Wednesday, October 27, 2010

ChipIn started for Stu's medical care

From Brenda Barnette, re: Stu's medical care:

As you know, Stu has gotten far more medical care and attention that we can afford to give our shelter animals. Either someone with authority over the City's purse than me or private fund raising would probably be required if you want to provide extraordinary treatment. What you are asking is more than is provided by the average citizen or by the wealthiest of nonprofit shelters for companion animals. 

Donate here:

Read about it here

Thank you so much for your kind support.

Bookmark and Share

Tuesday, October 26, 2010

Board Report Oct., 26, 2010

Yeah, I went... again. Here's what happened, if anyone cares:

The Board (they keep calling it a "Commission" but it ain't--more on that later) unanimously OVERTURNED a ruling by former interim General Manager to revoke the dog licenses (they'd have to leave the city) of a particular family with history of 1) having too many dogs (5) and 2) letting them run loose and "attack" the neighbors. In this setting, "attack" meant to approach "excitedly" as Melanie Ramsayer put it. So, even with their shoddy record of obeying the law and their apparent lax attitude toward previous warnings, these people get to keep their dogs (hear bitterness?).

If anyone doubted that a previously Barth-proposed appeal process reduced to the "General Manager or designee" "reviewing" a case was a recipe for unfairness and bias, you should have just seen Barth feverishly scrambling through papers and codes, trying to find anything to nail the appellants with, once it became obvious that the Board was not going to uphold the GM's decision to revoke these 3 dog licenses. Bias? Sure, she wanted these people punished and she was ready to banish 3 senior or disabled dogs to ...the trash can. She finally found her remedy and demanded that the Board include a $250 code-imposed "fee" to have their dog licenses reissued. No, nobody mentioned that it's supposed to be $250 per license. We won't mention it either.

Elections (actually, "appointments")

Ruthanne Secunda was elected to the Vice President's office, but to appease her distaste for appeal hearings, which are normally the responsibility of the VP, an "appeals commissioner" was appointed immediately to take the flack and the responsibility for screening appeals, etc. That very able Commissioner is attorney Terri Macellero. That's a good thing. Melanie Ramsayer was elected to a 2nd term as president. Also a good thing, we think. Anyone else think these elections are predetermined? Nah...

Once again, Phyllis Daugherty, the one-person "Animal Issues Movement" decried that the Board's previous endorsement of raising the pet limits (from 3 to 5 of each dogs and cats)--or more specifically, raising the number of animals a "household" may have without requiring a "kennel permit"--will result in a canine Helter Skelter with marauding "pit bulls and other aggressive breeds" running the streets in packs, shedding rivers of blood and eliciting terror and destruction. Daugherty dropped the "N" word ("Nuch" for Carmen Trutanich), putting us on notice that 1) she has Nuch's ear and 2) that Nuch will never go for this. Judging from the number of protests vs. supporting statements on that Council file number 10-0982, she might just be right. Folks, if your for this, you'd better chime in.

During public comment, I ...again... BEGGED/Demanded that the Board follow-up on Stu's Law or what is known around City Hall at Council File 09-1887. It's complicated, but the City Council approved this ordinance over a year ago and sent it to the City Attorney for drafting. THEN, Linda Barth, who had no real boss at that time, hijacked the ordinance --after it was approved--and added on a complete rewriting of the L.A. Municipal Code as it pertains to administrative hearings and appeals for "barking dog" cases and "dangerous animals." Barth measure is stalled in Committee but is very nicely holding up the finalization of Stu's law. Hate that? Write your council member about file 09-1887 and ask that it be passed as adopted by council without delay. This legislation which was purported to be the merciful answer for my dog, Stu's record-breaking confinement of 5 years, is so convoluted now with Barth's gameplaying, that not even Deputy City Attorney Dov Lesel knows what Council approved or didn't approve. Somewhere, that...woman... is chuckling at her own devious masterfulness (our word). That's fine. We hear she's not long for this Department, anyway--but none too soon.

Bookmark and Share

Wednesday, October 13, 2010

And so it continues...round 10 in the fight for Stu.

A new article has been published about my dog, Stu's plight and the uncertain future of "no kill" in Los Angeles. Check it out.

Liana Aghajanian | 13 Oct 2010
Saving Stu and an Uncertain Future for Los Angeles Animal Services
There has been no animal that defines the face of Los Angeles Animal Services (LAAS) in the last five years better than Stu, a Lab/Staffie mix that has been essentially…

Thursday, October 7, 2010

Time to review

Yesterday, Ross Pool and Animals Services stated that "there are no records" for medical for Stu for 2009. Strange because there are records going back to 2005 and also 2010. Wonder what happened to them...

First posted 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 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 caseBS104874) 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.

Bookmark and Share

New Protests against proposed pet limit increases lodged with City Clerk

Since the new GM of Animal Services Brenda Barnette's September town hall meeting, regarding the proposal by Councilmembers Rosendahl and Koretz to increase the number of dogs and cats allowed in a "household," new protests have been lodged with the Los Angeles City Clerk. They appear below. It seems that the advocates for this proposal are unaware of the process by which they may make their opinions known to Council. Better get on it.
Protests to date: 8
Supporters: 13

This, like any other legislation , is a numbers game.


