Vern here doing illustrations. I went looking for a picture of 9-member boards.
This is the board of commissioners that runs Guilford County in North Carolina, elected by district.
Point is, Guilford County NC has a population of half a million.
The OC has OVER THREE MILLION.
Orange County needs major structural reform. There is abundant evidence of the need for fundamental change. Disney and the Angels have corrupted governance in Anaheim and the surrounding areas in ways that have been thoroughly discussed in this blog. The case of Andrew Do has underscored concerns regarding accountability within the Board of Supervisors.
Additionally, the Do scandal raises broader questions about the effectiveness of oversight across county, state, and federal agencies. The County Board of Education (OCBE) is a cesspool of litigious waste funded by wealthy entities seeking to undermine public education. As political, ethnic, and class divides grow, local institutions face increasing dysfunction. Orange County’s issues thus reflect broader national trends, and this situation also presents an opportunity to consider basic reforms aimed at enhancing political participation within the county.
Norberto Santana has suggested several county reforms to tackle these issues. Numerous recommendations align with recent voter-endorsed reforms implemented in Los Angeles County. Santana offers compelling arguments in support of many of these proposed changes. Specially worthy of consideration is his suggestion to expand the number of supervisors from five to nine. His push for an elected County Executive Officer (CEO), however, is unconvincing. While a strong CEO has appeal, making the role directly answerable to voters could actually worsen existing county issues.
Orange County is an auspicious political and economic entity that requires a strong executive agency. OC’s population of 3.2 million is larger than that of 18 states, and its $10 billion budget exceeds those of 15 states. The county has 23 departments and around 19,000 employees. It is essential to designate a central officer who will be accountable for managing investments, human resources, auditing, and procurement activities. The question is whether a countywide elected executive is the most effective method to ensure accountability for this office to all of Orange County.
Santana attributes the recent Andrew Do scandal primarily to issues associated with the Board of Supervisors; however, this assessment overlooks additional factors contributing to the situation. He describes the current county supervisors as individuals who manage operations from their “fancy” offices located several floors above downtown Santa Ana. If regional representatives conduct themselves in a way that is disconnected from the public, what reasons does Santana have to believe that an elected CEO would be more responsive to the broader public’s needs?
Criticizing the supervisors over the Do scandal ignores the role of other institutions that also failed to hold him accountable. The Do scandal involved breaches of federal, state, and local laws, and highlighted the shortcomings of executive agencies at each of these levels. It is important to highlight that the Do scandal continued, in part, due to challenges facing local journalism that have arisen from the consolidation of media ownership among a limited number of billionaire-controlled corporations. The influence of plutocracy is an essential factor contributing to corruption across various levels of government. Consequently, assigning excessive responsibility to supervisors alone does not properly address the underlying issues.
The current roster of countywide elected officers raises questions about the advisability of introducing another elected executive position. Take, for example, Orange County District Attorney Todd Spitzer. Members of the Democratic Party, women, and minority groups have valid concerns regarding whether Spitzer administers justice impartially. Much of the issue with the Board of Supervisors stems from DA Spitzer’s apparent reluctance to prosecute crimes by elected officials, particularly Republicans. The same holds true for the Sheriff. What reasons might lead Mr. Santana to think that a county-wide elected executive officer would differ from other offices that, while officially non-partisan, tend to operate in a highly partisan and biased manner?
Mr. Santana argues that an elected countywide CEO could shift priorities away from law enforcement towards public health, but it is unclear if a candidate challenging law enforcement interests could succeed in Orange County. There is also concern that this position could become another platform for Lincoln Club influence, which has been a defining factor in the careers of Sheriff Barnes and DA Spitzer. A key issue in Orange County politics is that municipal government remains largely Republican even as the county becomes more Democratic. Electing a county CEO would likely worsen this dissonance.
***********************
While the elected CEO idea has clear drawbacks, Santana’s suggestion to expand the Board of Supervisors from five to nine members could improve county representation and accountability. Orange County has had five supervisors since its separation from Los Angeles County in 1889, when the population was about 15,000 and the county budget was approximately $75,000. Currently, Orange County’s population is 3.2 million, and the county manages a budget close to $11 billion. Yet we still have the same number of supervisors. Orange County could elect four more supervisors with minimal impact on its ample budget. Such an expansion would inherently increase transparency and accountability.
