Split Board of Supervisors decides to appoint sheriff

29 Comments

1. This is great news. Corpus was only elected because it was a vote against Bolanos. He was corrupt and everyone knew it.. Weidner is just as dirty as Bolanos or Corpus. A history of IA’s and lying. The Millbrae in custody death. And allegations of sexually harassing trainees. Appoint someone qualified. Save the county from unethical people like Bolanos or Weidner.

   • Dear Christy and Victor – Now that you are both unemployed, you apparently have a lot of free time on your hands to spread lies in the media and on social media. The only unethical people around here are the two of you.

     As for your claim about Weidner, there is no history of IAs, lying, or sexual harassment and all of that can be easily proven in his personnel file. Your desperation has clearly reached a fever-pitch as it is apparent that you will make up lies about anyone who decides to seek the appointment.

     In the meantime, it would serve you well to seek some counseling for the epic failure that is your personal and professional life.

     • Mrs Weidner, what a great idea. See if your husband is willing to open up his personnel file.

     • Dear Sam..I gave my honest opinion. I think looking at his history is a great idea.

   • How absurd is the liberal thinking that a requirement for sheriff would be not to cooperate with ICE. Earth to eveyone- ICE is enforcing laws enacted by congress. If youre in the country illegally, you’re breaking the law! To villify our law enforcement for doing their jobs is incredulous stupid. Countries have borders for a reason.

     • I agree, after the hell that the citizens of San Mateo have been put through , Corzo’s top priority is picking a Sheriff that doesn’t cooperate with ICE? Really?
       It is understandable it could be a question when interviewing the candidates, but this is her top priority? BOS needs an overhaul. These people are power hungry and running their own show. Jackie and Mueller are the only ones I trust at this point.

2. I watched the hearing and thought this was interesting — everyone who went to the microphone to speak in favor of Callagy’s idea of appointing a replacement was somebody who received something from the county. Maybe a grant, jobs, land, etc. Who pulled on their string to get them to speak?

3. I don’t know why they wouldn’t let the voters decide who should be sheriff? Do they want to control the sheriff’s office? Oh my God that would be a disaster. I don’t want my choices, as a voter, being taken away from me by the county supervisors. No doubt they would delay a final decision. I’m sure they’re hoping the dust settles and everybody forgets about this. I live in Corzo’s district and I want to find (and fund) a candidate to run against her when she runs for re-election.

   • The voters gave us Corpus.

4. When politicians talk about democracy, this is what they mean … reducing the choices voters have. What’s next?

5. Enough about Bolanos. That’s why we had the Corpus goat rodeo saga to begin with. If having a career as the Redwood City Police Chief, and Sheriff, Undersheriff of San Mateo County weren’t enough to make you feel as if you had a purpose, Pep Boys on El Camino is hiring. Bye bye!

6. Julie Lynn Rupp, the head of the labor council, is incorrect in saying the deputies want an appointed sheriff. In fact, just the opposite. The sentiment in favor of an elected sheriff is overwhelming, like 90-to-10. Rupp and Callagy just want somebody they can boss around.

7. What’s wrong with allowing the public to vote on this position? I smell the hand of the labor council.

   • Noone has a magic crystal ball but… Allowing the voters to vote meant Carlos Bolanos most probably would be back as Sheriff. No candidate would have had a chance against him in 3-6 months with his ready to go campaign money.

     Been there done that and part of the problems that lead to Corpus. If 4-6 candidates ran someone would win with 10-20% of the votes and 80-90% of the county voters unhappy and a very divided Sheriff office back to similar circumstances.

     The MAJORITY of the voters would have been unhappy and there epudl have been mass chaos.:

     Although the two no’s- Canepa and Spier might have some additional campaign money for their politicking…

8. After realizing the votes would have a pool of candidates running an election for the first time and in my opinion, Bolanos with campaign money ready to go and rich supporters is an election for Bolanos only. He has enough supporters and money to win when you separate votes into 4-6 different candidates running. Then Bolanos could in theory win with 10,000 votes or 10-12% of the votes leaving 90% of the people against this. That is a scary scenario and a waste of time, money and monthsbof chaos. The Office would have an interim for 6 months a new command staff just starting to heal the office and then boom a new Sheriff changing the office again in 6 months.

   The two board members in favor – well it smells of money. Their political career and a rich pool of supporters (ie team Bolanos) over what the people are asking Sheriff to heal their office now and stop this craziness and chaos. Ethical humans that don’t have a history of corruption around them.

   Good for Mueller, Corzo and Gauthier. The true colors of Spier and Canepa are shining through- money and power over ethical people…

   No candidate would have been able to win in 6 months over Bolanos . The drama saga of the Sheriff Office would yea be slightly better than Christina Corpus reign of terror…BUT Bolanos would have brought his old crew back and only restarted his power hungry creepiness. Stay retired.

