The Daily Post is challenging a decision by lawyers for San Mateo County to keep secret a law firm’s report into alleged misconduct by Sheriff Christina Corpus. But an attorney for the county says the newspaper’s request may be premature.
The report by the firm of Keker, Van Nest & Peters will be used to decide if she should be fired.
The Board of Supervisors, who hired Keker, asked Corpus is she would like to have the report kept confidential, and she agreed.
However, California law says the county doesn’t have the right to keep the report secret.
Under Penal Code Section 832.7 (b) (C), the county can’t keep secret “any record relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency involving dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence, or perjury.”
David Silberman, assistant county counsel, agreed that the law requires the release of the report, but only after Corpus has “exhausted” her right to appeal. In fact, Corpus’ lawyers said yesterday they plan to go to Superior Court to stop the supervisors from removing her.
Two reports released publicly by the county have accused the sheriff of making false statements.
Retired Superior Court Judge LaDoris Cordell, who is the former police auditor in San Jose and has served on jail oversight committees in Santa Clara County, was hired last year by the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors to investigate complaints about Corpus and her then-chief of staff Victor Aenlle. Cordell concluded, “Lies, secrecy, intimidation, retaliation, conflicts of interest, and abuses of authority are the hallmarks of the Corpus administration.”
In her report, she found several instances where, in her opinion, Corpus was dishonest, including her claim that she wasn’t having an affair with Aenlle.
A second report by the Oppenheimer Investigations Group, released to the public on May 15, found Corpus was wasn’t truthful when she accused County Manager Mike Callagy of misconduct.
The Post believes that reports by Cordell and Oppenheimer meet the statute’s requirements that an oversight agency determined that a peace officer, in this case Corpus, engaged in dishonesty, and therefore the latest report by Keker should be public.
The Post has filed a California Public Records Act request for the Keker report and is considering other options if the request is denied.
What a joke! No finding of any criminal or actual legal finding of wrong doing to warrant such extreme action by the Board Of Supervisor. It is all a bunch of disgruntled county employees and the police union trying to get their way and go back to the ‘old boy network’ of past male sheriffs. Fixin SMC has become a joke and an arm of the police union! They no longer advocate for the vulnerable of SMC, immigrants,low income and people of color. The main purpose of the organization in now to serve the police union.
Crazy that the county hired ONE of the most expensive firms in nation(Keker firm) and even they were unable to find any legal or criminal conduct! How much did we the taxpayers paid for a finding of ‘unbecoming of a sheriff’…ha ha..maybe TRUMP can be removed since he has been so unbecoming of a president.
Can’t believe the level of incompetence in SMC…the board and the bureacrats! And the DA is joke…he has an inherent conflict of interest and should have recused himself and had the attorney general investigate! Any professional in the legal field would know that just the “appearance’ of conflict is sufficient for recusal…but then again the DA is shady as when the court admonished him for using race in selecting a jury…racist.
How do know the findings of the Keker investigation Report? It hasn’t been made public.
SMCIncompetent&Corrupt you sound just as unhinged as the Sheriff with your public attacks and rant. Perhaps if Ms. Corpus could have taken some responsibility for her corrupt and dishonest actions, she wouldn’t be in the hot water she boiled on the stove herself. She retaliated on her employees, family and friends due to her own low self esteem. She is notorious for blaming everyone else for anything that goes wrong on a daily basis. This story has become rather old like a broken record. She would never have been elected Sheriff without Mr. Aenlle’s money and direction. She can’t even balance a checkbook let along direct a staff. She needs to stop the frivolous waste of tax payers money and start focusing on fixing the chaos she created. She has ran through Admin staff like a waterfall. Never in the history of San Mateo County have we seen such a mess of our Sheriff office. Make the report public. Remember, she has “NOTHING “ to hide because she hasn’t done anything wrong! Release it!
Victor Aenlle a.k.a. fired and failed chief of staff ,why don’t you just post your name? If there was no wrongdoing in the report why did she agreed to keep it from the public? If it vindicated her in any way, she should want the public to see it! Haaaa what a joke. When will you two lecherous human beings get a life ?
On December 2, 2024, Corpus herself authored a public comment letter to the Board of Supervisors (BOS) condemning the Cordell report, “this review had no semblance of due process, open and transparent actions or an opportunity for the public to weigh in.” Yet Corpus, as an elected public official and without any public explanation, now seeks to obscure the due process proscribed in Measure A, inhibit open and transparent actions, as well as stymie any opportunity for all members of the public to measure, and weigh in on, the Keker Report and Corpus’ upcoming removal process. These actions are the very definition of being hypocritical, especially for one who ran on a platform of transparency accusing her chief opponent of corruption, which is among the assertions now levied against Corpus. Corpus continues to demonstrate her consciousness of guilt, while denying culpability and responsibility for her own actions.
