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.

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

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

Ed Boks's New Job--MOVIE CRITIC

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

Birthday Letter to the Board of Commissioners

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

ZINE Moves to Find Mary O'Connor's Service Dog, Hambone

On April 13, 2009 , although the Board of Animal Services Commissioners had canceled their meeting for the same day, due to the Easter holiday, Jack Weiss's Public Safety Committee was at work and held a meeting. At that meeting, I gave testimony which the full council had heard before both from Mary O'Connor and from me. I asked the Committee to make whatever moves are necessary to force Ed Boks and Linda Barth to make a meaningful effort to find and return Hambone, Mary O'Connor's service dog which is beleived to have been stolen from the pound. See this post and this petition.

On April 14, 2009 Councilmember Dennis Zine made the following motion in an effort to get information from Ed Boks and Linda Barth +/- Read more... as to their procedures and protocols which pertain to finding stolen animals, especially those that have an "owner." Not suprisingly, the motion was seconded by Councilmember Cardenas. Zine and Cardendas , along with Richard Alarcon are on the warpath headed right for Ed Boks's head and this flagrant deprivation of Mary O'Connoer's rights by the Department Animal Siezures is just the thing to incensed the following constituent groups: Women, disabled persons, rape survivors, low income citizens, pet owners and critics of the Department of Animal Services. That's a lot of votes. We at BoardWatch commend Mr. Zine's action to make this motion...we just wish it had been made on March 27 when Mr. Boks and Mary O'Connor were both present at council's meeting. However, we understand that it takes time to investigate allegations made by the public and it appears that Mr. Zine, retired police officer has found enough evidence to support Mary's claim. We look forward to swift action on this case, now that Council has recognized the need for it.

MOTION

LOS ANGELES CITY COUNCIL

April 14, 2009

(Click HERE to see the Original Motion)

Recent public testimony at City Council and Committee meetings has indicated that a
dog that was impounded at a Los Angeles Department of Animal Services (LAAS)
shelter is now missing and may have been stolen. Any breach of security that would
allow an impounded pet in the care ofLAAS to be stolen or otherwise taken by an
individual other than its owner should be thoroughly investigated.
In the course of the Department's daily work, many animals that do in fact have owners
are found or seized and then taken into custody at LAAS facilities. While this
impounding function is critical to preserving the safety of animals and the general public,
pet owners also have a reasonable expectation that efforts will be made to reunite them
with their lost pets. LAAS policies should be reviewed to ensure that impounded pets are
successfully reunited with their rightful owners whenever possible.
I THEREFORE MOVE that the Department of Animal Services report to the Public
Safety Committee with a detailed accounting of its policies regarding found, seized, or
otherwise impounded animals and the procedures in place to reunite them with their
owners, including a plan to correct any security deficiencies that may lead to the theft of
animals that are held at the City's shelter facilities.

PRESENTED BY : Dennis Zine

Councilmember 3rd district

SECONDED BY: Tony Cardenas

Ed Boks : "I'm sticking it out at long as I can." Is Linda Barth on deck to be the next GM?

After City Councilmember Richard Alarcon launched his explosive press release (see previous post) declaring that Council has made a motion of "NO CONFIDENCE" in General Manager Ed Boks, we are forced to wonder how many lives has Ed Boks? Is he "done" or just "medium well?"

Since January 2006, when Boks landed his carpet bag on our shores, blunder after hopeless blunder have sunk the stock value of Ed Boks in the Los Angeles animal community. But what's the bottom for Ed? Will Villaraigosa take this golden opportunity to extend a hand pointing east? We've seenBoks rise from the ashes so many times before that we're not yet convinced that, having stuck the fork in, Ed Boks will be "DONE."

Boks told reporter Rick Orlov, "I'm sticking it out as long as I can" after the fed-up council members Zine, Alarcon, Cardenas and company fired the first shot.

Linda Barth. Hmmm. Cardenas repeatedly called her "Linda" at the March 27 Council meeting. We are concerned with this apparent affection for Barth Vader. She rattles off facts quite well and has been in City government for so, so long.

