Board Watch

Still Reeling. Kathy Riordan knew...

2011-02-08T09:29:00.000-08:00

and she did nothing.

From her own lips, Riordan told me, last fall, that on the August 16, 2009
night/morning of the burglary and theft of my dogs, including Maeve,
she was called repeatedly between 1 and 3 AM, prior to the "break-in"
by ringleader, Kris Kelly and Barks of Love. Kelly demanded money
(what else?) for "boarding" for the dogs they were about to steal.

Riordan says that , not knowing what to do (really?) she called a
"city official" (at 2:00 a.m.?) who told her that she had no obligation to call "the
authorities." Dogs terrorized and stolen, a house burglarized and a life destroyed.
Someone knew it was happening AS IT HAPPENED. And she did nothing.

Beware and be informed.

I've been devastated by this news for months. Spineless. I wonder what
she'd do for her own way-over-the-limit cats.

Convinced that "government" has no place in animal rescue or care, I
have to take leave from this blog for an extended period,. for my own
sanity---whatever that is. Fight on, but when in doubt...get off of
your ass and your computer and walk like an Egyptian---in the streets.

a break from the madness

2011-02-05T21:52:00.000-08:00

It's always amazing (slow learner) to me how much beating my head against the brick walls of ignorance, treachery, ass-covering and bureaucracy can take out of you. I need to step away from these people for awhile. They are toxic and I have allowed them to drain me. The previous post kind of says it all.

If I write in the near future it will likely be at http://jeffdelarosa.blogspot.com or on paper.

It is not likely that the original subject of this blog--the Board-- will net any publishable or meaningful results anytime soon. I stand by my earlier statement that the only solution for these poor animals is to take them out of the City's hands entirely. There is no place for government in animal welfare or rescue. At least not this government where salaries and doublespeak matter more than the lives of sentient beings.

Be well. Be kind to each other.

ChipIn started for Stu's medical care

2010-10-27T20:25:00.000-07:00

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

Jeff,
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 http://freestunow.chipin.com/stus-medical-costs

Thank you so much for your kind support.

Board Report Oct., 26, 2010

2010-10-26T14:51:00.000-07:00

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...

Phyllis
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.

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

2010-10-13T13:27:00.000-07:00

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…

Time to review

2010-10-07T11:34:00.000-07:00

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 athttp://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 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
[ADDRESS DELETED]

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

RE: VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA PUBLIC RECORDS ACT

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:

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.
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.

and

(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.

Sincerely,

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.

New Protests against proposed pet limit increases lodged with City Clerk

2010-10-07T09:14:00.000-07:00

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.

PROTEST

Please file with city clerk in Council file 10-0982 to protest.
-----Original Message-----
From: Kathleen Johnson
To: amyg93@aol.com
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

___________________
PROTEST

Please file with City Clerk in council file 10-0982 as a protest.
-----Original Message-----
From: alex collins
To: PauI.Koretz@lacity.org; BiII.Rosendahl@lacity.org
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
To: Mayor@lacity.org
Cc: BilI.Rosendahl@lacity.org; P.Koretz@lacity.org
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
ways.
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
sofiagspeth@yahoo.com
011 -<
PLEASE FILE WITH CITY CLERK IN COUNCIL FILE NO. 10-0982 - PROTEST
-----Original Message-----
From: Devin Galaudet
To: amyg93@aol.com
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
ordinance.
Sincerely,
Devin Galaudet
Editor In The Know Traveler
devin@intheknowtraveler.com
______________________________.
PLEASE FILE AS PROTEST WITH CITY CLERK IN COUNCIL FILE 10-0982 .------
-----Original Message-----

PROTEST
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
To: PauI.Koretz@lacitv.org
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.

Respectfully,
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
To: PauI.Koretz@lacity.org
Cc: BilI.Rosendahl@lacity.org;AmyG93@aol.com
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.
Barking
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
pay
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
of
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
sakes.
Sincerely,
- Jesse Sugarman
Jesse Sugarman
216 1/4 S Poinsettia Place
LA, CA, 90036
____________________________________________
PROTEST
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
>To: Paul.Koretz@lacity.org
>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
the
many reasons you've heard already (breeding, noise, feces, etc ...).
>
>Solutions to the population problem need to be re-enforced.
>
>Sincerely
>Mark DeCouto
>Los Angeles 90048
>323-9605655

Who's (was) the boss?

2010-10-02T20:18:00.000-07:00

NEWS: It's official. KRIS KELLY and THE KRIS KELLY FOUNDATION SUED!

2010-08-17T10:57:00.000-07:00

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 pefinder.com

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.

KRIS KELLY and The KRIS KELLY FOUNDATION---SUED?

2010-08-12T23:42:00.000-07:00

[re-posted from "Rescue Wars"]
SUED? KRIS KELLY and The KRIS KELLY FOUNDATION
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:

Conversion
Fraud
Defamation-Libel
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?

URGENT! Little girl Chihuahua doomed by LAAS vets NEEDS SURGERY

2010-08-07T18:56:00.000-07:00

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
Email: Ani.newhopenc@lacity.org
www.laanimalservices.com
You can now follow NOCs' MPA's
on http://twitter.com/AnnaLAASNOC

♥_♥___♥_♥_
♥___♥_♥___♥
_♥___♥___♥_
__♥_____♥__
___♥___♥___
____♥_♥____

♥

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

2010-08-05T18:56:00.000-07:00

NO, SADLY, THIS IS THE BOARD OF PARKS AND RECREATION. BUT WE CAN DREAM....

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 www.laparksfoundation.org

WEIRD! This Board acts like it does something says they're accessible and seems to be in charge!

[ + more]

Commissioners:
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: rap.commissioners@lacity.org

SHOCKING!

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: http://www.lacityview.org
Agendas:

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.

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

2010-07-28T21:10:00.000-07:00

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 chamber...at least a little. While Melanie's away, the cat will play

.
ROUND ONE
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 Ponce...is 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

Next: ROUND TWO

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.

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

2010-07-28T13:50:00.000-07:00

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.

WTF?!

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)

For Brenda Barnette: Powers of an Assitant General Manager

2010-07-27T06:38:00.000-07:00

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.
SECTION HISTORY
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.

Hmph!

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

2010-07-27T03:05:00.000-07:00

BOARD OF ANIMAL SERVICES COMMISSIONERS
CITY OF LOS ANGELES
Tuesday July 27, 2010
10:00 A.M.
LOS ANGELES CITY HALL
200 N. Spring St.
Room 1060
Los Angeles, CA 90012
Melanie Ramsayer, President
Irene Ponce,Vice-President
Tariq Khero,
Kathleen Riordan
Ruthanne Secunda

1. ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL HEARING
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.http://cityclerk.lacity.org/lacityclerkconnect/index.cfm?fa=ccfi.viewrecord&cfnumber=09-1887

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."

COMMISSION MEETING

1. COMMISSION BUSINESS
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.

2. GENERAL MANAGER RECOMMENDS FOR BOARD ACTION
A.
None

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

3. DISCUSSION ITEMS
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.
4.ORAL REPORT OF THE GENERAL MANAGER
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.
6.FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
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.
7. ADJOURNMENT
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.

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

2010-07-26T04:50:00.000-07:00

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.

Highlights:

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)
sfgov.org/awcc
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!
http://www.sfgov2.org/index.aspx?page=2177

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.

A Working Animal Commission...At Work in San Francisco

2010-07-26T02:22:00.000-07:00

I haven't delved into the issue at hand; nor do I quite yet understand all the ramifications of a ban on all animal sales ("pets"). I'll let you know when I do. The point of sharing this piece is to illustrate the power of a real and working Animal Commission...not unlike our own Board of Commissioners. Read on...

Fur and feathers fly as San Francisco weighs ban on pet sales

What began as a proposal to ban sales of dogs and cats quickly grew to include birds, hamsters, rats and other small mammals. Shelters and rescue groups could still offer adoptions.

July 25, 2010|By Maria L. La Ganga, Los Angeles Times

Reporting from San Francisco — Here in the land of animal companions and their faithful guardians — do not call them pets and owners — a battle is raging over just what it means to be creature-friendly.

In true San Francisco fashion, city officials are considering a ban on sales of almost all pets. If the prohibition passes, it would mean no cats for sale here, no dogs, no hamsters, no rats, no guinea pigs, no macaws, no parakeets, no cockatiels, no finches. If Junior wanted a snake, Mom could probably still buy him one within the city's precious 47 square miles. But forget about those mice for Drago's dinner.

The proposal started out small: prohibit commerce in cats and dogs as a way to discourage puppy mills and kitten factories. South Lake Tahoe and West Hollywood passed such laws within the last 18 months; in Texas, Austin and El Paso are considering similar ones.

But this being San Francisco, the discussion didn't stop there.

After multiple meetings of the Animal Control & Welfare Commission and hours of impassioned testimony — peppered with the word "symbolic" — the narrow proposition blossomed to include most creatures great and small. The commission is set to vote on a ban in August. If it passes, the Board of Supervisors will weigh in.

Read the whole story.
Related links
Listen to NPR story
Read NPR transcript

Ron Kaye's Plan to Overhaul the Commissioner Selection Process

2010-07-25T01:03:00.000-07:00

Read the whole story.

Kaye says, "The mayor simply has too much power.

A simple solution that would find popular support would be to allow the mayor only one appointment and give the Controller, City Attorney and the Council one each.

The fifth commissioner should be chosen by the Neighborhood Councils.

This would at least create some semblance of balance and actually empower the Neighborhood Councils in a way that City Hall has fought since their inception.

We don't need commissions that are simply going to roll over to the orders of the mayor and Council. We need people who will stand up for what's right, not sign off on what's wrong."

The post-Phyllis Daugherty Dept. of Animal Services--Enter: Brenda Barnette

2010-07-23T22:39:00.000-07:00

In response to Ed Muzika's call to "stop" Phyllis Daugherty.

It's almost like we need to teach people how to participate in their government in this town. Why is that? Look at the last mayoral election. Pitiful, yet everyone complains about AV.

What is it about this city that makes people whine but do nothing?

Yes, chances are that no council members will be in their seats when you make your public comment. They're in the back making deals. Still, you must go if you are able. You can get free parking from your council district office with a phone call.

There was a time..oh... 5 years ago...when people besides Phyllis went to Animal Services Commissioners' Board meetings. At night, on an off campus meeting (4x a year) there might have be 100 people or more. Even in the daytime there were more than just Phyllis in her regular seat.

People gave up on the Board/Commission (it's a "Board" of Commissioners BTW...not a Commission). They are thought of as a rubber stamp and a lot of times they have been. Conscientious and courageous Commissioners have resigned or been fired for speaking their true opinions and trying to effect real change. Elections for officers are often fixed by the Mayor's office.

So why participate? Because only you can change it. I can't even count the number of times I have moved the Board or the Department to submit to the law. I was loud--persistent. They couldn't take it anymore and gave in. Today, the last 5 months of meeting minutes were posted on the Board's LAAS page. Why? Because I demanded it...openly. Why were they withheld for so long when they had been approved a long time ago? Guess. The Secretary forgot? No. By design. Whose design? Guess.

Look at the city clerk's site. Search "animal." See how much LAAS legislation has been slammed through which you probably know nothing about since Boks left. Who did this? Kathy Davis? The Board?
Nope.

Don't call Phyllis or email her or harass her. She's excercising her rights from her one-person "movement." The only way to defeat her...if that's your aim...is to play the same game and outnumber her and out-argue her. These council members get antsy when the public shows up and get more "reasonable" and fair-minded. Magically. So show up.

Sadly, there are no night Board meetings this year. Budget cuts-- but that suits Linda Barth just fine. I think it's $400 per meeting for security and whatever. I can raise that. Do you think they'll accept it? I'm sure Barnette will like the idea of night meetings. We'll see. There will be changes big and small.

Personally, I'm hoping that Barth's (Phyllis has WAY too much influence over Barth) head rolls right over to another Department. Anybody?

About those meeting minutes...and the Board Secretary, Ross Pool

2010-07-19T20:40:00.000-07:00

For as long as I've known there was Department of Animal Services Board of Commissioners, Ross Pool, a Management Analyst (grade/salary/job description unknown), has been it's Secretary. Unlike other Boards and Commissions, this Board/staff seems to like to give Pool power that is not within the job description of Secretary. One of those powers is to pretend to be a Commissioner. Others are to open and close the meetings, determine agenda items, comment on agenda items, re-arrange their order and, in general , to be a pompous ass.

Los Angeles Charter and Administrative Code references:
Sec. 21.3. Assignment of Employee as Commission Secretary.
As required by Charter Section 504, the general manager of each department under the control and management of a general manager shall assign an employee of that department, other than a member of the board, as the secretary to the board of commissioners of the department, if any. The Council may by ordinance, at the request of the general manager concerned, combine the position of secretary with any other position in any department. The board of each department under the control of a board of commissioners shall assign an employee of that department, other than a member of the board, as the secretary to the board of commissioners.

I know of no record where this Board assigned Ross Pool to this position. I'll ask (LOL). I also know of no Council ordinance which permits Pool to hold both a "management analyst" position AND the position of Board Secretary. I'll ask about that, too. If neither exists, then there is a violation (s) of the Administrative code by this Board and the General Managers and/or interim general managers.

Sec. 21.4. Duties of the Secretary.

The secretary of each board created by the Charter or by ordinance shall keep a record of the proceedings and transactions of the board, specifying the names of the commissioners at all meetings and giving the ayes and noes upon all votes. The secretary shall post and publish all orders, resolutions and notices which the board shall order to be posted or published, and shall perform such other duties as are imposed upon him or her by the Charter, ordinance, or order of the board.

Why should we care? Because, for one (there are many issues concerning Pool's "work" as secretary and more of them will be reported in forthcoming blog posts), there have been no minutes of Board meetings posted since the posting of minutes for a February meeting. Normally, at each Board meeting, there is an item in which the Board is asked to approve the minutes as compiled by Pool. Often, Commissioners request changes to the minutes to reflect what actually happened and what was said, rather than Pool's often bent interpretation of what was said and/or done. Often, at subsequent meetings, Pool does not make the requested changes or the changes are just ignored either by Pool or at the direction of whichever person seems to be controlling the Board at a given time. Since Boks's demise, it has been Linda Barth (and Jim Bickhart since forever) who controls the Board, what they may place on their agendas and when.

All of this obstruction serves the purpose of keeping the public in the dark. In order to determine what happened at a Board meeting, one must either attend on a weekday at 10:00 a.m (call first..they may have canceled due to a controversial issue being threatened to be addressed by the public) or download a gigantic 30+megabytes file of audio and wade through the whole thing. I suppose you could call Barth and ask her or call Pool, but that is not what is supposed to happen and you are not likely to get a straight answer, if any.

Sec. 21.20. Applicability of Charter Provision 506.

Each city department, office or commission created by ordinance shall comply with Charter Section 506, unless expressly provided otherwise by ordinance.

(To be continued...)

Minutes- Where are they?

2010-07-15T16:39:00.000-07:00

from	Jeff de la Rosa
to		Linda Barth , Kathy Davis , Melanie Ramsayer , Irene Ponce , Ross Pool
cc		Councilmember Dennis Zine
date		Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 4:25 PM
subject		Minutes- Where are they?
mailed-by		gmail.com

Where are they past February? It's nearly August. If they have been approved, please post them on the website. Downloading gigantic files posted by a person with no understanding of digital audio files is not a substitute for the actual MINUTES as approved by the Board.

As you know, the City and the room where the Board meets is fully capable of "LIVE" and on-demand meeting video/audio. The taxpayers have paid for that. We also pay Ross Pool's salary and Linda Barth's salary and we don't do that in order to be dis-informed .

Thanks.

Dear Commissioners (and Brenda Barnette):

2010-07-15T04:09:00.000-07:00

Dear Commissioners-

I think you know that the animal community in Los Angeles is less than enthusiastic over the lingering doubts about Brenda Barnette's methods of attaining lower kill rate numbers. I have been contacted by numerous people in the community and also many supporters of my dog, Stu who remains in your impound system after 5 years of lies, broken promises and back room dealing.

While I am certainly willing to give Ms. Barnette a fair chance to show us what she intends to do-- and how-- and I don't care "what kind of clothes" she wears or "which church" she attends, I do care about the creepy tone of the various councilmembers' comments on the "pit bull problem." As you know, the problem is not within these wonderful creatures, it is in the back yards of those who breed them for profit and the cruelty of fighting.

Below is an email from the "open door" shelter from which Brenda Barnette has come which you have no doubt seen. This email was sent from Seattle Humane on the day of Ms. Barnette's appointment to GM of LAAS.

Please be advised that any similar policy, or plan to export pit and pit mixes to other cities to be killed there or the institution of in-shelter temperament testing will not be tolerated in Los Angeles. As a so-called "student" of Winograd's No Kill philosophy it is abhorrent that Barnette would have ever practiced what you read below. We are watching and listening. For many, many years the Board upon which you sit has forbidden temperament testing in our shelters and you must continue to do so. For the moment, we are at peace with the department and although Pamelyn Ferdin has decided to turn in her conscience, the rest of us have not done so.

Finally, while recorded versions of your meeting are useful for anyone who has the time to wade through hours of audio, written minutes which are promptly posted upon approval by the Board are essential for the public, especially now. You have allowed your Board secretary and Ms. Barth to keep the minutes of your meetings from the public for at least 4 months. Please have all approved minutes posted to the city's website without delay.

Thank you.

Jeff de la Rosa

P.S. For Winograd's opinion of this sort of testing, please see http://www.nokilladvocacycenter.org/pdf/Temperament%20Testing.pdf

From: admissions@seattlehumane.org
To:
Sent: 6/18/2010 1:15:01 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time
Subj: RE: Relinquish a dog

Hello,

With any Pit Bull or Pit Bull mix we place for adoption embassadors to the breed. This means that the dog cannot have any previous history of aggression of any kind. If the dog does not have a history of aggression than the dog will recieve a behavior assessment after it has been surrendered to our shelter. During that assessment our behavior program manager and behavior team assess the dog's temperament. If the dog passes the behavior assessment then we place the dog out for adoption. If the dog does not pass the assessment we will not place the dog up for adoption. There are no rescue organizations that work with us and pit bulls . If the dog is not an adoption candidate with us the only option is euthenasia.

We do have a callback option. With a mandatory donation of 200$ at time of surrender we give you the oppportunity to claim your pet if he/she is not an adoption candidate with us. That $200 is not refundable.

We would like to speak with you about your dog's temperament and our policies before scheduling an appointment. You may leave us with a phone number where you can be best contacted.

Thank you,
Admissions

Back to the Board...

2010-07-14T07:45:00.000-07:00

If the activity of the Board of Commissioners of the L.A. Animal Services has been neglected here--and it has been--it's mostly out of frustration. I've attended countless meetings only to walk away with the same feelings that others have told me they have: The Board is a rubber stamp, etc. etc.

Well, it's a new day and we have a new GM in Brenda Barnette. Love or hate her appointment, she's coming. An unexpected plus in the circus that was the search and pre-confirmation process was the appearance of Board President Melanie Ramsayer at both the announcement of Barnette's appointment and at her "good luck" confirmation appearance in front the full 15 member City Council (all 15? when does that happen?). I've never met Ms. Ramsayer and have not been to a meeting since she was elected/appointed as Board president. Unless you're willing to wade through hours of audio --there have been no written meeting minutes posted since February (that's another post) so it's hard to know what they've been up to , if anything.

All that aside, in his several years as Board President, I never saw nor heard Tariq Khero outside those meetings. It always seemed too me that he was installed for 2 reasons:
1. To keep Kathleen Riordan out of that chair; and
2. To take instruction from the Mayor's office well and be quiet about it --which necessarily meant keeping the Board's agendas limited to what was pre-approved for discussion and action.

