In March of this year, 84% of voters approved a measure that gave the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors the ability to remove the elected sheriff with cause. One of the rationales for moving ahead with a charter amendment rather than a recall was that it allowed the county to move faster for removal.
Now that the sheriff has been removed, every effort must be made to make sure the Sheriff’s Office has new leadership as quickly as possible — and a big step toward that was taken Tuesday night when the Board of Supervisors moved forward to appoint a new sheriff. The amount of damage that has been done to the Sheriff’s Office under the tenure of Christina Corpus is substantial. Leaving the department without a leader is like not treating a wound and hoping it will get better. That’s simply not effective.
True healing will not begin unless there is new leadership installed, otherwise the wounds will only get worse — though at a slower rate than before Corpus left. The office needs help, and now.
The San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office fills a critical role here, and its 800 sworn and civilian personnel have been through an extremely difficult situation. That personnel oversees the county’s correctional facilities, provides support for other law enforcement agencies and is the de facto police department for the cities of Half Moon Bay, Millbrae and San Carlos, and also for the towns of Woodside and Portola Valley. It contracts with SamTrans and Caltrain for police services as well. This is not a small department in a small city, this is a massive organization that just had its leader ousted for a series of ongoing ills.
There were valid arguments against appointment.
One, it should be up to the people of this county to choose the sheriff. True, but 84% of voters decided Corpus should be removed through a process outlined by the Board of Supervisors. And the board members are themselves elected by the people, giving them the authority to make decisions within the confines of the county charter. Appointing a new sheriff is within those confines.
Recommended for you
Two, the length of time for the appointment is too long as it extends to 2028 when Corpus’ term was to be up for reelection. Some might favor a short-term appointment, then an election in June, but that is not allowed. Neither should it be. The next sheriff should be given the liberty and power to remake the office into a professional one that best serves the people of this county without thinking there is a timeline on it.
Three, one could argue the board cannot appoint a replacement for one of its own members that would last longer than two years. This is valid, but typically the office of a supervisor would not be left in disarray upon their unexpected departure, as this rule is typically reserved for when someone dies in office or is otherwise unable to perform duties. The Sheriff’s Office is in disarray, and there is a lot of work to be done — it just might take three years to undo the damage.
Four, the timeline is too tight to pick a good sheriff. There are plenty of good people who have the experience, know-how and capability to lead the office. Filling a position in two weeks is possible, and that work is starting right now. The board is moving in the right direction.
We understand the pull to have the people decide. In ideal circumstances, we always favor an election over an appointment. But the Sheriff’s Office has been in turmoil too long and needs a new leader as soon as possible.
Get it done, and let the new sheriff get to work. We need order, not chaos, and an immediate appointment is the best way forward.
Here we go with the skewed numbers game again. It was 84% of the 25% of registered voters that sent the decision to the hands of the Board of Supervisors. I believe the actual numbers are close to 90,000 of 500,000 voters voted in this special election. So please, let's stop skewing the numbers.
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.
Please purchase a Premium Subscription to continue reading.
To continue, please log in, or sign up for a new account.
We offer one free story view per month. If you register for an account, you will get two additional story views. After those three total views, we ask that you support us with a subscription.
A subscription to our digital content is so much more than just access to our valuable content. It means you’re helping to support a local community institution that has, from its very start, supported the betterment of our society. Thank you very much!
(1) comment
Here we go with the skewed numbers game again. It was 84% of the 25% of registered voters that sent the decision to the hands of the Board of Supervisors. I believe the actual numbers are close to 90,000 of 500,000 voters voted in this special election. So please, let's stop skewing the numbers.
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.