GE Testimony

Template

(DATE)

Dear (Council members/Commissioners/Suprevisors):

I am (NAME), a resident of (City/County) I attest and affirm that the following statements are true, accurate, and within my personal knowledge.

BODY OF TESTIMONIAL INCLUDES;

(START WITH APPRECIATION OF SOMETHING THEY HAVE DONE IF YOU CAN)

(INFORMATION TO SHARE)

(YOUR ASK)

I have expressed no ”concern” or any other non-substantive matter, only matters of fact and law. I accept your oath of office.

Signed this (DATE) day of (MONTH),(YEAR)

(NAME), (EMAIL)

5/27/2020 AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT REQUEST

April 27, 2020

Dear Village Officials –

I attest and affirm that the following statements are true, accurate and within my personal knowledge.

As a Certified Health Coach, I’ve been gifting you facts and laws helpful to your decision-making. This is now a request under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

The US government recognizes my disability, Electromagnetic Sensitivity (EMS), a condition with drastic impacts. In 2018 I became very ill after a new modem was placed in my home. The provider never informed me of the muchincreased microwave radiation it deployed. Exposure to this invisible atmospheric contaminant had been accumulating for years, and the new radiation sealed my inability to tolerate it. Two building biologists discovered, atop a nearby building, antennas producing extremely high radiation levels in my home.

I had over 30 symptoms, some incredibly painful and debilitating. For months I’d sleep for an hour or two at night. My central nervous system was constantly, intensely buzzing. I had headaches, brain fog, skin burning, tinnitus, and extreme exhaustion. In 2019, a so-called ‘smart’ gas meter went on my home, and ‘smart’ water meter pads on neighbors’ homes. Their additional radiation forced me to sleep in my basement, where the levels are lower. I still sleep there. Thousands of dollars on doctors, mitigation, hardwiring the internet, keeping wireless devices off have helped. But full home shielding would cost at >$10,000.

Since I do not consent to 4G-5G irradiation, this is an ADA request that you prohibit in the new ordinance:

All WTFs purposed for wireless internet, falling under FCC Title I, NOT the Telecommunications Act’s “effective prohibition” clause, and
Voice WTFs in residential areas, where a driveby test proves no “significant gap in coverage”.

You recognize that the August 2019 DC Circuit Court Decision supersedes IL 1451; and that, as FCC NEPA attorneys agree, “Every single [WTF] must go through NEPA review.” Other relevant, superseding DC Circuit decisions have occurred since.

In January 2018, FCC released an Order, 33 FCC Rcd 311 (1), which laid the foundation for IL 1451, a sweeping Act melding internet and voice WTFs – effectively preempting regulation of WTFs’ operations and purposes, in violation of the TCA’s preemption clause and common local business law. However, in October 2019, the DC Circuit Court ruled that FCC no longer regulated internet, separating internet and voice into distinct legal categories. This decision, like NEPA, carries the weight of the Supreme Court. It holds that FCC’s overreach, which had allowed IL 1451, is withdrawn. Portions of IL 1451 allowing lack of regulatory distinction between voice and internet are overruled by the supercession of the DC Circuit and are now moot. Our ordinance must recognize this necessary distinction of purposes and operations and be so amended.

On Wednesday, April 22, 2020, I received the Village eNews. On page 7 under the page heading Upcoming

Meetings, Village Board Meeting: Monday, April 27, there was a paragraph called Small Cell Wireless Code Changes. It stated “The Village Board will be considering Amendments to the Village’s Municipal Code related to permit applications for small cell wireless facilities.” It didn’t state when that would take place or where the proposed ordinance could be found for review of the residents. I went to the Village website to the meeting agenda page for the Village Board Meeting of April 27, 2020. Then I went to the agenda packet. On page 52, I found the proposed ordinance and amendment. I literally had to jump through hoops to find anything. This ordinance affects the health and safety of the residents of Glen Ellyn. They should have been notified about this through a special email. I located it only because I had been in conversation with the Village Board since January about 4G-5G in Glen Ellyn in order to begin an open conversation and partner with you to help stop the build-out. Disallowing corner placement while allowing other residential placement, as currently proposed, is plainly discriminatory against non-corner properties, and would impact non-corner owners by undermining their health and lowering their property values worse than the policy would impact corner property owners. Aesthetics of the camouflaged poles in the downtown business districts and historical areas of town.

With the allowable prohibitions and limitations on power and proximity as requested herein, I expect to be able to participate in society. If not, then I must hold the Village liable. In sum, you must amend the ordinance in a variety of ways, and need more time to do so properly, so must postpone the vote to the next meeting.

I have expressed no "concern" or any other non-substantive matter, but solely matters of fact and law. Kindly do not misrepresent my remarks otherwise. I accept your oath of office.

Signed, this 27th day of April 2020,

5/11/2020 Person 1

I attest and affirm that the following statements are true, accurate, and within my personal knowledge.

Thank you for amending the wireless ordinance during such a stressful time and under the constraints of Covid. It is truly appreciated. I understand the pressure you must be under. I also know that with proper communication and working together cooperatively, we can do better than other villages with this ordinance and even set the standard for other villages to follow.

First, we need to know by means of specification in the ordinance exactly who the applicant is. A small franchise is often the defacto applicant, while the larger telecom may be named. Due to laws disallowing interlocking directorettes, we can define the applicant by its Board of Directors. It is imperative we know exactly who the applicant is, therefore, the applicants need to list the Board of Directors of the actual contracting entity and needs to prove in the application that it is fully insured and has the assets to cover the liabilities.