Please file with city clerk in Council file 10-0982 to protest.
-----Original Message-----
From: Kathleen Johnson
Sent: Fri, Oct 1,20104:57 pm
Subject: Re:
here is what i sent:
October-1, 2010
Dear Mr. Koretz;
I have recently become aware of a proposed ordinance to allow individuals
to take in five dogs. This proposal seems very untenable, without any
monitoring or control over who gets the animals, no measure to prevent
abandonment, nor any oversight on how many dogs anyone might
possibly take in.
With noise pollution already a serious issue, the last thing our neighborhoods
need is more barking-not to mention the inherent mess of careless owners.
We all love animals, but surely there are far better ways to spend our
money to ensure their well-being.
Thanks for your time and consideration,
Kathleen Johnson
South Carthay


Please file with City Clerk in council file 10-0982 as a protest.
-----Original Message-----
From: alex collins
Sent: Sun, Oct 3, 2010 2:12 pm
Subject: Opposition to increase in dogs/cats per residence
Council members,
Please know that as a resident in the Miracle Mile, I'm opposed to the proposition
currently being discussed that would allow residents to increase the number of pets
from three to five. I don't agree with the assertions that it would decrease the number of
pets in shelters, however, I believe it would increase the potential for safety issues
within residences, increase potential noise violations from louder animals, as well as
increase the potential for animal cruelty.
Thank you.
Alex Collins

please file with city clerk in council file 10-0982 (Protest)
-----Original Message----- PROTEST
From: Sofia Speth
Sent: Tue, Oct 5, 2010 1:38 am
Subject: Protest Against Proposed City Ordinance to Allow More Dogs per Household
It is extremely important that the proposed City Ordinance to allow more dogs per household (Council file
10-0982) be tabled indefinitely in order to consider the unintended and highly negative impacts to the
City of Los Angeles.
This City Ordinance, if approved, will impact our urban environment in enormous and highly negative
This City Ordinance, if approved, will impact our City budget by increasing the need for additional funds to
administer it, which we certainly cannot afford.
Thank you for considering my protest.
Please think before you act. Study the negative environmental impact and increased costs to our City.
Sofia G. Speth
4874 W. 2nd Street
Los Angeles, CA 90036
(323) 934-1901
011 -<
-----Original Message-----
From: Devin Galaudet
Sent: Tue, Oct 5, 2010 12:55 pm
Subject: Here is what I sent PROTEST
Dear Mr. Koretz and Mr. Rosendahl,
It has come to my attention that there is a consideration of making it legal to allow an average family within city
limits to have up to five dogs, raising it from three.
I would appreciate to know who might be helped by this increase? As it stands there are too many unwanted dogs
and too many irresponsible dog owners to make sense making a change like this. My main concern is the safety
issues associated with giving dog owners to bite off more than they can chew (pardon the pun). Managing three
dogs is difficult. Managing five is a public nuisance and a problem waiting to happen. Five dogs are a pack and more
dangerous in a group -- on a leash or not. They require too much supervision. A loose gate allows five into populated
areas with children and no simple way of wrangling them. The choice is asking for trouble.
This does not even take into consideration the amount of dog owners who allow dogs to bark at all hours, do not
pick up after their dogs or abandon them in the streets. As, I am sure you know, too many strays and over populated
animal sanctuaries.
Simply put, the consideration is selfish and puts non-dog owners, tax-payers, and voters to carry the burden of
having to deal with even more dogs in a major city.
In the end, five dogs in a crowded city is completely unnecessary. Of course, this one is easy, do not pass the
Devin Galaudet
Editor In The Know Traveler
-----Original Message-----

From: Lenore Sachs
To: Amy Galaudet
Sent: Tue, Oct 5, 20102:56 pm
Subject: Fw: 5 dogs per household legislation:

Amy, I just sent this off to Paul Koretz. Hope it helps. I
also intend to call his office on Robertson Blvd. Lenore
----- Forwarded Message ----
From: Lenore Sachs
Sent: Tue, October 5, 2010 12:54:30 PM
Subject: 5 dogs per household legislation:
Dear Councilman Koretz, lam writing to you to express my
opposition to the proposed legislation that would .permit up to
5 dogs in households in the 5th District. Consider this
scenario: Because there are all kinds of reasons your
neighbor might use to justify either a constantly barking dog
or one that messes up the easement in front of your home twice
daily while it's being walked by its owner, before you can
convince that owner to stop the barking and to cleanup the
daily mess, it takes determination, time and energy
(yours), plus the intervention of the Animal Services
Unit. Multiply that by5 and you have a neighborhood
disaster. The present limit of3 dogs per household seems to
be reasonable, but when you increase the number to 5, you cross
the line into the realm of unreasonableness. One way for you
to resolve this is to ask yourself if you would be agreeable
about accepting this (the new rules allowing 5 dogs) if it were
your neighbor keeping 5 dogs. Your honest answer to this
question should be the one you use to cast a vote.

