposed

7 expansion. It was just waste landfills per se.

Q. Was it information or literature which

9 supported the development of a landfill or opposed

10 the development of a landfill?

MR. PORTER: I'm going to object to

relevancy if this was brought in after

March 17, 2004.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Mr. Moran?

MR. MORAN: We don't know when it was

brought in.

MR. PORTER: Well, I think he needs to

lay that foundation.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Sustained.

20 BY MR. MORAN:

Q. Mr. Scholl, when Mr. Benoitt first

22 came to your home unannounced, did you have any

23 reason to believe that he was opposed to the

24 proposed expansion?

0287

A. No.

Q. Did you know whether he was in support

3 of the proposed expansion or opposed when he came to

4 your house the first time?

A. I did not -- I didn't know the man and

6 I didn't know his position.

Q. And you still didn't make any

8 determination as to his position after he left your

9 house that day, is that correct?

A. I reached an assumption, but I don't

11 recollect that he said specifically he was opposed

12 to it, but it was my assumption he was opposed to

13 the landfill.

Q. What was the basis for your

15 assumption?

A. The only people who requested to speak

17 pertaining to the landfill were opposed to it.

Q. The only people who requested to speak

19 to you?

A. That's correct.

Q. When did Mr. Benoitt then provide this

22 information to you in written form regarding

23 landfill capping?

A. It was a week or two later.

0288

Q. Was it prior to March 17th, 2004?

A. No, it was after.

Q. Was it prior to April 13th, 2004?

A. That is very possible.

Q. What did you do with the written

6 material that he gave you?

A. The written material was in my den and

8 I looked it over after -- after it was presented to

9 me.

Q. And you said the material was critical

11 of a means for capping landfills?

A. Material that was -- pointed out flaws

13 in the current landfill theory concept.

Q. So basically it was critical of the

15 very concept of landfill design?

A. Yes.

Q. How many pages of material did he give

18 to you?

MR. PORTER: Again, I'm going to

object to relevancy. The decision was

March 17th, 2004. On April 13th, 2004 all

that was up was a motion to renew

reconsideration which did not pass, so they

never even got to the issue of whether or not

0289

they -- they never voted again. All they

voted on is whether or not they were going to

renew consideration and that never passed.

MR. MORAN: The decision was not

final. It was a determination made on the

13th of April which rendered finality to that

decision that it was made on March 17th.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: The

decision was made on March 17th, but there

was only a motion up on, was it April 13th, a

motion to renew --

MR. MORAN: Consideration of vote,

yes.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Which the

vote -- there was a motion -- the vote went

against the motion to reconsider, so they

didn't even reconsider.

MR. MORAN: The vote was a tie.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: But,

again, they didn't reconsider so...

MR. MORAN: That's correct.

MR. PORTER: And the motion was

brought by Waste Management itself, so you

can't extend no ex parte rule as an applicant --

0290

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: I agree.

I would sustain Mr. Porter's objection.

3 BY MR. MORAN:

Q. Do you still have the material Mr.

5 Benoitt gave you?

A. I made copies of it before I returned

7 it to him. Where the copies are in my files -- my

8 files right now, my file cabinet is a nightmare. I

9 could not pinpoint it, no.

Q. Did you have any further discussions

11 with Mr. Benoitt about the 2003 application other

12 than what you've told us thus far?

MR. PORTER: If it's post March 17th,

2000, I have to make the same objection.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Mr. Moran?

MR. MORAN: We don't know.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Could you

be more specific saying have you had any

other questions with the witness prior to

March 17th, 2004 or earlier than that. I

agree with Mr. Porter. Pretty much anything

that happens after March 17th is irrelevant.

23 BY MR. MORAN:

Q. Were there any other discussions with

0291

1 Mr. Benoitt prior to March 17th, 2004 other than

2 what you've testified to?

A. No.

MR. MORAN: I'd like to make an offer

of proof with respect to communications that

occurred after March 17th, but before

April 13th, 2004 with Mr. Benoitt.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Mr. Porter?

MR. PORTER: I don't know how I could

possibly object to an offer of proof.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: In this

instance I accept your offer of proof. You

may proceed.

MR. HELSTEN: Mr. Halloran, my only

problem with that is we've had rulings which

were told to me by Mr. Porter by you which I

think are proper with respect to offers of

proof for before March 17th. Now, I'm not

sure what the relevancy of anything that

transpired after March 17th, 2003 is because

I can't physically in any way conjure up or

discern how something that happened three

weeks later after the vote which is the

issue, the seminal issue in this case, would

0292

be critical to that vote which took place

three weeks earlier. Put a different way,

unless Mr. Scholl was clairvoyant and knew on

March 17th, 2003 that three weeks later he

was going to get another contact from

Mr. Benoitt, what's the possible relevancy of

something that happened three weeks after the

fact?

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Well, I

think if you would have been here,

Mr. Helsten, earlier I did base my decision

regarding the privilege issue that there was

no reasonable probability of its

admissibility. Now, there could be a

reasonable probability of its admissibility.

Secondly, I don't think relevance is as -- I

think the privilege issue is weightier than

the relevance issue and I'm not going down

this avenue every time regarding, you know,

what we're arguing about now. These briefs

were handed to me earlier with the motion to

compel. I did research on it. Again,

privilege is a lot weightier than the

relevancy issue. I would fully respect deny,

0293

overrule and allow Mr. Moran to go forward

with his offer of proof.

MR. MORAN: Thank you.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Thank you.

5 BY MR. MORAN:

Q. Mr. Scholl, you indicated that you

7 have kept the materials that Mr. Benoitt brought you

8 with respect to the capping of landfills, is that

9 correct?

A. To the best of my knowledge.

Q. Did you have any discussion with him

12 regarding those materials on or after the date that

13 he presented them to you?

A. After the second time he came, we sat

15 around and had a general discussion, yes.

Q. About the materials he had given you?

A. To some extent about the materials.

18 Correction, again, I would not say it was about

19 materials. I don't know if I had read them at that

20 point, but he did come and we had a general

21 conversation.

Q. Did he say anything to you in

23 explaining these materials or describing the

24 materials he was handing to you at that time?

0294

A. Not to my recollection.

Q. He didn't tell you this is material

3 that will show that landfills can't properly be

4 built because you can't cap it properly and there's

5 some issues that are raised in this material, he

6 didn't say that to you or something like that?

A. He could have said something like

8 that. Verbatim, I would not -- I really don't know

9 the extent of his remarks.

Q. Did you have any reason to know what

11 his purpose was in giving you those materials?

A. I assumed, not knowing the individual

13 at the time, that he was interested in conservation

14 and I'm interested in conservation.

Q. Well, it would be fair to say that he

16 was also interested in opposing this expansion and

17 persuading you to continue to do the same?

A. That would be a fair assessment, yes.

Q. Did you send a copy of the these

20 written materials to anyone at the county?

A. No.

Q. Did you advise anyone at the county

23 that you received these materials?

A. No.

0295

MR. MORAN: That would include my

offer of proof.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Thank you.

MR. MORAN: With that, I have no

further questions of this witness.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Who witness

is it?

MR. PORTER: I'll go.

