Boks, Barth and Davis Rake in over $500,000 but Shelter Sends out Pleas for Supplies!

I received this email today:
[NOTE: the Board of Commissioners Meeting for Feb. 9, 2009 will be held at the East Valley Shelter. Bring your donations and your wrath. Maybe they will cancel this one?]

Date: Friday, January 2, 2009, 11:28 AM

I just spoke with someone at EV[East Valley]. Can you please cross post the list I was given of items they need. Are you folks sitting down:

towels
blankets
newspapers
stainless steel bowls all sizes
ceramic crocks all sizes+/- Read more...

plastic or stainless steel litter pans all sizes
dog treats hard and soft - peanut butter
cat treats
cat toys
washable stuffed animals
guinea pigs, hamster, gerbil food and cages
hay, timothy, oat for rabbits
dog grooming supplies
cat scratching posts
office supplies - photo paper, xerox paper, presentation folders, file folders

I asked why so much and apparently the budgets have been cut severely. The person I spoke with - when we got into a conversation on the matters regarding budgets and proper anything said perhaps people should write to Villaraigosa. Is it wise to organzie a letter campaign? If so, I would BE HAPPY HAPPY to spearhead it and send it to whomever I need to. If anyone knows the proper way to attack it please let me know. I hope the dogs are being fed properly. I wonder how much Barth, Davis and Boks are paid collectively each year to do nothing? Perhaps they can chip in a few bucks to pick up some supplies? AFter all, they CARE about the animals.

Name withheld by BoardWatch

If you are as disgusted as we at BoardWatch are, then please speak up in the comments below and write to your public servants.
Rest of the post summary or text that you need to hide

We welcome your comments. Just make up a name if you don't want us or anyone to know who you are.

REWIND 2008 : January 28 Board Meeting

When we last left our Board, two weeks ago, on January 14, 2008 the following items were left in limbo:
1. A new "transfer" permit ordinance.
2. Regulations for the "Elephant Walk" and similar events.

Neither item is on the agenda for further discussion or resolution at this meeting.

We still don't know if the January 14 meeting even took place because there are no minutes posted at http://laanimalservices.com/commission

And now..the January 28, 2008 Board Meeting:
+/- Read more...

MINUTES
BOARD OF ANIMAL SERVICES COMMISSIONERS
CITY OF LOS ANGELES
Monday January 28, 2007
10:00 A.M.
CITY HALL
200 N. Spring St.
Room 1060
Los Angeles, CA 90012

BW comments are in bold italics.

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL HEARING
Commission Vice-President Riordan called the Administrative Appeal Hearing to order at 10:20 A.M. Present were Commissioners Riordan, Brown, Ponce, and Quincey.

President Khero is M.I.A.

First up are 3 appeal hearings for Barking Dog cases.

3 citizens have complained that neighbors' dogs bark too much which has resulted in an Administrative Hearing for each dog owner.

Boks has made 3 decisions. From what we can tell from the minutes, Boks issued terms and conditions to 1 dog owner in order for them to keep their dog licenses. Boks revoked the licenses for the Appellants 2 and 3 . Revocation of a license bans the dog from the City permanently and revokes the licenses of all other dogs owned by the "Respondents." See Municipal Code Sec. 53.18.5.

It would be interesting to know if these banned dogs were "deposited" at the shelter and then killed or if the owners somehow managed to get them new homes outside the City. We suspect all dogs are dead for barking.

The Board voted to uphold Boks's decision in the first 2 cases, but they overturn Boks's decision to revoke the third party's license and issue terms and conditions. They also fine the third Respondent $250. This was likely Qunicey's idea.

The Board recesses after 55 minutes at 11:15 AM.

COMMISSION MEETING

1. ORAL REPORT OF THE GENERAL MANAGER – EDWARD BOKS The General Manager reported on the No kill Equation. Many in the community are asking why we are not implementing those recommendations. This report demonstrates what we have been doing. In addition, the 2007 Statistical Report for the Department. This report compares our progress in previous years. Both reports are in your binders. The General Manager requested the Commission to review both items so they could be placed in the minutes as reviewed.

