Potential Destruction of Public Records by LA City Exposed: A Threat to Transparency and Accountability

RECORDS DESTRUCTION - The Washington Post’s slogan, “Democracy Dies in Darkness,” highlights the importance of transparency, ethics, and institutional integrity in preserving democracy. This principle is equally vital at the local level, as demonstrated by a concerning situation in Los Angeles.

I am a community activist in the City of Los Angeles. Recently, through a lawsuit filed by a group in my community of Mount Washington, we discovered that for about 15 years, the City has used Google Collaboration Services for its employees, but it might not be retaining all the electronic records generated. The City’s attorneys have informed us that Google Chats, similar to instant messaging services, may be automatically deleted within 24 hours. However, they have not confirmed whether the City’s Google system is configured to destroy these conversations without archiving them.

In 2009, Randi Levin, then General Manager of the City’s Information Technology Agency, led the transition from the GroupWise email system to Google Apps Premier Edition (GAPE), a groundbreaking move for a government agency of Los Angeles’s size. This suite of applications enabled City employees to collaborate more effectively, and the City received positive recognition for this innovation. The history is set forth in a City Digital Strategy Document stating that Google Workspace Apps would be rolled out to up to 22,000 employees in 2021.

However, the recent admission by the City’s attorneys that Google Chats and other documents might not be saved is deeply troubling. If the City is destroying public records, it undermines transparency and accountability to its constituents. Additionally, if the City has configured Google’s controls to delete evidence in anticipation of litigation, this could be seen as an attempt to avoid producing potentially incriminating documents. Alternatively, if all records are saved and the City’s attorneys are not disclosing this, it is equally alarming.

The ethical implications of City attorneys endorsing policies that could destroy evidence are severe. It raises concerns about the integrity of public institutions, especially in a post-Trump era where trust in government is already fragile.

My involvement in this issue stems from a case that questions the City’s compliance with land use and constitutional fair hearing requirements. However, this situation has broader implications, potentially affecting many types of litigation against the City, from civil rights cases to slip-and-fall claims. Google Collaboration applications allow City employees to communicate outside traditional email, which is archived. If these communications are not being preserved, it violates state law requiring the retention of public records.

Our City’s elected officials—including the Mayor, City Council, City Attorney, and City Controller—are responsible for overseeing the City’s bureaucracy, including its attorneys. The possibility that records could be destroyed without proper oversight is a serious concern. We are demanding that the City provide the relevant records in our case, but the reluctance of City officials to lose this potentially unarchived communication channel is worrisome.

Leaders of Neighborhood Councils, members of the California Legislature, editorial boards, non-profits like the League of Women Voters, and advocacy groups should share our concern that the City might be destroying records in Google’s Workspace applications, especially when Google designed its archiving tool, Google Vault, to save everything. The City could be using taxpayer money to pay for Google Vault’s archiving service but deliberately bypassing it to maintain a secret communication channel. Alternatively, if records are being saved but the City is not disclosing them, it is equally problematic.

Key Questions That Demand Answers

To ensure accountability, here are eight crucial questions that every organization in the City should demand straightforward and truthful answers to from the City’s elected officials and attorneys:

1. Does the City of Los Angeles subscribe to Google Workspace for Government but intentionally fail to archive all electronic records created within the City’s domain, including Google Chats?
2. Google’s standard editions allow the Super Administrator to turn ON Google Chats History, meaning chats are saved for as long as Google Vault is set to retain them. However, the Administrator can also turn OFF this function, causing chats to be destroyed within 24 hours unless saved by the user. How has the City set up its Google Chats history on the Super Administrator’s Console page?
3. Given the City’s size, has it negotiated any custom modifications of the standard Google Workspace for Government edition that automatically fails to archive certain applications within the City’s domain?
4. If these decisions were made, who in the City authorized this policy, and where is the documentation of the decision to destroy public records within 24 hours after their creation?
5. When was the decision to program the City’s Google Workspace Domain to potentially destroy records first made, and who in the City Attorney’s office advised that this was consistent with the City’s duty to preserve public records for at least two years, as required by Government Code section 34090(d).
6. When litigation is initiated against the City, do its attorneys inform opposing counsel that Google Workspace for Government archives all, or should archive all, electronic activity within the City’s domain.
7. If the City’s attorneys know of relevant evidence held in the City’s Google Archive but are not disclosing its existence, should this be allowed to continue under the oversight of elected City officials or the state’s court system?
8. If the Google Administrator’s Console was set to destroy evidence in any litigation against the City, should this practice continue under the oversight of our elected officials or the state’s court system?

Background on Google Collaboration Applications

The City initially entered a five-year contract to implement Google Collaboration Services, transitioning between 17,000 and 30,000 employees from the GroupWise email system to a unified Google workspace. The contract was amended multiple times, reflecting Google’s evolving suite of tools tailored for government agencies. By 2011, the City transitioned to “Google Apps for Government” (GAFG), a specialized suite for governmental users.

