NORFOLK - The state Ethics Commission fined Norfolk developer Jack Scott $2,000 Thursday for violating the conflict of interest law by offering the conservation commission's chairman a week at his Pennsylvania cabin before receiving that board's ruling on his housing project.

The civil penalty is the maximum allowed for incidents occurring before Sept. 29, when the state's new ethics reform law increased the cap to $10,000.

The Norfolk incident occurred three years ago.

"The conflict of interest law prohibits anyone from offering or giving a gift to a public employee to reward the public employee for official actions taken or to be taken by the public employee," commission Executive Director Karen L. Nober said. "That Mr. Scott was given the maximum fine in the case reflects the seriousness of his actions, which had the potential to undermine the important wetlands protection process."

The commission cleared Scott of another possible violation. "Scott's offer was not made with the corrupt intent to influence the ConCom chairman," the commission said. "However, by offering the ConCom chairman the cabin for one week as a reward or 'thank you' for past and future actions related to his development project pending before the ConCom, the commission determined that Scott violated" at least one facet of the law.

Scott has 30 days to appeal the ruling to state superior court, and said he plans to do so.

"I intend to appeal this inconsistent decision, which clears me of one count while finding me responsible on another," Scott said. "The facts are the same and the the law which is applicable to the charges is clear.

"I am not guilty of these frivolous asccusations and will appeal this decision until I am completely vindicated," he said.

The president of Pine Creek Development Corp., Scott was seeking conservation commission approval for a single-family home on Applewood Road when the alleged violation occurred on May 12, 2006.

The conservation board voted on an order of conditions on the site on May 11, but hadn't issued it, the ethics board said.

On May 12, Scott e-mailed then-Chairman Jeffrey Kane, offering the use of a Waterville, Pa., hunting and fishing cabin owned by The Freestone Sportsman Group, of which Scott is the president, chief executive officer and director, the ethics board said.

The cabin "typically rents for $700 a week," the ethics board said.

Scott told Kane that "when you step down from the commission so no one in this dame (sic) town can say anything about anything, my cabin is yours for a week with your family.

"It is near Williamsport little league world series park, Hershey park and Amish country. The best trout fishing in the East and great for the kids," Scott wrote. "Jeff no bribe just a thanks for being on the up and up with us regardless of how this all plays out."

About two hours later, Kane wrote back, "Jack, Thanks for the offer." He then said the board approved the order of conditions and that he would call Scott's wife when it was ready.

"Good luck with the fly fishing," Kane wrote.

The ethics board said Pine Creek bought the Applewood Road site on May 18, 2006, the day after the conservation board's ruling was hand-delivered to Scott's representative.

Kane, who couldn't be reached Thursday, reported Scott's e-mail and offer to the ethics board in October 2007.

Scott has said he made it "perfectly clear" to Kane that he would not rent the cabin to him until after he stepped down from the board.

Scott added that he offered Kane the cabin because Kane shared his interest in fly fishing during an earlier casual conversation.

Scott has also accused Kane of "sour grapes" over the developer filing his own ethics violation complaints against him and conservation board members Jason Talerman and Laurence Harrington, along with conservation administrative assistant Marie Simpson and her husband, Bruce, former chairman of the zoning board of appeals.

"Mr. Scott's offer placed me in an uncomfortable situation," Kane told The Sun Chronicle earlier. "Though I initially brushed the issue off, I ultimately realized that the ignoring of a potential wrongdoing was as inappropriate as the act itself. I ultimately felt this matter should be reviewed for relevance by an appropriate agency."