Grand jurors pointed to<\/a> two formerly confidential county HR investigations LAist brought to light last year through public records requests.<\/p>\n One found<\/a> O.C. assessor Claude Parrish violated gender discrimination and retaliation policies and harassed a subordinate over her medical disability. The other found<\/a> O.C. treasurer-tax collector Shari Freidenrich threw office keys at a subordinate out of anger, likely violating workplace violence policies. A secretary who witnessed it quit her job the same day as a result, the county investigation found.<\/p>\n Orange County Assessor Claude Parrish speaks at a county Board of Supervisors meeting in March 2023. <\/p>\n (<\/p>\n Screenshot of county meeting video<\/p>\n )<\/p>\n \u201cThe public, and in some cases even individual [county] supervisors, did not learn the full details until media outlets obtained the reports through public records requests,\u201d the grand jury wrote.<\/p>\n \u201cThese episodes underscore a structural reality: Even when serious misconduct is documented, the board has no substantive authority to take corrective action, discipline an elected official or remove them from office,\u201d the panel continued.<\/p>\n \u201cWithout meaningful measures for intervention, problems can persist unchecked, leaving the county vulnerable to operational failures, ethical breaches and the erosion of public trust,\u201d the report states, adding that independently elected offices act with \u201cimpunity.\u201d<\/p>\n Parrish and Freidenrich both were re-elected by wide margins in this month\u2019s primary. Their seats typically draw little attention during re-elections, where they appear on ballots as the incumbent.<\/p>\n Under current law, elected officials can only be removed if they\u2019re convicted of a crime involving their official duties, are recalled by voters or vacate their office<\/a>, the grand jury wrote.<\/p>\n What the grand jury wants to happen<\/p>\n The grand jurors recommended supervisors put key reforms on the ballot for voters to change county law. Those reforms, if passed, would let the Board of Supervisors:<\/p>\n Remove an elected official for cause by a four-fifths voteConvert an elected office to an appointed positionMerge two elected offices \u2014 like assessor and clerk\u2011recorder \u2014 into one elected position<\/p>\n For the removal recommendation, they pointed to existing laws in San Bernardino and San Mateo counties. Last year, San Mateo County voters \u201capproved<\/a> a charter amendment authorizing their Board of Supervisors to remove the elected sheriff for cause by a four-fifths vote,\u201d the grand jury wrote. Removing the sheriff \u201crequires notice, investigation, a hearing and formal findings,\u201d the report states.<\/p>\n The grand jury also suggested that county supervisors:<\/p>\n Adopt a policy requiring regular audits or performance reviews of elected officialsImplement more robust public reporting of audits into departments under elected officialsPublicly report actions taken to correct problems that have been found under elected offices Mike Moodian, a public policy professor at Chapman University, says it could make sense to have the lesser-known countywide elected positions \u2014 assessor, treasurer-tax collector and clerk-recorder \u2014 be appointed rather than elected.<\/p>\n Most voters, he said, are not aware of the candidates and tend to elect incumbents in a landslide vote. He wonders if the public would be better served if those positions were instead appointed positions selected and overseen by higher-profile elected officials \u2014 like county supervisors \u2014 who are more visible and, thus, accountable to voters, he said.<\/p>\n \u201c\u200aWhy do we need to elect a clerk-recorder?\u201d Moodian said.<\/p>\n As for removal powers, Moodian said it\u2019s a thorny issue. It could provide accountability, but it could also become fraught if four of five county supervisors want to wrongfully remove a colleague for political reasons.<\/p>\n \u201cIt’s a classic governance dilemma,\u201d he said. \u201cHow do you preserve democratic independence [of elected officials], but also how do you ensure accountability when something goes wrong?\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cIf serious misconduct or mismanagement occurs, do voters have to wait years for the next election? Because let’s face it, the recall process \u2014 that can be very costly and … very difficult.\u201d<\/p>\n What comes next<\/p>\n Ultimately, it will be up to county supervisors to decide whether to put removal powers on the ballot, unless<\/a> citizens gather signatures from 95,694 registered O.C. voters.<\/p>\n By law, the supervisors will have to issue a public response to the grand jury report, describing whether or not they\u2019ll implement the recommendations.