The Orange County Grand Jury launched a formal investigation into how and why the Orange County Board of Supervisors approved a 25% salary increase for themselves last June — a decision made as the county faced hiring freezes, budget shortfalls, and mounting financial pressures.

The raise, approved during the adoption of the county’s $10.8 billion 2025–2026 annual budget, changed the formula used to calculate supervisors’ compensation. Since 2005, board members had been paid at 80% of the salaries of Superior Court judges, with automatic annual increases tied to judicial pay adjustments. The June 2025 ordinance revised that structure, resulting in a 25% pay increase for supervisors.

The timing of the vote drew scrutiny. The approval came just days after former Supervisor Andrew Do was sentenced in a bribery case and at a moment when the county implemented a hiring freeze due to budget constraints. The county also confronted an estimated $400 million in reported liability stemming from the Airport Fire. At the same time, all nine county labor unions were preparing to enter contract negotiations for agreements set to expire in June 2026, with some union representatives signaling they would seek raises comparable to those granted to supervisors.

According to the Grand Jury’s report, the salary increase was embedded within the broader budget adoption process, which required two separate readings. The jury found that placing the pay raise inside the overall budget agenda resulted in minimal description of the item and limited opportunity for public input.
Typically, compensation changes for elected officials appeared as separate agenda items, allowing for focused discussion. In this instance, the Grand Jury concluded, the structure of the agenda effectively shielded the salary ordinance from public scrutiny. “The people of Orange County deserved transparency and fiscal responsibility,” the report stated, criticizing what it described as a “covert approach” to approving the raise.
The investigation sought to determine who initiated the salary increase, who directed its placement within the budget agenda, and whether any violations of California’s open-meeting law, the Brown Act, occurred. Despite repeated efforts, the Grand Jury reported it was unable to identify who orchestrated the pay raise or who was responsible for the manner in which it appeared on the agenda.

The report cited what it described as misdirection and incomplete responses from county executive management as obstacles to its inquiry. The Grand Jury said meetings were postponed, attorney-client privilege was invoked in certain instances, and key officials were unable or unwilling to recall critical details.
Faced with continued delays and what it characterized as a lack of cooperation, the Grand Jury opted to issue its findings while the matter remained current and potentially subject to corrective action. The report argued that the decision to approve the raise amid fiscal uncertainty risked placing additional strain on the county’s long-term financial stability, particularly as labor negotiations loomed and potential liabilities remained unresolved.

Following corruption scandals, elected bodies often moved to rebuild trust through heightened transparency and renewed commitments to ethical governance, the report noted. Instead, the Grand Jury concluded, the Board’s actions signaled that “accountability and public trust were secondary to personal gain.”

The report included recommendations aimed at restoring public confidence and ensuring that future compensation decisions were handled in a more transparent manner. Whether the Board would revisit the issue remained unclear. But as labor negotiations approached and financial pressures persisted, the political and fiscal consequences of the decision were likely to remain in focus.

For now, the Grand Jury’s message was direct: Orange County residents deserved greater openness from those elected to serve them — and they should demand it.