Sheriff Corpus removal hearing scheduled for August; public access still in question

San Mateo County Sheriff Christina Corpus will face a formal removal hearing Aug - after the Board of Supervisors voted to remove her from office last month county executives verified on Friday Corpus requested the hearing be closed according to county spokesperson Effie Milionis Verducci However the county is evaluating the request it has not been determined yet whether the hearing will be open or closed Verducci notified this news organization She did not provide a timeline for when a decision would be made Jim Lawrence a former Foster City mayor and a member of civilian oversight group Fixin San Mateo County commented the manageable closed-door nature of the hearing raises transparency concerns While the decision to conduct the hearing in closed session may reflect legal considerations such as protecting sensitive personnel matters it raises crucial concerns about residents trust Lawrence noted In matters involving high-ranking residents officers the constituents has a strong interest in understanding both the process and the facts behind such proceedings A closed hearing risks undermining that trust unless there is a compelling justification Lawrence revealed releasing a redacted review or summary findings could help balance confidentiality with community accountability These proceedings affect residents confidence in law enforcement and general leadership he disclosed Restoring that trust will require open communication demonstrated accountability and a renewed focus on population engagement Verducci previously announced executives would evaluate whether to grant the request for a private hearing given that documents related to the removal process filed by Corpus legal unit had already become populace record On June the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors took action against the sheriff following a special referendum in March that granted them the ability to do so Corpus filed an appeal on June triggering a formal removal hearing under the county s in recent months adopted procedures While the notice of intent and related investigations into Corpus removal have been kept private by San Mateo County at her request those documents were included as supporting materials in legal filings submitted by her attorneys last month in San Mateo County Superior Court The court made the records constituents after her club failed to request they be sealed according to the county Related Articles Summary Sheriff Corpus concealed staffer s records ignored misconduct tied to supporters Newly distributed docs detail union leader arrest alleged staff affair as San Mateo County seeks to remove sheriff What are the civil grand jury accusations against San Mateo County s sheriff Civil grand jury accuses San Mateo County sheriff of corruption misconduct Editorial Removal of Sheriff Corpus rife with secrecy lacks due process Corpus the county s first Latina sheriff faces two simultaneous efforts to remove her from office one through the Board of Supervisors process authorized by voters and another through a civil grand jury accusation of late filed in San Mateo County Superior Court She has denied any wrongdoing and has refused to resign Corpus is scheduled to appear in court July to respond to the civil grand jury accusation which could impact in her removal if convicted If removed by both the civil grand jury process and the Board of Supervisors Corpus would be the first sheriff in the Bay Area ousted directly by a county board and is likely the first in California to be targeted by two separate removal processes Her legal band filed an appeal of the board s final notice of removal on June Retired Santa Clara County Judge James Emerson was mutually selected to serve as the hearing officer In their appeal Corpus attorneys argue that the process is biased and unconstitutional Her legal band contends that Supervisors Ray Mueller and Noelia Corzo should have recused themselves from voting Mueller and Corzo presented the -page review by retired Judge LaDoris Cordell to the inhabitants last November a document that prompted calls for Corpus resignation and was instrumental in the March special electoral process granting the board removal authority The appeal asserts that the board is operating as accuser factfinder and judge without any notable checks on its authority The legal unit also argues that the removal process violates due process protections and the General Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act They say the hearing process lacks sworn testimony evidentiary safeguards and that no competent administrative record supports the charges or the finding of cause They also say it relies on vague undefined terms like neglect of duty and obstruction Corpus lawyers further contend she was denied access to key documents including the unredacted Cordell review which formed the basis for the county board s removal process They argue that without access to the evidence being used against her Corpus cannot mount a fair defense The misconduct assertions stem from two county-commissioned reports one by Cordell and the other by the law firm Keker Van Nest Peters Both describe a personal or romantic relationship between Corpus and Victor Aenlle her former campaign manager who became her top civilian aide The Keker analysis which named bystanders unlike the Cordell analysis alleged that the sheriff sought raises for Aenlle failed to investigate misconduct involving deputies loyal to her and retaliated against critics Corpus lawyers have not responded to requests for comment though both Corpus and Aenlle have previously denied all accusations contained in the Cordell and Keker reports The disagreement intensified last year after union leaders within the sheriff s office publicly accused Corpus of corruption and retaliation prompting calls for oversight improvement and triggering a series of investigations