The county of Orange was slow to take seriously concerns about former Supervisor Andrew Do’s shady diversion of discretionary COVID-related funds—a highly embarrassing scandal that led to Do’s resignation and guilty plea to a federal corruption charge. Fortunately, the county has finally decided to be proactive when dealing with such matters.
The U.S. Department of Justice announced in October announced Do “agreed to plead guilty to a felony federal charge for accepting more than $550,000 in bribes for directing and voting in favor of more than $10 million in COVID funds to a charity affiliated with one of his daughters.” The warning signs had been there for many months, with this Editorial Board arguing in November 2023 that Do should resign.
The good news is early this month, the county’s internal auditor found that in a sampling of contracts the county had complied with federal rules and oversight regarding its funding from the American Rescue Plan Act. The county received $616 million in federal pandemic-relief funds.
This week, the Register reported the audit also resulted in the county sending two Do-related contracts to the Orange County District Attorney’s Office and county counsel for further review. That, of course, does not mean any wrongdoing. The companies providing the contracts say they complied with the rules. One was for $2 million to Abound Food Care for meals. The other was a $25,000 contract to DTN Tech for business services.
Per the report, “we also noted payments [from Abound] made to Perfume River Restaurant, a subcontractor involved in the former District 1’s misconduct, as well as potential related party transactions made to certain subcontractors.” The report also argues “there was no documentation to support DTN Tech met the [eligibility] criteria.”
The Do matter points to the perils of “free” government money. Many reports nationally have questioned the wisdom of spending so much public money—and its inflationary effects.
We welcome any additional scrutiny, but it would be nice if government officials did a better job reviewing such spending before—rather than after—the fact.