Orange County has been under continuous investigation by federal prosecutors and auditors for the past two years, following the scandal involving former Supervisor Andrew Do. Do pleaded guilty to accepting bribes and diverting millions of dollars in county contracts.
Despite these efforts, some supervisors have expressed concerns that the audits have not fully revealed the county's inner workings, with two supervisors noting that accountability has not extended beyond Do. Supervisors have initiated their own audits and reforms, but they acknowledge a lack of subpoena power, which limits their focus largely to county contract policies.
Candidates for county supervisor were asked for their views on these investigations and whether further action is warranted.
Dixon, a Fifth District candidate, stated that the public deserves a complete accounting of what transpired and whether any other individuals were involved in wrongdoing. Dixon indicated that recent audits have raised significant questions that should be addressed. Dixon would support an independent investigation with authority to obtain necessary records to follow the facts. However, Dixon added that subpoena power should be subject to clear rules and independent oversight to prevent its misuse for political objectives. If additional wrongdoing is identified, Dixon believes local law enforcement authorities should be notified, and those responsible held accountable by local law enforcement. Dixon also emphasized that while the county has taken important steps, recent findings suggest more work is required. Dixon advocates for determining the full extent of what happened, recovering taxpayer dollars where possible, and fixing systemic weaknesses. Dixon also noted the importance of a whistleblower process to ensure county employees can report wrongdoing without fear of retaliation, aiming to rebuild public trust through a complete story and safeguards.
Foley, also a Fifth District candidate, noted that investigations are currently underway through the County Counsel and District Attorney’s office. Foley stated, "We can always do more." As a Supervisor, Foley introduced ethics reforms in September 2023, which Foley claimed were previously hindered by former Supervisor Andrew Do and his allies on the Board. Foley supported the independent investigation and forensic audits into the County’s practices and contracts, observing that the evidence consistently points back to Do’s office.
Shaw, a Fourth District candidate, remarked that the Andrew Do scandal significantly damaged public trust in Orange County government. Shaw supports a thorough and independent examination to understand the events, how they occurred, and whether others participated in misconduct. The objective, according to Shaw, should be to follow the facts, recover public funds where feasible, and identify reforms to prevent future occurrences, an effort Shaw understands is already progressing. Shaw asserted that the standard should be whether safeguards are robust enough to prevent a recurrence, advocating for strong procurement controls, contract oversight, conflict-of-interest protections, regular auditing, and public disclosure. Shaw also emphasized the need for a safe and effective way for employees to report suspected wrongdoing without fear of retaliation, stating that restoring public trust requires sustained transparency and accountability.
Traut, also a Fourth District candidate, believes taxpayers are entitled to a complete accounting. Traut would support truly independent investigators equipped with appropriate subpoena authority, legal safeguards, and access to relevant County records to determine if additional wrongdoing occurred. Traut indicated that findings should lead to the recovery of public funds, disciplinary action, or criminal referrals when warranted, and reforms addressing any identified systemic failures. Traut acknowledged the county has taken important steps but noted that continuing audit findings indicate more work is needed. Traut seeks independent follow-up investigations, aggressive recovery of misspent funds, stronger procurement and contracting controls, protection for employees who raise concerns, regular auditing, and public tracking of whether recommendations have been implemented.