C R O S S E X A M I N A T I O N

by Mr. Porter

Q. If I understood your direct testimony,

12 you had one communication with Mr. Harrison in the

13 breaks during the hearings, is that right?

A. That is correct.

Q. Was anything that Mr. Harrison said to

16 you different than what he said to the public during

17 the hearings?

A. Not to my recollection, no.

Q. Did you ever approach Mr. Harrison or

20 any member of the public and ask them for their

21 opinion concerning the application while it was

22 pending?

A. No.

Q. Did you feel threatened or intimidated

0296

1 by anything Mr. Harrison said?

A. No.

Q. There was reference to some letters

4 that you received and I'm sorry, refresh my

5 recollection, did you read those letters?

A. No.

Q. Did you feet threatened or intimidated

8 by receipt of those letters?

MR. MORAN: Objection. Here again

we're getting into an area where he's asking

to what extent somebody considered certain

factors in deciding this application. We're

being selective in what we allow to be

answered and not answered.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: I thought

I've already ruled on that and I like to be

somewhat consistent in my rulings. So I

would overrule your objection. You may

answer. The witness may answer if he so

chooses.

21 BY MR. PORTER:

Q. Did you feel threatened or intimidated

23 by the receipt of those letters?

A. No.

0297

Q. I believe there was some mention of

2 yard signs in your direct. Did you see the yard

3 signs?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you feet threatened or intimidated

6 by yard signs?

MR. MORAN: Same objection. Now he's

asking did you consider these yard signs, but

he's phrasing it in terms of were you

intimidated or threatened by a yard sign,

which is just a non-sensical question. It's

really intended, I think, to ask did you

consider them? Where are we going?

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Mr. Porter?

MR. PORTER: Again, I'm not asking

whether or not this individual considered

them in coming to his decision on Waste

Management's application. I'm merely asking

whether or not he was threatened by them. If

they're completely irrelevant, then so be it.

If there is some relevancy to them, I at

least get to ask if he was threatened by the

fact that he saw these yard signs.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Objection

0298

overruled. You may answer, Mr. Scholl.

2 BY THE WITNESS:

A. Not at all.

4 BY MR. PORTER:

Q. And finally, were you threatened or

6 intimidated by seeing picketers?

A. No.

MR. MORAN: Objection.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Overruled.

MR. PORTER: Nothing further.

R E D I R E C T E X A M I N A T I O N

by Mr. Moran

Q. When Mr. Porter asked you if you were

14 threatened or intimidated by some signs that you had

15 read, did you understand that to mean that you were

16 being asked whether you were physically threatened

17 by the existence of those signs or did you

18 understand that to mean something else?

A. Physically threatened is -- it's an

20 inanimate object. Was I threatened by the sign

21 content, no.

Q. I'm just trying to see what you

23 understood his question to be when he said were you

24 threatened or intimidated by a sign. Did you view

0299

1 that as a question asking you if you were physically

2 at risk as a result of this sign being put in

3 someplace where you could read it?

A. No, I did not interpret it in that

5 manner.

Q. In what way did you interpret it?

A. Did it jeopardize my opinion or did it

8 sway my opinion.

MR. MORAN: Thank you, Mr. Scholl.

I'm going to renew my objection to those

questions because clearly the intent of that

question, the way this witness understood it,

was not am I physically threatened or

intimidated by a sign, but did I take that

sign into account, did I consider it, did

that somehow jeopardize my decision in this

case and that's entirely improper based upon

what you've ruled and now he's been able to

ask all those questions and get all the

answers from all these individuals on a

question that used language that was not as

it appeared.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: If I can

interrupt, Mr. Moran. I think -- was

0300

Mr. Keller on the stand a while ago? I think

it was Mr. Keller when you were asking him

whether he felt threatened by the language in

there, whether he can be replaced -- was it

Mr. Keller? No. He was a stone cutter. Who

was the other gentleman up here? Mr. Romein.

MR. MORAN: The only people I've asked

about being intimidated with respect to

statements made about whether -- and whether

they were threats about individuals working

against his re-election if he voted against

the landfill.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: I think

it's all inclusive. I think it's a --

however you case it -- well, you can make all

the faces you want, Mr. Moran, but in any

event, your objection is overruled.

MR. MORAN: I have nothing further.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Thank you.

MR. PORTER: I have no follow-up.

Thank you very much.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: You may

step down, sir. Mr. Moran, your ninth

witness, I believe.

0301

(Mr. Meents was sworn in.)

D I R E C T E X A M I N A T I O N

by Mr. Moran

Q. Good afternoon.

A. Good afternoon.

Q. Could you tell us your name and spell

7 your last name for the court reporter?

A. My first name is Edwin, my middle

9 initial is W, last name is Meents, M-E-E-N-T-S.

Q. What is your address, Mr. Meents?

A. 1905 North Spring View Lane, Kankakee.

Q. How long have you lived there?

A. Forty-two plus years.

Q. Are you a member of the Kankakee

15 County Board?

A. I have been.

Q. For what period did you serve on the

18 Kankakee County Board?

A. From 2003 I believe it is through --

20 12 years ending December 1st of this year -- 2002 --

21 I came on December of 2002.

Q. So you were a board member when the

23 County Board voted on the 2002 siting application to

24 expand the existing Waste Management landfill, is

0302

1 that correct?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Did you attend any of the public

4 hearings on that 2002 application?

A. Yes.

Q. And did you vote on the 2002

7 application?

A. Yes.

Q. And you voted on January 31st, 2003?

A. Yes.

Q. Prior to January 31st, 2003, did you

12 receive any phone calls regarding the proposed

13 expansion?

A. One.

Q. From whom did you receive it?

A. Mr. Harrison.

Q. This was prior to the 2002

18 application?

A. No, no, you said 2003.

Q. I'm sorry. Let me make it clear.

I'm talking now about the vote

22 which took place on January 31st, 2003. Prior to

23 January 31st, 2003, did you receive any phone calls

24 regarding the proposed expansion?

0303

A. No.

Q. Prior to January 31st, 2003, did you

3 receive any letters or any other written materials

4 regarding the proposed expansion?

A. Yes.

Q. What materials or letters did you

7 receive prior to January 31st, 2003 with regard to

8 the proposed expansion?

MR. PORTER: I object. I believe

you've already ruled on that.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Would you

read that question back, please, Terry?

(Whereupon, the requested

portion of the record

was read accordingly.)

MR. PORTER: That, again, was the

previous application. I believe you

overruled my objection to that. I do object.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Overruled.

MR. PORTER: I've got to make a

record.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: You may

answer, sir.

24 BY THE WITNESS:

0304

A. This is the second landfill, if I'm

2 understanding it?

3 BY MR. MORAN:

Q. No. We're taking now about the

5 January 31st, 2003 vote which would have been the

6 first vote on the first application.

A. Yes, I did receive letters.

Q. You received letters prior to

9 January 31st, 2003?

A. Yes.

Q. My question was, how many letters or

12 written materials did you receive?

A. I didn't count them. I had a number

14 of them.

Q. Less than ten?

A. Possibly. I didn't read them, didn't

17 count them, brought them into the county.

Q. And you appeared in this building on

19 January 31st, 2003 to vote on the 2002 application,

20 correct?

