Will Ed Boks show his shiny head in City Hall on Monday March 23? I'm betting he will not.
Ed may have hammered the last nail in his own carpet-bag coffin all by his lonesome this week by announcing that he was nixing the spay/neuter vouchers which have made compliance with the months-old Mandatory Spay/Neuter law possible for many. Rescue organizations with tight budget will also feel the pinch but the worst product of this lame-brained stunt by our own Ed Boks will be more killed animals. More animals who won't get adopted, rescued or otherwise given a second chance at a happy life--or any life.
One article claims that Boks created a new class of criminals, those who can't afford to follow the law, in one swoop of his pointy tail. We agree. Council, who are always ready to pounce on a tasty PR morsel converged on Boks. Garcetti and Zine both say this pulling of the low cost spay/neuter vouchers cannot stand. But where will the money come from? Let's remember that Council was presented with a budget for the department of Animal Services for 2008/2009 many months ago. Let's also remember that they bankrupted the City by shoveling , on average, $500,000 more into salaries. Yep, no increases for services, food, blankets or bowls for the animals , or for the real work of the people-- just more salaries. I wonder how many ACTs and ACOs will have their hours cut or laid off all together so that the lucky ones who keep their jobs could have a raise. Yes, Ed and Linda Barth and Kathy Davis split about $30,000 of that money amongst themselves in raises for mismanagement. Don't you wish you could get a raise for not doing your job?
So, activists, rescuers and others will cram the the Public Safety Committee ( Animal Services is under Public Safety in the Administrative and Municipal Codes) and once again call for Ed's head on a stick.
We'll be there AND we'll be down the hall at the Animal Services Board meeting watching Jeff de la Rosa call for Ed's (and Barth's) head again. Why? Failure to obey a Court order and unnecessarily causing Jeff to incur $1400 in private boarding charges for his dog,Maeve. Maeve's license was revoked in 2005-06 due to a case of mistaken identity when a neighbor's dog got bit by some unknown, "red and white" or" brown and black" or "orange and tan" colored dog. The 'complaining witness' used all of those descriptions for Maeve; however she is none of those dogs. Jeff was at the beach in Ventura County that day (Don't forget to get receipts for something--anything-- next time you go to the beach in case you need an alibi for your dog).
The decision was tossed by Superior Cout Judge James C. Chalfant in October 2008. The judge citedDue Process violations in the hearing process and said the whole hearing was a sham.. Didn't help that former commish Debbie Knaan failed to recuse herself from the appeal hearings , even after telling the whole world she thought Jeff was lying and that he was "a creep." How did she come to this realization? SHE CALLED HIM BEFORE THE APPEAL HEARING AND INTERROGATED HIM in her D.A. style. No, silly--this is not ethical. It's called ex parte communication and when you're in a quasi judicial position, as she was, one should not engage in ex parte communications with a party--ESPECIALLY WHEN HE HAS A LAWYER!. Dip shit Debbie the lawyer! Judge Chalfant didn't like that either but since the whole intitial hearing was a sham kangaroo court, he didn't even have to get to the Debbie Knaan part before quashing the whole decision. Actually , he ORDERED the Board to set aside their decision to uphold the GM (Stuckey! Yes, that long ago.)'s decision to ban Maeve from the City and order that Jeff could own no other dogs for three years. Problem is that in 4 months since the ruling, the Board hasn't gotten around to to following orders and had not 'acted' to comply with the Writ of Mandate. Judge Chalfant reviews to pursue a Contempt order on Monday, but he invited Jeff back to "renew" his request should Barth continue to obstruct the judicial process. See you at City Hall. Save the date: Monday, March 23, 2009. The 1oth floor will be a rockin'!
I'm wondering what you feel is the extent of Gary Michelson's & any other specific individuals influence is on how things are run at LAAS. also, do you know what the relationship is like between LAAS and the Sam Simon Foundation?
ReplyDeleteAnd last but not least, why don't we have more spay/neuter mobiles?
Curious in LA County
Someone should do a cost analysis (before Monday) to find out how much it costs to kennel an animal at a shelter for the mandatory time allocated, and then if it isn't adopted, eventually euthanize and dispose of an animal's body as opposed to offering the $30 voucher to have an animal spayed or neutered. I am sure it will wind up costing more in the long run if they don't offer the discount, because when potential adoptees realize they will not be receiving a voucher, they will go elsewhere for an animal. This leaves the animals left in the shelter at a higher risk for euthanization. What a ridiculous decision, but not unexpected from these people.
ReplyDeleteIt costs $135 for a cat and $195 for a dog to "process" and euthanize and dispose of. Even the $70 free vouchers are a huge savings over that.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, a VERY high powered attorney has just been hired to sue Boks and the city on behalf of all employees, volunteers and others who have been harased by Boks. This is going to cost the city a lot of $$$$ and will definitely be enough to get him fired and be sure he never works again in any animal field. Details coming soon with what attorney to contact for those wanting in on the action.