March election for San Mateo County sheriff removal

The unprecedented effort to expand the board’s jurisdiction and authority over an elected position within the county follows the public release of a scathing investigative report detailing evidence of corruption within the Sheriff’s Office executive team. 

An investigation conducted by retired Judge LaDoris Cordell outlined substantial evidence of retaliation, abuse of power and conflicts of interest within Corpus’ administration. 

Corpus wrote a letter Dec. 2 to the board ahead of the meeting stating her opposition to the proposed ordinance. 

“I was elected by a large margin of voters, because the voters demanded change,” Corpus wrote. “This process undermines the will of the voters and gives four individuals the role of judge and jury. This is not democracy!” 

In her letter, Corpus referred to “Civilian Employee (#3)” — who was a major source of the 15 complaints investigated in the report — as a past employee, which raised concern from Supervisor Ray Mueller who stated at the meeting that the referenced complainant is still employed with the county. Mueller questioned if Corpus intended to fire the witness. 

“That has given me great pause, that we are still in a circumstance where the sheriff is communicating about people who have taken part in this investigation and is either talking about the future or is giving a threat,” Mueller said.

The second reading of an ordinance similar to this one would usually be approved through the consent agenda, Supervisor Noelia Corzo said, but was placed as a discussion item out of consideration of the public. Many residents have raised concern over the quickness taken in placing the ordinance on the ballot. 

With this in mind, Corzo reiterated major concerns that were outlined in Cordell’s investigation and the urgency the findings demand, including the sheriff’s tactics to “delay, deny and deflect.” 

“Our sheriff, right now, is serving during a six-year term — we are wrapping up year two,” Corzo said. “There are four more years left before the voters would have an opportunity to vote on new leadership in the Sheriff’s Office without an intervention like a charter amendment or a recall.” 

Corzo said she had a conversation with the sheriff earlier this year when Corpus admitted Victor Aenlle — who is at the core of the allegations investigated by Cordell — had lied to Corzo about something Corpus allegedly had said.

One of the core complaints investigated by Cordell was the inappropriate relationship between Corpus and Aenlle, who was her former chief of staff. This claim was substantiated with “overwhelming factual evidence” and the relationship has led Corpus to “relinquish control of the San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office” to Aenlle, Cordell found. 

“It is very clear to me that she is incapable of holding Victor Aenlle accountable or putting anyone else’s interest before his and ultimately hers,” Corzo said. “That to me is a mentality that is completely unbefitting of a leader who needs to make sound decisions in the Sheriff’s Office who is ultimately responsible for public safety in our entire county.” 

The procedure for removing the sheriff from office — should voters approve the board’s ability to do so — would include providing the sheriff a written statement of the alleged grounds for removal and an opportunity to defend themselves before a vote could be held. 

However, the Board of Supervisors also approved formally asking Corpus to attend the board meeting Dec. 10, and provide sworn testimony in an effort to grant the sheriff  the ability to respond to the allegations. The board has until Dec. 11 to remove the measure from the ballot.

The sheriff would be able to bring her counsel, which she recently obtained rather than using that provided to her by the county.

This formal request for Corpus’ testimony was approved with three votes, with Supervisor David Canepa absent and Corzo abstaining. Corzo stated she worries the sheriff will use the platform to “continue to lie” and she “has zero confidence in anything coming out of her mouth to be truthful.” 

“If this matter does make it to a court of law, I am confident that anyone who lies under oath can, and will, face consequences for not telling the truth,” Corzo said. “In this case, I believe that is our sheriff.”  

With the passing of the ordinance to be placed on the March ballot, members of the county — including the board and the sheriff — will be barred from using county resources for campaigning. Both parties will have to move forward with precision, performing a balancing act between providing information and advocacy, County Attorney John Nibbelin said.

“There’s sort of a time, place, tenor standard that needs to be applied when you look at the communications taking place while a measure is pending,” Nibbelin said. 

Though an effort was reported to be underway for a recall campaign, this process is rather arduous and lengthy. The earliest a recall election would be able to occur would be November 2025, but would more likely be held April 2026. 

“The circumstances and the working conditions that we’re hearing from our employees, reasonably in the Sheriff’s Office, that exist today, absent this charter amendment process, they would be in those working conditions possibly into 2026,” Mueller said. 

The Deputy Sheriff’s Association stated their support for the supervisors’ decision. 

“Sheriff Corpus’ stubborn efforts to cling to power despite the broad and overwhelming loss of confidence in her leadership has made this a necessary, if unprecedented, step toward regaining trust and transparency in the San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office,” the DSA said in a press release. 

The San Carlos City Council, legislative leaders, county officials and nearly all sworn staff within the Sheriff’s Office have publicly called for Corpus’ resignation.