San Mateo Co. supes approve procedures for possible removal of sheriff
The San Mateo County Board of Supervisors on Tuesday approved revisions to proposed procedures for the removal of Sheriff Christina Corpus in a process that could take several months.
Tuesday's board decision was not an official initiation of the removal proceedings, which will go to a separate vote in the future. The supervisors agreed upon procedural modifications to the outlined removal process originally presented in April.
The attempt by the board to oust Corpus follows voter approval of Measure A in March's special election, granting the supervisors temporary power to remove the sheriff on grounds such as violation of any law related to the sheriff's duties, neglect of sheriff's duties, or misappropriation of public funds.
Measure A was the board's way of removing Corpus, who remained defiant against calls to resign after the release of a scathing, 400-page investigation by retired judge LaDoris Cordell alleging that Corpus had an inappropriate relationship with her chief of staff and fostered a culture of intimidation and retaliation in the Sheriff's Office.
Corpus was present at Tuesday's meeting, standing stoically in the back of the board chambers next to Undersheriff Dan Perea.
Her attorney Thomas Mazzucco spoke on behalf of Corpus during public comment, accusing several supervisors of having unfair bias against Corpus and trying to discredit the findings in Cordell's report.
"All this was done because you were misled. You were sold a bill of goods by the Cordell report," Mazzucco said. "Some members of this board have openly said the sheriff should be removed."
The county tasked attorney Alfonso Estrada with the Hanson Bridgett law firm to develop a removal plan for the board, proposing a multi-step process that includes a potential appeal hearing where representatives of both the county and Corpus will get to present their arguments, subpoena witnesses, and present evidence for their cases.
Once the board approves initiation of the removal proceedings by a four-fifths vote, an email will be sent to Corpus, notifying her of the alleged grounds that give the supervisors the authority to remove her. Within five days of receiving the email, Corpus can appear at a "pre-removal conference" to defend the allegations against her.
A hearing officer will preside over the pre-removal conference and then provide a recommendation to the board on whether to issue a final notice of removal. If the board decides to move forward with removing Corpus, she can appeal the decision, triggering an appeal hearing.
The draft procedure proposed that the assistant county executive be the selected hearing officer for the pre-removal conference.
But at last month's meeting when the board first heard the proposed process, Board President David Canepa wanted to consider someone else who is not in a board-appointed position in order to ensure impartiality.
John Keene, the county's chief probation officer, was a leading choice due to his criminal justice background and being in a court-appointed position. County Coroner Robert Foucrault was suggested as a backup option to Keene, considering Foucrault is an elected official with law enforcement experience.
"What we've been able to do is to identify two candidates that, quite frankly, are independent," said County Attorney John Nibbelin. "One is appointed by the judiciary, and the second is directly elected coroner. Both of them have law enforcement experience previous to their roles here with the county."
However, Supervisor Jackie Speier adamantly preferred having a retired judge oversee the pre-removal conference.
"I feel strongly that we should have a retired judge in the POBR hearing," Speier said.
POBR, or the Public Safety Officers' Procedural Bill of Rights Act, is a state law that aims to ensure due process for peace officers involved in disciplinary investigations. Nibbelin said at Tuesday's meeting that the removal procedures were developed in accordance with POBR protections.
Mazzucco also wanted the pre-conference hearing officer to be a retired judge, specifically from outside the county in order to maximize neutrality.
"We recommend it's not somebody from the San Mateo County family," he said. "We suggest a retired judge."
The board came to a compromise, unanimously approving the procedure revisions, including that Keene oversee the pre-removal hearing with the added amendment that a retired judge who's more qualified be preferred if available. County staff and the attorney Estrada were tasked to identify if there are any retired judges with equal or greater qualifications than Keene.
"Keene will lead over the initial hearings and make a recommendation to the board in the coming weeks as to whether to initiate removal proceedings for the sheriff," Canepa said in a statement after the meeting.
While Estrada expected that the entire removal process timeline could last about four months once initiated, Canepa didn't want to make that promise.
"To the general public, there are some out there who really, really want to move fast on this," Canepa said at the meeting. "To be quite frank with you, I'm not interested in timelines. I'm interested in making sure that we have a fair, impartial, just process."
With the complexities of a sheriff removal procedure that has never happened before in the state, Canepa warned that the process may not be completed until next year.
"It may be until next year," he said in an interview. "It's really going to have to take patience. This is a big deal."
