BY ADRIANA HERNANDEZ
Daily Post Staff Writer
San Mateo County officials are looking to protect witnesses from retaliation who will testify in the upcoming removal hearings of Sheriff Christina Corpus. The unusual step is necessary since Corpus has been accused of intimidating and retaliating against sheriff’s employees, including arresting one deputy who spoke out against her in his capacity as a union leader.
The board of supervisors on Tuesday will review the latest iteration of the removal process, which includes enabling the hearing officer to issue protective orders as necessary to protect witnesses.
“Use of these proceedings, including the discovery process, for the purpose of harassment, undue delay, or for any other improper purpose will not be permitted, and may result in discovery sanctions/remedies being imposed by the hearing officer,” the rules state.
An independent investigation by retired Santa Clara County Judge LaDoris Cordell concluded that Corpus and her chief of staff, Victor Aenlle, had been retaliating against sheriff’s office employees. Corpus fired Assistant Sheriff Ryan Monaghan for participating in an interview with Cordell, though County Manager Mike Callagy kept Monaghan on the payroll to lessen any damages the county might face if Monaghan filed a wrongful firing lawsuit.
Corpus also ordered the arrest of Deputies Union President Carlos Tapia for time card fraud after he spoke out against her in his union capacity. After Tapia was arrested and bonded out of jail, the case landed on the desk of District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe. Wagstaffe threw out the case and Tapia was exonerated.
Cordell, who interviewed 40 witnesses, didn’t identify them by name in her report, possibly to protect them from retaliation from the sheriff. It may be difficult for Corpus’ lawyers to get information from Cordell about her investigation since it appears she was in an attorney-client relationship with the county, and therefore her notes and other materials would be off-limits to Corpus.
Much of what the board will review on Tuesday is the same as what it reviewed on April 6, which lays out the multi-step process to remove Corpus. It will culminate in a hearing overseen by a third-party hearing officer where the two sides will present testimony and cross-examination will be able to occur.
Aside from information related to Cordell’s investigation, Corpus’s team will seek information on contracts related to any prior county transition team and executive hiring, complete personnel files of all former or current county employees who provided statements to Cordell, records related to the reserve deputy program and an analysis on lease agreements for all property purchased by the county since 2015.
Corpus has sued the county in order to obtain a copy of Cordell’s contract to work as an independent investigator.
Corpus’ attorneys also say that two of the five supervisors — Ray Mueller and Noelia Corzo — shouldn’t participate in the vote to remove Corpus because they are “impermissibly biased.”
The two supervisors, who each supported Corpus in the 2022 election, have said they believe the sheriff should resign or be replaced. The five-member Board of Supervisors has designated Mueller and Corzo as their representatives to the press and public on the sheriff controversy.
The letter from Corpus attorneys — signed by Christopher Ulrich, Thomas Mazzucco, James Lassart, Philip Kearney and Matthew Frauenfeld — states that it is unlawful for the board to act as the accuser, prosecutor, judge, jury and appellate body.
Corpus’ attorney, Mazzucco, told the board in a previous meeting that the hearings should automatically be private unless Corpus waives her right to a closed hearing.
The proposed removal procedure the board will review on Tuesday says that hearings will be automatically pub- lic unless Corpus or the board changes them to private.
The Board of Supervisors hired Cordell to investigate a number of HR complaints filed against Aenlle that Corpus had ignored. Cordell determined that Aenlle and Corpus were in an “intimate relationship.” In fact, Cordell said, Aenlle showered Corpus in expensive gifts such as $1,200 Louboutin boots and $11,000 diamond earrings from Tiffany’s. Both Corpus and Aenlle deny they were having an affair.
In November, the Board of Supervisors gave Corpus an opportunity to publicly defend herself against the allegations in the Cordell report, but she declined. Then the board canceled the county’s contract with Aenlle.
The county charter prevented the board from firing the sheriff. Although a recall drive had begun, the supervisors thought it would be more expedient to ask the voters to approve a change in the charter to allow them the temporary authority to remove the sheriff. In a special election on March 4, 84% of voters approved the temporary change. Now the supervisors are moving forward with due process proceedings that could result in the firing of Corpus.
[Post removed — Terms of Use violation. Commenter is using more than one name on this thread to create a sock puppet effect.]
