BY DAVE PRICE
Daily Post Editor
If you’re a San Mateo County resident who will vote in tomorrow’s special election, keep in mind that Measure A isn’t a power grab. Claiming it’s a power grab is about the only thing Sheriff Christina Corpus is saying in response to this attempt to remove her from office for misconduct.
Measure A isn’t a power grab because you, the voter, have control over whether you want to vote “yes” or “no.” And Measure A is temporary; it expires in 2028.
She’s accused of widespread abuse of power, conflicts of interest, retaliating and intimidating employees, using anti-gay and racial slurs, and nepotism by giving her alleged boyfriend a top job in the sheriff’s office.
If the voters approve Measure A, it will take about a month to begin the process to remove her. The county elections department needs to certify the vote, which will take until early April. Then the Board of Supervisors — an elected panel of five people — will present her with a list of reasons why they want to fire her.
She will get the chance to present her case. She was given a chance in November when the supervisors were deciding whether to put Measure A on the ballot, but she didn’t speak up in her own defense.
This time around, she’d be wise to hire an experienced lawyer who can make a convincing case by calling witnesses and presenting evidence. Four of the five supervisors would have to vote to fire her. If she can peel off two votes, she’ll keep her job.
Anonymous witnesses
It’s unclear to me how much of a right to “discovery” she will have before she can make her case. Discovery is the legal process where both sides request information from one another. Corpus and her former chief of staff, Victor Aenlle, have been angry that a report the supervisors commissioned on misconduct in the sheriff’s office contained the testimony of witnesses who were granted anonymity.
Corpus’ lawyer might say that they can’t mount a defense without knowing the names of those witnesses. And the county attorney will respond that the witnesses were granted anonymity because they feared retaliation from the sheriff. And, the county would argue, the sheriff has already retaliated against the head of the deputies union, Carlos Tapia, by having him arrested and jailed (even though the bogus charges were later thrown out by the DA). And, Corpus’ critics say, she fired Assistant Sheriff Ryan Monaghan for cooperating with an investigation into the sheriff’s office.
In a disciplinary hearing by a county agency, does the employee, in this case Corpus, enjoy the Sixth Amendment right to question witnesses as she would in a criminal proceeding? Or is discovery more limited, like it is in civil cases? Corpus might bring that question to a Superior Court judge before her hearing before the supervisors takes place. That would delay her possible firing.
Hiring a replacement
If she is fired, the supervisors need to find a replacement or hold an election. It’s likely the supervisors won’t want Undersheriff Dan Perea to take over. Corpus hired Perea, former deputy chief in San Francisco, after her undersheriff quit. The supervisors will want a clean break from the Corpus administration.
The best path would be to ask for applications and interview those who meet the qualifications, which include residency in San Mateo County, and then make an appointment.
The interviews should be open to the public so people know the supervisors don’t have any hidden agendas. The successful applicant should have experience running a jail, overseeing patrol and investigations.
Monaghan fits the bill and is still on the county payroll since County Manager Mike Callagy blocked his firing. Callagy wanted to prevent another lawsuit against Corpus that the taxpayers would have to pay.
Urgent ‘to do’ list
Once a new sheriff is on board, a couple things should happen swiftly:
• Since Corpus became sheriff two years ago, five prisoners have died in the county jails due to drugs or suicide — an unusually high number. Modern jails have ways of preventing those kind of deaths. An experienced jail manager needs to address this immediately.
• The county needs to settle the various lawsuits it faces due to actions by Corpus and Aenlle. Current and former employees and families of deceased inmates will all be suing, seeking tens of millions of dollars. One thing the county can say in its defense is that they corrected the situation by removing Corpus and Aenlle.
• The department’s rank-and-file employees, who voted overwhelmingly to say they had no confidence in Corpus, need to be included in the planning and management of the sheriff’s office in the future. More than 100 of her 800 employees have left in the last two years. A lot of talent walked out the door. Enlightened leadership will understand that you’ve got to meet with employee groups when it comes to decision-making. Hopefully, the next sheriff will understand that fact.
Editor Dave Price’s column appears on Mondays.
Parea doesn’t live in the county therefore could create issues in being appointed too
Quite interesting points & perspective. Yet the intricacies of such investigations can be quite unique, the Brown Act, HR investigations at the county and peace officer investigations all differ. Peace officer nuances may not apply here. Similarly, there are differences between notions of “confidentiality” and being “anonymous”when it comes to witnesses. Confidential essentially meaning kept non-public, while anonymity meaning unknown. These witnesses may maintain confidentiality, yet are unlikely to be anonymous; key distinctions.
In a matter such as this, the hearing body, presumably the Board, or perhaps a smaller representative panel of them due to the Brown Act, or even a designated hearing officer, would learn the accusations and review required behaviors. That process isn’t a matter, such as a trial in criminal or civil case, where the accused confronts witnesses against them.
Technically, the matter is likely to be required to be, and considered closer to a tribunal. What I described above could fit that. Cross-examination of witnesses is unlikely, although the presentation of separate evidence and witnesses is likely to contradict or correct the accusations. The accused should have a right to know the identity of their accusers, although those identities may remain confidential (not made publicly available). The goal is to discover the truth of the matter, as supported by evidence, individuals or both.
If a vacancy occurs in the office of Sheriff, the Board is likely to follow the guidance of previous grand juries for similar elected positions. It is very possible the Board would appoint an interim sheriff, one uninterested in running to fulfill the existing term, then hold a special election for the public to select the candidate to fulfill the remaining term of office through 2028.
