The State Ethics Commission has found Groveland selectwoman Bette Gorski in violation of a conflict-of-interest claim made against her and has fined her $2,500. The claim was one of 11 in a complaint alleging that she used her political position to try to get her son restored to active duty on the town’s police force.
Police Chief Robert Kirmelewicz placed Eric Gorski on paid administrative leave on Nov. 7, 2011. About two months later, Gorski was placed on sick leave. Kirmelewicz said the action was not disciplinary in nature. Gorski rejoined the force on July 13, 2012.
According to the complaint, filed by Kirmelewicz, Bette Gorski held several conversations that violated state ethics standards.
Advertisement
The commission, in its Dec. 11 ruling, upheld one: During an encounter in a Georgetown restaurant, “Gorski improperly used her position as a Selectman on January 26, 2012, when she made threats to her subordinate, Deputy Chief Jeffrey Gillen, about the renewal of the employment contracts for Gillen and Chief Robert Kirmelewicz in order to influence him to help return her son to active police duty,” the ruling states.
Gillen could not be reached for comment.
“I think she’s been vindicated,” said Gorski’s attorney, Mark Smith. “Most of the claims, with the exception of one alleged that she did something inappropriate as a selectperson working in Town Hall. It’s clear from the opinion that none of those claims was supported by the evidence. . . . The only offense they found was a casual encounter in a restaurant, a 10-minute conversation.”
Gorski has 30 days to pay the civil penalty or file an appeal in Superior Court.
In a prepared statement, Gorski, who has been a selectwoman since 2002 and is up for reelection in May, said, “I’m pleased that the Ethics Commission has vindicated me regarding the vast majority of ethics allegations brought against me, and specifically found I did not attempt to improperly influence other members of the board of selectmen.
Advertisement
“I’m pleased that the commission, after hearing all the evidence, explicitly held that I was not trying to influence fellow selectmen, and properly refrained from getting involved in the chief or deputy chief’s contract negotiation. I’m also pleased that the commission explicitly held that board of selectmen did nothing wrong regarding the contracts of the chief or deputy.
“While I’m disappointed that the commission chose to find me responsible as a result of one casual encounter at a local restaurant, I continue to believe I did not violate ethics laws in any way.”
Kirmelewicz had a different reaction.
“I would have liked to have seen her been found fully responsible on all charges,” he said. “Unfortunately, she was only found responsible on one charge, and I think that’s the most important charge: That shows she came after my job.”
David Rattigan may be reached at drattigan.globe@gmail.com.