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

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

 $52,650

View available animals...

Goodbye.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The complete announcement from ADL-LA:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ADL-LA

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






ADL-LA

[end announcement]

Jeff de la Rosa

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

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

Is this like recruiting Sheriff Taylor from Mayberry?

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

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



Photo: Dan Shclatter

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

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

From the announcement:

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

Board of Commissioners to dump appeals process?

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SUGGESTIONS IF THE BOARD WANTS TO CHANGE.

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

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

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