We've been here before...Board Elections that are not really elections. BW (us) has been clamoring for the Board to choose a new president ever since Glenn Brown took a powder in October...which wasn't really "official" until 2 months later, which was convenient because the Board meeting for late November and all of December were canceled to keep Kathy Riordan from "doing any damage" (doing her job as she has faithfully done for ...what? ...9 years?) as acting President.
Nope. No "election" in January...or February, but wait... a new commissioner!-HAND PICKED BY ED BOKS (that's two now if you count Irene Ponce and you have to do that.) Ruth Ann Secunda of Boks's fave celebrity encrusted Much Love Animal Rescue (subtle Ed...very subtle as usual). So now we have five and can pick a new Pres. Our predictions (you heard it hear first):
Archie Quincey? No. Too honest and down to earth for Ed and the Mayor. Unpredictable.
Irene Ponce? No. Too obvious as in Ed's pocket (she doesn't even have to read the reports before she makes a motion to approve whatever Ed and the Mayor (Blackman, Bickhart, Kramer, (Knaan? Still?)) tell her she should approve-no questions asked. Ruthanne Secunda ? No. Too obvious as a ringer(1). They'll groom her for the Summer election and order that she be "installed" as President.
Kathy Riordan? Go ahead laugh along with us. NEVER. They hate her because she is smart, conscientious, stands up for what's right (without getting axed) and actually researches the issues on her own time--a lot of time.
Okay, then they will be ORDERED TO ELECT TARIQ KHERO. AGAIN. Remember when they ORDERED Riordan to decline the nomination (and the vote!) way back when? Remember the note from Blackman, left in the trash for the Daily News to publish? --"Don't play games (Riordan). Decline."
Yep, democracy at it's finest. Yes, this is corruption and election fraud and it's serious shit. Question, can you be disbarred for participating in illegal activity? Check it out. We think you can be. Can it be proven? Can you be impeached for the same? Probably. Show up on Monday and find out. Go Tariq!!..only 3 months to serve; you can hang. No? You're a safe bet because everyone knows you won't make waves (stand up to the creeps or make much difference in anything that matters.
How many meetings will you miss? We guess 3 out of 6. Any takers?
1ring·er
Pronunciation:
\ˈriŋ-ər\
Function:
noun
Date:
15th century
(1): one that sounds especially by ringing (2): one that enters a competition under false representations (2) a: imposter , fake b: one that strongly resembles another —often used with dead "he's a ringer for the senator"
Will Ed Boks show his shiny head in City Hall on Monday March 23? I'm betting he will not.
Ed may have hammered the last nail in his own carpet-bag coffin all by his lonesome this week by announcing that he was nixing the spay/neuter vouchers which have made compliance with the months-old Mandatory Spay/Neuter law possible for many. Rescue organizations with tight budget will also feel the pinch but the worst product of this lame-brained stunt by our own Ed Boks will be more killed animals. More animals who won't get adopted, rescued or otherwise given a second chance at a happy life--or any life.
One article claims that Boks created a new class of criminals, those who can't afford to follow the law, in one swoop of his pointy tail. We agree. Council, who are always ready to pounce on a tasty PR morsel converged on Boks. Garcetti and Zine both say this pulling of the low cost spay/neuter vouchers cannot stand. But where will the money come from? Let's remember that Council was presented with a budget for the department of Animal Services for 2008/2009 many months ago. Let's also remember that they bankrupted the City by shoveling , on average, $500,000 more into salaries. Yep, no increases for services, food, blankets or bowls for the animals , or for the real work of the people-- just more salaries. I wonder how many ACTs and ACOs will have their hours cut or laid off all together so that the lucky ones who keep their jobs could have a raise. Yes, Ed and Linda Barth and Kathy Davis split about $30,000 of that money amongst themselves in raises for mismanagement. Don't you wish you could get a raise for not doing your job?
So, activists, rescuers and others will cram the the Public Safety Committee ( Animal Services is under Public Safety in the Administrative and Municipal Codes) and once again call for Ed's head on a stick.
