ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
October 5, 2006
COUNTY OF OGLE,
Complainant,
v.
GEORGE C. HEAL,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
AC 06-53
(Administrative Citation)
ORDER OF THE BOARD (by A.S. Moore):
In an order dated August 4, 2006, the Board accepted for hearing a petition for review
from the respondent, George Heal. Because the respondent in that petition questioned whether
the County of Ogle had adequately served him with the citation, the Board in that August 4, 2006
order also directed the parties to submit filings addressing that issue.
Today, the Board finds on the basis of its procedural rules and the facts of this case that
the County of Ogle did adequately serve the citation on the respondent. Accordingly, the Board
directs the hearing officer to proceed expeditiously to hearing.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On June 16, 2006, the County of Ogle (County) timely filed an administrative citation
against George C. Heal (respondent). On July 25, 2006, the respondent timely filed a petition
(Pet.) to contest the administrative citation. Among his grounds for contesting the citation, the
respondent stated that he was out of town at the time the citation was served upon him and that
the person who signed for the certified mail was not authorized to do so on his behalf.
In an order dated August 4, 2006, the Board accepted the respondent’s petition for
hearing but requested that the hearing officer postpone scheduling a hearing. In the same order,
the Board directed the County by August 25, 2006, to file a document addressing the issue of
adequacy of service. Also in that order, the Board allowed the respondent to file a response to
that filing by September 8, 2006.
On August 25, 2006, the County filed complainant’s response to the Board’s direction to
address adequacy of service on the respondent (Comp. Resp.). On September 11, 2006, the
respondent filed his response (Resp. Resp.), which was timely as it was mailed on or before the
filing deadline. 35 Ill. Adm. Code 101.300(b)(2).
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
2
On June 16, 2006, the County filed with the Board an administrative citation against the
respondent. On June 22, 2006, the County filed proof of service of the citation upon the
respondent. A certified mail receipt shows that, on June 15, 2006, the Ogle County State’s
Attorney mailed article number 7003 31100001 9352 1552 containing materials pertinent to this
citation to George Heal at 1581 Deerpath Lane, Franklin Grove, Illinois. The return receipt
corresponding to that article number shows that, on June 16, 2006, Laura Dahm signed for and
received that article at the Deerpath Lane address.
COMPLAINANT’S RESPONSE TO BOARD’S DIRECTION
In support of its position that it adequately served the respondent, the County argues that
“an Administrative Citation may be served upon the person complained against with written
notice by certified mail.” Comp. Resp. at 1, citing 415 ILCS 5/30
et seq
. (2004); 35 Ill. Adm.
Code 101.304. The County further argues that this citation was served upon the respondent by
certified mail. Comp. Resp. at 1;
see
Comp. Resp., Atts. A, B (certified mail records). The
County claims that, “[p]ursuant to 35 Ill. Adm. Code 101.300(c), service by certified mail is
presumed complete on the date specified on the mail receipt.” Comp. Resp. at 2.
When a statute authorizes service by certified mail, claims the County, “[d]ue process
does not require that the Complainant provide proof of actual notice or receipt by the intended
recipient for service to be effective.” Comp. Resp. at 2. Because the respondent has filed a
petition for review of the County’s allegations, the County argues that the respondent has been
served with the citation.
RESPONDENT’S RESPONSE TO BOARD’S DIRECTION
The respondent first agrees with the County’s assertion that “an Administrative Citation
may be served upon the person complained against with written notice by certified mail.” Resp.
Resp. at 1;
see
415 ILCS 5/30
et seq
. (2004); 35 Ill. Adm. Code 101.304. Characterizing the
person who accepted service of the citation as “ a complete stranger to these proceedings,” the
respondent “denies that a Citation was served upon the Respondent by certified mail because the
certified mail was accepted by a non-authorized non-member of Mr. Heal’s household.” Resp.
Resp. at 1. The respondent suggests that service is complete only if the date on the certified mail
receipt indicates the date on which the respondent received the citation.
Id
.
Although the respondent acknowledges that a citation has been filed, he argues that his
acknowledgement and petition for review do not obviate the requirement that the County
properly serve the citation. The respondent argues that “[d]ue process does require service upon
the respondent,” and that the certified mail receipt submitted by the County does not satisfy that
requirement. Resp. Resp. at 1 (emphasis in original).
BOARD DISCUSSION
Section 101.304 of the Board’s procedural rules provides that “service of enforcement
complaints and administrative citations [] must be made personally, by registered or certified
mail, or by messenger service.” 35 Ill. Adm. Code 101.304. After considering the plain
3
language of its procedural rules and the facts of this case, the Board finds that the County has
adequately served the citation. The record shows that, on June 15, 2006, the Ogle County State’s
Attorney sent the citation to George Heal at 1581 Deerpath Lane, Franklin Grove, Illinois. The
Board notes that the respondent has not claimed that the Deerpath Lane address is not his home
address.
See
Pet. at 1; Resp. Resp. at 1-2. In fact, in his petition for review, the respondent
states that the person who accepted service of the citation was “at our house taking care of our
animals.” Pet. at 1 (¶1). The State’s Attorney sent the citation by certified mail, one of the four
methods specifically authorized by Section 101.304(c) of the Board’s procedural rules.
In addition, the Board notes that the respondent has filed with the Board a timely petition
for review, which addresses the allegations made in the county’s citation. While this filing does
not itself show adequate service on the respondent, it is consistent with adequate and timely
service of the respondent by the County.
CONCLUSION
The Board finds on the basis of the facts in this case that the County has provided
adequate service of the administrative citation upon the respondent. Consequently, the Board
directs the hearing officer to proceed expeditiously to hearing consistently with the Board’s
August 4, 2006 order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
I, Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control Board, certify that the Board
adopted the above order on October 5, 2006, by a vote of 4-0.
Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