Notice that Boks does not answer the "community's" questions.
Boks does not read the report in his ORAL report so we don't know what's in there. Nor is the report linked on the Commission agenda pages. The report is therefore not made public. This may be a violation of the Brown Act. This detail escapes the Commissioners and they let it slide. Luckily, Boks has done extensive disingenuous blogging about this at "From the Desk of Ed Boks." It's drivel and bullshit so we won't link it here.

2. COMMISSION BUSINESS

A. Approval of the Commission Meeting Minutes of December 17, 2007.
Commissioner Ponce motioned to approve the minutes of December 17, 2007. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Quincey and passed on a vote of 4-0.

B. Oral Report by the Commission on Meetings and Events Attended
Commissioner Ponce attended the funeral of Department employee Christina Winzer and met with Councilman Huizar’s field deputy to discuss the “Be Kind to Animals Week – Humane Education For the Youth” event to be held at the North Central Shelter. Commissioner Riordan attended the funeral for Department employee Christina Winzer.

That's it. That's all the Board has to bring to the table! They approved minutes and reported on their community involvement. We commend Riordan and Ponce for attending the funeral of a Department employee. Shame on everyone else.

3. GENERAL MANAGER RECOMMENDS FOR BOARD ACTION
A. Proposal to Amend the Los Angeles Municipal Code to Require Dogs and Cats to be Sterilized.

Jim Bickhart from the Mayor's office chimes in to grab credit for putting this ordinance together. Usually, an appearance by Bickhart means they are expected to toe the line.

PUBLIC COMMENT:(1 minute)


Teri Auston [sic] (former TV Star and President of The Amanda Foundation): Supports the ordinance. A big part of any ordinance is enforcement. This in not based on AB 1634.

Judy Mancuso: On a city ordinance you can be more specific. In a local level, you can put in microchipping that would never pass at the state level.

Haze Lyn: Supports this effort. The tougher the better. This is a good stepping stone

Phyllis Daugherty: Supports what Mr. Bickhart said. Hope deterrent and fees will help reduce breeding.

They vote to approve this new ordinance 4-0.
It then passed in City Council and is now law.
A subsequent audit by City Controller Laura Chick determined that Boks does not have the money to enforce the new ordinance so it is meaningless , just like the ordinance that says all dogs must be licensed.
The minutes do not include discussion by the Board as to whether the Department has the funds to enforce this new law.

4. DISCUSSION ITEMS
None

Yeah. NONE. With all of the animals killed daily in the pound. The Board has nothing to discuss to stop this.
They have no other items which they feel will improve the Dept. or the conditions for the animals. They have failed us again.

5. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD (3 minutes)

Teri Auston [sic]: Saw a man with puppies for sale on top of his van and saw a dog left out in the rain. Called the local shelter and was happy with the response. She supports the Departments response to the issues. Believes the carrot and stick works to bring dog owners around.

Phyllis Daugherty: Thanked the Board for a vote on the ordinance as it closed another loophole. Believes Department officers are not aware of new ordinance 53.70. Believes they are using old ordinance. Furthermore commented on the officers not writing citations.

6. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
Requests from Commissioners For Future Agenda Items:
•Commissioner Ponce would like to consider another meeting day.
We have no idea what she is talking about because the minutes don't tell us. What, she doesn't like Mondays? Does she want a 3rd meeting per month. No clue. This is Ross Pool's job to let us know.
The Board has nothing meaningful that they want to place on their next agenda. Nothing.

7. ADJOURNMENT

Yep. All done. The Board voted to pass a new ordinance at the order of the Mayor.

The next meeting will be on Monday February 11, 2008 at 6:00 P.M., WEST VALLEY ANIMAL CARE CENTER 20655 Plummer Street, Chatsworth, California 91311.
These off-campus meeting are fun. Lots of people show up because the meeting is at a reasonable time of day.

BoardWatch Meeting rating: D- They brought nothing to the table. They rubber stamped an ordinance which would have passed even if they hadn't.

We welcome your comments. Just make up a name if you don't want us or anyone to know who you are.