In closing, we look forward to working closely together with you to make this ordinance the safest it can be and we appreciate your continued efforts, support and willingness to make that happen. I have expressed no concerns or any other non-substantive matter, only matters of fact and law. I accept your oath of office.

Signed this (11th ) day of (May), (2020)

5/11/2020 Person 2

Dear Village Officials:
I attest and affirm that the following statements are true, accurate and within my personal knowledge. I do appreciate your expeditious and timely improvements to our ordinance. However, we can and must achieve more with the ordinance. As is, Glen Ellyn residents of would still incur injury from microwave radiation from so-called “small” Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (sWTFs) near homes.
Our homes and lives are not adequately protected, when the ordinance allows the placement of insufficiently regulated 4G-5G antennas on utility poles very close to homes. Per the 1996 Telecommunications Act, placement is not determined by the wireless industry, but rather by the local government. You must include the words “placement, construction, modification and operations” in the Purpose of the ordinance, and must add the vertical/horizontal placement and power of WTFs.
The Village has policing power to limit the Effective Radiated Power (ERP) from WTFs in close proximity to where people live, eat, study, sleep, and heal. For close-proximity WTFs, the applicant must construct only necessary antennas, radios and other supporting equipment with no chance of exceeding a total of 0.1 Watt of ERP from the face of the antenna shroud. This ERP suffices to provide telecommunications service a half-mile down the street: 5-bars on cell phone and 3,000 simultaneous calls handled by that WTF. No need to rely on FCC, since WTF operations are within your regulatory hands, per 47 U.S.C. §332 (c)(7)(B)(4). I ask that the following language be added to our Ordinance:

"For any Wireless Telecommunications Facility (WTF) that

Is installed in the public rights-of-way, or

Is attached to any building, or

has antennas installed at a height that is lower than 100 feet off the ground,

. . . the applicant must install only antennas, radios and other supporting equipment that have no chance of exceeding a total of 0.1 Watt of effective radiated power (ERP) from the face of the antenna shroud."

Capping ERP at 0.1 Watts provides four main benefits:

Provides coverage for Telecommunications service for about 1/2 mile from the source antenna (more than double the distance of the industry-claimed need of 1,000 feet down the block).
Does not effectively prohibit telecommunications service, making this regulation legally defensible to wireless industry challenge.
Adds the metaphorical "speed limits, seat belts and airbags" – the necessary protections that residents need to maintain the quiet enjoyment of streets – part of any city’s aesthetics powers.
Complies with all FCC radiation exposure guidelines.

I express no concern or any other non-substantive matter, but solely matters of fact and law. Kindly do not misrepresent my remarks otherwise. I accept your oath of office.

Signed, this 11th day of May 2020,

5/11/2020 Person 3

As a resident of Glen Ellyn, I attest and affirm that the following statements are true, accurate, and within my personal knowledge.
Thank you for amending the wireless ordinance at the April 27, 202 Village Board Meeting.
The quiet enjoyment of our streets is essential to Glen Ellyn. This is a wonderful place to live, and we should keep it that way by assuring the continued safe use and enjoyment of private properties and public spaces.

Small wireless telecommunications facilities (sWTFs) pose an unreasonable fire risk and other immediate harm to Glen Ellyn residents. The Village assumes liability for such damaging incidents, as is not insured against fire or injury from the pulse-modulated microwave radiation that WTFs deploy. The large telecommunications companies are not liable for damages, since they pass along their liability by contract to their small franchises, i.e., the applicants who approach the Village. These franchises lack assets with which to cover damages. Knowing this, the Village should not do business in this manner. Our ordinance needs to require applicants to show proof of full insurance to cover any and all potential damages.

Our ordinance also needs to prohibit people from constructing and operating any private antenna on their rooftop or otherwise on a residential structure.

Any other WTF, including those not falling within the category “WTF” or “sWTF”, proposed to be placed upon a non-residential structure should be required in the ordinance to go through the application process like all other WTFs.
The village should protect our quiet streets and provide good energy efficiency by limiting the effective radioactive power (ERP) and all WTFs. This falls under your “operations” authorities within the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
I have expressed no concern or any other non-substantive matter, only matters of fact and law.
I accept your oath of office.

Signed this 11th day of May, 2020

5/11/2020 Person 4

I attest and affirm that the following statements are true, accurate, and within my personal knowledge.
Thank you very much for amending the Village’s telecommunications ordinance last month regarding the construction of wireless telecommunications facilities (WTFs). I know you must have worked very long and hard on it. I am writing now to request fine-tuning of the ordinance with hopes that our law will better align with the 1996 Telecommunications Act (TCA), which is purposed to “promote the safety of life and property.”

Specifically, there isn’t yet in our ordinance any regulation of the vertical offset in feet for WTFs (distance off the ground) and there needs to be, as this falls within your placement authority.

The three parameters regarding the placement of wireless antennas need to be written into the ordinance. Together, these are referred to as “VHP”:

Vertical Offset (in feet),
Horizontal Offset (in feet), and
Maximum Effective Radiated Power (in Watts).

WTFs should NOT attach to the top of utility poles because they pose a serious fire hazard in close proximity to electrical lines, potentially cuasing plasma fires. They are even more dangerous when close to people’s homes and other occupied structures. WTFs should be higher than utility poles so as to not interfere. Please require in the ordinance that they be located as high as possible, at a minimum of 200 feet off of the ground.

