|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
San Mateo County Sheriff Christina Corpus testified on Tuesday, Aug. 19, that she did not have an inappropriate relationship with a top colleague in her administration.
Corpus also pushed back against notions of committing nepotism, employee retaliation and other allegations raised in the lines of questioning from the county’s attorney, Jan Little, as the two-week public hearing continued for the potential removal of the sheriff from office.
Corpus responded calmly and at times defiantly from the witness stand in the morning session of the second day of the hearing, which is expected to run until Aug. 29 in San Mateo County Superior Court in downtown Redwood City.
At one point, retired Judge James Emerson told Corpus to keep her answers pertinent to Little’s questions when the sheriff was trying to expand on her responses.
“This is a hearing where they’re trying to take my job from me,” Corpus replied.
The embattled sheriff has previously denied any wrongdoing in the face of efforts to oust her since a 408-page report from a county-commissioned independent investigation came out last year, laying out allegations of corruption, abuse of power, use of racial and homophobic slurs, and other offenses in Corpus’ administration.
In court, Corpus continued to take that stance of innocence, including when it came to interactions with her former Chief of Staff, Victor Aenlle.
But Little characterized that relationship between Corpus and Aenlle as going beyond professional. Little presented as evidence were personal text messages between Corpus and her former colleague, Valerie Barnes, that seemed to suggest the sheriff had more than a working relationship with Aenlle.
In one thread, Barnes told Corpus that she deserved to be “spoiled and doted on.” Barnes also asked Corpus for a picture of “your sparklies,” which apparently referred to earrings.
Little asked Corpus whether Aenlle bought her diamond earrings. Corpus replied that he did not and she actually was the one who bought the earrings for $8,000 cash.
Little then portrayed the cash transaction as something someone would do to avoid leaving a record of a certain activity and told Corpus that she was trying to keep secret a romantic relationship with Aenlle.
But Corpus described the relationship as nothing of the sort. “I had no reason to keep our friendship a secret,” Corpus added. “I don’t have anything to hide.”
Little then brought up nepotism issues, indicating that Corpus’ close ties with Aenlle benefited his position and pay. Corpus refuted that, contending that Aenlle was qualified for his chief of staff duties and was wealthy enough from his business and other ventures.
Little raised retaliation concerns as well, including the sheriff’s decision to arrest Carlos Tapia, president of the San Mateo County Deputy Sheriff’s Association union, for alleged timecard fraud.
The arrest came at a time when the union issued a no-confidence vote against Corpus and Aenlle and when the county-commissioned report was made public. Little argued that Corpus sought to arrest Tapia because that was a quicker process than taking the case first to the county District Attorney’s Office.
Corpus replied that not making the arrest, knowing someone in her organization was committing timecard fraud, would put her in a bad light with the county’s residents.
The District Attorney’s Office looked into Tapia’s case and eventually exonerated him.
Little also confronted Corpus on whether she ever used racial and homophobic slurs.
Corpus denied using racist language. She did acknowledge using a derogatory term for lesbians, though initially not knowing its homophobic meaning.
“Now I know what the term is,” Corpus said. “I’m not proud of” having used it.
Corpus’ hearing is a result of her appeal of county supervisors’ unanimous vote in June to oust her based on her alleged misconduct. Measure A, which voters passed earlier this year, granted supervisors the ability to amend the county charter to pursue her removal.
Once the hearing concludes, the judge has up to 45 days to submit his recommendation on whether there is cause to remove Corpus. Supervisors then have 30 days to decide the sheriff’s fate.
