BY ADRIANA HERNANDEZ
Daily Post Staff Writer
San Mateo County’s Board of Supervisors yesterday (May 6) approved a set of procedures laying out the road it will go down to determine if embattled Sheriff Christina Corpus ought to be removed, but it will take four to six months. Earlier, the county estimated it would take three months.
Yesterday’s meeting highlighted tensions among supervisors and attorneys. Supervisor Jackie Speier, the former Congresswoman, asked for a recap of the process after not attending the April 8 meeting, where the procedures were first presented. Before starting the public comment period, Speier asked Board President David Canepa if the board would hear from Corpus or her attorneys. Canepa said he wanted to hear public comment first. He ultimately allowed Corpus’ attorney six minutes to speak.
Corpus was at yesterday’s meeting, standing next to Undersheriff Dan Perea in the back of the board chambers. It was the first meeting the sheriff has attended in months. She appeared after Speier at the board’s April 22 meeting questioned why Corpus wasn’t present during a discussion about spending $4.2 million in state funds to replace and upgrade two-way radios for the sheriff’s office. At that meeting, Speier said the sheriff had tried to buy 10 massage chairs.
Yesterday, Corpus did not speak, but her attorney Thomas Mazzucco rebutted county contractor Alfonso Estrada’s planned removal process, saying it would be unfair for the board to act as the accuser, prosecutor, judge, jury and appellate body.
Board members have already made it clear how they will vote and should not take part in the vote to remove Corpus, Mazzucco said, referring to supervisors Ray Mueller and Noelia Corzo. Both supervisors supported Corpus when she ran, but represented the five-member board in November when the board released retired Judge LaDoris Cordell’s 400-page report about Corpus and former chief of staff Victor Aenlle’s conduct in office.
“You are recused. You can’t make this vote and we will bring this to the courts,” Mazzucco said.
Mazzucco rebutted the Cordell report. Cordell interviewed 40 past and current sheriff’s employees, many of whom filed HR complaints against Aenlle and Corpus.
“All this was done because you were misled. You were sold a bill of goods by the Cordell report,” Mazzucco said. “I do suggest you read the Judge Strunsky report.”
Riverside County attorney and retired judge Burke Strunksy, who was hired by Corpus’ legal team, wrote a 25-page rebuttal to the allegations in the Cordell report.
Canepa opened the meeting to questions and Speier asked who Mazzucco who he would prefer to have as a hearing officer.
“A retired judge and not someone from the county family,” Mazzucco said.
The board was contemplating having Chief Probation Officer John Keene, who is appointed by the courts, or elected Coroner Robert Foucrault oversee the initial removal hearing.
Corzo jumped in, saying Speier shouldn’t be having a back-and-forth discussion. Canepa then said that all board members were entitled to ask questions.
“Representatives of the sheriffs should be allowed to participate in the process and indicate their interest in how it’s going to move forward. It probably shouldn’t have been under public comment and should’ve been under their presentation, but that’s where we are,” Speier said.
On March 4, over 90,000 voters approved Measure A, which gives the supervisors the power to remove Corpus, who has been accused of retaliation, nepotism, making racist and homophobic comments, conflicts of interest and running the jails with an unusual number of deaths.
It was not immediately clear when the board would begin the process it unanimously approved yesterday.
Regardless of the apparent conflicts at the Board meeting, let’s be grateful to welcome in the clean slate! To do that, perhaps the Board might begin with contracts and procurements by Corpus during her tenure. The County Executive’s webpages reveal that the Procurement Department of San Mateo County resides within the County Executive’s Office. It provides procurement services to all County departments and acts as a regulatory mechanism to help county departments obtain maximum value for each dollar spent while maintaining compliance with all relevant County, State and Federal, laws, ordinances and policies. Procurement also connects with and assists vendors in doing business with the County.