   Hopeful, this process brings in solid leadership and the healing begins.take this county back to a respectable grounds. Stop all of the years of nonsense and let’s move forward. Retired Sheriff stay retired or move to another county.

9. I think there’s widespread misunderstanding of what the Supes voted on Tuesday 10/28. I’ve cross-checked my recollection from the video, to be sure.

   Agenda item was to, in addition to gleaning public comment, give “direction to staff, and/or adoption of procedures regarding the process to fill the vacancy” and “regarding the qualifications of the individual to be appointed […] should the Board of Supervisors elect to make an appointment.” Therefore, the Board could not, and did not, make the appoint vs. elect decision that charter §415 says it should make no later than Nov. 13, such a proposal having not being agendized.

   Starting around timemark 2:08:44 in the video, Sup. Corzo, with some assistance from County Attorney Nibbelin, moves that county staff do all the work necessary to move forward on an appointment process. Although, as Sup. Mueller clarified, the Supervisors were moving strongly towards appointment, they did NOT formally make such a choice — yet. (I did not see the written motion, and am just going by the meeting audio.)

   Clearly, the Supervisors intend to fill the seat, of course, and I expect them to do so on or immediately before Nov. 13. However, even that leaves an ambiguity still to be resolve, and we won’t know the resolution until that vote happens: They can appoint either for the full 3+ years remaining in Corpus’s term, or until an agreed-in-advance resignation and re-election.

   The latter choice still remains to be made — and I think most including the estimable Ms. Hernandez missed that point.

   As Nibbelin pointed out early in the meeting, several election dates would be possible under charter §415’s special-election option: Picking the two feasible dates in Feb. or Mar. 2026 would cost the county $3.2M, whereas picking June 2, 2026, consolidating a special Sheriff election with the midterm primary, would add almost no cost.

   Thus, if the Supes wish, they can have their appointee pre-resign (say) effective June 2, 2026, thus serving seven months before standing for re-election — rather than being an appointee with no democratic mandate all the way through 2028. They can do that by requiring a post-dated resignation letter at the time of appointment. Or they can avoid requiring one.

   Supervisor Mueller explained, Tuesday night, why his view had evolved and he no longer thinks pre-resignation, then special election (his own idea at the prior Board meeting), is prudent, and his reasons are worthy of respect. The views of his four peers were, of course, diverse. But my point is: The Board as a deliberative assembly still hasn’t acted to either adopt or exclude the pre-resignation option — in part because it hasn’t technically yet voted to appoint, either.

   • Mr. Moen’s interpretation overall appears the most accurate by far. I might not agree with all his assertions, yet I applaud his comments. He appears to set aside those other commenters describing assumptions about existing political war chests. My read of the campaign contribution data available on-line is that retired Sheriff Bolanos liquidated his campaign funds to a zero balance. Yet mathematically and based upon qualifications, not who likes who, Bolanos is likely to garner many votes.

     I hope the labor unions have not become more like the recently terminated Sheriff Corpus in making choices based on personal preference over merit and qualifications. I found it interesting that the spokeswoman for all labor unions did not share the result of any votes taken of union membership concerning to elect or appoint. I found it more interesting that after the BOS specifically asked to hear from the unions, they chose not to each speak, even briefly. Nearly unbelievable. Concerning the articulated preference for an appointment over an election, could it be that no such vote was taken by any SO labor unions? Did the labor union boards overstep their authority?

     Few extremely well qualified candidates should be expected with the streamlined application process. Although some could demonstrate their preparedness for the position through the highly accelerated process. I would think the odds favor the BOS to experience an inability to appoint a highly competent candidate, based predominantly on merit, in the narrow window, which would result in a defaulted election.

     Thanks again for your comments Mr. Moen. One thing is for certain, we will all see for ourselves.

10. There are good arguments either way for either inserting midterm June 2, 2026 re-election or not inserting one — but “That would just make Carlos Bolanos a shoe-in” is NOT among them.

    Yes, turnout for midterm primary elections (like 2022/2026) is lower than for presidential ones (like 2020/2024/2028), but not catastrophically low.

    March 5, 2024 presidential primary election
    Total turnout 40.0%, 174,122 ballots from 435,482 registered voters
    (no sheriff race)

    June 7, 2022 midterm primary election
    Total turnout 38.4%, 166,405 ballots from 433,539 registered voters
    Sheriff’s race tallies:
    Corpus 82,622
    Bolanos 62,626

    March 3, 2020 presidential primary election
    Total turnout 54.8%, 228,291 ballots from 416,827 registered voters
    (no sheriff race)

    June 5, 2018 midterm primary election
    Total turnout 44.34%, 172,168 ballots from 388,298 registered voters
    Bolanos 81,032
    Melville 52,996

    Point is, Bolanos was hardly unbeatable even before he became Mr. Batmobile Who Hangs around Illegal Brothels. How soon people forget that he was trounced only three years ago, with a 20k vote margin, by the then nearly unknown Captain of the Millbrae Bureau. A probable 5% lower total turnout (than two years later in March 2028) is unlikely to be decisive, especially given elevated and ongoing interest, owing to multiple recent years of SMCSO drama.

