Tuesday, December 30, 2008

Corruption. What is it and how has Ed "Blagojevich" Boks Railroaded the Board?

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...

Corruption is essentially termed as an "impairment of integrity, virtue or moral principle; depravity, decay, and/or an inducement to wrong by improper or unlawful means, a departure from the original or from what is pure or correct, and/or an agency or influence that corrupts."

Based on the definitions above:
Ed Boks is corrupt and has corrupted the Board of Commissioners.

Example 1: The Board Goes Dark following the October 7, 2008 Special Meeting of the City's Personnel Committee (See video link to the left "Boks Trial").

Over 100 animal services employees (and another hundred or so rescuers, volunteers and activists rose up and told their shocking stories of Boks's and Barth's mismanagement of the department and retaliatory acts. Former President Commissioner Brown stated he was speaking "on behalf of the Board." Turned out he was not.

Brown quit the Board immediately thereafter. No doubt Brown will surface on another City Board in 2009.

The Board Went Dark

For 3 months.

Perhaps they met on November 17 but we have no verification of that.

Monday, October 13, 2008
Cancellation Notice Agenda

Monday, October 27, 2008
Cancellation Notice
Agenda & Appeal
Board Report Pet Insurance Contract Award
Board Report Mobile Spay Neuter Clinic
Board Report Request for Recognition for Dog & Cat Registries and Associations

Monday, November 17, 2008
Board report Request for Proposals for the Operation of a Mobile Spay/Neuter Clinic
Board report Six-Month Agreement of a Pet Health Insurance Sponsorship Agreement
Animal Registries

Monday, November 24, 2008
Cancellation notice

Monday, December 8, 2008
Commission Notice

Monday, December 22, 2008
Cancellation notice

Suspected reasons?

1. To make this Zine thing go away.
2. To silence conscientious now "acting president," Kathy Riordan.

3. To wait for the Mayor to install Irene Ponce who will do the Mayor's and Boks's bidding.
4. To wait for a new president to be installed who is not Kathy Riordan.

This is illegal. This is corruption.

Example 2: Board Goes Dark following the "Stu meeting."

Way back in August 2007 the Board placed on their agenda the matter of the dog, Stu, and considered whether he should sit on death row in the pound or at Bobby Dorafshar's K9s Only as a guest of New Leash on Life Animal Rescue. Boks blocked this agenda item for 3 months until he could block no more and the Board , led by Kathy Riordan and Marie Atake , was allowed to actually set their own agenda.

The Board considered sending a letter to the Court of Appeal but could not find support due to City Attorney putting the brakes on this. The Board voted unanimously to move Stu to sanctuary pending the outcome of his legal case.

The next day, the Mayor's office threatened Riordan and Atake with removal from the Board for actually doing their job. Atake quit in protest and Riordan remained.

Then the Board went dark.

Monday, September 24, 2007
Commission Meeting Canceled

Monday, September 10, 2007
Commission Meeting Canceled

Monday, August 27, 2007
Commission Meeting Agenda & Appeal
Commission Minutes

Suspected reasons?

1. To make this Stu thing go away.

2. To silence conscientious now "acting president." Kathy Riordan.

3. To force the resignation of Marie Atake who , shortly thereafter received a commendation from City Council.

4. To wait for the Mayor to install a new Commissioner who will do the Mayor's and Boks's bidding.

This is what Boks and the Mayor's office do when a controversial issue surfaces on the Board's Agenda. They slap the Board down and prohibit them from meeting.

This is illegal.

This is corruption.

If we were Illinois U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, who is prosecuting Rod Blogojevich, we would issue an indictment on multiple counts of corruption and other charges.

They think we are stupid or will not call them on their bullshit. Ed thinks he's bulletproof. Are they right?


Monday, December 29, 2008

Zine's Official Coverage of the "Boks Trial."

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 .

If you missed the video of the October 9, 2008 Boks Trial, see the new 'videos' link in the left sidebar. Our favorite speaker on the tape is (former) Board President Glenn Brown (near the beginning) who mysteriously and quietly resigned from the Board immediately after the meeting. So quietly, that he's still shown as "President" on the Commissions web pages. Following Brown taking a powder, the Board went silent for the rest of the year, save for one lone meeting.

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

Ed Boks, Jeremy Prupas and LAAS sued. Again.