Levine Sachs
6628 West 6th Street
Los Angeles, California 90048


Please file with city clerk in Council File 10-0982 (Protest). Thank you. PROTEST
-----Origif)al Message-----
From: jesse sugarman
Sent: Thu, Sep 30, 2010 7:21 pm
Subject: Misguided Dog Ordinance
Dear Councilman,
5 animals, (Dogs specifically) in a.{Lapartm~flt or house is way too much.
is a major issue.
save dogs by this
that gave them up
Dog harding has become
misguided ordinance? It
in the first place will
a problem and how do you expect to
doesn't make sense. The same people
just do the same thing.
There will always be abandonded dogs. People can't afford their upkeep or
for their vet bills now, and you want to give them the ability to have more
dogs. Ridiculous. And most of all the city does not maintain any sembellance
monitoring now. How do you plan to do this in the future?
This ordinance is an awful idea. Please come to your senses for all our
- Jesse Sugarman
Jesse Sugarman
216 1/4 S Poinsettia Place
LA, CA, 90036
Please file this protest with city clerk in Council file 10-0982
-----Original Message-----
From: Mark DeCouto
To: amyg93@aoLcom
Sent: Thu, Sep 30, 2010 12:59 pm
Subject: FWD: 5 dog ordinance
>-----Original Message-----
>From: "Mark OeCouto"
>Sent: 09/30/10 - 10:58
>Subject: 5 dog ordinance
>Dear Mr Koretz
>The proposed ordinance allowing up to 5 dogs per residence will create a
bigger nuisance than the one you are trying to solve.
>I send this email in objection to such an ill concieved idea, based on
many reasons you've heard already (breeding, noise, feces, etc ...).
>Solutions to the population problem need to be re-enforced.
>Mark DeCouto
>Los Angeles 90048

Bookmark and Share

Saturday, October 2, 2010

Tuesday, August 17, 2010


Bookmark and Share

A complaint for damages (case number BC443765), against Kris Kelly and The Kris Kelly Foundation, was filed yesterday in the Los Angeles Superior Court by rescuer and animal welfare advocate, Jeffrey de la Rosa. The complaint alleges that Kelly and KKF defamed the plaintiff, and that Kelly and KKF conspired to break-into his home and steal several dogs, including his 15-year old Maeve (recovering at the time from being mauled by a Barks of Love foster pit bull dog, "Tux"/"Brody." "Brody" is listed for adoption as a "lap dog" at Barks' website and at

Last year, Kelly had circulated a rumor that de la Rosa had "stolen" a dog.
This document (inset) seems to show otherwise.

Other alleged defamatory posts and e-mails were sent to hundreds, if not thousands of rescuers, animal-minded people and various organizations and goverment officials. The messages declared that de la Rosa is a(n) "animal abuser," "hoarder," "dog fighter," "sexual predator," "fraud," etc.

Allegations --stated as facts--- in the e-mails and posts to various message boards, were made including those which claimed that Jeff de la Rosa, who has been fighting the City of Los Angeles to free his dog, Stu (in impound for 5 years), "preys on women," and "is being charged with animal cruelty" has "many many counts of animal cruelty" against him.

Besides Kris Kelly and The Kris Kelly Foundation, others mentioned in a similar lawsuit filed by de la Rosa, in the apparent revenge war on him, were Orange County's Barks of Love Animal Rescue and Barks' Judi Miller and Danielle Robillard; and Former Councilman Mark Schoenfeld (Inglewood), Cindy Ross (Diamonds in the Ruff), Anthony Deluca, Jennifer Lee Pryor of Pryor's Planet; also (rescuer?) Merrill Flam and an obscure "dangerous dog" friendly homeowner's insurance agent, Dori Einhorn.

The case has been assigned to Judge Debre Katz Weintraub at Los Angeles Superior Court's Stanley Mosk Courthouse. We'll be interested in Kris Kelly's answers to the lawsuit, when they come next month. Although we may report further on these lawsuits, most information will be available at Rescue Wars.

Thursday, August 12, 2010


 [re-posted from "Rescue Wars"]
What? The star of Bimbo Babble is being sued?

          Apparently, so.  A  courtesy preview of a rather hefty complaint is  being circulated. It appears that the lawsuit for  Civil Penalties and Damages shows Kris Kelly of  The Kris Kelly Foundation  (don't forget the "The..." she's very sensitive about that) and the FAMOUS DIVA of  Bimbo Babble (you missed it? So did everyone)

as the  only defendants. The lawsuit against Kris Kelly of The Kris Kelly Foundation charges Kris Kelly and The Kris Kelly Foundation with the following:

Breach of Contract
Trespass (2 counts)
Invasion of Privacy (2 counts)

There's more..some torts we don't quite understand, but isn't that enough? Lots of zeros in there.

Stay tuned. It's a fun read.

Oh...when did she win that Emmy and what was it for again?

Bookmark and Share

Saturday, August 7, 2010

URGENT! Little girl Chihuahua doomed by LAAS vets NEEDS SURGERY

This little bundle of love was brought to LAAS as a "stray" with a broken leg. A plea from Anna Herndandez went out far and wide (see below). By 8/4 nobody had stepped up to save her from being killed unnecessarily. So we did. We need help to get her fixed up by a real orthopedic surgeon. YOU CAN HELP US MAKE THAT HAPPEN.

