We do the work of gathering information and reporting it in the newspaper under what my old pal Robert B. Gunnison calls “the meanest of deadline pressures.”
Add in the special coloration that comes with a story of great and continuing controversy and the pressure is sufficient to illustrate why not everyone stays in the news business. You have to hang in. Sometimes it can be a bumpy ride.
The latest turbulence is the statement issued this week by Sheriff Christina Corpus, who is having a bad year.
Undoubtedly, she has been seething about all the things that are being said about her — not just by disgruntled employees (although her attorneys would want you to think that’s all it is), and not just by her political opponents (although she would want you to think that’s all it is), but by almost the entire public hierarchy of San Mateo County. The public voted overwhelmingly in support of her ouster (in larger numbers than those who elected her). All her friends and allies have deserted her. A civil grand jury is pursuing her. A criminal investigation is ongoing. The Board of Supervisors has fired her.
So, she seized on a story in the Daily Journal to lash out at the paper and, by inference, at everyone who wants her to leave, which is, you know, virtually everyone.
Here is an eye-catching quote from her statement: “Some recent media coverage has reflected a disturbing pattern: the selective use of information, false narratives, and personal attacks to erode public confidence and obstruct progress. … I will not be deterred by efforts to weaponize the press or internal complaints in service of political agendas.”
Well, now.
We did not create this mess. We are just trying to sort through the chaos and debris. To do so, we rely on sources to provide us information. It is our job to talk to anyone and everyone with an understanding of the agenda driving those people.
Recommended for you
This task is made difficult by Corpus’ steadfast refusal to sit for an interview with anyone but a local TV reporter who appears determined to be her buddy. She will hide behind any number of excuses — she is seeking an appropriate venue, she has to check her calendar, she cannot discuss personnel matters (although she can discuss them enough to imply that a well-regarded sergeant failed to “meet the standards of professional conduct we owe to the public.”)
This column has had a lot of parenthetical asides. I do not know why.
Anyway, suspending someone who bore witness to her unprofessional conduct and then issuing this screed, gives you a hint at what it must be like to work at the Sheriff’s Office. True, most sworn personnel have little direct contact with Corpus. And maybe even less. I am told she is rarely at the office and, when she is there, she holes up in the administrative offices on the fifth floor. I am told also that access to the fifth floor is tightly restricted, and among those excluded are the sheriff’s captains, who, presumably, would be part of her command staff.
But the boss sets the tone, to paraphrase Corpus. My original intent was to write something about why her erratic, self-centered and sometimes delusional behavior has created a crisis of leadership at the office that is rippling through the entire organization. I hope to get to it in a later column, but, honestly, every time I think I know what I want to say about this controversy, she comes up with something new that strains credulity and invites further outrage.
THE REAL FIX: Speaking of steadfast, the founder of Fixin’ San Mateo County, Jim Lawrence, said in a commentary last week that the mess with the sheriff is a prime example of why there should be a civilian oversight commission and a supporting inspector general with subpoena power.
But it is hard to see how a full-fledged commission would have made a speck of difference in this lingering soap opera, except to add one more layer of noise and dismay. The Board of Supervisors has subpoena power and they have used it, and, even voted to fire the sheriff, and so it goes.
The real answer is to stop electing the sheriff and make the position equivalent to a police chief, who is appointed by the city and subject to discipline up to dismissal for misconduct. This, it seems to me, is a good project for the energetic and earnest people at Fixin’. Incidentally, the name of the organization sets my teeth on edge, right down to the apostrophe.
(14) comments
1. Civilian oversight is not a quick fix nor a panacea to prevent public corruption. But it shines a light on policies and practices and thus serves as deterrent for misbehaver and abuse. Not to remove the sheriff – that needs to be done by the voters, the DA, the civil grand jury, or now under Measure A the Board of Supervisors. But don’t underestimate the disinfecting power of sunlight.
2. Large corporations have outside auditors come in and look at the books. Oversight serves a similar function. It provides an opportunity for constructive feedback as well as course correction if needed.
3. An inspector general would provide a forum for complaints from employees as well as community members so they could be addressed before they build to a crisis.
4. An inspector general and civilian board can build a relationship with the sheriff
and employees, to recognize issues and address them on an ongoing basis. Our new all-volunteer Independent Civilian Advisory Commission on the Sheriff’s Office (ICAC) has been doing this by having sheriff staff present information on their operations. They only started to meet at the same time as the problems in the department surfaced, but over time there is an opportunity for more, in order to build mutual trust.
