LAHSA workers observe L.A. city sanitation workers removing a homeless encampment in Venice Beach.
(
Brian Feinzimer
/
LAist
)
Officials at the homelessness agency for the L.A. region are refusing to release public records to LAist about allegations of wrongdoing at the top of the organization.
What we requested: Last month, the L.A. Homeless Services Authority settled wrongful termination claims by two executives terminated by the public agency, according to meeting minutes reviewed by LAist. LAHSA officials have refused to release the settlement records to LAist, citing several exemptions, including attorney-client privilege.
Why this matters: Courts have repeatedly ruled these types of records must be disclosed to the public under the California Public Records Act, according to David Loy, a public records attorney at the First Amendment Coalition.
Read on ... for details about what we know about the settlements and what LAHSA says.
Officials at the homelessness agency for the L.A. region are refusing to release public records to LAist about allegations of high-level wrongdoing — including whistleblower retaliation — that led to $800,000 in taxpayer payouts to settle the claims.
A public records attorney says the L.A. Homeless Services Authority’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 started requesting the records more than a month ago, after seeing an agenda showing the claims would be up for discussion at the March 11 meeting of LAHSA’s governing commission. Meeting minutes show the commission settled the claims and stated information would be “available upon request.”
LAHSA is a public agency funded by city and county tax dollars. Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass and appointed city and county officials sit on the commission that oversees the agency.
Courts have repeatedly ruled these types of records must be disclosed to the public under the California Public Records Act, according to David Loy, a public records attorney at the First Amendment Coalition.
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, Loy said.
The records “clearly should be available to the public,” Loy said, calling LAHSA officials’ decision “unlawful.”
A second public records attorney, Kelly Aviles, agreed.
“Imagine if it were otherwise,” Aviles added. “Just imagine, employees could make allegations and claims about wrongdoing by an agency…and an agency could pay out hundreds of thousands of dollars — sometimes even millions of dollars — and nobody would ever know why?”
“That is completely contrary to the Public Records Act and its intent. And courts have never upheld that argument or position — ever,” Aviles said.
The settlement agreements, which went into effect last month, show LAHSA officials agreed to pay Dixon $450,000 and Vaughn Henry $350,000 to settle their claims. The agreements list the categories of allegations but do not detail the claims.
Dixon’s settlement agreement says she had alleged whistleblower retaliation, wrongful termination, defamation, libel and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Vaughn Henry’s settlement agreement says she had alleged race, gender, and age discrimination; harassment; failure to prevent harassment; whistleblower retaliation; wrongful termination and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
The agreements say LAHSA officials did not admit to wrongdoing. They also include non-disparagement clauses that ban Dixon and Vaughn Henry from volunteering false and disparaging comments or opinions about LAHSA.
LAHSA has cited several exemptions that it alleges allow it to withhold the claims Dixon and Vaughn Henry submitted to LAHSA after they were fired — including attorney-client privilege.
But Loy says none of them apply. For example, attorney-client privilege is about communications between an attorney and their own client — not claims filed by an outside party.
“If there’s a threat to sue a public agency, that is something the public absolutely has the right to know,” he added, saying the records requested by LAist “clearly should be available to the public.”
The state’s open government law — the Brown Act — says legal claims have to be disclosed to the public, Loy said.
Legal claims and communications threatening litigation against an agency “shall be available for public inspection,” the Brown Act states.
Loy said that’s also supported by court rulings about the Public Records Act.
LAHSA’s attorney, Dan Kim, and his supervisor, L.A. County Counsel Dawyn Harrison, have not responded to multiple requests for comment on Loy’s analysis that the records withholding is unlawful.
Adams Kellum, LAHSA’s CEO, also did not respond to requests for comment. Adams Kellum joined LAHSA two years ago from Bass’ administration and announced earlier this month that she’s resigning. Her resignation follows a pair of scathing audits that found LAHSA has failed to properly track hundreds of millions in homelessness spending, including during Adams Kellum’s time leading LAHSA.
She became LAHSA’s CEO after advising the mayor for about six weeks under a $60,000 consulting contract, according to records LAist obtained through an earlier records request.
Va Lecia Adams Kellum of the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority with the current chair of the agency’s governing commission Wendy Greuel, left, and L.A. Mayor Karen Bass.
(
Office of L.A. Mayor Karen Bass
)
LAHSA is wrongfully refusing to release other records, attorney says
LAHSA’s refusal to release public records goes beyond the settled claims.
The agency also told LAist it was refusing to release any legal claims or public lawsuit filings that have yet to reach a settlement, citing the “pending litigation” exemption — even though the courts have ruled that exemption doesn’t apply to legal claims and lawsuits are already public in court.
“It’s absurd. It’s dead wrong,” Loy said of LAHSA’s position.
Legal guides from the state attorney general and California Special Districts Association also both state that agencies cannot use the pending litigation exemption to withhold legal claims.
When LAist pointed out the court rulings, LAHSA’s attorneys then changed their response to say they hadn’t yet withheld any lawsuits or legal claims but “may” withhold them under pending litigation exemption as they continue to review documents.
Taxpayers can face bills when officials wrongfully withhold records
When officials withhold public records, they can ultimately cost taxpayers.
The city paid out $1.7 million to settle public records lawsuits from 2016 to 2020, according to one tally — not including the city’s costs for its own attorneys.
LAHSA claimed attorney-client privilege in withholding the incident reports, even though the reports are created by shelter contractors rather than attorneys, CalMatters reported.
After months of litigation, LAHSA ultimately settled the case by agreeing to release 175 of the reports every other week.
Three weeks ago, LAist asked LAHSA how much taxpayer money they spent on legal costs fighting the CalMatters public records case.
A LAHSA spokesperson responded that the agency doesn’t have records of the costs because the costs are paid directly by the county through the county counsel’s office, which represents LAHSA.
LAist then reached out on March 26 to Harrison, the top attorney for L.A. County, to ask how much the legal costs were for the CalMatters case. Three weeks later, no answer has been provided about the costs. Information was originally promised by Harrison’s office to be delivered to LAist by April 7. Her staff later extended that deadline to April 21.
