0OFCE0
ha
Minson
SEP
15
2008
6459
Hopedale
Road
Hopedale, Ilimois
61747
POlltj
Control
Board
IllinoisClerk
of
Pollution
the
BoardControl
Board
C
7
‘
100
W.
Randolph
St.
Suite
11-500
Chicago, Illinois
60601
Re:
Case#
AS 08-10:
Objection
to
PDC
Change
description
ofKO6l
Hazardous
waste
To
the Illinois
Pollution
Control
Board,
This
is
an
objection
to
PDC
request
to
change
K061
from
Hazardous
waste
to
non-Hazardous
so
they
can
put it
in a
landfill
less
then
ten feet
above
the
Aquifer
that
supplies
all
the
surrounding
communities
with
drinking
water.
I
have
attached
documents
August
12
Hopedale
Township
Meeting
agenda,
where
PDC
presented
Resolution
to
be approved
by
the Township
Board.
The
Same
resolution,
not
on
the
agenda,
approved
on
August
12,
08,
Hopedale
supervisor
Mr.
J. Slager
presented
to
Illinois
Pollution
board.
The
attached
copy
August
12
Hopedale
township
agenda
and
copy
of
Court
ruling
that
is clear
this
resolution
between
Hopedale
Township
and
PDC
is
null
and
void
because
it
was
not
on
the agenda
and
was orchestrated
by
PDC
and
should
not
be consider
by
this
board
in
this
decision.
These
attached
Documents
support
objection
to
Allowing
Hopedale
Township
Resolution
to
this
Pollution
Control
Board:
1)
Remove
Hopedale
Township
public
body
resolutions
recommendation
written
by
PDC
because
it
is in
direct
Violation
of Illinois
law
and
back
by
an attached
4
th
Appellate
court
ruling
that clearly
states:
“if
it is
not
on
the
Agenda,
the
public
body
cannot
take
action
on
it.” On
Aug
12
Hopedale
Township
board
passed
resolution,
NOT
ON
THE
AGENDA
supporting
PDC.
2)
My
husband
and
I have
cancer
due
to residing
for
l5years
in
a
small
subdivision
build
on
an old
dumping
site on
the
south
edge
of
Pekin,
Ill
boundaries
prior
to
moving
to
rural
Hopedale.
This
information
was
discovered
recently
when
contacted
by
a
family
member
whose
mother
had
passed
due to
cancer,
this
was
also
a
newspaper
articles
on the
extremely
high
cancer
rate
among
residents
who
have
lived
in
this
small
community
due to
the
dumping
grounds
that
lie
underneath.
There
is
no history
on either
side
of
cancer,
we
come
from
different
backgrounds, and
the
odds
of husband
and
wife
each
dealing
with
a
cancer
are
overwhelming
and
support
an
environmental
cause.
This
is
why
the NEED,
you
as
a board
should
look to
the
future
in
making
this
decision.
Question:
Do you
have
any
objective
outside
research
or
study
on
the
long-term
effects
of durability
of
PDC
claim,
along
with
the
factor
of
constant
freezing
and
thawing
of Illinois
weather
and
its adverse
effect
on concrete?
Common
sense that over
time
concrete
crumbles
into dust due
to
Illinois weather?
Add
this to
pressure
building
on top, it will
break down
and release
the toxic
into the
water
for the
next generation!
These
liners
only
been
know
to
last
30 years,
irregardless
how
many
liners
is use, they
will
degrade
at the same
rate.
PDC
will
have
made their
fortune
and
moved on.
It
would
be
wise to avoid
putting
this
into
the ground
until you
have
more intensive
research
by
an
independent,
objective
study
group that
cannot
be
purchase
by PDC
money.
I beg
of
you
to
get the long
term
information
before you
make a
decision there
will be
no
turning back.
Protect
the future
generation
right
to clean water
and
forgo the
humanistic
need
for
greed
for the
few at the
cost of the
many.
Sincerely,
ha Minson
6459
Hopedale Rd.