5. The sheriff has no boss. As we see, there are currently no checks and balances – only an election every four years. The dysfunction will cost us tens of millions of lawyers in lawsuits and claims. Independent civilian oversight helps tilt the balance and at much lower cost.
Nancy - as the sheriff has no boss, and we have been electing marginally qualified folks in those positions for years, it is time to go to an appointment strategy. The Board of Supervisors would function as an adequate oversight body and should be able to hire and fire based on performance. After all, we are now living in the 21st Century and seem stuck with a system that was codified 170 years ago.
Hey, Dirk
I agree... the selection process should change, but who are we kidding? The person elected or appointed as sheriff to camp out at 400 County Center will always be a politician. Our county would be better served by appointing someone with a successful track record working with local government agencies, NGOs, unions, and the media... and who will continue to be successful while serving the best interests of the people of our county. Electing someone with the brightest smile is not working.
Now that’s how you write a column, Mr. Simon! Today, I present you with a One Big Beautiful Column award, especially due to your use of parenthetical asides. As usual, a great (and much appreciated) column updating us on the “As the Sheriff’s World Turns” soap opera. It appears we’re seeing progress but in reality, are we really, or this the continued slow walk to the end of Corpus’s term? As President Trump is wont to say, “Let’s see what happens.”
As for Fixin’ San Mateo, I feel Mr. Lawrence is using the Corpus soap opera as another power grab without any indication they would make a difference except in taking more taxpayer money and as you assert, adding another layer of noise. I wonder whether members of Fixin’ San Mateo could be sued if they had any “real" authority and if the County would have to shell out to pay for judgments. As for the apostrophe thing, if they’re not serious about adding the “g” then are they serious about fixing anything? But that’s just me. Looking forward to the next "ATSWT” update…
Mark - you came upon a great solution. In the next election let's change the charter and have the sheriff appointed by the Board of Supervisors and make it clear that he or she serves at the Board's pleasure. That way, we would have effective oversight and prevent another blunder that we are painfully witnessing.
This is three columns about the Sheriff in a row. Need to pick up another topic. I get this is your baby but enough already. This is red meat for Trump to cut funding for the region. I really don't think she is out before next years election. So tax payer money was wasted on the special election.
I doubt Trump is following this issue, but regardless, she is not up for reelection next year. She is up in 2028.
Hello, Mark
I would have used different wording to disagree with Thomas (no worries... those words would not have been blocked by the DJ's filters).
You quoted Christina: “Some recent media coverage has reflected a disturbing pattern: the selective use of information, false narratives, and personal attacks to erode public confidence and obstruct progress. … I will not be deterred by efforts to weaponize the press or internal complaints in service of political agendas.”
For some reason, I get the feeling she did not actually compose that statement.
She was elected in 2022, a quick search indicates a four year term, so election should be 2026, change in 2027. David Sacks a major Republican donor is the AI and Crypto Czar and is definitely in Trump's ear telling him about all the dysfunction in the region.
It’s 2028. Look harder.
Hi, Thomas
San Mateo County sheriffs are elected to six-year terms. Mark is correct. The next regularly scheduled election to elect a new sheriff will be held on Nov. 7, 2028. I unabashedly lean to the right. However, I agree with Mark again. The president is not likely following the trials and tribulations of our very own Christina... unless the president and his team are in need of some comic relief in the Oval Office. Gavin gives The Donald everything he needs to know about political dysfunction in the Golden State.
(6-Year Term, Next Election March 2028)
Ms. Christina Corpus
Office Address: 330 Bradford St, Redwood City, CA 94063
Telephone: (650) 599-1664
Fax: (650) 599-1327
https://smcacre.gov/elections/county-offices
I stand corrected... March 2028 not November 2028. Thanks.
AB 759 went into effect in 2022. It aligned Sheriff and DA elections to be the same year as presidential elections because they are important and powerful positions, and they should be held in a presidential election year, not an off year so more voters will weigh in.
So Corpus was elected in 2022 and terms out in 2028.,
Thereafter the sheriffs wil have a 4 year term and get elected in presidential years - 2032, etc.
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who make comments.
Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Anyone violating these rules will be issued a warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be revoked.