Since the Keker investigative team, acting in the capacity (or on behalf of) of the BOS as the proper oversight body, sustained the allegations against Corpus, the release of a properly redacted copy of the Keker Report appears both prudent and required pursuant to California Code, Penal Code §832.7. Count me among those who support the PA Daily Post’s case for the release of the Keker report concerning the allegations against Corpus.
May we please get clarification about what the verb “challenging” means in the sentence “The Daily Post is challenging a decision by lawyers for San Mateo County to keep secret a law firm’s report into alleged misconduct by Sheriff Christina Corpus”? In what forum and via what means? With what if any next steps?
It’s possible this means solely that someone from The Daily Post had a conversation with Assistant County Counsel David Silberman, who politely refused until Corpus has exhausted her legal recourse, as described. It’s possible that The Daily Post has petitioned for writ of mandamus (er, “mandate”) in S.M.C. Superior Court, though I find no such action.
Which is it? Does “make the case” mean “We asked, and they said no?”
On November 26, 2024, Corpus herself published a letter to the employees of the Sheriff’s Office and the San Mateo County community that read in part, “The allegations against me deserve a fair and impartial review, and I urge the Board of Supervisors to honor the principles of due process and uphold the integrity of the county charter…”. How can it now be that Corpus’ insistence to conceal the details of the Keker Report contributes to a fair and impartial public review of that report and its allegations?
On November 25, 2024, in a Newsletter announcement Corpus publicly affirmed her commitment to public safety and building community trust through transparency and collaboration. Corpus was quoted in the announcement, “At the San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office, we believe transparency and information sharing are essential pieces for building trust within our communities and improving public safety”.
How does Corpus’ June 2025 request to keep the Keker investigation Report confidential, essentially making it’s contents a secret from the public, honor the principles of due process and uphold the integrity of the county charter? How does keeping the Keker investigation Report confidential affirm Corpus’ commitment to public safety and building community trust through transparency and collaboration? How does keeping the Keker Report build transparency, support information sharing as essential pieces for building trust within our communities and improving public safety?
Again, count me among those who support the PA Daily Post’s case for the release of the Keker Report.
In one place, the Daily Post’s logic takes a bit of a leap: The Post makes, here, a plausible case that Cordell’s and Oppenheimer’s separate reports included incidents alleging dishonesty by Corpus. Let’s stipulate, for sake of discussion, that those were within the areas covered by Penal Code §832.7(b)(C)’s carveout (from confidential records), and also that both reports qualify as a “sustained finding by any oversight agency”.
OK so far. But the Post goes on to say “and therefore the latest report by Keker should be public”, yet we don’t know what’s in the Keker Report, so isn’t the Post’s supposition that it’s a “sustained finding by an oversight agency” covering the same ground a bit of speculation, if not groping in the dark?
I’d very much like the 59-page Keker Report, apparently basis for the Notice of Intent to Remove, disclosed immediately (at least in redacted form), too, but suspect you’ll need S.M.C. Superior Court’s scrutiny to sustain your guess about its subject matter and “dishonesty” findings. Also, you may see consequent severe redaction, dropping everything not forced public by PC §832.7(b)(C) and the PRA — as the Keker Report’s scope is probably a lot more than just dishonesty.
County Attorney Nibbelin is obviously trying to help expedite the Measure A process while also giving Corpus’s legal team nothing to work with, as grounds for a TRO. One can thus understand why he’s respecting Ms. Transparency and Information Sharing’s ironic request for secrecy, to protect his department’s work.
The February 26, 2025 ruling by Superior Court Judge Nicole Healy against Corpus’ requests for a writ of mandate and injunctive relief against the County concerning Measure A, in pertinent part explained, “San Mateo County is not Sheriff Corpus’s employer. (Essick v. County of Sonoma (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 941, 951-952…).” Referring again to the Essick appellant decision, Judge Healy’s ruling continued, “Indeed, the appellate court held that the board of supervisors’ written admonishment to the sheriff did not constitute a ‘reprimand’ under POBRA because the board was not the sheriff’s employer.”
Corpus has had choices throughout her term. Choices to proceed on the course that she did, which is now history. Choices to abide by legal requirements in all regards or choices to behave counter to statutory requirements. Choices to shoulder responsibility or deny accountability for her own behaviors. Choices to resign or stay to experience the turbulence she created. Choices to demonstrate remorse or remain impenitent.
Silberman appears to indicate that the “sustained finding” standard is the appeal decision of the BOS (absent conclusion of the proceedings at an earlier stage), which has not yet been rendered, versus the findings of the Keker Report in chief itself.
