Rage, tsuris and the sheriff’s scandal

In her angry hit-and-run appearance before the Board of Supervisors Wednesday, Corpus threw down the metaphorical gauntlet. Or, more precisely, took it off and smacked it across the face of the county.

She unmistakably signaled that this mess is just beginning. It will chew up months, perhaps years, and cost millions of dollars.

The good doctor, Victor Aenlle, whatever his title of the moment, could become the most expensive county employee in history.

For openers, as this saga plays out, the county will have to pay Corpus’ legal fees. Already, she has indicated she wants a private attorney instead of someone from the San Mateo County Attorney’s Office.

There will be substantial costs from legal actions that undoubtedly will be filed by dozens of sheriff’s employees who believe they have been harassed, mistreated, improperly disciplined or illegally fired. As Supervisor Warren Slocum said Wednesday, Corpus has “exposed the county to millions and millions of dollars in lawsuits because of her retaliation.”

This does not include the cost of an off-year election on a charter amendment that will give the supervisors more authority to act against a wayward sheriff, and/or the cost of a recall election. Despite the stirring call emanating from this little corner of the Daily Journal, there is small appetite for the massive effort involved in a countywide recall election.

The outcome of all this tsuris is far from certain.

And we have yet to see the results of the investigation demanded by Corpus alleging that County Executive Officer Mike Callagy interfered with her office.

This is one more example of Corpus’ incautiousness. Far from proving interference, the report is likely to show that Callagy, in the words of one source, “bent over backwards” to help Corpus as she took office. In fact, Callagy assisted Corpus in forming an unprecedented transition team, an effort that cost the county $88,500.

Beyond the drama of Corpus’ appearance at Wednesday’s board meeting, there were a handful of people who spoke on her behalf. Most of them, it appears, were from the Latino community of North Fair Oaks. This is no surprise. Corpus has had long, personal ties to North Fair Oaks, where she was first assigned as a deputy in 2005. It is notable that the supportive comments were largely about her achievements specific to that community, and not the allegations of widespread misconduct contained in the 400-page report prepared by retired Judge LaDoris Cordell.

There is a far larger contingent of people who supported Corpus and are deeply hurt that this scandal has exposed her as incapable, vindictive, secretive, manipulative and manipulated.

In her campaign two years ago, she put together a countywide coalition of prominent supporters. None of them has rallied to her side. Neither have the many of the office’s rank-and-file and command who supported her in the belief she would end the “old boys network” that dominated the office for decades. Many of these same supporters are gone from the office.

It is a shame that the county is plunged into this kind of turmoil, with no end in sight, because voters put their trust in someone who appeared to be one kind of leader and turned out to be another. The sheriff and the good doctor have treated their office as a personal fiefdom, subject to their whims, prejudices and preferences.

The next step must come from a broad coalition of county leaders, including the sheriff’s former supporters. They need to step up quickly and prominently to support the removal of Corpus from an office from which she has disqualified herself. Otherwise, the Board of Supervisors and the Deputy Sheriff’s Association will be left to hang out there alone.

Thanks to the new era of public discourse ushered in by the last three presidential elections, America has become desensitized to scandal, public misconduct and the kind of salacious details in the Cordell report. The public moves on. Most of them will not read the report.

If the divisive rhetoric of 2024 tells us anything, the public’s pro forma response to discreditable behavior is to view it as two equally dubious sides of a tawdry and meaningless dispute.

The case has been made to those of us who follow this in excruciating detail that this is real and meaningful. Now, the case has to be made to the public that they should care.

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.