Suffolk County Sheriff Steve Tompkins currently faces serious federal corruption charges, raising questions about who has the authority to suspend or remove him from office.
State law generally calls for the suspension of county officers or employees under indictment for misconduct.
However, a 1994 Supreme Judicial Court ruling clarified that this statute does not extend to elected county sheriffs like Tompkins.
The court established that a majority of its justices can initiate the removal of an elected county sheriff if they receive a complaint, which can come from various sources, including the governor or the attorney general.
Ryan Quinn, a labor law professor at Northeastern University, highlighted that a precedent from a 1966 case allows other entities to file complaints as well.
In that case, the Massachusetts Bar Association successfully filed a complaint against a court clerk in Newton, and the justices determined that the petition was valid.
Quinn emphasized, “The Supreme Judicial Court in that case said there’s no real standing requirement. It doesn’t have to be the attorney general.”
The allegations against Tompkins involve his alleged coercion of a cannabis executive to obtain stock from a Boston-based cannabis company ahead of their initial public offering.
The executive reportedly felt threatened by Tompkins, fearing that he would misuse his official position as sheriff to jeopardize the company’s licensing agreement with the Suffolk County Sheriff’s Department.
Massachusetts’ top Democratic leaders have remained largely silent about whether Tompkins should resign amid the charges of extortion.
Gov. Maura Healey recently stated she requires more information before proceeding to comment on the matter.
“They’re certainly serious, and no one in elected positions should ever use or abuse their power in an unlawful way,” Healey remarked regarding the charges.
As of late last week, no formal complaint had been filed against Sheriff Tompkins in court.
Should a complaint be put forward, it would lead to a decision by justices on whether to suspend him.
However, the question of whether he would continue to receive his salary during a suspension remains unresolved at this point.
In their ruling regarding the 1994 case, the justices suspended Middlesex County Sheriff John McGonigle amid his federal indictment but did not settle the salary issue definitively.
Quinn pointed out that while it was assumed the parties did not dispute that a suspension would be without pay, there remains ambiguity regarding whether Tompkins would be paid if suspended.
He explained, “If the governor brought a complaint, or someone brought a complaint to suspend Tompkins, that is potentially an open issue whether he would receive pay.”
The communication channels for Tompkins’ office have suddenly gone quiet.
Peter Van Delft, the director of External Affairs and Communications, has left a message stating he is out of the office until early next week.
Additionally, his assistant, Natalie Johnson, has a message indicating she is also unavailable.
Numerous calls to the sheriff’s office and the General Counsel’s department went unanswered as of Friday afternoon.
Records from the state Comptroller’s office indicate that the Suffolk Sheriff’s Office employs approximately 1,009 personnel, including over 300 corrections officers.
These officers continue their work despite the turmoil surrounding their sheriff.
The Comptroller’s records show that Tompkins earned $215,430 last year, with additional figures listed for leave buybacks and other compensation.
Despite his current legal troubles, Sheriff Tompkins was arrested in Florida and has not responded to inquiries.
In the interim, the question remains: who is effectively in charge of the Suffolk Sheriff’s Office during this uncertain period?
image source from：bostonherald