Expanding to nine supervisors would involve redrawing supervisorial district boundaries, resulting in each district having approximately 355,600 residents instead of the current 640,000. This approach would facilitate, or potentially require, Supervisors to maintain closer engagement with community leaders and civic institutions. Elections could focus more on personal endorsements from community leaders and less on ties to monied and partisan interests.
A primary function of this nine-member supervisorial body would be the appointment of an independent County Executive Officer empowered to implement the directives of the supervisors while safeguarding the interests of the entire county. Requiring a supermajority vote—six out of nine supervisors—would help ensure that the selected CEO reflects the broadest possible representation. Requiring the same supermajority to terminate the CEO would help enforce the relative autonomy and stability of the office.
An additional reform currently implemented in Los Angeles County that could effectively address a significant issue in Orange County involves granting authority to the Board of Supervisors to appoint all five members of the Orange County Board of Education (OCBE). Currently, all five members of the OCBE are Republicans who fully embrace the Project 2025 goal of destroying public education and diverting taxpayer money into unaccountable charter and parochial schools. The current OCBE uses Proposition 39 to force charter schools into districts that oppose them, thereby undermining the will of local voters, the authority of local school boards, and public school funding.
These Republicans on the OCBE receive masses amounts of cash from the charter and home school lobbies as well as the Lincoln Club. Highly qualified educators and educational administrators often find it discouraging to challenge these incumbents due to the significant investment of time and financial resources required.
Such is the story of Dr. Nancy Watkins. She has been an educational leader her entire life. By every measure, she is more qualified to serve on the OCBE than L. Ken Williams. Despite being the superior candidate, she could not overcome the financial and political forces arrayed against her in the 2024 election last March. Sheriff Don Barnes endorsed Williams even though he knew at the time that the sitting trustee had been involved in a road rage incident for which he should have been held criminally responsible. Once more, Barnes serves as an illustrative case for considering whether appointing a countywide CEO effectively addresses the requirements for strong executive leadership.
The point is that the OCGOP has rallied its forces in support of an OCBE that represents neither the will of the voters or the real needs of our communities. Over the past five years, the OCBE has allocated nearly $2 million of taxpayer funds annually
toward lawsuits. These expenditures do not account for the additional costs associated with defending against these legal actions. Litigation has been incorporated into the broader strategic approach endeavoring to destroy public education, with all five board members and their recently appointed superintendent expressing support for this destruction.
The OCBE’s destructive influence has impacted Orange County school districts to varying extents, and it is time for this to end. The OCBE is a principal source of the MAGA assault on science, transgender students, diversity, and equity in our communities. It is not a representative institution of our communities nor does it appreciate the role public schools play in shaping our communities.
Increasing the Board of Supervisors to nine members will strengthen the involvement of local educational leaders in county governance. The prosperity and well-being of our county are largely attributable to the high-quality public schools and universities that have benefited from our investments over generations. It is imperative for a county supervisor to recognize and actively support the value that these educational institutions bring to the community.
Expand the County Board of Supervisors to nine members, appoint an independent executive officer, and give supervisors greater authority over the OCBE in addressing countywide educational issues. This would further empower voters to elect local school board representatives without influence from charter school industry interests. Local public schools are the foundation of community and democracy.
One of the big problems on the board of education is that elections are held in March. The turnout model for November general elections is vastly different from the model for primary elections. One small change makes the electorate more reflective of the county as a whole. Why is there no move to shift to November?
Consolidate, like the huge majority of cities and school boards.
Josh Newman, last year when he was still Senator, passed a bill to make OCBOE elections in November. The Governor vetoed it as it was too “targeted” to one county.
So Umberg made a new bill that SEEMED to be less “targeted” and it has passed both houses… waiting to see if it gets signed.
What a difference a year will make.
Given how significant this would be in addressing MAGA misbehavior, one would think that Newsom should sign it. What’s the number of the bill? One would also think that people like us should be making a racket to convince him to sign it! This is the sort of thing that could really hurt his ambitions down the line!