[ this paragraph edited and revised 4/4/09] However, she's dirtier and smarter than Ed ; and judging by the employee complaints about Barth, much worse. A Department under Linda Barth would be a closed and secretive one and perhaps even deadlier than Boks's Department. How calculating is she? Watch the 3/27/09 Council Meeting video again and check her costume for Ed's Inquisition. She wore a blazing winter white ensemble which screamed, "I'm innocent. Pick me." Barth also has a tell. She drops her chin down and does a closed hand scratching thingy on her ear/neck wih her right hand...See video beginning at time-stamp 2:00:00. First tell is at about 2:01:20. This little tell, judging from when she does it is a sign of extreme stress for her.Sometimes she does it when she's obviously lying. Sometimes she does it when it would appear that she's fearing for her own ass, as well. Check it out.

Will she turn on Ed to save herself and position herself as ready willing and able to run the show? God help us, if he's still listening! Did she set Boks up? Time will tell. It's a real possibility that Barth will be at least the next "interim" general manager. She's got the facts and figures ready to spit out and recently she's been showing her Dr. Jekyll face. We encourage you to watch the video of the 3/27 meeting again here beginning at about 1:18:00.

So whaddya think? Are they prepping Barth to take over or do you think they will go for someone less controversial. She's no saint in this Department Chaos. More later, with a personal Barth Anecdote from Jeff de la Rosa.

CYA! Wouldn't Wanna BYA!: Oh Ed...We Hardly Knew Ye

Ed Boks calls City Council a "faction."

Alice Walton (and others) reported on the March 27, 2009 Boks Inquisition which was skillfully executed by Councilmembers Alarcon, Cardenas and Zine, who we will now dub as Council's Musketeers. As her closer, Walton used a quote from Boks, "This is a difficult position for anybody, and every (Animal Services) general manager has come under attack from various factions," Boks said. "There is no way to please everybody." So our City Council is now a "faction?" Ed, you can't please everyone, as you've said; but you're pleasing NO ONE! There's a word for someone who can only please himself. Ummm...maybe later.

Alice Walson's (FOX) complete article is below. The writing from various reporters on this spay/neuter/Boks saga has treated us to an all- out no-holds-barred splash of colorful journalism, using very colorful metaphors, adjectives and adverbs. So far our favorite is:
"[Council] descended on Boks like a pack of wild dogs."

Over the next few days, we'll cull the best of the best and post them here. Feel free to post your faves in comments.

Stay tuned.

Pet Sterilization Controversy Goes On

Last Edited: Friday, 27 Mar 2009, 3:14 PM PDT
Created On: Friday, 27 Mar 2009, 3:13 PM PDT

* Text story by Alice Walton, City News Service
Posted by Scott Coppersmith

Los Angeles (myFOXla.com) - Two City Council members called today for a "no confidence" vote on the general manager of Animal Services, after he was grilled for an hour over a decision to temporarily suspend vouchers for spay and neuter services.

Ed Boks appeared before the council to rehash the budgetary problems that led his department to stop issuing $70 coupons to Angelenos with an annual household income of less than $30,300, and $30 coupons for other city residents.

Though the $70 vouchers were reinstated earlier this week, council members wanted answers on why they and Animal Services commissioners were not told of the decision before it was announced to the public.

Councilman Tony Cardenas co-sponsored a city ordinance last year that requires sterilization of most cats and dogs by the time they are four months of age. He said that without the financial assistance, pet owners were less likely to have their pets fixed, which could ultimately lead to overpopulation of city animal shelters and a higher euthanasia rate.

"They're getting at each other right now more than any other time of the year," Cardenas said of cats and dogs. "This is the time of the year that we need these animals to be spayed and neutered, and we need human beings to carry them over to get them spayed or neutered. I've never seen a dog or a cat walk into a facility and say `Hey, cut me up, take care of me.' It's human beings who have to take care of that."

The city's mandatory pet sterilization ordinance took effect Oct. 1, and since then, Animal Services has not been able to keep up with the demand for low-cost vouchers.

The continuing deficit was the reason behind temporarily suspending the issuance of coupons, Boks said.

Council members voted today to reinstate both coupon programs by next Friday. Paying for that service means Animal Services will have to layoff employees, Boks said.

"I have no options left," he said.

The frustration of a handful of council members was similar to the tongue-lashing that Boks got Monday at the Public Safety Committee meeting. To illustrate his displeasure with the situation, Councilman Dennis Zine held up a cardboard box that he said was filled with complaints from Animal Services employees.