We'll be there AND we'll be down the hall at the Animal Services Board meeting watching Jeff de la Rosa call for Ed's (and Barth's) head again. Why? Failure to obey a Court order and unnecessarily causing Jeff to incur $1400 in private boarding charges for his dog,Maeve. Maeve's license was revoked in 2005-06 due to a case of mistaken identity when a neighbor's dog got bit by some unknown, "red and white" or" brown and black" or "orange and tan" colored dog. The 'complaining witness' used all of those descriptions for Maeve; however she is none of those dogs. Jeff was at the beach in Ventura County that day (Don't forget to get receipts for something--anything-- next time you go to the beach in case you need an alibi for your dog).
The decision was tossed by Superior Cout Judge James C. Chalfant in October 2008. The judge citedDue Process violations in the hearing process and said the whole hearing was a sham.. Didn't help that former commish Debbie Knaan failed to recuse herself from the appeal hearings , even after telling the whole world she thought Jeff was lying and that he was "a creep." How did she come to this realization? SHE CALLED HIM BEFORE THE APPEAL HEARING AND INTERROGATED HIM in her D.A. style. No, silly--this is not ethical. It's called ex parte communication and when you're in a quasi judicial position, as she was, one should not engage in ex parte communications with a party--ESPECIALLY WHEN HE HAS A LAWYER!. Dip shit Debbie the lawyer! Judge Chalfant didn't like that either but since the whole intitial hearing was a sham kangaroo court, he didn't even have to get to the Debbie Knaan part before quashing the whole decision. Actually , he ORDERED the Board to set aside their decision to uphold the GM (Stuckey! Yes, that long ago.)'s decision to ban Maeve from the City and order that Jeff could own no other dogs for three years. Problem is that in 4 months since the ruling, the Board hasn't gotten around to to following orders and had not 'acted' to comply with the Writ of Mandate. Judge Chalfant reviews to pursue a Contempt order on Monday, but he invited Jeff back to "renew" his request should Barth continue to obstruct the judicial process. See you at City Hall. Save the date: Monday, March 23, 2009. The 1oth floor will be a rockin'!
Caught up in the budget crunch, the lives of L.A.'s animals hang in the balance Photo: Vanda Krefft
Update to Friday's report that L.A. Animal Services, in a surprise move, last week suddenly ended its much-ballyhooed spay/neuter discount coupon program, a critical adjunct to L.A.'s mandatory spay/neuter law; and demanded private rescues and shelters return all undistributed coupons immediately.
Since the City Council passed L.A.'s mandatory spay/neuter legislation last year with the assurance that the availability of discount and free spay/neuter coupons would make complying with the new law feasible for low income city residents, I called the offices of Councilmembers Weiss and Alarcon, as well as Council President Eric Garcetti seeking comment on this new policy that seemed to leave recession-battered Angelenos in the lurch.
While Weiss' and Alarcon's office did not return calls, Friday afternoon I did hear from Mitch O'Farrell, District Director of Constituent Services for Councilmember Garcetti. What he had to say was a surprise. He informed me that, contrary to initial reports, the City Council was not consulted or informed in advance about Animal Services' plans to discontinue the spay/neuter coupon program, and he characterized the news as "upsetting," and "not okay at all."
In a follow-up email, O'Farrell said, "the City Council did not rescind the spay/neuter coupons. That was an internal decision within the [Animal Services] department based on general mid year budget reductions all departments were ordered to take."
L.A. City Council President Eric Garcetti. The City Council was caught unawares by LAAS policy reversal
O'Farrell informs me the City Council is planning to take strong action to reverse this decision. "A motion will be introduced next week directing LAAS to reinstate free and discount spay/neuter vouchers. This program is something...Councilmember [Garcetti] and his colleagues strongly believe in. In fact, [Councilmember] Garcetti moved this program forward when he was on the Budget and Finance Committee a few years back."
