|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
by Michelle Iracheta and Angela Swartz
San Mateo County believed in Christina Corpus. The county’s first Latina sheriff promised to be “a sheriff you can trust,” inspiring hope for a new era in county law enforcement. But a recent 400-plus-page independent investigation has painted a troubling picture of her leadership.
The report’s findings — detailing alleged abuses of power, homophobic and racist statements, retaliation against those who disagree with her, and an inappropriate relationship with her then-chief of staff — are not the actions of a leader who fosters public trust. To salvage the community’s faith in its institutions, we encourage Sheriff Corpus to step aside.
One might try to give her the benefit of the doubt, but it’s hard knowing that she refused to speak to the investigator, respected former Judge LaDoris Cordell over the months-long inquiry. Many of the same political allies who once backed Corpus now call for her resignation, apparently acknowledging that the office needs an opportunity to heal, restore trust and put transparency first.
San Mateo County residents had high hopes that Sheriff Corpus would bring integrity and accountability to an office scarred by past scandals. Her two predecessors left a troubling legacy — Sheriff Greg Munks was entangled in a brothel scandal that tarnished the department’s reputation, and his successor, Carlos Bolanos, became infamous for the “Batmobile saga,” in which deputy sheriffs, allegedly at his direction, crossed state lines to raid an Indiana business over a disputed car sale. Has Corpus proven herself any better?
If she remains in office, there could be a significant impact on public safety. For example, more deputies may quit or become demoralized and make mistakes in their work.
Her actions open the county up to millions of dollars worth of lawsuits based on alleged retaliation against employees. Her mismanagement is sucking time and energy from the Board of Supervisors that should be spent on other important efforts.
Supervisors are now crafting a charter amendment that would allow them to remove her from office. Sheriff Corpus, please save us all time and money by doing the right thing. Step aside and make way for professional management of our Sheriff’s Office.
Sheriff Corpus — it’s time to step down—for the good of your office and the future of our county.
Michelle Iracheta is the editor of the Redwood City Pulse.
Angela Swartz is the editor of the Almanac.
Your editorial makes an interesting point. All three recent sheriffs, Munks, Bolanos, and now Corpus, have been tarnished with accusations and evidence of misconduct.
Munks and Bolanos visited an underage brothel in Las Vegas and should have been arrested, thus ending their law enforcement careers.
Bolanos sent sheriffs across state lines to intervene in a civil dispute with a donor for a “Batmobile”.
Corpus is likely having an affair with a subordinate. I think the other accusations against her are basically noise.
But why is Corpus the only one to be called on transgressions, especially when the misconduct of Munks and Bolanos seems more serious?
Did the Almanac call for the resignation of Munks and Bolanos?
Consistency is important. Otherwise perhaps the comeback of Corpus, that an old boy’s club is at work, has some merit.
Has it ever been proposed to move the Sheriff Office to report to the Board of Supervisors and to have Sheriffs be appointed rather than elected?
I don’t know whether something like this is possible but given the level of corruption and mismanagement across multiple sheriffs, it’s obvious that our election process is not working.
I hosted a gathering for her when she was running so I could understand her and the office. I was able to spend some time with her to ask deeper questions and learned about the friction already in the department. I picked up heavy influence of patriarchy and the resistance for her to lead… so now is now and I fully expect that there has been a team ready to be obstacles to anything she tried to initiate. I certainly don’t know her or follow her, but I felt badly for her that day, because before she was ever elected she seemed to be a target. It would be great if the almanac interviewed her for her side. I’d like to hear that.
Commenters make great points. I’ve found much of the coverage to be biased in their language – without any acknowledgement of what the office was previously engaged in without the board of supervisors getting involved the the extent they have. I, too, would like to see the Almanac do an interview with her. I voted for her and I’ve so far found the coverage to be weighted noticeably against her, and it makes me think they’ve failed to do any follow up on their own. I disagree with the editorial board on this issue until I see more objective reporting about it.