That does not seem to be Ramsayer's M.O., at least not on the surface. Yes, she's the Mayor's girlfriend's pal and yes, she was "elected" after only a couple of months on the Board; and yes, she allowed the animal hearing appeal process to be grabbed from the board by "staff" (also another post); but at first glance, she's a HUGE improvement over Khero just on the basis that she cares enough to show up, say something and appear concerned and involved. After I attend a few meetings and shame them into posting some minutes, I'll let you know what I come up with.

Ramsayer actually spoke at Barnette's confirmation show and pledged the full support of the Board, which is nice--BUT what I think we'd all like to see is some original input from that group of five non-paid but pretty smart folks. In case you're wondering what the Board is actually supposed to do, according to the recruitment materials for the GM spot, here it is:

The Department of Animal Services
_______________________________

The Department of Animal Services offers a wide range of services that fulfills its mission to “Promote and Protect the Health, Safety and Welfare of Animals and People in the City of Los Angeles.” For a complete list of services provided, see the Department’s web site at www.laanimalservices.com.

LAAS is led by the General Manager with direct oversight from a five-person Commission appointed by the Mayor and confirmed by the City Council. The Commission sets policy, approves contracts and helps the General Manager establish a direction for the Department. The Commission holds public hearings on critical issues, identifies priorities to be addressed, and makes recommendations to the Mayor and City Council.

Since Barnette's mantra is working together to address the mess that is LAAS, let's see if we can't get the Board to actually participate rather than wait for stuff to come to them for approval. Barnette will need all the help she can get. If you take Ramsayer at her word, she's in for some actual contribution from the Board.

Oh yeah...according to the Administrative Code , it's time to elect Board officers again. Wanna predict , anyone?

She's in. Can the Campaign for Brenda Barnette be over now?

2010-07-13T14:43:00.000-07:00

In response to Ed Muzika who is still campaigning for Brenda Barnette's appointment even though she's already been approved by Los Angeles City Council:

(My comment was too large for Ed's comments and he's not publishing mine anymore anyway).

Ed-

Are you asking us if we want Ed Boks or Stuckey back? I think you know that answer. Does "open door" mean mean that they do not charge to leave an animal? I think we charge $25 (I could be wrong)...it used to be $5.

Regardless. This is not Seattle and this is not a "Humane Society." I welcome her experience in those types of organizations and hope she can make a difference here, but you must admit that Zine, etc. are correct. The obstacles are enormous. There is no money for her to work with and she will have to go private for money which will may be successful or not. I'd be interested to know how much money she needs to get to her 80% promised save rate and how it gets spent.

I can't say that there are better candidates. There is no experience that would prepare one for this job which is why "previous" non-profit experience is nearly irrelevant. While I didn't even know that Heisen was applying, her insider experience (Commissioner, Chair of Spay/Neuter Committee) with the Department and the City and her knowledge of City politics --AND THE CITY ITSELF, as well as her professional experience as an attorney would have qualified her in my book.

Barnette will need to take an extensive tour of the City starting with Jan Perry's district as Perry requested. I think that with all of the homework and shelter hours (necessary) that Barnette will have to do over the first year, what we will have is Barth running the department as she has done (poorly) for 2 years.

There was before the Board today a proposal to take $30,000 from the spay/neuter resources to target free pit bull sterilizations. While we need to address this issue right away, this did not come from Barnette. It came from Barth with Davis's signature on it.

An in depth look at what taking $30K from that fund would do is needed. I don't know if the Board passed it. There have been no written minutes from the Board since February (Barth again).

Isn't the pre-appointment campaign over? What's the point of more Seattle comparisons now?

Doing the Math on Brenda Barnette

2010-07-12T18:23:00.000-07:00

Let's look at some numbers. First, $191,000. That's the salary the Mayor wants (and will get) to pay Barnette. It's $10,000 more than Boks' last rate. I guess we can't have her making the same money as Linda Barth so she must make more. Meanwhile, recently a local pet supply store owner told me that Eric Garcetti called them asking for dog food donations. We can't afford to feed the animals, but we can afford over half a million dollars to pay Barnette, Barth and Kathy Davis (what does she do again?). Plus benefits which are more than the salaries.

80%. Barnette told the Public Safety Committee Councilmembers today that if she can the the cooperation and support of 70-80% of the staff and the animal community, that she can achieve an 80% "save rate" of all of the animals brought to the shelters. In five years. And get very close to that in 3 years. Okay, those are big words. How is she going to do that? Don't know.

Apparently there is a huge untapped pile of money in L.A. (or "Hollywood" if you ask Greig Smith)--and Ms. Barnette is gonna go get that money. Okay, so LAAS--a City Department --- is to be privately funded in order to do their job. Really, I don't know what to think about that.

Presently, a huge number of large and small rescue organizations (including ASPCA-LA) get their funding from the private sector. Will some of that money now go to the City of Los Angeles?

Are individuals who give financial support to rescue organizations supposed to give more money to fund the City shelters or are more people supposed to give period?

$50,000. Barnette told the Committee that she received a grant from PetSmart for $50,000 to spay and neuter pit bulls. All she had to do to get that money was to sterilize 700 dogs. Even at $100 a pop, that's $70,000--at $75 it would cost $52,500. How did she do that? I don't know. Nobody asked how. There was no explanation but the crows loved it.

"3." Basically, Zine put it best when he said she'll be doing a good job if people aren't complaining to him about Animal Services. Greig Smith said if she only accomplished one of her three goals:

"We need to get people..."

1. to agree that we want to save lives,

2. to agree on spay/neuter,

3. to agree that we need to address cruelty issues in the City

I think the public already agrees on all of those things. Does the City agree on that? Can we have some money , please?

Public Silent--Council Committee Approves Brenda Barnette for Full Council Vote

2010-07-12T13:57:00.000-07:00

The Los Angeles City Council's Public Safety Committee met this morning to hear public testimony on the appointment of Brenda Barnette as the Mayor's new pick for General Manager of the Department of Animal Services. Councilmembers Smith (chair), Zine and Perry were present.

Listen to the hearing at http://lacity.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=103&clip_id=8081

With no speaker cards for public comment received--although Zine said "the critics are here"--the hearing was brief and breezy; and without Tony Cardenas --who has always been very outspoken and knowledgeable about LAAS, the questions were pretty tame and general. Zine and Smith reminded Barnette of the "crumbling environment" state of the department is suffering from due to bad morale since the Boks fiasco and the fact that there is no money for the Department.Smith: "We have acutally shrunk the Department" and are offering "fewer services." Brenda Barnette, speaking with a measured tone and a slight Virginia accent stated that she would spend time in the shelters and let everyone speak their mind and "be respectful."

Jan Perry's main concern was the prevalence of the "dumping" of "pit bulls and Rottweilers and those type of dogs" and asked how Barnette felt about free spay neuter programs ( which we have, but not enough of them). Perry said she wants to be first on Barnette's list for "outreach" for spay neuter service to lower income residents.

Zine: We have no money. How are you gonna turn the department around? How will you lift morale?
Barnette: I'm a fundrasier and will be in the shelter working with people.

Barnette said that her Sunday "meet and greet" --which she referred to as a "Town Hall Meeting"-- was productive. She stated that if she can get the cooperation of 70-80% of the staff and community, then she intends to achieve an 80% save rate within 5 years and be very close to that in 3 years.

Chairman Smith noted that "amazingly" there were no comments from the public. The Committee moved to send Barnette's appointment to full Council and the motion was passed. Barnette's appointment confirmation will move to the full council for a vote on Tues. Because a public hearing was already held, NO PUBLIC TESTIMONY will be heard at the Council Meeting. It was concluded and stated by Zine, that "Somebody has to run this Department" and they all wished her luck. So, lot's of internet hoopla for and against Barnette...but nobody showed to speak up....as usual.

Best of luck, Ms. Barnette. We're with you...just tell us what you want to do.

In reply to Ed Muzika on Brenda Barnette:

2010-07-12T00:20:00.000-07:00

In response to Ed (EDIT: who has now deleted his two lengthy replies to my comment--See below):

There are 5 (sorry--4) non-reporters who have written blogs or other pieces and who are not wholeheartedly supporting this appointment.

They are (that I know of):
Myself
Carole Davis
Marie Atake
Phyllis Daugherty

I include Carole because she has written thoughtfully about this appointment and one must assume correctly that ADL has read her posts. Otherwise, WTF are they talking about? Just Daugherty and Atake? When thinking about who the accused "KOOKS" are, I made list of what I've read. I don't mention Daugherty because her views are personal and--usually--only relate to law enforcement and the "viciousness" of pit bull type dogs.

I have neither spoken nor corresponded with any of these people regarding Barnette, so I don't see how we are "united." Are they talking amongst themselves? I don't know or care. You mention Garcia in another post. I guess that's Jane Garcia. I haven't seen anything by her, but I have normally agreed with her on most things.

I'll ask Barnette my questions when she's at work--not at a party.
You want to see her resume? I'll request it and send you a copy.

The problem with the "92%" is that the claim is said to be at an "open door" shelter which SHS is and was not. She "saved" 92% of the animals she allowed in and deemed "adoptable" by whatever standards (don't know what they are). That's the major qualification the accompanies her name in the ADL email blasts. If it's inconsequential and doesn't mean she can do that here, then why mention it? Why call SHS an open door shelter when it is not?

SHS is not much different from some of our local 501c3 rescues. They ALL have "save" rates in the high 90's or even 100% because they can. They choose their animals and charge adoption fees of $200-$350 JUST LIKE SEATTLE HUMANE. The fact that she had a brick and mortar building and a larger staff makes her more credible? No.

You don't care about breeding? Well, I do. So there. Where do you think these "unwanted" animals come from, Ed? People who allow or choose for their animals to breed and then dump them at the shelter ARE the problem, for the most part. We have laws against breeding without a permit. They don't work. Hve you been to an urban vet's office lately? There are non-permitted bred dogs of every variety lined up to get their shots. Ads on the bulletin boards scream out PUPPIES for sale! The rest of the problem people dumping animals are idiot humans who don't know what it means to be responsible for an animal which you take into your home. If you don't understand why being pro-breeding is an issue, then I can't explain it to you. The AKC and the breeders fought tooth and nail against spay/neuter. You forgot?

I care about transparency and an end to the lies coming out of LAAS. I though you did too.

I haven't counted the number of people ADL has interviewed who are praising Barnette, but I don't think it is "dozens" so who's exaggerating?

Re: the TV quotes. Watch the video, Ed. You have always- ALWAYS since you changed your position on Boks gone for the facts and the proof. You're not doing that in this instance. You're saying "hey, everyone loves her, I love her too." I would expect a Humane Society CEO to advise to look for a pit bull dog in a SHELTER FIRST--NOT A BREEDER's back yard. We take in nearly 7000 thousand a year here. In Seattle, they ship them out to other cities or kill them.

Again, I don't dislike her. I don't even know her. Neither do you. ADL admits they've never spoken to her. My objection ALL along has been to this "she is the saviour" campaign. Why not just welcome her to town,pay her nearly $200,000 and support her and see what she does? That's what I intend to do. I will also ask questions and (I guess) be slammed for doing so. You've already lumped me into a group of "detractors" without bothering to call me or email me to ask what my issues are.

I'm not a detractor. I just want the truth. Starting a job with misrepresentations is no way to start, in my book. Maybe you went to the meet/greet. If so, did she address the room? If so, what did she say? Did anyone ask her anything? At all? Granted, she's not saying these things about herself. Her adoration is coming from ADL, you and --quietly--Nathan Winograd. His rather sane letter to the Mayor has been translated into "The father of NO KILL " says Barnette is the one.

Dan Guss? Has he written something? I have had no contact with him in over a year--by choice. "Concerns" is not a rare word that you should assume is being collectively used by a "united" group. That's what I have- concerns. Use a different word if you like but that aptly describes what I have. "Concerns" is less negative than "doubts." What word should I use that wouldn't lump me in with Dan Guss, who's opinion on this is unknown to me? If you have emails from him, forward them please. I'd like to read them.

I hope she DOES build a great foster program and DOES rejuvenate the horrid volunteer program which fails because volunteers are shunned and harassed by the employees. Some of the employees are a major obstacle to a better department. I haven't heard word one on what she can do about that or what experience she has with City Gov't and unions that is relative...Have you?

You don't get what all the "heat" is about. Well, I don't get what all the "praise" is about nor how her accomplishments at Seattle Humane are relevant to LAAS.

She seems like a nice lady who ran a non-profit, privately funded rescue organization. She ran it well, by all accounts. How does that translate to her new job? Anybody? As I've said before--maybe she'll wring millions out of our local wealthy folks to fund a City Department. Currently a lot of that money goes to private rescues and SPCA-LA.

So yeah..I'll ask her my questions, but she has no reason to answer them? I'm just a guy with a blog and a dog in hell--a known "enemy" of the Department. I'll let you know if she responds and if her "open door to the community" is really open--to everyone.

-Jeff de la Rosa

Ed wrote:

Ask your questions to her face to face at the meet and greet.

92% is not misleading. She has, supposedly a 92% save rate in her shelter. That does not mean she or anyone could have a 92% save in LA. But how is that misleading?

True, the Carole and Carol are not mentioned by ADL. Why did you bring their names up? ADL didn't. You speculate.

How do you know her membership was not on the resume or kept from the selection committee? She me proof, not just your statement.

I really don't know what you make of her alleged statement to check out the breeder. I don't know the context of that statement. That is, the 2 paragraphs before that quoter and the 2 after. Was she talking to someone who was going to a breeder to get a dog?

Now, how are these legitimate concerns?

If, instead, you told me that died in shelter increased by 65% due to poor sanitation and overcrowding as in Boks shelters, that could be a problem.

But if she was able to build a foster program in Seattle with less than a million people population, that was larger than LA's with 4 times as many people, and saved more animals than LA, I'd say that was a significant plus. Does that concern you?

Now why because you voice these "concerns," which is the exact same word that Dan Guss uses, and perhaps Atake--I have not read her article yet--out loud in articles and on this blog, do you think she is obligated to answer in kind of a general way to whomever raises the issue?

That is, is she supposed to write an email response to you, to Dan, to Atake, Heisen, et al, who fling these questions to the general public to raise your concerns as public concerns?

I see these concerns as non-concerns. I don't see how they are relevant to saving animals at LAAS as would her volunteer and foster programs, and public adoption programs.

Who gives a f..k if she were a breeder, breeder sympathizer, etc.? I just don't get what all the heat is about.

As someone said who left a comment, as a hypothetical dog, "I don't care if she bred my grandfather or not, what are my chances of getting adopted?"

You can repeat these united voiced "concerns" over and over, but they are not my concerns.

ADL has found dozens of people who actually worked with Barnette during the transformation of SHS. None of them raised "concerns" about AKA or breeding.

These are the wrong concerns.

My concern is that your unified "common talking point concerns" are like Republican guilt by association talking points used against Obama. Ayers, radical, communist, socialist. His minister, racist. These are not legit questions in my mind so don't repeatedly request me to be dragged into your plot.

[AND MORE]

You mentioned Carol and Carole, not ADL. Why do you say ADL was talking about them and then you defend them?

The "concerns" you raise are like Republican talking points. You all use the word "concerns" as if they were legitimate and that we should all share them.

I don't see how membership in AKA or having shown or bred dogs would make Barnette unfit to be GM, compared, let's say, with Heisen.

If Barnette truly did build a foster system in a city of 800,000 people that saved 3,000 animals, that is important. If she can do the same with a volunteer core, that is important. That she saved 92% of animals may or may not be true, I haven't personally seen the stats, that doesn't mean she can't significantly raise the live save rate in LA in two or three years or less. A big fish in a small pond can still become a big fish in a big pond.

I think ADL rightfully sees through this campaign of oblique attacks using the same talking points by everyone.

Barnette Critics Labeled as "KOOKS!"- ADL-LA

2010-07-11T18:45:00.000-07:00

You've seen the emails pushing for an unquestioned Brenda Barnette confirmation by Council which are now coming in

GIANT BOLD RED FONT.

[originally posted as comment at Ed Muzika's LA Animal Watch]

Shame on those who characterize respected members of the animal community as KOOKS! Exactly how is Atake a "stakeholder" in a Heisen appointment? Heisen would never be appointed. Everyone knows that. She's too smart and wouldn't play their game.

Marie Atake is a tireless advocate for animals and resigned her commission post in protest of a flawed department and corrupt system.

Following that, she received a commendation for her service from the L.A. City Council.

Though not mentioned here --it is assumed that Carole Raphaelle Davis--is also meant to be called a KOOK. Carole, along with Carol Sax and hundreds of others have vigorously protested against puppy mill dogs being sold in our neighborhoods at pet stores. Because of her work, West Hollywood has banned the sale of dogs at pet stores AND Orangebone on Melrose Ave. has signed an agreement to only "sell" animals from the L.A. City Shelters.

These women are not "KOOKS" and do not make statements lightly. They are both the real deal. Marie Atake's piece at http://www.examiner.com/x-47471-LA-Animal-Rescue-Examiner~y2010m7d9-Mayor-appoints-new-General-Manager-for-LA-Animal-Services

is neither filled with "rumor" or "lies."

It is factual that:
1. The "92% save rate" at Seattle Humane is -- at best-- misleading. SHS is NOT an open door shelter and everyone who has a brain knows that.

2. Barnette's AKC lobbying position was not on her resume an was kept from the selection committee. If it had not been, there would have been questions--at least--about it.

3. The AKC derives a LARGE portion of its income from "AKC" registrations of PUPPY MILL DOGS.

4. ON TELEVISION in Seattle, Barnette advised anyone who wanted a pit bull dog to FIRST "check out the breeder."

These are not rumors and lies. They are legitimate concerns.

If Pam Ferdin had any credibility, she would be asking the same questions instead of leading a bizarre and unnecessary siege on people who have voice genuine concerns. But hey..The Barbi Twins are supporting Barnette. What else do you need to know?

Now we hear that the ALF has made it known that anyone who opposes Barnette could be a target. Huh?

Maybe she's the right person. Maybe she isn't. But this campaign of rolling over and quashing all skeptics and critics is in the style of Ed Boks and is reprehensible. We have questions. So far...there have been no answers. Just a misrepresentation of a "92% save rate" and statements like "I have a good feeling" about her.

Again...to succeed she will have to turn this department UPSIDE DOWN with full cooperation from the Mayor. With the foaming mob pushing her confirmation without question and with no critique...she doesn't really have to do anything at all. If she fails, it will be the City's fault and the fault of the animal community...so they say.

Ed, I'm very surprised that [you] have left your post as investigative writer and instead have joined in the mucking of a few people who are still courageous enough to state their opinion. We still have free speech in this country, don't we?

Without the watchful eyes who have constantly monitored this department, how will we know WHAT is going on at all?

-Jeff de la Rosa

The Brenda Barnette "APPROVED" Train Marches On!

2010-07-08T03:30:00.000-07:00

(Previously posted as a comment to Ed Muzika's LA Animal Watch)

I have (the) utmost respect for Michael Bell, and for good reason.

That being said, do we need more positive endorsements (for Barnette) with the ADL-LA still slamming-home their recent reincarnation to "friend of the Mayor?"

It seems to me that the purpose of this avalanche of "APPROVED" stamps only serves one purpose (because, hey...she's in, okay?): Discredit all detractors and skeptics.

It's really too bad that Barnette will have to depend on one "staffer" to "train" her in the ways of the Department, the Council and the City --the other "staffer" will fade back into the woodwork where she quietly collected her enormous pay before--and it's even more too bad that the former "staffer" will be her most "trusted" adviser.

If Ms. Barnett is as savvy as she appears (read: able to politic with the best of them), she will make a big media splash, be the nice lady on TV with the cute little animals (read: NOT PIT BULLS) and watch and listen closely to what is available to her.

Then, after we're all cozy-- someone should get the axe and move on to yet another City Department--or not. Only then, will Barnette have a real chance to make a difference..if that is possible.

None of her SHS (Seattle Humane Society) policies will work here. Not the selective intake policy, nor the pit bull policy, nor the temperament test policy. Will this Board, who has forever forbade temperament testing give in (to Bickhart) and allow these "un-adoptable" dogs to be labeled to death? That's one way to bring up your save rate numbers....but that kind of sounds like Ed Boks-style tactics... which fooled quite a few people before. We can only wait and see.

