To the Editor in response to: John Seiler: Why Orange County can’t afford to ignore Moorlach a second time – Orange County Register
John Seiler’s column invokes the specter of the 1994 Orange County bankruptcy as a warning against political interference in the treasurer’s office. The history lesson is useful. But the conclusion he draws from it is backwards.
The problem today is not that the Board of Supervisors “meddled.” The problem is that circumstances in the Treasurer-Tax Collector’s office under Shari Freidenrich became serious enough that the Board felt compelled to intervene in the first place. If the office were functioning well, there would be no reason for supervisors to take the extraordinary step of stripping an elected treasurer of control over a $17 billion investment portfolio.
That step did not come out of nowhere. Multiple reports over the past few years describe a deeply troubled workplace inside the department. A county-commissioned investigation found Freidenrich likely violated workplace violence policies after throwing her office keys at a subordinate during an angry outburst. The incident reportedly caused a temporary employee to quit the same day. Investigators also documented allegations from staff that the department had a “highly charged atmosphere of mistrust” and complaints that the treasurer engaged in demeaning or unfair treatment of employees.
Other reporting has described similar concerns. Former employees have alleged a toxic workplace environment and an aggressive management style that even prompted a warning from the county’s human resources department.
These management failures matter. The treasurer’s office is responsible for safeguarding billions in public funds. When leadership problems drive away experienced staff or create instability inside the department, that is not merely an “HR drama.” It becomes a governance and financial oversight issue.
The recent episode involving Freidenrich’s top deputy, Dana Schultz, illustrates the point. Schultz pulled papers to run for treasurer and, within days, Freidenrich attempted to fire her. County officials intervened and blocked the dismissal, emphasizing the importance of maintaining a workplace free from retaliation and harassment.
Schultz has spent years working inside the very office she now seeks to lead. Unlike outside candidates, she understands both the investment operations and the organizational problems that have plagued the department. The fact that the county’s own leadership stepped in to keep her employed should tell voters something about where confidence lies.
Seiler argues that voters elected Freidenrich and therefore the Board should not interfere. But elections are not a blank check for dysfunction. The Board of Supervisors has a legal responsibility to safeguard the county’s finances. When credible concerns arise about management failures, missed deadlines, or a deteriorating workplace environment, supervisors would be negligent if they simply ignored them.
If anything, the current situation highlights a broader structural question for Orange County: whether certain administrative roles should continue to be separately elected at all.
The treasurer-tax collector, assessor, auditor-controller, and other countywide officials wield enormous technical authority over complex financial systems. Yet voters often have little information about these offices, and incumbents frequently run unopposed. In Freidenrich’s case, she has not faced a challenger since her first election in 2010. When accountability depends almost entirely on internal oversight rather than competitive elections, the argument for appointing such officials through the Board of Supervisors deserves serious consideration.
In the meantime, voters do have a choice this year. Dana Schultz offers the opportunity to reset the culture of the Treasurer-Tax Collector’s office while preserving the professional expertise needed to manage the county’s investment portfolio responsibly.
The lesson of 1994 is not simply that interest rate bets can go wrong. It is that oversight matters. Strong institutions depend not only on sound policies but also on competent leadership.
If Orange County wants to avoid repeating past mistakes, it should start by electing a treasurer who can restore stability and trust inside the office responsible for managing billions in public funds. Dana Schultz is the candidate best positioned to do that. I will be voting for her and I encourage everyone who cares about the financial health of our county to do the same.
Jodi Balma is a professor of political science at Fullerton College.