Ed Boks Kicks Board of Commissioners to the Curb

Sometimes a small bit of info obtained deserves a post. This one is very illustrative of Ed Boks's view of and control over the Board of Commissioners. The PDF below is the chart showing the organization of the Department of Animal Services as found on the LAAS site (with a note added by BW).+/- Read more...

Click to Enlarge

Makes sense, really. Why include the Board of Commissioners in your "Organization" Chart when you prohibit them from meeting and control what they can discuss? Oh...here's the quote that preceeds the chart on the LAAS site:

"The predecessor to the Los Angeles Animal Services Department of today was formed by ordinance in 1947. With the General Manager as executive, the Department is under the control of a Board of Commissioners, with five members appointed by the Mayor, and by the City Council of Los Angeles. A current organization chart of the Department is found below."

If this sidestepping of the Board bothers you, why not let Ed and Linda know about it. Let us know if you get a reply or whether they find it "unduly burdensome" to answer you.

ed.boks@lacity.org

linda.barth@lacity.org

We welcome your comments. Just make up a name if you don't want us or anyone to know who you are.

The High Cost of Doing Nothing Part III: Linda Barth.

Who knew, without being a real insider, why the shelter workers were calling for Linda Barth's head along with Boks's at last Fall's City Council Meeting and Special Meeting of Dennis Zine's Personnel Committee? Okay. We get it. Recent manipulative shenanigans by Barth Vader have shown us the light.

Let's first remember that Barth is paid $154,491.12 annually by you , the taxpayers. That was in April 08 though we believe she's gotten a raise since then.

I don't think we're straying too far from our mission by doing a little exploration of Linda Barth, Assistant General Manager for the Department of Animal Services. It is Barth who is often very outspoken at the Board of Commissioners meetings which are the subject of this blog, anyhoo.

While glittering generalities are fine, sometimes specific evidence of a person's character and job performance are necessary in order to understand whom--or what--- we are dealing with.+/- Read more...

Case in point:

The December 22 email from me to the Board and Board Secretary.

from Jeff de la Rosa
to Ross Pool
cc Kathleen Riordan
Tariq Khero
Archie Quincey
Dennis Zine
Tony.Cardenas
Mitch O'Farrell (Eric Garcetti's staff)

date Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 8:09 PM
[brown.act-2.pdf]

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 within 10 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 Motion which prohibits Commissioners from responding to public comments, or in the alternative, immediately remove this paragraph from your agendas and place in its stead wording that would let the public know what manner of address a Board Member may use in response
to 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 cancelled this meeting and why?

3) I understand the 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 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

Here's Barth's December 24 2008 letter regarding my request. Click the letter to enlarge.





You can read the California Public Records Act for yourselves here, including the real Section 6255, which Barth seems to have re-written all by her lonesome.

Interesting points:
1. Pool forwards emails addressed to the Board to Boks and Barth. That's a no no. No?
2. They really don't like these questions. If they answer these "unduly burdensome" questions, it might reveal what is really going on with the Board and Boks's apparent control over them.

You may recall from previously posted parts of this series that I--the bane of the Department's existence--have been trying for 3 years to get proper care for my Stu. Most recently, it seems that my Stu's teeth are rotting and falling out of his head, yet Boks refuses to allow him to be seen by a veterinary dentist without a contract that I will pay for the damage which Boks has caused. Through recent correspondence to Boks, etc., I requested certain Public Records. None of those requests have been honored.

My reply to Barth--

Jeffrey de la Rosa

December 31, 2008 via EMAIL and FAX

Linda Barth, Asst. General Manager

Ed Boks, General Manager

City of Los Angeles

Department of Animal Services

221 N. Figueroa Street, 5th Floor

Los Angeles, CA 90012

Dear Ms. Barth,

Included in the computer records which you have sent covering Stu's medical history at your department are the following entries:

• 11/8/2005 “Will send to AFE for total body function test + fungal culture from interdifital spaces per #581.”

• 11/10/2005 “From AFE TBF +fungal culture = awaiting results from Green Dog and Cat.”