Monaghan lacks experience in corrections, as does Hsiung, yet Monaghan should be immediately returned to his former position and responsibilities; he remains employed now as Assistant Sheriff. He could run if he was inclined to do so. Hsiung should be contacted at some point, depending on other choices made by the Board. It is more than likely that an undersheriff and additional assistant sheriffs would be brought back in limited contracts until a new sheriff-elect takes office and can make appointments to those positions. What is needed in the short term is an apolitical interim, with a strong temporary executive team to begin to calm the sheriff and handle the highest priory needs. This is likely to need 16-hours daily, six to seven days per week, for several months; an attractive challenge for some, not an attractive pace for many.
The appointment process could follow what Mr Price has outlined, yet that is time consuming. More likely is that the unions would have the opportunity to submit questions for temporary appointees, yet the employment decision would remain with the Board.
It could go any number of other ways; this appears to me to follow county guidance and history when previous sheriffs had left office mid-term. There are those interested, available and standing by to see how the Board proceeds after the election. Government is seldom swift.
Could you write longer comments?
Corpus did not attend the November 19th meeting as well as did not join December 3rd for the second vote to add Measure A to the ballot. Corpus also declined a meeting with her attorney on December 10th, instead started more adversarial communications via her chosen lawyer of the week to decline meeting and asked to delay the ballot measure.
Apparently, Aenlle must have ill informed the Sheriff that she was elected and noone could challenge her powers, because she did not seem to take seriously participating in the board of supervisor meetings nor did she take seriously meeting with unions nor did she take seriously communicating with anyone except Dan Noyes…
Up until January 2025, when she double lawyered up twisting her narrative that starts her story about 6-12 months later than her leadership issues actually started. Then outrageously filed a claim for $10 million. Even if you are elected, you have policies, procedures and rules. What a nightmare corrupt leaders are to employees and budgets
Will this be the week, when the DA’s Office releases their findings surrounding the five investigations born out of the Cordell Report?
No on A! SJMercury calls it a power grab! California Sheriffs Association opposes it! All these entitled complaining public workers in the Sheriff office need to resign or retire! Police Unions are full of corruption and have a history of impeding reform and accountability in law enforcement. They cost all of us an 8 million dollar settlement in a case a female detective brought against the Sheriff office for sexual harassment and assault. This conduct occurred during Sheriff Bolanos tenure…where was the outrage or the Sheriff Union?
all political stunts. Let’s hire Judgey Cordell to do a report on President Trump? ha ha ha She can interview all the bureacrats and write a report
Corpus, as a Sheriff’s Captain and working as a police chief, failed in her duty to report and intervene in the Barker case when Barker sought Corpus’ help. Instead, Corpus quietly pressured Barker to file a lawsuit against the county and the sheriff to make Bolanos look bad as rhetoric for Corpus’ bid for election. Corpus refusal to be deposed and testify about her own actions and failure to act caused the $8M settlement.
No grab of power in a public election concerning Measure A. Those who don’t support Measure A should vote no, while those who support Measure A should vote yes.
The law permits, and to an extent requires, Measure A type actions, to counter public corruption. Corpus and her cronies, with tremendous intention and forethought, crafted their environment of corruption, adversely influencing hundreds of employees and costing the county millions of dollars.
Christina?
The opposition by the California Sheriffs Association is an interesting piece of information. That hasn’t been mentioned in the newspapers. Where would the commenter “PowerGrab …” have picked that up? Could it be that “PowerGrab …” is actually Sheriff Corpus? Who else would know about the decision by this little-known organization? If so, you can see how much contempt she has for her employees. It’s easy to believe that she felt her employees were corrupt, so she wasn’t going to even look at thei HR complaints against Victor. And her decision to ignore those complaints forced the supervisors to hire Cordell to investigate the complaints. “PowerGrab …” gives the world a view of Corpus’ state of mind.
PowerGrab post was 100 percent written by Aenlle. I recognize his desperate rhetoric anywhere. After today Aenlle, you better find yourself a new sugar momma to leech on. This one is all dried up..literally.
I moved out of state. 5th generation Californian. Could no longer take the insane policies since the super majority took over and implemented wacky regulations, taxes and policies that ruined the quality of life. After near a half century of public safety service, I wish you all good luck. Where is my old neighbor, Sheriff Earl Whitmore, when you need him?
Turning over in his grave!
When Corpus and Anelle are charged, which one will agree to testify against the other?
I think Victor will take the first deal Wagstaffe offers.
She’s not only facing decades in prison, but a felony conviction that’s related to her job means she’ll lose her pension.
She’s stupid and believes Victor will be by her side. She should have learned he didn’t care much for her when he lied by saying he’d divorce his wife and marry her.
Today is the day that we start to take back the Sheriff’s Office from the co-dependent, corrupt, nepotistic Sheriff and the narcissistic, misogynistic little tyrant who pulls the strings. Yes on A. Restore dignity and honor to a once-proud Agency, and demonstrate that leadership is accountable to those who they lead, and the communities they serve. Bye, bye, Christina and Victor, and have fun with all of the litigation, and probably the prosecutions, that will follow you into civilian life. We can’t see the last you soon enough!
“What happens if Measure A passes?”
I am disappointed that none of the outcome answers provided were that We the People will pop champaign and throw a parade in celebration to the end of VicTina’s dysfunction.