The story: Little Girl/"Trish" has a double fracture of the radius and ulnar bones, at the wrist, on her front right leg. In small breeds (she's 6.7 lbs.) these fractures don't often heal by just setting the bone and applying a cast or splint. This is because of the less than ideal blood circulation at the paw in little dogs. A larger dog has a better chance of healing without surgery. INCORRECTLY, the vet (unidentified) at LAAS declared that if she was not rescued by Friday 8/6 that keeping her longer without surgery would have been INHUMANE and he/she scheduled her to be killed on 8/6. Our orthopedic surgeon thinks this was WRONG. So did we, so we had her pulled and she is in a safe and loving foster home. LAAS doomed this dog without giving her a chance. You can give her the best chance by contributing $5 or $500 or the whole sugical, boarding and medicine fees.

BoardWatch and Underdogs L.A. have taken on the responsibility for getting LG back to optimum health, but we need help. The surgery will cost nearly $3000 and she needs it within 2 weeks to have best chance.

Little Girl is alert, otherwise healthy, eating very well and just wants to play and cuddle. She is  safely confined to her cushy crate most of the time but she gets out to get a little excerise to promote circulation which aids in healing. When she is ready, she will be placed in the perfect home forever.

Prognosis: This fracture is not likely to heal this way and we have consulted with a orthopedic specialist who has reviewed the LAAS x-ray films. The doc says that she needs a tiny metal plate/pins/screws to help the bones heal. With this surgery, she will be near 100% if not 100% healed and be able to have a normal unhindered gait.

The worst case scenario: If Little Girl does not have this surgery and the bones do not heal, she will have problems putting weight on that leg. Amputation would be necessary. We don't want that for her. We want her to have the best chance at a normal life in a new forever home.

TRISH - ID#A1136849
My name is Trish and I am an unaltered female,
tan Chihuahua - Smooth Coated.
The shelter thinks I am about 1 year and 1 month old.
I have been at the shelter since Jul 28, 2010.
Radiographs: Right front limb seems to have a distal radial and ulnar fracture at the physis with lateral deviation of distal limb at carpus.  For further medical please contact Medical staff
NEEDS IMMEDIATE ATTENTION has only until FRIDAY 8/6  NO FURTHER EXTENSIONS dog is being treated but needs further eval immediately.

Anna HernandezNEW HOPE COORDINATORLos Angeles Animal Services
North Central Division3201 Lacy St.
Los Angeles Ca. 90031
Shelter (213)485-5767 (preferred)
Fax (213)847-0555
Cell (213)305-4096
Business Hours Tues-Sat. 8-5
You can now follow NOCs' MPA's

Bookmark and Share

Thursday, August 5, 2010

Brenda Barnette Wish List: A Real Board of Animal Services Commissioners

The Los Angeles Department of Recreation and Parks is our city’s most comprehensive social service agency.  Our thousands of dedicated employees and abundance of facilities touch the lives of millions of Angelenos—young and old, fully-abled and disabled, rich and poor, and everyone in-between.  We provide places to rest, to stroll, to play ball, to make music, to attend the theater, to ride bicycles, to swim, to go to day care or pre-school, to go to camp, to ride the waves, and to see the stars.  Los Angeles’ most famous icons are under our care, from the Griffith Observatory to Venice Walk, from the Hollywood Sign to the Exposition Park Rose Garden.   We are Los Angeles, its people and its places.  For help in public health by enabling outdoor activity and reducing obesity and diabetes, and for help in fighting the infirmities of old age by providing extensive programs for seniors, Angelenos turn to us.  For help in public safety by providing recreation centers that suppress gang activity, Angelenos turn to us.  For help in preserving our heritage by preserving the Banning Mansion, the Lummis House, and other historic structures, Angelenos turn to us.  For swim lessons and lessons in life through sports, Angelenos turn to us.  We are life away from the work place for all of Los Angeles.  It is a great privilege for my fellow Commissioners and me to work with the Mayor and City Council and with the excellent management and employees of the Department of Recreation and Parks provide to everyone the benefits of this Department.  We urge everyone to make full use of our extensive facilities.  We describe them all on this Web site.  We also urge everyone to contribute to the continued improvement of our facilities by supporting the Los Angeles Parks Foundation by becoming Friends of the Parks at 

WEIRD! This Board acts like it does something says they're accessible and seems to be in charge!
Barry A. Sanders, President
Luis A. Sánchez, Vice President
W. Jerome Stanley, Member
Jill T. Werner, Member
Johnathan Williams, Member

Commission Staff: HUH? Staff?

Mary E. Alvarez, Commission Executive Assistant II
LaTonya D. Dean, Commission Executive Assistant I
Paul Liles, Clerk Typist
Mailing Address: Wow! A mailing address (office?)...and a FAX number. Just for the Board

The Office of the Board of Commissioners of the Los Angeles City Department of Recreation and Parks has moved from the Garland Building to Figueroa Plaza, 221 N. Figueroa Street, Los Angeles, 90012.
Los Angeles City Recreation and Parks Department
Office of Board of Commissioners
221 N. Figueroa St. Suite 1510
Los Angeles, CA 90012
Telephone: (213) 202-2640  
Fax Number: (213) 202-2610
Office Hours: 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM, Monday through Friday
For information about upcoming meetings of the Board of Recreation and Park Commissioners and for bid results, please call the Commission Information Line: (213) 482-6941 [Hey, someone to call who isn't Ross "I won't give you a straight answer" Pool!]

