Updated at 6:16 p.m.
The Vermont Sheriffs’ Association on Monday called on Franklin County Sheriff John Grismore to resign immediately due to the revocation of his police certification over a violation of the state’s use-of-force policy.
“Sheriff Grismore must put Franklin County’s needs first and the need of the state of Vermont’s first before his own and step down immediately,” the association’s president, Windham County Sheriff Mark Anderson, said at a press conference Monday at the Statehouse. “It’s time to look for new leadership to rebuild public confidence and move Franklin County forward.”
Several hours later, in another Statehouse room, Grismore testified for the first time before the House committee investigating whether he should be impeached — and was adamant that he has no plans to step down.
“So, elected officials from other counties have a better read on the ways and means of Franklin County than the residents themselves? I don’t agree with that,” he told lawmakers. “I’m not concerned with what people outside of Franklin County are worried about, or what they have for opinions, or what they think they’re entitled to.”
The sheriffs’ call for their colleague’s resignation came days after the Vermont Criminal Justice Council voted to permanently revoke Grismore’s law enforcement certification. The council found that he violated the state’s use-of-force policy when he kicked a detained man in August 2022, while second-in-command of the Franklin County Sheriff’s Office. The decertification is expected to go into effect in the coming week.
In addition to his decertification and the ongoing inquiry into whether he should be impeached by the Legislature, Grismore faces an assault charge stemming from the kicks and an investigation by Vermont State Police and the Vermont Attorney General’s Office into allegations he mishandled finances while working in the sheriff’s department.
Anderson said that seven of Vermont’s 14 sheriffs met on Friday for their annual winter conference, where they voted to call for Grismore’s resignation. The sheriffs in attendance represented the counties of Bennington, Caledonia, Chittenden, Orleans, Washington, Windham and Windsor, according to Anderson.
“The public perception of Grismore’s actions have negatively impacted confidence in the department that resulted in a lack of confidence in law enforcement all across Vermont,” Anderson said at the press conference. He was flanked by five other sheriffs, with another participating in the event by video link.
The revocation of Grismore’s police certification does not remove him from the office to which he was elected in November 2022, since Vermont sheriffs are not required to be certified law enforcement officers.
But in addition to administering their departments, sheriffs usually take on policing responsibilities. So there will be “impairing factors” resulting from the loss of Grismore’s certification, Anderson said.
Robert Kaplan, an attorney representing Grismore, said last week that the revocation of the sheriff’s police certification would have a “chilling effect” on law enforcement in Vermont. When asked for a response to the remark, Anderson — a member of the state criminal justice council — said law enforcement officers who abide by their training and the policies should have nothing to fear.
“When people make mistakes, they will usually acknowledge them,” he said. “When I’ve made a mistake, we reflect on it. We look for change. We apologize. We mend fences. We’ve seen none of that.”
Anderson, along with Lamoille County Sheriff Roger Marcoux, also testified on Monday before the House committee investigating whether Grismore should be impeached.
Both sheriffs told lawmakers that once Grismore loses his police officer certification, he could have limited access — or none at all — to the most updated training on best practices in policing. That concerns them, they said: Not only could it make Grismore’s job more difficult on a daily basis, but it could also be a liability for his entire department.
In response to questions from the committee, Marcoux said he would have handled the situation in which Grismore kicked a shackled man differently — probably by not getting involved at all, he said, since there were two other deputies already in the room.
Had Marcoux acted as Grismore did, “I’d have been horribly humiliated” and then would “probably resign,” the longtime Lamoille sheriff testified.
Anderson said the Vermont Sheriffs’ Association had informed Grismore on Monday morning of the group’s decision to call for his resignation.
Grismore was elected three months after the county sheriff’s office released body camera footage of the incident. He was the only candidate for sheriff on the ballot, though two other men ran competing write-in campaigns.
Seated next to Kaplan at one end of a long table in a Statehouse committee room, Grismore derided the impeachment panel’s work over the course of nearly two hours of testimony, at one point calling it “a disgrace to all of those who are a party to it.”
“I simply am the latest victim of the media outrage machine — coupled with the ambitions of opportunistic politicians and weak-willed leaders — to face the whipping block,” the sheriff testified. “The law enforcement leadership class has thrown me into a volcano hoping that the horror will be sustained by my sacrifice.”
Tim Doherty, an attorney who is advising the committee, repeatedly pressed Grismore for details related to Grismore’s compensation while working under former Franklin County Sheriff Roger Langevin. Doherty produced what he described as payroll records and copies of checks that Grismore and Langevin had signed off on or approved.
Grismore maintained that all financial records were ultimately approved by Langevin.
The committee took testimony from Langevin earlier in the day, though nearly all of it was held in an executive session. The former sheriff appeared remotely via video.
The panel has conducted much of its work behind closed doors. Its chair, Rep. Martin LaLonde, D-South Burlington, said previously that the committee was planning to use another closed session Monday to discuss information related to Grismore’s alleged financial misconduct. But after Grismore protested, the committee agreed to hold all of his testimony in the public eye.
