Former Tax Collector's Pension to be Revoked

The attorney general says Karen Guillet will get none of the money she was supposed to receive for her retirement.


Former Oxford tax collector Karen Guillet will not see a dime of her pension after pleading guilty to stealing hundreds of thousands of dollars from the town.

Attorney General George Jepsen announced through a news release Wednesday that Guillet has signed a stipulation for judgment agreeing to the revocation of her pension. Upon approval of the court, her entire pension benefits will be revoked. Her projected pension benefit is $1,814.33 monthly – $21,771.96 annually, the news release states.

“Theft from a municipality or the state is a serious violation of the public trust,” Jepsen states in the news release. “In 2008, the General Assembly saw fit to give the state attorney general the authority to seek a pension revocation or reduction from a state or municipal official convicted of a crime in connection with their public position. In this case, we have applied that law appropriately, this pension will be revoked and taxpayers will not be responsible for the pension of someone guilty of stealing taxpayer funds.”

Guillet, 62, who was the elected tax collect in Oxford from December 1984 to January 2010, has agreed to a court order that pension contributions she paid into the pension fund, without interest, will be applied to any restitution order entered in her pending criminal matter. That amount totals $19,198.66, the release states.

Guillet has pleaded guilty to first-degree larceny, a Class B felony, for stealing $242,903 from the town, although some estimates suggest she stole at least $670,000. She has entered into a plea bargain agreement that calls for 12 years in prison, suspended after she serves five. It also states that she must pay back that amount.

She was arrested in late 2011; according to the state police arrest warrant, she stole money from the town while serving as tax collector to pay for purchases at high-end retail stores, spa treatments and a dog walker, among other things. She is scheduled to be sentenced on Oct. 29 in her criminal case.  

Under state statute enacted in 2008, the Attorney General is authorized to initiate a civil action seeking reduction or revocation of the pension of any state or municipal official who, in state or federal court, is convicted of or pleads guilty to a crime related to their state or municipal office on or after October 1, 2008.

Any state or municipal official convicted on corruption-related charges – defined specifically in the law as embezzling public funds; committing felony theft from the state; bribery in connection with one’s service as a state or municipal employee; or committing a felony with intent to defraud in order to obtain a profit, gain or advantage for themselves or someone else – could face court action to reduce or revoke their pension.

Guillet's defense attorney, Dominick Thomas of Derby, said the pension revocation "has always been part and parcel to the discussion about restitution."

Oxford First Selectman George Temple said taking away the pension is "the least you can do."

"To date they have done nothing to try to pay down the debt that the court found in the criminal case, and I assure you the civil case will be much higher," he said. "We intend to get every penny back that we can."

Click here to read court documents signed by Guillet and the attorney general's office regarding the pension revokation. 

