San Mateo County presents draft procedures to implement Measure A sheriff-removal process

San Mateo County officials on an informational agenda item outlined draft procedures for removal proceedings authorized by Measure A, the charter amendment adding section 4.12.5 to the San Mateo County Charter that gives the Board of Supervisors authority to remove the elected county sheriff for cause.

The proposed procedure would require the Board to vote by a four-fifths majority to initiate a removal, issue a written notice of intent to remove, hold a pre-removal conference, and—if the matter moves forward—allow the sheriff to request a full evidentiary removal hearing presided over by a mutually selected hearing officer. "First, in order for the board to initiate the removal procedure, they have to act by a 4 fifths vote, to start the process," Alfonso Estrada, partner at Hanson Bridgett LLP, told the Board during a presentation on the draft rules.

Why this matters: the charter amendment is scheduled to become effective after lodging with the Secretary of State and the lapse of the statutory posting period; the rules the Board adopts will determine how the county balances due process for the sheriff, public access, and county operational continuity during any removal proceeding.

Details of proposed process

Under the draft procedures Estrada described, the steps are: (1) the Board votes by a four-fifths majority to initiate a removal and prepares a written notice of intent; (2) within five days of issuance the sheriff may appear at a pre-removal conference to respond to allegations; (3) a pre-removal conference officer issues a recommendation to the Board; (4) the Board may again vote by four-fifths to issue a final notice of decision; (5) the sheriff may request a full evidentiary removal hearing; (6) the parties select a hearing officer by striking from a provided list; (7) limited discovery and initial disclosures occur, with a meet-and-confer process for disputes; (8) the hearing (open to the public unless the sheriff requests closure) proceeds with each side allotted up to five days to present evidence; and (9) the hearing officer issues a recommended opinion, which the Board reviews and on which it must again act by a four-fifths vote to make removal final. Estrada said the county estimates the full process, as drafted, could take about "3 and a half months."

Public access and evidence rules

Estrada said the removal hearing would be "open to the public, unless objected to specifically by the sheriff," and that testimony would be given under oath. The draft gives the hearing officer authority to issue administrative subpoenas and to draw adverse inferences if witnesses fail to appear, at the officer’s discretion.

Points of dispute raised by sheriff’s counsel and public commenters

Counsel for Sheriff Christina Corpus repeatedly argued the draft is legally vulnerable and that protections under state law must be respected. Thomas Mazzuco, counsel for the sheriff, told the Board that Judge Cordell’s report cited in public discussion "has no evidentiary value. They're not sworn interviews. They're not tape recorded interviews. There's no methodology as to who was interviewed," and said the structure risks prejudging the sheriff before a full hearing. Other counsel for the sheriff said that the Peace Officers’ Bill of Rights (Government Code sections 3301–3313) applies and that a higher standard of proof may be required when removing a constitutional officer.

Several public speakers urged swift, transparent action. Deacon Lauren Patt McCombs, representing Peninsula Solidarity cohort, said, "Measure A has empowered the 5 of you with the ability to do so." Nancy Goodman of Fix in San Mateo County asked the Board to require that the removal hearing be public and to move quickly to limit ongoing workplace disruption in the sheriff’s office.

Board questions and next steps

Supervisors asked for clarification on who would preside over the pre-removal conference (the draft names the assistant county executive or that official’s designee), what opportunities the public would have to comment at each public Board vote, and the applicable standard of proof. County staff said the Board will not vote on the procedures at the informational meeting; staff will collect Board and public feedback, revise the draft, and return the procedures for formal adoption at a future public meeting. County counsel indicated, absent a special meeting, the earliest regular meeting at which the Board could consider adoption would be April 22; staff noted final adoption and any later removal action would require the four-fifths vote the charter prescribes.

The Board did not take any formal action on the draft procedures during the informational item; staff and outside counsel said they will meet with sheriff’s counsel and other stakeholders and return a revised draft for consideration.