When the town of Oxford sued the state two months ago, officials said it was a necessary step to get a judge to resolve the mess in its tax office left by the alleged embezzlement of former tax collector Karen Guillet.
Ten days ago the state officially responded to the suit. Its message, briefly: you should have just asked us first.
The Attorney General’s office is asking a judge to dismiss the lawsuit on the grounds that the town didn’t first ask its Office of Policy and Management for a ruling on the matter before suing.
“The plaintiff has failed to exhaust its administrative remedies and this matter should be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction,” wrote Assistant Attorney General Dinah Bee in a filing in the case July 12.
The motion, and a memorandum supporting it, are posted below. Article continues after the document.
State’s Motion to Dismiss Oxford Lawsuit
Guillet, the town’s tax collector for 20 years, was arrested on embezzlement charges in late November after a two-year investigation by state police.
She is charged with one count of first-degree larceny and six counts of first-degree forgery. State police believe she stole some $240,000 from taxpayers. In addition to the criminal case, the town has a civil lawsuit pending against Guillet, claiming she actually stole more than $600,000 over the years. Both cases are pending.
Town officials have said that because of Guillet’s wrong-doing, they don’t know how to resolve who does or doesn’t still owe property taxes. They distributed a 41-page list of more than 2,000 seemingly delinquent property tax accounts in February, totaling more than $10 million and dating back to 1997. A day later, several residents showed up to Town Hall saying they had paid the taxes years ago.
So in May, the town filed a lawsuit seeking a declaratory ruling from a judge on how to sort it all out.
Simply put, the documents filed last week by the state in response to the lawsuit say Oxford did not follow the rules regarding such cases.
The state says that own officials first have to ask the state’s Office of Policy and Management for help before going forward with the lawsuit.
Oxford never did so, according to a search of the records at OPM’s Intergovernmental Policy Division.
Town Attorney Kevin Condon said Thursday that the state’s argument boils down to semantics about the definition of the word “may” in one of the laws cited by Bee.
But in the interests of time, he said the town would likely file “basically the same paperwork” with OPM asking them what to do.
“I was kind of hoping they’d be a little more helpful than a hindrance,” Condon said. “Unfortunately we have a difference of opinion in the reading of the statute, but I’m not going to fight with the Attorney General’s office if they want (us) to do it that way.”
“The results will all end up being the same, they’ll just take longer,” he said.
First Selectman George Temple said Friday that the town “will do whatever we have to do to get this thing straightened out.”
“I just want guidance, I don’t care care who gives it to me,” he said. “It’s kind of a hit-or-miss proposition because it’s never happened before, so nobody knows what to do. If OPM can solve this I’d be right onboard.”
Messages seeking comment were sent to representatives of the Office of Policy and Management and Attorney General’s office Thursday.
Previous stories:
