Sheriffs’ call for Franklin County sheriff’s resignation not unanimous

By Mike Donoghue, Vermont News First

MONTPELIER – The Vermont Sheriffs’ Association has called on embattled Franklin County Sheriff John Grismore to resign following his decertification last week by the Vermont Criminal Justice Council on grounds of improper use of force on an intoxicated, unruly, shackled prisoner.

Grismore said he has no intention to step down.  He said he plans to fight any effort to remove him before his four-year term expires.  He said the voters of Franklin County knowingly elected him and they should be the only ones to decide if he continues to serve.  Grismore said he is prepared to take the case to federal court if necessary

Windham County Sheriff Mark Anderson, president of the association, made the resignation request public during a news conference at the State House on Monday, shortly after completing testimony before the House Impeachment Inquiry Committee.

He said seven of the 14 county sheriffs participated in the vote during an annual training session and business meeting last Friday. The county sheriffs that asked Grismore to resign were from Chittenden, Washington, Orleans,  Caledonia, Windsor, Windham and Bennington,  Anderson said.

Lamoille County Sheriff Roger Marcoux Jr., who was not at that meeting, said after the news conference Monday he would have voted against the resignation motion.   While sheriffs from Orleans, Washington, Windsor and Bennington stood behind Anderson at the podium during the news conference, Marcoux remained off to the side of the room.    

Marcoux, the longest serving sheriff in Vermont, said the request is premature, adding he did not have enough information to make an informed decision. He noted Grismore has appeal rights in the decertification vote; that the criminal assault charge is still pending and the impeachment inquiry is still on its fact-finding mission.

The association later got support from an eighth sheriff when they notified the rest of the members about the outcome of the vote. Addison County Sheriff Michael Elmore indicated he supported the motion, Anderson said Monday afternoon.

Each of the 14 county sheriffs are eligible to serve as a director of the state association, but Essex County Sheriff Trevor Colby does not pay dues and is not a member. 

Colby said later Monday he did not want to weigh in removing a sheriff that was elected in another county by apparently informed voters.  He said the other elected sheriffs should not interfere with the running of neighboring counties.

Colby said he did support the council’s decision to decertify Grismore as a law enforcement officer. 

Grand Isle Sheriff Ray Allen, who was absent Friday, told The Islander he would have abstained.  He said he wants to see due process play out and he also believed it was not up to the sheriffs to try to overturn the will of the voters. 

“They elected him knowing what was out there,” Allen said referring to the much-watched video of Grismore using a kick or push with his foot to force the uncooperative intoxicated prisoner to sit down. 

Allen and others noted the resignation request was never listed on the meeting agenda provided before the meeting. 

The resignation request came one day after the Vermont Criminal Justice Council voted 15-1 to permanently remove Grismore’s certification as a law enforcement officer based on the video of the prisoner incident.

Anderson said the association believes Grismore needs to put the interests of both Franklin County and the state ahead of his own needs.

Anderson said Grismore was informed about the association vote on Monday morning, but the sheriff’s defense lawyer, Robert Kaplan, of Burlington, said he was unaware of the request and questioned whether his client had been notified. Kaplan also questioned whether Grismore had been invited to the Friday meeting of the sheriffs. Anderson said he was invited like all sheriffs.

Contribute to Vermont Daily Chronicle via Stripe.com – quick, easy, confidential

It was clear by Monday afternoon when Grismore appeared before the Impeachment Inquiry Committee that he had received the resignation request and had no plans to step down.

Under questioning from Rep. Michael McCarthy, D-St. Albans, Grismore said he had given no thought to apologizing or to undertaking some restorative justice steps to make amends.

Before the hearing, Kaplan had questioned the neutrality of McCarthy sitting on the impeachment inquiry. Kaplan shared publicly an August email that McCarthy, as a Democratic legislator, asked Grismore, who is a Republican, but won endorsements from both major political parties in the primary election to have his name taken off the General Election ballot.

McCarthy’s email noted that as a legislator he was seeking a replacement candidate from the Democrats. McCarthy also warned he thought the campaign would become all about the video and not the issues if Grismore failed to step down.

When Grismore appeared before the committee at 1 p.m., legislators were ready to jump into questioning the target of their probe. Kaplan interrupted and noted that such inquiries normally begin with the panel allowing an opening statement by the target. The committee chair, Rep. Martin LaLonde, D-South Burlington, agreed to the request.

Grismore blasted the Vermont media for its coverage, as well as unnamed politicians for turning the case into a witch hunt to come after him unfairly.

Kaplan said last week his client would testify only if the proceeding was held in public. The committee had planned to go behind closed doors for some questions dealing with money issues when Grismore was the chief deputy sheriff and financial officer for former Franklin County sheriff Roger Langevin.

By Monday morning, LaLonde agreed to have all of Grismore’s testimony in public. The House Committee has done much of its work behind closed doors, including secret testimony by most witnesses at the more than 15 hearings before Monday’s session.

Under questioning by Burlington lawyer Tim Doherty, who was hired by the committee to serve as its legal counsel, Grismore was grilled about his pay and state pension while serving as the chief deputy under Langevin. Grismore said all financial issues were approved by his predecessor.

The biggest concern appeared to be the state ordering the sheriff’s department to repay the state money that had been put into a private retirement fund approved for him by the sheriff. Grismore said the private fund paid to Grismore was approved when the state pension fund was under-financed and state employees were told they might not get their pensions when they retired.

The $20,000 refund came after Grismore was fired by Langevin for the assault incident in August 2022 and got sworn in on Feb. 1.

Doherty said it appeared that Grismore got the benefit of a double payment for his pension. Grismore was asked to confirm emails and other documents, but he said he was unable to do so on the spot and would get back to the committee after having adequate to review then.

During his testimony Grismore said he believes he needs to continue to serve in the post that Franklin County residents elected him. He said he is listening less to the other sheriffs, legislators and media members that are calling for his head.

Meanwhile, the majority of the state sheriffs believe it is time for Grismore to throw in the towel.

“It is time to allow for new leadership to rebuild public confidence to move Franklin County forward,” Anderson said.

Anderson said Grismore needs to resign as a positive statement to restore public trust in the Franklin County Sheriff’s Department.

The Sheriff’s Association continues its commitment to upholding the values of integrity, accountability and transparency across the board, according to Anderson.

Anderson and Marcoux, the association’s first vice president, both testified before the impeachment inquiry committee on Monday morning.

No mention of the resignation request was mentioned during their testimony.

Asked on what a decertification might have had on his job, Anderson indicated that he could continue to do more than 99 percent of his current administrative work.

The Vermont Criminal Justice Council’s finding of the use of excessive force against Grismore and the flaunting of responsibility for his actions in August 2022 have demonstrated his inability to provide the professional leadership necessary to fulfill the duties and responsibilities of the office he was elected to uphold, Anderson indicated.