The Brenda Barnette Effect

2010-07-01T03:14:00.000-07:00

Bandwagon effect
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(emphases added)

The bandwagon effect, also known as the "cromo effect" and closely related to opportunism, is a phenomenon—observed primarily within the fields of microeconomics, political science, and behaviorism—that people often do and believe things merely because many other people do and believe the same things. The effect is often called herd instinct, though strictly speaking this effect is a result of herd instinct. The bandwagon effect is the reason for the bandwagon fallacy's success.

The bandwagon effect is well-documented in behavioral psychology and has many applications. The general rule is that conduct or beliefs spread among people, as fads and trends clearly do, with "the probability of any individual adopting it increasing with the proportion who have already done so".[1] As more people come to believe in something, others also "hop on the bandwagon" regardless of the underlying evidence. The tendency to follow the actions or beliefs of others can occur because individuals directly prefer to conform, or because individuals derive information from others. Both explanations have been used for evidence of conformity in psychological experiments. For example, social pressure has been used to explain Asch's conformity experiments,[2] and information has been used to explain Sherif's autokinetic experiment.[3]

When individuals make rational choices based on the information they receive from others, economists have proposed that information cascades can quickly form in which people decide to ignore their personal information signals and follow the behavior of others.[4] Cascades explain why behavior is fragile—people understand that they are based on very limited information. As a result, fads form easily but are also easily dislodged. Such informational effects have been used to explain political bandwagons.[5]

Ed Boks welcomed "home" by Prescott, AZ.

2010-06-24T20:40:00.000-07:00

"As for Mr. Boks' Prescott roots, those of you who were around back in 1976 might remember the old Sears & Roebuck that used to be located on the square. If you happened to purchase an appliance from that old Sears more than 30 years ago, their bright young manager of appliance repair, Edward Boks, might have helped with the service on that machine.

Welcome, Mr. Boks, from the board, staff, volunteers and animals of the Yavapai Humane Society. Glad to have you on board!"

Read More

Pam Ferdin and ADL LA Give Official Blessing for Brenda Barnette's Appointment!

2010-06-23T02:41:00.000-07:00

by Jeff de la Rosa

Yes, it is snowing in the Matrix. There are some interesting insights on Phyllis Daugherty's negative campaign against Brenda Barnette as pick for the new G.M. of Los Angeles Animal Services; and also some thoughts about emails supposedly being circulated by "a candidate" who was not chosen. Not positive who that is so no names from BW either (except for the one we know).

For the overwhelming most part, ADL says Barnette is absolutely the right pick. We are encouraged to compliment the Mayor's team and ...(well, that part I can't participate in).... and join together to rally around Barnette. Okay. If the harshest critic of this Department says "go"...I will go...and be observant, yet hopeful.

As I've said many times although skeptically...I want Barnette to be "the One." Here's hoping.

From ADL-LA:

[stopthekilling] VERY URGENT ACTION ALERT- A MUST READ!!

June 23, 2010 12:23 AM

ADL-LA members have spent not one, not two, not three but FOUR days now talking to people from the Seattle Humane Society (SHS) regarding Brenda Barnette, our Mayor's choice for the new LAAS General Manager. Two of our ADL-LA members took off work for one full day just to make as many phone calls and get as much info as possible from employees, volunteers, rescuers and administrators who were willing to speak to them. We have basically put Brenda Barnette under our microscope. So with all the humility we can muster, we have to say that even though ADL-LA members personally scorn Jim Bickhart, the Mayor, Jimmy Blackman and others who have for years been complicit in the slaughter of animal inside LAAS, we must now give credit where credit is due. They were absolutely correct in their choice for the new General Manager and their choice seems to imply that they are ready and willing for major positive change and a new vision, a LIFE SAVING VISION, for the homeless and lost animals of Los Angeles.

From all our research, which we began right after we heard that Barnette was going to be appointed by the Mayor in an LA Times blog last Wednesday night, we have learned that not only did Jim Bickhart, the Mayor, Jimmy Blackman and anyone else who was behind her appointment make the most intelligent choice, but it's a monumental choice that will finally accelerate the LAAS shelters from being evil killing dungeons into the beacon of a life affirming sheltering system. +/- Read more...

ADL-LA was able to speak with many individuals including volunteers, employees and rescuers who work or have worked with Barnette on a daily basis and we even spoke to one of the individuals involved with the superb and large foster network program that Brenda Barnette set up herself and which has been so successful in saving the lives of hundreds upon hundreds of animals who would otherwise be dead right now.

In fact, in complete contrast to what we were told by employees in NYC and AZ regarding how inept, disorganized and duplicitous Ed Boks was while in charge of the homeless and lost animals of their cities, we have gotten irrefutable evidence and information about Barnette's programs that she set up with the Seattle humane community, the public and her employees which has saved the lives of thousands of animals since Barnette was appointed CEO of SHS in 2006. This is why (and we can't believe we are saying this,) but we at ADL-LA are asking our readers and supporters to e-mail Jim Bickhart, Jimmy Blackman and Mayor Villaraigosa and thank them for doing something that will save the lives of THOUSANDS of our city's homeless and lost animals. Their
e-mails are at the end of this post!

Unfortunately there are a few people, (there always are) who ironically have NEVER even worked with Barnette or even MET the woman who are circulating confusing, nasty and false e-mails about her. It is quite incongruous that all the people we spoke to that know Barnette personally and/or have worked along side Barnette at SHS and at ARF (Animal Rescue Foundation) have said nothing but amazing things about her. Yet a minority of so called animal welfarists here in LA who don't even know the woman, spreading nasty and completely false information about her. They definitely have their own personal axes to grind and it saddens ADL-LA tremendously (and the animals inside the LAAS shelters right now,) that a small minority are putting their ego's and their misinformation BEFORE what is best for the lost and homeless animals of LA. It's no wonder why many view LA's humane welfare community as a bunch of competitive, mean spirited, negative individuals who want change, yet fear that very change. Some have even called the animal welfare community here in LA 'kooks' who will never "get their act together!" We must prove these people WRONG! We can and MUST "get our act together" and get behind a woman who will not only be the first female to be appointed as General Manager for LAAS, but who is one of the most progressive, humane shelter leaders in the nation.

One of these individuals spreading untruths about Barnette we are very saddened to say, was a candidate for the GM position who obviously didn't get the job. She began spearheading a witch hunt against this superb and progressive shelter leader immediately after hearing the Mayor's decision. ADL-LA admits that this candidate is very knowledgeable about LAAS and has great ideas, and suggestions regarding reducing the killing inside our six city shelters, BUT. . . . she has no track record of ever doing it herself. Barnette on the other hand has a PROVEN STELLAR RECORD of implementing programs, policies and procedures in conjunction with employees, volunteers, a huge foster network, rescuers and even the PUBLIC that has brought the Seattle Humane Shelter to a 92% SAVE RATE! The numbers, and we have checked them out thoroughly through the Asolimar Accords (and they DON'T lie) show her save rate as consistently being between 91% and 92% for the past three years.

It would take ADL-LA hours to type in all the quotes and information we have obtained on this lady and needless to say it would be way too long for one post; so we're going to have to send them out in a series of posts. So here goes installment #1!

From what we have found out Barnette is a female shelter LEADER who is nationally recognized and who not only has the skill set to implement live saving programs and think outside the box, but has the vision as well. So please delete any e-mails from those people who have never worked with Barnette or have axes to grind with her personally and who are attempting to obstruct her appointment. ADL-LA says SHAME ON THEM! Not ONE of these obstructionists has ever run a shelter or better yet, turned a high kill shelter into a shelter that now saves 92% of the animals they take in (and they are an OPEN shelter by the way; they don't turn ANYONE away.) Instead of our entire humane community rejoicing and rallying around the Mayor and Ms. Barnette, a few bad apples are trying to spoil her stellar reputation of saving more animal lives on record than practically any other shelter in the of nation.

This time around the Mayor has chosen a winner to lead LAAS and he's handing her to us on a silver platter and we should all rejoice, not only for the animals whose lives WILL BE SAVED by having such a capable leader at the helm, but for ourselves. In fact some people from other states who know of her abilities are actually JEALOUS that Los Angeles was able to get someone of Barnett's caliber to run our city shelters! They want her!!

So we give you two of the many quotes we have gotten over the past four days.
This first one is a quote from Amber Yoo who worked along side Barnette for three years at SHS. We will be sending out more quotes in our future installments.

" I have worked closely with Brenda for three years at Seattle Humane and I can confidently say she is one of the nation’s best leaders in animal welfare. The numbers speak for themselves. She took an aging, overwhelmed shelter that was high kill, killing many of the animals it “rescued” and transformed it into a cutting-edge community center that saved 91.5% of the animals that came through its doors. She did this by inspiring the staff to embrace a no kill philosophy * and by engaging the community in its mission.

Wonderful things happen when you have a leader who inspires staff and engages the community in creative, life-saving solutions. Soon we were able to expand our concern from the animals coming through our doors to the animals in our region. We traveled several times a week to other shelters in the community and rescued animals from death row.

As our life-saving reputation grew, the community called on us to help in emergency situations. In June 2009 we rescued 90 American Eskimo dogs during one of the largest puppy mill busts in the country. Brenda immediately reached out to the volunteer foster network she had established. When the rescue van pulled into the driveway, we literally had a line of foster families waiting to take them home. The foster families provided the one-on-one attention that these scared and neglected dogs needed in order to learn what it was like to be a cherished pet. Today, all 90 dogs are happy, healthy and loved.

The volunteer foster network is one of many examples of how Brenda engaged the community in our mission. As Brenda always says, foster homes “literally expand the shelter walls—allowing us to save even more lives.” For example, only 150 cats could comfortably be housed at our shelter, but thanks to our foster network, we were able to care for upwards of 400 cats at any given time.

Another way Brenda involved the community was by partnering with local rescue groups. In 2008, Brenda’s vision of a community-wide partnership to save lives came to fruition with the first annual “Catapalooza”. Seattle Humane hosted six organizations in a community-wide, family-oriented, fun-filled cat adoption bonanza and in two days found homes for 146 orphaned kitties.

Ultimately, by uniting the community in our mission to save lives, we began to break adoption records. For the fiscal year of 2008-09, our adoption rate was the second highest in Seattle Humane’s 113-year history. That same year, we also experienced the lowest return rate ever – which means we were making quality, long-term matches. When I left Seattle Humane, this trend was continuing. It seemed like every month, we were breaking an adoption record.

As I said above, wonderful things happen when you have a leader who inspires staff and engages the community toward creative, life-saving solutions. If the community of Los Angeles' goal is to save as many animal lives as possible, then Brenda is the leader who can make that vision a reality.

* There were only two scenarios where we considered euthanasia: for those animals who were so sick that they could not be saved and for those who were a danger to the community. The decision to end a life was extremely serious—and always saddening."
***************************************************

This next quote is from Lisa Simmons who was the Executive Assistant when Barnette was Executive Director of Pets in Need (1998-2003)

"Brenda Barnette is a true visionary in the animal welfare movement. As Executive Director of Pets In Need, Brenda implemented a number of programs that today are incorporated in most shelters striving to reduce and end the killing of our companion animals.

Under her direction, Pets In Need became one of the core shelters in the UC Davis Koret Shelter Medicine Program, a program training veterinarians and veterinary technicians how to best practice humane, progressive and compassionate shelter medicine.

She started a program where the shelter could help those community members who were feral cat caregivers wanting to practice TNR. Cat traps and trapping training was provided at no charge, and a list of low to no cost spay/neuter feral cat clinics was provided.

She also created the foster kitten program which saves on average 500-600 kittens annually. Many of these kittens come from feral cats. Brenda created other successful programs that saved the lives of hundreds of our animals. If you need more information please let me know. Los Angeles is so lucky to have Brenda as their new general manager."

Please send thanks to:

mayor@lacity.org
Jim.Bickhart@lacity.org
Jimmy.Blackman@lacity.org

***********************************************************************
ADL-LA Disclaimer: Nothing contained in this publication is intended to encourage or incite illegal acts. Some of the information in the posts have been received anonymously and ADL-LA cannot make any guarantees for the accuracy of these reports. Any views or comments stated in this report are not necessarily the views of ADL-LA.

Phyllis Daugherty Digs In and Unearths Brenda Barnette's Other Records

2010-06-22T04:57:00.000-07:00

Amidst the flood of glowing adoration of our new General Manager, there is one voice standing clearly in opposition. Keep in mind, that Phyllis has described the Board of Commissioner of L.A. Animals Services as "a bunch of rescuers" who are "unqualified."

The comments in response to Ms. Daugherty's article are very interesting. A link is provided at the end.

Villaraigosa: AKC Rep Brenda Barnette New L.A. Animal Services Top Dog

From: OpposingViews.com

Opinion by Phyllis M Daugherty
(14 Hours Ago) in Politics

After a year-long, nationwide search he called the most intensive he’s ever seen, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa announced on June 17, 2010, that Brenda Barnette, CEO of the Seattle Humane Society, is most qualified to make the City’s policy decisions regarding the lives and welfare of the dogs and cats living in Los Angeles and how they will affect residents.

Barnette’s other job in Seattle is Legislative Representative for the American Kennel Club (AKC), which she stated at the media conference, amounts to merely hitting the “forward key” when the world’s largest purebred dog-breeding registry sends her information on issues to oppose or support.
Wow, that caused a collective gasp by the small group of invitation-only spay/neuter advocates present, most of whom were longtime animal devotees who celebrated with Lakers-style cheers and tears in 2008 when Councilman Richard Alarcon spearheaded, and the City Council passed, what is termed the toughest spay/neuter ordinance in the country. At a recent news event at the West LA shelter, “CA SPAY” license plate availability was announced, a concept introduced in Sacramento by Los Angeles-area Senator Alex Padilla. These plates are adorned with the artwork of celebrity heartthrob Pierce Brosnan, which should make any female with even residual hormones willing to pay $50 extra to a statewide spay/neuter fund for an on-the-road reminder that spaying or neutering stops the breeding which results in companion pet overpopulation and euthanasia.
The timing and animal-shelter venue selected for the Mayor’s media event regarding Barnette could be termed insensitive, if not intentionally torturous, for employees and others present, as a handful of animal-shelter-worker union reps and labor leaders held up bright pink papers reminding the Mayor that at the same moment he announced Barnette’s appointment to her $170,000/year (plus benefits) gig, the Personnel Department was handing layoff notices to 14 Animal Services employees, including eight license canvassers who stretch a meager $35,000 a year salary to feed families and pay rent. This is not out of character for Villaraigosa, who a few months ago held a high-dollar, catered pre-Oscar party in his taxpayer-provided estate while employees begged for their jobs outside.
In a June 18 article ,”Mayor nominates outsider to run L.A. Animal Services,” L.A. Daily News reporter Rick Orlov quotes the Mayor proclaiming, "Barnette has one of the nation’s strongest portfolios in animal shelter management, effective pet adoption and public education.” http://www.dailynews.com/ci_15321017?IADID
So, let’s explore what, other than her long AKC affiliation, set Barnett apart and what elevated her above a reported 120 other candidates with municipal and/or private animal sheltering and varied management experience. We need to recall that the Mayor hired an expensive Northern California search firm to aid his staff in compiling the “desired qualifications,” but, ultimately, the only mandated requirement for the GM position was a valid CA driver’s license, something Ms. Barnette undoubtedly intends to address soon. http://ourla.org/city-wide/1661-denise-a-justin-la-animal-services-gm-search-highlights-political-mismanagement
The 2008-2009 Annual Report for the Seattle Humane Society states that a total of 5,979 dogs and cats were admitted for the entire year (less than L.A.’s smallest San Pedro shelter) and 4,652 were placed. A notation alerts us that over 3,000 animals were placed in foster situations and some may still be awaiting homes. This is a limited-entry facility (SHS calls it “adoption guaranteed”) which can selectively accept relinquished pets and which takes in a few strays from several small cities. Such agencies traditionally avoid impounding potentially or obviously sick animals to control spread of contagious diseases and medical expenses.
By contrast, the six new or recently expanded Los Angeles City animal care centers took in 54,110 unwanted, stray, abandoned, sick, ill and injured dogs and cats last year. Of these, they returned-to-owner or re-homed 31,750--one of the best statistics in the nation for an open-entry municipal shelter (which means “no animal turned away”). This “save rate” is especially commendable considering that many of the animals have demonstrated unsafe, aggressive behaviors before or after entering the shelter, which makes adopting them to a new owner inadvisable, or they have serious or terminal physical challenges that cannot be remedied.
When asked by a reporter at the press conference how she plans to improve adoption rates in Los Angeles, Brenda Barnette answered that she had only about 1,000,000 people in Seattle to be involved with fostering and other programs, and there are 4,000,000 in Los Angeles; therefore, more people will be available to help. She seemed to miss the point that those 4,000,000 people dumped almost 55,000 pets last year. When pressed for more details, she didn’t offer any.
As he prepares to hand over one of the world’s largest public animal care and control systems and a vital Los Angeles public-safety agency to someone whose work history shows only experience in donation-based nonprofit organizations and who has no governmental-budget or municipal-shelter management experience, perhaps the Mayor should look at some of the areas where Ms. Barnette seems to have run into some snags before.
A 9/25/09 Seattle Post-Intelligencer article entitled, “Humane Society says it can pick up slack in animal control – but how?,” quotes Ms. Barnette declaring: "The Seattle Humane Society is absolutely committed to taking care of the animals in King County," Chief Executive Brenda Barnette said in a statement. "Our board, our staff and our volunteers are dedicated to this." However, the Post continues, “Barnette struck a much less optimistic tone last month, when she told reporter Chris Grygiel there is "no way" the agency could take care of an additional 10,000 animals a year in operations that could cost $5 million annually. "We just couldn't do it," she told Grygiel.” http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/archives/180288.asp
In an update, Barnette indicated that, in response to the possible closure of the King County Animal Care and Control shelter, “… the Seattle Humane Society shelter can double its dog capacity overnight by not offering boarding care services. Plans have also been drawn to bring in portable units to handle significantly more cats.” However, she added, “I do have one huge concern…Executive Triplett mentioned stray hold as part of the animal control component. We are not amicable to receiving dogs (or other animals) after KCAC has held them for 3 days, due to disease control and unnecessary stress on the animals.” http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/archives/180288.asp
Apparently in making her initial offer Ms. Barnette was not experienced enough to realize that disease control and stress are, unfortunately, the norm for every large municipal shelter, whether the General Manager is amicable or not. At its confirmation hearings, the Los Angeles City Council must make sure Ms. Barnette is fully aware that L.A. Animal Services is mandated to pick up and hold strays for owner redemption and to protect public health and safety. Many of these animals are, or become, ill and spread disease. However, in contrast to a private humane society, they cannot be turned away for that reason.
L.A. Animal Services also provides law enforcement, cruelty/neglect investigations, and emergency response to animals during major fires and other disasters. These are critical areas of expertise which Ms. Barnette’s may also lack. This is a serious concern, because in order to gain the support and trust of employees who are often at risk, the head of the Department must be competent to make quick, experienced decisions in life-threatening situations for officer, animals and public safety.
On September 17, 2009, there was another indication that Ms. Barnette lacks basic familiarity with legal mandates regarding animal-health issues. A Bakersfield TV news broadcast, “Controversy Over Kern County Dogs Transferred to Seattle Arises,” reported that volunteers had driven a total of 188 small dogs to the Seattle Humane Society in WA without vaccinations. According to the report, the CEO of the Seattle Humane Society, Brenda Barnette, said she was not aware the dogs needed vaccinations until she was advised by the Washington Department of Agriculture of this violation. www.turnto23.com/news/20967344/detail.html
This brought public outrage that animals from the local King County shelter were not being given a chance to transfer to Seattle Humane as Barnette had previously agreed. Critics claimed that bringing in out-of-state dogs reduced the number of homes available for local animals, which would then be euthanized. An e-mail response from Barnette stated that the animals in the King County shelter were sick and that is why Seattle Humane brought dogs from out of the area. Also, the Animal Control Officers’ Guild blogspot, claims, “…Barnette keeps repeating she will not take our animals because they are ‘diseased.’” http://kcanimalcontrol.blogspot.com/2009/10/acog-response-to-kcacc-whistleblower.html
According to L.A. Animal Services Interim GM Kathy Davis, volunteers from WA have driven to Los Angeles in a large truck three times this year to take a total of 180 small dogs to the Seattle Humane Society. The Los Angeles dogs were spayed or neutered, vaccinated, and provided with health certificates (at Los Angeles taxpayer expense) before transport. Ms. Davis said another sixty dogs are scheduled for a future trip. She also confirmed that Seattle Humane did not reimburse any of the costs. However, the Seattle Humane Society website states dog adoption fees are from $199-$275, and Ms. Barnette announced that all the dogs were quickly adopted.
These are not the only controversies in which Ms. Barnette has been embroiled. Shortly after she became head of Seattle HS, and with no municipal animal-control experience, Brenda Barnette became a member of a Citizens’ Advisory Committee which hired an outside consultant to evaluate the King County animal shelter, serving Seattle and surrounding areas. There was no denial by King County personnel that improvements were needed at the shelter, but management and employees contended that much of the problem was created by inadequate funding and long Council-mandated holding periods for animals which were not adoptable, in an attempt to make the shelter “no kill.” This practice results in overcrowding, fighting, injury and continual disease outbreaks.
Instead of attempting to develop ways to assist the shelter, the report indicated that the King County shelter should have its funding revoked in favor of a private partnership; i.e., “privatization.” The Seattle Humane Society then began negotiations to take all the animals housed at the King County shelter. In a preliminary agreement, Brenda Barnette agreed to take all animals for $200 each. This later changed to $400 per animal, pending a $2-million grant from the County to expand Seattle Humane Society facilities.
In a press release dated 12/11/09, the Animal Control Officer’s Guild demanded release of public records regarding the actions of the Advisory Committee and stated, “One of the advisory committee members heads the Seattle Humane Society, and resigned after the emails were requested via a Public Records Request.” (ACOG Press Release, 12/11/09).
After a tough battle, the efforts of shelter employees prevailed. On June 15, 2010--two days before Ms. Barnette’s Los Angles appointment was proclaimed by Villaraigosa--the Seattle Times announced, “King County budget panel OKs animal-control restructuring,” and reported that a county spokesperson stated, “…closing the county shelter and sending animals to the Humane Society was "not an option”…” http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2012126741_animalshelter16m.html
We will never know whether a different outcome regarding the shelter might have made a last-minute change in Ms. Barnette’s decision to leave Seattle. According to the Seattle Times, she was still asserting on June 16, 2010, that Seattle Humane could take all the animals. And, it appears other efforts to dismantle the shelter and privatize animal care services continued to the last minute. A group called “KCACC Exposed” replaced the advisory committee on which Ms. Barnette originally served; and, in a June 14 letter the co-chairs wrote to former King County Councilman/now County Executive Officer Constantine, “…over the past three years, we have worked by your side to create instability in the system, for the very reason that a broken, failing system should not be stable.” This is a very strange statement and raises the question of what benefit there was in destroying the County shelter system—and to whom? http://workingtohelpanimalstodaytomorrow.blogspot.com/
A comment posted on the Seattle Post Intelligencer news site by keejay explains why there is need for concern about privatizing public animal shelters and adopting a “no kill” philosophy. He writes about one of the members of the group trying to stop funding for the County shelter:
“Note what Claire Davis proposes hidden away in her recommendations in the Community Stakeholder review. ‘county should open up the county code and reevaluate the regulations related to licensing, pet limits, and special permits...so that the county can ensure that none of its existing regulations are inhibiting the development of a model, No Kill program.’