On December 23, "Stu's dad", Jeff de la Rosa, filed suit in Los Angeles Superior Court (Case no. BS118411) alleging violations of the Hayden Law and +/- Read more

the Los Angeles Administrative Code. Named as individuals in the suit (as well as in their official capacity) are Ed Boks and new Chief Veterinarian, Jeremy Prupas who ordered Stu into non-emergency surgery under general anesthesia without Jeff's knowledge or consent. Malpractice insurance policy providers require that doctors of any kind who are named in a law suit must notify their malpractice insurance carrier.

In October, 2008 Jeff prevailed in a similar action to invalidate the Department's revocation of his dog license for another dog, "Maeve". Judge James C. Chalfant ruled that the City botched their hearing procedures by violating due process (14th Amendment), the Los Angeles Municipal Code and LAAS's own regulations. Jeff was awarded costs of the suit and depositions(which he prosecuted without an attorney)which will be paid by the taxpayers. To date, the City has not paid the judgment.

Since that court decision, Boks has stepped up his 3 year personal vendetta against Stu's outspoken dad and this time, again, he is taking out on Stu. Damages, if awarded in this most recent suit, will be in the five figure range.

While the Hayden Law violations refer to Jeff's dog, Stu, which has been impounded for 3 years and has been refused necessary veterinary care (See previous post The High Cost of Doing Nothing), the Administrative Code violations refer to the Board of Commissioners failing to meet as as required by Section 503 of the code. In 2008, the Board met (as far as is indicated on the LAAS web site, only 11 of the 24 times required by law. Because the Board failed to meet, Jeff could not bring his issues of Stu's medical care before them and was forced to take legal action to get Stu the care he needs and has needed for more than 2 years. Updated information can be found at the Court's web site by entering the case number BS118411.

BoardWatch has been informed that more lawsuits against Ed Boks and LAAS are in the preparation stages by various parties. Will the Mayor, sooner or later, see that Boks is not only a miserable failure at Animal Services, he is also a ticking time bomb and a legal liability? Read the lawsuit here.
We welcome your comments. Just make up a name if you don't want us or anyone to know who you are.

Saturday, December 27, 2008

REWIND: 2008 January 14 Board Meeting

"The Board lacks the power and the will..." - fellow LAAS Critic, December, 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...

Well, let's see...why don't we start with the agenda of the first meeting of 2008.
BW Comments in italics

Drum roll!

Commission Meeting Agenda for January 14, 2008
10:00 a.m. City Hall

President: Tariq Khero, V.P.: Kathy Riordan;Glenn Brown, Irene Ponce, Archie Quincey, Commissioners.

There are no posted minutes nor cancellation notice for this meeting. Ross Pool's job.
Did it happen?
We don't know.
If it did happen, here's how they would have spent the meeting--


No report filed on the Commission web pages. Ross Pool's job. It's okay, these are usually filled with skewed "euthanasia" statistics.

A. Approval of the Commission Meeting Minutes for November 13 and December 10, 2007

That's it! That's all the Commissioners had planned to address at this first meeting
of the year. Minutes from 2 months ago from a meeting no one can remember. Ross Pool's job.

B.Oral Report by the Commission on Meetings and Events attended.
Oh, and this too. Sorry.

Here's Ed Boks's agenda:

(That's Ed Boks-"rhymes with 'hoax'"- for you newbies-sounds serious!)

A. Policy to Guide the Handling of Permit Applications which include Elephant Walks and Similar Events for the Public (Revised Report)
"Policy to Guide the Handling"? WTF is that if you translate from bureaucrat(EB) doublespeak?

Here's the summary:
That the Board adopt requirements for issuing permits for elephants or other inherently dangerous wild animals, as detailed in the body of this report, and direct staff (that's EB-he likes to be called "staff". It's works well when the blame finger swings around if he who fucked up was not Ed, but "staff.") to implement the requirements immediately.

Basically, this is aimed at the very controversial "elephant walks" staged by Ringling Bros. Circus which a lot of us despise. Lots of rules and regs for the Circus: IDs for each elephant, health records, "dangerous" history of the elephant, if any, etc. This is instead of banning the elephant exploitation because, hey, it's profitable!*

What did they decide?

Who knows? No minutes. Ross Pool's Job.

We'll see when/if they come back to this. Also Ross Pool's Job-to keep things on the agenda until they are disposed of.


