Doing the Math on Brenda Barnette

Let's look at some numbers. First, $191,000. That's the salary the Mayor wants (and will get) to pay Barnette. It's $10,000 more than Boks' last rate. I guess we can't have her making the same money as Linda Barth so she must make more. Meanwhile, recently a local pet supply store owner told me that Eric Garcetti called them asking for dog food donations. We can't afford to feed the animals, but we can afford over half a million dollars to pay Barnette, Barth and Kathy Davis (what does she do again?). Plus benefits which are more than the salaries.

80%. Barnette told the Public Safety Committee Councilmembers today that if she can the the cooperation and support of 70-80% of the staff and the animal community, that she can achieve an 80% "save rate" of all of the animals brought to the shelters. In five years. And get very close to that in 3 years. Okay, those are big words. How is she going to do that? Don't know.

Apparently there is a huge untapped pile of money in L.A. (or "Hollywood" if you ask Greig Smith)--and Ms. Barnette is gonna go get that money. Okay, so LAAS--a City Department --- is to be privately funded in order to do their job. Really, I don't know what to think about that.

Presently, a huge number of large and small rescue organizations (including ASPCA-LA) get their funding from the private sector. Will some of that money now go to the City of Los Angeles?

Are individuals who give financial support to rescue organizations supposed to give more money to fund the City shelters or are more people supposed to give period?

$50,000. Barnette told the Committee that she received a grant from PetSmart for $50,000 to spay and neuter pit bulls. All she had to do to get that money was to sterilize 700 dogs. Even at $100 a pop, that's $70,000--at $75 it would cost $52,500. How did she do that? I don't know. Nobody asked how. There was no explanation but the crows loved it.

"3." Basically, Zine put it best when he said she'll be doing a good job if people aren't complaining to him about Animal Services. Greig Smith said if she only accomplished one of her three goals:

"We need to get people..."

1. to agree that we want to save lives,

2. to agree on spay/neuter,

3. to agree that we need to address cruelty issues in the City

I think the public already agrees on all of those things. Does the City agree on that? Can we have some money , please?

Public Silent--Council Committee Approves Brenda Barnette for Full Council Vote

The Los Angeles City Council's Public Safety Committee met this morning to hear public testimony on the appointment of Brenda Barnette as the Mayor's new pick for General Manager of the Department of Animal Services. Councilmembers Smith (chair), Zine and Perry were present.

Listen to the hearing at http://lacity.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=103&clip_id=8081

With no speaker cards for public comment received--although Zine said "the critics are here"--the hearing was brief and breezy; and without Tony Cardenas --who has always been very outspoken and knowledgeable about LAAS, the questions were pretty tame and general. Zine and Smith reminded Barnette of the "crumbling environment" state of the department is suffering from due to bad morale since the Boks fiasco and the fact that there is no money for the Department.Smith: "We have acutally shrunk the Department" and are offering "fewer services." Brenda Barnette, speaking with a measured tone and a slight Virginia accent stated that she would spend time in the shelters and let everyone speak their mind and "be respectful."

Jan Perry's main concern was the prevalence of the "dumping" of "pit bulls and Rottweilers and those type of dogs" and asked how Barnette felt about free spay neuter programs ( which we have, but not enough of them). Perry said she wants to be first on Barnette's list for "outreach" for spay neuter service to lower income residents.

Zine: We have no money. How are you gonna turn the department around? How will you lift morale?
Barnette: I'm a fundrasier and will be in the shelter working with people.

Barnette said that her Sunday "meet and greet" --which she referred to as a "Town Hall Meeting"-- was productive. She stated that if she can get the cooperation of 70-80% of the staff and community, then she intends to achieve an 80% save rate within 5 years and be very close to that in 3 years.

Chairman Smith noted that "amazingly" there were no comments from the public. The Committee moved to send Barnette's appointment to full Council and the motion was passed. Barnette's appointment confirmation will move to the full council for a vote on Tues. Because a public hearing was already held, NO PUBLIC TESTIMONY will be heard at the Council Meeting. It was concluded and stated by Zine, that "Somebody has to run this Department" and they all wished her luck. So, lot's of internet hoopla for and against Barnette...but nobody showed to speak up....as usual.

Best of luck, Ms. Barnette. We're with you...just tell us what you want to do.