The County appears to have extended a courtesy to Corpus, in offering her an option of confidentiality concerning the release of the report prior to the most recent Special Board meeting, despite either interpret of 832.7(b)(C). Yet despite Corpus’ personal desire to have the Keker report kept confidential, the County is bound by statutory authorities, not merely preferences of the accused. The redacted copy (redacted to align with whistleblower protections) of the Keker report should be released by the County to the PA Daily Post pursuant to their Public Records Act request or pursuant to a court order, if ultimately sought. Either way, the truth will prevail; history and the people will each make their own decisions.
Let us not forget the Corpus has been less than cooperative with the investigations that have been released. With the Cordell investigation she never provided an interview and as I recall stopped responding to Cordell’s requests. Corpus, if determined by her attorneys, was not in her best interest to provide an interview, then Corpus should have just said so, but just ignoring Cordell says way more.
All this mess just goes to show Corpus is not up to lead the top law enforcement spot in the County.
I do hope the Keker report is made public. Corpus has claimed she wanted an open and transparent process, so she should be living up to it.
“Former Resident’s” point about Court of Appeal 4th District’s affirming of Essick v. County of Sonoma is well taken, and it makes interesting reading. (The full opinion is findable online by searching the case title.)
So, for that matter, does Judge Healy’s February opinion that cited it. The latter can be found online in the S.M.C. Superior Court case records as case 25-CIV-00244.
Sonoma County’s reprimand of Sheriff Essick would have been part of his “personnel record” only the county had been his “employing agency”, and (one gathers), Sheriff Essick — and thus also Sheriff Corpus — worked for the State of California (under the AG’s leadership), not for the county. Thus, at least in the context of that case, where Sonoma County lacked the power to fire or punish its sheriff, the Oppenheimer Report whose release he sought to prevent could not be ruled confidential under Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act = POBRA as a personnel record. Presumably the same would apply to the sheriff’s Police Officer’s Bill of Rights = POBR protections, each being, to quote Judge Healy, “primarily a labor-relations statute”.
Courtesy of Measure A, S.M. County now does have the power (through 2028) to fire its sheriff, unlike Sonoma County at the time of that case, so I’m not sure the Essick logic applies equally. I’m sure experts on peace officer legal protections are looking at this closely.
Furthermore, according to former Judge Strunsky, hired by Corpus’ Counsel on her behalf, in his 4/24/2025 evaluation report, “California statutory text mirrors a century of case law distinguishing county officers whose authority flows directly from the electorate or the Constitution-from county employees who serve at will. The Meyers-Milias-Brown Act expressly removes elected officials from its bargaining framework by defining a ‘public employee’ as any county worker ‘excepting those persons elected by popular vote.’ Gov. Code, § 3501, subd. (d).)”
Strunsky continues, “In Mono County v. Industrial Accident Commission (1917) 175 Cal. 752, the Supreme Court held that an elected sheriff ‘is not an employee within the meaning of the Workmen’s Compensation Act,’ because a public office ‘is not held by contract’ and owes its existence to the Constitution rather than to any hiring authority.” Strunsky is very specific in concluding, “The Sheriff remains fully subject to statewide conflict-of-interest statutes-such as Government Code section 1090 and the Political Reform Act-as well as the Penal Code, Government Code, and the County Charter.” Nonetheless, Corpus’ lawyers argued the exact opposite of their own expert, former Judge Strunsky, when the addressed the Board at the most recent special meeting.
Regardless of the arguments proffered by Corpus’ Counsel, as the superior statute to the County Charter and despite Corpus’ preferences, Penal Code Section 832.7 (b) (C) should be the ruling authority once the sustained finding has been achieved. All of these points support the public release of the Keller Report at that point in time at the latest.
Final line should read, “All of these points support the public release of the Keker Report at that point in time at the latest.”
The “Sheriff you can trust” doesn’t trust the public with transparency because she knows she’s dirty to the core.
Suing before anything actually happen is premature. It is basically telling the public Corpus is guilty and will be found guilty of she goes to court. The only hope she has is to delay hearings, delay the process and ultimately delay the inevitable. What end game result is Corpus looking for?
What sane person will continue to pursue this legal battle? There is no point working somewhere just to collect a paycheck while sitting home consulting with attorneys all day . Meanwhile there is no competent leadership at all in the county sheriff office and severe problems working again gaining access to files and emails. And a new undersheriff that has the potential to have issues based on public information found on him.
End goal is either to stretch out pay and collect paycheck as long as possible and waste county funds on attorney fees or
What does anyone else conclude?
There is no way an entire county is corrupt and the sheriff is innocent. There are three reports now, two public one with serious issues.
The road to serve until end of 2028 seems it is at the end. The actions of this sheriff are not what is in the best interest of putting people first.