OKAY TO FORWARD AND CROSS POST
This part deals with my dog, Stu. His case was not on the agenda, but several wonderful souls turned up to speak on his behalf during Public Comment (Item 5).
Well, it's hard to say what happened. The following people spoke and the letters from Marie Atake, Carole Davis and Jane Garcia:
Zizi Zarkadas, rescuer and all around bad girl, arrived on time (I did not) and patiently sat through the whole appeal hearing and the tedious meeting for more than 2 hours and but had to go back to work before the Board got around to public comments at nearly 9:00 p.m. Thanks, Z.
Me-the usual. I asked what had happened to Quincey's motion! I asked for a real negotiation, because that's how settlements are achieved-you sit down and talk about it. And I asked for a new hearing. What are they afraid of ? Let's have a hearing, with witnesses, this time. I told them I would never let them forget Stu dead or behind bars and that I would haunt them to the end of time.
Elle Wittelsbach , Strangest Angels Rescue, activist and photographer: read Marie's letter (wonderful) and Carole's email(excellent) and expressed how wrong she felt this is. That she works with fractious animals all the time and that this incident with Stu was not Stu trying to hurt the "victim." (those messages from Atake, Davis and Garcia will appear here shortly-stay tuned).
Pam Holt, RVT, activist and rescuer: Heartfelt and penetrating, as she can be, Pam is a long time Stu supporter and single- handedly responsible for the success of Stu's MySpace page. She told of how she was just bitten by a dog at the Mojave (Cindy Bemis) rescue and that it comes with the territory. They are dogs and will act like dogs to protect themselves or out of fear. She said that the rest of Stu's life behind bars is wrong at that he should come home for his last few years...
Laura Beth Heisen, attorney, Spay/Neuter advisory committee Chair, G.M. candidate: read Jane Garcia's letter (which was very, very good. Thank you , Jane). Then LB stated that she has never spoken on this case but felt compelled to now. She said she does not speak for me or Stu but for Justice...that she does know me or Stu (other than seeing me at meetings) know the law and her knowledge of the law tells her, and should tell the Board, that the procedures (and former A.G.M, Commissioner and current Deputy District Attorney Debbie Knaan) were way out of whack and that Due Process was obviously violated. She found it disturbing that the City would not take the word that Stu is not dangerous from Bobby Dorafshar --whose input they have previously sought and trusted on other issues; and in whose care has Stu has been entrusted.
Phyllis Daugherty, mainstay and dedicated animal activist (yes, she is)- I believe she suggested our new City Attorney might have a different take on this case, if given the opportunity to review it.
Almost all mentioned City Attorney Elect Trutanich and that he should be consulted on this.
Following the comments, Irene Ponce called for Quincey's motion (See May 25, 2009 post on this blog) to be on the very next agenda. The NEXT agenda. Kathy Riordan said she would support that and she asked why Danielle Vigil's (harassment by an LAAS Captain,who revoked her rescue privileges tied to 501(c)3 Diamonds in the Ruff ; and Mary O'Connor's (her tea cup Yorkie, an emotional support animal, was stolen by an LAAS employee at the North Central shelter) were not on the agenda. Barth sidestepped, as usual , and said there was information in the commissioners' "packets" about "those issues. ??"
With what seemed to be a very positive feeling (toward Stu coming home ) among the 3 commissioners present (Riordan, Quincey and Ponce) I am confused as to how the City Attorney came up with what he said the Board had asked him to propose:
The Board of Animal Services Commissioners has requested that the Office of the City Attorney propose the following settlement offer (subject to approval by City Council) to you: in an effort to avoid the euthanasia of Stu, the City will permit Stu to be maintained in a secure facility (i.e., private sanctuary, kennel, and/or approved/licensed trainer) that is approved by the Board. The City will require a release from the facility. In addition, as part of the settlement, the City will require a general release from you in addition to dismissing the subject appeal. If the parties are able to agree on the terms of the settlement, it will be presented to the necessary Board, Committee, and City Council for approval. Time is of the essence. Once an agreement is reached, the necessary Board, Committee, and Council approval is required before the Court of Appeal renders its decision.
(From Todd Leung, Deputy City Attorney)
There is video available which I am getting and will post clips of at BoardWatch when I have the video and time to cut it up. I also button-holed Bernard Parks who made an appearance, explained myself and he assured me someone in his office would look into it. (?) I spoke to Aimee Gilbreath (Gary Michaelson director) and she was flabbergasted at the whole Stu deal. Wondered who I had pissed-off (hmm...who did I miss?).
Thank you all again. I wish I could say that it was the last time I will ask for your support for Stu, but I don't believe it will be the last.
NEXT: Part III , the rest of the meeting.