Email Address:  

Commission Meetings:

Two regular meetings of the Board will be held each month, generally on the first and third Wednesdays of the month, with the exception of July, August and December, when there is only one regular meeting, on the second Wednesday. The majority of the meetings are at 9:30 A.M. in the EXPO Center (formerly known as L.A. Swim Stadium), Community Hall Room, 3980 S. Menlo Street, Los Angeles, CA 90037. [AMAZING!>>>>>>]The remaining meetings are held at various recreational facilities throughout the City. Four meetings per year are held at 5:30 p.m. Commission meetings can be heard live over the telephone through the Council Phone system. For Information, please go to:

Agendas for the meetings of the Board of Recreation and Park Commissioners are available on-line; please click on the “Agendas” link to the left under the year desired.

Agendas can be automatically received through e-mail by means of the “Early Notification System” (ENS).  For more information, please visit the City of Los Angeles ENS web-site [unreal! listed on the City web site!!!] by clicking here.

To receive paper copies of the Agendas through the mail, a fee is charged.  (Report No. 10-08; Government Code §54954.1)  The fee for Agendas only is $17.00 per calendar year; for Agendas and minutes only is $25.00 per calendar year; and for the complete package (agendas, minutes and reports) is $100.00 per calendar year.  The charge for subscriptions that begin within the calendar year will be prorated according to the number of scheduled meetings remaining for that year.  Please contact the Board Office for more information.  [Are they magicians?!]
A subscription will not become effective until payment is received.
Receipt of agenda(s) prior to the meeting date(s) can not be guaranteed.
No portion of any of these fees shall be refunded in the event that the request for subscription service is canceled before the end of the subscription term.

Parking for Figueroa Plaza:

The Office of the Board of Commissioners of the Los Angeles City Department of Recreation and Parks has moved from the Garland Building to Figueroa Plaza, 221 N. Figueroa Street, Los Angeles, 90017. We are not in a position to validate parking should you come to Figueroa Plaza to do business with us. There are a number of affordable parking options nearby Figueroa Plaza. Please see below.
There is parking on the streets around the building, with parking meters.
There are various public parking lots in the area adjacent to Figueroa Plaza:
- Prestige Parking Inc. has two parking lots available both of which are within walking distance of Figueroa Plaza. One is located 106 S. Beaudry Avenue and the cost is $4.00 per day. The other is located at 201 S. Beaudry Avenue and the cost is $5.00 per day.
- Modern Parking Inc. is offering parking at the 717 W. Temple Street location (cross streets are Temple Street and Fremont Avenue) a ½ block walking distance to Figueroa Plaza. The parking fee is $7.00 per day.
- The Promenade Towers, located at 123 S. Figueroa Street, offers rates of $1.65 every 20 minutes, with a daily maximum of $16.50.
- Classic Parking Inc., located below the Figueroa Plaza Building, offers rates of $2.60 every 15 minutes, with a daily maximum of $26.00.
Thank you for your understanding.
Bookmark and Share

Wednesday, July 28, 2010

ROUND ONE: Look out , Brenda Barnette! Irene Ponce--Throwing her presumed weight around.

 I feel for Brenda Barnette. Her plate is already mighty full with "have to be done now" things. Aside from the miracles she's supposed to pull off in the shelters and the department ---not to mention her new boss, Linda Barth--  Barnette has this rag tag poor excuse for a Board to deal with....and it's getting nasty in that least a little. While Melanie's away, the cat will play
July 27, 2010 From the audio:

Following the license revocation hearing, the regular meeting commenced. President Ramayer and Commissioner Khero were both absent. Present were vice president Irene Ponce, Commissioners Kathleen Riordan and Ruthanne Secunda.

The first item on the agenda was the annual election of Board Officers. Normally, the mayoral staff dictate to the Commissioners who may be elected to which position. Call it tradition but it certainly is not ethical and may be illegal. More on that later.

                      Irene there a little evil in there?

TIME 00:31:30 ish
Secretary: First item on the agenda is Commission Business--annual election of Commission officers for 2010 2011.

Riordan: My suggestion is we hold off 'til we have a full Commission.

Ponce: (immediately and tersely) Commissioner uh Riordan, can you let me speak please? Thank you. I am the vice president here. So, what I'd like to say is that we table this , Ross,  to the next meeting so that--Commission Business, item number A--I say that we table that to the next--you're welcome (to off mic person)--to the next meeting.

Secretary: We'll hold that Item "1A" 'til the next meeting. "B" is the approval  of the Commission minutes--

Riordan: Excuse me. Does that require a motion to do that?

Secretary: Um...Dov (Lesel, City attorney)?

City Attorney: Probably.

Secretary: Uh..okay.Is there a motion to continue it to the next meeting?

Riordan: Thank you , Ross.  Yes, I move that we hold it over to the next meeting.

Secretary: Is there a second?

