Board Meeting Report-May 26, 2009, Part II

OKAY TO FORWARD AND CROSS POST

This part deals with my dog, Stu. His case was not on the agenda, but several wonderful souls turned up to speak on his behalf during Public Comment (Item 5).

Well, it's hard to say what happened. The following people spoke and the letters from Marie Atake, Carole Davis and Jane Garcia:

Zizi Zarkadas, rescuer and all around bad girl, arrived on time (I did not) and patiently sat through the whole appeal hearing and the tedious meeting for more than 2 hours and but had to go back to work before the Board got around to public comments at nearly 9:00 p.m. Thanks, Z.

Me-the usual. I asked what had happened to Quincey's motion! I asked for a real negotiation, because that's how settlements are achieved-you sit down and talk about it. And I asked for a new hearing. What are they afraid of ? Let's have a hearing, with witnesses, this time. I told them I would never let them forget Stu dead or behind bars and that I would haunt them to the end of time.

Elle Wittelsbach , Strangest Angels Rescue, activist and photographer: read Marie's letter (wonderful) and Carole's email(excellent) and expressed how wrong she felt this is. That she works with fractious animals all the time and that this incident with Stu was not Stu trying to hurt the "victim." (those messages from Atake, Davis and Garcia will appear here shortly-stay tuned).

Pam Holt, RVT, activist and rescuer: Heartfelt and penetrating, as she can be, Pam is a long time Stu supporter and single- handedly responsible for the success of Stu's MySpace page. She told of how she was just bitten by a dog at the Mojave (Cindy Bemis) rescue and that it comes with the territory. They are dogs and will act like dogs to protect themselves or out of fear. She said that the rest of Stu's life behind bars is wrong at that he should come home for his last few years...

Laura Beth Heisen, attorney, Spay/Neuter advisory committee Chair, G.M. candidate: read Jane Garcia's letter (which was very, very good. Thank you , Jane). Then LB stated that she has never spoken on this case but felt compelled to now. She said she does not speak for me or Stu but for Justice...that she does know me or Stu (other than seeing me at meetings) know the law and her knowledge of the law tells her, and should tell the Board, that the procedures (and former A.G.M, Commissioner and current Deputy District Attorney Debbie Knaan) were way out of whack and that Due Process was obviously violated. She found it disturbing that the City would not take the word that Stu is not dangerous from Bobby Dorafshar --whose input they have previously sought and trusted on other issues; and in whose care has Stu has been entrusted.

Phyllis Daugherty, mainstay and dedicated animal activist (yes, she is)- I believe she suggested our new City Attorney might have a different take on this case, if given the opportunity to review it.

Almost all mentioned City Attorney Elect Trutanich and that he should be consulted on this.

Following the comments, Irene Ponce called for Quincey's motion (See May 25, 2009 post on this blog) to be on the very next agenda. The NEXT agenda. Kathy Riordan said she would support that and she asked why Danielle Vigil's (harassment by an LAAS Captain,who revoked her rescue privileges tied to 501(c)3 Diamonds in the Ruff ; and Mary O'Connor's (her tea cup Yorkie, an emotional support animal, was stolen by an LAAS employee at the North Central shelter) were not on the agenda. Barth sidestepped, as usual , and said there was information in the commissioners' "packets" about "those issues. ??"

With what seemed to be a very positive feeling (toward Stu coming home ) among the 3 commissioners present (Riordan, Quincey and Ponce) I am confused as to how the City Attorney came up with what he said the Board had asked him to propose:

Mr. Delarosa[sic],

The Board of Animal Services Commissioners has requested that the Office of the City Attorney propose the following settlement offer (subject to approval by City Council) to you: in an effort to avoid the euthanasia of Stu, the City will permit Stu to be maintained in a secure facility (i.e., private sanctuary, kennel, and/or approved/licensed trainer) that is approved by the Board. The City will require a release from the facility. In addition, as part of the settlement, the City will require a general release from you in addition to dismissing the subject appeal. If the parties are able to agree on the terms of the settlement, it will be presented to the necessary Board, Committee, and City Council for approval. Time is of the essence. Once an agreement is reached, the necessary Board, Committee, and Council approval is required before the Court of Appeal renders its decision.

Thank you.
(From Todd Leung, Deputy City Attorney)

There is video available which I am getting and will post clips of at BoardWatch when I have the video and time to cut it up. I also button-holed Bernard Parks who made an appearance, explained myself and he assured me someone in his office would look into it. (?) I spoke to Aimee Gilbreath (Gary Michaelson director) and she was flabbergasted at the whole Stu deal. Wondered who I had pissed-off (hmm...who did I miss?).

Thank you all again. I wish I could say that it was the last time I will ask for your support for Stu, but I don't believe it will be the last.

NEXT: Part III , the rest of the meeting.

The High Cost of Doing Nothing. Part I (or "Merry Christmas, Stu.")

More Law Breaking and Wasting of Your Tax Dollars:

Los Angeles Animal Services Board Secretary Ross Pool Violates
Califorina Public Records Act - AGAIN .

We know from reading Ed Muzika's LA Animal Watch that requests to Board Secretary, "Hoss Fool", for Public Records under the Califorina Public Records Act often go ignored and mishandled by Ross Pool, whose official title is now "Senior Management Analyst" (last salary as "Management Anylyst II" $71,032.72). Linda Gordon who is a "Senior Management Anayst II" makes $115,466.40.

SHOCKING, I know. No wonder the City's broke. We are paying million$ in HIGH salaries to people who can't or won't or are not permitted to do their jobs.