• 2/16/2006 ”The dog was growling during the exam and this with the background noises of other dogs in the medical treatment room(is this the killing room?-Ed.), distorts auscultation findings. Therefore, Dr. Rainey gave orders for the canine to be transported to (AFE'd) to private veterinary hospital (VCA/West Los Angeles), for more [complete] diagnostic comprehensive exam with radiographs of lungs and bloodwork. The dog had to be sedated at private veterinary hospital for comprehensive[sic] exam and diagnostics due to its aggressive behavior. KR/573.”

As you know, this sedation of my dog was done without my knowledge or consent. During Stu’s 3 years under lock and key with your department, he has become a geriatric dog and therefore certain particular cautions must be observed when considering “sedation.” Any future exams which sedation is deemed necessary must be done only with my prior knowledge and written consent and in no case shall sedation be administered by any LAAS employee or at any LAAS facility.

As you recall, my original request under the CPRA was for complete records. I trust that you have had adequate time to locate the exact copies of the results from the two above examinations and tests by outside veterinarians as well as exact copies of all records from Stu's treatment and blood tests from North Figueroa Animal Hospital and are sending them immediately. Your claim that producing the medical records for one dog is “unduly burdensome” is insufficient explanation for your violation of the CPRA. I am well aware that it is your intent to “obstruct and delay” which is in violation of C.G.C. §6253(4)(d) which provides:

(d) Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to permit an agency to delay or obstruct the inspection or copying of public records. The notification of denial of any request for records required by Section 6255 shall set forth the names and titles or positions of each person responsible for the denial.

In your December 24, 2008 letter which apparently denies my request for records you stated: “it would be unduly burdensome, as that term is defined under Section 6255 of the California Public Records Act (Act) for the Department to search for and produce any and all such information into one document...” Unfortunately, C.G.C.§6255 makes no references to your assertions of undue burden, nor does it define the term as you claim. In fact your term “unduly burdensome” appears nowhere in the chapter. For your information, C.G.C.§6255 states, in its entirety:

6255. (a) The agency shall justify withholding any record by

demonstrating that the record in question is exempt under express provisions of this chapter or that on the facts of the particular case the public interest served by not disclosing the record clearly outweighs the public interest served by disclosure of the record.

(b) A response to a written request for inspection or copies of public records that includes a determination that the request is denied, in whole or in part, shall be in writing.

While it is common knowledge that your department often seems to operate under different laws than the rest of us, perhaps you would be so kind as to provide a copy of the laws which you’re operating under in regard to my request for records.

If you are not the public servant who is making the decision to deny my lawful requests, then you must “set forth the names... of each person responsible...” You have redacted the technician ID numbers and other notes from these computerized records. This information is not privileged under the CPRA and therefore you must send non-redacted exact copies in order to fulfill my request. If you find any of the above requests "unduly burdensome," you may of course fax to me an authorization to release records with the following parties named: Jeremy Prupas, VCA Animal Hospital, Green Dog and Cat Hospital, North Figueroa Animal Hospital. I will then gather the records myself which will take less of your valuable time.

I trust that you will not further delay or obstruct my efforts to obtain this information which I have the right to obtain under the laws of this state. Mr. Leung may advise you that any costs incurred by my having to obtain and serve subpoenas for these records will be taxed to the City when I prevail on my writ petition. When judges are presented with clear violations of the law, they normally don’t hesitate to rule for the plaintiff. I’m sure that you will agree that this would be an unnecessary expense for the taxpayers to bear as would the hundreds of dollars in other court costs to say nothing of many hours spent by a City Attorney defending an action because you have failed to follow the law.

Finally, you have also failed to respond regarding your Department’s intention, or lack thereof, to keep Stu’s appointment with Dr. Tsugawa on January 6. Please have the courtesy to reply as other people have schedules with time constraints, just like you do.

Warm regards,

Jeff de la Rosa

CC: Todd Leung, Deputy City Attorney

Yeah, I can be an ass to these people, but you reap what you sow. What the hell is she talking about?
Is she making up her own laws? Having battled these ...people...in court for three years, I've learned that you don't go citing the law unless you are damn sure the law says what you are saying it does.