Secunda: I second the motion.

Secretary: All in favor?

Riordan: Aye

Secunda: Aye

Riordan: Thank you.

Ponce: Thank you, Commissioner Riordan. (forgets to vote. Technically this passes with 2 votes in favor).

The meeting continues:

Score: Riodan 1/ Ponce 0


Who knows what got into Ponce?! Delusions of grandeur? A personal grudge?  She has never presided over a meeting Too bad there's no video. ;) This Board has never followed Roberts Rules of order. There's never really been any kind of order for Riordan to have been out of. Mostly, the Commissioners are casual and speak freely and are courteous, at least, to each other and all others present. We still have to go back and see if her tantrum was evident during the appeal hearing. This isn't the first time that Irene Ponce has had an eruption on the record. The last one that I know of occurred after I , during public comment on an election of officers, exposed the election as a sham and predicted the results prior to voting. I was right. Ponce cursed and bitched and moaned until she had to be shut up. I'll dig that tape up and post it when I get around to it. It's classic for sure.

Bookmark and Share

Judge Irene: Los Angeles Animal Services Commissioner Irene Ponce Throws a Shoe!

The Board convened for their regular meeting Tuesday; and for whatever reason, Board president Melanie Ramsayer was unable to attend. In her stead, vice president Irene Ponce filled in to preside over the meeting. Present were Ponce and Commissioners Ruthanne Secunda and  Kathleen Riordan. A quorum of 3 was met.


If you have ever attended one of these meetings (I've shown up at possibly 2 dozen) you know that the format is rather loose and casual. Roberts Rules of Order are not generally followed and the Commissioners speak freely without imposed time limits or much management from the presiding officer. Commissioners make their opinions and questions known quite freely and without much interference or calls for "order" or "out of order" from the president or vice president.

Drunk with Power

What got into Irene Ponce at this meeting to cause her to repeatedly slap Kathy Riordan around? Is there something personal going on here or did "Judge Irene" get a little drunk with her temporary "power?"

Listen to the audio here.

(to be continued)

Bookmark and Share

Tuesday, July 27, 2010

For Brenda Barnette: Powers of an Assitant General Manager

Who's got the power? What are the powers of an Assistant General Manager of Animal Services?

According to the Los Agneles Charter and Administrative Code, there are
none stated or implied except as conferred upon that employee as stated in Sec 512 (below).

Sec. 22.8.  General Manager.
     The general manager shall have those  powers and duties set forth in Charter Section 509.
Based on Charter, Sec. 78.
Amended by:  Ord. No. 173,290, Eff. 6-30-00, Oper. 7-1-00.

Sec. 509.  Powers of Chief Administrative Officer of Department Under the Control of a Board of Commissioners.

     Subject to the provisions of the Charter, the rules of the department and the instruction of his or her board, the chief administrative officer of a department or bureau under the control and management of a board of commissioners, except the Police Department, shall:
     (a)     administer the affairs of the department or bureau as its chief administrative officer;
     (b)     appoint, discharge, suspend, or transfer the employees of the department or bureau, other than the secretary of the board and the chief accounting employee of the department, all subject to the civil service provisions of the Charter;
     (c)     issue instructions to employees, in the line of their duties, all subject to the civil service provisions of the Charter;
     (d)     expend the funds of the department or bureau in accordance with the provisions of the budget appropriations or of appropriations made after adoption of the budget;
     (e)     recommend to the board of the department prior to the beginning of each fiscal year an annual departmental budget covering the anticipated revenues and expenditures of the department or bureau, conforming so far as practicable to the forms and dates provided in Article III in relation to the general City budget;
     (f)     certify all expenditures of the department or bureau to the chief accounting employee;
     (g)     file with the board and the Mayor a written report on the work of the department or bureau on a regular basis and as requested by the Mayor or board; and
     (h)     exercise any further powers in the administration of the department as may be conferred upon him or her by the board of the department.


Sec. 512.  Temporary Absence or Inability to Act.

     Wherever the Charter provides for the discharge of specific duties by a specific appointee other than the Chief of Police, the appointing power may designate an employee in the same department to act in case of the appointee’s temporary absence or other inability to act, or upon the written request of such appointee.


Bookmark and Share

7/27/2010 Meeting Agenda for Los Angeles Animal Services Board


Tuesday July 27, 2010
10:00 A.M.
200 N. Spring St.
Room 1060
Los Angeles, CA 90012
Melanie Ramsayer, President
Irene Ponce,Vice-President
Tariq Khero,
Kathleen Riordan
Ruthanne Secunda

A. Barking Dog Revocation Case Number: BD 093128 WV
Appellant: Cesar Gomez and Margarita Esturban
Complaining Witness: Paulina Frias
Field Operations Supervisor, West Valley Animal Care Center, Lt. Susan Botta
Hearing Coordinator, Department of Animal Services, Ross Pool, Management Analyst II

Comment: This is only the third appeal held this year. Normally, there are about 12-20 or so done in a year. I'm guessing that they are back-logged and not scheduled while the dogs, owners and neighbors wait impatiently for the slow churn that is our government. Last fall, Barth was successful first in barraging the sensitive Commissioners with an avalanche of appeal hearings to determine the fates of dogs "up on charges" for barking or being "dangerous"; and then she  instituted a new ordinance in Oct. '09 which would, if passed:
1 Will strip the Board of the power and duty to adjudicate administrative appeals for dogs.They have had this duty since 1987 with not much whining. Their procedures have not been flawless but it was, when fair, the best hope for a dog owner or complainant short of an expensive legal battle in Superior court over a barking or biting incident/issue.

