On Feb. 24, the Orange County Board of Supervisors approved an extra $181,659 (Agenda item 29) for a temporary-staffing contract with HB Staffing. The contract period being paid for ran from January 2025 to January 2026. By the time the Board voted, it had been over for almost a month. Money got added to the contract after the fact: “retroactively”.
This was not a one-off. From January through mid-September, the Board approved at least 22 items that the County itself calls “retroactive,” without a single “No” vote or abstention.
A retroactive approval is OC’s version of “act first, ask permission later.” A County department lets a contractor start work, keeps paying under a lapsed contract, or accepts the conditions of a grant, and only afterwards asks the Board of Supervisors to approve what has already happened.
That’s not right, and County bureaucracy knows it. Its 2026 Contract Policy Manual (§3.1-108) says: “Retroactive contracts or contract overruns are not permitted.” The County cites the California Constitution Article XI Section 10: “a local government body may not grant extra compensation or extra allowance to a […] contractor after service has been rendered”.
The Board ratifying after the fact should be a rare exception, not a habit.
In August, the forensic auditors the County hired reported (slide 8) eight contracts whose services began more than 30 days before the contract was signed. A retroactive-approval request existed for only one of the eight. This year so far, I counted 22 items the County said were retroactive, but based on the auditors’ finding, the real number may be much higher.
The auditors’ recommendation: “[retroactive approvals] should be limited and include formal authorization documenting the retroactive contract approval and justification for retroactive approval.”
Thirteen retroactive items have the County paying: contracts, purchase orders, invoices. The majority came from the Sheriff-Coroner.
The other nine have the County receiving money, usually with strings attached: matching funds from County taxpayers, programs, deliverables. This year about $22 million in grant applications went to funders before Board approval, among them a $5 million road-safety application (June 23, page 44) that commits the County to a $1.25 million local match, a $2 million Sheriff application (June 23, page 61), and another $7.6 million Sheriff application (August 11, item 20). But OC policy requires Board approval before submitting an application.
I showed one contract in the photo. Here are two more jewels:
The Hub for Integration, Reentry and Employment. On June 23 the Board approved (June 23 minutes, item 64) a sole-source amendment raising the Hub’s annual funding from $550,000 to $800,000 (for a cumulative $2.15 million), retroactive by nine months. The agenda item never used the word “retroactive.” You had to open the staff report to find out.
Vertiq Software.On April 14 the Board approved (item 13) a brand-new software contract that had started on June 1, 2025, more than ten months earlier.
Our coastal neighbors do much better. I found only three retroactive contracts for San Diego County this year. For Los Angeles County, I found 19, but 15 were small fee waivers (parking and facility fees for schools and community events, totaling just $148,000). Only three resembled Orange County’s retroactive contracts. Retroactivity is not routine government practice. Our neighbors largely avoid it; OC has made it a habit.
In the County’s files, memo after memo blames “limited availability of Board meeting dates” (August 11, page 54). The Board used to meet most weeks: about 38 meetings a year in 2007 and 2008, with summer breaks of about three weeks. In 2016 it chose to cut back to twice a month. The lone dissenter, then-Supervisor Shawn Nelson, objected: “I signed up for a full-time job and you all did. I think this is a mistake.” This year the summer break lasted seven weeks. After June 23, the Board didn’t reconvene until August 11.
Sometimes the funder is late, and the summer break might cause an occasional delay. But neither explains a contract that ran ten months before coming to the Board.
When a contract starts without Board approval, the Board has lost its leverage. If the contract is already running, how can the Board challenge the price, change the terms, or enforce ethics rules? Approval becomes a rubber stamp on promises department heads already made.
And what about citizen participation? We have the right to speak to the Board about any item on its agenda. But we only find out about a retroactive contract after it’s already in operation, set in motion by department heads before any public vote. We can talk all we want, but it’s a done deal.
What needs to happen:
Label it. Every retroactive contract, payment or grant should be a separate agenda item, with RETROACTIVE in its description: not bundled with unrelated items; not buried under “other actions as recommended.”
Explain it. As the auditors recommended, each retroactive item should come with a written justification at the top of the staff report: why it is late (the funder, the Board’s calendar, or the department), who was responsible, and by how many days.
Count it. Keep a registry of all operational contracts not yet approved by the Board. Publish a quarterly count of retroactive approvals by department. Let’s see who’s tardy.
The Board of Supervisors should do its part: Meet when the County’s business needs it, including in the summer. And if a retroactive contract has no clear justification, the Board should just vote no.
Michael Mavrovouniotis retired from a research career in finance and academia.
Opinions expressed in community opinion pieces belong to the authors and not Voice of OC.
Voice of OC is interested in hearing different perspectives and voices. If you want to weigh in on this issue or others please email opinions@voiceofoc.org.
