Sheriff’s attorneys question San Mateo County's investigation

In a statement made April 25, Corpus’ attorneys said there has been “significant misinformation” that was aimed to be addressed by Strunsky’s methodology-based evaluation. Strunsky’s evaluation and response was based solely on Cordell’s report and two ABC-7 news articles. 

In a 25-page response, Strunsky largely calls Cordell’s sourcing into question, stating that the fact her interviews were not recorded and kept anonymous discredited the validity of their claims. 

“When an inquiry abandons even a single basic safeguard — such as recording interviews, meeting witnesses in person, or allowing witnesses to review their statements — unnecessary doubt inevitably seeps in,” Strunsky wrote. 

Cordell conducted 60 hours worth of interviews with 25 current and past sworn employees and 15 civilian current and past employees. In her report, she said all were credible in their responses, and the majority were kept anonymous out of their fear of retaliation. 

Strunsky’s response found fault with the fact that “every credibility judgment rests exclusively on Cordell’s untestable word,” but added a note that his statements should “not be interpreted to imply any level of dishonesty or lack of credibility on the part of Judge Cordell.” 

The county hired Cordell in July 2024 after an unprecedented amount of complaints were made regarding Corpus and Aenlle. The investigation resulted in more than 400 pages of detailed findings that resulted in Cordell stating “nothing short of new leadership can save this organization that is in turmoil, and its personnel demoralized.” 

Shortly after Cordell’s investigation was made public, the Board of Supervisors zeroed out the budget for the position Aenlle held on Corpus’ executive team, effectively firing him from the paid role. However, Aenlle has maintained he remains a reserve deputy. 

Recently, Corpus reinstated Aenlle as an active reserve deputy working in the Concealed Carry Weapon Unit last week. 

The Deputy Sheriff’s Association, which has been an outspoken opponent to the Corpus administration and early whistleblower, felt this decision disrespects “both the community and the office she holds.”

“Sheriff Corpus continues to practice the open corruption and defiant mismanagement that forced our community to take the unprecedented step to remove her from office,” the DSA wrote in a statement. “We look forward to the day when new leadership can begin to restore the trust transparency that we expect from our public servants.”

The Board of Supervisors, multiple cities within the county, and nearly all of the sworn personnel within the Sheriff’s Office called for Corpus’ resignation, but she has remained adamant she will not do so. So, the county took another avenue to remove her from her position of power. 

In March, voters granted the Board of Supervisors the authority to remove an elected sheriff for just cause. The county is currently figuring out the exact procedure to move forward in doing so, which will likely include multiple supermajority votes of the board, an under-oath hearing, and opportunity for the sheriff to defend herself. 

The evaluation of Cordell’s extensive report was punctuated with a call from Strunsky for the Board of Supervisors to conduct a public hearing with witness testimony under oath and relevant evidence produced — something the county has already proposed doing.

“The path forward lies in neither shelving Judge Cordell’s work nor rushing to depose an elected sheriff,” Strunsky wrote. 

At the Board of Supervisors’ meeting April 22, County Attorney John Nibbelin gave a brief update on the proposed process. 

“We are working with all due diligence and speed, as the board has suggested that we should do, but also with an eye toward making sure that we have due process,” Nibbelin said at the meeting “Our anticipation is to be back to the board at a future meeting in the near future.” 

The county issued a response that said the report prepared by Judge Cordell, a highly experienced, well-regarded and independent retired judge, raises serious concerns about the conduct of the sheriff and her leadership of the Sheriff’s Office.

Recognizing that Judge Cordell’s “investigation has undeniable value,” the Strunsky report concludes that, before deciding whether to remove the sheriff, the Board of Supervisors should develop a process that affords the sheriff the opportunity to make her case in full view of the public, the response said.

“The board is doing exactly that and has already shared a draft of the removal process with the public, consistent with its steadfast commitment to fairness and transparency,” according to the county statement.