This two-page exhibit concerns Investigator Mikayla LeRette and Mayor Jim Paine. It appears in federal case 3:25-cv-00183-jdp as Document 46-16, filed on May 11, 2026. The letter addresses a warning placed in LeRette’s supervisory file after a 2024 internal investigation.

Six Policy Accusations, Two Findings

The document lists six alleged policy violations from the Superior Police Department. Those allegations covered ethics, lawful orders, attendance, efficiency, performance, and conduct. They included serious claims, including misuse of public resources and dishonesty during an investigation.

Mayor Paine states that he reviewed the investigation and took notes. He says he gave limited weight to the investigator’s ultimate conclusions. That detail matters. It shows the mayor treated the outside investigator as a fact-gatherer, not as the final judge.

Paine then narrows the case. He says the evidence persuaded him that LeRette violated only two of the six policy areas. Those findings centered on work schedule compliance and orders from supervisors. He did not sustain the more damaging allegations tied to honesty, theft, or misuse of property.

The Public Accountability Question

For taxpayers, this record raises a familiar municipal question. How does City Hall handle internal police discipline when accusations start broad, then shrink? The letter suggests that claims involving dishonesty and misuse of public resources did not survive Paine’s review. Yet the same process still produced a warning and supervisory-file record.

That is where the public interest sits. A police department depends on discipline that is fair, clear, and consistent. A city government depends on records that explain why accusations rise or fall. This document does not show a finding of deception. It shows a mayor drawing a line between schedule-related misconduct and integrity-based accusations.

Outcome and Closure

Paine writes that he trusted LeRette’s “fundamental honesty.” He says she gave written assurance that she understood and would comply with policy. After that, he considered the matter closed. He also states that he did not intend to pursue discipline or charges.

The letter ends with a notable restoration. Paine says LeRette returned to good standing, subject to future compliance. In plain terms, the city warned her about schedule and order issues. It did not sustain dishonesty allegations against her.