Brenda Barnette Wish List: A Real Board of Animal Services Commissioners

NO, SADLY, THIS IS THE BOARD OF PARKS AND RECREATION. BUT WE CAN DREAM....

 

The Los Angeles Department of Recreation and Parks is our city’s most comprehensive social service agency.  Our thousands of dedicated employees and abundance of facilities touch the lives of millions of Angelenos—young and old, fully-abled and disabled, rich and poor, and everyone in-between.  We provide places to rest, to stroll, to play ball, to make music, to attend the theater, to ride bicycles, to swim, to go to day care or pre-school, to go to camp, to ride the waves, and to see the stars.  Los Angeles’ most famous icons are under our care, from the Griffith Observatory to Venice Walk, from the Hollywood Sign to the Exposition Park Rose Garden.   We are Los Angeles, its people and its places.  For help in public health by enabling outdoor activity and reducing obesity and diabetes, and for help in fighting the infirmities of old age by providing extensive programs for seniors, Angelenos turn to us.  For help in public safety by providing recreation centers that suppress gang activity, Angelenos turn to us.  For help in preserving our heritage by preserving the Banning Mansion, the Lummis House, and other historic structures, Angelenos turn to us.  For swim lessons and lessons in life through sports, Angelenos turn to us.  We are life away from the work place for all of Los Angeles.  It is a great privilege for my fellow Commissioners and me to work with the Mayor and City Council and with the excellent management and employees of the Department of Recreation and Parks provide to everyone the benefits of this Department.  We urge everyone to make full use of our extensive facilities.  We describe them all on this Web site.  We also urge everyone to contribute to the continued improvement of our facilities by supporting the Los Angeles Parks Foundation by becoming Friends of the Parks at www.laparksfoundation.org 

WEIRD! This Board acts like it does something says they're accessible and seems to be in charge!

[ + more]

Commissioners:
Barry A. Sanders, President
Luis A. Sánchez, Vice President
W. Jerome Stanley, Member
Jill T. Werner, Member
Johnathan Williams, Member

Commission Staff: HUH? Staff?

Mary E. Alvarez, Commission Executive Assistant II
LaTonya D. Dean, Commission Executive Assistant I
Paul Liles, Clerk Typist
Mailing Address: Wow! A mailing address (office?)...and a FAX number. Just for the Board

The Office of the Board of Commissioners of the Los Angeles City Department of Recreation and Parks has moved from the Garland Building to Figueroa Plaza, 221 N. Figueroa Street, Los Angeles, 90012.
Los Angeles City Recreation and Parks Department
Office of Board of Commissioners
221 N. Figueroa St. Suite 1510
Los Angeles, CA 90012
Telephone: (213) 202-2640  
Fax Number: (213) 202-2610
Office Hours: 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM, Monday through Friday
For information about upcoming meetings of the Board of Recreation and Park Commissioners and for bid results, please call the Commission Information Line: (213) 482-6941 [Hey, someone to call who isn't Ross "I won't give you a straight answer" Pool!]

Email Address: rap.commissioners@lacity.org  

SHOCKING!

 
Commission Meetings:

Two regular meetings of the Board will be held each month, generally on the first and third Wednesdays of the month, with the exception of July, August and December, when there is only one regular meeting, on the second Wednesday. The majority of the meetings are at 9:30 A.M. in the EXPO Center (formerly known as L.A. Swim Stadium), Community Hall Room, 3980 S. Menlo Street, Los Angeles, CA 90037. [AMAZING!>>>>>>]The remaining meetings are held at various recreational facilities throughout the City. Four meetings per year are held at 5:30 p.m. Commission meetings can be heard live over the telephone through the Council Phone system. For Information, please go to: http://www.lacityview.org
Agendas:

Agendas for the meetings of the Board of Recreation and Park Commissioners are available on-line; please click on the “Agendas” link to the left under the year desired.

