San Mateo County Sheriff Christina Corpus will face a proper elimination listening to Aug. 18-29 after the Board of Supervisors voted to take away her from workplace final month, county officers confirmed on Friday.
Jim Lawrence, a former Foster Metropolis mayor and a member of civilian oversight group Fixin’ San Mateo County, stated the doable closed-door nature of the listening to raises transparency considerations.
“While the decision to conduct the hearing in closed session may reflect legal considerations — such as protecting sensitive personnel matters — it raises important concerns about public trust,” Lawrence stated. “In matters involving high-ranking public officials, the public has a strong interest in understanding both the process and the facts behind such proceedings. A closed hearing risks undermining that trust unless there is a compelling justification.”
Lawrence stated releasing a redacted report or abstract findings might assist steadiness confidentiality with public accountability.
“These proceedings affect public confidence in law enforcement and public leadership,” he stated. “Restoring that trust will require open communication, demonstrated accountability, and a renewed focus on community engagement.”
Verducci beforehand stated officers would consider whether or not to grant the request for a non-public listening to, provided that paperwork associated to the elimination course of, filed by Corpus’ authorized crew, had already grow to be public file.
On June 24, the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors took motion in opposition to the sheriff following a particular election in March that granted them the flexibility to take action. Corpus filed an attraction on June 27, triggering a proper elimination listening to underneath the county’s lately adopted procedures.
Whereas the discover of intent and associated investigations into Corpus’ elimination have been stored non-public by San Mateo County at her request, these paperwork have been included as supporting supplies in authorized filings submitted by her attorneys final month in San Mateo County Superior Court docket. The court docket made the information public after her crew didn’t request they be sealed, in response to the county.
Corpus, the county’s first Latina sheriff, faces two simultaneous efforts to take away her from workplace: one by way of the Board of Supervisors course of licensed by voters, and one other by way of a civil grand jury accusation lately filed in San Mateo County Superior Court docket. She has denied any wrongdoing and has refused to resign.
Corpus is scheduled to seem in court docket July 15 to answer the civil grand jury accusation, which might end in her elimination if convicted.
If eliminated by each the civil grand jury course of and the Board of Supervisors, Corpus can be the primary sheriff within the Bay Space ousted straight by a county board — and is probably going the primary in California to be focused by two separate elimination processes.
Her authorized crew filed an attraction of the board’s ultimate discover of elimination on June 27. Retired Santa Clara County Choose James Emerson was mutually chosen to function the listening to officer.
Of their attraction, Corpus’ attorneys argue that the method is biased and unconstitutional.
Her authorized crew contends that Supervisors Ray Mueller and Noelia Corzo ought to have recused themselves from voting. Mueller and Corzo introduced the 400-page report by retired Choose LaDoris Cordell to the general public final November, a doc that prompted requires Corpus’ resignation and was instrumental within the March 4 particular election granting the board elimination authority.
The attraction asserts that the board is working as “accuser, factfinder, and judge,” with none important checks on its authority.
The authorized crew additionally argues that the elimination course of violates due course of protections and the Public Security Officers Procedural Invoice of Rights Act. They are saying the listening to course of lacks sworn testimony, evidentiary safeguards, and that “no competent administrative record supports the charges or the finding of ‘cause.’” Additionally they say it depends on obscure, undefined phrases like “neglect of duty” and “obstruction.”
Corpus’ attorneys additional contend she was denied entry to key paperwork, together with the unredacted Cordell report, which shaped the premise for the county board’s elimination course of. They argue that with out entry to the proof getting used in opposition to her, Corpus can’t mount a good protection.
The misconduct allegations stem from two county-commissioned studies — one by Cordell and the opposite by the regulation agency Keker, Van Nest & Peters. Each describe a private or romantic relationship between Corpus and Victor Aenlle, her former marketing campaign supervisor who turned her prime civilian aide.
The Keker report, which named witnesses not like the Cordell report, alleged that the sheriff sought raises for Aenlle, failed to analyze misconduct involving deputies loyal to her, and retaliated in opposition to critics.
Corpus’ attorneys haven’t responded to requests for remark, although each Corpus and Aenlle have beforehand denied all accusations contained within the Cordell and Keker studies.
The controversy intensified final yr after union leaders inside the sheriff’s workplace publicly accused Corpus of corruption and retaliation, prompting requires oversight reform and triggering a sequence of investigations.
