Special Notice / Hearing: None
Vote Required: 4/5ths
To: Honorable Board of Supervisors
From: John D. Nibbelin, County Attorney
Subject: Consideration of Final Decision to Remove Sheriff Corpus
RECOMMENDATION:
title
Adopt a resolution:
A) Receiving recommendation from San Mateo County Chief Probation Officer John Keene to remove Sheriff Christina Corpus from office for cause pursuant to Section 412.5 of the San Mateo County Charter; sustaining the recommendation; and making a final decision, subject to appeal, to remove Sheriff Corpus from office for cause pursuant to Section 412.5 of the San Mateo County Charter; and
B) Declaring that the Notice of Intent to Remove and its supporting documents, the recommendation from Chief Probation Officer Keene, and this Resolution collectively constitute the Board’s Final Notice of Decision to Remove Sheriff Christina Corpus for cause pursuant to Section 412.5 of the San Mateo County Charter (Final Notice of Decision) and directing staff to provide Sheriff Corpus the Final Notice of Decision; and
C) Providing Sheriff Christina Corpus all notices required by the adopted removal procedures; and
D) Approving the list of three neutral hearing officers to preside over a Removal Hearing pursuant to the adopted removal procedures, in the event that Sheriff Corpus appeals the Notice of Intent to Remove and requests a Removal Hearing, and directing staff to provide the Sheriff and County (through Keker, Van Nest & Peters, LLP) the list of three neutral hearing officers.
body
BACKGROUND:
On March 4, 2025, the County held a Special Election on Countywide Measure A to amend the San Mateo County Charter to add Section 412.5, which would grant the Board of Supervisors authority, until December 31, 2028, to remove an elected sheriff for certain enumerated causes (“Charter Amendment”).
The full text of the Charter Amendment is as follows:
412.5. Removal of Elected Sheriff for Cause
a. The Board of Supervisors may remove a Sheriff from office for cause, by a four-fifths vote, after a Sheriff has been:
(1) Served with a written statement of alleged grounds for removal; and
(2) Provided a reasonable opportunity to be heard regarding any explanation or defense.
b. For the purposes of this Section 412.5, “cause” shall mean any of the following:
(1) Violation of any law related to the performance of a Sheriff’s duties; or
(2) Flagrant or repeated neglect of a Sheriff’s duties as defined by law; or
(3) Misappropriation of public funds or property as defined in California law; or
(4) Willful falsification of a relevant official statement or document; or
(5) Obstruction, as defined in federal, State, or local law applicable to a Sheriff, of any investigation into the conduct of a Sheriff and/or the San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office by any government agency (including the County of San Mateo), office, or commission with jurisdiction to conduct such investigation.
c. The Board of Supervisors may provide for procedures by which a removal proceeding pursuant to this Section 412.5 shall be conducted.
d. This Section 412.5 shall not be applied to interfere with the independent and constitutionally and statutorily designated investigative function of a Sheriff.
e. This Section 412.5 shall sunset and be of no further force and effect as of December 31, 2028 unless extended by voters of San Mateo County.
The Charter Amendment was approved overwhelmingly, with approximately 84% of the votes cast in favor of it by the electorate and, pursuant to Elections Code Section 9122, the Charter Amendment took effect on April 18, 2025, which is 10 days after the certified election results for Measure A were approved by this Board.
As reflected above, Section 412.5.c. of the San Mateo County Charter states that the Board “may provide for procedures by which a removal proceeding pursuant to this Section 412.5 shall be conducted[]” and the Board has adopted such procedures (“Removal Procedures”).
The law firm Keker, Van Nest & Peters, LLP has conducted an independent investigation of allegations of misconduct against Sheriff Christina Corpus and drafted a Proposed Notice of Intent to Remove Sheriff Christina Corpus that constitutes a written statement of alleged grounds for removal as required by Section 412.5 of the San Mateo County Charter and that complies with sub-Sections I(1) and (2) of the Removal Procedures, but the Proposed Notice of Intent to Remove has not been made public due to the Sheriff’s objection.
On June 5, 2025, this Board, in Resolution No. 081187, adopted and approved the issuance of the written Notice of Intent to Remove Sheriff (the “NOI”), initiated a process to remove Sheriff Christina Corpus from office for cause pursuant to Section 412.5 of the San Mateo County Charter, and directed staff to provide Sheriff Corpus a copy of the NOI and its supporting documents, which staff did.
The NOI is a 59-page single-spaced document supported by an additional 524 pages of documentary evidence (consisting of 68 exhibits) and it references 42 witness interviews. The NOI reflects a detailed and thorough investigation into the Sheriff’s actions. The NOI concludes that the Sheriff engaged in multiple acts of misconduct that, if true, support removal from office based on the following causes set forth in Section 412.5 of the Charter: (1) violation of law related to performance of the Sheriff’s duties; (2) flagrant and repeated neglect of the Sheriff’s duties; and (3) obstruction of an investigation into the conduct of the Sheriff.