You need to include in the very purpose of the ordinance your regulation of all four activites pertaining to wireless facilities: “placement, construction, modification and operations,” as laid out in TCA. Please see “operations”, as removed by the US Congress from the preemption clause, 47 U.S.C. §332 (c)(7)(B)(4): Scientists4WiredTech.com/compare .
Kindly remember that federal laws and precedents supercede State laws, particularly where the former are more protective of human health, safety, and other rights, and especially where a State law, such as our State Constitution, Article 11, supercedes industry’s misrepresentations of TCA regarding health effects and protections against them.
I have expressed no concerns or any other non-substantive matter, only matters of fact and law. I accept your oath of office.
Signed this 11th day of May, 2020,

I’ve been a resident and homeowner of Glen Ellyn for almost 14 years. My husband and I have been very active in supporting many organizations both financially and with our time for the betterment of this community. Therefore, I believe I share your heart in serving the people of Glen Ellyn and have great appreciation for the volunteer work and time you devote to this Board office. I attest and affirm that the following statements are true, accurate, and within my personal knowledge.

I am writing to request you to review some of the verbiage in the ordinance and ensure it secures the same privilege for all of Glen Ellyn property owners. In particular, I would like to ask for clarification of the ordinance on page 78, where it reads: “No above ground communication facility shall be permitted in any public right-of-way that is contiguous to and having a physical border with the front yard or corner side yard of any residential corner lot property.”

Does that mean: “No above ground communications facility shall be permitted in any public right-of-way that is contiguous to having a physical border with the front yard.”?

Or, does that mean: “No above ground communications facility shall be permitted in any public right-of-way that is contiguous to having a physical border with the corner side yard or any residential corner lot property.”?

Depending on the interpretation of the wording, this sentence pertaining to corner lots could be discriminating to those not living on a corner-lot property. A visual aid would be helpful for the community to understand the ordinance and your intent.

Please respond to the rationale behind why corner lots should be excluded from having wireless facilities constructed on and near them. This could ultimately lead to disparities in property values that you and residents would never want or intend for this community. I believe you’d want ALL of Glen Ellyn to remain attractive to any qualified buyer. This would ensure the longevity of our sought-after community.

Thank you for your attention in this matter. I know there is a lot going on right now and you all are extremely busy, but this is a problem to be resolved that, if not further attended to, will affect this community for the remainder of our days. I trust you have the best interest of Glen Ellyn residents in mind so I urge you to put in the extra time and attention this requires immediately.

Again, I thank you for your service to our community and I look forward to supporting your decisions. I have expressed no concerns or any other non-substantive matter, only matters of fact and law. I accept your oath of office.

Signed this 11th day of May, 2020,

_(Signature)

5/11/2020 Person 5

I attest and affirm that the following statements are true, accurate and within my personal knowledge.

Thank you for amending the wireless ordinance at the Village Board Meeting of April 27, 2020. This is so important. Our Village can pave the way for other Villages, Cities, States, and even Countries to follow our lead in providing the highest level of protection and safety for all our residents, as well as internet speed for those who want that. We will be sending our suggestions, red-lined as you requested, for amending the ordinance further, with our gratitude.

Protecting the children of Glen Ellyn is extremely important for the health and well-being of their future. My son is in kindergarten at Ben Franklin School, located only half a block from one of the application locations for a 4G-5G WTF (Wireless Telecommunications Facility). Already, his health is being undermined with the current exposure to the pulse-modulated microwave radiation all around us and in his school.

Last fall, while taking a MAP test on his chrome book at school, he began complaining that it was hard for him to look at the screen because it hurt his eyes. This sensitivity has since increased. Recently he was examined by a pediatric ophthalmologist. This doctor said that my son’s eyesight was fine; but he has a sensitivity to screens and is not able to look at a lit screen for longer than a few minutes without developing symptoms. He recommended that my son stay off screens as much as possible, and that he receive his assignments printed on paper to eliminate this issue. The blue light, flickers, and microwave radiation are already having an impact on my son’s health and ability to do his schoolwork. We truly do need to provide more natural light and natural systems for the next generation.

I will very much appreciate you attention to the ordinance suggestions that are incoming, such as to eliminate all WTFs that are unnecessary, by way of placing drive-by tests as a requirement in the ordinance to show whether or not there is truly a “significant gap in coverage”. Also, no internet provision is needed, since it is already fine, and since fiber-optics to the premises provide the fastest, safest, most reliable, secure and energy-efficient internet.

I express herein no matter of “concern” but solely matters of fact and law. I appreciate your oaths of office and carefully attention thereto.

Signed 11th day of May 2020,

5/11/2020 Person 6

I attest and affirm that the following statements are true, accurate, and within my personal knowledge.

I appreciate that at the last meeting on April 27, 2020, you amended the Telecommunications ordinance for Glen Ellyn.

For any business in the Village, you want to know what is going up,the purpose for it, as well as if it is necessary or not in our Village.This includes the telecom industry. Applicants for a Wireless Telecommunication Facilities (WTFs ) must state the purpose for the facility WTF eg. Telecommnications (voice) or other communications (internet data). The difference between Title 1 and Title 2 as laid out in the 1934 Communications Act and later revised by the 1996 TCA and 2019 Mozilla vs. FCC Case. As you are aware, Federal Judiciary precedence that have occurred later that the state law SB 1451 supercede that law, in part in distinguishing as has been the case since 1934 between Title 1 and Title 2. This is to say, a state law cannot override Federal law that has been in place for 86 years. Nor can a state law override more recent Federal judiciary precedence.