“Do you know what that means? Take AWAY animal control laws, like breeder licensing, pet limit laws (that prevent hoarding situations). Watch the puppy mill breeders, dog fighters, and hoarders escalate with NO LAWS to deal with them.

“You want to see more dog attacks? The dog fighter breeders will increase and get worse with relaxed or no regulations. And King County citizens and animals will pay the price.”
http://www.seattlepi.com/soundoff/comment.asp?articleID=381882

Ms. Barnette has also been beleaguered by labor issues at Seattle HS. According to a press release issued on October 20, 2009, by the Animal Control Officers’ Guild (ACOG), “The SHS with around 70 staff has had over 60 employees turnover in the last 18 months, this is over 75%! Staff fears this high rate of attrition is not just the nature of the job, but from a complete lack of attention to training, employee retention and morale by management leading to a lack of continuity in care of animals.” A 10/29/09 posted comment states, “ Their labor turnover rates were understandable, albeit quite high, when their new CEO first started, have continued at an alarming rate to this day…What really hurts is the subtle retaliation in spite of promises to the contrary.” http://kcanimalcontrol.blogspot.com/
Facing further furloughs at L.A. Animal Services and loss of all licensing canvassers could seem a crippling blow to new GM Brenda Barnette’s efforts to raise revenue for the agency; however, a letter to the editor of the Kent Reporter on 10/16/09 from Sgt. John Diel of the ACOG stated, “…Brenda Barnette also stopped selling King County pet licenses starting the beginning of 2009. This realizes a loss of around $100,000 dollars to the King County Animal Care and Control Program!” http://kcanimalcontrol.blogspot.com/2009/10/acog-response-to-kcacc-whistleblower.html Ouch, that does not bode well for the L.A. City Council’s new push to have Animal Services vigorously pursue dog licensing revenue.
Although she downplayed it at the press conference, Brenda Barnette and her daughter, Mary Alice Davis, are apparently deeply involved in dog shows and purebred dogs, which casts serious doubt on her ability to create coalitions with the vast Los Angeles rescue network which abhors more pets being added to an existing overpopulation—intentionally or by accident. Barnette and/or Davis’ names appear on numerous Internet dog show rosters as breeders and/or owners of various dogs back to 2003. On May 22, 2007, they both were approved for Active Membership in the Portuguese Water Dog Club of America, and Brenda Barnette’s name appears on the announcement of the March 13-14, 2010 AKC trials of the Seattle Kennel Club as the AKC Legislative Representative. http://www.barayevents.com/docs/357/document_1262.pdf
While working in San Francisco as a program-development director for the SPCA, Ms. Barnette also served as President of the Board for the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender Community Center Project (CCP). http://friendsof1800.org/ARCHIVES/bar_05-14-98.html But it is alarming that, according to her current social and professional networking sites, Brenda Barnette does not list strong interests or affiliations other than those related to purebred dogs and kennel clubs. Most animal-control managers boast a string of involvements in national and local animal-control/humane organizations, which is essential to keep up with changes in the industry and legislation. There is righteous concern if, as the “top dog” at Los Angeles Animal Services, Ms. Barnette’s position on local ordinances and state legislation continues to be dictated by the AKC.

Did you make it though? Read the comments.

]

35 Dogs Await Ed Boks's Genius at New AZ Post.

2010-06-22T04:02:00.000-07:00

...and 32 cats. Well, how much harm can he do there? Last reported Executive Director salary is from their 2008 IRS Form 990:

$52,650

View available animals...

Goodbye.

In more interesting Arizona news, Chuck D. Calls Jan Brewer "A Hitler."

Pam Ferdin and ADL LA Jump the Gun on Brenda Barnette's Appointment

2010-06-18T11:41:00.000-07:00

An announcement released this morning from Animal Defense League- Los Angeles, which appears to put their stamp of approval on Brenda Barnette's appointment,is, as usual... over the top. I don't recall if Barnette was ever endorsed by ADL-LA as a candidate who must be considered. You'd think that with this flowery endorsement, that she would have been in their top five--at least.

We may finally concede to the Mayor and Jim Bickhart that they have done their homework this time around and must sincerely want to reform our city shelters from the Death Camps they currently are into a shelter system the public can rally around and most important of all, animals' lives can begin to be saved and LA may be truly become a City of Angels to our lost and homeless animals.
+/- Read more...

No mention of Barnette's AKC affiliation, rumored "breeder" status (sort-of-denied by Barnette, but not really) and her apparent lack of support for mandatory spay and neuter laws (which I have doubts about anyway, because they don't work and are unenforceable). Not one mention of the vast differences between Barnette's last post and her new nearly impossible task.

For nearly a year since the ousting of Ed Boks ( journalists: PLEASE stop saying he that he quit--that's about as accurate as using the term "euthanasia" to describe the slaughter of animals at the pound), ADL-LA has fired-off scathing and accusatory emails and announcements declaring "corruption" and other bad-boy behavior when describing the search for a new G.M. by the City's recruitment firm and Jim "BigFart" Bickhart (their nickname, not ours).[edit] I missed this the first time- Pam now describes the search process as "professional and state-of-the-art." Huh?[/edit] Yet, with a real twist of tone, Ferdin applauds Barnette's record in Seattle which achieved a 90%+ save rate on animals taken in.

Ferdin says nothing about the fact that Barnette's Humane Society could turn away any animal they wished , charged a reportedly $200 intake fee and serviced an area a small fraction of the size and population of Los Angeles...with no government control as they are a privately funded non-profit organization.

Don't get me wrong, I want Brenda to be the real deal, but I am realistic in recognizing the challenges she faces in a completely different environment with completely different rules, laws, politics and demographics. I suspect that Nathan Winograd is supportive of Barnette's appointment (although he hasn't made a peep yet) and that ADL has been softened by a blessing from the "No Kill" man himself.

Too much , too soon from Pamelyn? Yeah. But that's how they roll: fast, emotionally-charged and reckless. We'll see what the "in-depth" research shows which she states will be performed in "the next 72 hours."

The complete announcement from ADL-LA:

Yesterday the Mayor Announced his Choice for the
New LAAS General Manager as Brenda Barnette CEO of Seattle Humane Society

Obviously we were completely shocked (with pleasure) that the Mayor and Jim Bickhart finally did the right thing for the animals, and ADL-LA is going to go out on a limb here and say that not only must there have been progressive shelter leaders on Jim Bickhart's "secret committee" but one of these top notch leaders apparently decided to apply for the job!

Our cursory research we have done in the past twenty four hours shows Barnette as having a stellar track record of saving 92% of the animals that are impounded at Seattle Humane. We also found out that in her first year there, Barnette implemented programs that resulted in cutting the kill rate 22 % ! We were told by a volunteer in Seattle that the employees admire and respect her immensely, and that several volunteers and employees began to weep when they heard she's leaving!

BUT WAIT! No more pickets at the Mayoral mansion, Bickhart's neighborhood and other city officials?
It seems that if Barnette is as good as what our cursory search found, we will be officially suspending our six year campaign to Stop The Killing in LA city shelters for at least one full year. Our members and other picketers will move on to other campaigns like picketing stores that sell puppies from puppy mills or maybe some members might even decide to volunteer and rescue animals at LAAS once it's being led by Barnette whose history of implementing life saving measures in Seattle is going to now advance our city shelters out of the "catch and kill" 20th Century and into the 21st Century!

In the next 72 hours ADL-LA plans on doing the same type of in depth search of Barnette as we did on Ed Boks, Guerdon Stucky and Sharon Morris (all three who we found out were as bad as their previous job history proved.) We plan on doing the same thing with Brenda Barnette and hopefully by Tuesday or Wednesday of next week we can give you a full review of what we found out about her by those who actually work and/or have worked with her as well as those who volunteer and rescue from her shelter.

But suffice it to say that if she proves as good as our cursory check on her proves, ADL-LA and the three other plaintiffs will NOT file our law suit against the city for not disclosing the public records showing how the search was conducted and by whom. We will save our money, time and effort for more important things since the recruitment procedures and committee members must have conducted the search in a professional and state-of-the-art manner in order to hire someone with such a stellar life saving history for the lost and homeless animals in Seattle.

We may finally concede to the Mayor and Jim Bickhart that they have done their homework this time around and must sincerely want to reform our city shelters from the Death Camps they currently are into a shelter system the public can rally around and most important of all, animals' lives can begin to be saved and LA may be truly become a City of Angels to our lost and homeless animals.

ADL-LA

***********************************************************************
ADL-LA Disclaimer: Nothing contained in this publication is intended to encourage or incite illegal acts. Some of the information in the posts have been received anonymously and ADL-LA cannot make any guarantees for the accuracy of these reports. Any views or comments stated in this report are not necessarily the views of ADL-LA.

ADL-LA

[end announcement]

Jeff de la Rosa

Seattle's Brenda Barnette Picked for New General Manager of Los Angeles Animal Services

2010-06-17T02:17:00.000-07:00

You can read about Ms. Barnette in this nice fluff piece and wonder for yourself whether this is the right choice for a huge , near bankrupt city wrought with city and union politics and back-stabbing. Will she bring her 6 dogs ("most" are rescues) with her where we can only have 3?

Is this like recruiting Sheriff Taylor from Mayberry?

I don't really feel like writing about this. Linda Barth will eat her alive if she's not smart or even if she is. I wish her luck, but predict that she will soon long for her quiet life on the boat at Lake Union. At her new salary, she could dock at Marina del Rey...

Waiting for Nathan reaction...and Pam's. Small dogs will have a friend. What about the pit bulls?

Photo: Dan Shclatter

Animal Defense League to Hold Lawsuit...For Now.

2010-04-26T14:44:00.000-07:00

The Los Angeles chapter of the Animal Defense League (ADL-LA) has announced that they will not file suit against the City of Los Angeles alleging improper hiring practices concerning the city's search for a new General Manager for the City's Department of Animal Control.

From the announcement:

The plaintiffs were going to file the complaint (law suit) through their attorney, along with their exhibits and declarations today April 26th, 2010. But the plaintiff's have decided to wait until the Mayor NOMINATES the new General Manager. Because if for some reason our sources were misinformed and Villaraigosa nominates a general manager that Councilmember Zine and many well respected individuals from within the humane community suggested to the LAAS commission and Jim Bickhart as the kind of General Manager LAAS needs; one who is progressive, humane and knows what protocols, policies and programs to implement that will drastically reduce the kill rate and dramatically increase the adoption rate, the plaintiffs will be left with "Egg on their faces!"

Board of Commissioners to dump appeals process?

2009-10-25T17:33:00.001-07:00

STATEMENT AGAINST REVISIONS OF THE LOS ANGELES MUNICIPAL CODE, WHICH WOULD, IN EFFECT, DO AWAY WITH THE APPEAL PROCESS ENTIRELY IN “BARKING DOG” AND “DANGEROUS ANIMAL” CASES.

BY JEFF DE LA ROSA
_________________________________________________
Please read the Department's proposal to change the Municipal Code here.

“A proposed mark-up of the relevant LAMC sections is on file and will be provided to the City Attorney.”

Why? Why this is not "provided" to the Board and to the Public before the item is discussed or passed? Let’s see it, please.

Most notable of the reasons stated in the Dept.’s report for “revising” the appeals process are:

1. The current system is burdensome to the Board.
2. The Board delays scheduling of appeals.
3. The Board is not qualified to hear appeals.

First, I think that recently slamming the Board with a meeting consisting entirely of multiple appeal hearings was a calculated move—a move calculated to coerce/convince the Board to give up the appeal process. Helen Brakemeir has campaigned to be in charge of this for a long time. Are we now giving it to her? Please don’t.

To my knowledge, sections 53.18.5 and 53.34.4 of the municipal code were crafted after significant study by a panel of citizens. If that was not the case, it should be now. Any changes which affect so many lives of people and animals must be studied carefully before being changed as radically as is proposed. The process MUST be fair to all parties. The proposed changes effectively do away with the appeal process and leave only a “review” by the General Manager.

My initial reaction to the idea that the Board is overburdened by appeals is “too bad.” With power, there is responsibility. The Board is the ONLY chance of an impartial entity having any review of a decision to revoke a license or declare a dog as dangerous. The reason that appeals are most often too “extensive” is that the current procedures for appeals are not followed. Please refer to the Resolution regarding how appeals are to be conducted. The Board meets twice per month—sometimes. If the work isn’t getting done, perhaps more meetings should be scheduled and certainly no meeting should be canceled without being rescheduled.

“…the Board is compelled to delve deeply into the case...”

No they are not. It is only the Board itself which makes the choice whether or not to delve “deeply into the case.” If the Board were to follow the actual rules for appeals, this would not happen. It would be interesting to know how many Commissioners even know these rules. Please review them first, before voting on this item.

If the current appeals process is burdensome to the Board, then the process should be streamlined and rely more on limited-length written statements from the parties which outline and explain why the original decision is invalid. The actual appeal hearing should be limited to 15-20 minutes. This is all you get in the California Court of Appeals and it should be good enough for the Board appeals.

Delays? To my knowledge, it is the Department and Ross Pool who are responsible for the scheduling of appeals. To address delays, the appeal should be heard within a specified time of the filing of the appeal request. Problem solved.

The Board is not qualified? If the Board is qualified to set policy which affects the lives of people and animals in the City, then its members are qualified to hear appeals of decisions which are the result of those policies. There is no entity within the Department as qualified or impartial as the Board. Expecting a General Manager or other “designated individual” to be the final arbiter is placing too much power in the hands of ONE person. “Designated individual?” Like whom? Helen Brakemeir? One of the other Captains who have been found unfit to run a District? No. Is a General Manager, who most likely has less animal experience than a Board member, more qualified? No.

As I see it, the pitfalls of with proposed changes are:

1. Quasi-judicial decisions are placed in the hands of law enforcement officers. This is NOT exemplary of our system of justice. Where are the checks and balances? This is akin to having a police captain hear your speeding ticket case. Whether “directly involved” or not, there is too much probability that a law enforcement officer -read ACO- would hold a bias against an appellant.
2. The final decision is placed in the hands of the chief animal law enforcement officer or another law enforcement officer. See #1.

SUGGESTIONS IF THE BOARD WANTS TO CHANGE.

1. Appoint a citizen panel/tribunal comprised of animal experts to hear appeals. Train them in property law and due process OR get some lawyers to sit on the panel who actually understand due process. Offer training an alternative to license revocation.
2. Follow the rules and procedures which are currently in place. They might work.

This needs more study by qualified people before being passed. Please continue the item and get input from experts…like Bobby Dorafshar or the other members of Spay Neuter Committee.

I have no objections to the proposal to clarify the definition of “barking dog.” It’s necessary.

BRING QUINCEY BACK!

2009-07-25T12:22:00.000-07:00

To Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and the Los Angeles City Council:

The People and animals of the City of Los Angeles have suffered a great loss with the resignation of Archie Quincey from the Board of Animal Services Commissioners. Quincey brings 32 years experience in Los Angeles animal care and control to the Board. He is a dedicated, informed and honorable Commissioner and what this City needs and has needed.

With no real management team in place in the Department and a real mess left behind by a bumbling General Manager, we must look to the Board of Commissioners for experience, guidance and leadership. Quincey was chastised for doing his job--getting to the truth and finding a solution. The case of Stu aside, Quincey has constantly reminded the Board and Department that we must license our dogs, follow the law and make new laws that help to stem the tide of abandoned animals and killing.

Management has insulted Quincey to his face, behind his back and in public which is unacceptable, shameful and should not be tolerated. We cannot afford a vacancy on the Board and certainly cannot afford not to have Quincey in his seat advocating for the law, order and compassion. Our shelters are overflowing with animals. With intake of animals up 30% and kill numbers even worse, due to economic issues in our nation, state and city, we need all the wisdom we can get and we got that from Quincey--for free.

Mr. Mayor, you must refuse Quincey's resignation, have a personal meeting with him to address his concerns and put him back where he belongs--in his seat on the Board where he gives us a mountain of insight and experience without compensation. Please support and uphold the integrity of this Board by standing behind your personal appointment, Archie J. Quincey. You have chosen to remain in Los Angeles and do the work of the people. At this time, the people need a full Board which leads, is forthright and honorable. You have the power to give them that. Please stand up and do so.