<\/p>\n LAist contacted all five county supervisors for comment on the recommendations. Two got back.<\/p>\n Supervisor Katrina Foley said she doesn\u2019t support allowing elected officials to remove other elected officials \u2014 pointing to existing provisions that remove elected officials convicted of crimes in office.<\/p>\n \u201cShort of removing budgetary authority or having more oversight and monitoring, I don’t think that elected officials should be given the power to remove other elected officials. That is the job of the voters,\u201d Foley said.<\/p>\n Orange County Supervisor Katrina Foley at the Board of Supervisors meeting on Aug. 27, 2024. <\/p>\n That power should not be given to elected officials, she added, because it \u201cdefinitely will get abused.\u201d<\/p>\n The audit and performance evaluation suggestion is also problematic, she added, because having subordinates of elected officials evaluate their bosses would be fraught because they wouldn\u2019t want to risk losing their job.<\/p>\n \u201cHow are you gonna have an objective evaluation?,\u201d she asked. \u201cI just don’t see that working in elected spaces.\u201d<\/p>\n In a statement, Supervisor Vicente Sarmiento said he shares the grand jury\u2019s \u201cconcern regarding misconduct in office and the ability to provide the Board with additional levers needed to address misconduct by elected officials.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cUnfortunately, the recommendation to give the Board of Supervisors authority to remove an elected official can undermine the will of the voters and may open the door for politically motivated removals and abuse,\u201d he added.<\/p>\n Orange County Supervisor Vicente Sarmiento at the Board of Supervisors meeting on Aug. 27, 2024. <\/p>\n Through a spokesperson, he declined to say what additional levers he believes the board should have to address elected official misconduct.<\/p>\n The other three supervisors \u2014 Doug Chaffee, Don Wagner and Janet Nguyen \u2014 didn\u2019t respond to messages for comment.<\/p>\n A long history of corruption and ethics breaches<\/p>\n The grand jury compiled a list of misconduct<\/a> by 17 county elected officials in O.C. stretching back to the 1970s, up to last year\u2019s sentencing of former Supervisor Andrew Do for a corruption scheme<\/a> LAist uncovered.<\/p>\n \u201cTaken together, these episodes form a collection of political missteps that amount to a documented pattern of governance failure. Orange County\u2019s history shows that unethical behavior and corruption are neither rare nor random, but cyclical,\u201d the grand jury wrote.<\/p>\n \u201cEach decade brings a new set of names, but the underlying dynamics remain stubbornly the same,\u201d the jurors added.<\/p>\n \u201cWhen institutions lack durable safeguards, the electorate suffers the consequences. Government integrity cannot depend on the character of individual elected officials alone,\u201d the report continues.<\/p>\n \u201cIt requires systematic guardrails, meaningful checks and balances, independent oversight bodies with real authority, institutional transparency, financial controls, enforceable ethics standards, and active citizen engagement through the ballot box.\u201d<\/p>\n What is a grand jury?<\/p>\n Under state law, each county has grand juries that decide whether to indict defendants in criminal cases and conduct civil watchdog investigations of local government agencies.<\/p>\n The civil grand jury duties include<\/a> ensuring local governments are governed honestly and efficiently and that tax dollars are managed efficiently.<\/p>\n How to reach me<\/p>\n If you have a tip, you can reach me on Signal. My username is ngerda.47.<\/p>\n In most California counties, there are separate grand juries for criminal matters and civil watchdog reviews.<\/p>\n In Orange County, both are combined into a single grand jury that serves for one year at a time, from the beginning of July to the end of the following June. Orange County\u2019s grand jury has 19 members and several alternates who can step in if someone leaves.<\/p>\n The selection process<\/a> starts with a committee of O.C. Superior Court judges reviewing applications and selecting about 90 people for further consideration. Those deemed qualified are invited to an interview before the committee, and those who advance undergo a background investigation by the Sheriff\u2019s Department<\/a>. The list is narrowed to 25 to 30 finalists, then 19 members of the grand jury are selected by lottery. The other finalists become the alternates.<\/p>\n![\"](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/1782390128_587_.jpeg\")
<\/p>\n
\n\u2018Why do we need to elect a clerk-recorder?\u2019\u00a0<\/p>\n![\"A](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/1782390129_200_.jpeg\")
<\/p>\n![\"An](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/1782390130_859_.jpeg\")
<\/p>\n