"Mr. Boks, I'm going to be very candid. I have absolutely no confidence in your honesty, your ability to run a department," Zine said.

Councilman Richard Alarcon said Boks' failure to consult with commissioners or council members prior to making his decision on the voucher program was another failure of the department. He made a motion to send a "no confidence" letter to Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa.

"I believe it is time for us to move on, and that is the real discussion we are having today," Alarcon said.

For his part, Boks said he is committed to staying in Los Angeles.

"This is a difficult position for anybody, and every (Animal Services) general manager has come under attack from various factions," Boks said. "There is no way to please everybody."

City Council to Force Ed Boks to Do His Job

On March 20, 2009 the Los Angeles City Clerk entered the following Council Agenda item for the Council Meeting to take place on Friday, March 27, 2009 (downloadable PDF here):

WE ENCOURAGE YOU TO ATTEND THIS MEETING.
AN APPROXIMATE TIME FOR THIS AGENDA ITEM
WILL BE POSTED HERE LATER TODAY.

AGENDA

LOS ANGELES CITY COUNCIL
FRIDAY, MARCH 27, 2009 10:00 A.M.
JOHN FERRARO COUNCIL CHAMBER
ROOM 340, CITY HALL
200 NORTH SPRING STREET, LOS ANGELES, CA 90012
INTERNET: www.lacity.org; click on Council file number for background documents

ITEM NO. (19)
Council File number 09-0601
MOTION (CARDENAS - ALARCON - ZINE - ET AL.) relative to the Spay and Neuter Voucher and Coupon Program. Recommendations for Council action:
1. INSTRUCT the Los Angeles Department of Animal Services (DAS) to immediately reinstate the Spay/Neuter Voucher and Coupon Program funded through the Animal Spay and Neuter Trust Fund.
2. INSTRUCT the DAS, with the assistance of any other pertinent city department to report to the Public Safety Committee on Monday, March 23, 2009 on the status of the Spay/Neuter Voucher Program including the status of the high volume spay and neuter clinics.
3. REQUEST the Controller to perform a follow up audit of the 2008 Spay/Neuter Voucher and Coupon Program with the emphasis on the outreach and effectiveness of the program to reach out to low-income residents.
4. INSTRUCT the General Manager, DAS, to take into consideration the preliminary recommendations of the Spay and Neuter Advisory Committee’s Preliminary report to the Council due on March 30, 2009 and consult with the advisory committee members in moving forward with assuring the spay and neuter voucher program is made available to the city’s low-income residents and effective strategies are in place for outreach.
5. INSTRUCT the DAS to report back to Council on Tuesday, March 31, 2009 on the requested

We at BW are grateful to Councilmembers Cardenas, Zine, Alarcon and Garcetti for sponsoring this motion and for their continuing dedication to the animals and the People of Los Angeles (notwithstanding the horrendous vote to keep Billy the Elephant imprisoned at the Zoo. We expect them to reverse this decision and will lobby them accordingly.).

If you are also appreciative of the actions of Councilmembers, we urge you to call or write to them and thank them. You are of coure encouraged to say whatever else you think about the mismanagement of Animal Services under the current management by Boks and Barth. Leaving comments here is an easy way to do that. They do read this blog.

If you are needing the email addresses of any Councilmember, please email us at laboardwatch@gmail.com and we will gladly provide them. We have found that publishing email addresses on this site leads to spam being sent to those addresses and will no longer publish email addresses here. Probably.

BW.

L.A. Council barking mad over Bok's spay/neuter plan

L.A. Council barking mad over Bok's spay/neuter plan
By Rick Orlov
Posted: 03/23/2009 02:57:10 PM PDT Daily Breeze
(Rick Orlov is not a contributor to BoardWatch)

A City Council panel rebuked the head of Los Angeles' Animal Services Department on Monday as it recommended resurrecting the city's $150,000 spay-neuter voucher program.

In a rare public dressing down of a general manager, Councilmen Dennis Zine and Jack Weiss blasted Animal Services Director Ed Boks, saying they had lost confidence in his management of the department.

"It is one blunder after another with you," Zine said. "This is just another example of poor leadership in your department."

