By VDC staff
A July 8 report from State Auditor Douglas Hoffer says repeated misconduct, financial management failures and weak accountability in several Vermont sheriff’s departments demonstrate the need for stronger oversight of elected sheriffs.
The Legislature passed a sheriff’s office report/oversight law, Act 30, in 2023. However, Hoffer’s report recommends the State of Vermont take further steps.
The report reviews two decades of financial audits and recent disciplinary cases, concluding that while “most sheriffs do not engage in behavior that warrants removal,” Vermont’s current system leaves few options for dealing with sheriffs accused of misconduct beyond elections or the rarely used impeachment process.
The report points to a series of high-profile incidents over the past several years, including:
- Windsor County Sheriff Ryan Palmer, arrested in 2026 on sexual misconduct charges. His law enforcement certification has been suspended while the criminal case is pending.
- Franklin County Sheriff John Grismore, whose law enforcement certification was permanently revoked after allegations involving pension payments made before he became sheriff. Although his certification was revoked, he remained in office because Vermont law does not require sheriffs to be certified police officers.
- Caledonia County’s former sheriff, who awarded $402,000 in bonuses — including to himself — without a formal bonus policy, prompting the Legislature to require statewide compensation policies.
- Orange County, where auditors found financial records so disorganized they were unable to complete an audit of the department’s final seven months under the previous sheriff.
- Addison County’s former sheriff, who was convicted and sentenced to probation after being charged with sexual assault, domestic assault and unlawful restraint.
- Bennington County’s former sheriff, who was reported to have lived in Tennessee while serving as sheriff.
The auditor found that Vermont law provides little direct oversight once someone is elected sheriff. Even if a sheriff loses law enforcement certification, the individual may continue serving in office and handling administrative duties because certification is not legally required to remain sheriff. The report notes that deputies who lose certification cannot continue working in law enforcement, creating a different standard for elected sheriffs.
The report also found sheriffs are required to keep records of their work schedules and leave but are not required to submit those records to anyone. All 14 sheriffs told auditors they track their time, but none regularly provides the records for review. Hoffer suggests lawmakers consider requiring sheriffs to regularly submit those records to improve accountability.
Financial audits dating back to 2006 identified 204 findings across Vermont sheriff’s departments, with nearly one-third being repeat problems. The most common issues included:
- Recording revenue and expenses in the wrong fiscal year.
- Poor separation of financial duties, allowing one person to control multiple parts of financial transactions.
- Missing documentation or approvals for expenditures.
- Failure to reconcile financial accounts.
- Weak asset accounting and capitalization practices.
- Management failures, including poor grant oversight, liquidity problems and, in one case, fraud and abuse of department funds.
To address those recurring problems, the auditor recommends better accounting training, stronger internal controls, requiring written documentation and approvals for financial transactions, improving reconciliation of accounts, strengthening review procedures in small departments where duties cannot be separated, and requiring sheriffs to maintain and potentially submit work schedule records.
The report also notes Vermont has fewer options for removing sheriffs than many other states. According to the auditor’s research, 21 states require sheriffs to hold law enforcement certification, 18 allow recall elections, nine allow governors to remove sheriffs under certain circumstances, and 20 have additional court or county procedures for removal. The report says those models could provide options if lawmakers decide stronger safeguards are needed.