I encourage Council to pass a resolution which recommends Quincey's reinstatement. You, as the representatives of the People, approved this man's appointment. Don't let him go. He is doing what you asked of him: serving honorably.

When was the last time you saw female rescuers hug a Commissioner? I've seen it. I'd like to see it again.

Respectfully,

Jeff de la Rosa

I urge all readers of this letter to join with me in this campaign to return Archie Quincey to the Board of Commissioner without delay. Email addresses and other contact info which you can use to BRING QUINCEY BACK! are below.

Office of the Mayor:
mayor@lacity.org
JimmyBlackman@lacity.org

Board of Commissoners
Tariq Khero tariq.khero@gmail.com
Kathleen Riordn ninekitties@aol.com
Archie J. Quincey ajq1trq2@aol.com
Irene Ponce ireneponce@earthlink.net (spam filter, you must do as requested when you receive the return email for your message to be delivered)
Ruthanne Secunda secundar@unitedtalent.com

City Council-Public Safety Committee

Councilmember Paul Koretz Chair, Council District 5
200 N. Spring Street, Room 440; Los Angeles, CA 90012
ph: 213-473-7005; fax: 213-978-2250
email: councilmember.koretz@lacity.org, paul.koretz@lacity.org

Councilmember Bernard C. Parks, Council District 8
200 N. Spring Street, Rm. 460; Los Angeles, CA 90012
ph 213-473-7008; fax: 213-485-7683
email: Councilmember.Parks@lacity.org,
Bernard.Parks.Jr@lacity.org

Councilmember Greig Smith, Council District 12
200 North Spring St., Rm 405
Los Angeles, CA 90012
ph: 213-473-7012; fax: 213-473-6925
email: councilmember.smith@lacity.org

Councilmember Dennis Zine, Council District 3
200 N. Spring Street, Rm.450
Los Angeles, CA 90012
ph: 213-473-7003; fax: 213-485-8988
email: Dennis.Zine@lacity.org

Councilmember Ed Reyes, Council District 1
200 N. Spring Street, Room 410
Los Angeles, CA 90012
ph: 213-473-7001; fax: 213-485-8907
email: councilmember.reyes@lacity.org, ed.reyes@lacity.org

[UPDATED] Animal Services thwarts Board Officer Elections-Again.

2009-07-24T15:43:00.000-07:00

CLICK HERE FOR BOARD's 7/27/09 Agenda (save it...it will change)

UPDATE 7/24/09 8:07 P.M. No, there was no reply to the letter; however, mysteriously a "special agenda" was added to the LAAS web site on Friday, July 24, 2009 5:00:04 PM. That agenda is for the elections of officers. What? They forgot? Here's the new addition http://laanimalservices.com/PDF/commission/2009/072709%20-%20Special%20Agenda.pdf

Below is the text of Jeff de la Rosa's letter to the the Interim General Manager of Los Angeles Animal Services, Kathy Davis. She's not doing so hot at 24 days in office.

July 24, 2009 VIA EMAIL
Kathleen Davis, Interim General Manager
Board of Commissioners
City of Los Angeles
Dept. of Animal Services
221 N. Figueroa St 5th fl.
Los Angeles CA 90012

DEMAND TO HOLD OFFICER ELECTIONS

Dear Ms. Davis, and Commissioners,

Pursuant to Article V of the Los Angeles City Charter, the Board is to hold an election of officers on Monday July 27, 2009. Unless there is another last meeting in July, your agenda does not comply with the law.

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. (emphasis added)

I therefore demand that you either revise your Board’s agenda to include the mandated election of officers: OR

Cancel and reschedule your meeting to another day in July 2009 which will provide for proper public notice for an agenda which includes an election of officers according to the Los Angeles City Charter and Administrative Code-- A free election with the outcome not dictated by others.

If I am not informed in timely manner that you have taken proper steps to comply with the law I will pursue criminal corruption charges against you as well as civil remedies.

You’re not off to a very good start.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey de la Rosa

Cc:

William Carter, Office of the City Attorney
Council President Eric Garcetti
Councilmember Paul Koretz, Chair Public Safety Committee
Councilmember Dennis Zine, Chair-Personnel Committee;
Helen E. Zukin, President, City Ethics Commission:
Board of Animal Services Commissioners:
Commissioner Tariq Khero, President;
Commissioner Kathleen Riordan, Vice President;
Commissioner Irene Ponce;
Commissioner Ruthanne Secunda

The Lion of the Board of Commissioners has had it. Quincey resigns.

2009-07-24T12:15:00.000-07:00

LA Animal Services commissioner resigns

From the Daily News:
LA Animal Services commissioner resigns
By Rick Orlov, Staff Writer
Updated: 07/24/2009 09:28:30 AM PDT

A member of the Los Angeles Animal Services Commission resigned Thursday, accusing city employees of ignoring his demands for information and suggesting that some actions could be illegal.

Archie Quincy, who spent 32 years working for the Los Angeles County Animal Control Department, sent a letter of resignation to aides of Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa. "I don't need this job," Quincy said in an interview. "They don't know what they're doing over there and I'm afraid some of what they are doing is criminal. I just don't want to be involved with it."

Quincy, who was appointed in 2007, said he suspects the city Department of Animal Services has been withholding information or changing data in reports to the five-member commission.

The most recent situation involved information he had requested about a pit bull taken to a city shelter and the treatment of the dog's owner.

"When I ask for information as a commissioner, I should be able to get it," Quincy said. "Instead, all I hear are comments about me."

Animal Services officials said they were unaware of Quincy's resignation and could not comment on it.

The long-troubled department has been without a general manager since April, when then-chief Ed Boks resigned under pressure from animal advocates.

Stu's Dad asks for a little help...

2009-07-20T10:34:00.000-07:00

I've hit a rough patch and have sent out a request for help. My pride? I gave that up 4 years ago when I had to ask the world to help save my Stu. Notes on why I'm requesting assistance are HERE. Thank you in advance for any help you can send along.

For Annie...

2009-07-16T15:26:00.001-07:00

One night in 1995 I came home to see a bouncy and black Cocker Spaniel trotting down my street in Los Feliz. I followed and the little dog stopped on the corner across the street from me. I sat on my corner and waited. She sat on her corner and looked at me for about 10 minutes. Finally she got up and trotted over to say, "hello." She was clean and well-groomed, so I knew she belonged somewhere. I placed an ad in the L.A.Times classified. The next day, a woman called saying that she has rescued "Annie" from the streets near Adams Blvd. months before. She had been a mess, was matted and filthy. While recovering with her rescuer/foster mom, Annie raised a litter of kittens and slept in their box with them.

The rescuer said she had placed Annie in a home in Beachwood Canyon, about 2 miles away from me, but Annie had escaped the yard on the first night by chewing through the wood fence and ended up facing me down on a corner in Los Feliz. The rescuer came by and confirmed the dog was indeed Annie and asked me if I would like to keep her. I said, "Absolutely, yes!" "Good, " she said. "She seems to like it better with you" --besides, I had a young kitten, Grace; and by now, Annie had taken her under her wing.

Over the years, Annie traveled across the country several times with me, always on her black pillow on the passenger seat, sporting her red collar . Once she locked me out of the car at truck stop at night by flicking the lock button while the motor was running. Other than that , she 's been my best friend and my most loyal companion. She's outlasted 5 girlfriends and was better to me than any of them. When I brought Maeve home at 8 weeks old, Annie took charge of her, too. She remained in charge as Maeve grew to be an 80 lbs. beauty. Then Stu joined us. They ignored each other for the most part, but I have caught them cuddling together on occasion. Annie hated the dog park. While Stu and Maeve played, she would sidle up to the nearest bench and wait for a human to come and adore her. She preferred people to everything, except kittens.

Annie has been mauled by a big dog on the Elysian trail, suffered glaucoma and the loss of one eye and so many ear infections that she finally went deaf. Losing those senses never phased her as she marched on with that Spaniel nose and never complained. Her love was unconditional and I returned her love by staying by her through all of her ordeals and her joys. She was always a happy little pup and let me know it. She wasn't a kisser but she would rest her head on my knee as a sign they I was hers.

For the last several days, Annie has been letting me know that she would be leaving me soon. She stopped eating. Then the next day she stopped drinking water. She has been weak and stumbling. Last night I gave her water from a syringe as I held her in my arms, crying. At about 3 a.m., I put her down on her bed and I went to sleep. This morning we were going to the vet to confirm what I already knew: She was at least 16 and her time left with me was short.

I picked her up from her bed and gave her a paper towel , so she could pee because she could not stand. Holding her in my arms, I tried some more water. She took a few drops and lapped it up. Suddenly, her legs thrust out stiffly as she took her last breath or her heart gave out. Her tongue went still and her mouth hung open. Then her head fell onto my chest and her little plush legs went limp. She was gone.

It was as if she had waited until I could be with her before she departed. I'm sure of it

She did not complain this morning but for a tiny little whimper seconds before she left me.

I will miss her more than words can describe. I had hoped she would be here when Stu comes home. I hope Maeve will be alive when he does. I wonder if he felt her go.

Rest easy, little one. I loved you so much am so thankful for your love and for what you have taught me. Rest easy.

Board of Animal Services Commissioners moves to amend L.A. Code to free Stu!

2009-07-13T14:42:00.000-07:00

The Board convened at about 10:30 (a half-hour late) and immediately began discussion of Item 3A regarding Stu. Although newly installed Interim General Manager, Kathy Davis was present for her first meeting ever, but she did not even get an introduction. I can't say I've ever even seen her before but she sat next to the City Attorney in the GM's spot...and was entirely silent.

The Board took Public Comment from a large group of concerned citizens, some who traveled from as far as southern Orange County to support Stu. The Board requested that no action to "euthanize" Stu be taken at this time. At 11:05 the Board withdrew to closed session to consult with Assistant City Attorney Laurie Rittenberg, the supervising attorney on Stu's court cases.

Although the Board estimated that they would return to open session at 11:45 , they did not return until past 12:30 p.m at which time, Commissioner Riordan introduced a motion that the Board make a recommendations to Council to amend the Los Angeles Municipal Code section covering "dangerous" dogs which would allow the Board to modify a "dangerous" designation made by a general manager, even long after the appeal process has been finalized. Commissioner Riordan stressed that the amendment be retroactive to cover Stu's case. Commissioner Ponce seconded the motion and it was passed 4-0 (Commissioner Secunda had left the meeting by this time and did not take part in the vote).

What this means is that , at a subsequent public meeting (presumably on July 27, 2009), the Board will actually make a recommendation to City Counicl to amend the code in order to give the Board the power to reverse a GM's decision AFTER the appeal had been finalized. I take this to mean that the Board, once empowered by the code change, intends to remove the "dangerous" designation from Stu which would allow the Board to send him home under reasonable terms and conditions for his care and control.

I do not know how long this will take, but apparently the Board intends to ask the Coucil for an expedited consideration of their request for the code change.

I'm a little frazzled by the whole thing beause it doesn't seem real. I'm encouraged, but I will believe it when I see it. This could take months or weeks or the Council could refuse to the amend the code.

NOTE: The Board will hold their annual elections for President and Vice President on July 27. Last time the "election" was more of a mayoral "appointment" of Tariq Khero as interim President following the resignation last fall of Glenn Brown. Who's up?

Ed Boks Turns in His Badge...and unveils 5-year Strategic Plan

2009-07-03T12:18:00.000-07:00

"A zombie is a mythical creature that appears in folklore and popular culture typically as a reanimated corpse or a mindless human being." source: http://en.wikipedia.org

This new "5 year strategic plan" quietly appeared today at laanimalservices.com.

Ed seems to think that now is a good time to unveil his plans for the Los Angeles Department of Animal Services..on his way out the door. It may make you wonder whether this was part of his exit deal and reminds us of the $50,000 which was paid to the last GM, Guerdon Stuckey, for few pages of drivel.

http://laanimalservices.com/PDF/reports/fiveyearstrategicplan.pdf

No doubt, the Board knows nothing about this new plan for its department. None of them are credited in its "list of contributors." The plan has replaced the Annual Report which is now absent. Also, Boks is still blogging http://laanimalservices.blogspot.com/2009/07/change-of-address.html.

Ed Boks refuses to be forgotten, just like the narcissist he is.Now he's calling himself "laptopdog." Get it? he's still "top dog."

Go way, Mr. Boks.

I had to share this with you...

2009-07-02T23:50:00.000-07:00

An email message from Teresa to the Board of Animal Services Commissioners:

All dogs are Sacred, they come from afar to teach mankind, how to open up his heart and to luv unconditionally,Dogs are our protectors and keepers of our spirits, they guide our spirit home when we cross or go thru changing of worlds, Dogs are beyond human intelligence, they speak the language of the Birds as all animals do!They are psychic, they are used to assist mankind in police force,and in medical programs. Finding cancer and tumors in humans before they even know they are ill.When mankind learns to awaken his heart and to listen from his Soul, then he will evolve and become whole.For mankind has forgotten his promise to be the keepers and protectors of all animal kingdom, For we are One thru Divine Source, Lifes breath running thru all living, breathing creatures!Please respect and honor the lives that have come to you, to assist you and your families in need.You are now in a position to be of assistance to this sacred Dog Stu, the love that you will give to him, is the love you give to yourself,the suffering you cause him, will be the suffering you cause for yourself, for this is Universal Law and Karma on Planet Earth,Hashi Inkba/Sun Father Mother Moon,I beg you to open your hearts to assist in changing laws to protect all animals now,blessings yakoke

Native American Church Of The Ghostdancers
Indigenous Peoples Council
Native American Masonry
Past Master
http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/save-the-indian-ponies-wild-mustangs.html
Refugee Advocate/Wild Mustangs/Bison
Federally recognized Native American Church Body
Conservancies for Indigenous Life
Please sign our petition at http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/indigenoous-American-Refugees-United-Nations-Status

Katherine Varjian's Day in Court: Beverly Hills Woman Who Cares for Cats Could beJailed.

2009-07-01T23:37:00.000-07:00

Beverly Hills, California. July 1, 2009.
Court reporting by Pam Holt.

[Katherine Varjian appeared in Court today to defend herself against a recently deleted Beverly Hills Ordidance which prohibits the feeding of "non-owned" animals; In this case, Ms. Varjian has cared for a colony of about 20 cats. Ed.]

The crowd (which I estimate to be 20+) which came to support Katherine Varjian (identified with red ribbon armbands) included Ed Boks, who offered to tell the judge about the agreement LAAS created with the city of Beverly Hills. This agreement matched the animal control laws in Beverly Hills with those of the city of Los Angeles, where feral cat care taking is legal, making the anti-feeding ordinance no longer in effect.

Believe it or not, the Beverly Hills City Councilmembers are voting on an "emergency motion" to REINSTATE the inhumane ordinance at their next meeting on Tuesday, July 7th at 7 PM, so we have to make a strong showing then. The prosecutor was saying that it was a "mistake" that the cruel ordinance got deleted! The judge was not ready to make a ruling today because she says she just got the paperwork 2 days ago and needed to absorb it more thoroughly. Katherine's daughter, who is an attorney representing her, wanted a ruling today because the city council may reinstate the ordinance. So, if the ordinance will be reinstated, the judge will hear the case and make a ruling on August 7th at 1:30 PM.

If the city council doesn't vote to reinstate it, then the case will be dismissed.

Only once was feeding ferals even brought up (and it was probably a good 35-40 minutes or so of back and forth legal jumbo). No chance was given to mention how Katherine practices TNR [trap/neuter/release] and adopts out any kittens or cats that can be socialized. The city of Beverly Hills should be giving her an award, not arresting her!

Anyone who would like to tell Beverly Hills City Council how they feel about their "emergency meeting" and quest to jail a kind-to-animals senior citizen should attend:

Council Meeting
Tuesday, July 7 , 2009

Beverly Hills City Council, Rm. 400
455 N. Rexford Drive
Beverly Hills, CA 90210

Mayor and City Council: (310) 285-1013
email: https://clients.comcate.com/newrequest.php?id=31

Pam Holt is an activist and advocate for animals, a Registered Veterinary Technician, Certified Animal Massage Therapist and founder of Buddah Dog Animal Massage. BW thanks Pam for her coverage of this ludicrous persecution.

Marie Atake speaks for Stu:A Letter to the City Attorney

2009-07-01T02:59:00.001-07:00

To: David Michaelson, Branch Chief (the boss of Dov and Todd Leung)

I am a former Commissioner on the Board of LA Animal Services of the city of Los Angeles, and am currently sitting on the city’s Spay/Neuter Ordinance Advisory Committee, as a District-11 appointee.

Animal Services Dept. wants to kill an owned dog in an obvious miscarriage of justice that is playing out before our eyes. The owner’s due process rights at the administrative hearing and at the administrative Appeal were stymied in multiple ways. 1) Expert evidence supporting the dog was kept out at the hearing level, 2) a city Commissioner hearing the Appeal engaged in ex parte communications with the appellant, formed a personal bias, and pushed the others toward her personal bias formed in that ex parte communication. Evidence that in the four intervening years the dog has had no problems has also been kept out.

The Commissioner engaging in the ex parte communications is gone. A majority of the current Commissioners, having heard the due process accusations, and one of the Commissioners being personally aware of the due process accusations, want to drop the case. However, their efforts have been obstructed. A State Court decision that will let LAAS kill the dog, “Stu” is imminent. But after two separate Commissioners formally requested that an agenda item for a vote to drop the case, the item was kept off the agenda. Their last scheduled meeting for June 8, 2009 would have been their last chance to vote before the State Court decision that will likely kill Stu. That meeting was abruptly canceled for no reason. The public has consistently spoken to save Stu and they have been summarily ignored. The owner has done this mostly without a lawyer, having spent all his money trying to keep his beloved dog alive.

This case goes far beyond the one dog. This case demonstrates the abuse of process which has taken place and the due process violations now being tolerated by the city. As a result of the city not taking responsibility for the past violations, city’s time and monetary resources are being spent to continue its prosecution even after the city’s due process violations came to light.

Even murderers are allowed to go free when their due process rights are violated. In this case, there are so many due process violations I lose count. More detail is in an article at this link:
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-1779-LA-Pet-Rescue-Examiner~y2009m6d17-Playing-political-games-with-a-dogs-life

I’ve been fighting for this dog’s life and fighting for the city’s integrity since I was on the Commission. Stu has been kept behind bars for 4 years already. He’s old now, and probably has only another year or two to live his natural life unless cut short by this travesty.

In my letter of resignation from the Commission on the Board of Animal Services Dept. to Mayor Villaraigosa almost two years ago (http://marie310.blogspot.com/2007/09/resigning-from-laas-commission_03.html), I wrote the following, and it was referring to Stu’s case:
“Recently, the Commission discovered its serious procedural problems with a past appeal. I was not involved with this particular appeal, however, I felt it was the Commission’s sworn duty to right its wrongs, and restore its integrity, when the process was violated, with unfairness and prejudice appearing high and harmful.
“Unfortunately I have learned that certain members of your administration, this department and the Commission are incapable of acknowledging errors, therein misleading the public. Such actions (or inactions) are resulting in the needless suffering and death of many animals, mistreatment of the public, and wasting of financial and human capital.”
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bubMhSLA3sU)

It is significant that, in the lower State Court case regarding the owner’s other dog, the Judge ruled in favor of the owner on the same issues of due process.

Meanwhile, this case has been an ongoing battle for four years! For four years, it has been draining city human and financial resources, to pursue a case with due process violations by the city. I’m really astonished with the wasteful and negative behavior of Mr. Todd Leung, the city attorney, along with others who perpetuate this inhumane condition for Stu. I wholeheartedly understand his owner’s frustration, and the growing public anger as the city tolerates this failure of justice.

Since Stu’s owner is not a lawyer, he may not have done a good job framing the due process violations for the Court, but the Commission is aware of them, and so am I. Attached please find my Declaration in the case.

If we are to believe the Mayor’s statements that the city has a budget crisis, shouldn’t we see the City Attorney’s resources better directed than wasted on so many years of litigation over a now 10-year old dog when the initial hearing was tainted with due process violations!?

This is 1) sheer animal cruelty 2) a total waste of our tax-dollars. The city attorney’s office should not be accepting due process violations against any constituent.

I urge you to take immediate measures to correct the procedural and due process violations by withdrawing the city’s opposition to the case. Anything less is supporting constitutional violations. The State Court decision is imminent and this needs to be cleared up right away. I hope you can and will help.

Graciously,
Marie Atake

Linda Barth. The new face of L.A. Animal Services.

2009-07-01T01:27:00.000-07:00

While Barth is only the Asst. GM, Kathy Davis has been propped up in the GM chair as a placeholder. In reality, Barth has been running the Department for at least 6 months while Ed Boks was being groomed for the exit door.

Davis has never been to a Board meeting and nobody knows anything about her. Don't expect a new GM anytime soon. They are either putting her there to fail, so Barth can take over or will let her sit there and take the heat and the money as long as she toes the party line.

STU DIES July 23, 2009! Mark your calendar.

2009-06-29T12:30:00.000-07:00

What?! That's right. The only thing keeping Stu alive right now is that the Court decision does not become final for 30 days after the ruling. The ruling was issued June 23, 2009--ONE DAY after Board President Tariq Khero and City Attorney Dov Lesel assured the public that there would be NO COURT DECISION for several weeks....at least. Let's listen, shall we?
(audio clip to come).

THE DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL SERVICES CAN KILL STU ON JULY 23
AND THERE IS NOTHING TO STOP THEM--
EXCEPT YOU.

The Board first took up the matter of revisiting Stu's case and his horrible care in the pound in May 2007. Several attempts were made by the Board to place the issue of Stu on the Board's agenda. All of them were blocked by Ed Boks and Linda Barth. Finally, after 3 months, the Board voted on August 27, 2007 to move Stu from the pound to Bobby Dorafshar's K9s Only facility for the duration of the legal proceedings.

Then we went through 2 years of Court proceedings and brief-writing, etc., etc. City Attorney Todd Leung lied to the Court in his briefs and blocked any attempt to allow the truth into the case.

So, here we are. The City had been successful in keeping the truth that Stu did not receive a fair hearing out of the Courts. Saving Stu and sending him home is now in the hands of the City government. Here's what has to happen:

The Board must call and hold a Special Meeting before July 13, which is the next regular Board meeting.The president may call the meeting or 3 Commissioners may call the meeting. As of this writing, no one has called a meeting. At this meeting, which is not scheduled, the Board must discuss the recommendation which they will make, in writing, to Council and the Mayor.
At the regular meeting on July 13, the Board must vote to send the recommendation to Council. Council will either refer the matter to the Public Safety Committee or the PS Committee may waive consideration and refer the matter back to the full Council. The City Attorney will advise Council on what powers they have to Save Stu and send him home. Because of the red tape that a recommendation will encounter, the Board must also vote to stay the order to kill Stu for 60 days to allow the matter to work its way through the bureaucracy.
If the Council votes to make a recommendation to the Mayor, then the Mayor will decide upon the recommendation.

Meanwhile, Board members AND THE PUBLIC may lobby Council members in favor of the recommendation. City Attorney Dov Lesel told them this on June 22, 2009-- that they may contact Councilmembers as individuals or as a Board.

Here's what's happened so far:

Members of the public , and myself, have urged the Board to hold a Special Meeting. The president, Tariq Khero OR 3 Commissioners may call a meeting with 24 hours notice. The Brown Act does not prohibit Commissioners from discussing the setting of a Special Meeting.

Here's what the Board has done: NOTHING.

Here's what you can do: Demand that a Special Meeting of the Board be called before July 13.

Email or preferably FAX your demand that the Board call and hold a Special Meeting before July 13.

FAX the Board 213-482-9511. On your Fax COVER SHEET, direct the Board Secretary to forward your fax to ALL Boardmembers IMMEDIATELY.
FAX Board president Tariq Khero at his office:
Nasatir, Hirsch, Podberesky & Genego,PLC FAX: 310-392-9029 [corrected]
Call Tariq Khero at his office: 310-854-4170
Email all Boardmembers and REQUEST A REPLY: tariqkhero@gmail.com,
ninekitties@aol.com, ireneponce@earthlink.net, secundar@unitedtalent.com,
ajq1trq2@aol.com
CC Jeff on your emails: stu.911@gmail.com
Flood Animal Services' phones with calls demanding a meeting of the Board

213-482-9506, 9501, 9505,9504

An Open Letter to the Los Angeles City Council to Save My Dog, Stu.

2009-06-24T01:00:00.001-07:00

When an issue is presented to Council for action, Council President refers the issue to the appropriate Committee for review and recommendation. The Public Safety Committee oversees the Department of Animals Services. I started there.

Click here for City Council Website Directory
Click here for Council Officers/Committee Assignments
Click here for the Council Calendar

June 23, 2009

City Council
Public Safety Committee
City of Los Angeles
c/o City Clerk, Room 395
City Hall, 200 North Spring Street
Los Angeles, CA 90012-4801

Dear Councilmembers Weiss, Zine, Parks, Smith and Reyes,

Below is a link to Kate Woodviolet's Examiner.com follow-up story on my dog, Stu, his 4-year-old case and the evidence of malfeasance and obstruction on the part of certain employees within the Department of Animal Services. Please be aware, that only 10 days prior to the oral arguments in the Court of Appeals, the City Attorney's office sent me the attached draft settlement offer (and opposed my request for a continuance in the Court so that I might discuss the offer further) with full knowledge that no consummation of this proposed settlement could be expected in time for the City Council to approve it, before the Court ruled.

These are not coincidences and let me assure you, there have been no coincidences in this case. Ever. This case is one of the last vestiges of the inept and embarrassing tenure of Ed Boks. The only thing left to clean-up (that I know of ) of the mess Mr. Boks made of this Department will be the lawsuit I must file against him and others for these despicable acts. We are about to welcome back to our City legal system what is promised to be a new era of integrity, so says Mr. Trutanich. I hereby give you an opportunity to usher that era in with my dog, Stu in tow.

I beseech you to consider compassionately what I hope will be a forthcoming recommendation from the Board of Animal Services Commissioners to your Public Safety Committee or to the full Council, which will , as I understand the intent of the Board, attempt to preserve the integrity of the Administrative Hearing process, the Department, the Board and the City of Los Angeles by setting aside the previous ill-founded decision to declare Stu to be dangerous and order his destruction. The Board, which you have entrusted to make these decisions is unified on this issue as are thousands of people from our City and around the world: the consensus is to send Stu, a non-dangerous animal home to live out his remaining last couple of years. He was 6 years old when he was first impounded. He is now at least 10 (or 70 in human years).

The Court of Appeals could not remedy this injustice as there was a defective record before them and only myself, a non-lawyer, presenting it to them. However, although the Court has failed to right this horrible injustice , because it was confined to the incomplete record of the case, your Committee and your Council are not so constrained. Please find the time and the attention which this most deserving matter requires.

http://www.examiner.com/x-1779-LA-Pet-Rescue-Examiner~y2009m6d23-Appeals-Court-rules-against-Stu--could-allow-Animal-Services-to-kill-senior-dog

Thank you,

Jeff de la Rosa
Council District 13

Board of Animal Services Slips it's Collar

2009-06-23T06:47:00.000-07:00

Somebody forgot to tighten the choke collar which has plagued the Los Angeles Board of Animals Services Commissioners since...forever? At their meeting on June 22, 2009, the Board seemed to go rogue and would not take "no" for an answer. Nor would they take "no answer" for an answer.

For a full week, since Kate Woodviolet's piece on Stu's story appeared at Examiner.com, the Board,City Attorney's office and Linda Barth have been barraged with emails, calls and messages from countless Stu supporters demanding and pleading for mercy and justice.

Item 4A on the agenda, the case of Stu, the evidence dog, which has been impounded for 4 years while his owner/guardian has battled to save him from Death Row and certain execution, was the impetus for the Board shaking off their restraints, but this very admirable show of blazing courage from a Board which has, for years, been accused of being a rubber stamp for the General Manager(s) and the Mayor quickly spread to all business within the Board's control. The last time the Board took bold action in the case of Stu, on August 27, 2007, when they voted unanimously to release Stu from the pound after 2 years and move him to the luxury digs at K9s Only in Tarzana, the Mayor's office clamped down hard. Former Commissioner Marie Atake resigned in protest and disgust and Commissioner Riordan is rumored to have been threatened with removal from the Board after 9 dedicated years of service.

From the 6/22/09 Agenda:

4. DISCUSSION ITEMS
A. Oral Report from the City Attorney on status of Case: Jeffrey Peter De La Rosa v. Animal
Control Board of the City of Los Angeles, et al.; Los Angeles Superior Court Case #
BS104836; Court of Appeal, Case # B202071.

CLOSED SESSION: The Board of Animal Services Commissioners may meet in closed
session with the City Attorney as its legal counsel pursuant to Government Code section
54956.9(a).

First, the was no oral report from the City Attorney. Dov Lesel claimed that Todd Leung, the "litigation attorney" was "not available" to come to the meeting (his office is next door in City Hall East), but sources tell BoardWatch that Mr. Leung was not otherwise engaged in court appearances but was, instead, sitting in his office when the agenda item was called.

+/- Read more...

On the Board's first pitch to the City Attorney at hand, Dov Lesel, Board members asked what actions were in their ability to take to stop the madness of the 4 year persecution of this innocent animal. Mr. Lesel's first response: The Board can do nothing. It's in the hands of the Court of Appeals, he claimed, as the case was submitted (final argument was heard) to the Court on June 18.

Commissioner Quincey was boiling. He stated the he had asked for his motion regarding Stu (the motion was for the Board to direct the City Attorney to withdraw opposition to Stu's owner's appeal in the Courts) to be placed on the agenda more than a month prior (actually , it was more than two months ago, on April 14, 2009) but it had never appeared on the agenda and now his motion was moot. He had intended, apparently, to save the Court the burden of rendering a decision over the life or death of the dog, Stu by instructing the City Attorney's Office to throw in the towel on a case it should not have opposed in the first place, in Quincey's opinion. Quincey wanted an explanation. Commissioner Riordan asked for an explanation. Commissioner Ponce demanded an explanation. Dov Lesel said, "I don't set the Board's agenda. Assistant General Manager Linda Barth disappeared into her chair back and remained silent. There would be no explanation.

At considerable length, Quincey went on to report to the Board and to the public, that he had reviewed the "whole" case file. The 30-year veteran Animal Control Officer reported that he had determined that the case should have been dismissed from the get go. Quincey reported that the bite was reported over a month after the incident and that it was a civil matter--that "there was no violation of the Municipal Code" by Mr. de la Rosa and therefore, there should have been no involvement by the Department of Animal Services. Following Quincey's statements, Commissioner Irene Ponce said, "you could hear a pin drop in here." The Board was stymied and the supporters of Stu, seated in the gallery, just smiled.

It was then that President Tariq Khero told Quincey that if he ever wanted an item placed on the agenda, that he need only send Khero an email. Riordan cautiously erupted.Vice President Kathy Riordan told the room that she had not had much (or any) success in having items placed on the agenda. She implied that not only was it difficult for her to have items placed on the agenda for consideration by the Board, that it was near impossible to achieve this over the obstruction by management.

In the end, through dogged persistence, the Board was able to force City Attorney Dov Lesel, to lay out exactly what the Board could do to settle Stu's case, save his life and return him to his home. Lesel came forth with all kinds of ideas for the Board. They could:

Recommend whatever they wanted to City Council as a Board or as individuals. Lesel corrected himself (from his earlier statments that action was out of the City's hands) by saying that settlement of this case was actually in the hands of City Council.
Make recommendations to the Council's Public Safety committee which oversees the Department of Animal Services.
Direct the City Attorney to file a supplemental paper to the Court of Appeals which stated the Board's position that the Department had botched the case and denied Due Process of law (this is our favorite- Ed.)
Schedule an "emergency meeting" of the Board to take whatever action it deemed appropriate.

All of these things are a far cry from Linda Barth's assertions to concerned callers that the Board can "do nothing." Throughout the heated discussion of this item, President Khero appeared to feign that Department management was innocent of any obstruction of the Board 's intentions. It is worth saying that along with the usual copies of the agenda and accompanying documents laid out at the back of the room, were several sets of full-color pictures of Tatiana Edwards's (the dog bite "victim") injuries to her right arm. Nobody seemed interested in them and they did not even bear any identifying information which might have informed the public as to what these pictures were and what they were doing spread out among the meeing literature.

Khero persuaded the Commissioners that no emergency meeting was necessary. Lesel and the Board forced Linda Barth to pledge that , in the event of an unfavorable decision for Stu by the Court, prior to the next regularly scheduled meeting, that the Department would take no action to kill Stu. She added that it was the General Manager who had made the gallant committment that Stu would not be "euthnanized" (read: KILLED) while any actions in the the Court of Appeals or the California Supreme Court were still possible.

So, we wait. We wait to see what, if any, action the Board will take to move City Council to end this fiasco. Will they appear as individuals during the Public Comment period at the next Council Meeting? Will they draft and approve a resolution decrying Stu's innocence and the Department's denial of Due Process of Law in this case? Only time will tell. Meanwhile, we await the opinion of the Court of Appeals. President Khero said , as though he knew, that the Court would surely not release their decision before the next regularly scheduled Board Meeting currently on the books for July 13.

By the way, where was the fifth Commissioner, Ruthanne Secunda? She was conspicuously absent. If the Board had tried to take action, Secunda's vote may have been crucial, since she has previously been sympathetic to the cause of Stu and has let it be known that she would like to see this nightmare end favorably for Stu.

Explain Stu's case to me, Jeff...

2009-06-22T05:09:00.000-07:00

As this saga come to what I hope will be a positive resolution for Stu and me, many people are still asking of me what the things were that the City did or did not do which resulted in Stu and me being deprived of Due Process and a fair hearing in this life and death decision process.
First let me explain what Due Process is. The Constitution of the United States and our California Constitution guarantee us certain inalienable rights.

1. We may not be deprived of life, liberty or property without Due Process of Law. That means that :
2. We must be properly notified of the accusations we face and notified of the time and place of a hearing or trial of the issues ;and
3. We must be given an opportunity to present evidence, witnesses in our defense and confront witnesses and cross-examine that witness who may offer testimony against us.
4. The matter must be heard by a neutral, disinterested and impartial trier of fact (judge). In this case, an Animal Control Officer acting as hearing examiner. For the appeal, a panel of Commissioners. We asked for all 5 but were given only 3—the most conservative three-3 lawyers.

Additionally, the Los Angeles Municipal Code is quite specific on how hearings for license revocation (for dogs) and dangerous animals shall be conducted.

The Initial Hearing and General Manager’s Decision:
So, in Stu’s case, what did they do right?

+/- Read more...

1. They notified me of the charges and the time and place of the hearing.
2. They allowed me to cross examine my accuser, but interrupted my questioning, prevented me from asking certain questions regarding the “victim’s” motivation for possibly being untruthful and ruled many of my questions as “irrelevant.”

What did they do wrong?
1. See (2) above.
2. Witnesses

a. The Department’s own Administrative Hearing Guide informs the public of the proper way to request that witnesses be called to appear. I followed it. They did not.

b. They received my written request for several department employees and one LAPD officer to be summoned to appear as witnesses but refused to summon them. Their explanation for this was that they didn’t have to summon any witnesses that the Department did not request.

3. They denied my request to have Stu (and Maeve, in her separate case) evaluated by Dr. Richard Polksy on shelter property. This prevented me from presented evidence which would have shown that Stu was not a dangerous animal and bit only in self-defense as reaction to :
a. Not being able to flee (she closed him into a room and approached him in a corner).
b. Having his wound irritated by the “victim.”

4. Helen Brakemeir. Los Angeles Municipal Code Section 53.18.5 provides that the Hearing Examiner make his report and recommendations from the hearing to the General Manager. Back then, it was Guerdon Stuckey who had just been asked for his resignation. The General Manager shall review the report and recommendations and either accept, reject or modify the Hearing Examiner’s recommendation. This recommendation was to revoke my license for Stu but not to declare him to be a “dangerous animal.” The G.M. may also return the case to the Hearing Examiner for further review modification, if necessary.

This didn’t happen the way the Municipal Code says it should have happened. Instead, somehow and for some reason (her friend, Capt. Karen Stepp despised me), Captain Helen Brakemeir, with no apparent authority, intercepted the Hearing Examiner’s report and wrote her own opinion which urged the G.M. to declare Stu to be “dangerous” and thus killed--even though she did not hear the testimony nor did she attend the hearing; nor was she a hearing examiner or in any other position of authority related to administrative hearings. Brakemeir’s memo states that she wrote the decision letter declaring Stu to be dangerous and placed in folder on the Department’s computer network for Stuckey to sign.

The Appeal before the Board of Animal Services Commissioners:
Grounds for Reversal of the General Manger’s decision.
At the appeal hearing held on March 8, 2006. My attorney (I did not have one at the original hearing) and I raised the issues above as grounds for reversal of the G.M. decision. At the time, we did not know about the Brakemeir memo and were very surprised that the G.M. was imposing a harsher penalty and a rejection of the Hearing Examiner’s recommendation. I did not learn of the Brakemeir memo, and the mystery was not solved, until I made a California Public Records Act request and the memo showed up in the pile of paper which I received from Ross Pool.

Debbie Knaan, The Biased Commissioner:

As my March 2006 appeal approached my attorney requested that all 5 Commissioners sit on the appeals Board (Khero, Riordan, Atake, Brown and Knaan). We felt that Atake and Riordan would pay closer attention to a decision which could end in the killing of an animal. We were denied this request as a “new” experimental appeal hearing calendar was being tried. This would involve only 3 Commissioners who would volunteer for evening appeal hearings held outside of regular Board meetings. We protested to no avail and were assigned Khero, Knaan, and Brown. Brown has been appointed to the Board only two months before.

On (or about) February 2, 2006 Deborah Knaan called me at my home. She was responding to my complaints that Stu was not being properly cared for at the pound (another story). After we discussed how that could or would be remedied, she said, “Tell me about the cases. And you have to tell the truth.” I found this to be unusual for a prospective “judge” to be interrogating me, but I knew she was a Deputy District Attorney and I was somewhat intimidated by what I viewed as her special authority. I told her everything I knew about both Stu’s and Maeve’s case.

Afterward, I called my attorney and he was shocked that she would engage in ex parte (without the other party) communication with a “defendant” prior to sitting on the appeal Board. Knaan also warned me, during the conversation, that the Board does not “always side with the animal.” In 2007, I discovered that Knaan had told both Marie Atake and Kathy Riordan that she thought I was a “liar and a creep.” She told them this before my appeal hearing and then participated in it. Ethically, and possibly legally, she should have disqualified herself if her feelings against me were so strong. My attorney should have disqualified her after she called me and interrogated me. Yes, she will be included in my lawsuit against the City of Los Angeles. Imagine you are arrested for …whatever. Before your trial, the judge calls you on the phone and asks for all the details about the case. Then he rules on your case. Whether he rules for or against you, both decisions would be tossed on appeal for judicial bias, or the appearance of that bias.

Knaan Runs the Appeal Hearing…Right into the Muck.

At the appeal hearing, Brakemeir appeared for the Department instead of the District Supervisor, Karen Stepp. I’ve always thought that Stepp would not hold up if she was accused of personal bias against me. Knaan took charge of the meeting, although technically, Khero as Vice President was supposed to run the thing. So there we were in front of 4 law degrees (City Attorney Dov Lesel included).

They took Maeve’s appeal hearing first and talked at length about my request for witnesses which was denied (this discussion and other documents is what caused the Judge in Maeve’s Superior Court Case to throw the case out).

