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

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."

Council Committee Drops An ANVIL on Ed Boks! Go Road Runner!

I leave this topic to Ed Muzika, Rick Orloff and others who attended the meeting. Check L.A. Animal Watch for coverage. Here's the audio for Windows Media Player (skip ahead to Tony Cardenas beginning at time stamp 55:35). MPEG version is also available at http://www.lacity.org/cdaudio_wm.htm (See Public Safety Committee Special Meeting 3/23/09.
"Beep Beep!"

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