STATE OF Maine Orrice oF THE GovERNoR 1 State House Station AvcusTa, MAINE anette 04333-0001 May 13,2024 David Duguay, Chairman ‘Oxford County Board of Comssioners PO. Box 179 South Paris, Maine 04281 Christopher Wainwright, Sherif Oxford County Sherits Offie PO. Box 179 South Pars, Maine 4281 Dear County Commissioners end Sherif Wainwright On February 7, 2024, the Oxford County Commissioners fied a complaint withthe Governor secking removal of Oxford County Steriff Christopher Wainwright pursuant to Art. IX, See. 10 of the Maine Constitution and 30 MARS. § 441 ‘Two days later, |issued an Esscutve Order setting forth a framework for consideration ofthe complaint and designating retired Maine Supreme Court lstice Donald G. Alexander to preside over a hearing on this Imate, to conduct fact-finding and to provide me witha non-binding, advisory recommendation, Justice Alexander's Advisory Decision is attached. That Advisory Dession recommends against removal ‘of Sheriff Wainwright based cn the allegations of the complaint and the evidence submited through the hearing process, Tagree with hat conclusion, adopt his advisory decison, and write separately to provide sy views om this mate. Interpreting a In 1926, Governor Ralph Owen Brewster and his Executive Council acted to remove Kennebee County ‘Sheriff Henry F. Cummings upon complaint that he was filing to uphold Prohibition laws, That remains ‘he only instance inthe history ofthe State of Maine when a Governor removed a Sherif pursuant to Ar. Tx, $10 ofthe Maine Const, The fit st this reaney Tas su acto Leon invoked is appropriate ‘Sheriffs are popu elected, and no govemor should lightly disregard the will f county voters. |nmy view, the Governor's constitutional authority o remove a Sheriff and instal a replacement ~ should be exercised only under extracrdinary circumstances. The Constitution proves thatthe Governor mays ‘set upon finding that a sheriffs “not faithfully or eicienty performing any’ duty imposed upon the shift by law" Me, Constant. IX, § 10 (emphasis added). The use ofthe term “may” indicates this isa decison committed tothe Governor's discretion. In order to show due respect othe voters, in my view a Governor ‘Should exerese this authori; fr instance, when the evidence shows:1) professional dishonesty or coruption, o (2) pattem of incompetence or derliton of duty that makes Clear the SherifVis incapable of, of unwiling to, ull the responsibilities ofthe office. Lesser allegations ‘generally should be addressed at the ballot box, exercised through the will ofthe people, and not through a constitutional petition to the Covernor. ‘The Allegations and Evidence Presented “The allegations and supporting evidence ae described in dealin Justice Alexander's Advisory Decision I will review them herein surmary fasion, The Complaint makes tree hasic charges: 1) thatthe Sheriff provided School Recourse Officers (SOx) to SAD HSS and RSL #10/who lacked the equied certification: 3) thatthe Sheriff improperly disposed of firearms from the evidence locker, and 3) thatthe Sheriff improperly pressured a suborcinate office o seek leniency ona motor vehcle-telated charge, School Resource OMficers: ‘Asto the SROs, te evidence shows thatthe problem was the result fa mistake inthe handing ‘of paperwork and one tat canbe traced ack atime before Sherif Wainwright ook office. Importantly, thereisno allegation that the two depuies who served as SROs lacked the required background, skills, or experience to be certified, nor is there any allegation that either ever acted unprofesionall in thei role san SRO. The fet ha they were not certified earlier than {hey were stemmed from the file to file @ “notice of hire” with the Maine Criminal Justice ‘Academy in 2018 during the terre of Sheriff Wainwright's predecessor. mn of Firearms: 2. Dispos ‘As tothe dispostion of firearms from the evidence locker, the evidence shows that Sherif ‘Wainright traded inthe firearms ata federally-licensed dealer for credits that were used (0 offset portion ofthe cost forthe purchase of new service weapons. There no allegation that he benefitted personally from the transactions or that the County didnot receive air value. The hearing recor! does not support a finding that the transaction clearly violated any applicable law, policy, or ethical standard 13. Request for Leniency on Pending Charge [As to the request for leniency, the evidence shows that Sheriff Wainwright requested that ‘deputy in his department seck dismissal or a redvced charge inthe case of a woman who was issed a ticket forconsuming alcohol ina vehicle on a public way. The Sheriff isan sequaintance ofthe womans sister, who is suffering from terminal, stage-t cancer. The worran hid no prior record. The deputy was concemed that the request was an ethical and’ perhaps unlawful attemp® at “ticket fixing” and reported the matter to his supervisor who reported the matter tothe le deputy. Shortly thereafe, Sheriff Wainwright called the deputy who made the complaint and conffonted him if an aggressive manner, cursing and chatsing him. Sheriff Wainoright has tccepted responsibility for hs unprofessional conduct n confronting the deputy ashe did. The evidence doesnot support a finding thatthe Sherif’ actions constituted “ticket fixing” or that the Sherif’ underying request ~ to seek leniency on the woman under the circumstances presented — was unlawful or unethicalOverview ofthe Merits 1 donot regard the isu related tothe SROS tobe a serious filing. Tobe elar, the Sheriff was esponsible for ensuring the certifications were in place, and he should take greater care in the future to avoid similar mistakes. The evidence shows, however, that his Was largely an administrative oversight, and one tha was both rectified and caused no hrm, Reganting Sheriff Wainwright dieporiton of Firearms frm the evidenoe locker the hearing record shows theres some ambiguity in hv the County policies appl to these transactions, and, in retrospect it would have been prudent fr the Sherif to ensure the County Commissioners supported his plan to trade in the “weapons for eredifs bere proceeding. But inthe absence of any allegation of personel benefit improper Inotive, end with no proven vielstion of lw or policy these transactions in and of themselves do wot justi removal ‘Of concer as wel isthe Sheri’ handling ofthe request for leniency The request itself was not improper. Ieis common for la enforcement, after ticketing an individual, to take into consideration oer factors and to request leniency before a judge. The manner in which ShevitT Wainwright reacted to his deputy and the ‘manner in which he confronted his deputy lacked professionalism and was a serious ror in judgment. His {veeplance of responsibility fr his unprofessional conduc i important, but it doesnot fly exeuse his fstons, which may well have caused lasting damage to morale witin the office. However, the evidence doesnot indicat that this single indent was prt ofa lager pattern of behavior, andy asa result, while handed poorly, I do not believe i i sficint cause to justify the sanction of removal from a popuariy lected office, My decision her should not te viewed as vindication of Sheriff Wainight The hearing record shows that he has made mistake and acted intemperately on occasion, Hovsever, my ole here isa narrow one: t0 ‘consider the facts of the comin, a established during the proceedings, ad to conclude whether those cts justify the removal ofa ropularly elected oficial, slid out by the Maine Constitution. I believe the evidence presented fills shor of satisfying what must be a high standard forthe Governor's removal fom office ofa popularly elected Sherif. In my view, the voters of Oxford County should be the ultimate judge ‘ofthe Sheriff on these matters wen and ie pts his name before them for reelection in the futur, Sincerely one T. Mills Governor Ce: Amy Dieterich, Eq Jonathan Berry, Esq