10/27/2026
I normally do not respond to social media posts. However, when my credibility is attacked and the integrity of the Clearwater County Sheriff’s Office is called into question, I feel compelled to respond. A recent Facebook post regarding Clarence LaCroix’s disciplinary file contains inaccurate information and creates the impression that the Sheriff’s Office is hiding something. That is simply not the case.
The information being circulated promotes a conspiracy theory that suggests there is something being concealed. Nothing is being hidden. I believe the public deserves accurate information and a clear explanation of what actually occurred, rather than speculation and accusations that undermine public trust.
The post alleges that a data request was made on August 26 specifically requesting Clarence LaCroix’s personnel data. That is not accurate. I have attached the original request received on August 26 so the public can review it and understand exactly what was requested.
The August 26 request was much broader than information regarding one employee. It requested a roster of all Sheriff’s Office employees, along with records showing salaries, overtime compensation, and expense reimbursements from January 1, 2023, through the present. It also requested complaints or charges and final disciplinary actions involving all Sheriff’s Office personnel from October 1, 2014, through the present.
This was an extensive request involving multiple employees and years of records, requiring considerable time to gather and review. I began working on the request and provided responsive data to the requestor on September 9, September 16, September 29, and October 7.
On October 11, I received another communication alleging that I was “slow rolling” the request. The requestor then asked for only the information regarding Clarence LaCroix, stating that doing so would make the process easier. I responded on October 14 with additional information about the request and explained that I would need to review Clarence’s personnel file to complete that portion of the request. If that request would have been made initially, it would have saved me a considerable amount of time and the request would have been completed much sooner.
On October 21, I received another communication requesting Clarence’s information by Friday, October 23. However, I had already visited the County Auditor’s Office on October 20 to request access to Clarence’s personnel file. The Sheriff’s Office does not maintain personnel files; those records are maintained by the County Auditor’s Office.
During that visit, I was informed that the Auditor’s Office had received a separate data request regarding Clarence LaCroix and had provided his personnel file to the County Attorney. I contacted the County Attorney by email and was informed that she was forwarding the file to the county’s labor attorney for review and preparation of a response.
I received the response from the County Attorney on October 26 and forwarded it to the original requestor.
I also want to address the issue of discipline. Discipline is a necessary function of law enforcement leadership. It is one of the ways we hold employees accountable, maintain professional standards, and ensure the Sheriff’s Office operates with integrity. Holding employees accountable is not something to be ashamed of or something that should automatically be viewed negatively. Discipline exists in multiple employee files. It is part of the responsibility of leading a professional law enforcement agency. As Sheriff, I have always believed that employees must be held to appropriate standards, and when discipline is warranted, it must be addressed.
I understand that the public has a legitimate interest in government transparency and access to public data. I support that transparency, and I believe the public should have the opportunity to review the facts. However, transparency also means being honest about the process and not allowing speculation or inaccurate claims to replace the documented record.
The timeline speaks for itself. The original August 26 request covered a broad range of information involving all Sheriff’s Office employees, not just Clarence LaCroix. I worked on that request, provided responsive information on multiple dates, followed up regarding Clarence’s personnel file, and forwarded the response received from the County Attorney on October 26.
I am not responding to engage in a social media argument. This is also not an endorsement for either candidate running for Sheriff. I am responding because my credibility, the integrity of the Clearwater County Sheriff’s Office, and the professionalism of the people who serve this county matter. I will not stand by while inaccurate information creates the impression that this office is concealing something when the documented facts tell a different story.
The citizens of Clearwater County deserve facts, transparency, accountability, and a Sheriff’s Office they can trust. That is the standard I have worked to uphold, and it remains my responsibility to ensure the public has an accurate understanding of this situation.
