South City, Belmont join other cities in denouncing sheriff

Some cities, such as San Mateo, passed no-confidence resolutions, which did not explicitly endorse Measure A — although many councilmembers still voiced their support for the ballot measure. Other jurisdictions that contract with the Sheriff’s Office for law enforcement services, including San Carlos and Millbrae, have passed similar resolutions.

More recently, Redwood City passed a resolution in support of Measure A, with Belmont and South San Francisco councils following suit this week.

During the meetings, many public commenters voiced support for the resolutions. Eliot Storch, a South City resident and detective in the San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office, said Corpus was “unfit to continue as sheriff.”

Belmont councilmembers unanimously passed the resolution, which states that the “findings that were sustained in the report do not reflect the standards that our community wants in their law enforcement personnel.”

“As I uncovered and learned more about this issue, it’s extremely disheartening to learn about the working conditions of the men and women who work to keep our cities and counties safe,” Councilmember Cathy Jordan said. “I believe we owe it to the people that are serving the communities to have their back.”

Councilmember Gina Latimerlo said she was in support of Measure A endorsement, although she had concerns about the effort setting a precedent for removing elected officials from office.

“I can think of a lot of ways that this could go sideways, and I don’t want this to be usual behavior for us … however, I do think this is an incredibly specific situation,” she said.

Corpus said in an emailed statement that city councils should lead based on “facts, diligence and a commitment to the people — not political favoritism or appeasement of special interests.”

“It is both alarming and unacceptable that certain City Council members have failed in this duty. Rather than conducting an independent, fact-based assessment, they have blindly aligned themselves with labor unions, choosing political expediency over responsible governance,” she said.

Most South San Francisco councilmembers also supported a similar resolution, except for Councilmember Mark Addiego, who said he was concerned with the sheriff’s behavior and the leadership culture but felt the situation would be best resolved via the recall process. He added the investigation, conducted by retired Judge LaDoris Cordell, was informative but still had many holes in it, relying mostly on a handful of unknown employees.

“These are allegations, and — definitely if they are true — there are many policies and procedures and even some state law that has been violated. I’m wondering to myself, where is [District Attorney] Wagstaffe? When are charges brought? If there is some criminality here, why haven’t we heard from that?” Addiego said. “If there was a recall being circulated, I would sign it tomorrow, but I’m not willing to give this extraordinary power to the Board of Supervisors.”

The District Attorney’s Office is still investigating the case. About five of the allegations listed in the report could ostensibly be criminal violations — particularly related to improper firearm possession or gold badge distribution — but District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe said they can’t file charges based on a report done by somebody else.

“It takes time because you have to do it right. You have to interview everybody, verify what you have, get records. … It’s ongoing and we’ve completed most of it but I’m not going to issue our conclusions individually,” Wagstaffe said.

He said they hope to complete the findings in the next two to four weeks.

The special election for Measure A will be March 4.