This is when they make a plan to talk about stuff they can do nothing about until they place it on the agenda for a vote or "board action." The "discussion" has to be placed on the agenda, prior to the meeting, too. No, it's good. They need to discuss things. This is when they usually ask "staff" (Ed) for more info or for a report to be generated which nobody has time to generate.
So, minimum time to get from discussion to voting= 6 weeks because Meeting 1 gets the discussion item on deck, Meeting 2, they discuss, meeting 3 they act --or not..maybe they need more info or forgot about the whole thing-it happens!

A. Update on City Attorney’s Draft of Revised Proposed Transfer Permit Ordinance
-Update report regarding Board’s modified approval to make Transfer Permit Ordinance apply to all animals.

Sheesh! That's Assistant City Attorney Dov Lesel, to you mister! This a new set of subsections in the L.A. Muni Code aimed at breeders and back alley animal peddlers. Pet stores and "other commercial" entities are exempt of course. Seems that the last time this was on in Nov. 07 (yes , 2 months ago), the board wanted to change it to cover "all animals, " not just dogs and cats. I sense Kathy Riordan in there. She's on top of it.

So, I guess this means that all non-commercial transporters of animals (who does that leave?) will be required
to purchase a permit and show where the animal came from and where its going. That little iguana has to be micro chipped, too. Yes, micro chip that snake and that little songbird in Santee alley.

• First offense-a warning.
• No permit 5 days after the warning-$500 fine.
• Still no permit in 45 days-A misdemeanor which the City Attorney will not prosecute and no one will go to jail or pay a fine.
• How will they catch these folks smuggling animals or selling pit bull puppies out of a pick-up truck? Why, it will be "complaint driven", of course, and those ACO's[Animal Control Officer] will rush right out there and ...give a warning.
• Then they'll follow up in 5 days and write a $500 citation.
• Then they'll follow up in 45 days and arrest someone. Right!
This is busy work for the Board to keep them distracted and another headline-seeking lame idea from Ed Boks that would accomplish nothing. He's good at that.

5. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD - (Comments from the public on items of public interest within the Board’s subject matter jurisdiction and on items not on the Agenda.)

This is you. Speaking your mind for the animals. You get 1 minute on each item and 3 minutes at the end to vent.
You got the cancellation notice, didn't you? Sorry, maybe Ross will pick up that $20 parking tab.

Requests from Commissioners for future Agenda Items.

Did they make any? No idea. No minutes of this meeting, if it ever took place.

Next Commission Meeting is scheduled January 28, 2008, at Los Angeles City Hall, 200 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, California 90012.

[END OF AGENDA] (11:30 already?)
Issues resolved: NONE (we don't count approving the minutes of past meetings).
Preview of 1/28/08: NONE of the above items are revisited.
BoardWatch Meeting Rating: F

We know, it's painful-- but stay with us. We don't get paid for this either.

*Care about Elephants?
Assembly Bill 777 which would have toughened the elephant cruelty lawin California died January 31, 2008- right around this meeting time. Ed Boks is a headline-seeker which is why, knowing that Sacramento would not pass this bill, he sought to be the elephant hero for L.A. Not a bad thing, but his motives are suspect. Remember the painted elephant for which Boks signed the permit ?

We welcome your comments. Just make up a name if you don't want us or anyone to know who you are.

Sports Illustrated Nude Cover!

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

Does the Board of Commisioners have Goals for 2009?

Changes and Goals.

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:

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...

Can you really run a company of that size on 2 meetings per month which last about 3 hours?We don't think so- At least we haven't seen you do it very well. Yes, we know those appeal hearings wear you out and then you just want to go home.
Well, how about you have appeal hearings before only 2 of your 4 meetings per month? Yep, we'd like you to meet 4 times per month. Why?

A. So many of your topics, goals and requests from "staff" never get any follow up. That's why. No follow up = no change and no goals met. You need to be able to say, "Get this to us next week" or "What can you have done by next week?"

B. Ed Boks needs a shorter leash. Seems every time there's a lapse in meetings, Ed executes a new lame-brained scheme that you find out about on Craigslist when you should have discussed that scheme and voted on it.
Can you say "Auctions for asian puppy mill dogs?" "How about "free dogs?" Hooters for Neuters anyone?
Yes, a shorter leash is what is needed to reign this out-of-control and rogue General Manager in. Is he speaking for you at those "press conferences?" You guys approve of everything he does, right?

C. There's a lot of work to be done and it's not getting done. It certainly didn't get done in 2008 with 11 meetings.

2. FIND A NEW BOARD SECRETARY- For those of you who have been to meeting, Ross Pool is the current Board Secretary and has been for ...jeez...how long? Anyway, Pool is useless. He make more that $70, 000 a year and is not doing the Board's work. Who is following up on all those issues you need more info about? Nobody.

A. Minutes should be prepared by the next meeting and posted on that day. No minutes means we don't know what you're doing or not doing--Just the way Boks likes it.

B. Pool is all the way up Boks's nasty butt. You need a Board Secretary who is doing the Board's work, not Ed's. Yes, the Admin. Code says the GM chooses the Board Secretary, but you can still express your disatisfaction and select an alternative. How 'bout one of those 30 managers who voted "No Confidence in Boks."

C. Pool thinks he's a Commissioner or at least he acts like he has power.

D. Where are the resolutions and motion that you passed in 2008 , 2007, 2006, 2005? Every one was signed by the Pres or VP , right? Just like the Admin Code (the law) says. Let's get those up on the web site, Can we?

3. REVAMP YOUR AGENDA PROCEDURE. Who makes these agendas, anyway--Ed Boks? We thought the Board sets their agenda. Tell us we're not wrong. If the Board doesn't set it's own agenda, then what are you doing there? By law, agendas must be posted on Friday before the meeting. In order to prepare for your meeting, you can't possibly not know what's on the agenda until Friday before. Right? Seems that you'd know at least part of your agenda for the next meeting at the end of the current meeting. In the minutes I've read, I don't see you placing items on the next agenda.

To be continued...

We welcome your comments. Just make up a name if you don't want us or anyone to know who you are.

The High Cost of Doing Nothing Part II

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?+/-

That 25 Los Angeles Animal Services employees are paid, from your tax dollars and your sanitation fees, etc., over $70, 000 per year! I know, you wish you would have dedicated your life to civil service! 14 of these folks are making over $90,000 and 6 are making over $100,000, yet we see miserable results in the improvement of care for the animals and a dismal success rate in the "No Kill" goal which Ed Boks has stated we've already achieved. These high priced civil servants are not the hard working folks you meet at the shelters who are actually doing the daily work of caring for our abandoned and sick animal friends--they are the Management. Let's remember that the Commissioners are paid nothing but are charged , by the Administrative Code with running this band of overpaid failures.

So, with all these well-compensated managers sucking in millions of dollars they can't seem to do what the law says the must do. This series focuses on two issues: Violations of the California Public Records Act and the neglect of an dog held in impound for 3 years while his owner battles the goons in Court.(See item #3).

Stu, the dog in question was impounded on September 16, 2005. Here's a time line and summary of the ordeal of an innocent dog:

August 2005: Jeff de la Rosa flies home to Ohio to his dying mother's bedside. Due to his urgent departure, he leaves his dogs in the care of his employee, Tatiana Edwards, at his rented building until he can make arrangements for boarding. Something Edwards does or doesn't do instigates a fight between two of the dogs that don't fight normally.
Stu's ear is torn in the fight. Edwards gets instructions from Jeff on what to do and she ignores them. Instead, she locks Stu in a small office and corners him. She attempts to slide a harness over Stu's injured ear and he bites her arm. Twice. She does not report the bite and makes an agreement with Jeff to cover her medical expenses.

September 15, 2005: Jeff comes home and finds that Stu has been stolen from his locked kennel.

September 16, 2005: North Central Shelter calls Jeff and tells him that Stu has been "turned-in" by a private citizen. He is told upon his arrival at NC that LAAS has just received a bite report from Edwards (a month later and the day after Stu was stolen. Coincidence?) and Stu will be impounded pending an administrative hearing to determine whether he is dangerous and should be killed.

November 2005: Hearing Examiner Mossman finds that Stu is not dangerous but was provoked.

December 2005: Former GM Stuckey rejects Mossman's findings and declares Stu to be dangerous.

