San Mateo County supervisors’ attempt to remove an elected sheriff from office has turned into a star chamber — running roughshod over transparency and due process.
The county’s voters in March passed Measure A, which granted the supervisors the ability to oust Sheriff Christina Corpus for misconduct. The measure also let supervisors set the rules and procedures for Corpus’ removal.
But the procedures the board devised since the election are a gross abuse of the power the voters entrusted in them. Under those procedures, supervisors essentially serve as prosecutor, judge, jury and the court of appeal. Fairness has been thrown out the window. And the public is being kept in the dark about the substance of allegations against Corpus.
What the public knows about Corpus’ behavior comes mainly from a county-commissioned investigation last year by retired Judge LaDoris Cordell that found dishonesty, conflicts of interest and the creation of a retaliatory and abusive work environment. But, Cordell’s report was rife with anonymous sources, hearsay evidence and factual errors, according to a retired judge hired by Corpus’ attorneys.
In other words, like most legal disputes, there are two sides. The evidence should be publicly aired and carefully weighed before the board takes the radical step of unseating an elected official.
But that’s not what’s happening.
Misleading spin
The process set by the board began June 5 when supervisors unanimously approved a “notice of intent” to remove the sheriff. That notice reflected “a comprehensive investigation” prepared by an outside law firm, according to a county statement. But the county has not released that comprehensive investigation.
The second step was a review by John Keene, the county’s chief probation officer, who presided over what the county is calling a “pre-removal conference.” Keene’s involvement is perplexing; he is not licensed to practice law in California nor is he experienced as a judge or arbitrator.
During that closed-door process, the county reports, Corpus and her attorneys were given a chance to respond to the supervisors’ allegations. But what was said during that conference is also being kept secret.
Instead, the county tried to spin the public. According to the county statement, Keene, “after considering the content of [the sheriff’s] presentation,” issued a written recommendation on June 20 that county supervisors remove Corpus from office. Exactly what evidence Keene weighed remains a mystery.
The county statement made Keene’s recommendation appear unequivocal when it wasn’t. In that recommendation, which we obtained this past week after filing a Public Records Act request, Keene said that he “found portions of their presentation compelling; covering a diverse range of topics that they felt were relevant to the matter at hand. However, when asked to present a possible alternative resolution other than what is proposed in the Notice of Intent, none was provided.”
The third step came Tuesday, when the Board of Supervisors, relying on the secret investigation from an outside law firm and the written recommendation from the probation chief that was based on a secret hearing, voted to remove Corpus from office.
This process is about to get even worse as we enter step four.
Voters deserve better
Under the supervisors’ procedures, Corpus can appeal the county’s vote to remove her, which she is expected to do. Corpus’ case will then shift to what the county is calling the “removal hearing.”
That hearing “need not be conducted according to technical rules relating to evidence and witnesses.” And the person overseeing the hearing need not have experience as a judge.
The hearing officer need only have “experience in public safety officer disciplinary matters.” Under the rules, the county chooses three potential hearing officers, from which each side can strike one. On Tuesday, when the board revealed its list of potential hearing offices, only one was a retired judge.
Related Articles
San Mateo supervisors scrutinize sheriff’s department spending San Mateo County supervisors vote to oust Sheriff Corpus from office Hearing officer recommends removing San Mateo County sheriff San Mateo court rejects Sheriff Corpus’ effort to halt removal process San Mateo County board votes to begin process to remove Sheriff CorpusPerhaps most galling, the removal hearing — the only part of the process with an independent neutral overseer — might not be open to the public. The board has given Corpus the option to choose a closed hearing. And the board’s procedures do not specify whether the hearing officer’s report will be made public.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the hearing officer will have 45 days to submit a written advisory opinion to the Board of Supervisors. That’s right. The hearing officer only issues an advisory opinion. The ultimate ruler on the appeal of the board’s decision is the board.
To be sure, voters granted the board the authority to fire Corpus. But there was an expectation of transparency and due process. Moreover, voters did not give up their ultimate authority over the sheriff. Voters retained the right to recall her and to decide her future if she is to seek reelection in 2026.
Thus, voters deserve full transparency from Corpus and the board. It’s time for them to open the process and the records. So far, that’s not happening.
Read More Details
Finally We wish PressBee provided you with enough information of ( Editorial: Removal of Sheriff Corpus rife with secrecy, lacks due process )
Also on site :