DISCUSSION:
As required by the Removal Procedures, a Pre-Removal Conference occurred on Wednesday, June 11, 2025, before San Mateo County Chief Probation Officer Keene (“Pre-Removal Conference”).
At the Pre-Removal Conference, Chief Keene considered the NOI and its supporting materials and gave the Sheriff the opportunity to be heard and he considered any information or explanation provided by the Sheriff. Chief Keene has issued a written recommendation to the Board concluding that the Board approve and adopt the NOI and move forward with the proposed removal action (the “Recommendation”).
The Removal Procedures require that, upon receipt of the Recommendation from Chief Keene, the Board shall, as soon as practicable thereafter, render its decision to either sustain or reject the recommendation. The Recommendation will be reviewed by the Board in Closed Session because the Sheriff previously objected to the release of the contents of the NOI.
The Removal Procedures further provide that, if the Board by a four-fifths vote determines to proceed with removal of the Sheriff, a Final Notice of Decision to remove the Sheriff (subject to appeal via Removal Hearing) shall include all of the following information:
(1) The specific ground(s) enumerated in Section 412.5 that the Board has determined constitutes the ground(s) to remove the Sheriff; and
(2) That the Sheriff shall have the right to appeal the Board’s decision and request an appeal hearing (“Removal Hearing”) before a Hearing Officer; and
(3) That to exercise the right to appeal and receive a Removal Hearing, the Sheriff must provide written notice to the Assistant Clerk and Deputy Clerk of the Board of Supervisors (presently, Sukhmani Purewal and Sherry Golestan), at
spurewal@smcgov.org and sgolestan@smcgov.org, within five (5) days of
receiving the Final Notice of Decision; that the Sheriff must include in the
request for a Removal Hearing a detailed statement of the facts and grounds for
appealing the Final Notice of Decision; and that the Sheriff will be barred from
raising any bases for appeal not contained therein; and
(4) That if the Sheriff fails to timely exercise the right to appeal, the Sheriff will be deemed to have waived the right to appeal and the Board’s decision will be final and binding; and
(5) That if the Sheriff exercises the right to appeal, the Removal Hearing will be open to the public; unless the Sheriff, within five (5) days of receiving the Final Notice of Decision, formally objects, in the Sheriff’s written request for an appeal, to an open hearing and requests a closed hearing; failure to timely object will result in the Removal Hearing being open to the public, and the Sheriff will be deemed to have waived any right to confidentiality that may exist in any documents presented at the open Removal Hearing; and
(6) That the Board will propose to the Sheriff a list of at least three (3) neutral Hearing Officers, with experience in public safety officer disciplinary matters, available to timely preside over the Removal Hearing, with a preference that such Hearing Officer who otherwise meets these criteria be a retired judge; and
(7) That at the conclusion of the Removal Hearing, the Hearing Officer will prepare and submit an advisory opinion to the Board; and
(8) That upon receipt and consideration of the Hearing Officer’s advisory opinion, the Board will make the Final Post-Hearing Decision for Removal of the Sheriff, with at least a four-fifths vote required to remove the Sheriff, and the Board’s decision will be final and binding.
Pursuant to the Removal Procedures, three neutral hearing officers available to preside over a Removal Hearing in August 2025, all of whom have experience with public safety officer disciplinary matters, and one of whom is a retired judge, have been identified as follows:
• Carol Vendrillo, an arbitrator who has handled labor/employment arbitrations for 24 years and has 45 years of relevant experience. Ms. Vendrillo is an editor of Lexis Nexis’ treatise on California Public Sector Employment Law, is a member of the National Academy of Arbitrators, and serves as a permanent panelist for the American Arbitration Association, Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, California State Mediation and Conciliation Service, Los Angeles Civil Service Commission, Alameda County Employees Retirement Association, and Sacramento County Civil Service Commission.
• David Hart, an arbitrator who has handled labor/employment arbitrations for 47 years and serves as a permanent panelist for the American Arbitration Association, Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, California State Mediation and Conciliation Service, as well as various other state and local panels.
• Honorable James Emerson, a retired judge who has served as an arbitrator and mediator for 15 years. Judge Emerson served as a Municipal and Superior Court Judge for 20 years between 1990 and 2010. Prior to his judicial service, Judge Emerson spent five years as a Deputy County Counsel where he was assigned to represent the Sheriff.
COMMUNITY IMPACT:
Considering a Final Decision to Remove the Sheriff for cause, pursuant to Measure A, which was approved by San Mateo County voters, is consistent with the County’s dedication to responsive, equitable, responsible, and accountable government.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no direct fiscal impact to the County associated with taking action pursuant to Section 412.5 of the San Mateo County Charter. However, litigation of any removal proceeding will result in significant legal fees and associated costs of a yet undetermined amount.