SB 249? It got killed via suspense file in assembly appropriations. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billHistoryClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB249
Norberto raised the issue of an elected CEO (I hope) just to stir things up. The idea is idiotic.
Electing yet another megalomaniac isn’t a solution for anything. You’d just get the worst of the worst. And what is the Board supposed to do?
Norberto has been arguing for part-time Supervisors for years and this is a possible way to get there; but, it’s the wrong way. I agree with the goal. Do this: cut the Supervisor’s pay, allowances, etc. Cut their ridiculous office budgets in half (and for God’s sake get rid of the district slush funds that were re-instated).
But who would implement this? Not the Supervisors. Of this we can be certain. The State? Pretty unlikely since most legislators have been on or want to be on Boards of Supervisors.
If one looks at the history of governmental corruption in OC over the last 50 years one will find that almost all of it was perpetrated by elected officials and/or those who funnel money to them in order to get enrich themselves by getting their agendas and development projects approved. Hinshaw, Diedrich, Anthony, Citron, Roth, Nestande, and on and on.
Adding more electeds to the mix will only lead to more waste and corruption – with it costing millions for each Supervisor’s individual budgets now, just think how much more taxpayer money would be needed for a larger Board and their staffs of aides, not to mention the expansion of more press conferences, presentations of Certificates, ribbon cuttings and the like.
No, this idea is no solution. Good critique of Norberto’s “analysis” though.
I’m leaning toward the concept of making the Board, de facto part time by cutting Supervisor’s salaries by two-thirds and eliminating ALL benefits. No stipends for serving on regional boards. Then cut the Supervisor’s office budgets by half.
Meetings could take place once a month.
The main role would be constituency work.
Then let’s see how desperate Janet Nguyen is to hold office.
That would just spark even more corruption and only allow independently wealthy people to run and win.
You might be surprised what sort of low-lives would crave a quarter mil job with no professional qualifications and no performance standards.
If we want better and more transparent elected representatives we simply need to pay them more. Take a look at how Singapore does it.
Yeah, but Singapore has the advantage (which in this limited sense it is) of being a dictatorship that (IIRC) can put government officials to death for corruption.
Our good-government enforcement methods fall considerably short of that.
Paying Janet Nguyen more is ludicrous.
By the way, on the County Board of Education – they have almost no authority over anything and have been serving only as a forum for political pontificating. Would some local legislator please introduce state legislation to eliminate this speak-easy?
OC Board of Ed is enabling approval of for profit charter schools that take public funds and benefit business partners. They wield more power than most even know about.
Can someone explain why there are 1 county worker for every 160+ citizens that doesn’t include state, federal, cities plus others. I can only guess people are good with these critical employees.
Without commenting on your specific stats, I would say that is an excellent question. Maybe you should be a Supervisor.
I believe the biggest departments are likely Social Services and the Health care Agency. They are almost all paid for by federal and state funds.
Then there are the “Net County Cost” departments and employees the biggest of which are the Sheriff and the DA. The former gets a lot of its funding through south county contract cities – except for the massive cost of running Theo Lacy, the Central Jail, HQ, and the coroner function.
Criticizing past elected trustees of the Orange County Board of Supervisors reflects not only their leadership weaknesses but also flaws in the system and the electorate. The systemic issues present in our elections are associated with the unrestricted influence of financial interests. These monied interests shape both the rules and the content of the discourse that occur in our elections. The proposal to increase the Board of Supervisors to nine members would serve to diminish the power of money in elections and increase the importance of community involvement in choosing our leaders.
It will be much easier for dynamic new candidates untethered to monied interests to run in a supervisorial district of 360,000 residents rather than 640,000. Candidates can devote more time to engaging directly with voters and civic leaders instead of making phone calls to solicit donor contributions. The county-level system is not fundamentally corrupt, but it is structurally flawed.
The solution is NOT to reduce the salaries or operational budgets of the supervisors. That would only result in attracting candidates more closely aligned with monied interests. It would also make it virtually impossible for anyone who is not independently wealthy to even think of running for office. In a county that manages a budget of nearly $11 billion, the costs of the supervisors’ salaries and staffs are relatively insignificant.