Who in the Sheriff’s Office was assigned to conduct the procurement contract process immediately prior to the Corpus administration? Who is assigned to conduct the procurement contract process now? Why did the Corpus administration make any change in personnel assignments there? How many of the Sheriff’s Office contracts issued during the Corpus administration went through the county procurement process? How many contracts during the Corpus administration went through a RFP (Request for Proposal) process? Did any of Aenlle’s contracts go through a RFP process? How about the Sheriff’s Office contract with Manjit Sappal, did it go through an RFP process? How about the Sheriff’s Office contract with George Dale (who on 2/5/2025 informed the Independent Civilian Advisory Commission on the Sheriff’s Office that he is a “contracted employee” for the Sheriff’s Office hired to be a liaison to them); did the Sheriff’s Office Dale contract go through a RFP process? What about the abundant number of therapy dogs purchased by the Corpus administration, were they obtained through an RFP process? What about their new bloodhound, was it obtained through an RFP process? How about that $74,000 conference table, was it obtained through an RPF process? What about the $750,000 security upgrades that Aenlle bragged about getting for the Sheriff’s Office HQ building, were they obtained through an RFP process?
What would a Public Records Request for all RFP’s issued by or on behalf on Corpus administration, compared to all actual contracts for the foregoing and other similar purchases and issues reveal? What might an inquiry on the Sheriff’s purchases, as hinted by Supervisor Speier in a Board meeting reveal? Let’s get this show on the road and in the public eye…
Apparent conflicts would be an understatement.
As Dandy Don Meridith used to say: Turn out the lights, the party’s over.
“Sheriff” Corpus will go down in history as the worst “Sheriff” in the history of California.
Hopefully the electorate will learn that being a woke progressive voting for idiots like this will result in carnage.
Perhaps Mazucco and Speier should reread Measure A. The 90,000 voters that said yes voted for the board of supervisors to remove the sheriff – not to revise the ballot measure and have a random judge come in.
Do what the voters asked for- serve the reasons why and end this corruption.
Also, stop with the confusion on what the HR investigation is- Cordell was hired to look into MANY MANY HR complaints turned over to the county and the whistleblower county hotline – they investigated the complaints and those involved. What comes next is many many many people under oath and evidence of violations- emails, videos, testimony etc court hearings are not HR investigations. Seems like the Sheriff and attorneys continue to try and intimidate and influence potential witnesses.
Let’s get this started and over with. So over this game playing
Except Corous is far from a woke progressive- she is a VERY VERY VERY conservative TRUMP loving REPUBLICAN using her race and ethnicity as needed.
[Portion removed because it violates the Terms of Use. We’ve seen no proof of the claim you’ve made. If you have proof that verifies your claim, please contact the Post at 385 Forest Ave., Palo Alto 94301.]
This article perfectly illustrates why the Board of Supervisors made a colossal mistake with their special election approach. They’ve now created a 4-6 month bureaucratic nightmare that will undoubtedly cost taxpayers even more money, when a recall election would have already resolved this matter.
The fact that Sheriff Corpus’ attorney had to point out the obvious conflict of interest – with the Board acting as “accuser, prosecutor, judge, jury and appellate body” – shows exactly how flawed this process is. When supervisors like Mueller and Corzo, who have already publicly taken positions, refuse to recuse themselves, they’re practically guaranteeing litigation.
This is what happens when politicians try to circumvent the democratic process. Instead of letting voters decide through a recall, they pushed for special powers that are now creating a legal minefield. The sheriff’s team will have every right to sue for lack of due process and fairness, especially given the board members’ pre-judgment of the case.
The irony is that 90,000 voters approved Measure A, but those same voters could have directly decided on Corpus’ future through a recall election – and it would have been over by now. Instead, we’re looking at half a year of hearings, investigations, and inevitable court challenges, all funded by taxpayer dollars.
The supervisors have nobody to blame but themselves for this mess. They chose the path that gave them control rather than the path that respected the voters’ direct voice. Now we all pay the price in time, money, and continued dysfunction.
We can vote ALL OF THEM OUT unless they do what we VOTED FOR@
Who can vote to get who our? A recall- that costs millions and won’t be on a ballot until 2026? Then what? You allow a corrupt sheriff to terrorize employees and do nothing because it doesn’t impact you or your family?
