New Protests against proposed pet limit increases lodged with City Clerk

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

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


PROTEST

Please file with city clerk in Council file 10-0982 to protest.
-----Original Message-----
From: Kathleen Johnson
To: amyg93@aol.com
Sent: Fri, Oct 1,20104:57 pm
Subject: Re:
here is what i sent:
October-1, 2010
Dear Mr. Koretz;
I have recently become aware of a proposed ordinance to allow individuals
to take in five dogs. This proposal seems very untenable, without any
monitoring or control over who gets the animals, no measure to prevent
abandonment, nor any oversight on how many dogs anyone might
possibly take in.
With noise pollution already a serious issue, the last thing our neighborhoods
need is more barking-not to mention the inherent mess of careless owners.
We all love animals, but surely there are far better ways to spend our
money to ensure their well-being.
Thanks for your time and consideration,
Kathleen Johnson
South Carthay

___________________
PROTEST

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

please file with city clerk in council file 10-0982 (Protest)
-----Original Message----- PROTEST
From: Sofia Speth
To: Mayor@lacity.org
Cc: BilI.Rosendahl@lacity.org; P.Koretz@lacity.org
Sent: Tue, Oct 5, 2010 1:38 am
Subject: Protest Against Proposed City Ordinance to Allow More Dogs per Household
It is extremely important that the proposed City Ordinance to allow more dogs per household (Council file
10-0982) be tabled indefinitely in order to consider the unintended and highly negative impacts to the
City of Los Angeles.
This City Ordinance, if approved, will impact our urban environment in enormous and highly negative
ways.
This City Ordinance, if approved, will impact our City budget by increasing the need for additional funds to
administer it, which we certainly cannot afford.
Thank you for considering my protest.
Please think before you act. Study the negative environmental impact and increased costs to our City.
Sofia G. Speth
4874 W. 2nd Street
Los Angeles, CA 90036
(323) 934-1901
sofiagspeth@yahoo.com
011 -<
PLEASE FILE WITH CITY CLERK IN COUNCIL FILE NO. 10-0982 - PROTEST
-----Original Message-----
From: Devin Galaudet
To: amyg93@aol.com
Sent: Tue, Oct 5, 2010 12:55 pm
Subject: Here is what I sent PROTEST
Dear Mr. Koretz and Mr. Rosendahl,
It has come to my attention that there is a consideration of making it legal to allow an average family within city
limits to have up to five dogs, raising it from three.
I would appreciate to know who might be helped by this increase? As it stands there are too many unwanted dogs
and too many irresponsible dog owners to make sense making a change like this. My main concern is the safety
issues associated with giving dog owners to bite off more than they can chew (pardon the pun). Managing three
dogs is difficult. Managing five is a public nuisance and a problem waiting to happen. Five dogs are a pack and more
dangerous in a group -- on a leash or not. They require too much supervision. A loose gate allows five into populated
areas with children and no simple way of wrangling them. The choice is asking for trouble.
This does not even take into consideration the amount of dog owners who allow dogs to bark at all hours, do not
pick up after their dogs or abandon them in the streets. As, I am sure you know, too many strays and over populated
animal sanctuaries.
Simply put, the consideration is selfish and puts non-dog owners, tax-payers, and voters to carry the burden of
having to deal with even more dogs in a major city.
In the end, five dogs in a crowded city is completely unnecessary. Of course, this one is easy, do not pass the
ordinance.
Sincerely,
Devin Galaudet
Editor In The Know Traveler
devin@intheknowtraveler.com
______________________________.
PLEASE FILE AS PROTEST WITH CITY CLERK IN COUNCIL FILE 10-0982 .------
-----Original Message-----

