Sergeants union in San Mateo County said retaliation was ‘shockingly obvious’

“The San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office will not tolerate efforts to blur that line in order to shield potential misconduct or discredit reform,” Corpus said in her message July 14. 

Fava was placed under investigation and on administrative leave by Corpus just more than a week after his name was publicized as a key witness in the notice of intent, which outlines the grounds for Corpus’ removal to the county Board of Supervisors. 

The Organization of Sheriff’s Sergeants union was notified of the nature of allegations made against Fava by Corpus, according to a statement Thursday. Though the union did not disclose the details regarding the case, the statement said the allegations were “a direct attempt to target Sergeant Fava in retaliation,” for his cooperation in an investigation into Corpus. 

“Given the timing and the nature of the accusations, we firmly believe this is nothing less than an effort to initiate and punish a key witness,” the statement read. 

Corpus did not consult with Human Resources or the County Attorney’s Office before placing Fava on administrative leave, the OSS said. Corpus, however, said she consulted with the County Attorney’s Office.

Fava’s placement on leave pending the investigation was also excessive and “appears to be a deliberate act meant to undermine his impeccable reputation due to his cooperation in the ongoing investigation into Sheriff Christina Corpus’ corruption,” according to the statement.

“Sheriff Corpus has once again demonstrated her willingness to abuse her power, showing little regard for the progressional or personal consequences her actions have on others,” the OSS said. 

Corpus did not respond to request for comment before publication. 

In her message July 14, Corpus went on to state that “recent media coverage” selectively uses information, false narratives and personal attacks to “erode public confidence and obstruct progress,” within the Sheriff’s Office. 

“I will not be deterred by efforts to weaponize the press or internal complaints in service of political agenda,” Corpus said previously. 

Fava was a key witness in the notice of intent, a document detailing the grounds for Corpus’ removal written by the Keker, Van Ness & Peters law firm. Corpus has a pattern of retaliating against Sheriff’s Office personnel who she perceived to threaten her authority, the law firm concluded. 

With the notice of intent sustained by the Board of Supervisors, the next step in its adopted removal proceedings will be an under-oath evidentiary hearing held in front of retired Judge James Emerson, set to be held from Aug. 18 to Aug. 29. 

A separate accusation by the San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury also alleged Corpus retaliated against employees whom she believed opposed her authority. The civil grand jury has the authority to formally accuse an elected official and seek their removal from office; this process is independent from the supervisor’s removal proceedings. 

The OSS called for Corpus to resign immediately. 

“Every day that she remains in a position of power creates risk and harm to the county, and there is no reason to believe it will stop here,” the OSS statement read.