Agendas can be automatically received through e-mail by means of the “Early Notification System” (ENS).  For more information, please visit the City of Los Angeles ENS web-site [unreal! listed on the City web site!!!] by clicking here.

To receive paper copies of the Agendas through the mail, a fee is charged.  (Report No. 10-08; Government Code §54954.1)  The fee for Agendas only is $17.00 per calendar year; for Agendas and minutes only is $25.00 per calendar year; and for the complete package (agendas, minutes and reports) is $100.00 per calendar year.  The charge for subscriptions that begin within the calendar year will be prorated according to the number of scheduled meetings remaining for that year.  Please contact the Board Office for more information.  [Are they magicians?!]
A subscription will not become effective until payment is received.
Receipt of agenda(s) prior to the meeting date(s) can not be guaranteed.
No portion of any of these fees shall be refunded in the event that the request for subscription service is canceled before the end of the subscription term.

Parking for Figueroa Plaza:

The Office of the Board of Commissioners of the Los Angeles City Department of Recreation and Parks has moved from the Garland Building to Figueroa Plaza, 221 N. Figueroa Street, Los Angeles, 90017. We are not in a position to validate parking should you come to Figueroa Plaza to do business with us. There are a number of affordable parking options nearby Figueroa Plaza. Please see below.
There is parking on the streets around the building, with parking meters.
There are various public parking lots in the area adjacent to Figueroa Plaza:

-	Prestige Parking Inc. has two parking lots available both of which are within walking distance of Figueroa Plaza. One is located 106 S. Beaudry Avenue and the cost is $4.00 per day. The other is located at 201 S. Beaudry Avenue and the cost is $5.00 per day.
-	Modern Parking Inc. is offering parking at the 717 W. Temple Street location (cross streets are Temple Street and Fremont Avenue) a ½ block walking distance to Figueroa Plaza. The parking fee is $7.00 per day.
-	The Promenade Towers, located at 123 S. Figueroa Street, offers rates of $1.65 every 20 minutes, with a daily maximum of $16.50.
-	Classic Parking Inc., located below the Figueroa Plaza Building, offers rates of $2.60 every 15 minutes, with a daily maximum of $26.00.

Thank you for your understanding.

Judge Irene: Los Angeles Animal Services Commissioner Irene Ponce Throws a Shoe!

The Board convened for their regular meeting Tuesday; and for whatever reason, Board president Melanie Ramsayer was unable to attend. In her stead, vice president Irene Ponce filled in to preside over the meeting. Present were Ponce and Commissioners Ruthanne Secunda and  Kathleen Riordan. A quorum of 3 was met.

WTF?!

If you have ever attended one of these meetings (I've shown up at possibly 2 dozen) you know that the format is rather loose and casual. Roberts Rules of Order are not generally followed and the Commissioners speak freely without imposed time limits or much management from the presiding officer. Commissioners make their opinions and questions known quite freely and without much interference or calls for "order" or "out of order" from the president or vice president.





Drunk with Power

What got into Irene Ponce at this meeting to cause her to repeatedly slap Kathy Riordan around? Is there something personal going on here or did "Judge Irene" get a little drunk with her temporary "power?"

Listen to the audio here.


(to be continued)

S.F. Animal Welfare Commission puts our Board of Commissioners to shame

It seems as though (from recent "Board Reports" submitted to Council by Linda Barth) we-- the 2nd largest city in the nation-- want to emulate the practices of smaller cities when it comes to our Animal Care and Control. Here's one for you that's putting us to shame.

The San Francisco Animal Welfare Commission.

Highlights:

		Publicly Held Monthly Meeting   2nd Thursday of each month (no meeting will be held in the month of December)--I bet they don't cancel any of the other 11 meetings. 5:30pm City Hall, room 408 Interested individuals are welcome to attend

The Commission of Animal Control & Welfare is a representative body acting as the eyes and ears of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors with regard to animal issues within the City. The Commission is an advisory body and makes recommendations to the Board. The Board of Supervisors is responsible for all policy decisions and development.





Enacting Legislation Section 41.2


In addition to any other powers and duties set forth in this Article, the Commission of Animal Control and Welfare shall have the power and duty to:





Hold hearings and submit recommendations regarding animal control and welfare to the Board of Supervisors and Chief Administrative Officer. The Commission may study and recommend requirements for the maintenance of animals in public, private, and commercial care. The Commission may work with the Tax Collector to develop and maintain dog-licensing procedures and make recommendations. The Commission of Animal Control & Welfare is made up of seven voting commissioners and four non-voting commission members. The voting commissioners are appointed by the Rules Committee and approved by the Mayor for two-year terms. Non-voting commission member are City employee delegates representing Animal Care & Control, the SF Police Department, the SF Health Department (seat currently vacant), and the Recreation & Park Department (attending on an as-needed basis).



The Commission of Animal Control and Welfare shall consist of the Director of Animal Care and Control or his or her designated representative, seven members to be appointed by the Board of Supervisors and one city department representative member appointed by each of the following: the Director of the Department of Health or his or her designated representative, the Chief or Police or his or her designated representative, and the General Manager of the Recreation and Park Department or his or her designated representative.

The members appointed by the Board of Supervisors shall be six members representing the general public having interest and experience in animal matters and one licensed veterinarian practicing in San Francisco.


Contact information: (yes, they have an office)

Mailing Address City Hall

Attn: Commission of Animal Control & Welfare

1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, Room 362

San Francisco, CA 94102

( 415) 554-6074 (and their own phone number which is NOT the Department of Animal Care and Control--someone takes messages for them)
sfgov.org/awcc
Hey...check out those minutes. One can actually tell what happened at the meeting and who said what. And wow...the June meeting minutes are posted and it's only July!
http://www.sfgov2.org/index.aspx?page=2177
 


Excerpt of minutes:

7. Unfinished Business (they return to subjects rather than pretend they never existed)

7 A)

Continuation of discussion and possible action to recommend to the board that they pass an ordinance prohibiting the sale of cats, dogs and possibly other small animals in pet stores. Ordinance is intended to stop the sale of dogs and cats from puppy mills  as well as decrease euthanasia rates of other small animals in city shelters.

Comr. Gerrie – Last month our Commission voted to recommend a ban on the sale of dogs and cats in SF including a ban on selling certain small animals not from rescues or shelters. That part was not included in the agenda so we are revisiting the issue this month. Our intention was two-fold. First, was to endorse a compassionate, symbolic as well as preemptive ordinance to stop the sale now and in the future of puppy mill dogs and cats in SF. Only one store in SF currently sells puppies not from shelters or rescues.

Our second intent was to include other animals, many wind up at ACC which cares for them and are eventually euthanized or taken by rescues. If we could stop the sale of “other” animals, they would not wind up at ACC. We felt that banning “others” now would be more doable along with banning the sale of dogs and cats. A separate ordinance just for “others” may prove difficult to pass.

  
What was missing from our discussion and decision last month was hearing from pet stores that would be affected. I’ve talked with the three big pet stores in SF that sell small animals, Petco, Animal Connection, and Pet Central. Representatives from  Petco are here today. Pam and I met with Petco and ACC last week to talk about the ban and possible alternatives in which Petco and the other stores would take ACC’s unwanted “others” and sell them in their stores. Similar to the adoption Pact that ACC has with SPCA. It has been illegal to sell rabbits in SF since 1978. Petco recently announced they would only be selling rabbits from shelters and rescues nationwide. An ordinance banning the sale of “others” may be ineffective as they would still be for sale just outside the city. Are there any comments or questions from Commissioners before I invite our speakers up? (HEY...he's running the meeting- A commissioner is running the meeting--not a "secretary." or an AGM)

Just food for thought. I thought I might send one of our meeting minutes --with audio--up there and get some input. Nah.

~ Jeff.

