Responding to an Orange County Grand Jury report calling the raise “tone-deaf” and “troubling,” the Board of Supervisors said this week it will not rescind its 25% pay increase from last year, adding that would likely violate state law.
In December, the grand jury released its report concluding that the supervisors undermined public confidence by giving themselves the $49,000 raise as a budget item, which required no public comment, instead of as a separate agenda item, which might have promoted debate.
“The timing was especially troubling as the county of Orange has been facing hiring freezes and budget constraints,” the grand jury wrote. “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 grand jury called for the board to rescind the raise and implement multiple accountability steps by the end of March.
In a written response approved at this week’s meeting, the Board of Supervisors soundly rejected the findings and recommendations of the jury.
Fifth District Supervisor Katrina Foley voted no, saying only that she didn’t agree with how the county’s response was worded. Second District Supervisor Vicente Sarmiento abstained from the vote.
Since a 2005 county ordinance, the supervisors’ annual pay had been fixed at 80% of what California Superior Court judges made. Sarmiento said approving the salary hike in June that made the supervisors’ pay commensurate with that of the judges, $244,000 annually, was among the “very few” decisions he’s regretted making as an elected official.
But state law limits supervisors’ ability to reduce their compensation during their term, he said, so reversing the 25% pay raise could invite lawsuits the county is likely to lose.
“While we may not be able to undo the decision retroactively today, we can take some steps that will ensure greater transparency and accountability moving forward,” Sarmiento said.
Sarmiento and Fourth District Supervisor Doug Chaffee pledged last year to donate their raises to charity.
The grand jury report, which said it relied on confidential interviews, reviews of public documents, letters of complaints and news accounts, noted that supervisors voted for the pay bump just two weeks after disgraced former Supervisor Andrew Do was sentenced to five years in federal prison for accepting $550,000 in bribes in a scheme involving the alleged embezzlement of millions in COVID-relief funds.
“While the salary increase was positioned as a routine adjustment, its proximity to former Supervisor Do’s conviction raised public concerns about oversight, ethics and the perception of self-enrichment among the county leadership,” the grand jury wrote.
In their approved response to the grand jury report, the county supervisors disagreed with the assessment that there was a “lack of transparency” in how the raise was approved, arguing that they had provided “two opportunities for public review and comment.”
Supervisors also rejected the grand jury’s finding that there was “no independent review process” for reviewing and changing supervisors’ compensation, which the board said is “expressly tied” to the salary of superior court judges.
With the 25% bump, the supervisors’ new salary surpasses that of Gov. Gavin Newsom’s, which is set at $242,295. It is comparable, however, to what their counterparts in neighboring counties make: Los Angeles County supervisors earn $244,000 a year, San Diego County supervisors make just under $220,000 and Riverside County supervisors receive $226,000 annually.