A. Correct.

Q. On that day, were there any picketers

23 outside the County Board building that were here

24 because of the vote on the proposed expansion?

0305

A. Yes.

Q. Again, this is January 31st, 2003, not

3 the second application?

MR. HELSTEN: Mr. Hearing Officer,

could I make a suggestion?

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Yes, sir.

MR. HELSTEN: Don, rather than

referring to the date of the vote, it might

be clearer if you say the vote on the first

application versus the vote on the second

application, which is the subject of today's

hearing because I think as I'm seeing the

back and forth, the confusion is the 2002

date because there was both a vote on the

first application that took place in 2002 and

your filing of the second application -- I

mean in 2003 and your filing of the

application was in 2003 and therein lies the

confusion.

MR. MORAN: Well, that's fine. I've

just been trying for this whole hearing to be

consistent in calling it the 2002

application, 2003 application. I can call it

the first application and the second

0306

application.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: I've been

following it. I think some of the witnesses

have had trouble. Whatever you choose,

Mr. Moran.

6 BY MR. MORAN:

Q. Let's go back, Mr. Meents. We're

8 talking about the first application. The date of

9 that vote was January 31st, 2003. On that date, did

10 any picketers appear?

A. I did not see any.

Q. When you thought there were picketers

13 who appeared with regard to the proposed expansion,

14 you were talking about the vote on the second

15 application which occurred on March 17th, 2004?

A. Yes.

Q. And how many picketers did you see on

18 that date?

A. Probably 45, 50.

Q. And where were they located?

A. In the front of the building, side of

22 the building.

Q. Were they carrying signs?

A. Yes.

0307

Q. What did the signs say?

A. I really didn't look at them, sir.

Q. Was it your understanding that the

4 picketers were here to oppose the proposed

5 expansion?

A. Yes.

Q. And what was the basis for your

8 conclusion that they were opposed?

A. Because of their chants, their

10 comments.

Q. The comments they made to you?

A. Yes.

Q. What were those comments?

A. No vote for the dump.

Q. Did you talk to any of the picketers

16 beyond the comments they made to you?

A. As I walked in, I was one of the first

18 ones in the building that day and I said good

19 morning ladies and gentlemen and that was my only

20 comment and came up to this floor.

Q. If we can just go back for a moment to

22 my question about the letters you received. Again,

23 going back to the first application, did you receive

24 any letters or written materials prior to

0308

1 January 31st of 2003 regarding the first

2 application?

A. No.

Q. So when you said you received letters

5 and written materials, you were talking about having

6 received letters and materials prior to March 17th,

7 2004 that related to the second application?

A. Correct.

Q. Is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, was it your understanding that

12 the first application in 2002 and the second

13 application in 2003 were essentially the same?

MR. PORTER: Same objection as before,

it calls not only for deliberative process,

it's really a legal conclusion that the

Pollution Control Board will have to make.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN:

Overruled.

20 BY THE WITNESS:

A. The question please?

MR. MORAN: Could you repeat it back?

MR. PORTER: Same objections so I

don't have to interrupt.

0309

(Whereupon, the requested

portion of the record

was read accordingly.)

4 BY THE WITNESS:

A. Yes, they were essentially the same,

6 but there was some variances in them.

7 BY MR. MORAN:

Q. There was some additional data that

9 was submitted in support of the criteria, correct?

A. There was additional data, yes.

Q. Mr. Meents, how did you vote on the

12 first siting application in January of 2003?

A. I voted in favor of it.

Q. And how did you vote on the second

15 application in March of 2004?

A. I voted no on three criteria.

Q. Were those criteria criterion one,

18 three and five?

A. Yes.

MR. MORAN: Mr. Halloran, at this

point I would simply request that the

questions I had asked of Ms. Hertzberger be

asked of this witness with the modification

that instead of the five criteria I asked her

0310

about, just restrict it to the three criteria

I just identified here on which Mr. Meents

has indicated he changed his vote from a yes

to a no.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: And I think

Mr. Porter agreed with that?

MR. PORTER: Correct.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Okay. The

record will so note. Thank you.

10 BY MR. MORAN:

Q. Mr. Meents, prior to March 17th, 2004

12 I think you indicated you received a number of

13 letters or other written materials, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. And that those letters or written

16 materials you concluded to be in opposition to the

17 proposed expansion, is that correct?

A. I can't conclude that because I did

19 not open the envelopes.

Q. You didn't open any of them?

A. No, sir.

Q. You simply took those and did what

23 with them?

A. Brought them into the county clerk.

0311

Q. How did you know those letters even

2 related to the proposed expansion?

A. Sir, I have received a number of

4 letters in my lifetime. I know my district. I know

5 the county. I know people who give me or send me

6 letters. These letters were not in the vein of my

7 normal receipt of letters.

Q. When you say they weren't in your

9 normal vein of receipt of letters, could you tell us

10 what you mean by that?

A. Yes. Because I get letters from

12 various other organizations, people that I have done

13 business with in the past and I could tell from the

14 return addresses where they were coming from.

Q. So based on the return addresses of

16 these letters you determined that the letters

17 related to the proposed expansion?

A. True.

Q. In your time on the County Board have

20 you ever received the number of letters on an issue

21 that you received with respect to this proposed

22 expansion?

A. In my 12 years of being on the Board I

24 had received approximately five letters outside of

0312

1 the landfill hearings.

Q. And in this one proceeding you

3 received more than five letters?

A. Far more, yes.

Q. Far more, although you weren't sure

6 how many more?

A. No.

Q. I believe you said in response to an

9 earlier question that prior to March 17th, 2004 you

10 received a phone call?

A. True.

Q. Regarding the proposed expansion, is

13 that right?

A. There was a phone call from

15 Mr. Harrison asking me to go to breakfast.

Q. This is Mr. Bruce Harrison?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And did you receive this phone call at

19 home?

A. Yes.

Q. And what did Mr. Harrison say to you

22 in this phone conversation?

A. He asked if we could go to breakfast.

Q. Did he say what he wanted to go to

0313

1 breakfast about?

A. I attended the hearings, I had an idea

3 what he wanted and I said we are not going to talk

4 about the landfill.

Q. Did you agree to go to breakfast with

6 him?

A. Yes.

Q. Did he indicate to you any other

9 subjects of discussion at this breakfast other than

10 the landfills that you agreed to go to with him?

A. Our children had common schooling and

12 friendships, he had been a neighbor of ours and was

13 inquiring about the kids.

Q. So you agreed to go to breakfast with

15 him?

A. Yes.

Q. And, again, this was some time prior

18 to March 17th?

A. Yes.

Q. Was it after the public hearings

21 concluded in January of 2004?

A. Yes.

Q. And did you go meet Mr. Harrison at a

24 restaurant?

0314

A. Yes.

Q. What restaurant?

A. Uncle Bill's over on North Fifth

4 Avenue.

Q. Do you remember what day of the week

6 you met him?

A. No, sir.

Q. Was it during the week or weekend?

A. During the week.

Q. What time did you meet with him?

A. 7:00 o'clock in the morning.

Q. What did Mr. Harrison say to you

13 during your breakfast meeting?

