"Scandal-Scarred City Hall Remains Opaque, Paranoid and Bureaucratic" by Daniel Guss

Daniel Guss - @TheGussReport

- LA City Hall has carved for itself an ignominious place in the recent annals of local political history. Some of its politicians went, or are headed, to federal prison with their bag men or, if you prefer, bag people of indeterminate identity. Four other power players destroyed their lives when busted as racist, anti-Semitic and homophobic. Agencies, like LADWP, LAPD and LAFD, to name a few, are embroiled in one scandal after another.

Things have been so bad that you would think that those remaining in, or rising to, power would opt for the simplest, cheapest way to build public confidence: Transparency.

But at 200 North Spring Street, transparency is as welcome as yours truly. Following is what happened when I recently set out to answer this simple question: Are the types of free cars that we provide City Hall’s 18 elected officials consistent with their public declarations about global warming, fossil fuels and electric vehicles?

Toot Toot, Hey, Beep Beep!

On February 3rd, I submitted this bare bones request to Tony Royster, General Manager of the General Services Department, which oversees purchases of those vehicles. As a courtesy to him, I only requested information in a media request rather than documents in a public records request, since that would require laborious locating, screening and scanning of those documents.

In fact, my request could have been satisfied with just a few mouse clicks.

The Guss Report’s 2/3/23 Media Inquiry to Los Angeles Dept of General Services

As if on cue, Royster improperly treated it like a public records request, triggering a mandatory response, which he waited the maximum 10 days to send, at which point he curiously advised that he needs an additional 14 days due to “unusual circumstances,” citing Government Code section 6253(c)(3).

LA Dept of General Services’ 2/13/23 response to The Guss Report

Gotta love the 48-point signature.

That phrase, unusual circumstances, is a symptom of a paranoid, wasteful government that has, “the need for consultation ‘among two or more components of the government agency having substantial subject matter interest’ in the determination of the request.”

Actually, no.

This is public information, and we have a right to know. Royster refused to respond to either of my follow-ups about who are the parties he claims have this “substantial subject matter interest.”

Tony Royster, GM, LA Department of General Services

The only interest that City Hall bureaucrats have is whether honest reporting embarrasses politicians who don’t walk their talk about electric vehicles when it comes to their own inconvenience.

There’s a reason why Royster raked in $377,544 in salary and benefits in 2021, the most recent year his remuneration was reported. It has less to do with purchasing expertise as it does with saturating himself in City Hall’s culture of protecting their own at the expense of the public’s right to know.

In case you’re wondering, in his four most recently reported years, 2018-21, Royster hauled in a whopping $1,455,470. Remember when the idea of a government job was a trade-off between job stability and lower-but-comfortable wages?

But I digress.

So this simple inquiry has to wait up to 24 days.

Clearly, these “unusual circumstances” call for a costly deep-dive by a team of deputy city attorneys whose purpose-driven lives are drenched in Government Code section 6253(c)(3).

Now those are lives well-lived!

Truth is, that is why I submitted this request as shown above; to demonstrate the obnoxious degree to which City Hall will squander resources — and time — for no reason other than its twin habits of obfuscation and opacity. Just as is the case at the LAPD, where virtually every records request is designated as triggering an “unusual circumstances” delay.

I’ll report back, presumably in a few weeks, on who drives what vehicle, at what cost and how it is powered. But we will also revisit this pointless squander when Royster asks City Council for more money during the next budget hearings.

ICYMI: Royster only promised to respond by February 27th, as required by law. But if he fails to provide the goods, we’ll start knocking on Council doors.

Let the games begin.

Follow me on The Twitters @TheGussReport.

(Daniel Guss, MBA, was nominated for three 2022 LA Press Club awards and was a runner-up in 2021 and 2020. He is City Editor for Mayor Sam, Featured Contributor for CityWatchLA, KFI AM-640, iHeartMedia, 790-KABC, Cumulus Media, KCRW 89.9 FM, KRLA 870 AM, Huffington Post, Los Angeles Daily News, Los Angeles Magazine, Movieline Magazine, Emmy Magazine, Los Angeles Business Journal, Pasadena Star-News, Los Angeles Downtown News and the Los Angeles Times in its sports, opinion, entertainment and Sunday Magazine sections among other publishers.)