All Title 1 (unregulated) facilities fall to local government for regulation. The Title 1 facilities across the board are not necessary and not required because far better services for internet are provided by Fiber to the Premises (FTTP). Indeed wireless internet transmission is poor engineering: harmful, unreliable, energy wasteful, insecure and hackable. All applicants must be required to prove need that cannot be supplied another way. For voice, a drive-by test must be required in the ordinance
I have expressed no concerns or any other non-substantive matter, only matters of fact and law. I accept your oath of office.

Signed this 11th day of May, 2020

5/11/2020 Person 7

I attest and affirm that the following statements are true, accurate, and within my personal knowledge.

Thank you for amending the wireless ordinance during COVID 19. Clearly you spent a lot of time working on it. I am asking you to take the next steps in amending the ordinance further.

You have the opportunity to make some money for Glen Ellyn while policing for the Quiet Enjoyment of Streets by levying fines for Effective Radiated Power (ERP) violations coming from the shroud of the antennas of the Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (WTFs). Adding to your ordinance a three-strikes-and-you’re-out program as a revenue-generating way to police Big Wireless can be quite profitable. You can include the following:

1st Strike- $25,000 fine
2nd Strike- $50,000 fine
3rd Strike – YOU’RE OUT – $100,000 fine and removal of the WTF.
I have expressed no concern or any other non-substantive matter, only matters of fact and law. I accept your oath of office.

Signed this 11th day of May, 2020

5/11/2020 Person 8

May 11, 2020
AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT REQUEST
To Village Officials:

I attest and affirm that the following statements are true, accurate, and within my personal knowledge.

My name ______________. I am diagnosed with electromagnetic sensitivity (EMS). My symptoms have included heart palpitations, joint pain, headaches, dizziness, sleep problems, chest tightness, and ringing in the ears. When the electric smart meters were installed in my neighborhood, my symptoms increased. I am unable to visit friends’ homes, with their multiple cordless phones, cell phones and other devices, as their microwave radiation exacerbates my problems. In my home I have eliminated all cordless devices.

This is an official request under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) that you prohibit all unnecessary placement of 4G-5G antennas in Glen Ellyn. You have acknowledged, by restricting applicants from placement on corner properties, your regulatory authority over placement, so must acknowledge this authority in our ordinance. You also have authority over modification and operations of wireless facilities, so must name these, too.

Despite my EMS, I work as a business manager for a group of >200 persons, for which purpose I need occasionally to go downtown. Under ADA, I have the right to participate in society. I need protection both downtown and in my neighborhood from microwave radiation. Any new wireless facility would greatly impact my ability to conduct business and even to go for a walk. Peer-reviewed studies document effects including headaches and migraines, tinnitus, learning and memory deficits, cardiac irregularities, increased blood pressure, free-radical induction, impairment of cell activities, DNA damage, reproductive impairments, and cancer. 5G includes decimeter, centimeter and millimeter pulse-modulated microwave radiation. The mm portion is designed as a military weapon. 95 GHz is a crowd-control system. 4G-5G irradiation has proven harmful to wildlife, killing bees, birds, and more. We are all dependent upon pollinators for our food. Thus, our ordinance must prohibit all wireless facilities that are not needed, such as those with adequate voice coverage, and all internet facilities. Fiber-optics to the premises (FTTP) provides the fastest, safest internet. Glen Ellyn should require it in our ordinance. I request under ADA that you do so.

I have expressed no matter of mere “concern” or any other nonsubstantive matter, but solely matters of fact and law. I am aware of your oath of office. Kindly inform me of your intent to comply.

5/26/2020 Person 1— Purpose, Blake C.

Dear Village Board Members, May 26,2020

I, (NAME), am a resident of Glen Ellyn, I attest and affirm that the following statements are true, accurate and within my personal knowledge.

Our Village wireless ordinance should serve to protect the quiet enjoyment of our streets.

Our Ordinance now states in its Purpose, Chapter 6, 8-6-1.(A):

“The purpose of this chapter is to establish policies and procedures for constructing facilities on rights-of-way within the Village’s jurisdiction, which will provide public benefit consistent with the preservation of the integrity, safe usage, and visual qualities of the Village rights-of-way and the Village as a whole.”

The Purpose, at (A), should be amended to state:

“The purpose of this chapter is to establish policies and procedures for placing, constructing, modifying and operating only wireless facilities determined by Need Tests to be legally necessary on public rights-of-way within the Village’s jurisdiction, which will provide public benefit consistent with the preservation of the integrity, safe usage, ambiance, and visual qualities of the Village rights-of-way and the Village as a whole."

This change is necessary so that the Ordinance may come into accordance with the 1996 Telecommunications Act (TCA), which governs FCC Title II phone and text communications, and which leaves all four above-cited activities related to wireless buildout — placing, constructing, modifying and operating — in the regulatory hands of local officials. A regulatory obligation must be fulfilled and not avoided by omission. Further, Village officials need to know whether an applied-for facility is necessary, as defined under TCA, and whether it is in keeping with all local values including the quiet enjoyment of our streets.

Chapter 6, 8-6-1.(B) states:

“Intent: In enacting this chapter, the Village intends to exercise its authority over the rights-of-way in the Village and, in particular, the use of the public ways and property by utilities, by establishing uniform standards to address issues presented by utility facilities, including, without limitation:

“4. Protect against environmental damage, including damage to trees, from the installation of utility facilities.

“6. Preserve the character of the neighborhoods in which facilities are installed.

