Citing LAist’s unearthing of misconduct findings about top elected officials, Orange County’s grand jury is urging reforms that would allow elected officials to more easily be removed from office for misconduct.

The panel also recommended mandating regular audits or performance reviews of elected officials, in a report released this month.

Grand jurors pointed to two formerly confidential county HR investigations LAist brought to light last year through public records requests.

One found O.C. assessor Claude Parrish violated gender discrimination and retaliation policies and harassed a subordinate over her medical disability. The other found 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.

“The 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,” the grand jury wrote.

“These 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,” the panel continued.

“Without meaningful measures for intervention, problems can persist unchecked, leaving the county vulnerable to operational failures, ethical breaches and the erosion of public trust,” the report states, adding that independently elected offices act with “impunity.”

Parrish and Freidenrich both were re-elected by wide margins in this month’s primary. Their seats typically draw little attention during re-elections, where they appear on ballots as the incumbent.

Under current law, elected officials can only be removed if they’re convicted of a crime involving their official duties, are recalled by voters or vacate their office, the grand jury wrote.

What the grand jury wants to happen

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:

• Remove an elected official for cause by a four-fifths vote
• Convert an elected office to an appointed position
• Merge two elected offices — like assessor and clerk‑recorder — into one elected position

For the removal recommendation, they pointed to existing laws in San Bernardino and San Mateo counties. Last year, San Mateo County voters “approved a charter amendment authorizing their Board of Supervisors to remove the elected sheriff for cause by a four-fifths vote,” the grand jury wrote. Removing the sheriff “requires notice, investigation, a hearing and formal findings,” the report states.

The grand jury also suggested that county supervisors:

• Adopt a policy requiring regular audits or performance reviews of elected officials
• Implement more robust public reporting of audits into departments under elected officials
• Publicly report actions taken to correct problems that have been found under elected offices

‘Why do we need to elect a clerk-recorder?’ 

Mike Moodian, a public policy professor at Chapman University, says it could make sense to have the lesser-known countywide elected positions — assessor, treasurer-tax collector and clerk-recorder — be appointed rather than elected.

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 — like county supervisors — who are more visible and, thus, accountable to voters, he said.

“ Why do we need to elect a clerk-recorder?” Moodian said.

As for removal powers, Moodian said it’s 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.

“It's a classic governance dilemma,” he said. “How do you preserve democratic independence [of elected officials], but also how do you ensure accountability when something goes wrong?”

“If serious misconduct or mismanagement occurs, do voters have to wait years for the next election? Because let's face it, the recall process — that can be very costly and ... very difficult.”

What comes next

Ultimately, it will be up to county supervisors to decide whether to put removal powers on the ballot, unless citizens gather signatures from 95,694 registered O.C. voters.

By law, the supervisors will have to issue a public response to the grand jury report, describing whether or not they’ll implement the recommendations.

LAist contacted all five county supervisors for comment on the recommendations. Two got back.

Supervisor Katrina Foley said she doesn’t support allowing elected officials to remove other elected officials — pointing to existing provisions that remove elected officials convicted of crimes in office.

“Short 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,” Foley said.

That power should not be given to elected officials, she added, because it “definitely will get abused.”

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’t want to risk losing their job.

“How are you gonna have an objective evaluation?,” she asked. “I just don't see that working in elected spaces.”

In a statement, Supervisor Vicente Sarmiento said he shares the grand jury’s “concern regarding misconduct in office and the ability to provide the Board with additional levers needed to address misconduct by elected officials.”

“Unfortunately, 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,” he added.

Through a spokesperson, he declined to say what additional levers he believes the board should have to address elected official misconduct.

The other three supervisors — Doug Chaffee, Don Wagner and Janet Nguyen — didn’t respond to messages for comment.

A long history of corruption and ethics breaches

The grand jury compiled a list of misconduct by 17 county elected officials in O.C. stretching back to the 1970s, up to last year’s sentencing of former Supervisor Andrew Do for a corruption scheme LAist uncovered.

“Taken together, these episodes form a collection of political missteps that amount to a documented pattern of governance failure. Orange County’s history shows that unethical behavior and corruption are neither rare nor random, but cyclical,” the grand jury wrote.

“Each decade brings a new set of names, but the underlying dynamics remain stubbornly the same,” the jurors added.

“When institutions lack durable safeguards, the electorate suffers the consequences. Government integrity cannot depend on the character of individual elected officials alone,” the report continues.

“It 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.”

What is a grand jury?

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.

The civil grand jury duties include ensuring local governments are governed honestly and efficiently and that tax dollars are managed efficiently.

In most California counties, there are separate grand juries for criminal matters and civil watchdog reviews.

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’s grand jury has 19 members and several alternates who can step in if someone leaves.

The selection process 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’s Department. 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.

Under compensation set by the Board of Supervisors, grand jurors are paid $50 per day plus reimbursement for miles driven.

Federal courts also have grand juries, which are separate from county grand juries and only handle criminal matters.