In reply to Ed Muzika on Brenda Barnette:

In response to Ed (EDIT: who has now deleted his two lengthy replies to my comment--See below):

There are 5 (sorry--4) non-reporters who have written blogs or other pieces and who are not wholeheartedly supporting this appointment.

They are (that I know of):
Myself
Carole Davis
Marie Atake
Phyllis Daugherty

I include Carole because she has written thoughtfully about this appointment and one must assume correctly that ADL has read her posts. Otherwise, WTF are they talking about? Just Daugherty and Atake? When thinking about who the accused "KOOKS" are, I made list of what I've read. I don't mention Daugherty because her views are personal and--usually--only relate to law enforcement and the "viciousness" of pit bull type dogs.

I have neither spoken nor corresponded with any of these people regarding Barnette, so I don't see how we are "united." Are they talking amongst themselves? I don't know or care. You mention Garcia in another post. I guess that's Jane Garcia. I haven't seen anything by her, but I have normally agreed with her on most things.

I'll ask Barnette my questions when she's at work--not at a party.
You want to see her resume? I'll request it and send you a copy.

The problem with the "92%" is that the claim is said to be at an "open door" shelter which SHS is and was not. She "saved" 92% of the animals she allowed in and deemed "adoptable" by whatever standards (don't know what they are). That's the major qualification the accompanies her name in the ADL email blasts. If it's inconsequential and doesn't mean she can do that here, then why mention it? Why call SHS an open door shelter when it is not?

SHS is not much different from some of our local 501c3 rescues. They ALL have "save" rates in the high 90's or even 100% because they can. They choose their animals and charge adoption fees of $200-$350 JUST LIKE SEATTLE HUMANE. The fact that she had a brick and mortar building and a larger staff makes her more credible? No.

You don't care about breeding? Well, I do. So there. Where do you think these "unwanted" animals come from, Ed? People who allow or choose for their animals to breed and then dump them at the shelter ARE the problem, for the most part. We have laws against breeding without a permit. They don't work. Hve you been to an urban vet's office lately? There are non-permitted bred dogs of every variety lined up to get their shots. Ads on the bulletin boards scream out PUPPIES for sale! The rest of the problem people dumping animals are idiot humans who don't know what it means to be responsible for an animal which you take into your home. If you don't understand why being pro-breeding is an issue, then I can't explain it to you. The AKC and the breeders fought tooth and nail against spay/neuter. You forgot?

I care about transparency and an end to the lies coming out of LAAS. I though you did too.

I haven't counted the number of people ADL has interviewed who are praising Barnette, but I don't think it is "dozens" so who's exaggerating?

Re: the TV quotes. Watch the video, Ed. You have always- ALWAYS since you changed your position on Boks gone for the facts and the proof. You're not doing that in this instance. You're saying "hey, everyone loves her, I love her too." I would expect a Humane Society CEO to advise to look for a pit bull dog in a SHELTER FIRST--NOT A BREEDER's back yard. We take in nearly 7000 thousand a year here. In Seattle, they ship them out to other cities or kill them.

Again, I don't dislike her. I don't even know her. Neither do you. ADL admits they've never spoken to her. My objection ALL along has been to this "she is the saviour" campaign. Why not just welcome her to town,pay her nearly $200,000 and support her and see what she does? That's what I intend to do. I will also ask questions and (I guess) be slammed for doing so. You've already lumped me into a group of "detractors" without bothering to call me or email me to ask what my issues are.

I'm not a detractor. I just want the truth. Starting a job with misrepresentations is no way to start, in my book. Maybe you went to the meet/greet. If so, did she address the room? If so, what did she say? Did anyone ask her anything? At all? Granted, she's not saying these things about herself. Her adoration is coming from ADL, you and --quietly--Nathan Winograd. His rather sane letter to the Mayor has been translated into "The father of NO KILL " says Barnette is the one.

Dan Guss? Has he written something? I have had no contact with him in over a year--by choice. "Concerns" is not a rare word that you should assume is being collectively used by a "united" group. That's what I have- concerns. Use a different word if you like but that aptly describes what I have. "Concerns" is less negative than "doubts." What word should I use that wouldn't lump me in with Dan Guss, who's opinion on this is unknown to me? If you have emails from him, forward them please. I'd like to read them.