Board of Animal Services Commissioners moves to amend L.A. Code to free Stu!

The Board convened at about 10:30 (a half-hour late) and immediately began discussion of Item 3A regarding Stu. Although newly installed Interim General Manager, Kathy Davis was present for her first meeting ever, but she did not even get an introduction. I can't say I've ever even seen her before but she sat next to the City Attorney in the GM's spot...and was entirely silent.

The Board took Public Comment from a large group of concerned citizens, some who traveled from as far as southern Orange County to support Stu. The Board requested that no action to "euthanize" Stu be taken at this time. At 11:05 the Board withdrew to closed session to consult with Assistant City Attorney Laurie Rittenberg, the supervising attorney on Stu's court cases.

Although the Board estimated that they would return to open session at 11:45 , they did not return until past 12:30 p.m at which time, Commissioner Riordan introduced a motion that the Board make a recommendations to Council to amend the Los Angeles Municipal Code section covering "dangerous" dogs which would allow the Board to modify a "dangerous" designation made by a general manager, even long after the appeal process has been finalized. Commissioner Riordan stressed that the amendment be retroactive to cover Stu's case. Commissioner Ponce seconded the motion and it was passed 4-0 (Commissioner Secunda had left the meeting by this time and did not take part in the vote).

What this means is that , at a subsequent public meeting (presumably on July 27, 2009), the Board will actually make a recommendation to City Counicl to amend the code in order to give the Board the power to reverse a GM's decision AFTER the appeal had been finalized. I take this to mean that the Board, once empowered by the code change, intends to remove the "dangerous" designation from Stu which would allow the Board to send him home under reasonable terms and conditions for his care and control.

I do not know how long this will take, but apparently the Board intends to ask the Coucil for an expedited consideration of their request for the code change.

I'm a little frazzled by the whole thing beause it doesn't seem real. I'm encouraged, but I will believe it when I see it. This could take months or weeks or the Council could refuse to the amend the code.

NOTE: The Board will hold their annual elections for President and Vice President on July 27. Last time the "election" was more of a mayoral "appointment" of Tariq Khero as interim President following the resignation last fall of Glenn Brown. Who's up?

STU DIES July 23, 2009! Mark your calendar.

What?! That's right. The only thing keeping Stu alive right now is that the Court decision does not become final for 30 days after the ruling. The ruling was issued June 23, 2009--ONE DAY after Board President Tariq Khero and City Attorney Dov Lesel assured the public that there would be NO COURT DECISION for several weeks....at least. Let's listen, shall we?
(audio clip to come).

THE DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL SERVICES CAN KILL STU ON JULY 23
AND THERE IS NOTHING TO STOP THEM--
EXCEPT YOU.

The Board first took up the matter of revisiting Stu's case and his horrible care in the pound in May 2007. Several attempts were made by the Board to place the issue of Stu on the Board's agenda. All of them were blocked by Ed Boks and Linda Barth. Finally, after 3 months, the Board voted on August 27, 2007 to move Stu from the pound to Bobby Dorafshar's K9s Only facility for the duration of the legal proceedings.

Then we went through 2 years of Court proceedings and brief-writing, etc., etc. City Attorney Todd Leung lied to the Court in his briefs and blocked any attempt to allow the truth into the case.

So, here we are. The City had been successful in keeping the truth that Stu did not receive a fair hearing out of the Courts. Saving Stu and sending him home is now in the hands of the City government. Here's what has to happen:

1. The Board must call and hold a Special Meeting before July 13, which is the next regular Board meeting.The president may call the meeting or 3 Commissioners may call the meeting. As of this writing, no one has called a meeting. At this meeting, which is not scheduled, the Board must discuss the recommendation which they will make, in writing, to Council and the Mayor.
2. At the regular meeting on July 13, the Board must vote to send the recommendation to Council. Council will either refer the matter to the Public Safety Committee or the PS Committee may waive consideration and refer the matter back to the full Council. The City Attorney will advise Council on what powers they have to Save Stu and send him home. Because of the red tape that a recommendation will encounter, the Board must also vote to stay the order to kill Stu for 60 days to allow the matter to work its way through the bureaucracy.
   