    And claims that an appointee could have no chance after only seven months in office are also suspect. Let’s say the Board picks someone highly qualified such as former Assistant Sheriff Ryan Monaghan (who acted with notable integrity amidst Corpus/Aenlle/Perea skullduggery from above) or former Undersheriff Chris Hsiung (who quietly and without scandal left the Corpus Administration two years in, possibly to save his own integrity) works for seven months and makes obvious headway, which frankly requires only stopping the bleeding. That suddenly famous Sheriff would, I would suggest, have at least as good prospects in June 2026 as obscure Captain Corpus did in June 2022.

    Bolanos would never again be a shoe-in, because of all of the above. Let’s not forget arithmetic and history, folks.

    • [Terms of Use Violation — Commenter is using different names on the same thread. Please, no sock puppets.]

      • “Skewed”, agreed that vote-splitting among a variety of candidates (or a “spoiler candidate” a la Ralph Nader) would certainly be possible, at a consolidated June 2, 2026 Sheriff election — because that’s a built-in, recurring misfeature of first-past-the-post electoral systems. Short of electoral reform (Approval Voting, IRV) at some future date, we’re stuck with that risk.

        Remember the clowncar of 46 candidates in the 2021 gubernatorial recall election? (Of course, that election had weird, special rules and an extremely low bar of entry, so not the same.)

        A reminder about the Batmobile fiasco: Bolanos committed that outrage against rule of law a month after his June 7, 2002 drubbing by Capt. Christina Corpus (“who?”), during his six months as a lame duck. How many previously reliable Bolanos voters did his post-defeat stunt alienate, eroding his support base? Not sure, but count me among their number. I suspect his ability to rely on 60,000 votes and an automatic incumbency advantage is gone with the dodo, because of the far greater awareness and scrutiny of SMCSO changing the game — but nobody ever confused me with a polling org, so call it just a guess.

        • A reminder about the “Batmobile” investigation for those who fell blindly for the smear campaign apparently launched as a deliberate precursor to taint a contested election. The law enforcement personnel conducting the investigation traveled pursuant to Search Warrants, properly reviewed by the District Attorney’s (DA) Office then signed by a California Judge, commanding the Vehicle Theft Task Force (VTTF) Agents, or any peace officer, to obey the search warrant; that is, to go to the specified location, search for specific evidence of specific crimes, and return as required by law. The result was criminal charges filed. No options to the search there; just misinformation spread to journalists who were unknowingly politically weaponized with catchy headlines. In addition, two felony charges were actually initially filed by the DA’s Office against the suspect, Mr. Racop (22-SF-008723-A: The People of the State of California vs. MARK RACOP). The charges were later dismissed by the DA, which happens in some cases for reasons only known to the DA dismissing the charges. Frequently they are dubbed, “in the interests of justice”, which has nothing to do with whether crimes were in fact committed.

          Former Sheriff and Supervisor Don Horsley acknowledged at the time that the investigation of crime was a sheriff’s call. The call was merely a referral to the proper investigative group. Horsely also did not think anything illegal happened. The VTTF was the proper, multi-jurisdictional entity to investigate the vehicle related offense that was alleged by the victim. Marcy’s Law delineates victims rights.

          It was not the first time the VTTF traveled outside of SMC in their investigations. What became clear, was the lack of technical knowledge of the general public, as well as the media for that matter, in developing a full understanding of the circumstances; lawful and proper law enforcement activities, which the statutes prohibit the Board from involvement.

          One has to wonder why the County Executive, with his three decades of law enforcement experience or the County Attorney at the time, did not educate the Board about those very pertinent details.

          • “misinformation spread to journalists who were unknowingly politically weaponized with catchy headlines.”

            Instead of saying all journalists, since there are honest reporters who brought the misdeeds of Ms. Corpus to light, be a bit more specific. The Batmobile story was spread by Dan Noyes of Channel 7, who even then was a mouthpiece for Corpus.

            Instead of generalizing, lay the blame where it belongs.

          • Former Resident, it’s always fair to remind readers of political context, but calling that scandal a smear campaign apparently launched as a deliberate precursor to taint a contested election would make sense if it had been ginned up while the election was still contested (or underway) rather than having been conclusive for a month already.

