Facing allegations of corruption and misconduct, the first day of San Mateo County Sheriff Christina Corpus’ removal hearing began Monday as county attorneys sought to show she retaliated against critics and fostered a hostile workplace, while her defense portrayed her as a reformer facing pushback from a “good ol’ boys” club.
“This case is not about misconduct, it is about change in culture, power, and money,” defense attorney Christopher Ulrich of Murphy Pearson Bradley & Feeney said in opening statements. “They could not beat her at the ballot box, so they weaponized a flawed report.”
Ulrich referred to a county-commissioned 400-page report by retired Judge LaDoris Cordell that accused Corpus of “secrecy, retaliation, conflicts of interest and abuse of authority.” It recommended she resign.
The report triggered the Board of Supervisors to call for her resignation and place on the ballot a measure giving them the power to remove a sheriff by a four-fifths vote until 2028, the end of Corpus’ term.
Retired Judge James Emerson is serving as the hearing officer and will issue a recommendation after testimony from both sides. The hearing is expected to take two weeks. If removed, Corpus would be the first elected sheriff in California to be ousted by a county Board of Supervisors.
Jan Little, an attorney for the county with Keker, Van Nest & Peters, countered that the case was “not about budget challenges” or “red herrings,” but about Corpus’ leadership. She accused the sheriff of violating laws, neglecting duties and obstructing an investigation.
Corpus’ attorneys have argued the conflict stems from her decision to end double overtime pay after 9 hours, a practice Ulrich said was created by County Executive Mike Callagy and the Deputy Sheriffs’ Association, which allegedly added nearly $19 million to the annual budget.
The association rejected that explanation.
“The allegations are about her being racist, homophobic, and abusive. This has nothing to do with money, and everything to do with her immoral and unethical behavior,” the union said in a statement on Monday.
Corpus sat quietly in the courtroom in a green blazer, a departure from her sheriff’s uniform, as her legal team presented arguments. Among them was former U.S. Labor Secretary Tom Perez, a Washington, D.C.-based Democrat who joined her defense team last week but has not yet examined any witnesses.
The first witnesses on Monday included former Undersheriff Chris Hsiung, who left the department after less than two years in 2024, and Jeffrey Kearnan, a retired sheriff’s official who worked on Corpus’ transition team after her 2022 election.
Under questioning by defense attorney Wilson Leung, Hsiung acknowledged a 45-minute phone call with Callagy after leaving the department, during which Callagy allegedly raised the possibility of him serving as interim sheriff.
The county also called Heather Enders, the sheriff’s office human resources manager, to testify about the hiring of Victor Aenlle, who was alleged in the Cordell report to have had a relationship with Corpus.
She said Corpus asked her in March 2023 to create a position for him at the department.
Enders testified that Corpus and Aenlle wanted to create a rate of almost $119 an hour. When a county analyst recommended lowering his rate to $72, Enders testified that Corpus replied, “it wasn’t enough,” and Aenlle told her to “find a way” to increase pay.
The position later became full-time with benefits, paying as much as $246,000 annually. Aenlle was the only applicant, according to Enders.
Kearnan, meanwhile, testified that he confronted Corpus about what he believed was an inappropriate relationship with Aenlle, including a trip to Hawaii, as documented in the Cordell report. Corpus has consistently denied the accusation.
In response to claims that Aenlle was unqualified, Corpus’ defense noted he was assigned only to supervise civilian personnel.
Although the hearings are technically informal and do not follow standard rules of evidence, retired Judge Emerson appeared to follow typical court procedures. Each side will have up to 5 days to present its case, with the county bearing the burden of proof.
Once testimony concludes, Emerson will have 45 days to issue a written advisory opinion to the Board of Supervisors on whether “cause” exists for removal, using a preponderance-of-the-evidence standard. The board then has 30 days to review the opinion before voting in a public meeting.
Removal would require a four-fifths vote and would take effect immediately, according to procedures; a final vote on Corpus’ ouster by the Board of Supervisors might not appear on the agenda until November or December.
Under the county charter, the Board of Supervisors would then have 30 days to either appoint a new sheriff or call a special election. In either case, the selected individual will serve the remainder of the term. Should the board fail to act within 30 days, the county elections office is required to immediately schedule a special election to fill the vacancy.
County spokesperson Effie Milionis Verducci said the county “welcomes the commencement of this hearing, triggered by the Sheriff’s exercise of her right to appeal. This process provides both parties the opportunity to present sworn testimony and compelling evidence.”
Originally Published: