Tuesday, December 30, 2008
Why is the Board ineffective and why are so many meetings "canceled?"
From en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption :
Corruption, when applied as a technical term, is a general concept describing any organized, interdependent system in which part of the system is either not performing duties it was originally intended to, or performing them in an improper way, to the detriment of the system's original purpose.+/- Read more...
Monday, December 29, 2008
Dennis Zine, Councilperson for the 3rd District, has quite an extensive Newsletter available on the District's site. In the Fall 2008 issue of ZINE LINE, Legislative Deputies Brian Perry & Chris Olsen offer up extensive and unbiased coverage of the October special meeting of Personnel Committee of which Zine is the chairman (the only coverage by "them", the City). Click here for the Fall 2008 Zine Line .
When's Part 2 of that Zine inquest, anyway?
We welcome your comments. Just make up a name if you don't want us or anyone to know who you are.
Sunday, December 28, 2008
Saturday, December 27, 2008
Let's rewind through 2008 and see what got done and what didn't, shall we?
At the end we'll have a snappy spreadsheet and a performance grade for 2008.+/- Read more...
An amazingly good article on the former Vick dogs. Probably won't change Archie Quincy's mind about Pitbulls, though...or Phyllis Daugherty's. Strange that 50 fighting pitbulls required $980, 000 in care (Vick's restitution) and Madelaine Bernstein spent $400, 000 on 15 dogs seized from Zsuzsa Blakely. ;)
We welcome your comments. Just make up a name if you don't want us or anyone to know who you are.
Thursday, December 25, 2008
Change is good. Change keeps us fresh and on our toes.
Goals are good. Goals keep us focused and help us to achieve what needs to be done.
The Board needs changes and goals.
Here are some we would like you to consider:
1. MORE MEETINGS-
You folks really need to have more meetings. Let's look at the Department of Animal Services as a company. Please, can we do that? Yes, we know you don't make any money at this-You do it for the animals and the people of Los Angeles. Well, we need more for nothing. If you can't give us more, please step aside and we'll find someone who can.
Your company has a budget of what? $21 Million?+/- Read more...
More Law Breaking and Wasting of Your Tax Dollars or "Dollars and Nonsense"
Recently, the L.A. Daily News began a series of articles on City salaries increasing, while our Mayor increases fees and other tid-bits for City Services and cries, "The City is broke!" Armed with the results of their Public Records request to Laura Chick, City Controller, the Daily News has given the People of Los Angeles a Christmas present in a year of tough financial times for all of us: a searchable database of City employees salaries. That's right! You can now see how much you're paying these folks to run your City. Try it. One can pull up salaries by name, department or salary range. I believe the info is current as of April 2008.
What did we learn from this database?+/- Read more...
Wednesday, December 24, 2008
More Law Breaking and Wasting of Your Tax Dollars:
Los Angeles Animal Services Board Secretary Ross Pool Violates
Califorina Public Records Act - AGAIN .
We know from reading Ed Muzika's LA Animal Watch that requests to Board Secretary, "Hoss Fool", for Public Records under the Califorina Public Records Act often go ignored and mishandled by Ross Pool, whose official title is now "Senior Management Analyst" (last salary as "Management Anylyst II" $71,032.72). Linda Gordon who is a "Senior Management Anayst II" makes $115,466.40.
It seems that Jeff's poor dog Stu's teeth have been rotting in his mouth since he first, in 2006, complained to Ed Boks and the Board in the form of an email blast complete with video postings on Stu's site at http://myspace.com/Save_Stu. No. they never did anything for Stu's teeth and wouldn't allow him +/- Read more...
Monday, December 22, 2008
Stu's Dad went and sent an email to the Commissioners and "Hoss Fool", Board "whatever", and asked for some answers to some of our most burning questions-- like:
- Why does Hoss state on every agenda that the Brown Act prohibits the Board from responding to public comments when that prohibition EXISTS NOWHERE in the Brown Act.
- Is this the same Brown Act that governs the City Council who has no problem responding to public comments?
- Why did the Board meet only ONCE in 4th quarter 2008 when 6 meetings are mandated by law?
- What happened to President Brown (he apparently quit in a huff after the "Ed Boks Trial" (link to video)on October 7?
- Is it a coincidence that the Board went dark for 3 months following the "Ed Boks Trial?"(link to agenda)
- Who's on deck to fill Brown's (often) empty seat?
show details 8:09 PM (1 hour ago)
Dear Mr. Pool and Commissioners:
I don't have an email address for Ms. Ponce so I request that you provide one.
Perhaps you are aware of the new blog at http://
Due to the postings there and elsewhere, it seems that there are difficulties with the Board holding meetings.
I'm writing to ask what they are.
