Comments
iAUDIT! - Some of my regular readers have asked me what the court-appointed homelessness monitor will do. For those who may not know, in June, federal Judge David O. Carter ordered the appointment of a court-approved monitor to oversee data collection and performance reporting for City homelessness programs. His ruling followed the release of an audit by the L.A. County Auditor/Controller and an assessment by Alvarez & Marsal that found neither the City nor LAHSA could produce reliable data about the number of homeless people they served or the services they provided. Initially, attorneys for the plaintiff (the L.A. Alliance for Human Rights) and the City agreed to appoint former City Controller Ron Galperin and data expert Daniel Garrie as joint monitors. [Full disclosure: I have done volunteer audit-related work for the Alliance]. But the City Council dragged its feet, delaying its approval three times in one month. In mid-October, the Alliance and the City finally agreed to Mr. Garrie as the monitor with City Controller Kenneth Mejia as the primary contact for the City. We can only speculate on why the City didn’t want Mr. Galperin as a monitor, but as Controller he often excoriated the Council for its lackadaisical oversight of homelessness programs. We could assume there were hard feelings among Councilmembers who thought they were rid of him.
Please understand Controller Mejia is not in charge of program monitoring. The court identified him as the “person most knowledgeable”, meaning he should be Mr. Garrie’s primary point of contact when Mr. Garrie needs information from the City. Mr. Mejia will not decide what data is needed nor how that data will be used. As a memo from Judge Carter’s Special Master Michele Martinez stated, “Mr. Mejia is tasked with facilitating data access and coordination at Mr. Garrie’s discretion”. This is as it should be since Mejia is an elected official of the City and has his own political agenda regarding homelessness policy.
The Special Master’s memo is a significant document because it clearly defines the monitor’s role:
“The Court reiterated that the Monitor’s role is not ceremonial or advisory. It requires:
• Real-time data auditing and timestamp validation
• Applied knowledge of data integrity and source attribution
• Verification that reported figures are supported by primary evidence
• Capacity to distinguish verified data from placeholders or estimates”. (p. 5 of the memo).
The memo is also significant because it provides another example of how the City is resisting any form of accountability for its homelessness programs. As the memo and an accompanying article in the Westside Current explain, the City should have provided its first tranche of data to the monitor on October 15. Instead, the City said “This Quarterly Report does not include information regarding the number of persons experiencing homelessness served by the current intervention opportunities. The City has not been able to collect and verify that information in the time provided to complete this Report.” The City offered no reason for not having the required data nor did it sate when it could provide the data. Bear in mind that in May, the City’s high-powered outside attorneys tried to discredit Alavarez & Marsal’s assessment--an assessment that said in part the City cannot produce reliable data for its programs.
Also bear in mind the City’s and LAHSA’s boasts about reducing unsheltered homelessness and about large increases in the number of homeless people served. As I said in a previous column, these numbers count processes, not people. The Special Master’s memo adds to the mounting evidence that the City has no idea how many unique people it serves, shelters, or houses. It is these types of data gaps that the court-appointed monitor is supposed to resolve.
Another interesting section on the Special Master’s memo is the recognition (p. 5) that the City continues to battle Judge Carter by appealing his June decision. Faced with a choice of providing the data that would back up its claims of success or continuing to hide behind its high-priced legal firm, the City chose the latter. The firm, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, has already rung up a $6 million bill fighting full disclosure of the City’s performance data, and that amount will no doubt increase as the case makes its way through the appeals process.
So, as the court-appointed monitor, Mr. Garrie certainly has much work ahead of him. He has been directed by a federal court to gather, review, and verify the City’s data, and to note where the data is lacking or questionable. Even before he starts, the City cannot produce the data required by the court months ago. He also has to deal with a Controller who has a political agenda and a propensity for publicity stunts. Through its outside counsel, the City has made it clear that it will, at best, begrudgingly turn over the absolute minimal data required while appealing his appointment. By approving a $6 million contract for Gibson Dunn, the City Council, who should be at the forefront of demanding accountability for the City’s $1 billion homelessness budget, has signaled it supports the City’s strategy of delay and obfuscation. There are some exceptions. The Westside Current article quoted Councilmember Rodriguez, “It appears the court's frustration is no different than mine. The city, nor the Mayor, are being forthcoming about the housing placements of individuals being served”. And therein lies what is perhaps Mr. Garrie’s biggest challenge.
Mayor Bass and a Council majority have made it clear inconvenient facts won’t interfere with their continued support for the status quo. Even when Mr. Garrie discovers where the City’s data weaknesses are, and makes recommendations for improvement, it is highly likely they will fall on deaf ears. It will then be up to Judge Carter to decide what to do. Will he appoint a receiver, as the LA Alliance asked in previous motions, and thereby risk yet more appeals and delays? Will he hand down more decisions to force the City to adopt Mr. Garrie’s recommendations? How long will City officials resist reform that should have been implemented years ago? For now, we can only speculate. But the mere fact a federal judge was forced to appoint a monitor to oversee program reporting that most public agencies regard as routine tells us how entrenched the forces supporting the status quo are. Mr. Garrie certainly has his work cut out for him.
(Tim Campbell is a longtime Westchester resident and veteran public servant who spent his career managing a municipal performance audit program. Drawing on decades of experience in government accountability, he brings a results-driven approach to civic oversight. In his iAUDIT! column for CityWatchLA, Campbell emphasizes outcomes over bureaucratic process, offering readers clear-eyed analyses of how local programs perform—and where they fall short. His work advocates for greater transparency, efficiency, and effectiveness in Los Angeles government.)
