Orange County supervisors continue resolution urging DOJ review of former supervisor’s plea amid heavy public comment

The Orange County Board of Supervisors on April 8 voted 4–1 to continue consideration of a resolution that would ask the U.S. Department of Justice to review the plea agreement and sentencing recommendation in the federal case against former supervisor Andrew Do, and directed county counsel to begin drafting an amicus brief ahead of the June sentencing.

Supervisor Janet Nguyen, who introduced the resolution with the chair, said constituents and victims deserve fuller review of whether the deal “allows additional charges involving other organizations that may have played a role” and whether newly disclosed material justifies reassessment. Nguyen told the board that some evidence and names cited in county audits were not included in the federal charging documents and argued the plea “does not reflect the gravity of the crime.”

The resolution drew sustained public comment from dozens of largely Vietnamese-American residents and veterans, many urging the board to press federal authorities for a tougher outcome. Phat Bui, who identified himself as a former Garden Grove councilman and chair of a Vietnamese-American federation, told the board he wanted recovered funds returned to District 1 and said, “no one should be above the law.” Other speakers described alleged misuse of COVID-relief funds and urged prosecutors to seek higher accountability.

Several supervisors voiced sympathy for the community’s outrage but disagreed about the board’s institutional role. Supervisor Katrina Foley said she shares the anger but raised legal and procedural concerns, including whether the county should move now or wait to present victim impact statements at sentencing. Foley said she was “concerned mostly about the delay in making the sentencing, in effectuating the sentencing, in finalizing this matter,” and urged careful wording that would permit review if new breaches of a plea agreement are shown.

Supervisor Don Wagner opposed the resolution in its current form, saying the board risks overstepping into prosecutorial and judicial domains. “It is not for us to… say, judge, prosecutors, go back on your word and don’t honor this agreement,” Wagner said, arguing the federal legal process should be allowed to run and that the board’s statement could undercut the role of the courts and prosecutors.

County staff told the board the plea agreement requires forfeiture of multiple properties and certain bank accounts and set a restitution payment due at sentencing; staff said some forfeitures and a restitution amount are identified in the federal papers but did not confirm whether all payments have been made.

After debate, the chair moved a new motion to continue the item to the board’s April 22 meeting to allow additional drafting and to authorize county counsel to prepare a draft amicus brief regarding sentencing. The motion carried 4–1. The board said the draft amicus should be available at the next meeting so the board can consider a unified, formal submission before the June sentencing.

The item will return for further wordsmithing and a possible vote on April 22; in the meantime county counsel was asked to begin drafting the amicus brief and to coordinate with staff on factual clarifications for the board’s consideration.