The Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority (LAHSA) is under fire for allegedly withholding public records related to claims of high-level wrongdoing, including whistleblower retaliation, which resulted in an $800,000 payout in taxpayer funds to settle the allegations.
As reported by LAist, concerns have emerged over LAHSA’s refusal to disclose important documents regarding these allegations, despite legal experts asserting that such records should be available to the public under the California Public Records Act.
Public records attorney David Loy highlighted that the settlement involving taxpayer money accentuates the public’s right to transparency.
“The fact that taxpayer money was used to settle the claims makes it even more evident that the public is entitled to see them,” Loy stated.
LAHSA has argued that exemptions, including attorney-client privilege, justify their refusal to release the requested records related to whistleblower retaliation claims submitted by Kristina Dixon and Emily Vaughn Henry after their dismissals.
However, Loy asserted that none of these exemptions are applicable in this context, clarifying that attorney-client privilege pertains to communication between an attorney and their client, not to claims filed by individuals outside the agency.
LAHSA’s legal team, including attorneys Dan Kim and Alyssa Skolnick, has not addressed Loy’s detailed legal arguments made over a week ago concerning the withholding of records.
California law guarantees the public’s right to access government documents, which is reinforced by state laws and the California Constitution.
Specific laws, such as the Brown Act, mandate public disclosure of legal claims made against government agencies, including LAHSA.
Previous court rulings support this transparency—an appellate court decision against the Poway Unified School District mandated the disclosure of legal claims, underscoring that exemptions like attorney-client privilege do not apply to such requests.
Typically, local governments release legal claims without contest, and LAHSA has acknowledged it disclosed all other legal claims except those pertaining to the whistleblower retaliation by Dixon and Vaughn Henry.
The situation raises the question: How can these crucial documents be released?
One possibility is that LAHSA’s legal team might decide to revise their stance and disclose the documents, though this seems unlikely given the agency’s history of refusal.
Alternatively, legal action could be pursued, prompting a judge to order the release of the sought-after records.
However, such court proceedings can extend over several months and incur attorney fees that are ultimately borne by taxpayers.
Yet another route would be for a majority vote by LAHSA’s governing commission to override the attorneys and release the documents.
Historically, this has happened; for instance, the Santa Ana City Council acted similarly with a report regarding alleged misconduct previously withheld by their city attorney.
LAHSA’s commission consists of ten members, with half appointed by L.A. Mayor Karen Bass and the remaining half appointed by the L.A. County Board of Supervisors.
The commission has the option to convene a special meeting for a vote, with notice given just 24 hours prior.
However, the current position of the commission remains uncertain.
Attempts by LAist to obtain comments from Mayor Bass, the five county supervisors, and LAHSA commissioners have met with silence or refusal to comment.
Efforts to reach out directly to the commissioners through email addresses provided by LAHSA met with mixed results; many emails bounced back as undeliverable.
Moreover, the email address provided for Bass seems to be outdated and inactive.
Adding to the confusion, LAHSA’s attorneys initially indicated they would disclose the requested records, a claim later retracted after follow-ups revealed no such release had occurred.
Further clarification from attorney Alyssa Skolnick eventually confirmed the claims would not be released, a position that was upheld by her supervisor, Katherine Bowser, who declined to engage with Loy’s arguments against the refusal.
The ongoing saga surrounding LAHSA’s treatment of public records raises significant questions about accountability and transparency in the management of homelessness funding in Los Angeles.
image source from：https://laist.com/news/housing-homelessness/la-homelessness-lahsa-whistleblower-payouts-next