Google Workspace for Government includes a range of applications—Gmail, Meet, Chat, Calendar, Drive, Docs, Sheets, Slides, Forms, Sites, Keep, and Apps Script—along with Admin, Endpoint, and Vault for managing and archiving records. Unless the City can produce documents showing that it is not a standard government enterprise user, we must assume it receives these applications for its up to 30,000 users.

While Google Workspace offers many benefits for collaboration, the City’s bureaucracy must remain accountable for lawful record retention and the ethical production of evidence in litigation.

Demand for Answers

Your organization is urged to join the call for the City to answer the eight questions above, along with any other relevant inquiries. I provide a template letter for your organization to consider and use. [Scroll down.] We must hold City officials accountable if, as the City’s attorneys have implied, Google Workspace public records are being either destroyed or their existence hidden from the public and litigants. Our organization, the Crane Boulevard Safety Coalition which uncovered this information through litigation, needs financial support (Go Fund Me Page) to conduct more depositions of City officials involved in this possible records destruction. No amount is too small.

We must ensure that our City does not continue destroying public records or denying litigants access to all existing evidence. If we allow this to happen, our local democracy will indeed die in darkness.

(Mark Kenyon, a 40-year resident of Los Angeles, has dedicated much of his life to land use, housing, and environmental issues. He served as the Executive Director of North East Trees for over a decade before retiring earlier this year.)

Here is a letter for your organization to send to city officials from your organization.  It’s ready for you to Cut and Paste and send out.

[Date]

Hon. Karen Bass, Mayor ([email protected])

Hon. Paul Krekorian, City Council President ([email protected])

Hon. Hydee Feldstein Soto ([email protected])

Hon. Kenneth Mejia ([email protected])

c/o Holly Wolcott, Los Angeles City Clerk ([email protected])

RE:  Investigation Whether (1) The City Is Destroying Public Records, or (2) Archiving Them But Not Disclosing That Fact To The Public Or Litigants

TO:  City of Los Angeles Elected Officials:

I write on behalf of the above listed organization.  We request that the City Council President open a Council File to inquire into the subject of this letter.  I also ask that the City Clerk distribute a copy of this letter to each member of the Los Angeles City Council.

An article published by City Watch Los Angeles recently called attention to the possibility that the City is either setting the controls of its Google Workspace documents to destroy public records before the two year minimum retention period set by state law, or setting the controls of Google Workspace documents to archive all such documents, but then failing to disclose the existence of this archive of public records in responses to Public Records requests or to litigants.  We share the concerns raised in the City Watch article.  We urge every City official to read the article and supporting materials cited and to investigate the current status of City records retention policies, how they are entered into the Google Workspace Super Administrator's console page, and whether deputy City attorneys and outside legal counsel are meeting minimum standards of conduct in fully disclosing and producing Google Collaboration documents in response to public records requests, discovery requests, and obligations to prepare full and complete administrative records in litigation reviewing City actions.

There are numerous questions that should be addressed by the City in its investigation:

1. Does the City of Los Angeles subscribe to Google Workspace for Government but intentionally fail to archive all electronic records created within the City’s domain, including Google Chats?
2. Google’s standard editions allow the Super Administrator to turn ON Google Chats History, meaning chats are saved for as long as Google Vault is set to retain them. However, the Administrator can also turn OFF this function, causing chats to be destroyed within 24 hours unless saved by the user. How has the City set up its Google Chats history on the Super Administrator’s Console page?
3. Given the City’s size, has it negotiated any custom modifications of the standard Google Workspace for Government edition that automatically fails to archive certain applications within the City’s domain?
4. If these decisions were made, who in the City authorized this policy, and where is the documentation of the decision to destroy public records within 24 hours after their creation?
5. When was the decision to program the City’s Google Workspace Domain to potentially destroy records first made, and who in the City Attorney’s office advised that this was consistent with the City’s duty to preserve public records for at least two years, as required by Government Code section 34090(d)?
6. When litigation is initiated against the City, do its attorneys inform opposing counsel that Google Workspace for Government archives all, or should archive all, electronic activity within the City’s domain?
7. If the City’s attorneys know of relevant evidence held in the City’s Google Archive but are not disclosing its existence, should this be allowed to continue under the oversight of elected City officials or the state’s court system?
8. If the Google Administrator’s Console was set to destroy evidence in any litigation against the City, should this practice continue under the oversight of our elected officials or the state’s court system?

The City most certainly benefits from the use of Google Collaboration Applications in the Google Workspace for Government, but the City's Elected officials should make the policy over the use of these tools and personally assure that all public records are archived, made available to public records requestors, and ethically made available by City deputy attorneys to litigants seeking review of City actions.  According to the information recently shared in the City Watch article, that may not be happening and such a condition warrants immediate public investigation.

Most sincerely,