I hope she DOES build a great foster program and DOES rejuvenate the horrid volunteer program which fails because volunteers are shunned and harassed by the employees. Some of the employees are a major obstacle to a better department. I haven't heard word one on what she can do about that or what experience she has with City Gov't and unions that is relative...Have you?

You don't get what all the "heat" is about. Well, I don't get what all the "praise" is about nor how her accomplishments at Seattle Humane are relevant to LAAS.

She seems like a nice lady who ran a non-profit, privately funded rescue organization. She ran it well, by all accounts. How does that translate to her new job? Anybody? As I've said before--maybe she'll wring millions out of our local wealthy folks to fund a City Department. Currently a lot of that money goes to private rescues and SPCA-LA.

So yeah..I'll ask her my questions, but she has no reason to answer them? I'm just a guy with a blog and a dog in hell--a known "enemy" of the Department. I'll let you know if she responds and if her "open door to the community" is really open--to everyone.


-Jeff de la Rosa


Ed wrote:

Ask your questions to her face to face at the meet and greet.

92% is not misleading. She has, supposedly a 92% save rate in her shelter. That does not mean she or anyone could have a 92% save in LA. But how is that misleading?

True, the Carole and Carol are not mentioned by ADL. Why did you bring their names up? ADL didn't. You speculate.

How do you know her membership was not on the resume or kept from the selection committee? She me proof, not just your statement.

I really don't know what you make of her alleged statement to check out the breeder. I don't know the context of that statement. That is, the 2 paragraphs before that quoter and the 2 after. Was she talking to someone who was going to a breeder to get a dog?

Now, how are these legitimate concerns?

If, instead, you told me that died in shelter increased by 65% due to poor sanitation and overcrowding as in Boks shelters, that could be a problem.

But if she was able to build a foster program in Seattle with less than a million people population, that was larger than LA's with 4 times as many people, and saved more animals than LA, I'd say that was a significant plus. Does that concern you?

Now why because you voice these "concerns," which is the exact same word that Dan Guss uses, and perhaps Atake--I have not read her article yet--out loud in articles and on this blog, do you think she is obligated to answer in kind of a general way to whomever raises the issue?

That is, is she supposed to write an email response to you, to Dan, to Atake, Heisen, et al, who fling these questions to the general public to raise your concerns as public concerns?

I see these concerns as non-concerns. I don't see how they are relevant to saving animals at LAAS as would her volunteer and foster programs, and public adoption programs.

Who gives a f..k if she were a breeder, breeder sympathizer, etc.? I just don't get what all the heat is about.

As someone said who left a comment, as a hypothetical dog, "I don't care if she bred my grandfather or not, what are my chances of getting adopted?"

You can repeat these united voiced "concerns" over and over, but they are not my concerns.

ADL has found dozens of people who actually worked with Barnette during the transformation of SHS. None of them raised "concerns" about AKA or breeding.

These are the wrong concerns.

My concern is that your unified "common talking point concerns" are like Republican guilt by association talking points used against Obama. Ayers, radical, communist, socialist. His minister, racist. These are not legit questions in my mind so don't repeatedly request me to be dragged into your plot.


[AND MORE]

You mentioned Carol and Carole, not ADL. Why do you say ADL was talking about them and then you defend them?

The "concerns" you raise are like Republican talking points. You all use the word "concerns" as if they were legitimate and that we should all share them.

I don't see how membership in AKA or having shown or bred dogs would make Barnette unfit to be GM, compared, let's say, with Heisen.

If Barnette truly did build a foster system in a city of 800,000 people that saved 3,000 animals, that is important. If she can do the same with a volunteer core, that is important. That she saved 92% of animals may or may not be true, I haven't personally seen the stats, that doesn't mean she can't significantly raise the live save rate in LA in two or three years or less. A big fish in a small pond can still become a big fish in a big pond.

I think ADL rightfully sees through this campaign of oblique attacks using the same talking points by everyone.

Barnette Critics Labeled as "KOOKS!"- ADL-LA

You've seen the emails pushing for an unquestioned Brenda Barnette confirmation by Council which are now coming in

GIANT BOLD RED FONT.

[originally posted as comment at Ed Muzika's LA Animal Watch]

Shame on those who characterize respected members of the animal community as KOOKS! Exactly how is Atake a "stakeholder" in a Heisen appointment? Heisen would never be appointed. Everyone knows that. She's too smart and wouldn't play their game.