+/- Read more...

The dispute centers on Boks' March 10 decision to suspend two city-sponsored spay-neuter voucher programs in a cost-cutting measure. The programs - offering vouchers of $30 to $70 - defrayed the cost of sterilizing dogs and cats to help pet owners comply with a city law requiring animals to be altered by the time they're 6 months old.

The law aims to lower and eventually eliminate the thousands of euthanizations conducted in the city's animal shelters every year.

The City Council is scheduled Friday to consider a motion by Councilman Tony Cardenas ordering the program reinstated.

"It's important for us to understand we would be going backwards," Cardenas said. "It's untimely that the department would be terminating the spay and neuter program and not take into account what we are trying to accomplish."

But Boks said he had to suspend the program to comply with a directive to cut $150,000 from his department's budget as the
city tries to close a $17 million budget gap.

"If we didn't take this action I would be coming to you in May and saying we can't meet our payroll," Boks told the council's Public Safety Committee.

But, he was met with strong skepticism from each of the five members of the panel.

"You acted first before consulting anyone," Weiss said. "If you had asked us (if you) should you cut this, we would have said no."

Councilmen Bernard Parks and Greig Smith, who serve on the council's Budget Committee as well as on Public Safety, said they did not recall being advised by Boks or any of his aides of the plan to suspend the voucher program.

"We have five members on that (budget) committee and we all listen closely," Smith said. "I can assure you one of us would have heard of your plans to cut out the spay and neuter vouchers and objected."

Smith said he has been an advocate for Boks, but that support has become strained.

"I've supported you over the years, but my patience is running thin," Smith said. "This is not just a line item in the budget. This mayor, this City Council has made a strong policy statement to become a no-kill city.

"I find it shocking when the mayor and this council would make such a strong policy statement that you would act on your own to eliminate this program."

Several council members and speakers also said the decision will add to future city costs when the number of unwanted pets soars and they are taken into shelters.

Zine, who also chairs the council's Personnel Committee, said he has received a number of complaints about Boks' management. Zine also criticized Boks for inappropriately spending time writing regular blog items on the department's Web site.

"You're a general manager of a major department in the city of Los Angeles," Zine said. "You shouldn't have time to blog."

Boks did not respond to Zine's complaint.

Zine said he was still upset over a proposal by Boks to create a pit-bull academy that would be run by ex-convicts and by problems in the construction of animal shelters, where there were leaks and other problems that left animals exposed to inclement weather.

"It's one thing after another with you," Zine said.

Boks acknowledged the criticism, saying "there are some things I would have done differently."

"This is a tough job. Do we make mistakes, yes. Are we committed to making corrections, yes. I am committed to making this department more credible to the community."

"FIRE Ed Boks" Committee meeting PART 2 Announced!

PERSONNEL COMMITTEE

TUESDAY, JANUARY 27, 2009

ROOM 1050, CITY HALL - 3 PM

200 NORTH SPRING STREET, LOS ANGELES, CA 90012

MEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBER DENNIS P. ZINE, CHAIR COUNCILMEMBER TONY CARDENAS COUNCILMEMBER BERNARD C. PARKS

(Maria L. Espinoza - Legislative Assistant - 213-978-1078 or e-mail maria.espinoza@lacity.org)

Note: For information regarding the Committee and its operations, please contact the Committee Legislative Assistant at the phone number and/or email address listed above. The Legislative Assistant may answer questions and provide materials and notice of matters scheduled before the City Council. Assistive listening devices are available at the meeting. Upon 72-hour advance notice, other accommodations, such as sign language interpretation and translation services, will be provided. Contact the Legislative Assistant listed above for the needed services. TDD is available at (213) 978-1055.

FILE NO. SUBJECT (1) 08-2377

CONTINUED FROM OCTOBER 7, 2008 Motion (Zine - Rosendahl - Garcetti) relative to hearing testimony from employees of the Department of Animal Services, their representatives, and other members of the public regarding their concerns about the management of the Department and its relationship with its employees.

(On September 11, 2008, the Public Safety Committee waived consideration of this matter.