“7. Preserve open space, particularly the tree line parkways that characterize the Village’s residential neighborhoods.”

Chapter 6, 8-6-1.(B)should be amended as follows:

Instead of “public ways and property”, it should state, “public ways and public property”, for clarity.
Instead of each iteration of “utility facilities”, it should specify, “FCC Title II facilities”, since private companies’ equipment and operations do not necessarily qualify as “utilities”.
Instead of “installation”, it should specify “placement”, and should add a required minimum height of any facility, to avert fires from operating antennas above high voltage lines and to protect and not require any cutting of trees, such as has proven ruinous in other locations.
The end of Point 4 should conclude by stating, “if and only if need is proven,” since the character of the Village is best protected by permitting no additional wireless facility where no need exists.

I have expressed no "concern" or any other non-substantive matter, only matters of fact and law. I accept your oath of office.

Signed this 26th day of May, 2020

5/26/2020 Person 2 — Local Values, Julia M

Dear Village Board Members,

I, (NAME), am a resident of Glen Ellyn, I attest and affirm that the following statements are true, accurate and within my personal knowledge.

Thank you for taking the time to review these letters. While much of the world has been focused on surviving a pandemic, telecommunications companies have been interested in pursuing business as usual. A local news anchor decided he would report on the installation of 5G small cell towers, yet was forbidden to report on anything besides COVID. During this chaotic time, it’s essential to take note of new legislation and political maneuvers which threaten liberty and privacy.

The wireless companies intend massive surveillance with full data-mining, as they watch us inside our homes, use 24/7 facial recognition, and track us, all — contrary to our Illinois State Constitution’s Bill of Rights, Article I.

SECTION 1. INHERENT AND INALIENABLE RIGHTS

“All men are by nature free and independent and have certain inherent and inalienable rights among which are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. To secure these rights and the protection of property, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

SECTION 2. DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION

“No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law nor be denied the equal protection of the laws.”

SECTION 6. SEARCHES, SEIZURES, PRIVACY AND INTERCEPTIONS

“The people shall have the right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and other possessions against unreasonable searches, seizures, invasions of privacy or interceptions of communications by eavesdropping devices or other means. No warrant shall issue without probable cause, supported by affidavit particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.”

Our wireless ordinance’s Purpose and Scope state in 8.6.1 (B)(9) that its Intent includes to:

“Assure the continued safe use and enjoyment of private properties adjacent to utility facilities locations.”

It should state:

“To assure the safe, secure, and private use and enjoyment of private properties adjacent to wireless facilities’ locations.”

Kindly so amend the ordinance, in alignment with our State Constitutional rights.

I have expressed no "concern" or any other non-substantive matter, solely matters of fact and law. I accept your oath of office.

Signed this 26th day of May, 2020,

5/26/2020 Person 3 — Insurance & Liability, Jenn W

Dear Village Officials:

I am (NAME), a resident of Glen Ellyn. I attest and affirm that the following statements are true, accurate, and within my personal knowledge.

Glen Ellyn must require Wireless Companies to provide bullet-proof insurance coverage for injuries and illnesses caused by RF/MW radiation exposures. The Villages need to protect itself from potential costly lawsuits and damages awarded for successful claims for injuries, illnesses and deaths from such pollution exposures. Proceeding without bullet-proof insurance could bankrupt Glen Ellyn.

There is, at this time in the Glen Ellyn public record, no proof of financial responsibility or accounting to establish adequate liquidity of the licensee for the indemnification provisions of paragraph 28 of the Master License Agreement.

The Village has the duty to require correct liability insurance from the Wireless applicant. Such insurance cannot have a pollution exclusion for injuries, illnesses and deaths from RF/MW microwave radiation exposures. Lloyd’s of London, Swiss Re, AM Best and other insurance companies exclude coverage for injury and death claims from RF/MW radiation exposures.

“Lloyd’s excludes any claims arising out of, resulting from or contributed to by electromagnetic fields, electromagnetic radiation, electromagnetism radio waves or noise.”

Insurers and Wireless Cos. Categorize RF-EMR exposures as a hazardous pollutant.

Avoid Telecom Bait-and-Switch WTF permitting.
When the certificate of insurance is produced, often, it will com from a different entity than the entity that signed the Franchise Agreement or the Master License Agreement. Avoid this trick.

The entity that is operating the WTF will probably be the entity sued if someone is hurt or injured from RF/MW radiation exposures. It is imperative that the Village Risk Manager makes sure that whomever the operator is, must be insured with proper liability coverage. Otherwise, the insurance company will deny liability coverage and the Village won’t be protected.

Beware of other tricks that Wireless applicants use to avoid proper insurance
The applicants might offer indemnity in lieu of insurance. They attempt to have a shell company take on the role of indemnitor. In the event of lawsuits or a recovery on behalf of injured plaintiffs, the shell company will simply declare bankruptcy, shielding the major Wireless Co. from liability and leaving the Village holding the bag. The Village would then find out that the bag is empty, shifting liability to Glen Ellyn’s taxpayers.

To fix this problem, the Village can require, as part of its application process, to have whatever entity that is signing these agreements or applying for the permits to list the Board of Directors and the assets of the Corporation on the application or the Master Licensing Agreement (MLA). Making this a requirement will clarify with which entity the Village is doing business.

The Villages should also require that the applicant provide an actual copy of the insurance policy rather than just a certificate of liability one-page document, which is common.

Finally, self-insurance by Wireless Cos. Is not acceptable.