It's another embarrassing blow for embattled Animal Services General Manager Ed Boks. Boks has stumbled publicly before, most notably in an August 21, 2007 press conference with Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa on the steps of City Hall, when Villaraigosa and he announced that L.A. Animal Services was the number one pet adoption agency in the nation, a claim that was almost immediately debunked, particularly in light of the fact that one of the agencies that outperformed LAAS in adoptions was L.A. County Animal Care and Control.
Boks also came under fire for planning a "Hooters for Nooters" event, ultimately canceled, which would have featured scantily clad female Hooters employees promoting pet sterilization.
Some of LAAS General Manager Ed Boks' missteps have been comical, like his ill-conceived "Hooters for Nooters" promotion, but ultimately mismanagement allows L.A.'s most vulnerable animals to fall through the cracks
Boks has also tangled with the City Council before, including his failed attempt to set up a "Pit Bull Training Academy" which would have employed ex-cons to train and make adoptable some of the city's many homeless Pit Bulls. While the plan might have helped save may dogs' lives, in addition to giving many ex-cons a meaningful new vocation, Boks failed to clear the plan with the City Council, and withstood blistering criticism from several Councilmembers. Plans for the Pit Bull Academy have since been shelved indefinitely.
In light of this latest controversy, I asked O'Farrell if the City Council was planning to confer with the Mayor, who appointed Boks, about this and other issues, including the September 2008 vote of no confidence in Boks, signed by over half of L.A, Animal Services employees.
O'Farrell declined comment on both Boks' performance and the vote of no confidence, saying the Council's immediate priority was to "get the spay/neuter vouchers reinstated, let the spay/neuter committee finish their work and get their report out; and consider their suggestions for policy proposals..."
Update: I also asked O'Farrell about my proposal that each City Councilmember donate ten percent of their annual $100,000 discretionary fund (which can be used for any cause the Councilmember chooses, except religious proselytizing or election costs) to help subsidize the spay/neuter coupon program. He didn't rule out some donation of money, but maintained that these finds are generally used for causes within each Councilmember's district.
This begs several questions. First, isn't animal welfare necessarily a citywide concern? An animal may be born in the 13th District (Garcetti's district) but may wander over to, say, the 12th. And his or her progeny could be scattered all over Los Angeles.
Second, do the City Councilmembers think about all L.A.'s issues in such fractional (or factional) terms? One would think that if ever there could be a uniting issue, it would be animal welfare, which has no borders. You can't solve the animal welfare problems of one district without regard for adjacent neighborhoods.
And third, even if the average Councilmember thinks only in terms of his or her own district, shouldn't we be able to expect a more comprehensive agenda from the Council President?
If we're going to solve the problem of too many animals -- and too many animals being killed in shelters -- it seems like we're going to need a citywide strategy and commitment from City Hall.
More despicable acts that start with the letter "C."
Jeff de la Rosa, owner/guardian of the "evidencedDogs" Stu and Maeve will appear in Court on Monday, March 16, 2009 to seek an ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: CONTEMPT due to the willful and malicious disobedience of lawful Court Orders regarding his 14-year-old dog Maeve. C'mon down! Sorry, no popcorn allowed in Court. Read the Notice to the offenders' attorney here. What's an Order to Show Cause? See here.
UPDATE: Mar. 16, 2009: See Post: "Pinocchio Goes to Court"
For updates on Stu's Case in the Court of Appeals,
go to the Court's web site here.
RECAP: On February 9, 2009 I appeared before the Animal Services Board of Commissioners at an "off-campus" and essentially "off-the-record" (see footnote #1) evening meeting of Board at the East Valley Animal Care and Control Center. Exactly 5 members of the public attended:
Laura Beth Heisen (chair of Spay Neuter Committee, so she really doesn't count),
A Golden Retriever rescuer
Kim Carnochan(at my request) and
myself.
Phyllis Daugherty (love her or hate her , she is always there, to her credit).
It would seem that either the public and the animal community has given up on the Board of Commissioners having any chance or desire of effecting any meaningful positive changes in the Department of Animal Services or the whole town was just too busy.