Also referred to the Audits and Governmental Efficiency Committee)

Community Impact Statement: None submitted DISPOSITION COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC ON ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST WITHIN THIS COMMITTEE’S SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION (Materials related to an item on this agenda submitted to the Committee after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection in the City Clerk’s Office at 200 North Spring Street, Room 395, City Hall, Los Angeles, CA 90012 during normal business hours.) pr012709.

Who's Gagging the Board of Commissioners? Ed Boks?

Today, the Board of Commissioners rocketed into 2009 with the posting of their first agenda As you can see, our prodding of the Board to take up the issue of budget cuts which have resulted in food shortages+/- Read more...

and the lack of basic shelter supplies has resulted in the Board considering the 2009/2010 budget. But wait...what about the budget we're in now which is causing the shortages? I guess we'll all just have to show up on Monday and say our peace during the public comment portion of the meeting.

Oh darn. Hoss Fool, Board Secretary, still has that illegal statement on the agenda:

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.

The problem, Hoss, is that it is NOT TRUE.

The Ralph M. Brown Act is that portion of the California Government Code which governs the conduct of legislative bodies (or boards) and which was enacted to ensure "open meetings." The Brown Act is also referred to as "CALIFORNIA LOCAL AGENCY OPEN MEETING LAWS."

Section 54954.2(a) states:

No action or discussion shall be undertaken on any item
not appearing on the posted agenda, except that
members of a legislative body or its staff may brieflyrespond to statements made or questions posed by persons exercising their public testimony rights under Section 54954.3. In addition, on their own initiative or in response to questions posed by the public, a member of a legislative body or its staff may ask a question for clarification, make a brief announcement, or make a brief report on his or her own activities. Furthermore, a member of a legislative body, or the body itself, subject to rules or procedures of the legislative body, may provide a reference to staff or other resources for factual information, request staff to report back to the body at a subsequent meeting concerning any matter, or take action to direct staff to place a matter of business on a future agenda.

This "statement" on the agenda is a good trick to gag the Board but is is illegal.

Diligent as ever, our own Jeff de la Rosa has exposed this little problem and made aware the Board, Hoss Fool as well as Councimember Dennis Zine and President Eric Garcetti. No response as of yet.

When did this gag rule go into effect? Here's where it gets interesting.

The first meeting agendawhich bears this unlawful gag order on the Commissiners is June 25, 2007. Of course, no minutes for this meeting are posted at laanimalservices.com/commission. But we seem to remember that, at least Jeff, spoke during the comment period demanding action from the Board. Yep, this is the first meeting which was supposed to address the issue of Jeff de la Rosa's dog Stu and the horrid treatment he was receiving while locked up in the pound for 2 years by this time. Ed Boks had been blocking the discussion item for weeks but it did make it on the very next meeting agenda.

Yes, the gag order was in effect for that meeting and has been ever since. We've found our gagger!

Sorry, Ed. We Gotcha!

For your convenience: ed.boks@lacity.org, ross.pool@lacity.org,dennis.zine@lacity.org,eric.garcetti@lacity.org

S.G. BW staff writer.

Zine's Official Coverage of the "Boks Trial."

Dennis Zine, Councilperson for the 3rd District, has quite an extensive Newsletter available on the District's site. In the Fall 2008 issue of ZINE LINE, Legislative Deputies Brian Perry & Chris Olsen offer up extensive and unbiased coverage of the October special meeting of Personnel Committee of which Zine is the chairman (the only coverage by "them", the City). Click here for the Fall 2008 Zine Line .

If you missed the video of the October 9, 2008 Boks Trial, see the new 'videos' link in the left sidebar. Our favorite speaker on the tape is (former) Board President Glenn Brown (near the beginning) who mysteriously and quietly resigned from the Board immediately after the meeting. So quietly, that he's still shown as "President" on the Commissions web pages. Following Brown taking a powder, the Board went silent for the rest of the year, save for one lone meeting.

When's Part 2 of that Zine inquest, anyway?

We welcome your comments. Just make up a name if you don't want us or anyone to know who you are.

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

More Law Breaking and Wasting of Your Tax Dollars:

Los Angeles Animal Services Board Secretary Ross Pool Violates
Califorina Public Records Act - AGAIN .

