San Mateo County sheriff removal may take 3 1/2 months

The extraordinary extension of power given to the governing board is a result of a Sheriff’s Office riddled with frustrated personnel, worried over misconduct and retaliation at the behest of Corpus’ administration. 

The proposed removal proceedings were drafted to prioritize fairness throughout the coming months, said Alfonso Estrada, a partner at Hanson Bridgett LLP law firm, who drafted the plans. Estrada’s career has focused on peace officer disciplinary cases, from both the union and management side.  

“The reason it is so robust is to ensure the sheriff is afforded due process, and at the same time the county is afforded due process, and that this all be done efficiently and as quickly as feasible, given the need for the sheriff’s department and their operations to be managed appropriately,” Estrada said. 

The draft proceedings include three separate votes by the Board of Supervisors to be held, each requiring a supermajority to pass, the detailed process in securing an unbiased hearing officer, and steps necessary before an evidentiary hearing would take place. 

To initiate the process, the Board of Supervisors must vote, with four-fifths approval, to begin and issue a written notice of intent to remove the sheriff, which includes the alleged grounds for removal and a notice to appear at a preremoval conference within five days. 

This conference was proposed to occur before Assistant County Executive Iliana Rodriguez, or her designee, however, board President David Canepa proposed alternative options to be considered. Rodriguez works under County Executive Mike Callagy, who has been entangled in the ongoing sheriff’s scandal, and recently filed a claim with the county in regards to Corpus.

“I want to make sure there is absolutely no conflict of interests in any way when these proceedings are conducted,” Canepa said. 

Other proposals

Canepa proposed Chief Probation Officer John Keene, who was neither appointed by supervisors nor the county executive, but rather by the courts. Keene was appointed to the position in June 2013, and has over 20 years of law enforcement experience. Other proposed hearing officers included Chief Elections Officer Mark Church or County Treasurer Sandie Arnott. 

Whoever is ultimately chosen to attend the preremoval conference, which will include both parties, will then be given a recommendation to supervisors whether to uphold the removal process. 

The board then votes to move forward and, with a four-fifths approval, a final notice of decision will be issued. Corpus can then appeal the decision to remove within five days of this final notice, or else the decision is final. If she appeals, an evidentiary hearing will then be scheduled. 

The hearing of Corpus’ appeal will be open to the public, unless she objects and requests a closed hearing. This decision is entirely up to the sheriff, County Attorney John Nibbelin said. 

The draft procedures also include the process to select a neutral hearing officer, who will be experienced in public safety officer disciplinary matters and will hear the appeal. Once this hearing officer is decided upon, the appeal hearing must occur within 60 days, and can last up to 10. 

The hearing will be conducted under a preponderance of evidence standard, which means there must be a “more likely than not” proof that the evidence occurred, which is common in civil cases, Estrada said. 

While the hearing will be “informal in nature” due to its narrow focus, every witness will be providing testimony under oath, similar to in a normal court of law, Estrada said. This would be the first time Corpus, or any of the whistleblowers against her administration, would be held up to penalty of perjury. 

Once the appeal hearing concludes, the hearing officer will have 30 calendar days to issue an advisory opinion to the Board of Supervisors, which will then make a final decision through another vote that will be final and binding. 

Sheriff concerns

During public comment, Corpus’ attorney Thomas Mazzucco and his legal team shared that they felt the proposed proceedings were unfair. Referring to the matter as “sheriff removal process” infers a preconceived determination the sheriff will be removed, Mazzucco said. 

“We’re concerned about whether this board can give a fair and impartial vote on the different periods of the process based upon unfortunate very public statements where judgment has already been made about Sheriff Corpus,” Mazzucco said. 

Much of the weight of the effort to remove Corpus is predicated on an investigated report conducted over four months by retired Judge LaDoris Cordell outlining evidence of abuse of power, retaliation and conflicts of interest. Mazzucco said this report was hearsay, and “has no evidentiary value” because the interviews were not tape recorded. 

April 22 would be the earliest likely date, absent a special meeting, when the board could approve these proposed procedures, then triggering the series of actions to begin.

The District Attorney’s Office is investigating the alleged criminal offenses outlined in the report and will be releasing its findings. 

The matter of finding Corpus’ success has yet to be discussed publicly by county officials or Sheriff’s Office personnel. 

A 2016 Attorney General formal opinion, addressing a vacancy caused by the death of the sheriff, concluded that a sheriff’s vacancy can only be filled by appointment, and not a special election. However, the county charter states that if a vacancy occurs in an elective office, the Board of Supervisors may choose between appointing someone or conducting a special election. 

The successor would serve for the remainder of Corpus’ term, which ends in December 2028.