Illuminating City Hall’s PR

Los Angeles Mayor James K. Hahn, who is ordinarily so laid back as to be almost invisible, is known nonetheless as a fierce campaigner. That reputation was evident in his response to Thursday’s federal grand jury indictment of a former public relations executive for allegedly overbilling city agencies. Although the indictment is part of a growing scandal confronting his administration, Hahn turned it into an opportunity to attack challenger Robert Hertzberg.

The padded billings, first reported in The Times last year, are just one focus of a wide-ranging criminal investigation underway into contracting practices at City Hall. Former state Assembly Speaker Hertzberg, like the other challengers in the March 8 city primary, never misses a chance to bring up the allegations that contractors have been forced to “pay,” or make political contributions, in order to “play,” or receive city contracts.

It’s a legitimate concern, even if not many people outside of City Hall and the media seem to be paying much attention.

The indictment handed down Thursday did not implicate Hahn or anyone at City Hall in the alleged fraud. It accuses a partner and possibly others at PR agency Fleishman-Hillard of submitting at least $250,000 in false billings to the L.A. Department of Water and Power. Hahn is right in saying, via his campaign spokeswoman, that “the city and taxpayers of Los Angeles are the victims in this case. If these allegations are true, we deserve every penny back that was stolen from us, and the perpetrators should be punished to the fullest extent of the law.”

But the e-mail from Hahn’s campaign went on to highlight Hertzberg’s stint as a paid advisor to Fleishman-Hillard after he left the Assembly and to observe that “Speaker Hertzberg attended numerous meetings of Fleishman executives and DWP officials for which Fleishman-Hillard allegedly overbilled the city. Perhaps he can shed light on the billing procedures of his Fleishman colleagues surrounding the meetings he attended.”

We wish someone could shed light on why a public monopoly with its own in-house PR staff needed so much image-spiffing. We wish someone could clarify why the city kept pricey Fleishman-Hillard on the payroll long after the original reason for the contract -- the threat that the DWP would have to compete in a deregulated energy market -- had evaporated. We wish someone could explain the logic behind the PR firm billing the DWP $400,000 for organizing news conferences, speeches and press releases for the mayor’s office.

Under the circumstances, Hertzberg’s association with Fleishman-Hillard is no asset to his campaign, as any PR consultant would probably admit. But Hahn was the recipient of generous donations from Fleishman-Hillard and its employees, including $15,000 to his 2002 Valley anti-secession drive. He has welcomed the firm’s “free” public relations advice, filled his own public relations staff from its ranks and sent ex-aides to pasture there. If anyone should be able to shed some light on how the city found itself in this mess, Hahn should.