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

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

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

___________________________________________________


Please file with city clerk in Council File 10-0982 (Protest). Thank you. PROTEST
-----Origif)al Message-----
From: jesse sugarman
To: PauI.Koretz@lacity.org
Cc: BilI.Rosendahl@lacity.org;AmyG93@aol.com
Sent: Thu, Sep 30, 2010 7:21 pm
Subject: Misguided Dog Ordinance
Dear Councilman,
5 animals, (Dogs specifically) in a.{Lapartm~flt or house is way too much.
Barking
is a major issue.
save dogs by this
that gave them up
Dog harding has become
misguided ordinance? It
in the first place will
a problem and how do you expect to
doesn't make sense. The same people
just do the same thing.
There will always be abandonded dogs. People can't afford their upkeep or
pay
for their vet bills now, and you want to give them the ability to have more
dogs. Ridiculous. And most of all the city does not maintain any sembellance
of
monitoring now. How do you plan to do this in the future?
This ordinance is an awful idea. Please come to your senses for all our
sakes.
Sincerely,
- Jesse Sugarman
Jesse Sugarman
216 1/4 S Poinsettia Place
LA, CA, 90036
____________________________________________
PROTEST
Please file this protest with city clerk in Council file 10-0982
-----Original Message-----
From: Mark DeCouto
To: amyg93@aoLcom
Sent: Thu, Sep 30, 2010 12:59 pm
Subject: FWD: 5 dog ordinance
>-----Original Message-----
>From: "Mark OeCouto"
>Sent: 09/30/10 - 10:58
>To: Paul.Koretz@lacity.org
>Subject: 5 dog ordinance
>
>Dear Mr Koretz
>The proposed ordinance allowing up to 5 dogs per residence will create a
bigger nuisance than the one you are trying to solve.
>
>I send this email in objection to such an ill concieved idea, based on
the
many reasons you've heard already (breeding, noise, feces, etc ...).
>
>Solutions to the population problem need to be re-enforced.
>
>Sincerely
>Mark DeCouto
>Los Angeles 90048
>323-9605655

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

This story is on the burner and simmering.



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

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

SKG

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.

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."

Ed Boks Dodges Council's Bullet: Reinstates Spay/Neuter Discount Coupons- Zine Calls For Boks To Resign!

(L.A. Times story below)

In a typically dramatic and squirrelly move, Los Angeles Animal Services General Manager, Ed Boks, has today reinstated the program which distributes spay/neuter discount coupons to low income people and to others. His next move? Call Carla Hall at the Times. Right...she's the one who puts a nice-guy filter on all things Boks.

City Council is scheduled to pass a motion on Friday, March 27, 2009 to force him to do just that as well as to report to Council on the matter, and to request that City Controller Laura Chick perform an audit on the Spay/Neuter voucher program.

Boks's bold move was necessary to try to save his skin and his job as the calls for his head on a platter reached fever pitch this week, climaxing with Council member Tony Cardenas and the City's Public Safety Committee (Animal Services is under the authority of the Public Safety committee and the Municipal Codes under which the Department operates are under Section V PUBLIC SAFETY AND PROTECTION in the L.A. Municipal Code) SLAMMING Boks's head to the mat in submission and expressing, under no uncertain terms that they are weary of his antics, his wasting of the Committee's time and that of Council and his rogue deviation from the direct and popular (though un-executed) Mayoral mandate to achieve a "No Kill" Solution to the City's animal issues . Recently, kill numbers and intake numbers for dogs and cats have skyrocketed. Although Council did order Boks's to cut $300,000 from his 2008-2009 expenditures, they DID NOT authorize an end to the coupon program , nor are they pleased with his lame-brained unilateral action to end the program. Last week, Boks had abruptly announced a "halt" to the program without consulting either the Animal Services Board of Commissioners (theoretically but not in practice, the authority over Ed Boks and the Department of Animal Services) OR the Spay/Neuter Advisory Committee who was just about to release a report on the program.

Here is Carla Hall's (Ed's "softball" mouthpiece at the Times) account of today's decision:

From the Los Angeles Times:

L.A. animal services reinstates free sterilization services
Department head Ed Boks reverses his decision to suspend the program for low-income pet owners, a move that prompts more criticism of his management.
By Carla Hall
March 26, 2009

The Los Angeles Department of Animal Services has reinstated its program to give low-income residents vouchers for free spaying and neutering of their pets, the department's general manager, Ed Boks, announced Wednesday.

But Boks' reversal of his decision to suspend the program two weeks ago, which prompted an outcry from animal welfare advocates and members of the Los Angeles City Council, did not placate one council member who is suggesting he resign.



*
Los Angeles discontinues spay-neuter vouchers

"I think it's time for Mr. Boks to find another place to work," Councilman Dennis Zine said. "It's been a continuing saga of him and his mismanagement."

Zine said Boks' recent actions were part of a list of decisions over the last few years that the councilman believed were ill-conceived.

Boks, who can be fired only by Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, said e-mails from the public and from animal welfare advocates praised his reversal. He added, "I stand ready and willing to meet with Dennis Zine any time, any place to help move the department forward. This has been an open invitation for well over a year."

Boks said he cut off vouchers for free sterilizations only as a last resort to cope with his department's budget shortfall. On Monday, council members excoriated him for not seeking the advice of the council or the advisory bodies to Boks' department before suspending a program that helps low-income residents comply with the city's ordinance requiring residents to spay and neuter their pets.

"You don't make a rash decision that undermines our spay and neuter program," Zine said. "The program is designed to keep animals alive and not be killed. And many low-income families want to comply but don't have enough money."

carla.hall@latimes.com

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.

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