Corpus has said that she wants transparency and teases that she wants the public to hear her accusers. Now of course, when the time comes, she suddenly does not want public hearings? Her attorneys are going to fight tooth and nail for the hearings to remain private, just watch. I believe the citizens of San Mateo Co. should watch this play out in a public setting . The Sheriff Office employees and deputies have truly suffered under her regime the fact it is taking this long is so disturbing. The public should also hear the details about her shameful affair with a married man and how she allowed him to cause chaos and destruction in the sheriff’s office.
I look forward to the day this nightmare incompetent sheriff is out and we have a real leader put in place.
Witness protection? Just before the hearing starts, a key witness will have a fatal car accident or die of food poisoning. If I were on the witness list, I’d be very afraid. A protective order won’t save anyone’s life.
The county has the legal right and duty to decide removal procedures for the sheriff. The sheriff is a county officer, not a state official. The Board should act reasonably expeditiously to remove a corrupt county officer rather than wait for a grand jury to convene or a recall election to be held if the corrupt official is an elected one.
Measure A is not in conflict with the Public Safety Office Procedural Bill of Rights Act. The last case filed by Corpus’ attorneys appeared to decide that as an elected official, rather than a county employee, the Public Safety Office Procedural Bill of Rights Act did not apply to the elected sheriff; instead the Public Safety Office Procedural Bill of Rights Act is essentially a labor union instrument. Corpus’ attorneys appeared to disregard that court’s opinion on the matter, including the support offered for that opinion by the court. Nonetheless, and likely in an abundance of caution, the County Attorney has included parallel protections for the accused from the Public Safety Office Procedural Bill of Rights Act.
Government Code section 25303 provides that, “…the board of supervisors is required to supervise the official conduct of all county officers”. To argue that the Board members themselves should not fulfill certain decision-based roles in the Measure A process, argues that the Board should not fulfill their statutory obligations. Corpus has tremendous familiarity with ignoring, or deliberately choosing not to, fulfill one’s statutory obligations. The County has the authority conferred upon it by the Government Code to supervise the sheriff, so long as it does not impinge upon the investigative functions of the office of the sheriff. Government Code section 25303 provides the board of supervisors with supervisory capacity over the office of the sheriff, and specifically over whether the duties of the office are faithfully performed, so long as it does not affect or obstruct the investigative function of the office. Thus, the board has specific statutory authority to determine whether the sheriff has neglected the duties of the office.
Finally, Corzo and Mueller aren’t biased, they were designated to speak on behalf of the Board and did so. Their individual and joint statements were in reaction to the most egregious of circumstances uncovered concerning corruption of the elected sheriff, her team, and were made in the interests of transparency for the citizens of the County. This is the very platform upon which Corpus ran her campaign.
Corpus is entitled to a tribunal pursuant to the Measure A process as proposed. In this tribunal process witnesses may be interviewed rather than testifying. All of the witnesses in this process should be protected as described in the whistleblower laws, ordinances and policies. Corpus is entitled to a trial if the Grand Jury returns an accusation, as well as if a criminal complaint is lodged against her. In criminal trials, or in the case of a Grand Jury accusation, Corpus may well then have the opportunity to confront witnesses testifying against her.
Corzo and mueller were designated to publicly comment on details. Althought refreshing to hear personal opinions they have personal experience and personal relationship with the Sheriff and shared their changed opinion on the sheriff based on their own experiences. The attorneys wanted the supervisors to not comment on their opinion and that will be interesting to request freedom of speech to be thrown in the board of supervisors face. They have a right to share their opinion it reflects responses to the sheriffs own degraded comments she made about the supervisors. The sheriff shared personal phone messages with the public and the supervisors have a right to say they don’t trust her.
What is presented in a removal hearing has to be backed by evidence and has multiple phases to the removal. I hope the witnesses are solid and the evidence blows the doors off this whole situation. The attorneys are looking for any loophole to allow the corrupt sheriff to continue to work- let’s pray she is gone in 3 months or LESS save face lady.
Does anyone else find this strange and concerning? The law firm representing Corpus wrote in their letter to County Attorney John Nibbelin that it is unlawful for the board (Board of Supervisors) to act as the accuser, prosecutor, judge, jury and appellate body. Did her own attorneys not ask questions to Corpus yet or did Corpus simply not disclose to them? Maybe they should ask Corpus what her process for administrative investigations (i.e. IA’s) is.
