The San Mateo County Board of Supervisors on Tuesday unanimously advanced a set of procedures that could lead to the removal of embattled Sheriff Christina Corpus, moving the process forward with some amendments.
The action follows a 400-page independent investigation released last year, led by retired Judge LaDoris Cordell, which ignited the current scandal surrounding Corpus. The report alleges corruption, misconduct, and an inappropriate relationship with her former chief of staff, Victor Aenlle. Corpus has denied the claims and resisted calls to resign.
Tuesday’s adoption of procedures follows a March special election in which more than 84% of voters authorized the board to remove the sheriff with a four-fifths vote. The draft procedures, developed with legal counsel from Hanson Bridgett, outline how that process would unfold and aim to ensure due process.
County Attorney John Nibbelin said these are the first procedures the county has ever adopted for removing a sheriff, and likely the first instance in the state where a board of supervisors was permitted to establish its own removal process.
Amendments include expressing a preference for a former judge to preside over the hearing and making minor adjustments to the discovery process based on input from Corpus’ legal counsel.
“We’ve put in a lot of work into these removal procedures to make sure they are compliant and consistent with principles of due process,” said Alfonso Estrada, an attorney with Hanson Bridgett.
Removal would require “cause,” as defined in the county charter — such as duty-related law violations, repeated neglect, misuse of public funds, falsifying documents, or obstructing investigations.
Under the proposed procedures, the board, with a four-fifths vote, would first issue a “Notice of Intent to Remove” to Corpus. The notice would be sent to the sheriff’s official email and include the allegations, triggering a pre-removal conference within five days, overseen by a neutral hearing officer. The hearings and conference would be public “by default” unless the sheriff requests a closed session.
If Corpus does not appear, she forfeits the right to a hearing. After the conference, the hearing officer makes a recommendation, and the board again votes — requiring another four-fifths majority — to finalize the removal.
There was some debate Tuesday over who should preside over the hearing.
Nibbelin suggested using a professional arbiter, possibly the county’s coroner or probation officer. But Supervisor Jackie Speier and Corpus’ attorneys expressed concern that such officials may lack familiarity with the Peace Officer Bill of Rights, which outlines rights for public safety officers, which they argued should govern the process.
The board ultimately directed staff to revise the procedures to state a preference for a retired judge as hearing officer.
At the hearing, both parties would be allowed to present evidence, call and cross-examine witnesses, and be represented by counsel. The county would present its case first and carry the burden of proof under a “preponderance of the evidence” standard. The hearing officer’s advisory opinion is nonbinding and must be issued within 45 days. The board would then have 30 days to issue a final decision.
The removal process could take up to four months.
Corpus attended Tuesday’s meeting, but her attorney, Thomas Mazzucco, addressed the board on her behalf.
“We’re concerned about due process and bias,” Mazzucco said. “How can you get a four-fifths vote when members of this board have openly said the sheriff should be removed? You can’t do it; that’s biased.”
Corpus’ legal team last month contracted former Riverside County Superior Court Judge Burke E. Strunsky for their own independent report. That document criticized the Cordell report for relying on unrecorded interviews and anonymous witnesses whose “credibility cannot be assessed.”
Related Articles
San Mateo County supervisors to vote on rules for removing sheriff
San Mateo County education office hosts state Green Ribbon Schools awards
San Mateo’s Hillsdale Mall is set for a major transformation into a mixed-use development
San Mateo County expands mobile mental health response
San Mateo sheriff’s scandal: Former judge questions reliability of Cordell report
Corpus also sued the county to obtain documents related to the investigation, including expense records.
The county has stood by the Cordell report and its decision to make it public.
Community members and groups weighed in during public comment. Jim Lawrence of the watchdog group Fixin’ San Mateo urged the board to move quickly.
“When public safety is compromised and trust is eroded, there must be changes,” he said. “We urge you to adopt a resolution initiating removal.”
Michael Kelly, a San Mateo business owner and community activist, urged board members to question the motives of those who have brought accusations against Corpus.
“Follow the money because that’s always where this comes from,” Kelly said. “Sheriff Corpus turned off the spigot from the unions, getting double overtime pay from the privileges that were abused when we needed extra support in the jails.”
The Deputy Sheriffs’ Association and the Organization of Sheriff’s Sergeants — both of which raised the initial allegations — praised the board’s action.
“Today’s vote marks another step in the long march toward accountability for Sheriff Corpus,” the groups said in a joint statement. “We look forward to turning the page on this sordid affair and devoting our full energy where it belongs: in service to our community.”
