Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Homelessness And Contracts topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents press Orange County on homelessness, mental‑health contracting and Maximus contract at public comment
Summary
Multiple public commenters urged action on homelessness and raised concerns about the county’s mental‑health contractor (Mind OC) and a vendor, Maximus, citing a county audit, alleged subcontractor failures, data‑security worries and a call for better oversight.
Residents used the board's public‑comment period to press the Orange County supervisors for stronger action on homelessness and mental‑health contracting and to raise questions about a recently approved contract with Maximus.
Jackie Cordova, who identified herself as a mother from Santa Ana, said 33 people died without fixed shelter in Orange County in August and criticized the county’s handling of mental‑health services. Cordova cited a county audit she said found that Mind OC failed to ensure proper staffing and oversight of subcontractors, flagged questionable billing and raised other program‑management concerns. "We have all failed our people," she said, and urged the board to address the findings.
Another speaker — identified at the podium but not named in the public record — urged the county to "get rid of Maximus," raising alarms about a contract the speaker said had been approved in August and then deleted as item 27. The commenter alleged the company would have access to county computers and records, referenced public reporting of past data breaches, and questioned how the contract had been authorized. The board did not act on the allegations during the meeting; the comment period is not a forum for making administrative decisions.
Speakers also directed questions to county systems for filing claims related to the airport fire; the clerk was asked about forms and timelines for victims seeking compensation.
The public comments underscored community anger over homelessness and demanded more transparency and oversight of contractors and county programs. No formal board action was taken during the public‑comment period; the chair repeatedly reminded speakers that comments must be within the board’s subject‑matter jurisdiction and limited to three minutes.