It seems that Jeff's poor dog Stu's teeth have been rotting in his mouth since he first, in 2006, complained to Ed Boks and the Board in the form of an email blast complete with video postings on Stu's site at http://myspace.com/Save_Stu. No. they never did anything for Stu's teeth and wouldn't allow him +/- Read more...

to have bones or chew toys which might have helped.

Well, more than two years later and after Stu has suffered for that long with pain, bleeding gums and now lost teeth, Jeff's at it again.

With renewed prodding (and because Jeff has had a win in Superior Court (see case BS104874) over his Constitutional Rights being violated by Stuckey-remember him?- and the Hearing Examiner George Mossman and Capt. Karen Stepp -remember her?-and Debbie Knaan-remember her?) LAAS has finally succumbed to getting what's left of Stu's teeth "cleaned." However, they did it without Jeff's permission (after they asked for his permission and he imposed terms) and PUT STU UNDER GENERAL ANESTHESIA WITHOUT FIRST PERFORMING A BLOOD TEST-also without Jeff's permission.

Ed Boks is burning mad because Jeff has beat the City in court, without a lawyer, and is about to do so again for Stu and himself. Cost to you , the taxpayer in the above case was $736 in costs plus many hours of your City Attorney's time. Attorney Todd Leung makes about $200,000 defending Jeff's legal actions over his dogs. Your money.

In Part II, we'll look at Boks's lies (with actual letters and emails) and most recent effort to prey on Stu and Jeff; and Dr. Jeremy Prupas's blunders and poor judgment (which may end up as being determined to be malpractice) and the Board's refusal to address this matter at the direction of Ed Boks , Dov Lesel and the Mayor's buffoons.

Merry Christmas, Stu.

_____________________________________
Here's today's letter from Jeff to "Hoss" re: California Public Records Act.

Jeffrey de la Rosa
[ADDRESS DELETED]

December 24, 2008

via EMAIL and FAX to: (213) 482-9511

Ross Pool
City of Los Angeles
Department of Animal Services
221 N. Figueroa Street, 5th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90012

RE: VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA PUBLIC RECORDS ACT

Dear Mr. Pool,

On Wednesday, December 17, I wrote to Mr. Boks, Dr. Prupas and Board Vice President Commissioner Riordan and requested copies of the following Public Records:

1. The contract executed in or about September 2007 between the City of Los Angeles and/or Department of Animals Services and Bobby Dorafshar’s K9s Only.
2. All veterinary records for my dog, Stu, since 2005 including Stu’s exam and treatment at North Figueroa Animal Hospital which took place on or about December 4, 2008.

I received no response.

On Friday, December 19, 2008 I spoke with administrative assistant Maria Gomez ($74,103.12 per year) in your offices and again requested copies of the above records. Ms. Gomez informed me that I would need to speak with you about my request because you are “in charge of ALL the records; and she also said you had “left for the day.” She took my number and assured me that you would call on Monday December 22.

You did not return my call. I later discovered that you were actually in your offices at the time of my call on Friday and had not “left for the day.”

Today I telephoned your offices, shortly after 4 p.m. and spoke to you and renewed my request to inspect the above public records at your offices. You asked me when I wanted to look at them and I replied that I was near your offices and would come by before your close of business at 5 p.m. You replied, “I’m getting’ ready to go home” and attempted to put me off until December 24. When I arrived at your offices, you told me that you did not know where those records are located and that you would have to “hunt for them.”

Mr. Pool, I am not stupid, as you very well know. I have the right to immediate access to these records during business hours. It is common knowledge that my dog, Stu, is the most well-known dog abused by your department in recent history. Any fool would assume, and rightly so, that all records pertaining to Stu are within a few seconds of you and General Manager Ed Boks at your main administrative offices. It is equally unbelievable that you “don’t know where the records are” when you are apparently “in charge of ALL the records.”

As has been the case many times in the past regarding my requests for public records as well as those by others: You are in violation of the California Public Records Act, particularly California Civil Code (C.C.C.) §6253 (a) which states:

(a) Public records are open to inspection at all times during the office hours of the state or local agency and every person has a right to inspect any public record, except as hereafter provided. Any reasonably segregable portion of a record shall be available for inspection by any person requesting the record after deletion of the portions that are exempted by law.

and

(d) Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to permit an agency to delay or obstruct the inspection or copying of public records.

You have been aware of my request since December 17, 2008 and have done nothing to comply with it. After you disingenuously stated that you “don’t even know where they are” I asked you to specify which shelter may have the records so that I may go there to inspect them. You failed to furnish that information. Regarding the requested contract-- please be aware that public contracts are not excepted under the CPRA.
(San Diego Union v. City Council, 146 Cal.App.3d 947 (1983)).


Please also be advised that you and the City are now liable for damages, costs and attorney fees pursuant to California Civil Code §§1798.45-1798.48 You may be personally liable for damages as well as the City being liable for damages. If Mr. Boks has instructed you to “delay or obstruct” the inspection of these records, they are equally liable.



As you know, I have been for a very long time urgently concerned about Stu’s health and the delay tactics and cruelty by your department in these matters has caused me severe emotional distress which is compensable under applicable law.
When you are served with the court action for the most recent act of your habitual transgressions of the law, please do not misconstrue legal action as a withdrawal of my request.


Sincerely,


Jeffrey de la Rosa

CC: Council President Eric Garcetti; Councilperson Dennis Zine; Councilperson Tony Cardenas; Councilperson Bernard Parks; Commissioner Kathleen Riordan; Ed Boks, General Manager ; Jim Bickart Edmund Brown, Attorney General, BoardWatch, LA Animal Watch.