Hopedale,
illinois
61747
TO1sh1pMeetmg
August
12,2008
7:30
P.M.
Minutes
of
last
meeting
TOWnship
Business
Supervisor
Report
Land
Surveying
Approv
Road
Comnijssjoner
Report
Pay
the
bills
Other
Business
Public
Comment
Adjou
p6
c
r/zSo
t>j
9n
filed
Jnuv232OO2
NQ.4-31-0327
IN THE APPELLATE
COURT
OF
ILLINOIS
FOURTH
DISTRICT
BRUCE A. RICE,
)
Appeal from
/
Plaintiff-Appellee,
)
Cjcuit
Court
of
v.
)
Adinn
County
)
No.99
THE BOARD OF
TRUSTEES OF ADAMS
)
COUNTY, ILLINOIS, and THE COUNTY OF
)
Honorable
\
ADAMS, ILLINOIS,
)
Thomas
L.
BrohleId,
Defendants-Appellants.
)
Judge
Presiding.
\
PRESIDING
JIJSTECE
McCULLOUGH delivered the
opinion ofthe court:
On
January 7, 1999, plaintifl Bruce A. Rice, ified
a
complaint against defendants, the Board ofTrustees
ofAdams
County, illinois (Board), and the County of Adams, Illinois (County), and an amended complaint on May
18, 1999,
alleging a failure by the
Board to comply with
the Open Meetings Act (Act) (5 ILCS 120/1 through 6 (West 1998)).
Plaintiffsought an order
voiding
a resolUtion adopted by the Board. The resolution provided for an alternative
benefit
program for elected county
officers
(ECO)
pursuant
to section
7-145.1
ofthe
illinois Pension
Code
(40 ILCS
5/7-145.1 (West 1998)).
Plaintiff and
defendants
filed
motions for
summary judgment. On May 10, 2000, the trial
court granted summary
judgment in
favor of
plaintiff
declaring the actions of
the Board in adopting the
resolution
null and
void.
On
March
16,
2001,
the
trial court
entered an order denying defendants’
motion for reconsideration.
Defendants appeal the
grant
of
summary
judgment for plaintiff We affirm.
The entry of
summary judgment is appropriate where
there are no
questions of fact and judgment can be entered
as
a
matter of law. County of Knox ex rel. Mastersonv. Highlands, LLC,
188111. 2d 546, 550-51, 723 N.E.2d 256, 260
(1999),
quoting
735
ILCS 5/2-1005(c) (West 1998). The interpretation of a
statute is a matter of law for the court
and
properly decided
by
summary judgment. County ofKnox, 188 Iii. 2d
at 551, 723 N.E2d at 260. Courts of review
consider
the
entry of summary judgment de
novo. County
ofKnox,
188 111. 2d at 551, 723 N.E.2d at 260.
It is the intent ofthe
Act to protect
the
citizen’s right to know. The Act
requires an agenda for each regular meeting of
a public body, the
agenda
to
be posted at the principal office ofthe
public
body
and at the location
where
the meeting
is to be held and at least
48 hours in advance ofthe holding ofthe
meeting.
5 ILCS
120/2.02(a) (West 1998). The
portion ofthe
Act at issue in the present case provides that “[tjhe
requirement of a regular
meeting agenda
shall not
preclude the consideration of
items
not
specifically
set forth in
the agenda.t’(Emphasis added.) 5
ILCS 120/2.02(a)
(West 1998).
The agenda
in
the
present case, dated November 10, 1998,
provides for 34 items, 25 of
which appear
to be the
reports
of various
individuals. Item No.32 references “NEW BUSINESS.” We
find also in
the
record
agendas dated
September
8, 1998, and October 13, 1998. They
are,
in
appearance, nearly identical to the
agenda dated November
10,
1998.
The
minutes ofthe
meeting
held
November 10, 1998, provide that, under
“NEW BUSINESS,” a
Mr.
