Orange County Supervisor Andrew Do finds himself at the epicenter of a widening scandal, facing intense scrutiny over alleged nepotism and ethical lapses that go beyond the recently declared mistrial. Recent revelations expose a troubling narrative of questionable decisions, undisclosed ties, and financial irregularities that cast a shadow on the integrity of one of Orange County’s top officials.
Mistrial Fallout and Silent Response
The aftershocks of the mistrial declared on November 16 continue to reverberate, raising serious questions about Do’s transparency and candor. During an O.C. Board of Supervisors meeting, Do remained conspicuously silent about the mistrial and his undisclosed marriage to Assistant Presiding Judge Cheri Pham. The public is left to wonder about the true extent of these undisclosed connections.
Supervisors’ Conflicts and Controversial Votes
In the same meeting, Supervisor Vicente Sarmiento admitted to a family connection to the homeless services center case, a revelation that only adds fuel to the growing fire of public distrust. Despite vehement opposition from the community, supervisors voted 3 to 2 to approve another one-year contract for the homeless service center, further intensifying the controversy. The deletion of an agenda item aimed at updating ethics rules around contracting raises eyebrows and amplifies concerns about transparency within the county’s governance.
Supervisor Do’s Unanswered Questions
Amidst these controversies, Do and Supervisor Doug Chaffee proposed changes to the county’s conflict of interest rules, keeping the current definition of “immediate family.” Yet, Do remains tight-lipped about the most recent bombshell: his approval of funding, including $3.1 million in two subcontracts for a mental health center led by his daughter. This glaring omission raises profound questions about Do’s commitment to openness and accountability.
Key Details Emerge About Subcontracts and Viet America Society
Details have surfaced revealing that Do, without publicly disclosing his family connection, greenlit substantial funding for a mental health center led by his daughter. Shockingly, $3.1 million was allocated across two subcontracts, a decision fraught with potential conflicts of interest. Nonprofit contractors managing these subcontracts disavow responsibility, claiming the idea was suggested during negotiations with the county. Orange County spokespeople have yet to provide answers to inquiries about Do’s involvement in this murky process.
Concerns surrounding the handling of these subcontracts prompted a meeting among community nonprofit leaders, culminating in a call to the leader of L.A.’s premier Asian American civil rights group. Subsequently, the FBI was contacted, elevating the issue to a new level of federal scrutiny.
Do’s daughter, a law student at U.C. Irvine, appears to have limited work experience, listing a summer internship at a business law firm and a legislative internship at a mental health advocacy group on her LinkedIn. Intriguingly, her mental health center, Warner Wellness Center, operates under the DBA of the nonprofit Viet America Society, both conveniently sharing office space with Do’s private law office in Huntington Beach.
Financial Woes and Ethics Concerns Surround Viet America Society
The financial health of Viet America Society, Do’s purported vehicle for channeling funds, raises red flags. A warning letter from the state Attorney General in April 2023 pointed to delinquency and legal restrictions due to missing financial disclosures. Adding to the ethical quagmire, Do takes credit for allocating $4.2 million across two years to Viet America Society during a period when it was not registered as a nonprofit with the state, raising serious questions about potential violations of state law.
As the layers of this intricate controversy continue to unravel, Orange County residents find themselves at a crossroads, demanding accountability and transparency from those entrusted with public office. The coming months promise to be a litmus test for the resilience of the county’s ethical standards and the public’s faith in its elected officials.
