|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Editor’s note: This article has been updated to include statements from Sheriff Christina Corpus that were sent to this news organization following the original publication of the story.
San Mateo County officials are refuting allegations of discrimination, harassment, defamation and racism made by San Mateo County Sheriff Christina Corpus in a $10 million claim she filed against the county late last month. The county also addressed accusations that Corpus made about pages of transcript that independent investigator Judge LaDoris Cordell allegedly left out of her scathing investigative report into Corpus’ administration.
The county said that Corpus’ claim was “largely devoid of any alleged facts supporting its conclusions, and egregiously accuses Judge LaDoris Cordell of partaking in what the claim calls an ‘evil scheme.’”
“The assertions in Corpus’ claim that she has been discriminated against, harassed and defamed, and more so, because she is both a woman and a Latin X person, are completely baseless and a distraction from the issues that give rise to the present circumstances,” read a statement from the county, released on Tuesday evening, Jan. 7.
Corpus and the lawyer that she hired independently — Brad Gage of Woodland Hills — filed the $10 million claim against the county on Dec. 19. Filing a claim against the county is a required step before a party can file a lawsuit against the county in court.
In her claim against the county, Corpus specifically alleged that Cordell had left out 29 pages of transcript of her interview with former Sheriff’s Office Chief of Staff Victor Aenlle that contained “the most significant exculpatory statements,” and implied that the pages were left out for sinister reasons.
The county hit back by publishing an updated version of Cordell’s report containing the 29 pages that had not been included in the original version. In a press release, the county said that “there was nothing nefarious about these pages not having been included in the exhibit.”
“In the initial release of Cordell’s report, all pages of the transcript of this interview that Cordell cited or relied upon in her report were included as part of an exhibit to the report,” the county’s statement read. “Twenty-nine pages of the transcript were not included in the exhibit because they were not cited by Cordell nor were they material to the report.”
In an email statement sent to this news organization, Corpus and Gage said they are pleased that the county decided to publish the 29 pages that were omitted from the report, but also say that the explanation given by the county for why the pages were left out of the report “is not sufficient, and their behavior is suspicious.”
Some of the pages that were omitted from the report contained statements from Aenlle where he denied having conflicts of interest in real estate negotiations for the Sheriff’s Office, and statements addressing the allegations that he misrepresented his status as a civilian employee by wearing a gold badge.
“All sworn personnel and civilian staff have gold badges. I have directors that work way below me that have a gold badge,” Aenlle said in his interview with Cordell.
Corpus and her lawyer also raised questions in her $10 million claim about how much the county had paid Cordell to conduct her investigation, and implied that the county had paid her specifically to write a hit piece on Corpus.
“It is amazing what some judges will do for money,” Corpus’ claim read. “While we know the county paid Judge Cordell for her hit piece, we do not yet know how much was paid.”
‘It is amazing what some judges will do for money. While we know the county paid Judge Cordell for her hit piece, we do not yet know how much was paid.’
Sheriff christina corpus
The county published that Cordell had been paid a rate of $750 per hour, for a total of approximately $200,000, to complete the investigation. The county defended Cordell’s talents, saying that her pay rate is “in line with both the cost of a complex and sensitive investigation of this nature, as well as the level of experience, expertise and unique qualifications that Cordell brought to the matter.”
Cordell served as a judge in the Santa Clara County Superior Court, as the Independent Police Auditor for the city of San Jose, as a panel member on the San Francisco District Attorney’s Innocence Commission and on several other transparency and accountability commissions. She also served on the Palo Alto City Council for four years.
The county also mentioned that the cost is reflective of the time it took for Cordell to interview the 40 witnesses that are cited in the report, and the time taken to assess the accuracy of the witnesses’ statements.
“$200,000 is a lot of money to pay anyone,” wrote Gage and Corpus.
The investigation into Corpus’ office was commissioned by the Board of Supervisors after they received what Supervisor Noelia Corzo has called “an unprecedented volume of complaints” from Sheriff’s Office staff. Cordell’s report, which was made public on Nov. 12, details allegations of unethical behavior, a multi-year affair between Corpus and Aenlle and retaliation against employees. Corpus has denied the claims.
County Attorney John Nibbelin told this news organization that in his view, Corpus’ claim against the county is without merit.
“If a lawsuit is filed in the future, the county will address the baseless allegations in court,” he said in an email.
The county has six to eight weeks from the time that the claim was filed to investigate it, according to the county claim form. After the investigation, the county can opt to pay or deny the claim.
If Corpus’ claim is denied, she could then file a suit against the county in San Mateo County Superior Court to seek the $10 million. Corpus and Gage have not yet responded to this news organization’s request for comment on the county’s statement.
Upcoming special election
Despite calls from local, state and federal officials urging Corpus to resign, she has repeatedly stated that she will not step down. The Deputy Sheriff’s Association has also filed complaints against her with the California Public Employment Relations Board, and nearly all sworn staff in the Sheriff’s Office have asked her to step down.
As she is an elected official, the Board of Supervisors does not currently have the authority to remove her from her position.
To open up another path to remove Corpus from office, the board called a special election on a ballot measure that, if passed by county voters, would amend the county charter to give the board the power to remove Corpus from her post. The election will occur on March 4, and ballots will begin to be sent out to voters on Feb. 3.
A committee to independently recall Corpus from office has also been initiated, according to documents filed with the San Mateo County Elections Division.
Read the official arguments in favor of and opposing the measure as well as an impartial analysis at smcacre.gov/elections/march-4-2025-special-election.