At that meeting, I spoke during Public Comment regarding the Order of the Court to set aside Stuckey's 4 year-old decision (which was upheld by the Board) to revoke my dog license for Maeve, now 13 or 14 years old. License revocation means that a dog must be immediately and permanently removed from the City and the dog's owner/guardian may not own other dogs for 3 years. I have lived under those conditions for 3 years at the cost of over $4000 in boarding fees, not to mention many times that in legal fees and costs.
Following my comments, Commissioners Khero, Quincey and VP Riordan expressed their opinion that "has gone on long enough." Commissioner Ponce had no comment, either because she is unfamiliar with the issues or because Boks has told her to have no comment. The Board then asked for an agenda item (they have to ask?) which would discuss:
1. Whether the Dept. (Boks) should continue to persecute me and hold yet another hearing to revoke Granny Maeve's license (death sentence unless you know of people that want to adopt an old dog who sleeps most of the day, is no longer housebroken after 3 years in boarding and has medical issues directly related to her 3 years of out-of-home boarding.)
2. (Closed Session) Whether the Board wants to direct the City Attorney to settle Stu's case (now in the Court of Appeals--with a decision about 4 months away-- at the current cost of about $11,000 plus lost wages) in light of impending litigation re: Denial of Due Process Under Color of Law (Federal Court), Libel suit against Ed Boks, Abuse of Process, Abuse of Power, Civil Harassment, Civil Conspiracty, etc.
On February 19, I sent a letter to VP Riordan and Barth asking whether or if the Board was going to address these issues. I asked for a call. Also on February 19, Barth replied by email:
from Linda Barth
to Jeff de la Rosa
cc Kathy Riordan
date Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 5:28 PM
subject Re: Correspondence
mailed-by lacity.org
hide details Feb 19 (5 days ago)
ReplyWe will have a discussion item on the Board's agenda for Monday, February 23, 2009, regarding the case with "Maeve," and should the Board wish to convene into Closed Session, about the status of the case with "Stu." Item 4.A.http://www.laanimalservices.com/PDF/commission/2009/022309-agd.pdf We will likely take it out of order in the meeting before the Licensing discussion (Item 3.A.)
I did not open this email until Friday 2/20 due to a massive virus attack on my computer. My response:
February 20, 2009VIA EMAIL
Commissioner Kathleen Riordan
Linda Barth
City of Los Angeles
Dept. of Animal Services
221 N. Figueroa St 5th fl.
Los Angeles CA 90012
Re: 2/23/09 Agenda and Closed Session
Dear Vice President Riordan and Ms. Barth,
Due to a very serious computer crash this week, I am only now in receipt of Ms. Barth's 2/19 email reply to my letter of February 19, 2009 concerning Board discussion of the cases involving my dogs, Stu and Maeve. Please understand that while I am certainly grateful for such fast action by the Board in response to my request made at the public meeting held February 9, 2009, your extremely short notice (only 1 business day) of 2 agenda items, one of which being a “closed session”, is not sufficient notice for me to attend the “open” portion of the meeting or prepare materials to be considered by the Board.
I would have appreciated a telephone call from you, Ms. Barth, regarding a matter of this importance which has apparently been so hastily planned.
I have spent a good portion of the last 4 years undoing the damage done by “staff” that are no longer with the department. Mr. Stuckey’s resignation was requested a few days before he signed Stu’s death warrant and he was fired in the same week; and Captain Karen Stepp, the initiator of these actions in 2005, “resigned” due to “poor employee morale.” Please ask yourselves how much notice you would expect for a meeting of government officials which might affect the rest of your lives.
Even more perplexing is Ms. Barth’s declaration that “We will likely take it [discussion of Maeve and Stu] out of order in the meeting before the Licensing discussion…” I am unaware that “staff” sets the agenda or the order of the agenda for the Board, although it is rumored to be so. It is my understanding that the Board sets the agenda and that the Board decides the order of a meeting. Please clarify and/or correct me if I am mistaken. And really, at what time should I plan to be there if I were available? Are there appeals? How many? Although it may seem that my full time occupation is battling your department, I do have other obligations, just like anyone else.