At what point do you help people? And when will the Attorney General help? California can elect people and they can do whatever they want until they can’t- likely means criminal charges. Something has to change to stop people sooner from corruption.
Who can vote to get who our? A recall- that costs millions and won’t be on a ballot until 2026? Then what? You allow a corrupt sheriff to terrorize employees and do nothing because it doesn’t impact you or your family?
At what point do you help people? And when will the Attorney General help? California can elect people and they can do whatever they want until they can’t- likely means criminal charges. Something has to change to stop people sooner from corruption.
Much of what Corpus’ attorneys publicly argue, and use to confuse those not familiar with the process, concerns “Skelly” hearings. A Skelly hearing is a pre-disciplinary due process hearing in California. It is indeed required by law, and it allows public employees to respond to proposed adverse actions like termination, demotion, or suspension. A Skelly hearing is a formal process where the employee has the chance to present their case and evidence before a hearing officer, who then determines whether the proposed disciplinary action is warranted. Note the similarities to the process just adopted by the Board. It is a pre-disciplinary hearing aligned well with the Measure A process just adopted. The allegations and evidence are not tried before there is a proposed disciplinary action recommended.
The primary purpose of a Skelly hearing is to ensure that public employees have a fair opportunity to respond to the charges against them and to potentially reduce or eliminate the proposed disciplinary action. The Skelly hearing process is designed to meet the requirements of “due process,” ensuring that employees have notice of the proposed action, access to supporting materials before the Skelly hearing, and an opportunity to be heard before the proposed disciplinary action is taken, yet after the matter has resulted in a recommendation for discipline or termination. The Skelly hearing is conducted by a neutral and impartial officer, typically someone outside the employee’s direct line of supervision. To the probable dismay of Corpus’ counsel, it is correctly outside the line of direct supervision, not employment or “family”, as the coin their inaccurate and misleading arguments have been publicly presented and argued.
As mentioned in other comments, in SMSO internal affairs complaints are brought in the name of the Sheriff, the initial investigation then disciplinary recommendation originates from either the Professional Standards Lieutenant or the Division Captain, then the Skelly hearing is conducted by the Undersheriff. All those steps are conducted internally in the sheriff’s office. So while Corpus’ attorneys may be describing the San Francisco PD way of doing things, SF is not San Mateo County, and their argument does not represent legal requirements.
Were the PA Post, or anyone, to informally poll law enforcement entities in contiguous counties, they would likely find that all law enforcement disciplinary matters follow the pattern I’ve described above. Escalating that process to the embarrassing corrupt sheriff situation in San Mateo County, understanding the Government Code requirements, and now the Measure A obligations, the newly adopted San Mateo County process precisely fits the legal requirements to which Corpus is entitled.
Supervisor Speier need not have a former Administrative Law Judge in the process, although the modified wording suggested by Supervisor Mueller poses no problem to the process. The County Attorneys, and consulting counsel, understood their tasking in the matter quite well.
If you believe that a County employee or officer has engaged in improper governmental activity including, but not limited to, fraud, waste, and abuse of County resources, you are encouraged to report such suspected improper activity through one of the following means:
Call the County’s toll-free “Whistleblower Hotline” at 855-387-2497
Submit information online at http://www.reportlineweb.com/smcgov
Obtain a complaint form from the Office of the County Attorney
In San Mateo County, California, retaliation against employees who disclose information about workplace matters, including those related to HR, is generally prohibited under California Labor Code section 232.5 and the County’s own Equal Employment Opportunity Policy. Specifically, the County prohibits retaliation against employees who report or participate in the investigation of any Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) violation.
I don’t think the Sheriff would be entitled to a Skelly hearing, as her attorney’s claim that she is not an employee. And not being an employee, she is not bound by County policy nor Sheriff’s Office policy, at least that is one of the claims.
I agree with the comments by Former Resident, a full fiscal audit needs to be performed, along with additional controls on the Sheriff’s spending.