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

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


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

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

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.

For Brenda Barnette: Powers of an Assitant General Manager

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

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

Sec. 22.8.  General Manager.
     The general manager shall have those  powers and duties set forth in Charter Section 509.
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!

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

 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?

Back to the Board...

   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?

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

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

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:

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

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!

(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

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]

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

 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

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.














]

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

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

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