After a short break, they started Stu’s appeal hearing. The “victim” was allowed to talk for awhile and even allowed to present new evidence. My attorney and I were constantly interrupted, by Knaan, and often precluded from finishing a point or topic. Because in depth discussion had already taken place in Maeve’s previous hearing, it was not repeated for Stu’s hearing. This is one of the things, discovered later, that caused Stu’s case in the Superior Court (different judge than Maeve’s) to suffer and which caused me to have to go on to the Court of Appeals, which added 2 years on to the already protracted process. If I were as experienced with legal procedure then as I am now, I would not have let this happen and world have forced the Board to allow us to repeat all of the discussion surrounding the requested, but denied, witnesses.

The Board's Appeal Decision.

On March 28, 2006, the Board rendered their decision at a regular Board Meeting held at a L.A. Library in the Valley. Can’t remember which. One might think that with two separate cases, they would take 2 votes and give 2 decisions. They didn’t. In one motion, they voted to uphold the General Manager’s decisions to revoke Maeve’s license and declare Stu to be dangerous (so he could be killed).
That ends the Department involvement as I headed on to Superior Court where I prevailed in Maeve’s case without an attorney—mostly due to a complete record which showed that 1) I had requested witnesses for my hearing and 2) that they were denied—a pretty clear cut case of denial of Due Process and that’s how the judge ruled. The lack of this evidence in Stu’s case is why we are where we are now.

I don’t know how the Court of Appeal will rule on Stu’s case. The record is spotty and the evidence of Due Process violations is not so obvious. However, the Brakemeir memo is there and I make a big deal about it in my briefs and in my oral argument. I can only hope that the justices look closely at this case, as I have asked them to do and make a decision which conforms to the one made for Maeve: that I am entitled to a new hearing on whether Stu should be declared a dangerous animal. Stay tuned.

Groundswell of Disgust Grows Over Delgadillo's 4 Year Persecution of a Dog.

2009-06-21T13:41:00.000-07:00

Will Carmen Trutanich put an end to misery for a man and his dog which Delgadillo's attorneys have perpetuated for 4 years?

If you would like to urge City Attorney Elect Carmen Trutanich to take immediate action to stop this madness as soon as he takes office on July 1, write, call and fax him at:


		Trutanich Mitchell, LLP 180 East Ocean Boulevard
		Long Beach CA 90802-4079 Tel: 562) 216-4444 Fax: (562) 216-4445

Kinship Circle organizes and facilitates public support for animal welfare causes. KC's most recent
Action Alert regarding Stu's case can be viewed at Change.org or at KC's own blog.

Examiner.com has published a terrific article by Kate Woodviolet on the "Stu, the Dog" case. At our publishing time, 48 comments have been registered AGAINST actions of the City of Los Angeles--the most comments ever lodged in any of Woodviolet's articles on pet issues in Los Angeles. The recently updated piece appears in its entirety:

Playing political games with a dog's life

http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-1779-LA-Pet-Rescue-Examiner~y2009m6d17-Playing-political-games-with-a-dogs-life

June 17, 12:10 PM

By Kate Woodviolet

UPDATED After sitting in what amounts to dog jail for almost four years, a dog named Stu could be put to death soon; or he could finally go home to an owner who's been fighting for his life since 2005.

Rescued from the streets in 2000 by Jeff de la Rosa, for five years Stu lived peacefully with de la Rosa and his two other dogs. In August of 2005 de la Rosa was called out of town by a family emergency. He left the dogs in the care of an assistant who knew them. Following an uncharacteristic scuffle between Stu and one of the other dogs during which Stu's ear was torn, the assistant, in an attempt to take Stu to the vet, approached the wounded dog and tried to put a harness on him, over his injured ear (pet care experts always recommend using extreme caution, even a muzzle, when dealing with injured pets, because often even a normally friendly pet can lash out when fearful and in pain). During her attempt to harness him, a frightened Stu bit the assistant twice on the arm.

De la Rosa offered to pay the assistant's medical bills and says she initially told him she "didn't want to get Stu in trouble." He says when she went to the hospital she told emergency room staff that she didn't know the dog who had bitten her. She didn't call the police or L.A. Animal Services.+/- Read more...

According to de la Rosa, three weeks after the incident, without warning, he was served with a lawsuit. Ten days later he came home to find Stu missing from a locked outdoor kennel, and the gate on his fence pried open from the outside. He received a call from Animal Services that Stu had been "found and brought in by an unidentified private citizen." When de la Rosa arrived to retrieve his dog, Animal Services staff told him they had just received a bite report, one month after the incident, and they refused to release Stu.

The assistant, by that time represented by a law firm specializing in wresting large dog-bite settlements from homeowners' insurance carriers, now claimed that Stu had "dragged her back and forth across the floor." De la Rosa says she was seeking six million dollars in damages.

Stu with former Animal Services Board Commissioner Marie Atake. Atake famously resigned in 2007, frustrated in her attempts to increase Department integrity and professionalism

Following LAAS policy, a hearing was held to determine whether Stu had a history of aggression and whether he was likely to bite again if released. While the Hearing Examiner found that Stu had caused an injury, he felt it was sufficient to revoke the dog's license, which would have given de la Rosa the opportunity to find a place for Stu outside City limits, or to move. It was a verdict that would have given Stu back his life.

But that's when Animal Services Departmental policy went off the rails. Although LAAS policy was, and is, that the Hearing Examiner's recommendations determine the outcome, a Department captain apparently unrelated to the matter, a Captain Helen Brakemeier, interceded, telling then-General Manager Guerdon Stuckey in a memo that, "After reviewing the [Hearing Examiner's] report and all of the exhibits, I disagree with [his] recommendation and think that the dog should be deemed dangerous." Nowhere in the memo does Brakemeier indicate that she has personally met or evaluated the dog, nor what if any authority she has to overrule the hearing officer's verdict. Nevertheless, Stuckey concurred with Brakemeier, allegedly without even reading the report. His decision to deem Stu a "dangerous dog" was a sentence of death.

Animal Services Commissioner Kathy Riordan told me, "That's the first time I'd ever seen a General Manager increase the penalty [for an animal]." Within days, Stuckey was fired as General Manager by Mayor Villaraigosa, ironically, according to the L.A. Times, for failing to reduce shelter killing. De la Rosa says he was never informed about the role Brakemeier had played in condemning Stu. Her seemingly irregular participation in the process of determining the dog's fate came to light only after de la Rosa requested all documents related to the case in the wake of the unexpected LAAS verdict that Stu was too dangerous to live.

Since then Stu has been held by the City, or in City-designated facilities, and de la Rosa has been fighting to save his dog's life. Respected dog behaviorists, including Dr. Richard Polsky, who in 1987 helped formulate the City standards for assessing dangerous dogs; and Bobby Dorofshar of New Leash on Life, who has also worked with the City and been a member of the Spay/Neuter Advisory Committee, have stated that Stu is not aggressive toward humans. Their opinions are based on behavioral evaluations, assessments of his behavior prior to the incident, and an understanding of the ways the victim's actions towards Stu when he was injured may have unintentionally provoked the bites. In Dorofshar's case, he has voluntarily housed Stu at his own facility and has had the opportunity to get to know Stu over many months.

Nevertheless, Animal Services and the City Attorney's office have refused to budge, continuing to insist that the now-elderly Stu must die. Arguments in the Court of Appeals are scheduled for June 18th.

Stu, on the day he was impounded by L.A. Animal Services

Ironically, de la Rosa's fight to ensure humane treatment for his dog while in custody, and to save Stu's life, may have made his battle tougher. Allegations of a pattern of retaliatory behavior on the part of Animal Services management towards critics have surfaced repeatedly in the humane/rescue community over the years. In the days prior to the forced resignation of the most recent General Manager, Ed Boks, the City Council rebuked him publicly for blogging against his critics, including de la Rosa, on City time.

Even the Animal Services Commission, which was instituted as a supervisory body to the Animal Services Department, has fought for mercy for Stu. Commissioner Archie Quincey, who boasts a thirty-year career in L.A. County animal control, authored a motion that directs the City Attorney to drop his opposition to de la Rosa's appeal. Quincey wants the case returned to the Superior Court and wants that court to set aside Stu’s sentence based on evidence that the dog was denied due process. However, in subsequent meetings Commissioner Quincey's motion has not appeared on the agenda. Then, without warning or explanation, the June 8th meeting, the last scheduled before Stu’s Appeals Court arguments, was cancelled.

This points out another puzzling aspect of this story: the fact that even though the Animal Services Commission has a supervisory role over the Animal Services Department, it's unclear who determines the agenda for Commission meetings. Although nominally the Board President sets the agenda, in the minutes for the April 14th meeting, after Commissioner Quincey introduced his motion to free Stu, it was Department Assistant General Manager Linda Barth, not Board President Tariq Khero, who tells the Commission that, "the item is already agendized for the next meeting." Reached for comment, Barth stated that the Board President sets the agenda. She said the matter was subsequently discussed in closed session, but it was unclear if she meant specifically Commissioner Quincey's motion or Stu's case in general. She referred further questions to the City Attorney's office. A call to Deputy City Attorney Todd Leung, who has spearheaded the City's case against Stu, was not returned. Nor was a call to Board President Tariq Khero, and a call and email to incoming City Attorney Carmen Trutanich, who takes office July 1st.

[June 18th: Interestingly, although Assistant General Manager Linda Barth referred all further inquiries to the City Attorney's office, when I called the City Attorney's office today they were referring calls back to L.A. Animal Services.]

The next Commission meeting is scheduled for June 22. When asked if the motion would be discussed, Commissioner Quincey said, "If it's not on the agenda, I'm going to raise hell." He said, "I think it's gone too far. I have a lot of Animal Control experience. I saw the pictures [of the human victim's injuries], there were a couple of small puncture wounds -- and the dog was injured when it happened. On that one bite Stu gets the ultimate penalty? That's like getting the electric chair for a misdemeanor!"

When asked what he thought would be a just outcome, Quincey said, "I think Stu should go home."

If you would like to register your opinion on Stu's fate, you can contact the City Attorney's office at: (213) 978-8100

(end of repost)

If you would like to urge Carmen Trutanich to take immediate action to stop this madness as soon as he takes office on July 1, write, call and fax him at:


	Trutanich Mitchell, LLP 180 East Ocean Boulevard
	Long Beach
	CA
	USA
	90802-4079

(Tel: 562) 216-4444

Fax: (562) 216-4445

City Attorney Todd Leung Goes to Court...to try to kill a dog. But... Preview.

2009-06-19T22:47:00.000-07:00

This story is on the burner and simmering.

There is a lot to report and we want to do it right. The hearing for Stu --his last in the California Court system--was both exciting and down right embarrassing. We do not know how the justices will rule. If Mr. Leung's "performance" has any effect on them, whatsoever, then Stu should be walking down North Figueroa in a couple of weeks. Stay tuned. This is not to be missed.

If you are not subscribed to our blog by email, please do so now. Over there...on the left.

SKG

Playing political games with a dog's life

2009-06-18T00:37:00.001-07:00

Playing political games with a dog's life

A piece about Stu's struggle to survive by Kate Woodviolet.

An Open Letter to the Animal Services Board of Commisioners

2009-06-17T23:23:00.000-07:00

Tariq Khero
Kathleen Riordan
Archie J. Quincey
Irene Ponce
Ruthanne Secunda
Board of Commissioners
Department of Animal Services
City of Los Angeles
221 N Figueroa St. , 5th floor
Los Agneles CA 90012

RE: LA Superior Court Case no. BS104936/Court of Appeals Case B202071

Dear Commissioners,

As you may know, I requested a continuance/postponement of my oral argument in the Court of Appeals. which is scheduled for Thursday 6/18. It was my hope that the additional time might assist us all in coming to a reasonable solution.

Today, I received word that the Court denied my request. I also received a copy of the letter from Mr. Leung to the Court, vigorously opposing my request. I attach it for your info. As usual, Mr. Leung's writing is full of venom and loaded accusations. He asserts that I have no interest in settlement. I think that you know that is far from the truth. I have asked several times to have discussions. Just like the Corwins had...for hours....and hours.....two appeal hearings. A hearing which went on so long, that you had no time to discuss Stu's case.

What the City Attorney's office has proposed is an impossible situation which comes with the following realities:

1. Some unknown approved "facility" which will step up and take on the legacy of Stu. I spoke to Bobby Dorafshar yesterday and his feeling is that there is no such "facility" that would accept what the City is proposing. If you have not read the contract which Bobby had to sign, it is a very unfair and constraining agreement. Is is Bobby's opinion, and I agree, that there is no organization who will agree to do what the City is proposing. If any of you have suggestions, i would ask you to make them now.

2. For me to find an organization to take in Stu would require a lot of research ,networking and time. More time than Stu has. Mr Leung's proposal states that this all must be finalized and approved by Council prior to the Court's decision which could be announced in 3 days or 3 months. Nobody knows.

3. I must "bear the expense" of this facility's care for Stu. Truthfully, this fight has tapped me out I have nothing to offer anyone, which makes it less likely that a group will appear out of thin air.

4. Although I asked for clarification of the terms of the proposal over a month ago, Mr. Leung only sent them on June 8th. Then he made a bold statement to the Court that I have had the terms for "over a month." This is your lawyer. He works for you. Ironically, he works for me, too and the rest of the people in the City. Ross Pool also works for you. It is not the other way around.

All of these terms in Mr. Leung's proposal force me to agree that :

1. Stu is a dangerous dog. We and all the experts know that this is not true. If my hearings had been fair and if the proper file had been submitted to the Courts, Maeve, Stu and I would be out for our evening walk right now.

2. That Stu and I received a fair hearing and a fair appeal in your Department.

3. That I am incapable of properly caring for Stu. Anyone who knows me will tell you that I am more than capable. In fact, the absolute best place for Stu is with me, at home. Anywhere else his future is uncertain. Some organizations may decide to forego veterinary costs should he develop a health
problem--aside from the severe dental disease he already has. Who is going to spend money to prolong a 10 year old mutt's life? Only me.

None of these are true. You cannot wait for the Court's opinion. I am confident they will deny me. This is no time for politics and the whims of higher ups. You were entrusted to care for these animals and Stu is one of them. Please care for him.

So I ask you. I beg you. Please ensure that you meet on Monday and that you take meaningful and conclusive action to right this wrong and send Stu home. Believe it or not, you do have the power to send him home. You know the truth. You know he was treated unfairly. If you'd like to have a new hearing, let's do that; BUT PLEASE, DO NOT DO NOTHING; and DO NOT allow a pissed off City Attorney to take his wrath for me out on an innocent animal. This matter is as simple at this:

* Stu is not dangerous.
* The department screwed up.
* The lawyers screwed up.
* Judge Chalfant saw that this is true.
* Judge Yaffe did not have all of the facts. Neither does the Court of Appeals.
* The right thing to do is to amend your motion and overturn Mr. Stuckey's decision.
* Courts have this power. YOU HAVE THIS POWER. Mr. Leung will tell you that you don't. Why not ask the Attorney General's Office? They would be happy to give their opinion.

Rather than make me show you where it says that you can do this. SHOW ME WHERE IT SAYS YOU CANNOT. The Corwins still have their dog which has attacked 7 times. If I were white and rich, would I have Stu home already...?

This City Attorney's department will undergo major changes in a few days. Please let Stu benefit from what Mr. Trutanich is calling "public integrity enforcement" The last person who used that word --integrity--in this case was Marie Atake. There is no General Manager. There is a lame duck City attorney with some underlings who despise me. You are the Department. Please do the right thing.

Please do not be manipulated into making a decsion, or failing to act which will result either Stu's death or eternity behind bars...without comfort, love and the securtiy of his dad.

Thank you,
Jeff de la Rosa

Ed Boks's New Job--MOVIE CRITIC

2009-06-17T14:33:00.000-07:00

From the Desk of Ed Boks (at his condo, which if for sale...isn't it?):

Ed's hyping a good film. An important film. Ed has lots of time to go to the movies while he's raking in the last few $8000 pay checks. That's right...we're STILL paying him--even though it is common knowledge that he is not working, will not be back and is sitting at home...or at the Playboy Mansion. You wish, Ed.

We'll wait for the last word, I guess. Here's one of them.

"This past weekend I saw an important film entitled "Food, Inc."

In Food, Inc., filmmaker Robert Kenner lifts the veil on our nation's food industry, exposing the highly mechanized underbelly that's been hidden from the American consumer with the consent of our government's regulatory agencies, USDA and FDA."

While this film is certainly an important film, we don't need to hear about it from Ed Boks. Do we?
We don't really want to hear anything from you , Ed. We just want you to go away. Quietly

Los Angeles Magazine..first time it's worth the cover price.

2009-06-09T11:42:00.000-07:00

Birthday Letter to the Board of Commissioners

2009-06-07T14:16:00.000-07:00

Email addresses for your convenience:
"Tariq Khero" <tariqkhero@gmail.com>,
"Kathy Riordan" <ninekitties@aol.com>,
"Archie Quincey" <ajq1trq2@aol.com> ,
"Irene Ponce" <ireneponce@earthlink.net>,
"Ruthanne Secunda" <secundar@unitedtalent.com>,

Jeffrey de la Rosa
1880 Morton Ave.
Los Angeles CA 90026

June 7, 2009

RE: Cancellation of the June 8, 2009 Board Meeting.

Board of Animal Services Commissioners
City of Los Angeles
221 N. Figueroa St. 5th Floor
Los Angeles CA 90026

Dear Commissioners,

Today is my birthday and rather than “celebrating,” I am spending it on the issue which matters most to me. I have turned 49 today, but I was 40 years old when I rescued Stu from a place known to LAPD as “The Jungle” , a cul-de-sac in the Crenshaw area where officers will not respond because so many have been killed there. For the film, Training Day, The Jungle was, for the first time, used as a filming location. We, the film crew, moved in for 3 weeks of night shooting. Our security within the location was provided by members of the Bloods. LAPD provided security at the perimeter. On my first night there, I met Stu. He was running loose and was skinny and flea infested but he still gave a warm welcome to a crew of 300 with whom he socialized for 20 nights of shooting. When we left, I took him with me because he had no home and needed to be rescued. Before I knew of the Board’s existence, I use to spend birthdays the same way you do. I would like to return to some semblance of my previous life and am writing, again, to ask for your help in achieving that goal.

I can’t seem to find a Commissioner who knows why your June 8 meeting was canceled—for you. If you do not schedule and cancel your own meetings, who does—and why?

At the April 14, 2009 meeting of your Board, Commissioner Archie J. Quincey introduced the following motion:

“I would like to make a motion that the Commission overturn Mr. Stuckey’s decision on the Stu case based on an unfair hearing. Errors were made in the records of Stu; and the evidence must be considered in the case. The two small pieces of Maeve’s record are material to Stu’s case and should be included therein.

I therefore move that the Board direct the City Attorney to withdraw opposition to the appeal.

I further move that the City Attorney send a letter to the Court of Appeals asking them to send
the case back to Superior Court and direct the court to issue a Writ of Mandate for Stu’s decision to be set aside based on due process considerations".

Yet, the motion has not been placed on any agenda and has not been acted on by your Board. Six weeks later, at the May 26, 2009 meeting of your Board, Commissioner Irene Ponce requested that the motion be placed on the very next agenda for a vote by the Board. That vote would have taken place on June 8, 2009. At the last minute on Friday June 5, 2009 this meeting was cancelled without explanation. We are not fooled, Commissioners. We suspect that you did not cancel this meeting. So why was it cancelled and by whom?

For too long, this Board has been controlled by a dishonest and corrupt General Manager. Ed Boks was forced to resign because he betrayed the trust of the City, its citizens and its animals. Two prominent lawsuits, on two coasts, showed that he was not only inept, but that he abused his position and power by discriminating against an employee based on race in New York City; and that he wrongfully terminated a female employee/volunteer who sued for sexual harassment. This last case cost the taxpayers of Los Angeles a $130,000 settlement which was recently approved by City Council.

Now, even as Ed Boks slowly backs out the door and continues to collect a huge salary paid from my taxes, you are allowing the mismanagement and interference with your Board to continue. I will not stand by silently and allow this to happen.

