An effort to recall sheriff underway

A steering committee is being formed, a possible campaign consultant has been identified, a budget is being built to fund the signature-gathering and a notable legal expert on recalls, attorney Ashlee Titus of Sacramento, has begun advising on the recall process, sources said.

Supervisor Ray Mueller, in an interview, issued a call for volunteers to gather signatures. He said he hopes to sign up 30 volunteers who will gather 100 signatures in each of the county’s 20 cities. Mueller has set up an email account — SheriffCorpusRecall@gmail.com — for would-be volunteers.

A recall is a substantial undertaking.

First, proponents must gather nearly 45,000 signatures to put the recall on the ballot. To avoid a signature-by-signature review by county elections officials, proponents will have to gather an additional 10% for a total of nearly 50,000 signatures. The common practice in California is to hire a firm that will pay signature collectors. The standard cost is $20 per signature, which means the qualification effort could cost as much as $1 million.

“I am confident there will be sufficient funds to get it on the ballot,” Hartnett said.

In addition to money, a recall will take time, within a fairly tight timeline under the state recall rules. Organizers are thinking the recall could appear on the ballot sometime in the fall.

At next Tuesday’s meeting, the board is scheduled to consider the final steps to put a charter amendment on the March 4 ballot. The amendment would authorize the board to conduct a hearing to consider ousting Corpus from an office she won two years ago. A vote to fire Corpus would require four votes on the five-member board. The charter amendment would expire at the end of 2025.

All this raises the very real possibility that voters could be asked to decide two separate measures calling for the ouster of the sheriff — months apart.

“Obviously, (a recall) is a viable option here,” Mueller said. “I think both can be pursued concurrently.”

Asked directly if he would support dropping the charter amendment in favor of the recall, Mueller said, “That’s a discussion for the board to have. … Right now, I’m encouraging people to pursue both.”

The public emergence of a recall reflects a growing uneasiness with the charter amendment.

“I would rather have her removed by a recall than a charter amendment,” Hartnett said, adding that the charter proposal is “well-intentioned.”

“I am uncomfortable with the precedent of the Board of Supervisors being involved in the business of the Sheriff’s Office. Maybe it’s too much power for a Board of Supervisors,” Hartnett said, echoing comments online from observers who say they support Corpus’ removal, but not by charter amendment.

As this unprecedented political and public crisis continues, the sheriff’s opponents are desperate for a means to bring the whole sordid matter to their stated outcome — Corpus’ departure.

A case can be made that a recall is more direct — a yes/no vote on Corpus’ tenure. Mueller contends that the charter amendment will bring this crisis to a faster conclusion.

“The real downside in the recall is the amount of time the sheriff would still be in office,” Mueller said, “when you have every labor unit and all the captains unanimously having called for her resignation and all the calls acknowledging the dysfunction in her department.”

But the downside of the charter amendment is that it may not pass, or that Corpus could challenge its legality, which undoubtedly will cause months of further delays and deferrals.

As a political exercise, it is evident from Corpus’ continuing public relations offensive that the charter amendment will be met with a succinct argument against it: It is a power grab by the board against a sheriff who is reforming an office that has been corrupt and subject to cronyism.

Corpus said as much in her latest dispatch, issued Wednesday and titled “A letter to the employees of the Sheriff’s Office and the San Mateo County Community.”

In the letter, Corpus said she was elected “to reform an institution once marred by past scandals and costly discrimination litigation. … These reforms were bound to challenge the status quo and bring challenges like we are experiencing.”

This elicited a response from the Deputy Sheriffs Association: “We will no longer work with you. That ship has sailed. All you are doing is playing the role of victim within a disaster of your own making. Quit.”

Corpus also restated, incidentally, that she was not afforded an advance “opportunity to respond to or address” the findings of the 400-page report prepared by retired Judge LaDoris Cordell that was extraordinarily damning of the sheriff’s management of the office.

The report clearly states that Cordell made several unsuccessful efforts to interview Corpus as it was being prepared.

As Corpus’ opponents sort through their options, they remain unified in purpose.

“The sheriff has to go,” Hartnett said. “The best thing would be for the sheriff to resign, given what she has created.” He said the sheriff’s defiant conduct reflects a “bunker mentality” and that Corpus “refuses to acknowledge that things are falling apart.”

He added: “It doesn’t appear there is anything anyone can say or do to get her to resign.”

Incidentally, in her message this week, Corpus said she would proceed with filling the vacancies in her top-echelon command staff.

This raises an interesting question: Given the public show of chaos, contradiction and dispute, who in law enforcement would welcome the chance to serve under Corpus?

Mark Simon is a veteran journalist, whose career included 15 years as an executive at SamTrans and Caltrain. He can be reached at marksimon@smdailyjournal.com.