At this time I must object to the closed session scheduled for Monday February 23, 2009 if I am not included in that session or permitted to address the Board in open session. Am I asking for postponement? No. I imagine that were I to ask for a rescheduling, the matter would never again see the light of day.
While I fully understand that the Board may consult privately with counsel, I may be present for that portion of the meeting which is not privileged, and which should be “open;” and I therefore request to address the Board in closed or open session-- for more than the 60 seconds allotted in a public comment-- and prior to any closed session and certainly prior to any vote or resolution by the Board.
It is my understanding from your fist version of the agenda, that Deputy City Attorney Todd Leung, who has defended against my actions in Superior Court and the Court of Appeals, intends to address the Board during closed session. Because this meeting may result in a decision by the Board which would affect my personal life, my finances and my dogs (a.k.a “property”), I am entitled, by law, to a meaningful opportunity to be heard and to rebut any statements made or cherry-picked “exhibits” shown by Mr. Leung.
I must ask that Commissioner Riordan or Mr. Lesel contact me immediately and prior to the meeting to discuss the parameters of a closed session or any other session involving my dogs as well as to discuss my request to address the Board.I am available by telephone all weekend.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey de la Rosa
Cc: Ross Pool
Councilmembers Eric Garcetti; Dennis Zine; Tony Cardenas; Bernard Parks
Their reply: None.
So, I must assume that they went ahead and had their meeting about me without me. Since, no doubt, Phyllis Daugherty and Jim Bickhart were likely the only people in the peanut gallery, and since neither are likely to tell me what happened, I have no idea what happened, if anything.
Today's letter:
February 24, 2009VIA EMAIL
Commissioner Kathleen Riordan, Vice President
Linda Barth
City of Los Angeles
Dept. of Animal Services
221 N. Figueroa St 5th fl.
Los Angeles CA 90012
Re: 2/23/09 Agenda and Closed Session/LASC Case nos. BS104875, BS104836, Court of Appeal Case no. B202071
Dear Vice President Riordan and Ms. Barth,
Because I was unable to attend the Board’s meeting yesterday, as I have previously explained, I do not know what transpired in yesterday’s meeting regarding your agenda item 3A which dealt with my dogs and my cases. I would appreciate a call today or email summarizing the content of discussions and whether the Board took any action or whether either matter was continued to another date.
In lieu of a response, please prepare today a copy of the tape of the meeting and I will arrange for its pick-up. This is a public record and need not be delayed for approval of minutes. Approval of minutes will not change the content of the tape. You may charge my VISA XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX exp. 2/10 for not more than $15 to cover the cost of the cassette copy and postage. Of course, a note saying that you are sending the tape would be appreciated. If you are unable to prepare a copy today, please advise as to a time today, that I may listen to the tape in your offices as is provided by the California Public Records Act.
Additionally, and pursuant to the California Public Records Act, please send:
1.A cost estimate for copies (or just the copies) of all resolutions, passed motions, rulings and/or decisions (including appeals) made by the Board for years 2004 to present. While I understand that this may take some time, I assume that you can fulfill my request for documents from 11/1/2008 to year 2009 without much delay.
2.Copies of minutes of all 2004 Board meeting minutes (or you may email the PDF files) which have been removed from your website.
3.Any past or current rules, by-laws or policies governing meetings of the Board of Commissioners from 1998 to present. As in (1), the most current (2008-2009) should not be delayed.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey de la Rosa
Cc: Todd Leung;Councilmembers Eric Garcetti; Dennis Zine; Tony Cardenas; Bernard Parks
Stay tuned, I guess.
FN1 Somebody (Ross Pool) forgot to make sure the Public Address system got to the meeting, as a result, there is no tape recording. There is also no tape recording of the 2 Appeals they heard which means they are both INVALID.
