(Read the First Amendment Coalition’s letter to the county.)
BY ADRIANA HERNANDEZ
Daily Post Staff Writer
The First Amendment Coalition is threatening to sue the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors if it keeps the removal hearings of embattled Sheriff Christina Corpus closed to the public.
Coalition attorney Aaron Field sent the supervisors a letter Wednesday (July 16) telling the supervisors she doesn’t have the right to keep the hearings private after residents voted for Measure A.
On March 4, more than 90,000 San Mateo County voters approved Measure A, which gives the supervisors the authority to remove Corpus. Field said in his letter that the board can not “shut San Mateo County citizens out of a key phase of a process they voted” to approve.
Field gave the supervisors seven days to open the hearings. The hearings are set for Aug. 18-29.
County officials believe the removal process should be “fully transparent,” said county spokeswoman Effie Milionis Verducci. She pointed out that Corpus has opposed holding open hearings in the removal process.
“The county repeats its strong agreement that, as an elected official, she should be allowing the evidence and facts to be open to all who are served by the Sheriff’s Office,” Effie Milionis Verducci said in an email to the Post.
However, the county granted Corpus’ demand to keep the hearings secret.
Moreover, Corpus must argue in public that the proceedings should be closed to the public, the coalition said in the letter. The coalition says the law requires such a hearing to have advance public notice to give the public an opportunity to be heard on her demand for closure.
Corpus’s attorney, Thomas Mazzucco, has said previously that she has the right to keep the hearings private under the Peace Officer Bill of Rights, a set of state laws that give police certain rights in disciplinary and criminal proceedings.
But the First Amendment Coalition said those police-officer privacy protections do not apply to Corpus because she’s an elected official.
If the coalition sues and prevails in the litigation, San Mateo County could be on the hook to pay the coalition’s attorney fees and costs in bringing the lawsuit, the letter states. The letter gives an example a 2018 case in which Ventura County was forced to pay $2.9 million in fees and costs to a plaintiff who sued to obtain timely access to newly filed court documents.
Corpus is facing removal on two fronts. First, the Board of Supervisors has said it intends to fire her on allegations detailed in two reports by outside investigators. They alleged she was engaged in nepotism, retaliation, intimidation, ordering a false arrest and making racial and homophobic slurs. Secondly, the county’s civil grand jury has issued a four-count “accusation” against Corpus. She will have to stand trial on the accusation, and if she’s convicted, will be removed from office. Organizers of a recall have put their effort on hold while the other removal procedures play out.
Seems to be a case strongly stated and well put forward, by counsel for FAC, to open the Removal Proceedings to the public. Especially considering the weak and poor offering of Corpus’ counsel in their June 27, 2025, seven page Request for Removal Hearing letter to the Board of Supervisors.
Seems like the outcome of the hearing is predictable–the supes will uphold their vote to fire her, and then she’s gone. She’ll sue. We know that already. And as part of the suit, the transcript of the appeal hearing will become part of the public court record. She’s not accomplishing anything by demanding a closed hearing–except hiding the fact that she has no defense to the allegations.
Corpus actually hasn’t hidden the fact that she has no defense to the allegations. One of her attorneys, Matthew J. Frauenfeld, made it clear and explicit in a June 27, 2025, letter to the Board of Supervisors. Then, on July 10, 2025, Mr. Frauenfeld filed a Declaration for Reconsideration in case 25-CIV-04319, including his seven-page letter as Exhibit C. The letter was Corpus’ official request for her final Removal Hearing to the Board (not until then revealed publicly as part of the court record).
Probably not astonishingly, nowhere in Frauenfeld correspondence did he provide any facts in support of the position that Sheriff Corpus should not be removed from office. Of course the Measure A procedures mandated the request for an appeal hearing was required to provide “a detailed statement of the facts and grounds for appealing the Final Notice of Decision.” Failure to provide such a detailed statement of facts and grounds for appeal results in the Sheriff being “barred from raising any bases for appeal not contained therein.”