We know from reading Ed Muzika's LA Animal Watch that requests to Board Secretary, "Hoss Fool", for Public Records under the Califorina Public Records Act often go ignored and mishandled by Ross Pool, whose official title is now "Senior Management Analyst" (last salary as "Management Anylyst II" $71,032.72). Linda Gordon who is a "Senior Management Anayst II" makes $115,466.40.

SHOCKING, I know. No wonder the City's broke. We are paying million$ in HIGH salaries to people who can't or won't or are not permitted to do their jobs.

It seems that Jeff's poor dog Stu's teeth have been rotting in his mouth since he first, in 2006, complained to Ed Boks and the Board in the form of an email blast complete with video postings on Stu's site at http://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 case BS104874) 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:

1. The contract executed in or about September 2007 between the City of Los Angeles and/or Department of Animals Services and Bobby Dorafshar’s K9s Only.
2. All veterinary records for my dog, Stu, since 2005 including Stu’s exam and treatment at North Figueroa Animal Hospital which took place on or about December 4, 2008.

I received no response.

On Friday, December 19, 2008 I spoke with administrative assistant Maria Gomez ($74,103.12 per year) in your offices and again requested copies of the above records. Ms. Gomez informed me that I would need to speak with you about my request because you are “in charge of ALL the records; and she also said you had “left for the day.” She took my number and assured me that you would call on Monday December 22.

You did not return my call. I later discovered that you were actually in your offices at the time of my call on Friday and had not “left for the day.”

Today I telephoned your offices, shortly after 4 p.m. and spoke to you and renewed my request to inspect the above public records at your offices. You asked me when I wanted to look at them and I replied that I was near your offices and would come by before your close of business at 5 p.m. You replied, “I’m getting’ ready to go home” and attempted to put me off until December 24. When I arrived at your offices, you told me that you did not know where those records are located and that you would have to “hunt for them.”

Mr. Pool, I am not stupid, as you very well know. I have the right to immediate access to these records during business hours. It is common knowledge that my dog, Stu, is the most well-known dog abused by your department in recent history. Any fool would assume, and rightly so, that all records pertaining to Stu are within a few seconds of you and General Manager Ed Boks at your main administrative offices. It is equally unbelievable that you “don’t know where the records are” when you are apparently “in charge of ALL the records.”

As has been the case many times in the past regarding my requests for public records as well as those by others: You are in violation of the California Public Records Act, particularly California Civil Code (C.C.C.) §6253 (a) which states:

(a) Public records are open to inspection at all times during the office hours of the state or local agency and every person has a right to inspect any public record, except as hereafter provided. Any reasonably segregable portion of a record shall be available for inspection by any person requesting the record after deletion of the portions that are exempted by law.

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.

First Contact: Looking for Answers- Or is Ed Boks Keeping the Board from Meeting?

Now he's done it!

Stu's Dad went and sent an email to the Commissioners and "Hoss Fool", Board "whatever", and asked for some answers to some of our most burning questions-- like:

• Why does Hoss state on every agenda that the Brown Act prohibits the Board from responding to public comments when that prohibition EXISTS NOWHERE in the Brown Act.
• Is this the same Brown Act that governs the City Council who has no problem responding to public comments?
• Why did the Board meet only ONCE in 4th quarter 2008 when 6 meetings are mandated by law?
• What happened to President Brown (he apparently quit in a huff after the "Ed Boks Trial" (link to video)on October 7?
• Is it a coincidence that the Board went dark for 3 months following the "Ed Boks Trial?"(link to agenda)
  
• Who's on deck to fill Brown's (often) empty seat?

Here's the email. We'll let you know if they respond. Don't hold your breath:

______________________

Jeff de la Rosa to Ross, Kathleen, Tariq, Archie, Dennis.Zine, Tony.Cardenas, Mitch,

show details 8:09 PM (1 hour ago)

Reply

Dear Mr. Pool and Commissioners:

I don't have an email address for Ms. Ponce so I request that you provide one.

Perhaps you are aware of the new blog at http://laanimalservicesboardwatch.blogspot.com/

Due to the postings there and elsewhere, it seems that there are difficulties with the Board holding meetings.
I'm writing to ask what they are.
.
If you like, you can consider this a formal Request under the California Public Records Act, in which case, I would expect a response within10 calendar days or by January 1, 2009. you have my mailing address or any of you are encouraged to respond by email.


