Thursday, January 1, 2009

The High Cost of Doing Nothing Part III: Linda Barth.

Who knew, without being a real insider, why the shelter workers were calling for Linda Barth's head along with Boks's at last Fall's City Council Meeting and Special Meeting of Dennis Zine's Personnel Committee? Okay. We get it. Recent manipulative shenanigans by Barth Vader have shown us the light.

Let's first remember that Barth is paid $154,491.12 annually by you , the taxpayers. That was in April 08 though we believe she's gotten a raise since then.

I don't think we're straying too far from our mission by doing a little exploration of Linda Barth, Assistant General Manager for the Department of Animal Services. It is Barth who is often very outspoken at the Board of Commissioners meetings which are the subject of this blog, anyhoo.

While glittering generalities are fine, sometimes specific evidence of a person's character and job performance are necessary in order to understand whom--
or what--- we are dealing with.+/-

Case in point:

The December 22 email from me to the Board and Board Secretary.

from Jeff de la Rosa
to Ross Pool
cc Kathleen Riordan
Tariq Khero
Archie Quincey
Dennis Zine
Mitch O'Farrell (Eric Garcetti's staff)

date Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 8:09 PM

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

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 within 10 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 Motion which prohibits Commissioners from responding to public comments, or in the alternative, immediately remove this paragraph from your agendas and place in its stead wording that would let the public know what manner of address a Board Member may use in response
to 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 HAS BEEN CANCELLED [sic]. THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING WILL BE HELD ON MONDAY, OCTOBER 27, 2008 AT 10:00 A.M,

* * 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 cancelled this meeting and why?

3) I understand the 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 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:

Here's Barth's December 24 2008 letter regarding my request. Click the letter to enlarge.

You can read the California Public Records Act for yourselves here, including the real Section 6255, which Barth seems to have re-written all by her lonesome.

Interesting points:
1. Pool forwards emails addressed to the Board to Boks and Barth. That's a no no. No?
2. They really don't like these questions. If they answer these "unduly burdensome" questions, it might reveal what is really going on with the Board and Boks's apparent control over them.

You may recall from previously posted parts of this series that I--the bane of the Department's existence--have been trying for 3 years to get proper care for my Stu. Most recently, it seems that my Stu's teeth are rotting and falling out of his head, yet Boks refuses to allow him to be seen by a veterinary dentist without a contract that I will pay for the damage which Boks has caused. Through recent correspondence to Boks, etc., I requested certain Public Records. None of those requests have been honored.

My reply to Barth--

Jeffrey de la Rosa

December 31, 2008 via EMAIL and FAX

Linda Barth, Asst. General Manager

Ed Boks, General Manager

City of Los Angeles

Department of Animal Services

221 N. Figueroa Street, 5th Floor

Los Angeles, CA 90012

Dear Ms. Barth,

Included in the computer records which you have sent covering Stu's medical history at your department are the following entries:

  • 11/8/2005 “Will send to AFE for total body function test + fungal culture from interdifital spaces per #581.”
  • 11/10/2005 “From AFE TBF +fungal culture = awaiting results from Green Dog and Cat.”

  • 2/16/2006 The dog was growling during the exam and this with the background noises of other dogs in the medical treatment room(is this the killing room?-Ed.), distorts auscultation findings. Therefore, Dr. Rainey gave orders for the canine to be transported to (AFE'd) to private veterinary hospital (VCA/West Los Angeles), for more [complete] diagnostic comprehensive exam with radiographs of lungs and bloodwork. The dog had to be sedated at private veterinary hospital for comprehensive[sic] exam and diagnostics due to its aggressive behavior. KR/573.”

As you know, this sedation of my dog was done without my knowledge or consent. During Stu’s 3 years under lock and key with your department, he has become a geriatric dog and therefore certain particular cautions must be observed when considering “sedation.” Any future exams which sedation is deemed necessary must be done only with my prior knowledge and written consent and in no case shall sedation be administered by any LAAS employee or at any LAAS facility.

As you recall, my original request under the CPRA was for complete records. I trust that you have had adequate time to locate the exact copies of the results from the two above examinations and tests by outside veterinarians as well as exact copies of all records from Stu's treatment and blood tests from North Figueroa Animal Hospital and are sending them immediately. Your claim that producing the medical records for one dog is “unduly burdensome” is insufficient explanation for your violation of the CPRA. I am well aware that it is your intent to “obstruct and delay” which is in violation of C.G.C. §6253(4)(d) which provides:

(d) Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to permit an agency to delay or obstruct the inspection or copying of public records. The notification of denial of any request for records required by Section 6255 shall set forth the names and titles or positions of each person responsible for the denial.

