evidence presented in the theory which is what it calls that u p a recommendation to it one week later and an open meeting the pollution control board meets again and admittedly their minds are already made up and the issue without any further deliberation twenty pages or so wars involving the applications effectively removing millions of dollars from the local crack party for this complaint alleges a violation of  issued a documentary which it later admitted was not its best work in the words of that on a motion to reconsider court essentially backed away from that documentary at that point assistant attorney board complied with for this on the record in which there was no for your claim involving pollution control finding number two pollution control board did not violate the open  the agency did not be funded or did not produce documents when this complaint first filed did not produce documents before the first hearing before the trial court in this matter the answer by the attorney general especially in order to find that the environmental protection agency complied with the broke out so to press what you're talking to a panel for us yes we've had lots of stuff slipped in front of us so when you're the trial judge you say i want this to reflect prepare a written order standardly written orders prepared the other side typically will say that's pretty much what you said judge or as i suspect you side we're dealing with well we have the order signed the findings of the findings made by judgment in the documentary are are different than the findings in the order the order in the fighting's in the order the finding of look this in the wrong finding that there's a wrong plato are also in there it's not as i just as i just pointed out and we have the yes to the open means act in the environmental protection section five of the environmental protection act which is the for the act the forms the board form the board requires that all means shall be open to the trial court imports without explanation or statutory support the exemptions in the open meetings out into the environmental protection general simply want to be open meetings acceptance of openness meeting at that meeting the board as required by section two point zero two of you open meetings that said schedule of meetings for calendar year twenty twelve the problem with any of that our two point  five days doesn't mean five days i looked again just this morning and i find no inadvertent exception so you need a second violation of section two a specifically limits of twenty six or so post meetings throughout the year of twenty twelve it's possible even if we get past those procedural defect the board claims somehow that exist that everybody knew that they were talking about exemption c for the for the exemption which allows a body to go into closed session to consider evidence or testimony at a he meetings act on this record your honor is frankly beyond me i do not understand how you find that the american middle section that complied with different information at this frankly you know i i don't know foil in the august twenty second order though that the judge schmidt found that the request for injunctive relief to produce the records was moot because the records had been produced at that time and he also found that the plaintiffs were not a proper party to receive attorney's fees in essence because they were not  who had submitted the for every plus those issues for never really addressed in the opening grave and we believe that that should result in a forfeiture here with respect to the foyer issues  player request the regime and b s of course that's true but i've seen a number of those foil request type work for a brief period of time in the public access counselor bureau and the media outlets make it difference in terms of trying to enforce these acts and i'll give an example there are a number of organisations as mr urban south that will submit for request b does that open up every one of its members to sue the p c b or to sue the e p a i think there do have to be some reasonable limits on that and i think the that authorize lawsuits were intended to be that open ended where they were and forcible by just about a anybody who might benefit from the request for getting the documents recovery of documents we know with regard to their force first for a request that they didn't because they had received those documents any of this invasion force that is if that by not including anything in his brief challenging the basis of the eight twenty two orator and all and that includes the attorneys fees because her son upon the open meetings act i'll start off with the environmental protection act provision section five and which would be nineteen seven which was when the environmental protection act was passed the open meetings act was not nearly as broad as it is today the open meetings act time said that only official meetings of a public body had to be open to the public and that was in chapter one zero two section forty one of the illinois revised statutes for that time period so again the open mean exact only applied to official meetings it would appear that this language of the environmental protection ac all meetings must be zero that it works like that was intended to address that situation because public bodies that time would sometimes simply say meet and say this was an official meeting not covered so at the time that provision would have had significant meaning we don't believe that it was intended to liberate are conflicting statutes that the one house ladder should apply and we are simple leave that section five of the e p a it makes sense to read it together with the open meetings act  persuasive as i mentioned at the time that this the e p a was adopted it was it's there was a problem with the open meetings that you know in terms of this official meeting requirement before the act was triggered and it does seem it seems like a logical reading that it would be intended to address that situation and not to allow the p to take advantage of that problem but there is the language of the open meetings act is roger and the language of the open meeting  meetings that does probably apply to all public bodies and i think to the extent there are some in consistencies the acts court should try to harmonize the two acts and try to read them together and i think it is a sensible reading that would allow the pollution control board to still take to still be able to avail itself of closed meeting exceptions traditional way able to while discussing close meetings sessions i don't see an expression of legislative and to deny the board to do that as your honor mentioned the open meetings act was made broader but at the same time it's interesting at the same time some of the extent some of the some of the exemptions for it were also this situation that i honestly have not felt the need to do that i mean if your record if this court decides the other way then certainly they may end up doing your honor i see i close any sighting in which a party that's affected presents arguments to an agency decision maker and that would include the process that existed here even though there was no oral hearing raid i asked for three minutes to make one point your honor and then if that wor be as a private party is interested only in a very narrow point of the dispute this is largely between the plaintiffs and the stated valid point this case with regard to the environmental protection do is they publish public notice in the newspaper in the in the county in which the real estate is located they appoint a year in office they have a year they swear witnesses they introduce exam they don't have to have a hearing this was a he