Glen Ellyn must require the precise kind of insurance. Insurance must come from licensed third-party insurer & not from a self-insured indemnity substitute

As the Village Board, you need to beware of the tricks that Wireless applicants. use to avoid insurance requirements and liability.

I have expressed no "concern" or any other non-substantive matter, solely matters of fact and law. I accept your oath of office.

Signed this 26th day of May, 2020,

5/26/2020 Person 4 — Establishing Need – No significant Gap in coverage & Drive Test, Elizabeth

I am (NAME), a resident of Glen Ellyn. I attest and affirm that the following statements are true, accurate and within my personal knowledge.

Telecommunications “service” is simply the ability to make an outdoor call for each wireless carrier, independent of specific frequency. If outdoor calls can be made 90% of the time, then, there is no significant gap in coverage and no need to permit a Wireless Telecommunications Facility (WTF).

If there is no significant gap in coverage, there is no need for an additional WTF to serve that target market, as the industry views it. Where there is no need, an applicant has no right.

It is critical that we add to the ordinance, under a new section entitled “ESTABLISH NEED” the provision of a mandatory Need Test in the application process, to prove there is no significant gap in coverage, as well as a mandatory Need Test every six months for already existing WTFs. Otherwise, the permitting process and ongoing operations are flying blind.

Any industry claim of need for additional coverage, or modification, must be corroborated by semi-annual Need Tests, paid for by the applicants, Industry-standard Signal Strength Need Tests would be completed every six months by a neutral, third-party RF Engineer hired by the Village and paid for by the wireless carriers who have facilities in the Village.

Need Tests would collect streams of data measuring signal strength in decibel-milliWatts (dBm) for each wireless frequency transmitting from WTFs in Glen Ellyn on a street-by-street basis. All raw data from the data streams collected would be placed on the public record so that any third party would be able to independently evaluate the signal strength data.

The costs for the Need Test would be covered, based on a pro-rated share of total maximum Effective Radiated Power (ERP) that can be output from the WTFs operating within the Village. The larger the maximum possible power output from the existing antennas by each wireless carrier, the larger the share of costs to be shouldered for the semi-annual Need Test.

The maximum ERP for each antenna can be easily calculated from the antenna spec sheets: the sum of the maximum input power per channel x antenna gain, for each frequency that the antenna can output.

Based on this wireless signal strength data specific to each carrier’s available frequencies, the Village can easily learn whether there is a significant gap in telecommunications service, and, if so, determine the least intrusive means to close said gap.

We hereby request that you add to our ordinance a mandatory Needs Test as part of the application process and a semi-annual mandatory Needs Test for all wireless applicants, as well. This is easy to execute, of no cost to the Village, and can protect the safety, privacy and property values residents.

I have expressed no "concern" or any other non-substantive matter, only matters of fact and law.

I accept your oath of office.

Signed this 26th day of May, 2020

5/26/2020 Person 5 — A WTF Needs Test, Diana C

May 26, 2020

Dear Village Officials:

I am (NAME), a resident of Glen Ellyn, IL. I attest and affirm that the following statements are true, accurate, and within my personal knowledge.

On Saturday, May 23, I went with (NAME) as a witness to the following Glen Ellyn locations to try out, respectively, Verizon, AT&T, Sprint & T-Mobile cellphone services:

Park and Hill (Near 333 Park Blvd. application site)
Bryant and Hill (Near 806 Hill St. application site)
Spring & Roslyn (Near 312 Spring Ave. application site)
Park and Fairview
Glenbard West High School on Crescent

In all locations, I was able to make calls with each carrier’s cellphone service.
Moreover, all of the calls were heard “loud and clear” by the person who answered the call.

I am submitting simultaneously the recordings of all these calls in proof.

Specifically, these calls prove there is “no significant gap in coverage” at any of the above locations, for any of the wireless carriers.

The 1996 Telecommunications Act does not grant a right to additional antennas, where there is no “significant gap in coverage”.

This is evidence that can be corroborated by a formal Needs Test performed by an RF engineer that can test all frequencies of all Wireless carriers.

Please be sure to include in our ordinance that an applicant must establish need through a professional Needs Test.

I have expressed no “concern” or any other non-substantive matter, only matters of fact and law. I accept your oath of office.

Signed

5/26/2020 Person 6 — AT&T , Cheryl B

Dear Village Official:

I am a resident of Glen Ellyn, IL. I attest and affirm that the following statements are true, accurate, and within my personal knowledge.

In 2005, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Metro PCS vs San Francisco that a “significant gap in coverage” must be proven, otherwise the County does not have to grant a new license for any Wireless Telecommunications Facility (WTF).

The following specific instructions can be added to our ordinance

A neutral third-party RF professional, hired by the Village of Glen Ellyn (but paid for by the applicants) shall perform a drive test for all Telecommunication service frequencies for all Wireless carriers every six months on a random date that is not shared with any Wireless vendors or applicants, This ensures that the Wireless Cos. have no knowledge that the test is being conducted.

The 2005 Ninth Circuit requirement that “If a significant gap in coverage is present, then the telecoms may install . . . using the least intrusive means.” Thus, any licensing agreement must be worded to comply with said Ruling, as the Seventh Circuit has adopted similar provisions.

Further, the September, 2018 FCC Order 18-133 for Streamlining Small Cell Deployment is a presumptive order only, as admitted by FCC’s attorney on Feb 10, 2020 in Federal Court. The FCC admitted that FCC 18-133 represents merely the FCC’s preferences and that the Order is not self-enforcing.