            My lodestar in the matter is the independent report by retired Judge Winifred Smith. While she discreetly avoided comment directly on civil or criminal liability, she made some telling criticisms: 1. She directly refuted your contention that the dispute lay within the ambit of of the VTTF. She said it definitely was not, and that better screening of cases within the Sheriff’s Office would have averted that error. 2. She called into question the now-late Sam Anagnostou’s privileged access to a personal favor from the Sheriff’s Office. 3. She implied that the probable cause warrant had been biased in omitting crucial facts that later led DA Wagstaffe to dismiss the charges as unwarranted from the get-go. In that particular, she placed particular blame on the Sheriff’s side of that gaffe, saying a more robust pre-filing review would have averted the application for warrant. 4. She said the DA’s Office had failed by disregarding departmental policy that matters already tried in civil court may not be shifted to a criminal complaint for a Round Two effort after losing in civil court. Following policy would have required rejecting Anagnostou’s request and kicking the matter back to Superior Court’s civil division if anywhere. 5. She noted that both departments need better conflict of interest training, as both had erred.

            Clearly there is blame to go around, and I join you of being suspicious of sensationalism or anything emerging from a Dan Noyes “exclusive” (but I repeat myself), but the contention that nothing untoward happened at SMCSO doesn’t pass the sniff test.

11. The Sheriff’s Office needs real leadership now, and it needs to come from within the Sheriff’s Office in order to quickly gain the confidence and support of those who serve there. Someone appointed for only a few months would automatically be viewed as a lame duck candidate, whose efforts to repair and reform the Office would be viewed as temporary at best. Former Captain Paul Kunkle would be an excellent choice, as he has all of the requirements to rise to the task. He is home grown SO, he has managed the jails, the Emergency Services Bureau, and has been a Police Bureau Chief. He served on Corpus’ transition team, so he can’t really be labeled as part of the “Good Old Boys” conspiracy theory. He was also the first to recognize that Victor Aenlle was a rat, telling Corpus to fire him, or he would quit. And he did, so he is hardly “Team Victina”. He falls comfortably in the middle. The only problem I see is that he may no longer live in the County… But he could fix that by making the Milbrae Substation his home address…

    • [Terms of Use Violation — Commenter is using different names on the same thread. Please, no sock puppets.]

12. Rick you missed a lot of key facts. The supervisors voted at the end 3-2 to appoint. They created a website to apply the next day. Applications are due November 5th. interviews are November 6th and by the county charter they have to appoint a new sheriff by November 13. Go look at the county announcement on their own website.

    The option to appoint an interim until June 2 was if they agreed in a special election. They did NOT

    The interim is serving the remainder of Corpus term until 2028.

    I watched live and also have read the county website communications CLEARLY stating that they VOTED 3-2 in FAVOR of appointing a new Sheriff until 2028

    • “Clarity”, really briefly:

      Agenda item was: “Vacancy in the Office of San Mateo County Sheriff: A) Discussion, receipt of public input, direction to staff, and/or adoption of procedures and schedules regarding the process to fill the vacancy in the office of San Mateo County Sheriff, pursuant to Section 415 of the San Mateo County Charter. B) Discussion, receipt of public input, and direction to staff regarding the qualifications of the individual to be appointed to fill the vacancy in the office of San Mateo County Sheriff, should the Board of Supervisors elect to make an appointment.”

      Because of notice requirements, the Board cannot take actions beyong what is agendized. As you will see, taking action (appointing or calling an election) is outside the scope of what was agendized, which was only listening to the public, giving directions to staff about process, and advising staff about desired qualifications.

      Later in the meeting, County Attorney Nibbelin, the Board’s expert in civil law, reiterated that the “action item” on the agenda went that far, no further.

      Verbatim wording of Sup. Corzo’s motion at 2:07:21 shortly after Sup Mueller said “We’ll now move to direction [of the staff]”: “I’m happy to move a motion forward to officially approve an appointment process.” Note surrounding advice from Nibbelin the county civil law expert that the purport of this is giving direction (to staff) via a vote.

      Indisputably, they were indicating by 3-2 an intention to go for appointment rather than calling special election under charter section 415. Indisputably, they’re free to switch tracks any time through Nov. 13, because the charter says so.

      But that’s ignoring entirely my point, sir — that, even if that were a binding vote, which it wasn’t, there was nothing there about a term through EOY 2028. They can and perhaps should still consider Sup. Mueller’s 10/11 idea of pre-resignation and a consolidated election on June 2, 2026. My entire point was that pretending as if this choice isn’t on the table is not in the county’s interest.

13. I worked under Don, Greg, Carlos and her. My observation is that the good folks worked for the betterment of the County, ie for the Citizens, the Deputies and the dedicated employees, not themselves. Enough said. I wish she would just go away and move to Idaho, with the rest of the retired LE folks. Go fishing ! Oh and stop trying to chisel more $$ in retirement out of the county.

14. Today, is the deadline to submit an application for Sheriff. Who will the candidates be?

Comments are closed.