Woodstock PD vs. Sgt. Gorski

Remember the saga of Sgt. Gorski, who suffered two on-the-job back injuries and whom the Chief is trying to fire? You can read the latest update on www.McHenryCountyAdvocate.com

Back in February the Board of Fire and Police Commissioners ("Board"), a three-man board of civilians that just happens to include a Woodstock resident who is Police Chief of a nearby village, determined, after four months of hearings, that Chief Lowen had not made his case to fire Sgt. Gorski successfully to the Board. The Board ordered that the Police Department and the City of Woodstock should pay Sgt. Gorski all his back pay - many months' worth of back pay. That was in February.

Has he been paid? No. Make that, NO.

Not a penny in eight months. Just how long does it take for a City to carry out a directive of one of its appointed Boards?

Instead, Chief Lowen filed an action in McHenry County Circuit Court to declare that the Board had not made its decision in the right way and it did not have the legal authority to make it in the manner in which it did?

Wouldn't it be interesting to know the total of legal fees expended by the City first in trying to fire Sgt. Gorski and, secondly, with the court case it filed? Probably as much as the City will end up paying for all his back pay, interest, legal fees to collect it, etc.

Maybe the City Attorney should have just told the City, "Hey, you (we) lost. Get over it. Pay him and be done with it. If you don't like the job we are doing for you, fire us."

And what was that manner in which the Board acted? The Board heard a motion by Sgt. Gorski's attorney for a directed verdict in Sgt. Gorski's favor. This motion was made at the conclusion of 4 1/2 month of hearings and when the Police Department had finally finished offering up everything it could think of.

Granting this motion would mean that the Board did not have to hear any testimony from Sgt. Gorski. In other words, if the Board granted the motion for a "directed verdict," then it would be saying that, after hearing everything that the P.D. had to say - all its witnesses, records, charts, evidence, etc. - then the Board did not have to hear from Sgt. Gorski. In other words, no defense would be necessary.

And that's exactly what the Board did. It granted the Motion for a directed verdict and told the Chief to pay Sgt. Gorski all his back pay. Did the Chief "give up"? No way! By filing his case in court, he apparently has found a way to stall the payment of all the back pay.

Last Wednesday they were all in Judge McIntyre's court for yet one more court date. When the good judge was asked back in March to make an administrative review of the Board's decision-making ability, it should have taken about two weeks. Certainly, a decision could have been rendered by mid-April. Did it happen?

Last Wednesday Attorney McArdle from the office of the City Attorney (an independent law firm contracted by the City of Woodstock) dragged in his tripod and charts and launched into a presentation to the judge. What was that all about? Apparently, nine reasons were given as to why Sgt. Gorski shouldn't be a Woodstock cop any longer.

Why would the City reveal information from the confidential medical records of an employee in open court? Maybe for the same reason it did so at the first meeting of the Board, before they went into Executive Session.

Wish I had been there, but earlier I was in a different courtroom with a friend whose case was set for the same day and time. What did that judge say to her? That he was conducting a criminal court, not traffic court. So she needs to go back another time. I heard the snide remark of the prosecuting attorney, which went unchallenged by the defendant. Too bad the judge let it pass without slapping that attorney on the wrist.

Judge McIntyre is to issue her decision on December 18 in the Gorski case. This will be ten months after the Board of Fire and Police Commissioners told the City to pay up. Ten months! TEN months. I wonder what the next step of stalling will be. A further appeal?

And what will she decide? Either that the Board made its decision in the right manner or it didn't. If it did, will the City pay up promptly?

And if it didn't? The matter goes back to the Board for a new decision. That ought to take all of about three minutes, since the Police Chief completed his testimony. He shouldn't get any further chance to prove his case. And, since it hadn't been proved it up to that point, it still won't be proved.

What do you suppose is the real reason that the police department is fighting so hard to can Sgt. Gorski?