San Mateo County pushed back against a $10 million government claim filed last month by beleaguered Sheriff Christina Corpus, who contends that the county’s investigation into alleged misconduct and corruption by her administration is rooted in harassment and discrimination.
“The assertions in Corpus’ claim — that she has been discriminated against, harassed, and defamed, particularly because she is both a woman and a Latinx person — are completely baseless and a distraction from the issues that give rise to the present circumstances,” the county said in a statement published this week.
Filing a government claim is a required step before a lawsuit can be initiated.
The claim follows the public release of an independent audit in November 2024 by retired Judge LaDoris Cordell, which detailed allegations of misconduct, corruption, and workplace bullying involving Corpus and her former chief of staff, Victor Aenlle, within the San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office.
“The government claim, which includes incorrect and misspelled names — including that of the sheriff herself and Supervisor Noelia Corzo — is largely devoid of any alleged facts supporting its conclusions and egregiously accuses retired Judge LaDoris Cordell of partaking in what the claim calls an ‘evil scheme,’” the county said.
Corpus’ lawyer Brad Gage alleged that the investigation led by Cordell was compromised, citing the former judge’s financial compensation as a potential conflict of interest.
“In general, investigators are paid by the municipal employer — in this case, the county,” Gage previously told this news organization. “If their findings don’t favor the employer, they risk losing future business. It’s a lucrative system for those conducting these investigations.”
The county dismissed these allegations, stating that payment for the investigation is standard practice when engaging external auditors.
“With respect to the cost of the investigation, Cordell was contracted at the rate of $750 per hour, and the investigation and associated report cost approximately $200,000 to complete,” the county stated, revealing for the first time publicly the amount paid to Cordell.
The county explained that the expense reflects the extensive work conducted, including interviews with 40 current and former employees, and the time required to assess numerous complaints.
“This is in line with 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,” it said.
Another point of contention raised in the claim centers on an alleged missing 29 pages from Cordell’s interview with Aenlle, according to Gage.
The county denied there was anything “nefarious” in regard to omitting pages from Aenlle’s interview. .
“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,” the county statement read. “There was nothing nefarious about these pages not being included, but given the interest, they are now available on the county’s website.”
Gage disagreed, saying the missing pages are material to the investigation.
“It should not have been withheld and concealed,” Gage said in a phone interview on Thursday. “It might not have been cited by Judge Cordell, but it should have been because those are the pages that show a lot of the conclusions are not supported.”
This March, San Mateo County voters will decide whether to grant the Board of Supervisors the authority to remove Corpus from office, which would remain in effect until the end of Corpus’ term in 2028. County election officials estimate the cost of the election at more than $3.8 million.
The San Mateo County Board of Supervisors, two deputy sheriff unions, sheriff’s department captains, several congressional and local leaders, and the city of San Carlos have all issued votes of no confidence in Corpus’ leadership. She is also facing a separate investigation for alleged campaign finance violations.
Despite mounting pressure, Corpus has refused to step down or concede to recall efforts.
“The defendants (San Mateo County) have now used the false investigation to seek a recall never used before — one that will terminate after Sheriff Corpus’s term expires — to try and fire her on false accusations,” the claim stated. “It is time to fight back and bring the truth out. This government claim is just part of that process.”