Any licensing agreement, therefore, must be worded to comply with these requirements proof of significant gap in telecommunications coverage to establish the need for any new WTF facility. If, and only if, a gap in Telecommunications coverage is proven by substantial written evidence in the public record, can an applicant act to close the gap employing the "least intrusive means" to do so. In Glen Ellyn, the least intrusive means would be co-locating antennas on existing Macro cell towers — not building new cell towers next to residents’ homes.

The Glen Ellyn Wireless Ordinance could and should be redrafted in compliance and in protection of the public against unnecessary WTF construction and operations.

Also, a member of the public, a resident of Glen Ellyn, should be allowed to participate in the semi-annual Drive test for quality assurance to document that the RF professional properly conducts the test.

At the conclusion of the test, the raw datalogs (the dBM readings by frequency) must immediately be given to both the Village and the QA resident upon completion of drive test, prior to the RF engineer leaving Glen Ellyn.

As Wireless applicants and RF professionals often collude to provide less-than-accurate results — results that favor the Wireless industry, we must include such monitoring of the Drive Tests.

I have expressed no ”concern” or any other non-substantive matter, only matters of fact and law. I accept your oath of office.
Signed this 26th day of May, 2020

5/26/2020 Person 7 — Power, Kelly

May 26, 2020

Dear Village Officials:

My name is (NAME), a resident of Glen Ellyn. I attest and affirm that the following statements are true, accurate, and within my personal knowledge.

The original intent of the 1996 Telecommunications Act (TCA), in the conference report, was to install commercial macro towers for a nationwide network for making emergency calls. The signal was coming from a very long distance. It was never intended to be put in residential neighborhoods.

Small Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (sWTFs), have macro tower antennas with macro tower power. They are being placed as close as 10 feet from homes. When they are this close to homes, they are MORE POWERFUL than macro cell towers.

If they are allowed in our residential neighborhoods, we will be exposed to constant pulsed, data-modulated, Radio-frequency Electromagnetic Microwave Radiation (RF-EMR) that suppresses melatonin and the immune system, causes direct neurological, reproductive and DNA damage and significantly increases chances of contracting cancer.

One sWTF antenna can output 22,000 + watts of Effective Radiated Power (ERP) . . . When all we need is 0.1 Watt (ERP) for 5-Bars on a Cell Phone for calls.

ERP is the power that exits the face of antenna. There are two specs on the antenna manufacturer’s sheet that are used to calculate ERP for each channel. There is the maximum power input in watts and the antenna gain (which increases the power between 8 to 16 times.) You find this information on the antenna spec sheet.

Maximum power input (watts) x’s the Antenna Gain = ERP,

Effective Radiated Power (ERP) can ruin the quiet enjoyment of streets. That is why it needs to be regulated by the Village and added into the Village Wireless ordinance.

In order to preserve the quiet enjoyment of streets (QES), you can include in our ordinance the limits of the ERP of Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (WTFs), using simple language, like the following:

"For any Close Proximity Microwave Radiation Antennas (CPMRA) Wireless Telecommunications Facility (WTF) that is

installed in the public rights-of-way, or
attached to any building, or
has antennas installed at a height that is lower than 100 feet off the ground,

. . . the applicant must install only antennas, radios and other supporting equipment that have no chance of exceeding a total of 0.1 Watt of effective radiated power from the face of the antenna shroud."

I have expressed no “concern” or any other non-substantive matter, only matters of fact and law. I accept your oath of office.

Signed this 26th day of May, 2020

__(NAME), (EMAIL)

5/26/2020 Person 8 — Meetings

Dear Glen Ellyn Officials:
I am a resident of Glen Ellyn, IL. I attest and affirm that the following statements are true, accurate, and within my personal knowledge.
We appreciate your reading our letters at the Village Board Meetings on Zoom. However, the Village Clerk, to no fault of his own, is not the one writing the letters, and many of the messages’ important meanings have been lost as he has read them, at times with less expression or with mispronunciation of words.

At our public meetings, we have First Amendment rights to freedom of self-expression and also to peaceable assembly including interaction with, such as response to, public officials.

We must in the future read our own letters. The current set-up is unconstitutionally prohibiting our voices from being heard.

Videochat platforms such as Zoom provide a safe environment and technological capabilities to allow us to read our own letters, as if we were standing in front of you in person. Videochat has the capacity to include each of us in the meeting, even with our faces and any slide presentation and evidence, which are extremely important for you. Our actual voices can be heard when an administrator grants access. There is no need to fear too many voices speaking at once, since the host can mute everyone until such time as a person either presents a prepared speech, or responds and is called upon to do so, to the ongoing discussion.

Working on amending the wireless ordinance together and presenting our the red-line items, takes time, but opening the forum to our actual voices per our fundamental rights will facilitate the process and no-doubt bring in interesting and important perspectives.

Note also, please, that holding only one Village Board Meeting per month in the next two months is insufficient. We all have much urgently to discuss. Therefore, we hereby request an additional public meeting each in June and July. Workshops not open to the public are scheduled on June 15th and July 20th, and two Board meetings on June 22nd and July 27th.

We ask that you add meetings to the calendar to get this very important work done in a timely matter before the wireless industry brings more applications from more wireless companies. And we urge you to enact a moratorium as soon as humanly possible, one lasting until July1, 2021.