March 2005: Yes, 4 months later. Jeff appeals Stuckey's decision to the Board of Commissioners. On the panel, two lawyers (Tariq Khero and Debbie Knaan) and a Commissioner with a law degree who does not practice law, Glenn Brown. Jeff claims Mossman violated due process and refused to summon department witnesses. LAAS also denied Jeff's request to have Dr. Richard Polksy evaluate Stu so Jeff could use his report as evidence that Stu is not dangerous. These 3 legal geniuses fail to see that due process has been violated (prodded on by Dov Lesel, Assistant City Attorney-salary $173,136.96) and refuse to grant Jeff's appeal. Jeff's legal costs to date: $5,000.

August 2006: Jeff takes the case to Superior Court charging due process violations and abuse of discretion by the Board and Stuckey. He also takes his other dog's (Maeve-license revoked) to Superior Court charding the same due process violations. He is opposed by Deputy City Attorney Todd Leung (annual salary

Septmber 2006: Jeff visits Stu who is locked up in the "Annex" at the South L.A. "Shelter." He finds Stu filthy, tick ridden and with bleeding gums and a cracked tooth. He complains to Boks (annual salary $152,064.86) and the Board. They do nothing about Stu's health. Dr. Polksy examines Stu at Villalobos Pitbull Rescue and determines that he is not dangerous. Jeff complains and begs for medical care for Stu for the next two years. Cost to have Stu's teeth cleaned at this point-maybe $100.

June 2007: Stu now in jail 21 months. Judge David P. Yaffe (renowned wacko)
denies Jeff's appeal to overturn the Board's decision. Tatiana Edwards is paid a $300,000 settlement by Jeff's homeowner insurance company or two bites on the arm Boks posts defamatory statements on the LAAS website which are 90% false and grounds for a lawsuit (case pending and award paid from your tax dollars). He also published Jeff's home address. Jeff is harassed by anonymous visitors to his home. Jeff continues to complain to the Board and they do nothing about Stu's health care. His teeth continue to rot in his mouth.

December 2006: Boks orders a night time raid on Jeff's home. Two Animal Control trucks position themselves SWAT-style in the street and light up Jeff's house like Dodger Stadium. Charges? None. Boks denies it ever happened (on the phone to Lindy Greene). Your tax dollars spent harassing a private citizen because Uncle Ed Boks is waging a personal vendetta against an outspoken citizen.

August 2007: Jeff appeals Stu's case to the Court of Appeals. Filing fee $625. Fee is waived due to Jeff's depressed financial condition brought on by the above events. If not waived, you would have had to pay this to Jeff if he wins.)
The Board of Commissioners votes unanimously to move Stu to sanctuary pending his appeal. If he loses, he will die.
Still no medical care for Stu. Jeff also learns that Debbie Knaan has violated ethical practices and due process by contacting him prior to ruling on his appeal, forming a bias and failng to recuse herself from the appeal hearings. She tells two other Commissioners about this and lets them know that she is biased against Jeff-- again prior to her hearing his appeal.

September 2007: Stu now in jail 24 months or 14 years in human terms. City enters a contract with Bobby Dorafshar's K9s Only luxury pet hotel and spa (many thanks to Bobby and the Board). Still no care for Stu's rotting teeth. Over the next year, Stu's gums bleed all over the tennis balls he plays with. More pleas for vet care. More ignoring of those pleas.

January 2008: Stu has lost a molar tooth due to advances periodontal disease. Gums still bleeding. More letters from Jeff to Boks and the Board. They do nothing.

August 2008: Bobby emails Jeff and says LAAS wants to take Stu to the Shelter and put him under general anesthesia to clean his teeth. Everyone agrees that Stu would never return alive from LAAS and that an outside doctor should do this. No response from Boks. Jeff's legal costs to date $14,000 +.

October 2008: Jeff wins the case for his other dog, Maeve, without an attorney. City is ordered to set aside their decision because Judge Chalfant says LAAS violated due process (XV Amendment), LA Municipal Code and their own hearing rules. Ed Boks is noticeably pissed that arch nemesis, Jeff de la Rosa, has had a win in Court when Ed has stated on the City's website that Jeff's claim that Stu did not have a fair hearing is a false rumor.

November 2008: Ed Boks is served with the Court Order and Judgment re: Jeff's dog , Maeve. City must pay Jeff $736 for his costs in the winning case. That's your money and the animals' money.

December 5 2008: Out of the Blue, Boks emails Jeff (through "Hoss Fool") and and says Stu , "your little dog" needs a "teeth cleaning." He says Jeff has to pay. Jeff says Boks is responsible and LAAS has to pay.