Heidbreder
stated “there
is another resolution
to present.” The resolution,
providing for an alternative benefit
program
for ECO
pursuant to
section 7-145.1 of the
illinois Pension
Code,
was read aloud, and
Mr. Heidbreder
“moved to adopt.”
A
discussion
was
had and
sufficient affirmative votes carried the
motion.
1
of
2
811812008 8:59 Al
fendants
acknowledge
that
the
alternative
benefit
program
r
ECO
as
ici
specifically
set
fort
Defendants
argue,
however,
that
pursuant
to
section
2.02
bf
the
Act.
tte
consideration
of’
an
item
irat
forth
in
the
agenda
references
an
opportunity
for
action
by
the
public
body.
5
ILCS
120/2.02(a)
(We
.
We
dissgree.
In
County
of
Knox,
188111.
2d
at
556,723
N.E.2d
at
263,
the
supreme
court
opined:
“The
fundamental
rule
of
statutory
interpretation
is
to
give
effect
to
the
intention
of
the
legislature.
A
ccr
to
the
words
of
the
statute.
The
language
of
the
statute
is
the
best
indication
of
the
legislative
intent.
When
statutory
language
is
clear,
it
must
be
given
effect
without
resort
to
other
tools
of
interpretation.
In
in
a
statute,
it
is
never
proper
for
a
court
to
depart
from
plain
language
by
reading
into
a
statute
exceptions,
Iiir
conditions
which
conflict
with
the
clearly
expressed
legislative
intent.”
/
The
Act,
in
setting
forth
the
policy,
provides:
/7
“It
is
the
public
policy
of
this
State
that
public
bodies
exist
to
aid
in
the
conduct
of
the
people’s
business
and
tha!
people
have
a
right
to
be
informed
as
to
the
conduct
of
their
business.
In
order
that
the
people
shall
be
informed
General
Assembly
finds
and
declares
that
it
is
the
intent
of
this
Act
to
ensure
that
the
actions
of
public
bodies
be
taken
openly
and
that
their
deliberations
be
conducted
openly.
The
General
Assembly
further
declares
it
to
be
the
public
policy
of
this
State
that
its
citizens
shall
be
given
advance
notice
of
and
the
right
to
attend
all
meetings
at
which
any
business
of
a
public
body
is
discussed
or
acted
upon
in
any
way.”
5
ILCS
120/1
(West
1998).
-
The
Act
references
the
“actions
of
public
bodies”
and,
in
a
separate
reference,
“their
deliberations,”
and
also
“business
***
discussed”
and,
in
a
separate
reference,
business
“acted
upon.”
We
find
“the
consideration
of’
items
not
.specifically
set
forth
in
the
agenda
to
be
in
the
nature
of
deliberations
and
discussion
and
not
actions
taken.
—.—.-.—-
We
do
not
find
the
item
“NEW
BUSINESS”
to
provide
sufficient
advance
notice
to
the
people
of
a
resolution
providing
for
an
alternative
benefit
program
for
ECO.
We
note
also
a
reference
in
the
minutes
of
the
meeting
held
November
10,
1998,
that
“several
years
ago
this
was
discussed,”
contrary
to
the
Board’s
assertion
of”new”
business.
Defendants
also
argue
that
the
ECO
who
chose
to
participate
in
the
alternative
benefit
program
are
not
bound
by
the
judgment
declaring
the
actions
of
the
Board,
in
adopting
the
resolution,
null
and
void
because
they
were
not
made
parties
to
the
suit.
On
May
10,
2000,
the
trial
court
held
that
defendants’
actions,
“in
adopting
the
resolution
approving
the
ECO
Plan,
as
taken
on
November
10,
1998,
are
herewith
declared
null
and
void.”
The
“pension
rights”
referenced
by
defendants
have
no
force,
binding
power,
or
validity.
For
the
reasons
stated
above,
we
affirm
the
trial
court’s
judgment.
Affirmed.
KNECHT
and
STEIGMANN,
JJ.,
concur.
:of2