consideration let me make sure i quote it correctly the act and the only way to do that is to say there are to be no more meetings concerning these plaintiffs and these defendants until we get a resolution after a full hearing on the merits of this case in the very near future that was the court's comments at the conclusion of if the pollution control board wanted to do everything the plaintiffs in this case claimed they should do to comply with your commuting zakk they still cannot hear on this what are my client and only my clients pending applications for certification this questions because what the court did in this case was went beyond the scope of the authority granted under section three of your yet to tell them to comply with the court said is don't have any meetings concern this one party's applications even if even if the cold war were like to the letter and do everything that the plaintiffs claim they were required to do every single thing plaintiffs claim they're required to do they can hear our application but you know you don't want them to do everything they're required yes we do want them to do what they're required to do considering our applications and so you want them to do everything they are required to do and  women early injunction putting things on hold while the dispute is result what is wrong your honor is what the court is doing is telling another branch of government the executive branch in this case you cannot carry out your stash strolling and it functions even if you follow the law even if you do what you open the exact requires you to do you can't hear this one party's this parties and only this party's applications for pollution call facilities are ok sure you can continue doing everything else that the plaintiffs in this plane case claim they're doing wrong you can continue having improper agendas which is one of their claims you continue having close deliberative sessions you can continue to not allow people to stand up and meetings and make verbal comments to the  your own meter you must do the following things in conducting your meetings to make sure you're in compliance but the court cannot tell the pollution to where you can't hear anything until this case is resolved we argued the merits of this case over one hundred days do you have an argument that the pollution control board is allowed to conduct meetings those meetings absolutely you're on what's edited the matters that were raised on the various blog your honor and i would submit they're not at issue in th cited in order to go into these close deliberative sessions and the language of the open meetings act with regard to public comment does not say that members of public must be allowed to stand up and virtually make that all board meetings shall be open to the public and the public notice of all meeting should be given at least twenty four hours in advance of meetings and i believe from the the court's question that the issue was how does that in relate your been meeting exactly candy open  board goes into these close deliberative sessions which they live which they list on their annual calendar of meetings and that they don't fall by under the exemption see for your meetings that for that and third that they do not allow members of matters that are submitted to the board which would include the application from my client or another applicant recommendation of the i p the board members i believe are talking among themselves go ahead with regard to the court's question as to section five the environmental protection act i don't believe that the resolution of the in a relationship that section is believe that the section five of the u p a can be read in harmony with your needing to act is expressing the statement of philosophy that he is a public body like all of the other public  by the board or paraguay has got no problem otherwise they'd be here say this is beck i cannot speak your honor or the attorney general us why go for you can you speak for me give me your best to come here and complain loudly about that and i can't as i said you are answer why you speak when you turn here and why they chose not to appeal however as your honor commented we are one of the people that are trained we are the only person that receive property tax revenues from our refinery and it is that the planets that were complaining about the property tax lucian call certification process which they see as potentially diminishing the money they're going to receive isn't that sort of an unfair criticism shouldn't your ownself right to say what they want to say about your application absolutely and it's the requirement of the court i believe that if it's going to just as in this case said in their complaint that what they asked the court to do was to enjoin the body in this case the p c b in that case the chicago school board from considering a proceeding with the meeting or don't appoint anybody to physician of superman and even if you follow the open meetings that you told this case is over don't appoint anybody to that and in this case the court sat don't consider one person's applications for the recommendation on some of these sixty applications for three billion dollars in property actually play discuss those and close enough we allege that that's a violation of yet what does that mean we weren't there i don't believe the refiner they had the refineries application they have the refiners application guys who made the arguments they want to make right and they had the e p a recommendation which we now know according to the answer to the complaint that's filed was the use that is the close deliberative session the next week they come out and approve without discussion and eighteen twenty page order approving these applications the certification that next meeting was scheduled for april fifth the next open meet where they would vote on on the certifications that they had discussed and what we allege to be a legal session on the on the twenty eighth the meeting after that was april twel planned to go into another post session to deliberate we we allowed more of these applications judge schmidt entered in the war on the thirtieth that said don't discuss and then we're going to schedule another hearing and we need then when it is question when then harry reid and in his words the simply says don't discuss this pending another hearing on the merits of this case this order expired on april twenty fifth when there is there anything about the order now before switching as in the current fact or hope until future effect that order was frozen in time and i have to check today that order was so what are we doing here we don't know that they have tried use exemption since for on somebody else's application for certification when there's been no evidence and there's been no hearing and see for doesn't apply b act that are detail than the complaint mr judge schmidt drafted and order as narrowly as he could to prevent further violations of the effort by the pollution control board in the matters raised by this of the judge i'm a lawyer who does open meetings work across the state and if this court you know the order on everybody that said all public bodies have to comply with you mean exactly at all for tuition that makes me happy got but in the context of this case what because part of part of our prayer for relief in this day is to set aside under the under the authority of the rice themselves using this court is an example i gave i don't think that we're sitting out there and talking about our conference in a given case with everyone here  recall to discuss the evidence presented and here we have that we have a recommendation from another from the media there's no evidence there's no here nobody is allowed to talk yes under both section five slice five of the environmental protection act and under the open meetings of this court consider them in separate paragraphs in that opinion and read those statutes together the policy statements find the exceptions to the public rights to attend meetings exist only in those limited circumstances where the general assembly is specifically to determine the public interest would be clearly in danger or the personal privacy  guaranteed rights of individuals would be clearly would be clearly in danger of unwarranted invasion thirteen years later the general simply passes the environmental protection that act that environmental damage seriously dangerous to public health and welfare as was specifically described in the other sections of the sac consistent with the philosophy of you open meetings act that in those situations where order very clear in the in the proceed at page fifty six of the transcript he says and granting an injunction in the future violations of the act only way to do that he says there should be no more meetings concerning these plaintiffs in these defendants in till we can get a resolution after a faltering on the merits of this case in the very near future skipping a paragraph so my order is this so we're perfectly clear if it concerns th the court may support many many of ojt a moot this argument but the argument still the argument just is still restraining the pollution control board from continuing the pattern of these clothes the liberty of suffering without an agenda and without emotion followed by wrote approval of orders a week later with no public discussion and i don't think that necessarily faces all of the requirements because we've already got a discussion in full session on march twenty eighth if they come out and vote on very briefly i don't believe this case of your honor because if you look and read the entire context it's the conclusion of the hearing on march thirtieth what he says is after referencing meetings act and entering an injunction says you want way to do that is to say there are to be no more meetings concerning these plaintiffs in these defendants until we get a resolution after a full hearing on the merits of this injunction in that cold war cannot consider the applications we have some it but they can continue to do everything else that the plaintiffs in this case claim is a violation mr gavan spoke about the disagreement but apparently exists between the parties the scope appeal but the comment that he made was no we're going to leave it in place until i decide that this matter are taken under advisement he still can't hear our application they can violate yeah allegedly by plaintiffs as to everything else they're doing but