CMG October 17, 2012 at 04:22 PM
Good, now go after her home and vehicles and anything else she has....
Joe Blow October 17, 2012 at 04:41 PM
So let me get this straight, she paid in $19,198.66 to her pension and if she was to retire she would get back $21,771.96 annually or $1814.33/month. How does that compare to a Social Security check? BTW- if she had other income in her life she would also receive a SS check.
Arek Wenta October 17, 2012 at 05:05 PM
It's a good start. At least we get to see a little justice. The divorce will keep the state from getting her house and cars as she'll give everything to her husband. It's strategy. Otherwise she would be fighting for her pension. To have something to live on when she gets out. And Joe, I'm not positive about municipal employees but I'm sure that teachers in CT do not get social security no matter how long they payed into it before getting a municipal pension. I don't know why, but it isn't right.
Ed Spruck October 17, 2012 at 05:26 PM
Joe Blow makes a good point as to how she can contribute only $19.2k and get $21.8k annually? Is there another pension? If not no wonder CT is going broke with pension plans like that. The court document indicates that Guillet has signed the agreement to forfeiture of her pension. What is not clear to me is if funds already paid to Guillet will be recovered. It states the AG has reclaimed the $19k Guillet invested and will be applied to her restitution. My opinion is that her husband is not entitled to any of their joint assets since they are stolen property from the Town. If he bought stolen goods on line he would be out the money and the goods. The same should apply to all there joint assets. Our Selectmen should file papers asking for all Guillet joint asset s as we are a crime victim not a creditor.
Ed Spruck October 17, 2012 at 05:45 PM
The signed documents do not mention the $145.4k pension amount. So one wonders where does this money go? How much did she contribute to it over 24 yrs? Why doesn't the AG state that all her contributions to that pension will be reclaimed? Is it possible the AG isn't getting all that money too?
ECasey October 17, 2012 at 06:04 PM
All of this happened before divorce papers were filed, the courts should be able to go after all of her assets. I am sure they will be remarried once she is out of prison, will their cheating and stealing ever end?
J October 17, 2012 at 07:14 PM
Nobody knows the situation of their family. She may be guilty but just because you are her husband or children or grandchildren that does not make them all guilty. The family in its whole has to deal with her mistakes and that includes young children who do not deserved the harassment they get at school from other kids because their pissed off parents air their opinions in front Of them. Justice will be served, I just can not stand by and listen to ignorant people who think they know things they don't
James October 17, 2012 at 07:43 PM
Crime pays, and it pays well.
pa October 18, 2012 at 12:46 AM
Ahh, another family member speaking on their behalf. While I agree that little children should not bear the brunt of this whole nasty, calculated, messy scenario, its going to happen,so be it. This was not a mistake but a calculated theft, albeit an old one....bait and switch. Nils is not of clean hands, he had to have known. Look, if I buy a new bag my husband will notice and say something. Nil is not stupid, just another calculating, snarky monster just like her. These people lived the life of luxury at our expense, plain and simple. You reap what you sow.
woti October 18, 2012 at 12:48 AM
Teachers in Connecticut don't get Social Security because they do not pay into Social Security. They pay into the teacher's retirement fun instead. From the Department of Revenue Services web site: "Public school teachers in Connecticut are not covered by Social Security for their public school teaching service. Teachers and school districts make no contributions to the Social Security system for that work and teachers cannot collect benefits based on it. Instead, the state provides teachers with retirement benefits through the state Teachers' Retirement System (TRS)."
Joe Blow October 18, 2012 at 03:13 AM
Arek & woti, If teachers worked in the private sector prior to or during their life as a teacher they paid into SS.
Joe Blow October 18, 2012 at 03:17 AM
Unfortunately, I must agree with pa.
ECasey October 18, 2012 at 12:04 PM
I feel sorry for any of the children involved, what a terrible role model to have. Her husband either knew or is just plain dumb. They do taxes together he knew what her salary was my God we all did; lucky for us everything is public knowledge. The house and anything else worth money should be taken from the two of them. So many names were put on that list for delinquent taxes, how about how we felt seeing our names on there. I say take it all! They deserve to have nothing!
Bonnie October 18, 2012 at 12:40 PM
I've got to agree with everyone except for "J", Karen doesn't have young children that are in school getting bullied, picked on or harassed. Her kids live in homes that WE (the tax payers in Oxford) paid for! Am I right or wrong? Aren't her kids much older and out of school? As for her husband... Please... My husband knows what I purchase, how much I spend and how much my paycheck is, so Karens husband was living like the "Jones'" not only keeping up with them, they were them! What comes around usually goes around! Take it ALL! She did! And to think I get so mad when I find out that one of my employees steal $50.00... I guess I shouldn't get so mad until it reaches a much higher amount! I'm sure when Karen gets out of JAIL (if she evens goes) she will apply for unemployment and she will get approved!
Craig Zac October 18, 2012 at 12:44 PM
Instead of taking everything she / they have as a sort of punishment, take it as re-payment for the $$$ she stole. Her punishment will be the prison time and the rest of her days living as an ex con with a record for stealing money from her employer (town). It will be so hard for her to get a job and without any retirement funds, she's gonna need one. I'm just wondering, how she could actually think she'd never get caught? Money is the one thing people track, sooner or later the town would have figured it out. She just got lucky and had a good run, game over, go directly to jail.
liviaj October 18, 2012 at 03:28 PM
Next question; will the IRS be going after her for taxes on the money she admitted she stole?? Paul, perhaps you can look into it.
mary duford October 18, 2012 at 08:20 PM
Yes, why is it taking so long to accomplish this next step???
mary duford October 18, 2012 at 08:25 PM
Too late; Karen already punished her family and children by her unscrupulous actions over the years. Hope she can sleep at night with the guilt.
mary duford October 18, 2012 at 08:29 PM
Hi Bonnie, So, um, when is she going to jail? I went to a Catholic high school with her, same year.... go figure. Guess that part of her life, and that fine academic schooling did not fit into her devious plan!!!
Paul Singley October 18, 2012 at 08:31 PM
good question. thanks.
mary duford October 18, 2012 at 08:43 PM
I agree, The game of monopoly is one she should have pondered.
Bonnie October 19, 2012 at 03:27 PM
Hi Mary, Karen goes for sentencing the end of the month, I just hope they don't go gentle on her. Gosh, Martha Stewart went to prison for how long? That was only $40,000. Insider trading... It's sad that people get a taste of "fine living" and they must steal to continue that kind of life. I guess it doesn't matter how you're raised, what type of education you had, and how honest of a person you were before you feel the greed. I wonder if she will have to wear prison clothes?
someone who is human April 12, 2013 at 02:54 PM
she does have grand kids and her kids have grown their business through hard work and long hours......... They probably have worked a lot harder than most of you !!!! The family has suffered enough and for you to speculate is totally ignorant thinking and if you knew any of the family you wouldnt be so quick to shoot your mouthssssss off. They have more compassion than all of you!!!!!!! We cant change what happened . Get passed it !!! Get on with your life .... Negative thinking brings about a negative life !!!!!


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something