If you like, you can consider this a formal Request under the California Public Records Act, in which case, I would expect a response within10 calendar days or by January 1, 2009. you have my mailing address or any of you are encouraged to respond by email.
A few questions concerning the Board meetings:.
1) Mr. Pool always places the following paragraph on meeting agenda documents:
Public Comments: The Brown Act prohibits the Board and staff from responding to the speakers' comments.
Some of the matters raised in public comment may appear on a future agenda.
I have scoured the Brown Act (attached for your convenience) but can find no mention of this prohibition.
In fact, City Council permits Councilpersons to respond to public comments in 50 words or less.
- Please cite the code section or provide a copy of the Board Resolution or Motionwhich prohibits Commissioners from responding to public comments,
- or in the alternative, immediately remove this paragraph from your agendas and place in its steadwording that would let the public know what manner of address a Board Member may use in responseto public comment.
- Even better, place this question on your next agenda for discussion.
2) The following meetings are listed on your website as follows:
a. 12/22/08 "CANCELLATION NOTICE" dated 12/17/2008 -5 days before the scheduled meeting.:
Meeting canceled. Explanation: NONE.
b. 12/8/2008 "COMMISSION NOTICE" : dated: 12/1/2008 One week prior to the scheduled meeting.
Meeting canceled. Explanation: "NO MEETING HAS BEEN SCHEDULED BY THE BOARD OF ANIMAL SERVICES COMMISSION FOR DECEMBER 8, 2008. THE NEXT MEETING IS TENTATIVELY SCHEDULED FOR DECEMBER 22, 2008. PLEASE CHECK THE DEPARTMENTS' WEBSITE FOR THE NEXT COMMISSION MEETING TIME AND PLACE."
- What is the difference between a "Cancellation Notice" and a "Commission Notice?"
Really, the Board did not schedule a meeting? There is one for this day on the 2008 schedule which , I assume was approved by "the Board."
c. 11/24/2008 "CANCELLATION NOTICE" :
Meeting canceled. Explanation: NONE. Announcement Dated: NONE
d. 11/17/2008 "NO MINUTES"-
- Did this meeting take place?
- If so, when will the minutes be posted?
- Did the Board approve the 2009 meeting schedule which is in violation of Los Angeles Administrative Code Sec. 503?
- If so, why?
- On this agenda are approval of the minutes from August meetings.
- Does it really take 3 months to prepare meeting minutes?
- Did you really not know that the meeting was canceled until the morning of the meeting?
HAS BEEN CANCELLED [sic]. THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING WILL BE HELD ON MONDAY, OCTOBER 27, 2008 AT 10:00 A.M,
ROOM 1060, LOS ANGELES CITY HALL, 200 NORTH SPRING STREET, LOS ANGELES CALIFORNIA 90012
- * Interestingly, and coincidentally , this meeting was cancelled on the day following the Special Meeting on Oct. 7 held by the City's Personnel Committee.
- Who canceled this meeting and why?
- When will the Board fill that vacancy as they are permitted to do under L.A.A.C. Sec. 503(a)?
- Is Commissioner Riordan to be considered "acting" President?
Please provide them at your earliest convenience.
- The people really want to know who the Commissioners are and what their agendas are, if any?
These are my questions concerning the 4th quarter 2008. I will address other quarters in my next email.
Several writers , including myself, will be contributing will be contributing to BoardWatch and we are certainly looking
forward to answers to the above questions and explanations where none are given.
We believe that there is a lot of work to be done in the Department of Animal Services and would like to know
what is keeping the Board from doing that work--for the animals and for the people. I am sure that the Board
will gladly and timely answer the questions I've posed as they must all be very concerned about the animals in the shelters who are waiting for someone to help them. We have given up on Mr. Boks and the Mayor and now turn to you.
Thank you in advance for your cooperation and your dedicated service to the animals and the people of Los Angeles.
Jeff de la Rosa
BoardWatch general email box: laboardwatch @ gmail.com
Sunday, December 21, 2008
Cool! Thanks for the advance notice!
Let's check the law:
Los Angeles Administrative Code
(a) Officers. Each of the boards created in the Charter shall elect one of its members President and one Vice-President.Officers shall hold office for one year and until their successors are elected, unless their membership on the board expires sooner. Elections shall be held during its last meeting in July of each year, but the board may fill the unexpired term of any vacancy occurring in the office of President or Vice-President at any meeting.
(b) Meetings. Each board shall hold a regular meeting at least twice a month. All meetings shall be in a municipal or other facility open to the public.
(c) Action. Each board shall exercise the powers conferred upon it by the Charter by order or resolution adopted by a majority of its members. Action of the board shall be attested by the signatures of the President or Vice-President, or two members of the board, and by the signature of the secretary of the board.
Okay, the law is pretty darn clear: "Two meetings a month." That's the law, Commissioners!