2. The new ordinance was shoved down the Board's throat on a day when Riordan could not attend, Ramsayer was attending her first meeting and Ponce was just MIA. So Tariq Khero (usually fair), Ruthanne Secunda (hates appeals) and Ramsayer(clueless at the time) allowed Barth to twist their little Board arms into exactly the position  which would put all the power in the GM's hands...i.e. Barth.

3.Stalled in Committee at present, but essentially a lock unless a successful protest is mounted or Brenda Barnette decides that Barth's skulduggery is not the best thing for the animals, the people or the Department.Whether you care or not about barking dog or dangerous dog hearings, you should care about fairness and due process.

4. Barth's new "law" wipes out the 1987 ordinance which gave us due process should our dogs get in a jam and makes a hearing examiner's (read: Animal Control Officer) decision final with only a "file review" by the GM or his/her "designee" (read: Barth). For the council record on this ordinance and also "'Stu's Law" which has become entangled in this ordiance by Barth see HERE.

NOTE: the 1987 ordinance was the result of many weeks of deliberating by a committee of "experts" charged with writing the ordinance. No committee this time...just "Linda."

A. Annual Election of Commission Officers for 2010-2011
Comment: Ramsayer is out of town. She is sitting president "unanimously" appointed--I mean elected--by last fall--months late but we had to fill the seat left by Quincey and we just can't have Riordan holding office. Can we? Expect no election until Melanie can be here to be re-crowned and nominate her chosen VP: Secunda or (eek!) Ponce again. Tariq wants nothing to do with this after serving as President for nearly 3 years.

B. Approval of the Commission Meeting Minutes for July 13, 2010
Comment: Essentially, a joke on us.  Whereas the "minutes" once actually included a summary of what really happened and who said what, they are now useless and not representative of the meeting proceedings.
Blame Ross Pool who does Barth's bidding and keeps the public (and the rest of City Hall) in the dark as far as what happens at Board meetings. After several terse demands, I just received (and they are now posted) the un-posted, yet long-ago approved minutes from March 2010 to the last approved minutes in June. They are fish wrap and to know what happened at the meetings, one must wade through hours of audio available as MP3 files on the Commission page. Try it, but have snacks and good beverages on hand. It's painful.

C. Oral Report by the Commissioners on Meetings and Events attended

Comment:  One thing is for sure. Tariq Khero will have nothing to report. I don't think he's ever had anything to report. He s on this Board to gain favor with the Mayor and to take up a seat. While he often has sound opinions and decent ideas, he allows himself to be slapped around by Barth and Bickhart. Also painful, but Tariq doesn't seem to mind...when he shows up. If Ramsayer were here, she might talk about her "media event" with Lu Parker's Lu Parker Project at the South L.A. shelter. Having missed this meeting, she won't have to talk about it later. There are some real questions about exactly how turning over the shelter for a whole day to a non-profit buddy came about without Board approval.


Comment:  this is a good thing as we await the arrival of Brenda Barnette. Barth has slammed through enough ordinances, contracts and pet projects to last a lifetime. Hopefully , her lifetime at LAAS is limited.
Board of Animal Services Commission Meeting

Commission Meeting Agenda for July 27, 2010
Page 2

A. Fund Raising (Continued from the February 9th, February 23rd, March 23rd, April 27th, and May 11, May 25 and June 22, and July 13, 2010, Commission Meetings)
Discussion and input from the public on effective and efficient ideas for raising money to supplement funding for Department core responsibilities of greatest financial need, and direction to staff relative to ideas presented.
Comment: huh? again? This is the 10th meeting with this lame item and no resolution or plan. This is a municipal shelter operating from your tax and fee dollars, not a charity. If they want a charity, they can form one like the Police Athletic League or something similar. If they can't care for the animals on their budget they should quit or fire some fat captains.

B. Report and discussion of Activity Statistics for Animal Control Officers, by shelters for Fiscal Year 2009-10.
Comment: might be intersting...if the numbers are real.
Comment: more pablum from Davis and some smiles from the Board. How many cute dogs did we ship out to other cities this time at the expense of the taxpayer for full vaccinations and spay/neuter surgeries?

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.)

Comment:  The Phyllis Daugherty show because you didn't show up along with her comments during all of the above. Chances are she will thank some officer for their service or maybe she will thank Davis and Barth for holding the fort...if you can call it that. Maybe there will be a cake for Kathy Davis as this should be her last meeting as Interim General Manager. Then she will disappear from whence she came into the woodwork on a near $200K salary.

