Orange County Supervisors will not rescind the 25% raise they gave themselves last year despite a scathing grand jury report that called them out for a lack of transparency and urged them to return the money by the end of this month.
“This decision was not only tone-deaf—it reflected a deeper disconnect from the Board’s duty to serve the public with transparency and fiscal responsibility,” the OC Grand Jury wrote in a report released in December.
“Following a corruption scandal, elected bodies typically respond with transparency, humility, and a renewed commitment to ethical governance. They engage the public, restore fiscal integrity, and demonstrate that they understand the gravity of their responsibilities,” they continued. “Regrettably, in this instance, the Board chose a different path.”
On Tuesday, supervisors narrowly voted 3-1-1 to issue a response rejecting and disagreeing with the Grand Jury’s harsh report on their decision to quietly hike their pay last year.
[Read: Santana: Why Did County Blow Off Grand Jury Questions on Supervisors’ Pay Hike?]
Supervisor Katrina Foley voted against the response, arguing she didn’t agree with the way it was worded without elaborating. She was the only supervisor last year to vote no on the pay raise.
Supervisor Vicente Sarmiento said he regretted voting in favor of the pay raise, but they could be sued if they rescind the pay like Grand Jurors recommended.
“We learned that state law significantly limits the board’s ability to reduce compensation once it’s been approved,” Sarmiento said at Tuesday’s board meeting. “If we move forward with an ordinance to decrease the board’s salary we would more than likely invite a lawsuit, which we would likely lose.”
Sarmiento abstained from the vote.
He and Supervisor Doug Chaffee donated the extra money from their salaries to local charities following Voice of OC’s coverage on the issue.
[Read: Two Orange County Supervisors Donate Raise to Charity After Backlash]
Leon Page, the board’s attorney, said they could apply a salary reduction prospectively but would likely not receive support from supervisors.
“Because some members are in the middle of their terms, as opposed to starting new terms in January, that would lead to an inequality, that some members would receive higher compensation than others,” he said.
“It’s just very difficult to do this to reduce compensation provided to an elected official during his or her term.”
Click here to read the Grand Jury report.
To view the board’s response to the Grand Jury Report, click here.
Supervisors Chaffee, Don Wagner and Janet Nguyen disagreed and voted to approve the response without discussion.
The county’s response disagrees with most every finding and recommendation from the grand jury except for confirming what the vote was.
“The County disagrees that there was a lack of transparency. The Board’s actions were taken in accordance with applicable Government Code requirements which provided two opportunities for public review and comment,” reads the statement they approved. “The County remains committed to transparency and will continue conducting its business in an open manner consistent with all legal requirements.”
Beyond calling on the board to rescind the raise, OC Grand Jurors also called on supervisors to request an independent compensation review and create a more transparent and public facing process for future salary raises.
The board responded that future salary changes are tied to California Superior Court judges’ salaries under State law.
Sarmiento agreed supervisors could do more to make the process more transparent in the future.
“As part of that effort, I would ask our CEO to return to the board with recommendations for how we can provide a more clear notice, public notice whenever a judicial salary adjustment results in a corresponding increase to the compensation of the Board of Supervisors.”
Hosam Elattar is a Voice of OC reporter. Contact him at helattar@voiceofoc.org.
Noah Biesiada is a Voice of OC reporter. Contact him at nbiesiada@voiceofoc.org.
Related