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.

BRING QUINCEY BACK!

To Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and the Los Angeles City Council:

The People and animals of the City of Los Angeles have suffered a great loss with the resignation of Archie Quincey from the Board of Animal Services Commissioners. Quincey brings 32 years experience in Los Angeles animal care and control to the Board. He is a dedicated, informed and honorable Commissioner and what this City needs and has needed.

With no real management team in place in the Department and a real mess left behind by a bumbling General Manager, we must look to the Board of Commissioners for experience, guidance and leadership. Quincey was chastised for doing his job--getting to the truth and finding a solution. The case of Stu aside, Quincey has constantly reminded the Board and Department that we must license our dogs, follow the law and make new laws that help to stem the tide of abandoned animals and killing.

Management has insulted Quincey to his face, behind his back and in public which is unacceptable, shameful and should not be tolerated. We cannot afford a vacancy on the Board and certainly cannot afford not to have Quincey in his seat advocating for the law, order and compassion. Our shelters are overflowing with animals. With intake of animals up 30% and kill numbers even worse, due to economic issues in our nation, state and city, we need all the wisdom we can get and we got that from Quincey--for free.

Mr. Mayor, you must refuse Quincey's resignation, have a personal meeting with him to address his concerns and put him back where he belongs--in his seat on the Board where he gives us a mountain of insight and experience without compensation. Please support and uphold the integrity of this Board by standing behind your personal appointment, Archie J. Quincey. You have chosen to remain in Los Angeles and do the work of the people. At this time, the people need a full Board which leads, is forthright and honorable. You have the power to give them that. Please stand up and do so.

I encourage Council to pass a resolution which recommends Quincey's reinstatement. You, as the representatives of the People, approved this man's appointment. Don't let him go. He is doing what you asked of him: serving honorably.

When was the last time you saw female rescuers hug a Commissioner? I've seen it. I'd like to see it again.

Respectfully,

Jeff de la Rosa

I urge all readers of this letter to join with me in this campaign to return Archie Quincey to the Board of Commissioner without delay. Email addresses and other contact info which you can use to BRING QUINCEY BACK! are below.

Office of the Mayor:
mayor@lacity.org
JimmyBlackman@lacity.org

Board of Commissoners
Tariq Khero tariq.khero@gmail.com
Kathleen Riordn ninekitties@aol.com
Archie J. Quincey ajq1trq2@aol.com
Irene Ponce ireneponce@earthlink.net (spam filter, you must do as requested when you receive the return email for your message to be delivered)
Ruthanne Secunda secundar@unitedtalent.com

City Council-Public Safety Committee

Councilmember Paul Koretz Chair, Council District 5
200 N. Spring Street, Room 440; Los Angeles, CA 90012
ph: 213-473-7005; fax: 213-978-2250
email: councilmember.koretz@lacity.org, paul.koretz@lacity.org

Councilmember Bernard C. Parks, Council District 8
200 N. Spring Street, Rm. 460; Los Angeles, CA 90012
ph 213-473-7008; fax: 213-485-7683
email: Councilmember.Parks@lacity.org,
Bernard.Parks.Jr@lacity.org

Councilmember Greig Smith, Council District 12
200 North Spring St., Rm 405
Los Angeles, CA 90012
ph: 213-473-7012; fax: 213-473-6925
email: councilmember.smith@lacity.org

Councilmember Dennis Zine, Council District 3
200 N. Spring Street, Rm.450
Los Angeles, CA 90012
ph: 213-473-7003; fax: 213-485-8988
email: Dennis.Zine@lacity.org

Councilmember Ed Reyes, Council District 1
200 N. Spring Street, Room 410
Los Angeles, CA 90012
ph: 213-473-7001; fax: 213-485-8907
email: councilmember.reyes@lacity.org, ed.reyes@lacity.org

[UPDATED] Animal Services thwarts Board Officer Elections-Again.

CLICK HERE FOR BOARD's 7/27/09 Agenda (save it...it will change)

UPDATE 7/24/09 8:07 P.M. No, there was no reply to the letter; however, mysteriously a "special agenda" was added to the LAAS web site on Friday, July 24, 2009 5:00:04 PM. That agenda is for the elections of officers. What? They forgot? Here's the new addition http://laanimalservices.com/PDF/commission/2009/072709%20-%20Special%20Agenda.pdf

Below is the text of Jeff de la Rosa's letter to the the Interim General Manager of Los Angeles Animal Services, Kathy Davis. She's not doing so hot at 24 days in office.

July 24, 2009 VIA EMAIL
Kathleen Davis, Interim General Manager
Board of Commissioners
City of Los Angeles
Dept. of Animal Services
221 N. Figueroa St 5th fl.
Los Angeles CA 90012

DEMAND TO HOLD OFFICER ELECTIONS


Dear Ms. Davis, and Commissioners,

Pursuant to Article V of the Los Angeles City Charter, the Board is to hold an election of officers on Monday July 27, 2009. Unless there is another last meeting in July, your agenda does not comply with the law.

Sec. 503. Organization of the Board.
(a) Officers. Each of the boards created in the Charter shall elect one of its members President and one Vice-President. Officers shall hold office for one year and until their successors are elected, unless their membership on the board expires sooner. Elections shall be held during its last meeting in July of each year, but the board may fill the unexpired term of any vacancy occurring in the office of President or Vice-President at any meeting. (emphasis added)


I therefore demand that you either revise your Board’s agenda to include the mandated election of officers: OR

Cancel and reschedule your meeting to another day in July 2009 which will provide for proper public notice for an agenda which includes an election of officers according to the Los Angeles City Charter and Administrative Code-- A free election with the outcome not dictated by others.

If I am not informed in timely manner that you have taken proper steps to comply with the law I will pursue criminal corruption charges against you as well as civil remedies.



You’re not off to a very good start.

Sincerely,


Jeffrey de la Rosa

Cc:

William Carter, Office of the City Attorney
Council President Eric Garcetti
Councilmember Paul Koretz, Chair Public Safety Committee
Councilmember Dennis Zine, Chair-Personnel Committee;
Helen E. Zukin, President, City Ethics Commission:
Board of Animal Services Commissioners:
Commissioner Tariq Khero, President;
Commissioner Kathleen Riordan, Vice President;
Commissioner Irene Ponce;
Commissioner Ruthanne Secunda

The Lion of the Board of Commissioners has had it. Quincey resigns.

LA Animal Services commissioner resigns


From the Daily News:
LA Animal Services commissioner resigns
By Rick Orlov, Staff Writer
Updated: 07/24/2009 09:28:30 AM PDT

A member of the Los Angeles Animal Services Commission resigned Thursday, accusing city employees of ignoring his demands for information and suggesting that some actions could be illegal.

Archie Quincy, who spent 32 years working for the Los Angeles County Animal Control Department, sent a letter of resignation to aides of Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa. "I don't need this job," Quincy said in an interview. "They don't know what they're doing over there and I'm afraid some of what they are doing is criminal. I just don't want to be involved with it."

Quincy, who was appointed in 2007, said he suspects the city Department of Animal Services has been withholding information or changing data in reports to the five-member commission.

The most recent situation involved information he had requested about a pit bull taken to a city shelter and the treatment of the dog's owner.

"When I ask for information as a commissioner, I should be able to get it," Quincy said. "Instead, all I hear are comments about me."

Animal Services officials said they were unaware of Quincy's resignation and could not comment on it.

The long-troubled department has been without a general manager since April, when then-chief Ed Boks resigned under pressure from animal advocates.