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.
Comment: This is a god-damned lie and it may take a court order to remove it. Don't dare me.
A. Additions to, and prioritizing the list of pending reports and future agenda items.
This is when the Commssioners ask for agenda items that never see the light of day. this should be the last time this happens as I have hopes that Barnette will seek the board's help without interference by Barth...if she's still around.
Comment:prediction: 11:50 a.m. depending on when Tariq shows up so that the meeting can begin.
Next Commission Meeting is scheduled for 10:00 A.M., August 10, 2010, Los Angeles City Hall, Room 1060, 200 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, California 90012.
Comment: Be there, send a public comment or shut the hell up.  Whoops, Barnette still not in office. Put the cake back in the freezer.

Bookmark and Share

Monday, July 26, 2010

S.F. Animal Welfare Commission puts our Board of Commissioners to shame

It seems as though (from recent "Board Reports" submitted to Council by Linda Barth) we-- the 2nd largest city in the nation-- want to emulate the practices of smaller cities when it comes to our Animal Care and Control. Here's one for you that's putting us to shame.

The San Francisco Animal Welfare Commission.


Publicly Held Monthly Meeting  
  • 2nd Thursday of each month (no meeting will be held in the month of December)--I bet they don't cancel any of the other 11 meetings.
  • 5:30pm
  • City Hall, room 408
  • Interested individuals are welcome to attend  

The Commission of Animal Control & Welfare is a representative body acting as the eyes and ears of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors with regard to animal issues within the City. The Commission is an advisory body and makes recommendations to the Board. The Board of Supervisors is responsible for all policy decisions and development.

Enacting Legislation Section 41.2

In addition to any other powers and duties set forth in this Article, the Commission of Animal Control and Welfare shall have the power and duty to:

Hold hearings and submit recommendations regarding animal control and welfare to the Board of Supervisors and Chief Administrative Officer. The Commission may study and recommend requirements for the maintenance of animals in public, private, and commercial care. The Commission may work with the Tax Collector to develop and maintain dog-licensing procedures and make recommendations. The Commission of Animal Control & Welfare is made up of seven voting commissioners and four non-voting commission members. The voting commissioners are appointed by the Rules Committee and approved by the Mayor for two-year terms. Non-voting commission member are City employee delegates representing Animal Care & Control, the SF Police Department, the SF Health Department (seat currently vacant), and the Recreation & Park Department (attending on an as-needed basis).

The Commission of Animal Control and Welfare shall consist of the Director of Animal Care and Control or his or her designated representative, seven members to be appointed by the Board of Supervisors and one city department representative member appointed by each of the following: the Director of the Department of Health or his or her designated representative, the Chief or Police or his or her designated representative, and the General Manager of the Recreation and Park Department or his or her designated representative.

The members appointed by the Board of Supervisors shall be six members representing the general public having interest and experience in animal matters and one licensed veterinarian practicing in San Francisco.

Contact information: (yes, they have an office)

Mailing Address City Hall

Attn: Commission of Animal Control & Welfare

1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, Room 362

San Francisco, CA 94102

( 415) 554-6074 (and their own phone number which is NOT the Department of Animal Care and Control--someone takes messages for them)

Hey...check out those minutes. One can actually tell what happened at the meeting and who said what. And wow...the June meeting minutes are posted and it's only July!

Excerpt of minutes:

7. Unfinished Business (they return to subjects rather than pretend they never existed)

7 A)

Continuation of discussion and possible action to recommend to the board that they pass an ordinance prohibiting the sale of cats, dogs and possibly other small animals in pet stores. Ordinance is intended to stop the sale of dogs and cats from puppy mills  as well as decrease euthanasia rates of other small animals in city shelters.

Comr. Gerrie – Last month our Commission voted to recommend a ban on the sale of dogs and cats in SF including a ban on selling certain small animals not from rescues or shelters. That part was not included in the agenda so we are revisiting the issue this month. Our intention was two-fold. First, was to endorse a compassionate, symbolic as well as preemptive ordinance to stop the sale now and in the future of puppy mill dogs and cats in SF. Only one store in SF currently sells puppies not from shelters or rescues.
Our second intent was to include other animals, many wind up at ACC which cares for them and are eventually euthanized or taken by rescues. If we could stop the sale of “other” animals, they would not wind up at ACC. We felt that banning “others” now would be more doable along with banning the sale of dogs and cats. A separate ordinance just for “others” may prove difficult to pass.

What was missing from our discussion and decision last month was hearing from pet stores that would be affected. I’ve talked with the three big pet stores in SF that sell small animals, Petco, Animal Connection, and Pet Central. Representatives from  Petco are here today. Pam and I met with Petco and ACC last week to talk about the ban and possible alternatives in which Petco and the other stores would take ACC’s unwanted “others” and sell them in their stores. Similar to the adoption Pact that ACC has with SPCA. It has been illegal to sell rabbits in SF since 1978. Petco recently announced they would only be selling rabbits from shelters and rescues nationwide. An ordinance banning the sale of “others” may be ineffective as they would still be for sale just outside the city. Are there any comments or questions from Commissioners before I invite our speakers up? (HEY...he's running the meeting- A commissioner is running the meeting--not a "secretary." or an AGM)

Just food for thought. I thought I might send one of our meeting minutes --with audio--up there and get some input. Nah.
~ Jeff.

Bookmark and Share

Share this blog...

Share |