So there you have it, confirmation that Corpus is getting what she paid for from her attorneys. Nothing, since the county foots the bill. Glenn Quagmire, you are correct in that Corpus has no defense to the allegations. Her attorneys however are not hiding that fact and have made it part of the public record.
The Corpus attorneys think she can bad mouth everyone publicly and defame her personal and defame the Board of Supervisors. However, the people that have stopped supporting Corpus and have seen and witnessed corruption are now considered biased and part of a gang oe political motivations.
The Board of Supervisors had 40+ people sharing misconduct and ignored HR complaints- Corpus admits to a 18 6year plus relationship with Aenlle any which way you slice it- vacationing in Hawaii and spending weekends with your employees is inappropriate- buying each other extravagant gifts is not usually how employers and employees act.
Whatever the differences of verbiage in the HR Cordell report or Keker or Oppenheimer – the same people shared the same information and the same conclusion was made- inappropriate relationship and violates San Mateo County ordinances. Corpus does have to follow laws and County policies too.
The most disturbing facts are that Corpus has made it this far, sworn into office as a Sheriff and has lied and cheated and will not take accountability on her own doing. With 3 investigations and 40+ people sharing their stories she milks the county for millions to defend her hoping for a delay of being fired. She has no dignity or self respect and is hiding in a pool of shame and more severe punishments to come.
Corpus allowed this. Corpus created this whole situation ! Soon no more fighting will be possible and one day this lady will be all alone woth no friends and no respect from any family or neighbors.
Former Resident, in taking a close look at attorney Frauenfeld’s June 27th Removal Hearing Request letter (which I find recorded as Exhibit J, in Vol. 4, pp. 73-80, of the now-famous accidental disclosures), I find, paraphrased:
“We want a Removal Hearing, closed to the public. We repeat several familiar legal complaints (including far-fetched US Constitution claims) raised, so far unsuccessfully, in two Superior Court cases seeking to overturn Measure A, and one Federal one. We complain that the Removal Procedures are ‘structurally flawed’ in sundry ways, claim the Removal Procedures violate Corpus’s POBR rights, complain Measure A and the Removal Procedures rely on vague and arbitrary standards, and complain we were wrongfully denied a fully unredacted copy of the Cordell Report and sensitive materials relating to Cordell’s hiring. Last, Last, we ignore the Removal Procedures’ required method for picking a hearing officer and furnish a list of four names we’d prefer.”
As you say, “a detailed statement of the facts and grounds for the appeal” is notably absent.
One gathers they’re fine with having _no ability whatsoever_ to dispute either the Notice of Intent to Remove’s factual allegations against their client, or its allegations of law-breaking.
That suggests their defense will be limited to “Measure A’s unlawful”, which you’ll note is the tune they’ve sung consistently, never arguing substance, instead procedure. Or, to rephrase, because they see no hope of refuting the charges, they keep wildly seeking a court willing to annul everything, perhaps on appeal.
I look forward to this game ending, as soon as Corpus loses the ability to forward all her legal bills to us county taxpayers.
Failure by Corpus and her legal team to deny the allegations against her are the central and apparent substance of their strategy of choice, no matter how poor a decision it may be in the long run. The purpose of the Removal Hearing is clearly documented.
That the Sheriff will be barred from raising any bases for appeal not contained in her request for a Removal Hearing is equally clear. That, at the conclusion of the Removal Hearing, the Hearing Officer will prepare and submit an advisory opinion to the Board is undisputed. That upon receipt and consideration of the Hearing Officer’s advisory opinion, the Board will make the Final Post-Hearing Decision for Removal of the Sheriff, with at least four-fifths vote required to remove the Sheriff or they will chose not to remove the Sheriff, and the Board’s decision either way will be final and binding is a moment in history that many have been awaiting; this is also indisputable.
If it’s a public hearing, it will be standing room only at City Hall. The Board of Supervisors will need to rent the convention center to fit all the people and media who want to watch.