_______________________

Before that, I asked for the medical records for Stu, which they still have not provided and which are necessary both for Stu's further care and so that you, the public, can see what is going on behind those closed doors. So far, the records which I do have show:

1. They were aware of and even diagnosed periodontal disease in Stu and did nothing.
2. They have sedated Stu several time without my knowledge or consent, which is required.
3. Dr. Rainey was a good vet.
4. Boks is a pathological liar, but we knew that.
5. Barth is re-writing the law.


Also, although my email was addressed NOT to Linda Barth or Ed Boks, but to the Board and Board Secretary , Ross Pool--Linda Barth and Boks have decided to usurp the Board and the Board Secretary, speak for them, and declare that it is "unduly burdensome" for the Department to answer the questions, "Why did the Board cancel so many meetings?" and "Why does the agenda say that the Brown Act prohibits the Board from responding to public comments , when City Council (who also must adhere to the Brown Act) seems to have no problem with this?"



Yeah...the place is rotten to the core, which we knew. But hopefully BW is shedding light where it has not been shed before.

What do you think?



BW welcomes your comments. Just make up a name if you don't want us or anyone to know who you are.

Corruption. What is it and how has Ed "Blagojevich" Boks Railroaded the Board?

Why is the Board ineffective and why are so many meetings "canceled?"

From en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption :

Corruption, when applied as a technical term, is a general concept describing any organized, interdependent system in which part of the system is either not performing duties it was originally intended to, or performing them in an improper way, to the detriment of the system's original purpose.+/- Read more...

Corruption is essentially termed as an "impairment of integrity, virtue or moral principle; depravity, decay, and/or an inducement to wrong by improper or unlawful means, a departure from the original or from what is pure or correct, and/or an agency or influence that corrupts."

Based on the definitions above:
Ed Boks is corrupt and has corrupted the Board of Commissioners.


Example 1: The Board Goes Dark following the October 7, 2008 Special Meeting of the City's Personnel Committee (See video link to the left "Boks Trial").

Over 100 animal services employees (and another hundred or so rescuers, volunteers and activists rose up and told their shocking stories of Boks's and Barth's mismanagement of the department and retaliatory acts. Former President Commissioner Brown stated he was speaking "on behalf of the Board." Turned out he was not.

Brown quit the Board immediately thereafter. No doubt Brown will surface on another City Board in 2009.

The Board Went Dark

For 3 months.

Perhaps they met on November 17 but we have no verification of that.

Monday, October 13, 2008
Cancellation Notice Agenda

Monday, October 27, 2008
Cancellation Notice
Agenda & Appeal
Board Report Pet Insurance Contract Award
Board Report Mobile Spay Neuter Clinic
Board Report Request for Recognition for Dog & Cat Registries and Associations


Monday, November 17, 2008
Agenda
Board report Request for Proposals for the Operation of a Mobile Spay/Neuter Clinic
Board report Six-Month Agreement of a Pet Health Insurance Sponsorship Agreement
Animal Registries

Monday, November 24, 2008
Cancellation notice

Monday, December 8, 2008
Commission Notice

Monday, December 22, 2008
Cancellation notice

Suspected reasons?

1. To make this Zine thing go away.
2. To silence conscientious now "acting president," Kathy Riordan.

3. To wait for the Mayor to install Irene Ponce who will do the Mayor's and Boks's bidding.
4. To wait for a new president to be installed who is not Kathy Riordan.

This is illegal. This is corruption.

Example 2: Board Goes Dark following the "Stu meeting."

Way back in August 2007 the Board placed on their agenda the matter of the dog, Stu, and considered whether he should sit on death row in the pound or at Bobby Dorafshar's K9s Only as a guest of New Leash on Life Animal Rescue. Boks blocked this agenda item for 3 months until he could block no more and the Board , led by Kathy Riordan and Marie Atake , was allowed to actually set their own agenda.

The Board considered sending a letter to the Court of Appeal but could not find support due to City Attorney putting the brakes on this. The Board voted unanimously to move Stu to sanctuary pending the outcome of his legal case.

The next day, the Mayor's office threatened Riordan and Atake with removal from the Board for actually doing their job. Atake quit in protest and Riordan remained.