• IAs are only initiated at the direction and approval of the Executive Staff, which is the Sheriff (Corpus) and Undersheriff (Perea).
• Only the Executive Staff assigns who will investigate the IA’s. It could be an internal or external investigator and who it may be is at their sole discretion.
• The Executive Staff reviews the completed IAs and either agrees with the findings or not.
• Base upon their review, the Executive Staff determines what, if any, discipline is forthcoming.
• Any subsequent appeal in the Skelly Hearing is heard by a member of the Executive Staff, the Undersheriff.
Is not how they choose to conduct IA’s exactly what they are trying to say is unlawful to their own benefit? They are in essence acting as the accuser, prosecutor, judge, jury and appellate body in IAs. If it isn’t wrong for them, how can they say it is wrong at all? Hypocritical? Double Standard? Deceitful? You decide.
A Sheriff You Can Trust would not try to have it both ways. The ease in which the gaslighting, lies, and deceit comes from the current Executive Team should frighten everyone if they aren’t already.
[Post removed — Terms of Use violation. Commenter is using more than one name on this thread to create a sock puppet effect.]
What about witnesses who will testify FOR Corpus? Seems to me they are far more likely to be retaliated against.
[Post removed — Terms of Use violation. Commenter is using more than one name on this thread to create a sock puppet effect.]
And who might they be?
I don’t think that will be a problem. She has only retaliated against people who have crossed her, like Tapia and Monaghan.
Why isn’t she gone yet? I voted months ago. Why do so many of our elected leaders think it’s okay to try and gaslight the people they serve?
It’s really disgusting and I’m guessing criminal.
It’s been two minths since the Measure A election and the Supervisors haven’t even approved the process for firing her. What the hell is taking them so long? By the supervisors timeline they’ll take another 3,5 months to get the deed done. This is ridiculous!
The Sheriff is elected and the Measure A process has to be defined so that it can’t be disputed. Due process must be taken. Even though the Sheriff has been accused of several labor law violations she muddies the waters with her public gaslighting.
The Cordell report was an HR investigation initiated because of ignored complaints. The county took action and is now being picked apart because whistleblowers were not under oath for HR complaints…
There are clearly defined reasons to violate an elected office and a recall one process to remove a Sheriff but is costly and wouldn’t happen until 2026. The Sheriff can also be removed by the grand jury again time and money and also the Attorney General could actually do his job and remove the Sheriff!
Now we wait for the Board of Supervisors to implement Measure A. In the meantime, the Sheriff and her confused supporters will gaslight the public saying the Board doesn’t have the power to overturn a Sheriff.
I’ve seen statements that Measure A was 24% of the voters and the county has 450000 registered voters.. Well the Sheriff was elected with 80,000 votes and Measure A was passed with 90,000 votes. The election of the sheriff was close to 30% of the county voters never 100% of the 450,000 people. More people will likely vote yes on a recall. This is so irresponsible and selfish of this woman to continue this process- all while she protects her only friend Aenlle. Disgusted
The supervisors don’t want to fire her because she is one of them — a woke politician. If they stretch this out long enough, people’s outrage will fade. Meanwhile, everyone knows that Jackie Speier wants to be the king-maker. Remember how she pushed those two women out of the supervisor race. At the last minute, Speier will pressure her fellow board members to save the Latina sheriff. She’ll convince the most naive member of the board, Lisa Gauthier, to go along with her. Since they need four votes to fire Corpus, the firing won’t happen. DA Wagstaffe won’t be able to get it together to charge Corpus or Aenlle, so the whole thing will just blow over. All the suits will be settled out of court quietly.
Does anyone know basic HR complaint processes and investigations
HR is not legally obligated to disclose the identity of someone who has made a complaint about you. HR’s primary goal is to protect both the employee who made the complaint and the accused employee.
Here’s why:
Confidentiality:
HR often encourages anonymous complaints to ensure employees feel safe reporting concerns without fear of retaliation.
Whistleblower Protection:
In some cases, a whistleblower may request anonymity to avoid potential workplace repercussions.
Legal Considerations:
Laws in the US can protect the confidentiality of reporting individuals.
So ummm what seems to be the issue- the report was an HR investigation covered by CA and United States LAWS?