In your December 24, 2008 letter which apparently denies my request for records you stated: “it would be unduly burdensome, as that term is defined under Section 6255 of the California Public Records Act (Act) for the Department to search for and produce any and all such information into one document...” Unfortunately, C.G.C.§6255 makes no references to your assertions of undue burden, nor does it define the term as you claim. In fact your term “unduly burdensome” appears nowhere in the chapter. For your information, C.G.C.§6255 states, in its entirety:

6255. (a) The agency shall justify withholding any record by

demonstrating that the record in question is exempt under express provisions of this chapter or that on the facts of the particular case the public interest served by not disclosing the record clearly outweighs the public interest served by disclosure of the record.

(b) A response to a written request for inspection or copies of public records that includes a determination that the request is denied, in whole or in part, shall be in writing.

While it is common knowledge that your department often seems to operate under different laws than the rest of us, perhaps you would be so kind as to provide a copy of the laws which you’re operating under in regard to my request for records.

If you are not the public servant who is making the decision to deny my lawful requests, then you must “set forth the names... of each person responsible... You have redacted the technician ID numbers and other notes from these computerized records. This information is not privileged under the CPRA and therefore you must send non-redacted exact copies in order to fulfill my request. If you find any of the above requests "unduly burdensome," you may of course fax to me an authorization to release records with the following parties named: Jeremy Prupas, VCA Animal Hospital, Green Dog and Cat Hospital, North Figueroa Animal Hospital. I will then gather the records myself which will take less of your valuable time.

I trust that you will not further delay or obstruct my efforts to obtain this information which I have the right to obtain under the laws of this state. Mr. Leung may advise you that any costs incurred by my having to obtain and serve subpoenas for these records will be taxed to the City when I prevail on my writ petition. When judges are presented with clear violations of the law, they normally don’t hesitate to rule for the plaintiff. I’m sure that you will agree that this would be an unnecessary expense for the taxpayers to bear as would the hundreds of dollars in other court costs to say nothing of many hours spent by a City Attorney defending an action because you have failed to follow the law.

Finally, you have also failed to respond regarding your Department’s intention, or lack thereof, to keep Stu’s appointment with Dr. Tsugawa on January 6. Please have the courtesy to reply as other people have schedules with time constraints, just like you do.

Warm regards,

Jeff de la Rosa

CC: Todd Leung, Deputy City Attorney

Yeah, I can be an ass to these people, but you reap what you sow. What the hell is she talking about?
Is she making up her own laws? Having battled these court for three years, I've learned that you don't go citing the law unless you are damn sure the law says what you are saying it does.


Before that, I asked for the medical records for Stu, which they still have not provided and which are necessary both for Stu's further care and so that you, the public, can see what is going on behind those closed doors. So far, the records which I do have show:

1. They were aware of and even diagnosed periodontal disease in Stu and did nothing.
2. They have sedated Stu several time without my knowledge or consent, which is required.
3. Dr. Rainey was a good vet.
4. Boks is a pathological liar, but we knew that.
5. Barth is re-writing the law.

Also, although my email was addressed NOT to Linda Barth or Ed Boks, but to the Board and Board Secretary , Ross Pool--Linda Barth and Boks have decided to usurp the Board and the Board Secretary, speak for them, and declare that it is "unduly burdensome" for the Department to answer the questions, "Why did the Board cancel so many meetings?" and "Why does the agenda say that the Brown Act prohibits the Board from responding to public comments , when City Council (who also must adhere to the Brown Act) seems to have no problem with this?"

Yeah...the place is rotten to the core, which we knew. But hopefully BW is shedding light where it has not been shed before.

What do you think?

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


  1. Oh, she's the absolute worst! I don't think the Mayor's the only one that can fire her, though.

  2. Holy crap! She really is the Dark Lord!

  3. OMFG! You write a letter to the Board and it goes to Boks?
    This is really ugly, but I'm not surprised. Nice work , but I wouldn't wanna be u right now.

  4. She's unbelievable. Is that all I'm getting for our 152K? You got her on the law though and they do operate by their own laws. She's so full of bull and doesn't hide it very well at all. From what I've heard this is nothing and she is much worse to the employees. I'm sorry you and your dog have been victimized by these jerks. They should all be fired.

  5. I'm printing your post and mailing it to the Attorney General. This is a flagrant violation of the law. Who do these jerks think they are?


Please make up a name other than "Anonymous" so we can keep track of who says what.No, we don't need your real name. How to do this? Below, select "Name/Url" and type in a name. That's it. You will still be "anonymous" but we'll know which "anonymous" you are. Thanks.

Share this blog...

Share |