It is also spurious to claim that all our supervisors are inherently wasteful and corrupt. Anyone who has listened to Vicente Sarmiento discuss housing, public health, or transparency has gained valuable perspectives from someone with deep knowledge and years of effective community service. The same can be said for others on the current Board.
Such leaders can further promote the prosperity and welfare of everyone in Orange County. As a significant part of our state’s economy, OC ranks as the number three county in a state known for having the world’s fourth largest economy. Supervisors are essential for maintaining effective systems that provide transportation, water, energy, health, and safety to everyone in our community. They also play key roles in ensuring that Orange County remains a center of research and technological innovation. Research and innovation in the Information Age begins in the public school system and extends to colleges and universities. Our public schools are among the best in the nation and our colleges and universities are world class.
This is the reason why the Board of Supervisors should be charged with appointing representatives to the County Board of Education. While Mr. Lamon is correct to suggest that the OCBE is an agency with very limited jurisdiction, it is not correct to then assert that that jurisdiction is not vital. One of its major duties is to oversee and set policies for the Orange County Department of Education (OCDE). The OCDE provides essential services to all our districts with outstanding professionalism. However, its relationship with the current OCBE and Superintendent resembles that of Executive Branch agencies under the Trump administration. Just as the current White House is weakening agencies like the EPA, CDC, and BLS, the OCBE is similarly disrupting how well the OCDE operates.
One of the most harmful aspects of the policies supported by the current OCBE and Superintendent is their misuse of authority over charter schools and their power to approve charters even when local school boards oppose them. In this sense, the OCBE stands out as a particularly negative force. No other county board interacts with local public schools in such a damaging way as the OCBE does.
If the Board of Supervisors is given the authority to choose members for the OCBE, the link between county leadership and local public schools overseen by the nine supervisors would be strengthened. In this scenario, how well our public schools perform would become an important way to evaluate the Supervisors’ success. For example, Don Wagner’s leadership could be assessed based on his support for individuals such as Ken Williams and Leandra Blades. Public schools play a vital role in local, county, and state governments, forming the backbone of our country’s republic.
If the Board of Supervisors were expanded and given the authority to appoint the OCBE, Senator Umberg’s proposed bill (SB 249) would become unnecessary, even though his intentions are praiseworthy. The bill is currently stalled in the Assembly Appropriations Committee. It is not surprising that the Governor and state legislature are reluctant to take action: they face more pressing issues, and the problems this legislation aims to address are mainly unique to Orange County. Therefore, it makes sense for the county itself to find a solution. Expanding the Board and increasing its oversight of the OCBE is one way forward.
Do you have any idea how much a campaign for the 360,000 district would be? The distinction from a 640,000 district is irrelevant.
By your logic we would be better off with 27 supervisors.
The cost to the registrar or the cost to run the campaigns? The cost to the registrar would not be substantial, and would be offset by not having to have OCBE elections. The cost of running the campaigns would be reduced because of the reasons I explain above. Candidates would be much more tightly bound to the communities they serve.
The logical inference you draw from what I wrote is absurd and unworthy of response. The real point is that there are 34 incorporated cities in Orange County. These cities would be much better represented with 9 supervisors than with 5.
Oh, Sam. You don’t know anything about local politics and elections or local governance. I do.
I’ll leave it at that.
Just read Sam’s comment and am happy to have no notes on it. (Except this: Who are the others on the Board that you think are OK? Foley, maybe, but Chafee? Ick.)
Mr. Zenger is not wrong. I am a neophyte to local politics in OC. I have taken a crash course by being involved in school board elections. In the course of this journey I have appreciated the great work of this blog and its willingness to provide me an audience for some of my ideas.
As for Greg’s question. I have only heard Sarmiento and Foley speak. Sarmiento was inspiring and Foley seemed a very knowledgeable representative for her district. In the course of working school board campaigns, I am encouraged by a number of young leaders who are emerging in local Democratic politics.
Guilty as charged. What is your fix?