The supervisors quietly increased their own salaries last year by 25% to overtake the governor\u2019s pay even as the county had already implemented a hiring freeze, with executives warning department heads to tighten their belts wherever possible.\u00a0<\/p>\n
[Read: Orange County Supervisors Now Make More Than California\u2019s Governor<\/a>]<\/p>\n County CEO Michelle Aguirre announced on Tuesday that to balance the budget, staff had to pull roughly $75 million from one-time funds because their spending outpaced revenue.<\/p>\n \u201cSimply put, we have exhausted all resources available to us,\u201d Aguirre told supervisors. \u201cYou will see that we have no general fund requests for additional resources, because there are none to be given.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n But jurors found that the supervisors have continued to increase how much they spend every year without much justification.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cDuring the Orange County bankruptcy (December 6, 1994), for example, Board-appointed staff positions were reduced from eight to six, reflecting the need to prioritize limited resources,\u201d jurors wrote. \u201cThe continued expansion of Board office staffing today contrasts with the 1994 approach and warrants renewed scrutiny of whether current staffing levels are aligned with the County\u2019s operational priorities and fiscal realities.\u201d<\/p>\n In a statement after publication of this article, Supervisor Vicente Sarmiento said the report indicates jurors have a limited understanding of the board\u2019s responsibilities overseeing one of the largest counties in the state and staff played an important part in responding to residents.<\/p>\n He also said jurors should be spending their time on more challenging issues facing the county including campaign finance reform, the chemical tank incident in Garden Grove, and immigration enforcement.<\/p>\n \u201cAdditionally, the Grand Jury should periodically examine its own composition to ensure that its membership reflects the changing demographics and diverse communities of Orange County,\u201d reads Sarmiento\u2019s statement Wednesday.<\/p>\n \u201cA jury that is representative of the county\u2019s population is better positioned to understand the issues facing residents and to identify areas that warrant meaningful oversight and investigation.\u201d<\/p>\n None of the remaining Orange County Supervisors returned messages seeking comment Wednesday.<\/p>\n Do Supervisors Need Discretionary Funds?\u00a0<\/p>\n Jurors questioned the existence of supervisor\u2019s discretionary funds, which were floated by one-time COVID-19 relief dollars, highlighting how the money could raise questions of impropriety.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cWhile many of these grants support worthwhile programs, the practice effectively allows Supervisors to allocate public funds to groups and constituencies outside the County\u2019s direct governance responsibilities,\u201d jurors wrote, noting that it could \u201ccreate the appearance that discretionary spending and grantmaking are being used to cultivate goodwill or curry political favor with residents, organizations, and voters.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n There are currently no public plans to make the discretionary funds an ongoing program for supervisors.\u00a0<\/p>\n On Tuesday, over a hundred people signed up to speak on the budget with a host of them, including many elected officials in the district represented by Supervisor Janet Nguyen, calling on Supervisors to return roughly $3.7 million to her discretionary accounts they say former Supervisor Andrew Do stole from them.<\/p>\n Do is currently in federal prison after he pleaded guilty to accepting bribes and rerouting over $10 million from the county to several nonprofits, including one that employed his daughter.\u00a0<\/p>\n Much of the scandal was centered on his discretionary spending.\u00a0<\/p>\n [Read: Former OC Supervisor Sentenced to 5 Years in Federal Prison in Bribery Scheme<\/a>] <\/p>\n Nguyen successfully called on her colleagues to support returning $3.7 million to her discretionary budget to be used to fund community programs in her district<\/p>\n \u201cIf the situations were reversed, I know each of you would fight to the death for your district,\u201d she said at Tuesday\u2019s meeting.<\/p>\n \u201cThese funds were recovered in connection with the Andrew Do corruption matter, and it should be returned back to the benefit of the First District community that were deprived of the intended services.\u201d<\/p>\n Supervisors Vicente Sarmiento and Katrina Foley agreed the money should be returned to the people it was supposed to help and that the area the First District covers changed near the end of Do\u2019s tenure on the board.\u00a0<\/p>\n Sarmiento said the money was meant to help people during the pandemic and staff should look back to ensure the money goes to help everyone impacted not only the residents still in the First District.<\/p>\n \u201cThose funds, when they were diverted, they hurt and created true victims of residents who were denied the services, the assistance, the opportunities to recover quickly and to have their needs addressed at the time,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n \u201cI do believe that the money should go back to those that were harmed, but let\u2019s figure out who was harmed.\u201d<\/p>\n Foley, who represented some of the cities now in the First District, said she directed money to support meal programs to some of the cities that were impacted by Do that she used to represent.<\/p>\n She also added the corruption scandal has cost the county money.<\/p>\n \u201cThere was some support for those cities that are now part of district one, which were not part of district one at the time,\u201d Foley said.<\/p>\n \u201cSo far, we\u2019ve spent on outside contract services more than $1.7 million and that\u2019s $1.7 million that has helped us to secure additional funding but at the same time it\u2019s at a cost to our general fund so that includes our forensic audit, that includes all of our outside IT support services, and our civil litigation we are still presently pursuing.\u201d<\/p>\n Jurors encouraged supervisors to implement more restrictions on how the money can be used, if it\u2019s used at all.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cThe Board should limit discretionary grants to County-related purposes within its direct service and governance responsibilities and adopt uniform eligibility and reporting standards to ensure transparency and eliminate the appearance of political favoritism.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n Do Supervisors Need a Dozen Staff?<\/p>\n Jurors also pointed to a column by Voice of OC\u2019s Publisher and Editor in Chief highlighting that supervisors often have more power over the direction of the county than the county CEO, highlighting that the expanding staff also helps them make decisions independent of the county bureaucracy.\u00a0<\/p>\n [Read: Santana: Orange County Supervisors Confront Themselves<\/a>]<\/p>\n \u201cSupervisors increasingly rely on their own policy aides, analysts, and communications staff rather than on the County Executive Officer and department heads, who are the subject\u2011matter experts responsible for managing County operations,\u201d jurors wrote.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cStaff increases create a duplicative layer of analysis and decision\u2011support that mirrors work already performed by the County\u2019s professional management teams,\u201d they continued. \u201cThe result is not only higher administrative costs but also a governance model in which significant information flow, policy development, and operational guidance occur outside the County\u2019s established executive channels.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n The Grand Jury report found the number of people directly managed by the supervisors has also dropped as more of the county incorporated in the late 90s and early 2000s, leaving just 4% of county residents who are governed directly by the supervisors and not city councils.\u00a0<\/p>\n Moving forward, jurors recommended that the supervisors reexamine how many staff they actually need and review positions for \u201credundancy relative to the County Executive Office.\u201d<\/p>\n Noah Biesiada is a Voice of OC reporter. Contact him at\u00a0nbiesiada@voiceofoc.org<\/a>.<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/OCsups_santaana_2025_Leopo-3.jpg\")
County of Orange\u2019s Interim County Executive Officer Michelle Aguirre during the Jan. 28, 2025 Orange County Board of Supervisor meeting. Credit: JULIE LEOPO, Voice of OC<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/BoardofSups-Leopo-2026-7435.jpg\")
Orange County Board of Supervisors meeting on Jan. 13, 2026. Credit: JULIE LEOPO, Voice of OC<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/OCBoardofSupervisors_May20_2025_Taylor-27.jpg\")
Attendees gather outside the board hearing room during the May 20, 2025 Orange County Board of Supervisors meeting on May 20, 2025. Credit: ERIKA TAYLOR, Voice of OC<\/p>\n