A few questions concerning the Board meetings:.

1) Mr. Pool always places the following paragraph on meeting agenda documents:

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.

I have scoured the Brown Act (attached for your convenience) but can find no mention of this prohibition.
In fact, City Council permits Councilpersons to respond to public comments in 50 words or less.

• Please cite the code section or provide a copy of the Board Resolution or Motionwhich prohibits Commissioners from responding to public comments,
• or in the alternative, immediately remove this paragraph from your agendas and place in its steadwording that would let the public know what manner of address a Board Member may use in responseto public comment.
  
• Even better, place this question on your next agenda for discussion.
  

2) The following meetings are listed on your website as follows:

a. 12/22/08 "CANCELLATION NOTICE" dated 12/17/2008 -5 days before the scheduled meeting.:
Meeting canceled. Explanation: NONE.

b. 12/8/2008 "COMMISSION NOTICE" : dated: 12/1/2008 One week prior to the scheduled meeting.
Meeting canceled. Explanation: "NO MEETING HAS BEEN SCHEDULED BY THE BOARD OF ANIMAL SERVICES COMMISSION FOR DECEMBER 8, 2008. THE NEXT MEETING IS TENTATIVELY SCHEDULED FOR DECEMBER 22, 2008. PLEASE CHECK THE DEPARTMENTS' WEBSITE FOR THE NEXT COMMISSION MEETING TIME AND PLACE."

• What is the difference between a "Cancellation Notice" and a "Commission Notice?"
  

Really, the Board did not schedule a meeting? There is one for this day on the 2008 schedule which , I assume was approved by "the Board."

c. 11/24/2008 "CANCELLATION NOTICE" :
Meeting canceled. Explanation: NONE. Announcement Dated: NONE

d. 11/17/2008 "NO MINUTES"-

• Did this meeting take place?
• If so, when will the minutes be posted?
• Did the Board approve the 2009 meeting schedule which is in violation of Los Angeles Administrative Code Sec. 503?
• If so, why?
• On this agenda are approval of the minutes from August meetings.
  
• Does it really take 3 months to prepare meeting minutes?
  
• Why?

e. 10/27/2008 "Cancellation Notice": Dated 10/27/2008
Meeting canceled.
Explanation: NONE

• Did you really not know that the meeting was canceled until the morning of the meeting?

f. 10/14/2008 "Cancellation Notice." Dated: 10/8/2008- one week prior to the scheduled meeting THE BOARD OF ANIMAL SERVICES COMMISSION MEETING SCHEDULED FOR 10:00 A.M. ON TUESDAY, OCTOBER 14, 2008
HAS BEEN CANCELLED [sic]. THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING WILL BE HELD ON MONDAY, OCTOBER 27, 2008 AT 10:00 A.M,
ROOM 1060, LOS ANGELES CITY HALL, 200 NORTH SPRING STREET, LOS ANGELES CALIFORNIA 90012

• * Interestingly, and coincidentally , this meeting was cancelled on the day following the Special Meeting on Oct. 7 held by the City's Personnel Committee.
• Who canceled this meeting and why?

3) I understand that Mr. Brown has resigned from the Commission. What is the "official" reason for this?

• When will the Board fill that vacancy as they are permitted to do under L.A.A.C. Sec. 503(a)?
• Is Commissioner Riordan to be considered "acting" President?
  

4) We are seeking up to date bios for the Commissioners.
Please provide them at your earliest convenience.

• The people really want to know who the Commissioners are and what their agendas are, if any?

These are my questions concerning the 4th quarter 2008. I will address other quarters in my next email.

Several writers , including myself, will be contributing will be contributing to BoardWatch and we are certainly looking
forward to answers to the above questions and explanations where none are given.

We believe that there is a lot of work to be done in the Department of Animal Services and would like to know
what is keeping the Board from doing that work--for the animals and for the people. I am sure that the Board
will gladly and timely answer the questions I've posed as they must all be very concerned about the animals in the shelters who are waiting for someone to help them. We have given up on Mr. Boks and the Mayor and now turn to you.

Thank you in advance for your cooperation and your dedicated service to the animals and the people of Los Angeles.

Happy Holidays.

Jeff de la Rosa

BoardWatch general email box: laboardwatch @ gmail.com