December 6, 2008: Boks agrees, in writing, that Jeff's written consent is required to treat Stu or put him under general anesthesia. Jeff wants Stu to be seen by a veterinary dentist because his condition is so far advanced and because Stu is losing teeth. Jeff agrees for Stu to be seen by his local vet so that Stu can get some meds and a preliminary exam to see how bad it is-provided that Jeff be present and that Jeff sign consent forms. Jeff's letters here
and here.

December 13, 2005: Jeff finds out that they secretly took Stu to the wrong doctor and put him under general anesthesia with Jeff's permission. No blood test prior to surgery and no x-rays to determine the damage of 2 1/2 years of neglect by Animal Services (Ed Boks). Details in Part III.

In Part III, we'll deal with the legal remedies Jeff is seeking and see how Ed Boks and the Board have created a liability (lawsuit) where your money will be wasted.

Wednesday, December 24, 2008

The High Cost of Doing Nothing. Part I (or "Merry Christmas, Stu.")

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.

SHOCKING, I know. No wonder the City's broke. We are paying million$ in HIGH salaries to people who can't or won't or are not permitted to do their jobs.

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...

to have bones or chew toys which might have helped.

Well, more than two years later and after Stu has suffered for that long with pain, bleeding gums and now lost teeth, Jeff's at it again.

With renewed prodding (and because Jeff has had a win in Superior Court (see case BS104874) over his Constitutional Rights being violated by Stuckey-remember him?- and the Hearing Examiner George Mossman and Capt. Karen Stepp -remember her?-and Debbie Knaan-remember her?) LAAS has finally succumbed to getting what's left of Stu's teeth "cleaned." However, they did it without Jeff's permission (after they asked for his permission and he imposed terms) and PUT STU UNDER GENERAL ANESTHESIA WITHOUT FIRST PERFORMING A BLOOD TEST-also without Jeff's permission.

Ed Boks is burning mad because Jeff has beat the City in court, without a lawyer, and is about to do so again for Stu and himself. Cost to you , the taxpayer in the above case was $736 in costs plus many hours of your City Attorney's time. Attorney Todd Leung makes about $200,000 defending Jeff's legal actions over his dogs. Your money.

In Part II, we'll look at Boks's lies (with actual letters and emails) and most recent effort to prey on Stu and Jeff; and Dr. Jeremy Prupas's blunders and poor judgment (which may end up as being determined to be malpractice) and the Board's refusal to address this matter at the direction of Ed Boks , Dov Lesel and the Mayor's buffoons.

Merry Christmas, Stu.

Here's today's letter from Jeff to "Hoss" re: California Public Records Act.

Jeffrey de la Rosa

December 24, 2008

via EMAIL and FAX to: (213) 482-9511

Ross Pool
City of Los Angeles
Department of Animal Services
221 N. Figueroa Street, 5th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90012


Dear Mr. Pool,

On Wednesday, December 17, I wrote to Mr. Boks, Dr. Prupas and Board Vice President Commissioner Riordan and requested copies of the following Public Records:

  1. The contract executed in or about September 2007 between the City of Los Angeles and/or Department of Animals Services and Bobby Dorafshar’s K9s Only.
  2. All veterinary records for my dog, Stu, since 2005 including Stu’s exam and treatment at North Figueroa Animal Hospital which took place on or about December 4, 2008.
I received no response.

On Friday, December 19, 2008 I spoke with administrative assistant Maria Gomez ($74,103.12 per year) in your offices and again requested copies of the above records. Ms. Gomez informed me that I would need to speak with you about my request because you are “in charge of ALL the records; and she also said you had “left for the day.” She took my number and assured me that you would call on Monday December 22.

You did not return my call. I later discovered that you were actually in your offices at the time of my call on Friday and had not “left for the day.”

Today I telephoned your offices, shortly after 4 p.m. and spoke to you and renewed my request to inspect the above public records at your offices. You asked me when I wanted to look at them and I replied that I was near your offices and would come by before your close of business at 5 p.m. You replied, “I’m getting’ ready to go home” and attempted to put me off until December 24. When I arrived at your offices, you told me that you did not know where those records are located and that you would have to “hunt for them.”