While I appreciate the recent efforts this Board has made to correct is lax and unlawful practice of failing to hold meetings, the cancellation of the June 8, 2009 meeting of your Board is a despicable act. I am well aware that your Board desires to have jurisdiction of this case returned to you so that a fair and just decision can be made which will result in Stu being allowed to return to his loving home after 4 years of horrible imprisonment. I am aware that your Board was to address and act on Stu's case at the meeting scheduled for June 8, 2009. We in the animal community are not stupid; and we see, very clearly, what is happening and how your Board is being manipulated in order to prolong and continue the persecution of this poor dog Stu and me.

I believe that Mr. Boks, various City Attorneys, Asst. General Manager Linda Barth, and Ross Pool are actively blocking an equitable and fair settlement of this issue. This is wrong. You have proposed settlement but are now permitting that negotiations on settlement to be obstructed by those who seek to continue to corrupt the work of the Board.

I believe that these people caused the cancellation of this meeting in order to silence the Board and keep them from taking action on Stu's case.

This has to stop. Now.

I am appalled that your Board allows itself to be manipulated by the very “staff” and Department which is, by law, under your control.

Please adhere to the law, search your consciences, back-up your words and immediately schedule a Special Meeting to take place without delay and well prior to the June 18, 2009 hearing in the Court of Appeals regarding Stu's appeal.

There is no need for another closed session. You have all of the information you need; and the City Attorney, who will soon have a new boss, has had ample opportunity to further his agenda by persuading and strong-arming you to refrain from doing the right thing. Please, instead of doing the work of the City Attorney, do the work of the animals and the people of the City of Los Angeles and take your position on the Board of Commissioners as an assignment of the public trust. You need only amend your motion and/or pass Commissioner Quincey’s motion to put this matter to rest. For you convenience, I attach a written motion. This is what all Board actions should look like, according Los Angeles [Administrative] Code Section 503 (c).

You must end this horrible tragic miscarriage of justice now with meaningful, definitive and unquestionably clear and bold action.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey de la Rosa (and Stu)

Enc. 4/14/09 Motion by Council member Dennis Zine

CC: everyone

Stu-Thanksgiving 2008

We Are Not Stupid, Commissioners!

2009-06-07T02:24:00.000-07:00

[SAMPLE LETTER TO THE BOARD OF ANIMAL SERVICES COMMISSIONERS]
Email Blocks

To: Commissioners
"Tariq Khero" <tariqkhero@gmail.com>, "Kathy Riordan" <ninekitties@aol.com>, "Archie Quincey" , "Irene Ponce" <ireneponce@earthlink.net>, "Ruthanne Secunda" <secundar@unitedtalent.com>,

CC: Department of Animal Services
"Ed Boks" Boks@lacity.org>,, "Council President Eric Garcetti" Garcetti@lacity.org>, " Councilmember Richard Alarcon" <councilmember.alarcon@lacity.org>, "Councilmember Dennis Zine" lacity.org>, "Councimember Tony Cardenas" <cardenas@council.lacity.org>, "Councimember Jack Weiss" <weiss@lacity.org>,"Councimember Wendy Gruel" <greuel@lacity.org>,

Board of Animal Services Commissioners
City of Los Angeles
221 N. Figueroa St. 5th Floor
Los Angeles CA 90026

Dear Commissioners,

At the April 14, 2009 meeting of your Board, Commissioner Archie J. Quincey introduced the following motion:

“I would like to make a motion that the Commission overturn Mr. Stuckey’s decision
on the Stu case based on an unfair hearing. Errors were made in the records of Stu
and the evidence must be considered in the case. The two small pieces of Maeve’s
record are material to Stu’s case and should be included therein.

I therefore move that the Board direct the City Attorney to withdraw opposition to the appeal.

I further move that the City Attorney send a letter to the Court of Appeals asking them to send
the case back to Superior Court and direct the court to issue a Writ of Mandate for
Stu’s decision to be set aside based on due process considerations".

Yet, the motion has not been placed on any agenda and has not been acted on by your Board. Six weeks later, at the May 26, 2009 meeting of your Board, Commissioner Irene Ponce requested that the motion be placed on the very next agenda for a vote by the Board. That vote would have taken place on June 8, 2009. At the last minute on Friday June 5, 2009 this meeting was cancelled without explanation.
We are not fooled, Commissioners. We suspect that you did not cancel this meeting. So why was it cancelled and by whom?

For too long, this Board has been controlled by a dishonest and corrupt General Manager. Ed Boks was forced to resign because he betrayed the trust of the City, its citizens and its animals. Two prominent lawsuits, on two coasts, showed that he was not only inept, but that he abused his position and power by discriminating against an employee based on race in New York City; and that he wrongfully terminated a female employee/volunteer who sued for sexual harassment. This last case cost the taxpayers of Los Angeles a $130,000 settlement which was recently approved by City Council. This is not how I want my tax dollars and the resources of my City Attorney's office used.

Now, even as Ed Boks slowly backs out the door and continues to collect a huge salary paid from my taxes, you are allowing the mismanagement and interference with your Board to continue. I will not stand by silently and allow this to happen.

While I appreciate the recent efforts this Board has made to correct is lax and unlawful practice of failing to hold meetings, the cancellation of the June 8, 2009 meeting of your Board is a despicable act. I am well aware of the case involving Jeff de la Rosa's dog, Stu; and that your Board desires to have jurisdiction of this case returned to you so that a fair and just decision can be made which will result in Stu being allowed to return to his loving home after 4 years of horrible imprisonment. I am also aware that your Board has opened discussions with Mr. de la Rosa in order to achieve an out of court settlement of this issue and a soon to be filed lawsuit against Mr Boks and other Department employees, as well as the City of Los Angeles. I am aware that your Board was to address and act on Stu's case at the meeting scheduled for June 8, 2009. We in the animal community are not stupid; and we see, very clearly, what is happening and how your Board is being manipulated in order to prolong and continue the persecution of this poor dog Stu and his owner. I do not want my tax dollars spent defending the vengeful actions of the Department of Animal Services and the City Attorneys which wrongfully condemned an innocent dog named Stu and turned the life of a citizen, Jeff de la Rosa, upside down for the last 4 years.

I believe that Mr. Boks, various City Attorneys, Asst. General Manager Linda . Barth, and Mr. Ross Pool are actively blocking an equitable and fair settlement of this issue. This is wrong. You have proposed settlement but are now permitting that settlement to be blocked by those who seek to continue to corrupt the work of the Board.

I believe that these people caused the cancellation of this meeting in order to silence the Board and keep them from taking action on Stu's case.

I want this to stop. Now.

I am appalled that your Board allows itself to be manipulated by the very staff and Department which is, by law, under your control.

Please adhere to the law, search your consciences and immediately schedule a Special Meeting to take place without delay and well prior to the June 18, 2009 hearing in the Court of Appeals regarding Stu's appeal. Please do the work of the animals and the people of the City of Los Angeles and take your position on the Board of Commissioners as an assignment of the public trust. We will not
stand by and allow this injustice to continue.

Please include me on a list of people who will be notified of the immediate scheduling of a special meeting, at which Commissioner Quincey's motion regarding Mr. de la Rosa and his dog Stu may be heard, seconded and passed.

You must end this horrible tragic miscarriage of justice now. Please take meaningful action now.

Sincerely,

[YOUR NAME] DELETE THIS FROM YOUR LETTER/EMAIL

Deleting the Ed Boks legacy of lies and hate: "Facts vs. Rumors" disappears.

2009-06-05T12:00:00.000-07:00

For nearly 3 years Ed Boks, recently fired (oh..."resigned"...coincidentally just after a New York Judge found that he racially discriminated against an employee and JUST AFTER Mary Cummins received a $130,000 settlement in her suit against him) Gereral Mangler maintained a libelous and self-serving page on the laanimalservices.com web site. In "Fact vs. Rumors," Ed the jerk first defined for us the two terms. Then he would go on for hundreds of words about how everyone is wrong to criticize him. If you were smart, you saved the posts for posterity. We here did so.

Well lo and behold, the Ed Boks page of lies is gone. Too bad the damage has been done.
Next...killing the Ed Boks blog?

Board Meeting Report-May 26, 2009, Part II

2009-05-28T08:20:00.000-07:00

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:

Mr. Delarosa[sic],

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.

Thank you.
(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.

Board Meeting Report- May 26, 2009; Part I

2009-05-28T07:52:00.000-07:00

This meeting was held Tuesday at 6:00 p.m. at a library at Western and 39th St.

The need for a change in meeting schedules and venues.

Let me first say the all Animal Services Board meetings should be held in the evening. Attendance at the regular Monday City Hall meetings is always dismal and consists of Phyllis Daugherty (to her credit), Jim Bickhart, the Mayor's...um...representative and Aimee Gilbreath, Executive Director for Gary Michaelson's organization (always looking snappy with great shoes, too); parties to appeal hearings, and sometimes, me. Oh...and Laura Beth Heisen. Cool as we all are, for going to these Monday shindigs, we are not representative of the City of Los Angeles nor are we representative of the concerned-about-animals public and various organizations (Rescues). Putting aside that Gary Michaelson is responsible for Boks coming here, his work and sizeable donations in the area of spay/neuter are commendable. And the Gilbreath outfits and shoes are always a treat.

Even a 6 p.m. meeting is difficult for any working person (or sane person) to attend. This last one was difficult for Secunda and Khero, Commissioner and President, respectively, to attend. Anyone (Ross Pool and Linda Barth) who thinks that 6 p.m. at the height of Los Angeles traffic rush hours is a good time for a meeting is out of their mind. Consider the source. One can only assume that inaccessible meetings are by design. Yes, it's easier for Barth and Pool to leave 221 N. Fig at 5 and arrive at the meeting at 6, but they are the only people for which this is a conventient or accessible meeting time. Yes, I'm paranoid.

So here's my proposition: At least one meeting per month should be held "off campus" (outside City Hall, because they would charge a fortune for a night meeting). City Council meets regularly at the Van Nuys location which is set up for City meetings, with video, audio, etc. I will look into this and see what can be done to allow LAAS to use these facilities. The question has always been cost. On Tuesday, there was much to do about the limited availability of the meeting venue. "We" had it for 4hours, with that 4 hours beginning at 5:30 for set up. With an appeal, which took nearly an hour (or more) scheduled, this left real meeting time of only 2 hours. Huh?!

Security is required (usually an LAPD officer, at overtime, I'm sure) at a cost that has been estimated at $400 (I stepped out for 5 minutes during Tuesday's meeing and had to convince this LAPD officer that he should let me back into the library. He seemed to think that one could not leave and return to a PUBLIC MEETING. I let him know. He caved and let me in. So cost and venue are the issues. I'm sure that if a vote were taken by the Board, that my proposition would pass. The meetings on Monday's are not convenient for working attorney, Tariq Khero;or for working agent, Ruth Ann Secunda. Okay, Kathy Riordan is not a morning person, so 10:00 a.m. sucks for her, too.

Next, Part II: What happened at the meeting?

City Attorney (the old one) offers "Stu" Life without Parole.

2009-05-25T21:06:00.000-07:00

Last April 14, 2009, Animal Services Commissioner, Archie Quincey introduced the following motion:

"At the next meeting (4/27) , I would like to make a motion that the Board direct the City Attorney to withdraw opposition to Jeff's de la Rosa's appeal in the Court of Appeals; and to direct the City Attorney to request that the Court of Appeals return the case to the Superior Court; and direct the Superior Court to issue a Writ of Mandate which shall order this Board to set-aside the decision declaring the dog, Stu as dangerous. I make this motion because the hearings in our Department were unfair and violated Due Process. This has gone on long enough."

Well, following that, the Board held a "closed session" on April 27, 2009. That's when they throw everyone out and talk to their "attorney." In this case, the City Attorney is Todd Leung, who lost to me in Court on my other dog, Maeve--same reason-Due Process was violated in that they refused to summon my requested witnesses and thereby did not afford me a fair hearing before depriving me of my "property." That's the 14th Amendment at work. After 3 years, Maeve is exonerated and according to Boks and Linda Barth, "the case is closed." Great, but what about Stu?

Stu Supporter, Marie Atake with Stu
(The only Commissioner to ever meet him. Atake quit the Board of Commissioners
partially because of the unfair treatment in Stu's case and impound)

Stu's hearing was held back to back with Maeve's (see http://myspace.com/save_stu forthe full story) by the same Hearing Examiner, George Mossman. Mossman also refused to summon the same witnesses for Stu's hearing, but that doesn't show in the record before the Court, because he didn't actually speak those words at Stu's hearing..only at Maeve's. Such is the rule of evidence. My first lawyer did not catch that the record for Stu was defective; neither did the second lawyer; and had they done that, they could have corrected the record in the Superior Court and Stu would most likely be home by now, having been deprived of a fair hearing before being sentenced to death.

For the last several months, I (and other Stu supporters) have been lobbying the Board of Commissioners to settle this matter before the final hearing in the Court of Appeals on June 18, 2009. With a defective record, I could lose the case and Stu would then be killed based on Stuckey's last word before he left with the door swinging. Boks picked up where he left off and made Stu out to be a vicious terrorist of a dog and tried to make this into L.A.'s own Whipple case, which it is not, by any means.

Experts and trainers (including New Leash on Life's and K9s ONLY's Bobby Dorafshar and Richard Polksy, Ph.D. http://dogexpert.com ) have examined and evaluated Stu. He is "not dangerous", they say.

In 5 years of being with me , he never hurt another animal or a human, until he was left with my former girlfriend/assistant when my mother was on her death bed in Ohio. Tatiana did something to cause a fight to break out in which Stu was injured-his ear was torn. Ignoring my instructions to let him out of the locked small office to chill out , she went in and closed the door behind her, and then cornered Stu. Then, she attempted to slide a harness over his torn ear, when he already was wearing a collar. He apparently bit her, though we are taking her word for this...it's probable that he did. He bit her twice on the same arm and retreated to a corner, so said she on her first explanation to me. However, once her mother convinced her to sue me for $6 MILLION (she settled for $300K), her "dog-bite" lawyer instructed her to weave a dramatic and tearful tale for Animal Control which included her being "dragged" back and forth across the floor by a, supposedly, death-seeking Stu. "I knew he would kill me." "I was screaming...I had to crawl out of the room after playing dead."

Well, not even that story persuaded the Hearing Examiner. He found Stu to be "NOT DANGEROUS" and reasoned that Stu had been provoked. But Captain Helen Brakemeir stuck her big thumb in the pie and before the report from the Hearing Examiner could even get to the GM, she wrote what is now known as The Brakemeir Memo, in which she disagrees with Mossman and lobbies for Stu to be killed because it was a "mauling" and he is "dangerous." Stuckey, who had just been asked to resign, rubber stamped the letter written by Brakemeir.

Now, four years later, it seems that someone in the Mayor's office (or perhaps Debbie Knaan, because I exposed her for having ex parte communications with appellant parties and witnesses while she was already selected to be a "quasi judge") still has it in for me and will not allow the Board to do what the Board seems to want to do--put an end to this nightmare and send S
tu home.

The City Attorney's offer is this (in an email...not even a letter):

They won't kill Stu as settlement of the case (and my lawsuit against the City), but he cannot come home. He must go to a "sanctuary" or "approved kennel." Basically, he will spend the rest of his life, like the last 4 years, confined. He does not deserve that and has not deserved any of this. If you agree, then please come to the Commission meeting on Tuesday May 26, 2009 and tell the Board they are wrong to listen to the City Attorney. Especially since the City Attorney has just lost his job!

BOARD OF ANIMAL SERVICES COMMISSIONERS CITY OF LOS ANGELES
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
6:00 P.M.
Exposition Park
Dr. Mary McLeod Bethune Regional Branch Library
3900 South Western Avenue.
Los Angeles, CA 90062
click for Google map

Board Watch

Still Reeling. Kathy Riordan knew...

a break from the madness

ChipIn started for Stu's medical care

Board Report Oct., 26, 2010

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

Time to review

First posted WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 24, 2008

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

New Protests against proposed pet limit increases lodged with City Clerk

Who's (was) the boss?

NEWS: It's official. KRIS KELLY and THE KRIS KELLY FOUNDATION SUED!

KRIS KELLY and The KRIS KELLY FOUNDATION---SUED?

URGENT! Little girl Chihuahua doomed by LAAS vets NEEDS SURGERY

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

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

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

For Brenda Barnette: Powers of an Assitant General Manager

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

Sec. 512. Temporary Absence or Inability to Act.

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

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

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

A Working Animal Commission...At Work in San Francisco

Fur and feathers fly as San Francisco weighs ban on pet sales

What began as a proposal to ban sales of dogs and cats quickly grew to include birds, hamsters, rats and other small mammals. Shelters and rescue groups could still offer adoptions.

Ron Kaye's Plan to Overhaul the Commissioner Selection Process

The post-Phyllis Daugherty Dept. of Animal Services--Enter: Brenda Barnette

About those meeting minutes...and the Board Secretary, Ross Pool

Sec. 21.4. Duties of the Secretary.

Sec. 21.20. Applicability of Charter Provision 506.

Minutes- Where are they?

Dear Commissioners (and Brenda Barnette):

Back to the Board...

She's in. Can the Campaign for Brenda Barnette be over now?

Doing the Math on Brenda Barnette

Public Silent--Council Committee Approves Brenda Barnette for Full Council Vote

In reply to Ed Muzika on Brenda Barnette:

Barnette Critics Labeled as "KOOKS!"- ADL-LA

The Brenda Barnette "APPROVED" Train Marches On!

The Brenda Barnette Effect

Ed Boks welcomed "home" by Prescott, AZ.

Pam Ferdin and ADL LA Give Official Blessing for Brenda Barnette's Appointment!

Phyllis Daugherty Digs In and Unearths Brenda Barnette's Other Records

Villaraigosa: AKC Rep Brenda Barnette New L.A. Animal Services Top Dog

From: OpposingViews.com

35 Dogs Await Ed Boks's Genius at New AZ Post.

Pam Ferdin and ADL LA Jump the Gun on Brenda Barnette's Appointment

Seattle's Brenda Barnette Picked for New General Manager of Los Angeles Animal Services

Animal Defense League to Hold Lawsuit...For Now.

Board of Commissioners to dump appeals process?

BRING QUINCEY BACK!

[UPDATED] Animal Services thwarts Board Officer Elections-Again.

The Lion of the Board of Commissioners has had it. Quincey resigns.

Stu's Dad asks for a little help...

For Annie...

Board of Animal Services Commissioners moves to amend L.A. Code to free Stu!

Ed Boks Turns in His Badge...and unveils 5-year Strategic Plan

I had to share this with you...

Katherine Varjian's Day in Court: Beverly Hills Woman Who Cares for Cats Could beJailed.

Marie Atake speaks for Stu:A Letter to the City Attorney

Linda Barth. The new face of L.A. Animal Services.

STU DIES July 23, 2009! Mark your calendar.

Nasatir, Hirsch, Podberesky & Genego,PLC FAX: 310-392-9029 [corrected]

An Open Letter to the Los Angeles City Council to Save My Dog, Stu.

Board of Animal Services Slips it's Collar

Explain Stu's case to me, Jeff...

Groundswell of Disgust Grows Over Delgadillo's 4 Year Persecution of a Dog.

Playing political games with a dog's life

City Attorney Todd Leung Goes to Court...to try to kill a dog. But... Preview.

Playing political games with a dog's life

An Open Letter to the Animal Services Board of Commisioners

Ed Boks's New Job--MOVIE CRITIC

Los Angeles Magazine..first time it's worth the cover price.

Birthday Letter to the Board of Commissioners

We Are Not Stupid, Commissioners!

Deleting the Ed Boks legacy of lies and hate: "Facts vs. Rumors" disappears.

Board Meeting Report-May 26, 2009, Part II

Board Meeting Report- May 26, 2009; Part I

City Attorney (the old one) offers "Stu" Life without Parole.