The Board intended NOT to meet 24 times in 2008. In fact, the Board, as far as we can tell, only met 11 times or 46% of the meetings they were required to hold. Ed Boks loves this because it gives the board that many fewer opportunities to tell Boks what to do. More on that later. Yes, the Board is Boks's Boss and sets policy for the Department of Animal Services.
For 2009, the Board intends to Break the law some more and plans to meet only 21 times.
Well, we the People of Los Angeles are not satisfied and demand that the Board meet twice per month. Reschedule your meeting for another day if a holiday falls on the 1st or 3rd Monday. At Christmas or Hanukkah time, you can meet twice earlier in the month, no?
Is there not enough of the animals' work for you to fill two meetings per month? Catshit!
Don't you realize that the less work you do to effect change in this wretched Department of Animal Services results in more murdered animals? Huh?
You are hereby put on notice. Post your revised schedule showing that you will meet 24 times in 2009 by January 15, 2009. If you don't, we will make you meet the number of times that the law requires. Those pesky judges love to make Cities follow the law. We'll find one of those judges and get a court order
Saturday, December 20, 2008
The post below is entirely from Craigslist Typical Ed Boks PR blunder.
By now many of you have heard that LAAS is having a special adoption event at the East Valley shelter for 10 overseas puppy mill puppies confiscated on June 30, 2008.
What most of you do not know is that these animals were released from quarantine on November 5, 2008, which means all ten were legally available for adoption six weeks before Ed Boks is releasing them for adoption. Ed Boks will be keeping these ten tiny puppies for six unnecessary weeks in LAAS shelters. Why? Simple!
These pups became available election week, with news of the poor economy flooding the airways. The chance of getting these pups adopted was great, but by holding them for six more weeks in shelter cages until the Saturday before Christmas, Ed Boks could sell the ten for top dollar. We all know that even a failing economy will not stop determined parents from buying the perfect gift for the holidays for their youngsters. Boks will hit the pocket of the vulnerable consumer looking for the perfect gift to give their children on Christmas.
Ed claims that his reasoning that LA Animal Services is utilizing the City ordinance required adoption-auction process to help ensure that the new owner/guardians of these puppies will have sufficient financial means to afford the medical costs they are likely to incur over the lifetime of these animals.
Ed's reasoning is absurd. Since when does buying a dog for a high price equate to being a responsible owner? How many owner turn-in animals were bought in pet stores for a hefty price? If the puppies have medical and behavioral issues as Boks says, then why is the highest bidder the best home instead of screening for a home that understands a dog's medical and behavioral needs and has a stress-free home in which the puppies can acclimate after being deprived of socialization for so long? This is just another one of Ed Boks' methods of rationalizing his indifference to animals and his need for maximum media attention. It also helps him earn some extra money to cover up for the fact that he has still done nothing to increase LAAS' net licensing revenue.
Ten young pups have been living in city shelter cages since June 2008, yet Mr. Boks chose to keep them an extra six weeks in order to exploit them and to exploit Los Angeles public by withholding their sale until the time of year when more people are willing to pay a higher price. So there the ten puppies sit since June with no chance of foster or adoption per Ed Boks , no socialization other than shelter employees, not running around and playing during their formative months.
Why were these puppies not fostered in homes these last five months? Because Ed Boks was worried that the fosters would not return them once they became available. That would mean he could not increase his revenue and, more importantly, he could not be on TV. What does this say about Ed Boks' management if he does not trust himself to be able to get back his own fostered animals.
What is even more concerning is that as of this evening there are 250 puppies in LAAS. I can assure you they have not received the care that these ten "jetsetter" (Boks' term) puppies have gotten. Take a look at the puppy mill pictures (by a professional whose website is in the photo corner) and compare them to the approximately 250 puppies residing at LAAS as of this evening.
To add insult to injury, Ed Boks' self-serving plan also misses a great opportunity to save lives throughout all LAAS shelters. Ed Boks has all 10 puppies at one shelter. The problem is, he should have put some of the puppies in each shelter. This way, when the advertised puppy or puppies at each shelter gets adopted, all those adopters who were not the highest bidder will look around the shelter and fall in love with one of the 250 other LAAS puppies or 1,200 dogs and save one of those. This would give EVERY dog at EVERY shelter a chance to be seen and saved. But, by having all puppies at one shelter and thereby driving more bidders to the same location, the price will be bid up higher and Ed Boks will make more money. More puppies and dogs will die than had Ed done it right, but that is not Ed Boks' concern. Ed Boks will have taken more money from the public, and Ed Boks would have had all the media cameras at the same location where he could pretend to be the hero.
Your mixed up priorities let the animals down again. Merry Christmas Ed.
And just to add insult to injury....just because they go to the HIGHEST bidder doesn't mean they are going to good, caring homes!!!