​San Mateo County supervisors can initiate sheriff’s removal following charter amendment

San Mateo County supervisors on Tuesday officially accepted the results of last month’s special election, granting them the authority to initiate a process that could lead to the removal of embattled Sheriff Christina Corpus with a four-fifths vote.

The move follows months of controversy surrounding Corpus, who faces multiple allegations, including corruption, misconduct, and an inappropriate relationship with her former chief of staff, Victor Aenlle, clearing the way for the board to begin outlining procedures for her potential ouster.

The unanimous acceptance of the election results by the four supervisors present – Supervisor Jackie Speier was absent – formalizes the outcome of the March 4 election, where 84% of voters approved Measure A. That measure amended the county charter to temporarily allow for the sheriff’s removal by the board until 2028, the end of Corpus’ term.

The charter amendment will be official on April 18, allowing the board to begin adopting removal procedures as early as its April 22 meeting, though the final adoption may take more time.

San Mateo County Board of Supervisors President David Canepa emphasized the board’s commitment to a fair process.

“The next action the board will take is to notify the sheriff of the intent to remove, which will require the board’s first four-fifths vote to proceed,” Canepa said. “This will be a measured and transparent process that will be fair to the sheriff.”

That initial vote is part of a proposed 12-step removal process that was presented by attorney Alfonso Estrada, with the law firm Hanson Bridgett. The firm was contracted by the county to help craft the procedures to initiate proceedings.

This would be followed by a notice of intent to Corpus and a pre-removal conference for her to respond to allegations.

Corpus would then have the option to request a public or private evidentiary hearing overseen by a jointly selected hearing officer, who would not be a board member, but possibly someone employed by the county.

Following the hearing officer’s recommendation and a review of the record, a final four-fifths vote by the board would be required for removal. The entire process could take at least several months.

In public comment, Deacon Lauren McCombs of Christ Episcopal Church urged the board to act swiftly, citing the overwhelming passage of Measure A as a reflection of public sentiment for new leadership.

“I encourage the board to act quickly to vote to remove Sheriff Corpus. Measure A has empowered the five of you with the ability to do so,” said McCombs, a member of community advocacy group Fixin’ San Mateo. “This isn’t a time to move slowly. It’s obvious that the public as well as our sheriff’s deputies no longer have faith in Sheriff Corpus’ ability to lead the sheriff’s Department.”

Corpus did not respond to requests for comment from this news organization. However, her legal team voiced significant concerns about the proposed process during Tuesday’s meeting.

Attorney Thomas Mazzucco argued that the name “sheriff removal process” suggests a predetermined outcome and questioned the board’s impartiality, citing public statements made based on an independent investigation by retired Judge LaDoris Cordell.

“That infers that there’s already a preconceived determination that the sheriff will be removed,” Mazzucco said during public comment, referring to statements by Supervisors Ray Mueller and Noelia Corzo who called for Corpus’ removal before the special election.

Mazzucco dismissed the over 400-page report and used the public comment period to attempt to discredit Cordell’s findings.

“It has no evidentiary value. They’re not sworn interviews. They’re not tape-recorded interviews. There’s no methodology as to who was interviewed. We don’t know who she interviewed. We’re in the dark,” Mazzucco claimed.

However, members of two San Mateo County sheriff’s unions, whose complaints initiated the investigation into Corpus, have previously defended Cordell’s findings.

Detective Elliot Storch of the Deputy Sheriffs’ Association previously told this news organization, “None of this has anything to do with bias, race or gender; it’s about Sheriff Corpus’ poor decisions as a leader.”

Another attorney for Corpus, Christopher Ulrich, raised concerns about due fairness within the proposed procedures.

“So what we have here is a board who initiates the action, their allegations. They then get it confirmed or a hearing officer weighs in and the board then reaffirms its own initial allegations,” Ulrich said. “Then the appeal goes back to the same board for that board to render opinion. and that is what the limits were placed on Mr. Estrada by the structure of the county government.”

County Attorney John Nibbelin indicated a willingness to consider feedback from Corpus’ legal team on the process, stating they would meet with Mazzucco.

Corpus previously signaled her intent to fight removal efforts, saying after the passage of Measure A, “My legal team and I look forward to this opportunity, and are confident that I will be vindicated through a legitimate process.”