← All profiles
Removal proceedingsExecuted agreementComplaint allegation

Gregory Smith

The available record includes a 1987 appellate decision recounting Smith’s removal as Nelsonville police chief following allegations arising from a 1984 swimming-pool incident, as well as later settlement and public-records litigation.

1984 swimming-pool incident

The Fourth District Court of Appeals’ 1987 decision recounts the grounds stated in a February 6, 1985 removal order. According to that order, the events occurred during the night of June 8 and early morning of June 9, 1984, after Smith and other City employees encouraged a woman to accompany them to the Nelsonville City Swimming Pool while it was closed.

The removal order alleged that Smith used obscene language in the woman’s presence and included specific allegations of a sexual nature concerning her. It also alleged that he permitted a City employee to drive while under the influence of alcohol, acquiesced in forcible entry into the closed pool, and allowed a City employee to solicit sexual conduct from the woman.

Status of those statements: They are allegations recounted from the removal order. The Nelsonville Civil Service Commission held an evidentiary hearing and affirmed Smith’s removal as police chief. The Athens County Court of Common Pleas then affirmed the Commission’s order. The appellate opinion states that Smith did not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence before either the Common Pleas Court or the Court of Appeals; his appellate arguments focused on procedure and due process.

Settlement documentation

The assembled agreement states a gross cumulative settlement amount of $137,500: $70,000 from the City toward legal fees and expenses and $67,500 from the releasees to Gregory Smith. It also contains dismissal, release, employment, and waiver provisions.

A settlement resolves disputed matters by agreement. It is not, by itself, a judicial finding that either side’s underlying allegations were true.

2026 public-records complaint

Smith’s Court of Claims filing alleges that copies of ordinances were not promptly produced following a March 17, 2026 request. The complaint is a party’s filing, not a final adjudication. The current archive does not contain a final ruling establishing a violation.