I have expressed no ”concern” or any other non-substantive matter, only matters of fact and law. I accept your oath of office.
Signed this 26th day of May, 2020,

5/26/2020 Person 9 (635 Words, edited for speakers 1-8, above)

I am (NAME), a resident of Glen Ellyn. I attest and affirm that the following statements are true, accurate, and within my personal knowledge.

We greatly appreciate the time and work the Village Board and staff spent on amending our Village wireless ordinance. We see the Ordinance that you passed as a good first step, but we want to improve the Wireless Ordinance to ensure that the Village Council Members are in the best position to achieve the following:

Uphold your oaths of office to protect the residents inalienable rights to safety and privacy from all invading forces foreign or domestic. The invaders would be the FCC-supported Wireless Companies.
Protect the City’s Finances by ensuring that the Village does not fall prey to common ploys by the Wireless industry designed to transfer liabilities to the Village for all claims of injuries, illnesses and deaths attributable to 24/7 forced exposures to a known pollutant from Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (WTFs) — RF Microwave radiation.
Ensure that the Villlage gives up the fewest pieces of real estate possible in the public rights-of way to close any alleged significant gaps in Telecommunications coverage for each Wireless carrier.

The goals of the 1996 Telecommunications Act have been achieved in Glen Ellyn. We will place into the public record substantial written evidence that proves that there is sufficient Telecommunications coverage for each of the three main Wireless Carriers in Glen Ellyn: AT&T, T-Mobile and Verizon.

This evidence can be corroborated by semi-annual needs-tests, paid-for by the Wireless Industry. These tests would be industry-standard Signal Strength Drive Tests, completed every six months by a neutral third-party RF Engineer hired by the Village and paid for by the Wireless carriers who have facilities in the Village.

The Drive Test would collect streams of data measuring signal strength in decibel-milliWatts (dBm) for each Wireless frequency being transmitted from antennas located in Glen Ellyn on a street-by-street basis. All raw datapoints from the data streams collected would be placed in the public record so any third party can independently evaluate the signal strength data.

The costs for the drive test could be covered, based on a pro rata share of total Maximum Effective Radiated Power (ERP) that can be output from all antennas currently operating within the Village. The larger the maximum possible power output from the existing antennas by each Wireless Carrier, the larger the share of costs to be shouldered for the semi-annual Signal Strength Drive Tests.

The maximum ERP for each antenna can be easily calculated from the antenna spec sheets: — the sum of the max. input power per channel x antenna gain for each frequency that the antenna can output.

Based on this Wireless Signal strength data specific to each carrier’s available frequencies, the Village can then easily determine if there is any significant gaps in Telecommunications service and, if so, determine which are the least intrusive means to close the proven significant gap in Telecommunications service.

Telecommunications service is simply the ability to make an outdoor call for each Wireless Carrier, independent of specific frequency. If outdoor calls can be made 90% of the time, then, there is no significant gap in coverage and no need to grant an applications for a Wireless Telecommunications Facility (WTF).

If there is no significant gap in coverage, then there is no need for an additional antenna to serve that target area.

All of this can be added to the current Glen Ellyn Wireless Ordinance.

We are hereby requesting you add a semi-annual mandatory Drive Test for the wireless applicants as part of the application process in our ordinance. This is easy to execute, is no-cost to the Village, and can protect the safety, privacy and property values of Glen Ellyn residents.

I have expressed no matter of ”concern” or any other non-substantive matter, only matters of fact and law. I accept your oath of office.

Thank you.

5/26/2020 Person 10 (375 Words, edited for speakers 1-8, above)

I am __________________, a resident of Glen Ellyn. I attest and affirm that the following statements are true, accurate, and within my personal knowledge.

We have provided the proof tonight through our call tests, that there is no significant gap in coverage when making outdoor cell phone voice calls — with cellular data turned off — in six locations in Glen Ellyn using AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile and Verizon phones.

We performed these tests at 100 feet away from each of the following selected so-called "small" Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (sWTFs) locations

333 Park Blvd., (Intersection of Park Blvd. and Hill Ave.)
806 Hill Ave (Intersection of Bryant Ave. and Hill Ave.
12 Spring Ave . (Intersection of Spring Ave. & Roslyn Rd.)

The other three locations we tested are the following

Park Blvd. & Fairview Ave.
Oak St. & Lenox Rd.
In front of Glenbard West High School on Crescent Blvd. (Between N Ellyn Rd. & Lake Rd.)

For each call completed at each location, we experienced excellent Telecommunications service provided by AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile and Verizon. This has been documented at in a video published in Youtube here –> https://youtu.be/FwAsr1pC13Q and summarized in a PowerPoint presentation that we placed in the public record as substantial written evidence of our test.

Other Villages, Towns and Cities around the country are taking important steps to balance the needs of it residents (natural persons) and the needs of multi-billion-dollar Wireless companies (artificial persons).

Monterey, CA is one of those cities. Monterey hired an independent RF engineer to do a Drive Test. He found no significant gap in coverage outside of homes for Telecommunications service.

In a March 15, 2018 Planning Commission meeting, the Monterey Planning commissioners carefully listened to the results of the Drive Test, listened to public comments, and asked good questions. The commissioners overruled staff and voted 7-0 to deny Verizon’s application for a small cell tower in the Monte Vista neighborhood of Monterey.

After doing the research and legwork for the Village, we are hereby requesting you add a mandatory Drive Test for the wireless applicants as part of the application process in our ordinance. This is one of the most protective steps you can take to protect the residents of Glen Ellyn.

I have expressed no matter of ”concern” or any other non-substantive matter, only matters of fact and law. I accept your oath of office.