An attorney representing Franklin County Sheriff John Grismore blasted the Vermont House committee investigating whether Grismore should be impeached in a letter to its chair on Friday, calling the inquiry “autocratic” and an effort at “supplanting the will of the electorate” in the county.
The missive also states that the sheriff will comply with a recent subpoena to testify before the panel on Monday — but only if the entire hearing is open to the public. The impeachment committee ordered Grismore to testify on Dec. 11, but wrote in a Dec. 1 subpoena that some of the hearing could be held in an executive session.
Grismore’s attorney, Robert Kaplan, wrote in his letter to Rep. Martin LaLonde, D-South Burlington, that Grismore “will not appear before the Impeachment Committee in secret, closed proceedings from which the press and public are excluded.”
The panel has repeatedly met behind closed doors since it began its work in May — a decision that has repeatedly drawn criticism from Vermont news organizations, including the Vermont Press Association and the Vermont Association of Broadcasters.
Kaplan called the committee a “star chamber,” a term that refers to a medieval English court that imposed harsh punishments with little oversight. He also referenced Joseph Stalin’s Soviet security apparatus, writing, “The spirit of the Impeachment Committee seems adherent to the infamous quote by Lavrentiy Beria, Josef Stalin’s head of the secret police, to ‘show me the man and I will show you the crime.’”
“Despite the shaky foundation, questionable legitimacy and autocratic conduct of the Impeachment Committee, Sheriff Grismore is willing to appear before the Impeachment Committee and answer questions,” read the letter, which was also sent to reporters.
In an interview Friday afternoon, LaLonde defended the committee’s plan to hold some of Monday’s hearing in a closed-door session. He said it’s because members plan to discuss an ongoing investigation by the Vermont State Police and Vermont Attorney General’s Office into allegations that Grismore has committed financial misconduct.
LaLonde said law enforcement is investigating both Grismore’s actions as the primary bookkeeper at the Franklin County Sheriff’s Office — a role he held before being elected sheriff — and his personal finances, though he did not provide specifics.
“We would assume that he wouldn’t want that information out in public — but if he does, we can always see about accommodating that, as long as it’s not interfering with another investigation,” LaLonde said Friday. He maintained that lawmakers were not planning to tackle any other topics with Grismore while in a closed-door session.
In addition to questions about Grismore’s finances, the impeachment panel is also investigating whether the fallout from his actions last August when he kicked a detained man has impacted the operations of his office, and whether he has been meeting his contractual obligations in the Franklin County communities his department serves. (It was originally also investigating whether to impeach then-Franklin County State’s Attorney John Lavoie, a Democrat, for a separate matter, but it dropped that inquiry after Lavoie resigned his post.)
Friday’s letter comes just days after a state police oversight panel voted to permanently revoke Grismore’s law enforcement officer certification, due to a finding that he violated the state’s use-of-force policy when he kicked the man last year. (He plans to appeal the decision, which is slated to take effect in about two weeks.)
Grismore also faces an assault charge in court stemming from the incident. He has pleaded not guilty.
Kaplan argued that because the committee has conducted much of its work behind closed doors, he and Grismore cannot adequately prepare for the hearing. He indicated that, as such, the sheriff’s testimony may not be especially enlightening.
“The Impeachment Committee should consider itself warned that many of Sheriff Grismore’s answers may be that he is unable to answer without review and study of the matter under examination,” Kaplan wrote.
Kaplan characterized the impeachment process as a “partisan hit-job” on a Republican sheriff that, in Grismore’s view, amounts to “a repudiation by extremist Democratic Party partisans of the will of the voters of Franklin County to select their elected leaders.”
The letter also took aim at Rep. Mike McCarthy, D-St. Albans, who is the committee’s vice chair. Kaplan wrote that McCarthy’s position on the committee suggested that the entire panel was biased against Grismore, because McCarthy had called on Grismore to drop out of the race for sheriff ahead of last fall’s election.
Kaplan attached a copy of an email that McCarthy sent Grismore in August 2022 stating the kicking incident was “the biggest mistake of your career,” adding that staying in the race would “be terrible for you, for the Franklin County Sheriff’s office which you (hope) to lead, and for everyone in this county.”
Reached by phone on Friday afternoon, McCarthy disputed the characterization that the impeachment process had anything to do with party politics. He noted that he was just one of many people in Franklin County — including other members of the county Democratic party, and members of the county Republican party — who called for Grismore to drop out of the race at the time.
No House members — of any party — voiced opposition during floor votes that adopted the resolution setting up the impeachment committee, McCarthy said. He was “surprised by the letter’s accusatory tone,” he said, but would not let it “impact my objectivity or my desire to get at what really happened.”
“I think that this could be an opportunity for us to allow Sheriff Grismore to clear up a misunderstanding,” McCarthy said, referring to Monday’s hearing. “When I read that letter, I’m skeptical about that. But I’m going to keep an open mind.”