3. If the Council votes to make a recommendation to the Mayor, then the Mayor will decide upon the recommendation.

Meanwhile, Board members AND THE PUBLIC may lobby Council members in favor of the recommendation. City Attorney Dov Lesel told them this on June 22, 2009-- that they may contact Councilmembers as individuals or as a Board.

Here's what's happened so far:

Members of the public , and myself, have urged the Board to hold a Special Meeting. The president, Tariq Khero OR 3 Commissioners may call a meeting with 24 hours notice. The Brown Act does not prohibit Commissioners from discussing the setting of a Special Meeting.

Here's what the Board has done: NOTHING.

Here's what you can do: Demand that a Special Meeting of the Board be called before July 13.

Email or preferably FAX your demand that the Board call and hold a Special Meeting before July 13.

1. FAX the Board 213-482-9511. On your Fax COVER SHEET, direct the Board Secretary to forward your fax to ALL Boardmembers IMMEDIATELY.
2. FAX Board president Tariq Khero at his office:

   Nasatir, Hirsch, Podberesky & Genego,PLC FAX: 310-392-9029 [corrected]
   

3. Call Tariq Khero at his office: 310-854-4170
   
4. Email all Boardmembers and REQUEST A REPLY: tariqkhero@gmail.com,
   ninekitties@aol.com, ireneponce@earthlink.net, secundar@unitedtalent.com,
   ajq1trq2@aol.com
5. CC Jeff on your emails: stu.911@gmail.com
6. Flood Animal Services' phones with calls demanding a meeting of the Board

213-482-9506, 9501, 9505,9504

Board of Animal Services Slips it's Collar

Somebody forgot to tighten the choke collar which has plagued the Los Angeles Board of Animals Services Commissioners since...forever? At their meeting on June 22, 2009, the Board seemed to go rogue and would not take "no" for an answer. Nor would they take "no answer" for an answer.

For a full week, since Kate Woodviolet's piece on Stu's story appeared at Examiner.com, the Board,City Attorney's office and Linda Barth have been barraged with emails, calls and messages from countless Stu supporters demanding and pleading for mercy and justice.

Item 4A on the agenda, the case of Stu, the evidence dog, which has been impounded for 4 years while his owner/guardian has battled to save him from Death Row and certain execution, was the impetus for the Board shaking off their restraints, but this very admirable show of blazing courage from a Board which has, for years, been accused of being a rubber stamp for the General Manager(s) and the Mayor quickly spread to all business within the Board's control. The last time the Board took bold action in the case of Stu, on August 27, 2007, when they voted unanimously to release Stu from the pound after 2 years and move him to the luxury digs at K9s Only in Tarzana, the Mayor's office clamped down hard. Former Commissioner Marie Atake resigned in protest and disgust and Commissioner Riordan is rumored to have been threatened with removal from the Board after 9 dedicated years of service.

From the 6/22/09 Agenda:

4. DISCUSSION ITEMS
A. Oral Report from the City Attorney on status of Case: Jeffrey Peter De La Rosa v. Animal
Control Board of the City of Los Angeles, et al.; Los Angeles Superior Court Case #
BS104836; Court of Appeal, Case # B202071.

CLOSED SESSION: The Board of Animal Services Commissioners may meet in closed
session with the City Attorney as its legal counsel pursuant to Government Code section
54956.9(a).

First, the was no oral report from the City Attorney. Dov Lesel claimed that Todd Leung, the "litigation attorney" was "not available" to come to the meeting (his office is next door in City Hall East), but sources tell BoardWatch that Mr. Leung was not otherwise engaged in court appearances but was, instead, sitting in his office when the agenda item was called.

+/- Read more...