A. Well, I asked Mr. Duane Bertram, a

15 County Board member to go with me so that I wouldn't

16 be trapped into talking about the landfill and have

17 questions and Mr. Harrison started to address the

18 question and I told him we're not going to talk

19 about the landfill, we can talk about the family and

20 that, but we're not talking about the landfill.

Q. Having told him that, did he continue

22 to talk about the proposed expansion?

A. He tried, but each time he was cut

24 off.

0315

Q. Did he have any documents or books or

2 materials with him?

A. No.

Q. How long did this breakfast meeting

5 last?

A. It lasted a little bit longer than

7 Reverend Wilson's. Approximately 45 minutes.

Q. And each of you had breakfast?

A. Yes.

Q. How did the meeting end?

A. Cordial.

Q. And who paid for the breakfast?

A. I did.

Q. Did you have any subsequent

15 discussions with Mr. Harrison?

A. No, sir.

Q. You haven't talked to him since that

18 breakfast meeting, is that correct?

A. A conversation, no.

Q. Did you receive any phone calls from

21 Mr. Harrison after your meeting with him?

A. No.

Q. Did you receive any letters or other

24 communications from Mr. Harrison after your meeting?

0316

A. No.

Q. During the course of your conversation

3 with him at Bill's Diner, did he make any statement

4 about having talked to any other County Board

5 members?

A. No.

Q. Did he make any statement about having

8 talked with Ed Smith?

A. No.

Q. Did he make any statements or comments

11 about the rules that you were given on ex parte

12 communications?

A. Rephrase the question, please.

Q. Did Mr. Harrison say anything to you

15 about the rules on ex parte communications and

16 whether they applied to him or to you in

17 discussions about the proposed expansion?

A. The same answers as before, I told him

19 we were not going to discuss the Waste Management

20 proposal.

Q. I understand that's what you said to

22 him, but I'm saying in terms of what he said to you,

23 even though you told him that, did he say to you you

24 don't need to worry about these ex parte rules, I

0317

1 can still talk to you, anything like that?

A. No.

Q. Did he state to you in any way why he

4 opposed the proposed expansion?

A. We didn't get there.

Q. So at no point did he say anything

7 about why he opposed the expansion? Even though you

8 told him you couldn't hear it, did he say it to you

9 and then you told him I can't consider it?

A. He expressed an opinion, yes, that it

11 was unsafe.

Q. Did he explain why he believed the

13 proposed expansion was unsafe?

A. Not really because we didn't get into

15 the subject.

Q. Did he say anything else about the

17 proposed expansion other than it was unsafe?

A. No.

Q. How many times did you have to tell

20 him that you couldn't hear or listen to what he was

21 saying, half a dozen times?

A. Maybe seven or eight times.

Q. And did you say that each time in

24 response to his statement about why he was opposed?

0318

A. I presumed he wanted an answer to his

2 statement and I said I wasn't going to discuss it.

Q. What I'm asking you about are his

4 statements, the statements that you may have cut him

5 off on, the statements he made to you, in addition

6 to the one that the expansion was unsafe, what did

7 he say to you before you were able to tell him --

8 and after you told him and after he just didn't

9 listen about what was wrong with the proposed

10 expansion?

A. I don't recall what those were.

Q. But he did say other things to you?

A. Yes.

Q. You just don't remember what they

15 were, is that accurate?

A. Correct.

Q. Did you have any discussions with

18 Mr. Ron Thompson?

A. Define discussion.

Q. Well, any communication or

21 conversation with Mr. Thompson prior to March 17th,

22 2004?

MR. PORTER: I object unless it has

something to do with the landfill

0319

application.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Mr. Moran?

MR. MORAN: Well, we can certainly

limit it to any discussion about the proposed

expansion prior to March 17th, 2004.

6 BY THE WITNESS:

A. Yes.

8 BY MR. MORAN:

Q. How many such discussions did you have

10 with Mr. Thompson?

A. Two that I recall.

Q. And did these discussions occur

13 between the end of the public hearings and the

14 March 17th vote?

A. They were not discussions. They were

16 comments.

Q. Well, were they situations where he

18 made statement to you or you made statements to him?

A. Single sentence statements, yes.

Q. Let's focus on the first of these

21 statements. Who made the statement?

A. It was at the second hearing, I

23 believe it was possibly the last day, one of the

24 last days of the hearing when Mr. Thompson spoke --

0320

1 not as a sworn witness, but as a witness -- what do

2 I want to say, from the audience, and afterwards he

3 made the comment what did I think of the statement

4 and I said it was a fair statement, if that's what

5 he believed.

Q. So after one of the hearing sessions

7 Mr. Thompson asked you what you thought of his

8 statement and you told him what you just said?

A. Yes.

Q. Did he say anything in response to

11 your comment?

A. Not really.

Q. You don't recall what he said?

A. Excuse me?

Q. You don't recall what he said?

A. No.

Q. And when was the second time when the

18 statement was made?

A. We go to the same church together and

20 after service one morning he asked when the date was

21 going to be for the vote here and I gave him the

22 date.

Q. Did he say anything else about the

24 proposed expansion?

0321

A. No.

Q. Were you aware that Mr. Thompson was

3 opposed to the proposed expansion?

A. I could tell that from his comments at

5 the public meeting.

MR. MORAN: I have no further

questions.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Thank you.

Mr. Porter?

MR. PORTER: Just a few quick

follow-ups.

C R O S S E X A M I N A T I O N

by Mr. Porter

Q. Why did you go to breakfast with

15 Mr. Harrison?

A. As I stated, his parents had gone to

17 school with me at Gilman, with my brother and I at

18 Gilman High School and the family lived about a

19 block away from us.

Q. And before you went to breakfast with

21 him you informed him you would not be discussing the

22 landfill?

A. True.

Q. Mr. Moran mentioned the rules that you

0322

1 were under concerning ex parte communications. Did

2 you understand you were not to have any telephone

3 contact with anyone concerning the application?

A. Yes.

Q. You had been counseled to that effect?

A. Yes.

Q. You followed that direction?

A. Other than this one phone call, if you

9 consider that a violation, I would admit to that.

Q. Well, did you talk to Mr. Harrison

11 about the substance of the application when he

12 called?

A. No.

Q. As a matter of fact, he called to

15 invite you to breakfast and you told him at that

16 time you would not discuss the application, right?

A. That's true.

Q. Likewise in regard to the letters, you

19 turned those into the county clerk?

A. Yes.

Q. In regard to Mr. Thompson, did you

22 ever discuss with him the substance of the

23 application?

A. No, sir.

0323

Q. When you spoke to him on a break at

2 the Section 39.2 hearing, did you merely comment

3 that his testimony went fine?

A. His comment was what did I think of

5 his comment and I said -- as I related before.

Q. So you never talked about the

7 substance of his comments, did you?

A. No.

Q. Likewise in church, was Mr. Thompson

10 merely asking you procedurally when the vote was

11 coming up?

A. That's correct.

Q. And you never received any direction

14 you couldn't tell members of the public what the

15 procedures were, did you?

A. Not to my knowledge.

Q. Was anything that Mr. Harrison said,

18 against your direction not to, different than what

19 he said at the hearings?

A. No.

MR. PORTER: Nothing further.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Thank you.

Mr. Moran?

