A bunch of garbage

a township garage filled with registered voters

The appeal to the Illinois Appellate Courts (2nd District) by Stop-The-Mega-Dump of the Illinois Pollution Control Board’s decision to uphold the DeKalb County Board’s approval of a major landfill expansion in Cortland township by Waste Management of Illinois is Thursday September 6 at 2pm in Elgin. STMD is a grassroots organization (I’m a founding member) formed to stop the badly-mishandled-but-vitally-important process that has been railroaded through to approval for a more than sevenfold expansion of an already leaking landfill situated in Cortland straddling the Union Ditch which forms the headwaters of the branch of the Kishwaukee River that flows through Sycamore.

It is STMD position that the county board members were unduly influenced by the potential revenue generated through tipping fees and the real or perceived needs for that revenue. It is our belief that a certain and a significant number county board members held prejudiced views in favor of the landfill expansion applications due to improper contact with Waste Management officials or representatives and their own strong views for the various projects approved by the County Board that were funded in full or in part by the proposed landfill tipping fees.

From the Daily Chronicle:

The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency released its annual landfill capacity report, which shows waste collection at the Cortland landfill increased from 97,429 tons in 2010 to 98,897 tons in 2011 – an almost five-ton per day increase.

Although the landfill did not accept any out-of-state waste, it did bring in more than 12,000 tons of trash from other counties, most of it from Kane County. That collection generated more than $92,000 in tipping fees, which are a key element in the expansion proposal set for oral arguments at 2 p.m. Thursday at the appellate court in Elgin.

I thought the rules didn’t allow the county board from proceeding with any expansion until all appeals were exhausted. Our rules (ordinances) prior to the proposed expansion limited out of county waste to 10%.

And this from the campaign website of Richard Schmack-D, candidate for DeKalb County States Attorney.

For the past three years the expansion of the Waste Management facility south of Cortland has been a subject of hot debate throughout DeKalb County. Supporters promise great benefits, both financial and environmental, while opponents call it a mega-dump and vow to stop what they say will be a monetary and ecological disaster. Some see the issue in less black and white tones, but everyone has an opinion, and is entitled to express that opinion. Everyone, that is, but the State’s Attorney, and candidates for State’s Attorney.

Richard Schmack, of course, has an opinion, but the duties of the job he seeks absolutely make expressing that opinion ill-advised, at best. State’s Attorneys do not make or set policy about anything except the internal affairs of their office, and the conduct of criminal prosecutions. The citizens hire State’s Attorneys to provide effective counsel to their elected and appointed officials. Those officials make and carry out policies, and the State’s Attorney represents them if they get sued.

The County Board, as our legislature, made a decision in favor of siting the landfill expansion May 10,2010. There was an application on file, and like it or not they, and they alone, had to make a decision. They were certain to get sued by the losing side, be it Waste Management or the opposition group, ‘Stop the Mega-dump’. The State’s Attorney was certainly going to have to defend that decision, as part of doing the job. The case worked its way through the first review, by the Illinois Pollution Control Board, which ruled in favor of the County. Now it is before the Illinois Appellate Court. While there may be a decision before the election, that is doubtful, and further appeals may occur, so the matter will certainly still be pending when the next State’s Attorney’s term begins on December 1, 2012.

Richard Schmack will not express an opinion now because that would undercut his credibility as an advocate for the County Board, should he be elected, just as the incumbent’s credibility in that role is now undermined by his sloganeering during his 2010 campaign. When his campaign website (as of July 14, 2012) says that one of his top priorities is to “Stop the Mega-Dump”, how does Clay Campbell expect to be taken seriously, while simultaneously defending the landfill decision in court?

Mr. Campbell is certainly doing what he can on this point, filing a brief on June 12, 2012 in which he says things like the following:

“Stop The Mega-Dump’s efforts to misdirect this Court withunsubstantiated allegations of health and safety concerns are wholly improper and irrelevant”;

“Stop The Mega-Dump’s appeal merely rehashes meritless arguments”;

“Stop The Mega-Dump’s patchwork of irrelevancies, out-of-contextstatements and unjustified personal attacks fail to prove bias or prejudgment”;

“Stop The Mega-Dump cannot prove prejudgment, so it resorts, instead, to unfounded attacks on the County Board member’s credibility”;

“Stop The Mega-Dump’s assertion is an offense to this process and to the County Board.”

The question remains, if Clay Campbell honestly thinks the County Board’s decision was right, how could he campaign for six months in 2010 on a promise to overturn that decision? How can he be campaigning now on that same promise, while defending the decision in the Appellate Court? How can the County Board members he is representing trust him to act as their attorney? Why has he not recused himself from the case?

That is the reason Richard Schmack believes that a candidate for State’s Attorney cannot, indeed must not, comment publicly on issues that will be decided not by him or her, but by his clients in County government.

If Schmack’s assertions are true I’m probably writing in Sara Gallagher-Chami for State’s Attorney on my ballot. Anyone who attended the landfill application hearings, candidate forums or open public meetings of STMD heard what Campbell had to say about the landfill issue. If he wrote what Schmack alleges then he should watch this video and count every one in it as a deserved lost vote.

So why would I write in Chami? Because at least she’s honest. Her position on the landfill was neutral. I’d write in Mike Coghlan but he won’t take the pay cut.

Schmack has an opinion on the dump but he won’t share it because the “matter will certainly still be pending when the next State’s Attorney’s term begins on December 1, 2012” and expressing an opinion now “would undercut his credibility as an advocate for the County Board, should he be elected.”

As for me I’ll vote for the State’s Attorney candidate that views the people and not the County Board as his clients. We want the People’s Attorney to make sure the law is followed by our county government and that it protects not endangers us.

We want a People’s Attorney, Richard, not an advocate for the County Board.

But Schmack is absolutely right about one thing. The landfill issue is likely to be in the courts for years to come due to further appeals and new lawsuits in the making. Hopefully those on the County Board with their constituents still at the top of their list will see to it that creep expansion is not allowed for the sake of making a few more bucks. I’d hope whoever the States Attorney is will be aggressive in making sure no expansion or bending of the rules take place until the legal proceedings end.