Marie Atake is a tireless advocate for animals and resigned her commission post in protest of a flawed department and corrupt system.

Following that, she received a commendation for her service from the L.A. City Council.

Though not mentioned here --it is assumed that Carole Raphaelle Davis--is also meant to be called a KOOK. Carole, along with Carol Sax and hundreds of others have vigorously protested against puppy mill dogs being sold in our neighborhoods at pet stores. Because of her work, West Hollywood has banned the sale of dogs at pet stores AND Orangebone on Melrose Ave. has signed an agreement to only "sell" animals from the L.A. City Shelters.

These women are not "KOOKS" and do not make statements lightly. They are both the real deal. Marie Atake's piece at http://www.examiner.com/x-47471-LA-Animal-Rescue-Examiner~y2010m7d9-Mayor-appoints-new-General-Manager-for-LA-Animal-Services

is neither filled with "rumor" or "lies."

It is factual that:
1. The "92% save rate" at Seattle Humane is -- at best-- misleading. SHS is NOT an open door shelter and everyone who has a brain knows that.

2. Barnette's AKC lobbying position was not on her resume an was kept from the selection committee. If it had not been, there would have been questions--at least--about it.

3. The AKC derives a LARGE portion of its income from "AKC" registrations of PUPPY MILL DOGS.

4. ON TELEVISION in Seattle, Barnette advised anyone who wanted a pit bull dog to FIRST "check out the breeder."

These are not rumors and lies. They are legitimate concerns.

If Pam Ferdin had any credibility, she would be asking the same questions instead of leading a bizarre and unnecessary siege on people who have voice genuine concerns. But hey..The Barbi Twins are supporting Barnette. What else do you need to know?

Now we hear that the ALF has made it known that anyone who opposes Barnette could be a target. Huh?

Maybe she's the right person. Maybe she isn't. But this campaign of rolling over and quashing all skeptics and critics is in the style of Ed Boks and is reprehensible. We have questions. So far...there have been no answers. Just a misrepresentation of a "92% save rate" and statements like "I have a good feeling" about her.

Again...to succeed she will have to turn this department UPSIDE DOWN with full cooperation from the Mayor. With the foaming mob pushing her confirmation without question and with no critique...she doesn't really have to do anything at all. If she fails, it will be the City's fault and the fault of the animal community...so they say.

Ed, I'm very surprised that [you] have left your post as investigative writer and instead have joined in the mucking of a few people who are still courageous enough to state their opinion. We still have free speech in this country, don't we?

Without the watchful eyes who have constantly monitored this department, how will we know WHAT is going on at all?

-Jeff de la Rosa

The Brenda Barnette "APPROVED" Train Marches On!

(Previously posted as a comment to Ed Muzika's LA Animal Watch)

I have (the) utmost respect for Michael Bell, and for good reason.

That being said, do we need more positive endorsements (for Barnette) with the ADL-LA still slamming-home their recent reincarnation to "friend of the Mayor?"

It seems to me that the purpose of this avalanche of "APPROVED" stamps only serves one purpose (because, hey...she's in, okay?): Discredit all detractors and skeptics.

It's really too bad that Barnette will have to depend on one "staffer" to "train" her in the ways of the Department, the Council and the City --the other "staffer" will fade back into the woodwork where she quietly collected her enormous pay before--and it's even more too bad that the former "staffer" will be her most "trusted" adviser.

If Ms. Barnett is as savvy as she appears (read: able to politic with the best of them), she will make a big media splash, be the nice lady on TV with the cute little animals (read: NOT PIT BULLS) and watch and listen closely to what is available to her.

Then, after we're all cozy-- someone should get the axe and move on to yet another City Department--or not. Only then, will Barnette have a real chance to make a difference..if that is possible.

None of her SHS (Seattle Humane Society) policies will work here. Not the selective intake policy, nor the pit bull policy, nor the temperament test policy. Will this Board, who has forever forbade temperament testing give in (to Bickhart) and allow these "un-adoptable" dogs to be labeled to death? That's one way to bring up your save rate numbers....but that kind of sounds like Ed Boks-style tactics... which fooled quite a few people before. We can only wait and see.