R E D I R E C T E X A M I N A T I O N

0324

by Mr. Moran

Q. Mr. Meents, did you attend all the

3 public hearings?

A. No.

Q. Have you attempted to determine

6 whether what Mr. Harrison told you in your breakfast

7 meeting were comments that he at some point made

8 during the hearing?

A. I was there when he testified, yes.

Q. My question was, the statements he

11 made to you at the breakfast meeting, did you go

12 through all those statements and see --

A. No, because they were more general.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Let

Mr. Moran finish the question, please. Thank

you.

17 BY MR. MORAN:

Q. Did you take all those statements he

19 made to you at the breakfast and look to find those

20 same statements or comments in the public record as

21 statements made by Mr. Harrison? Did you do that?

A. No.

MR. MORAN: Nothing further.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Mr. Porter?

0325

R E C R O S S E X A M I N A T I O N

by Mr. Porter

Q. I believe we were cut off, I think

4 it's in the record, you were there when Mr. Harrison

5 gave a statement during the hearings, correct?

A. Yes.

MR. PORTER: Nothing further.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: You may

step down, Mr. Meents. Thank you so much.

Do any members of the public in

the back room wish to make a comment or a

statement? I know Mr. Bruck already has.

I see no hands. Mr. Bruck?

MR. BRUCK: I just want to make a

comment.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Wait. I

thought you had to go at 9:30 that's why I

called you up then and you're still sitting

here, so if you don't mind, you can make a

comment after this witness.

MR. BRUCK: Sure.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Thanks,

Mr. Bruck. Proceed, Mr. Moran. Thank you.

MR. MORAN: Thank you.

0326

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: I just want

to note for the record that there was a

motion in limine filed by Waste Management.

I made a ruling on --

MR. PORTER: I'm sorry for

interrupting, by the county.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: I'm sorry.

Anyway, I granted the county's motion in

limine. Basically it's any public statements

made by Ms. Bernard regarding her position on

proposed landfills in Kankakee County.

However, I have left the door open for

Mr. Moran and Waste Management to bring it in

as an offer of proof. You may proceed,

Mr. Moran.

MR. MORAN: Thank you.

(Ms. Bernard was sworn in.)

D I R E C T E X A M I N A T I O N

by Mr. Moran

Q. Please state your name and spell your

21 last name for the court reporter.

A. Ann Bernard, B-E-R-N-A-R-D.

Q. What is your address?

A. 54 West Dresna Drive.

0327

Q. Where is that located?

A. Kankakee. It's a Kankakee mailing

3 address.

Q. How long have you lived there?

A. Since 1990.

Q. Are you a member of the Kankakee

7 County Board?

A. Yes.

Q. For how long have you served as a

10 Kankakee County Board member?

A. Since 1996.

Q. Now, you voted on the 2002 application

13 for expansion of the existing Waste Management

14 landfill and that vote occurred on January 31st of

15 2003, is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And you voted on each of the criteria,

18 is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And you voted to deny certain of the

21 criteria, is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. So your overall vote on the 2002

24 application was to deny it?

0328

A. Well, I believe it was, but I cannot

2 attest to that because when you presented the roll

3 call sheet in the deposition, when you had that and

4 read that to me, I thought it was strange that you

5 had said I voted yes on the criteria regarding real

6 estate values and when I went to look for the roll

7 call sheet twice it was missing from the County

8 Board records. I don't know where the original is.

9 I went to Bruce Clark's office twice.

Q. Would it be accurate to say that you

11 voted against certain criteria in the first

12 application?

A. Yes. I want the record to reflect

14 when I went to look for the roll call sheet it was

15 missing.

Q. Did you also vote on the 2003

17 application or the one that was decided on

18 March 17th, 2004?

A. Yes.

Q. And you also voted against certain

21 criteria for that 2003 application, is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. So in both instances you voted against

24 the application, is that correct?

0329

A. Yes.

Q. Was it your understanding that the

3 2002 application and the 2003 application were the

4 same?

A. Well, Mr. Moran, I believe you

6 explained to us that it was essentially the same,

7 but with updates, but the thing that was essentially

8 the same was that the expansion was to be situated

9 over a major regional aquifer. That's a source of

10 drinking water. That was criteria two.

Q. And your objection to this proposed

12 expansion was that it was located over the aquifer?

MR. PORTER: I'm sorry, Mr. Halloran,

can I have the last question read back. I

don't need the response and then I have an

objection to this one.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: You may.

(Whereupon, the requested

portion of the record

was read accordingly.)

MR. PORTER: I object, that clearly

gets into the deliberative process and the

reason she voted at least as to criteria two.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Mr. Moran?

0330

MR. MORAN: She just explained that in

response to my earlier question. I'm asking

a follow-up to clarify what I believe she

just stated.

MR. PORTER: Deliberative process is

not a waiver of privilege.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: I would

sustain Mr. Porter's objection.

9 BY MR. MORAN:

Q. Ms. Bernard, were you here during

11 Mr. Runyon's testimony?

A. Today?

Q. Yes.

A. No.

Q. Do you know Mr. Runyon?

A. Yes.

Q. Who is he?

A. He's a friend of mine.

Q. How long has he been a friend of

20 yours?

A. Maybe eight years, nine years.

Q. And has Mr. Runyon talked to you

23 about the process known as closed loop gasification?

A. Yes, he has.

0331

MR. PORTER: I object unless the

communication was in the realm of Waste

management's application. Ms. Bernard is

also a member of the County Board and I have

reason to believe that those communications

had to do with a completely different

proposal that was not a landfill proposal.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Mr. Moran?

MR. MORAN: Well, I'll establish the

connection here with this application to

request an expansion.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Please do.

13 BY MR. MORAN:

Q. Ms. Bernard, you heard about this

15 closed loop gasification process from Mr. Runyon

16 during the hearings on the 2002 application, is that

17 right?

A. I believe that's correct.

Q. And that was the first time you had

20 ever heard about this process, is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Has Mr. Runyon provided to you

23 information that indicates that these facilities

24 have been established and are utilizing the closed

0332

1 loop gasification process?

MR. PORTER: Again, I have to object

because if he did it had to do with a

completely different facility, there was not

even a landfill. It's irrelevant.

MR. MORAN: Well, of course, it's not

a landfill, that's the whole point. What

we're talking about is Mr. Runyon attempting

to persuaded Ms. Bernard as to the efficacy

and propriety of an alternative to

landfilling, closed loop gasification in the

context of a proposal to site a landfill --

an expansion of a landfill.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: I think I'm

going to overrule Mr. Porter's objection.

You may proceed, Mr. Moran.

17 BY MR. MORAN:

Q. Do you recall my question?

A. Could you repeat it, please?

(Whereupon, the requested

portion of the record

was read accordingly.)

23 BY THE WITNESS:

A. I believe there might have been a

0333

1 mention of one in Barrow, Alaska.

2 BY MR. MORAN:

Q. And this was information Mr. Runyon

4 provided to you?

A. Either he provided it to me or it came

6 out in the testimony.

Q. Has Mr. Runyon stated to you that

8 closed loop gasification is an alternative to

9 landfilling?

A. I believe that was mentioned, but I

11 was looking at closed loop gasification for Pembrook

12 when Team Illinois came out in 2003 and the journal

13 wrote a story about it.

