Officials at the L.A. Homeless Services Authority (LAHSA) are refusing to release public records regarding allegations of high-level wrongdoing, including whistleblower retaliation, which resulted in $800,000 in taxpayer payouts to settle the claims.
A public records attorney argues that LAHSA’s decision to withhold wrongful termination and whistleblower retaliation claims, filed by two executives who left the agency in 2024, is clearly “unlawful.”
The employees, former chief financial and administration officer Kristina Dixon and data and IT director Emily Vaughn Henry, were terminated during Va Lecia Adams Kellum’s first year as LAHSA’s chief executive.
LAist commenced its records request over a month ago, following the discovery of an agenda indicating that the claims would be discussed at the March 11 meeting of LAHSA’s governing commission.
Meeting minutes indicate the commission settled the claims and stated that information would be “available upon request.”
As a public agency funded by city and county tax dollars, LAHSA is under pressure to comply with transparency obligations.
Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass and appointed city and county officials sit on the commission overseeing the agency.
According to David Loy, a public records attorney affiliated with the First Amendment Coalition, courts have often ruled that such records must be available to the public under the California Public Records Act.
“The fact that the claims have been settled — and taxpayer money paid out — makes it even more clear that the public has a right to see them under the law,” he stated, emphasizing that the records “clearly should be available to the public.”
Loy called LAHSA officials’ decision “unlawful.”
A second public records attorney, Kelly Aviles, echoed his sentiments.
“Imagine if it were otherwise,” she suggested.
“Employees could make allegations and claims about wrongdoing by an agency, and it could pay out hundreds of thousands of dollars — sometimes even millions of dollars — without the public ever knowing why?”
Aviles emphasized that such a scenario is entirely against the principles established by the Public Records Act and has never been upheld by the courts.
While LAHSA has withheld detailed claims documenting the allegations, officials eventually did release the settlement agreements outlining the payouts after multiple requests from LAist.
The agreements, which became effective last month, revealed that LAHSA officials agreed to pay Dixon $450,000 and Vaughn Henry $350,000 to settle their claims.
While the agreements listed the categories of allegations, they did not provide detailed descriptions.
Dixon’s settlement agreement asserted allegations of whistleblower retaliation, wrongful termination, defamation, libel, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
On the other hand, Vaughn Henry’s settlement agreement included allegations of race, gender, and age discrimination; harassment; failure to prevent harassment; whistleblower retaliation; wrongful termination; and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
It is noteworthy that the settlement agreements include non-disparagement clauses, prohibiting both Dixon and Vaughn Henry from making false and disparaging comments or opinions about LAHSA.
Both former employees chose not to comment on the matter.
LAHSA has cited several legal exemptions that it claims permit the withholding of the wrongful termination and whistleblower retaliation claims submitted by Dixon and Vaughn Henry following their firings.
One such exemption is attorney-client privilege; however, Loy argues that this does not apply in this instance, as attorney-client privilege concerns only communications between an attorney and their own client — not claims filed by outside parties.
“If there’s a threat to sue a public agency, that is something the public absolutely has the right to know,” Loy stated, affirming that the records requested by LAist “clearly should be available to the public.”
Additionally, California’s open government law, the Brown Act, mandates that legal claims must be disclosed to the public.
“Legal claims and communications threatening litigation against an agency shall be available for public inspection,” the Brown Act asserts, which Loy argues is also substantiated by court rulings regarding the Public Records Act.
Attempts to reach LAHSA’s attorney, Dan Kim, and his supervisor, L.A. County Counsel Dawyn Harrison, for comment on Loy’s assessment that their records withholding is unlawful have thus far gone unanswered.
Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, the only elected official on LAHSA’s governing commission, also did not respond to requests for an interview.
It’s important to note that governing bodies hold the power to override an agency’s attorneys and can order records to be released publicly if they believe records are being wrongfully withheld.
Adams Kellum, who serves as LAHSA’s CEO, similarly did not respond to requests for comment.
Adams Kellum’s leadership faced recent scrutiny following a pair of audits that discovered failures in tracking hundreds of millions in homelessness spending — issues that arose during her tenure.
Before taking on the CEO role, she had briefly advised the mayor under a $60,000 consulting contract.
LAHSA’s withholding of public records is not limited to the settled claims, as the agency has also communicated to LAist that it will not release any legal claims or public lawsuit filings pending a settlement, citing the “pending litigation” exemption.
However, Loy points out that courts have ruled this exemption is not applicable to legal claims.
Moreover, public lawsuits are already accessible in court.
“It’s absurd. It’s dead wrong,” Loy stated of LAHSA’s stance.
Guides from the state attorney general and California Special Districts Association further clarify that agencies cannot invoke the pending litigation exemption to withhold legal claims.
After LAist identified the inconsistencies in LAHSA’s responses, the agency’s attorneys modified their assertion, stating they hadn’t withheld any lawsuits or legal claims but “may” withhold them under the pending litigation exemption as they continue reviewing documents.
The issue of public records withholding poses financial risks to taxpayers.
From 2016 to 2020, the city paid $1.7 million to settle public records lawsuits.
This figure does not account for the costs incurred from the city’s own legal representation.
LAHSA has previously faced a public records lawsuit in 2022 from CalMatters, after officials refused to disclose thousands of incident reports of serious issues reported in shelters.
In that instance, LAHSA invoked attorney-client privilege as justification for withholding the documents, despite the reports being created by shelter contractors rather than attorneys.
After several months of legal proceedings, LAHSA settled the case by agreeing to release 175 of the reports every two weeks.
Recently, LAist inquired about the taxpayer money spent by LAHSA on legal costs associated with the CalMatters case.
A spokesperson for LAHSA indicated that the agency did not have records of these costs, as payments were made directly by the county through the county counsel’s office that represents LAHSA.
On March 26, LAist reached out to Harrison to ask about the legal costs entailed in the CalMatters case.
However, three weeks later, there has been no response regarding the costs.
Initially, Harrison’s office had promised to provide this information by April 7, only to extend the deadline to April 21.
image source from：https://laist.com/news/politics/lahsa-setttlement-bass-payout-employee
