San Mateo County Sheriff Christina Corpus will face a formal removal hearing Aug. 18-29 after the Board of Supervisors voted to remove her from office last month, county officials confirmed 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 told 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, said the possible 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 important concerns about public trust,” Lawrence said. “In matters involving high-ranking public officials, the public 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 said releasing a redacted report or summary findings could help balance confidentiality with public accountability.
“These proceedings affect public confidence in law enforcement and public leadership,” he said. “Restoring that trust will require open communication, demonstrated accountability, and a renewed focus on community engagement.”
Verducci previously said officials would evaluate whether to grant the request for a private hearing, given that documents related to the removal process, filed by Corpus’ legal team, had already become public record.
On June 24, the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors took action against the sheriff following a special election in March that granted them the ability to do so. Corpus filed an appeal on June 27, triggering a formal removal hearing under the county’s recently 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 public after her team failed to request they be sealed, according to the county.
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 recently 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 15 to respond to the civil grand jury accusation, which could result 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 team filed an appeal of the board’s final notice of removal on June 27. 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 team contends that Supervisors Ray Mueller and Noelia Corzo should have recused themselves from voting. Mueller and Corzo presented the 400-page report by retired Judge LaDoris Cordell to the public last November, a document that prompted calls for Corpus’ resignation and was instrumental in the March 4 special election granting the board removal authority.
The appeal asserts that the board is operating as “accuser, factfinder, and judge,” without any significant checks on its authority.
The legal team also argues that the removal process violates due process protections and the Public 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 report, 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 allegations 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 report, which named witnesses unlike the Cordell report, 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 controversy intensified last year after union leaders within the sheriff’s office publicly accused Corpus of corruption and retaliation, prompting calls for oversight reform and triggering a series of investigations.