Q. In terms of what Mr. Runyon told you,

15 putting aside the issue as it related to Pembrook,

16 his statements to you were that this process was an

17 alternative to landfilling is that correct?

A. It may have come up.

MR. PORTER: Again, I have to object.

It's irrelevant if Mr. Runyon is speaking to

a County Board member concerning an entirely

different proposed facility in Pembrook,

Illinois concerning waste tires and whether

or not closed loop gasification can be used

0334

in regard to that facility.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: I have been

giving you a little latitude, Mr. Moran. I

don't know where you're going or how far

you're going on this, but I would appreciate

if you would wrap it up because it's kind of

going nowhere at this point in my mind, I'm

sure not in yours.

MR. MORAN: You're right.

10 BY MR. MORAN:

Q. Ms. Bernard, did you have any

12 communications with Mr. Runyon prior to March 17th

13 of 2004?

MR. PORTER: And, and I hate to keep

belaboring the point, but if it's regarding

Waste Management's application, that's

relevant and I have no objection, but asking

if they've had any communications before that

date is way overbroad.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Overruled.

21 BY THE WITNESS:

A. Any communications at all?

23 BY MR. MORAN:

Q. Yes.

0335

A. Yes.

Q. And with respect to those

3 communications, have any of them in any way related

4 to the proposed expansion of the Waste Management

5 landfill?

A. No.

Q. Prior to March 17th, 2004, did you

8 have any communication or discussions with Bruce

9 Harrison?

A. I believe he did try to contact me and

11 talk to me, but I made it very clear I am basing my

12 decision on the evidence that was presented at the

13 hearings.

Q. Did you have any conversations with

15 him prior to March 17th?

A. I might have because I was right in

17 the middle of very, very tough campaign.

Q. Are you saying you don't recall

19 whether you did?

A. I'm pretty sure I talked to him, but

21 the thing is, as far as the nature of the

22 conversation, the exact words, I can't recall the

23 exact details on that.

Q. So you can't recall anything about

0336

1 what he said to you or you said to him regarding the

2 proposed expansion, is that correct?

A. Well, I would say generally he made it

4 clear he's an opponent of the landfill and the one

5 thing that's sticks in my craw is that I based -- I

6 was going to base my decision on the evidence

7 presented, the testimony, and people can talk to me

8 until they're blue in the face. You know, to me it

9 was criteria two and that aquifer.

Q. Which aquifer?

A. The aquifer that the landfill would be

12 sited over.

Q. This is the silurian dolomite aquifer?

A. Uh-huh.

Q. The aquifer that underlies the entire

16 county of Kankakee?

A. Most of the county.

Q. And that was the evidence that you're

19 referring to that you considered in ruling on

20 criterion two?

MR. PORTER: I allowed some leeway

because she obviously brought up the issue,

but now we're asking direct questions about

mental impressions.

0337

MR. MORAN: Well, we have on the one

hand Board members being able to selectively

decide what they talk about in terms of what

they considered, I can't ask them, I can't

follow-up. It's seems to me that there's --

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: I'm sorry.

I'm having troubling understanding you.

Could you qualify or clarify what you're

talking about?

MR. MORAN: Yes. I'm talking about

the fact that questions can be asked of these

witnesses about what they considered or what

they believed in terms of rendering their

decision --

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Well, I

don't think that was as far as -- I think the

questions at that time, and I'm sorry to

interrupt, Mr. Moran, was did you feel

threatened and I'm ruling it was state of

mind at that time. I don't think there was

any discussion whether that figured into

their -- basing their decision on the record.

That's my recollection of what transpired and

also I do recall again that you had asked a

0338

few times of Mr. Romein regarding his state

of mind regarding the letter from, I'm not

sure whom, about whether he was threatened or

felt intimidated and that came in as I

recall, but regardless, I sustained

Mr. Porter's objection and you may proceed.

MR MORAN: I'd like to present an

offer of proof on the very question that

Ms. Bernard addressed in her explanation of a

discussion she had with Harrison regarding

criteria two.

MR. PORTER: Again, we've already had

a ruling that we're not going to do offers of

proof on questions concerning deliberative

process of a Board member.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: That's

true. You can't waive the privilege and I

believe that was my ruling as well.

19 BY MR. MORAN:

Q. Ms Bernard, am I correct in saying

21 that your recollection of your discussion with

22 Mr. Harrison is not such as to allow you to recall

23 any specifics of what you said to him?

A. I would say that's the case except I

0339

1 know that I made my decision based on the evidence.

MR. MORAN: I'll move to strike that

response and also the earlier responses that

included that volunteered answer. That in no

way was responsive to the question that I

asked.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Could you

read that back, Terry? Thank you.

(Whereupon, the requested

portion of the record

was read accordingly.)

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Mr. Porter,

any response?

MR. PORTER: No, none.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: I'm going

to allow it in.

17 BY MR. MORAN:

Q. Ms. Bernard, are you telling us that

19 you made the statement to Mr. Harrison that your

20 decision such as it was was based on the evidence

21 presented in the record?

A. Well, I don't recall the exact words,

23 but my response was something to the effect that I

24 was going to make my decision based on the evidence

0340

1 that was presented at the testimony and I told you

2 here now what that basis was.

Q. That basis was the silurian dolomite

4 aquifer?

MR. PORTER: Again, objection.

Without stepping on Mr. Halloran's toes,

Ms. Bernard, I would ask that you simply

answer the questions asked.

MS. BERNARD: Okay. All right.

MR. PORTER: I, again, object to the

last question.

MR. MORAN: She keeps saying it. She

keeps repeating it. We keep allowing it. I

can't follow-up. I don't know how else to

proceed. You've sustained it and you allowed

the testimony to continue when she just

agrees to continue to repeat.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: What

testimony is that, sir?

MR. MORAN: The testimony that she

only considered the evidence and that wasn't

the question asked and that goes specifically

to her state of mind specifically as it

relates --

0341

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Okay.

Mr. Moran, I'll give you this: I'll go back

and I'll grant your motion to strike that one

answer. Very well. It was a rather

convoluted question in my mind to begin with.

I couldn't follow it. So where are we now?

I sustained Mr. Porter's objection. Are you

satisfied with your motion to strike?

MR. MORAN: My motion to strike was

addressed to each of the instances in which

she gave --

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Well, you

have to bring those up at the time and I

don't recall you bringing them up at the

time.

MR. MORAN: I've made at least two

motions to strike.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Well,

you've got to -- and you didn't allow me to

rule on the one, you continued. You said I

move to strike and then you continued.

MR. MORAN: So just so I'm clear, your

motion to strike with respect to what she

just indicated was granted?

0342

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Was

granted, correct.

3 BY MR. MORAN:

Q. Ms. Bernard, did you have any other

5 discussions or communications with Mr. Harrison

6 about the proposed expansion other than what you've

7 testified to about thus far?

A. Not that I can recall.

Q. Did you have any communications or

10 discussions with any other person about the proposed

11 expansion prior to March 17th of 2004 about the

12 proposed expansion?

MR. PORTER: I'm going object to the

extent.

15 BY MR. MORAN:

Q. -- other than what we've already

17 indicated?