Mr. Pool, I am not stupid, as you very well know. I have the right to immediate access to these records during business hours. It is common knowledge that my dog, Stu, is the most well-known dog abused by your department in recent history. Any fool would assume, and rightly so, that all records pertaining to Stu are within a few seconds of you and General Manager Ed Boks at your main administrative offices. It is equally unbelievable that you “don’t know where the records are” when you are apparently “in charge of ALL the records.”

As has been the case many times in the past regarding my requests for public records as well as those by others: You are in violation of the California Public Records Act, particularly California Civil Code (C.C.C.) §6253 (a) which states:

(a) Public records are open to inspection at all times during the office hours of the state or local agency and every person has a right to inspect any public record, except as hereafter provided. Any reasonably segregable portion of a record shall be available for inspection by any person requesting the record after deletion of the portions that are exempted by law.


(d) Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to permit an agency to delay or obstruct the inspection or copying of public records.

You have been aware of my request since December 17, 2008 and have done nothing to comply with it. After you disingenuously stated that you “don’t even know where they are” I asked you to specify which shelter may have the records so that I may go there to inspect them. You failed to furnish that information. Regarding the requested contract-- please be aware that public contracts are not excepted under the CPRA.
(San Diego Union v. City Council, 146 Cal.App.3d 947 (1983)).

Please also be advised that you and the City are now liable for damages, costs and attorney fees pursuant to California Civil Code §§1798.45-1798.48 You may be personally liable for damages as well as the City being liable for damages. If Mr. Boks has instructed you to “delay or obstruct” the inspection of these records, they are equally liable.

As you know, I have been for a very long time urgently concerned about Stu’s health and the delay tactics and cruelty by your department in these matters has caused me severe emotional distress which is compensable under applicable law.
When you are served with the court action for the most recent act of your habitual transgressions of the law, please do not misconstrue legal action as a withdrawal of my request.


Jeffrey de la Rosa

CC: Council President Eric Garcetti; Councilperson Dennis Zine; Councilperson Tony Cardenas; Councilperson Bernard Parks; Commissioner Kathleen Riordan; Ed Boks, General Manager ; Jim Bickart Edmund Brown, Attorney General, BoardWatch, LA Animal Watch.

Monday, December 22, 2008

First Contact: Looking for Answers- Or is Ed Boks Keeping the Board from Meeting?

Now he's done it!

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?
Here's the email. We'll let you know if they respond. Don't hold your breath:


Jeff de la Rosa

to Ross, Kathleen, Tariq, Archie, Dennis.Zine, Tony.Cardenas, Mitch,
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://laanimalservicesboardwatch.blogspot.com/

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.
  • 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?
  • Why?
e. 10/27/2008 "Cancellation Notice": Dated 10/27/2008
Meeting canceled.
Explanation: NONE
  • Did you really not know that the meeting was canceled until the morning of the meeting?
f. 10/14/2008 "Cancellation Notice." Dated: 10/8/2008- one week prior to the scheduled meeting THE BOARD OF ANIMAL SERVICES COMMISSION MEETING SCHEDULED FOR 10:00 A.M. ON TUESDAY, OCTOBER 14, 2008
  • * 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?
3) I understand that Mr. Brown has resigned from the Commission. What is the "official" reason for this?
  • 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?
4) We are seeking up to date bios for the Commissioners.
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.

Happy Holidays.

Jeff de la Rosa

BoardWatch general email box: laboardwatch @ gmail.com

Sunday, December 21, 2008

Board of Commissioners Announces Intention to Break the Law in 2009

Cool! Thanks for the advance notice!

Let's check the law:

Los Angeles Administrative Code

Sec. 503. Organization of the Board.

(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!

Every year, around this time, Board Secretary Ross Pool (aka "Hoss Fool") publishes the coming year's planned meeting schedule for the Board of Commissioners for L.A. Animal Services. In December 2007, Fool announced that the Board would not meet the required number of times due to holidays or whatever. Usually, and according to the published agendas, the Board meets on the 2nd and 4th Monday of each month. Last year, Hoss Fool posted a schedule that is in violation of the above law . Seems the Board and Hoss don't know there are those other pesky 4 days in the week which would gladly host their rescheduled Board Meeting. Who's foolin' whom, Fool?

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

LAAS's GM is Exploiting Puppy Mill Puppies for highest dollar

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!!!

Friday, December 19, 2008

spcaLA and Madelaine Bernstein

A request has been made for verification of information I posted on Ed Muzika's LA Animal Watch.

Share this blog...

Share |