Then the Board went dark.

Monday, September 24, 2007
Commission Meeting Canceled

Monday, September 10, 2007
Commission Meeting Canceled

Monday, August 27, 2007
Commission Meeting Agenda & Appeal
Commission Minutes

Suspected reasons?

1. To make this Stu thing go away.

2. To silence conscientious now "acting president." Kathy Riordan.

3. To force the resignation of Marie Atake who , shortly thereafter received a commendation from City Council.

4. To wait for the Mayor to install a new Commissioner who will do the Mayor's and Boks's bidding.

This is what Boks and the Mayor's office do when a controversial issue surfaces on the Board's Agenda. They slap the Board down and prohibit them from meeting.

This is illegal.

This is corruption.

If we were Illinois U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, who is prosecuting Rod Blogojevich, we would issue an indictment on multiple counts of corruption and other charges.

They think we are stupid or will not call them on their bullshit. Ed thinks he's bulletproof. Are they right?

~BW

Zine's Official Coverage of the "Boks Trial."

Dennis Zine, Councilperson for the 3rd District, has quite an extensive Newsletter available on the District's site. In the Fall 2008 issue of ZINE LINE, Legislative Deputies Brian Perry & Chris Olsen offer up extensive and unbiased coverage of the October special meeting of Personnel Committee of which Zine is the chairman (the only coverage by "them", the City). Click here for the Fall 2008 Zine Line .

If you missed the video of the October 9, 2008 Boks Trial, see the new 'videos' link in the left sidebar. Our favorite speaker on the tape is (former) Board President Glenn Brown (near the beginning) who mysteriously and quietly resigned from the Board immediately after the meeting. So quietly, that he's still shown as "President" on the Commissions web pages. Following Brown taking a powder, the Board went silent for the rest of the year, save for one lone meeting.

When's Part 2 of that Zine inquest, anyway?

We welcome your comments. Just make up a name if you don't want us or anyone to know who you are.

Ed Boks, Jeremy Prupas and LAAS sued. Again.

On December 23, "Stu's dad", Jeff de la Rosa, filed suit in Los Angeles Superior Court (Case no. BS118411) alleging violations of the Hayden Law and +/- Read more

the Los Angeles Administrative Code. Named as individuals in the suit (as well as in their official capacity) are Ed Boks and new Chief Veterinarian, Jeremy Prupas who ordered Stu into non-emergency surgery under general anesthesia without Jeff's knowledge or consent. Malpractice insurance policy providers require that doctors of any kind who are named in a law suit must notify their malpractice insurance carrier.

In October, 2008 Jeff prevailed in a similar action to invalidate the Department's revocation of his dog license for another dog, "Maeve". Judge James C. Chalfant ruled that the City botched their hearing procedures by violating due process (14th Amendment), the Los Angeles Municipal Code and LAAS's own regulations. Jeff was awarded costs of the suit and depositions(which he prosecuted without an attorney)which will be paid by the taxpayers. To date, the City has not paid the judgment.

Since that court decision, Boks has stepped up his 3 year personal vendetta against Stu's outspoken dad and this time, again, he is taking out on Stu. Damages, if awarded in this most recent suit, will be in the five figure range.

While the Hayden Law violations refer to Jeff's dog, Stu, which has been impounded for 3 years and has been refused necessary veterinary care (See previous post The High Cost of Doing Nothing), the Administrative Code violations refer to the Board of Commissioners failing to meet as as required by Section 503 of the code. In 2008, the Board met (as far as is indicated on the LAAS web site, only 11 of the 24 times required by law. Because the Board failed to meet, Jeff could not bring his issues of Stu's medical care before them and was forced to take legal action to get Stu the care he needs and has needed for more than 2 years. Updated information can be found at the Court's web site by entering the case number BS118411.

BoardWatch has been informed that more lawsuits against Ed Boks and LAAS are in the preparation stages by various parties. Will the Mayor, sooner or later, see that Boks is not only a miserable failure at Animal Services, he is also a ticking time bomb and a legal liability? Read the lawsuit here.
We welcome your comments. Just make up a name if you don't want us or anyone to know who you are.