MR. PORTER: My objection is that

particular question is broad enough that it's

going to get into the motion in limine

material.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Could you

read the question back, Terry?

(Whereupon, the requested

0343

portion of the record

was read accordingly.)

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: At this

point I'm going to overrule it and see what

happens. Mr. Moran?

MR. MORAN: I'm sorry. I didn't hear

the ruling?

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: You may

proceed. I overruled Mr. Porter's objection

at this time.

11 BY THE WITNESS:

A. Can you repeat the question, please?

MR. MORAN: Could you repeat it,

please?

(Whereupon, the requested

portion of the record

was read accordingly.)

18 BY THE WITNESS:

A. Yes.

20 BY MR. MORAN:

Q. With whom?

A. I would say other County Board

23 members.

Q. Other than other County Board members,

0344

1 did you have any such discussions with any persons?

A. Probably while I was campaigning.

Q. And for what office were you

4 campaigning?

A. State representative.

Q. And during what period were you

7 campaigning for this office?

A. November 2003 to March 17th, 2004.

Q. And during the course of your campaign

10 you had communications or discussions with certain

11 persons about the 2003 application?

MR. PORTER: I'm going to object to

getting into the nature of those discussions.

I think for clarity in the record this

question calls for a yes or no and I guess I

would allow this question, but object if

you're trying to invade that -- what

Mr. Halloran has already ruled upon in

limine. Does that make sense?

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: I guess. A

yes or no, Ms. Bernard, Mr. Moran?

22 BY THE WITNESS:

A. Can you repeat the question, please?

(Whereupon, the requested

0345

portion of the record

was read accordingly.)

3 BY THE WITNESS:

A. Yes.

5 BY MR. MORAN:

Q. And your answer was yes?

A. Yes.

Q. And were these individuals citizens?

MR. PORTER: Again, I'm going to

object. Perhaps this could be done in the

offer of proof at this time. Now we're

asking for elaboration as to what those

communications entailed on the campaign

trail.

MR. MORAN: I just said were they

citizens.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: That's

true. So I overrule it at this time, but

stand ready, Mr. Porter. You may answer.

20 BY THE WITNESS:

A. Yes.

MR. MORAN: At this point it does make

sense to proceed with what I think will be

the offer of proof on the matters relating to

0346

the statements she made during her campaign

tomorrow morning. There are a number of

documents and I'm not sure how you will -- if

you will even allow me to present these

documents in the offer of proof. I would ask

to be able to do that, to go through them, to

establish them, to have her testify about

them and it appears -- the only reason I

suggest this is obviously it appears the hour

is a little late and we're all having

difficulty understanding my questions and it

may make sense to put this off until

tomorrow.

MR. PORTER: As much as I would like

to do that, Ms. Bernard has a conflict

tomorrow and needs to finish up tonight.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: I guess

there we have it, fortunately or

unfortunately. Anyway, you may proceed, Mr.

Moran.

MR. MORAN: Thank you.

22 BY MR. MORAN:

Q. Ms. Bernard, did you see the signs

24 that were posted all over the community that said no

0347

1 dump, no Chicago garbage?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you have any information as to who

4 placed those signs at various locations throughout

5 the community?

A. I would assume it would be landfill

7 opponents.

Q. Do you have any information to

9 indicate that Mr. Harrison was putting these signs

10 all over the place?

A. I think he might have been.

Q. Did he offer to give you a sign to put

13 on your property?

A. He stopped by the campaign office, I

15 believe, or -- somebody stopped by and brought

16 signs.

Q. And were those signs posted outside of

18 your campaign office?

A. I think we had one.

MR. PORTER: I'm going to object and

move to strike based on the motion in limine.

MR. MORAN: She was given a sign

probably by Mr. Harrison, elected to put it

where she thought it was appropriate. It

0348

seems to me that the sign and whatever it

means is appropriate actions that go apart

from any issue relating to prejudgement.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: I'm going

to have to agree with Mr. Porter. I'm

looking at this motion in limine and what I

ruled on it. It's basically any statements

made by Ms. Bernard and a sign in her yard or

property is a statement. So I would sustain

Mr. Porter's objection. Again, you can go in

an offer of proof if you so choose.

MR. MORAN: Well, why don't we go into

the offer of proof?

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Sounds

good.

16 BY MR. MORAN:

Q. Ms. Bernard, did you take that sign

18 that said no dump, no Chicago garbage and authorize

19 its placement at your campaign headquarters?

A. Well, we actually had a stand sign

21 that you put the letters on like a grocery store and

22 my campaign had put something like that up before

23 those other signs even came about, I believe.

Q. So you had this other sign, which is

0349

1 like the grocery store sign?

A. Right, where you put the letters.

Q. And what did that say?

A. Something like no outside garbage, no

5 Chicago garbage. You know, it's been over a year.

6 I don't recall the exact wording.

Q. And I thought you said a few moments

8 ago that the signs that were posted about the town

9 saying no dump, no Chicago garbage was also a sign

10 that your campaign or you took and then placed on

11 the property at your campaign headquarters?

A. Well, I believe I might have had a

13 small lawn sign as well because when you put out

14 political signs you have a lot of them.

Q. And the best of your recollection is

16 there was one of these signs put at your campaign

17 headquarters?

A. There was the big one and I think

19 there was a small one.

Q. With respect to the communications

21 that you had with the citizens during your campaign

22 that we've mentioned a little bit earlier today,

23 these discussions related to the proposed expansion?

A. I believe the discussions just related

0350

1 to landfills in general, environmental issues, other

2 things I was running on.

Q. Did they relate to landfills in

4 Kankakee County?

A. I mentioned some of that in my

6 campaign literature, I believe.

Q. I'm talking now about your

8 communications with the citizens.

A. Well, when I was knocking on doors if

10 it came up as a topic of discussion, it was

11 discussed, if it came up at a forum, it was

12 discussed.

Q. And were you asked by any of these

14 persons what your position was on the proposed

15 expansion of the Waste Management landfill?

A. What I would tell people is what I

17 wanted to do as a state representative in the 79th

18 District if elected.

Q. And what you would say is what you

20 intended to do with respect to the proposed

21 expansion of the Waste Management landfill?

A. No. It was to do with just, you know,

23 looking at new technologies and different things in

24 general. The Illinois solid waste plan has called

0351

1 for things like incineration, waste reduction,

2 alternative technologies and landfill has been, I

3 believe, a choice of last resort if I'm not

4 mistaken.

Q. Did anyone ask you what your position

6 was on the proposed expansion of the Waste

7 Management landfill?

A. You know, they might have. I knocked

9 on so many doors.

Q. Well, didn't Mr. Keller ask you what

11 your position was?

A. No, I don't believe so.

Q. You don't recall Mr. Keller asking you

14 that?

A. No, I don't recall that.

Q. And you don't remember any person

17 asking you at any point in time prior to the primary

18 election what your position was on the proposed

19 expansion of the existing Waste Management landfill?

A. Well, you know, it might have come up

21 in a debate and it might have come up door to door

22 and as far as I was concerned, once the hearings

23 were over, I heard the evidence I needed to hear.

Q. What was your position on the proposed

0352

1 expansion of the Waste Management landfill?

MR. PORTER: Sorry. I object. If

we're going to ask what she announced her

position to be on the election trail, I think

that could be done within the offer of proof,

but what he's doing right now is again

attempting to delve into the mental

impressions of a County Board member by back

dooring it in through this offer of proof.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Could you

read that question back, Terry?

(Whereupon, the requested

portion of the record

was read accordingly.)

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Mr. Moran?

MR. MORAN: It's an offer of proof.

We're asking her about what her position was

regarding the proposed expansion.

MR. HELSTEN: Well, Mr. Moran, is this

an offer of proof on her position as a

political candidate or are you going beyond

that? Is it limited to her position as a

candidate for office? I guess that was my

concern when I heard the question. It seems

0353

sort of open ended and maybe beyond the offer

of proof. If the offer of proof was just on

her position as -- and her activities as a

political candidate.

MR. MORAN: The question is designed

to elicit her views or belief on the proposed

expansion. It doesn't inquire as to the

mental processes by which she arrived at any

conclusion or arrived at her position or in

any way relate to the means by which she

considered whatever she considered to reach

an adjudicatory decision.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Yeah. I

don't think it right now delves into the

mental processes and is still under an offer

of proof. So at this time I am going to

overrule Mr. Porter's objection. You may

answer.

19 BY THE WITNESS:

A. Yeah. I had it in my campaign

21 literature that I was opposed to the landfills in

22 Kankakee County and making Kankakee a home for

23 regional landfills. That was in my campaign

24 literature.

0354

1 BY MR. MORAN:

Q. And that opposition was to both the

3 proposed expansion of the Waste Management landfill

4 and the proposed Town & Country landfill in Otto

5 Township, is that correct?

A. It was even beyond that because about

7 five years ago Van Drunnen (phonetic) tried to put

8 ground up garbage on his farm land and Jerry Joyce

9 has a really messy operation out on the western edge

10 of the county, there's sludge that's been spread in

11 Pembrook. I mean, there are several operations out

12 there, the Bauer operation.

MR. MORAN: Mr. Hearing Officer, if I

might approach the witness?

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: You may.

16 BY MR. MORAN:

Q. Ms. Bernard, let me show you what we

18 have marked as WMII Exhibit No. 4. Have you had a

19 chance to look through it?

A. Yeah. I don't know which part you

21 want me to look through.

Q. I guess I first just wanted you to

23 identify WMII Exhibit No. 4 for us.

A. It's the IVI-IPO 2004 general assembly

0355

1 questionnaire.

Q. Did you prepare the responses to this

3 questionnaire?

A. Yes.

Q. And all the responses are true and

6 accurate?

A. It's my words.

Q. When did you prepare these answers to

9 the questionnaire?

A. It says here January 2003, but that

11 had to be 2004.

Q. And were the answers to the

13 questionnaire submitted in January of 2004?

A. I believe it would have been some time

15 around then.

Q. I'm directing your attention,

17 Ms. Bernard, for a moment to page eight --

A. Yes.

Q. -- of Exhibit 4 the answer written to

20 question No. 44, the first full paragraph. Could

21 you read for us out loud the last two sentences in

22 that first full paragraph?

A. This answer was in regards to the

24 questions that said your comment should include --

0356

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN:

Ms. Bernard, could you slow down, please?

Thank you.

4 BY THE WITNESS:

A. This answer is in response to a

6 question that said your comments should include

7 enforcement of pollution statutes, recycling and

8 waste management. So the two sentences, just for

9 clarification, it says as far as recycling and waste

10 management, I have been an avid proponent of

11 recycling and using cleaner alternatives such as

12 closed loop gasification. Two regional landfills

13 are being proposed for --

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN:

Ms. Bernard, slow down. Thanks.

16 BY THE WITNESS:

A. I'm sorry. Two regional landfills are

18 being proposed for Kankakee County and both are

19 situated over aquifers. I oppose both proposals.

20 Neither is environmentally sound, especially over

21 the long term.

Q. And those were accurate and true

23 statements when you made them in January of 2004?

A. Yes. When I was filing out the

0357

1 campaign questionnaire.

Q. Ms. Bernard, I'm going to show you

3 what's been marked as WMII Exhibit No. 5. I'll ask

4 you to take a look at that.

MR. PORTER: Mr. Helsten's concern is

Mr. Moran is still in his offer of proof

until he tells us otherwise?

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Yes, that's

my understanding.

MR. HELSTEN: Thank you.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Thank you.

12 BY MR. MORAN:

Q. Ms. Bernard, have you seen WMII

14 Exhibit No. 5 before?

A. Yes.

Q. Can you tell us what it is?

A. It's an endorsement letter.

Q. And it was prepared by whom?

A. Leonard shakey Martin.

Q. And he's a fellow County Board member?

A. Yes.

Q. Are all the statements contained in

23 this letter accurate?

A. I would say so.

0358

Q. And this article appeared on

2 March 10th, 2004 in the Kankakee Daily Journal?

A. That's what it says here on the

4 printout.

Q. Let me show you we've marked as WMII

6 Exhibit No. 6. Take a look at that and then when

7 you've completed reviewing it, if you can identify

8 it for us.

A. I'm ready.

Q. What is it?

A. It's a page from my campaign web site.

Q. When was this prepared?

A. I believe 2004.

Q. When in 2004?

A. Probably January.

Q. Are all the statements contained in

17 WMII Exhibit No. 6 true and accurate?

A. Yes.

MR. MORAN: Mr. Halloran, that

concludes the offer of proof.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Okay.

22 BY MR. MORAN:

Q. Ms. Bernard, were you aware that the

24 county was considering an amendment to its solid

0359

1 waste plan back in 2001 to allow for the receipt of

2 out of county waste?

MR. PORTER: Objection, relevance.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Mr. Moran?

MR. MORAN: Well, we're going to an

issue that relates again to her consideration

of a siting application and whether her

position on out of county waste in some way

relates to either the 2002 application or the

2003 application.

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Mr. Porter?

MR. PORTER: The immediate question is

concerning an amendment of the solid waste

management plan, which is completely

irrelevant to not only this proceeding, but

actually would be irrelevant to the

Section 39.2 proceeding itself and whether or

not a Board member took a position in regard

to that solid waste management plan should

not be the subject of inquiry at a 40.1

hearing. Mr. Helston has reminded me that

she was sitting in her legislative capacity

at that time not her judicata capacity and

therefore it could not possibly relate to a

0360

Section 40.1 --

HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: I'm going

to sustain the objection. Mr. Moran, you

may...

5 BY MR. MORAN:

Q. Ms. Bernard, do you know Mr. Michael

7 Watson?

A. Yes.

Q. How long have you known Mr. Watson?

A. A few years.

Q. Is it your understanding that he's the

12 owner and operator of United disposal?

A. He's a garbage hauler.

Q. Are you aware that he owns property

15 adjacent to the area proposed to be developed for

16 the expansion of the Kankakee landfill?

A. I believe he might.

Q. Have you had any discussions with

19 Mr. Watson about the proposed expansion?

A. Not that I can recall.

Q. You're not denying you had any, you

22 just don't recall having any?

A. I don't recall any.

MR. MORAN: Mr. Halloran, I have no

0361