On the Board's first pitch to the City Attorney at hand, Dov Lesel, Board members asked what actions were in their ability to take to stop the madness of the 4 year persecution of this innocent animal. Mr. Lesel's first response: The Board can do nothing. It's in the hands of the Court of Appeals, he claimed, as the case was submitted (final argument was heard) to the Court on June 18.

Commissioner Quincey was boiling. He stated the he had asked for his motion regarding Stu (the motion was for the Board to direct the City Attorney to withdraw opposition to Stu's owner's appeal in the Courts) to be placed on the agenda more than a month prior (actually , it was more than two months ago, on April 14, 2009) but it had never appeared on the agenda and now his motion was moot. He had intended, apparently, to save the Court the burden of rendering a decision over the life or death of the dog, Stu by instructing the City Attorney's Office to throw in the towel on a case it should not have opposed in the first place, in Quincey's opinion. Quincey wanted an explanation. Commissioner Riordan asked for an explanation. Commissioner Ponce demanded an explanation. Dov Lesel said, "I don't set the Board's agenda. Assistant General Manager Linda Barth disappeared into her chair back and remained silent. There would be no explanation.

At considerable length, Quincey went on to report to the Board and to the public, that he had reviewed the "whole" case file. The 30-year veteran Animal Control Officer reported that he had determined that the case should have been dismissed from the get go. Quincey reported that the bite was reported over a month after the incident and that it was a civil matter--that "there was no violation of the Municipal Code" by Mr. de la Rosa and therefore, there should have been no involvement by the Department of Animal Services. Following Quincey's statements, Commissioner Irene Ponce said, "you could hear a pin drop in here." The Board was stymied and the supporters of Stu, seated in the gallery, just smiled.

It was then that President Tariq Khero told Quincey that if he ever wanted an item placed on the agenda, that he need only send Khero an email. Riordan cautiously erupted.Vice President Kathy Riordan told the room that she had not had much (or any) success in having items placed on the agenda. She implied that not only was it difficult for her to have items placed on the agenda for consideration by the Board, that it was near impossible to achieve this over the obstruction by management.

In the end, through dogged persistence, the Board was able to force City Attorney Dov Lesel, to lay out exactly what the Board could do to settle Stu's case, save his life and return him to his home. Lesel came forth with all kinds of ideas for the Board. They could:

1. Recommend whatever they wanted to City Council as a Board or as individuals. Lesel corrected himself (from his earlier statments that action was out of the City's hands) by saying that settlement of this case was actually in the hands of City Council.
2. Make recommendations to the Council's Public Safety committee which oversees the Department of Animal Services.
3. Direct the City Attorney to file a supplemental paper to the Court of Appeals which stated the Board's position that the Department had botched the case and denied Due Process of law (this is our favorite- Ed.)
4. Schedule an "emergency meeting" of the Board to take whatever action it deemed appropriate.

All of these things are a far cry from Linda Barth's assertions to concerned callers that the Board can "do nothing." Throughout the heated discussion of this item, President Khero appeared to feign that Department management was innocent of any obstruction of the Board 's intentions. It is worth saying that along with the usual copies of the agenda and accompanying documents laid out at the back of the room, were several sets of full-color pictures of Tatiana Edwards's (the dog bite "victim") injuries to her right arm. Nobody seemed interested in them and they did not even bear any identifying information which might have informed the public as to what these pictures were and what they were doing spread out among the meeing literature.

Khero persuaded the Commissioners that no emergency meeting was necessary. Lesel and the Board forced Linda Barth to pledge that , in the event of an unfavorable decision for Stu by the Court, prior to the next regularly scheduled meeting, that the Department would take no action to kill Stu. She added that it was the General Manager who had made the gallant committment that Stu would not be "euthnanized" (read: KILLED) while any actions in the the Court of Appeals or the California Supreme Court were still possible.

So, we wait. We wait to see what, if any, action the Board will take to move City Council to end this fiasco. Will they appear as individuals during the Public Comment period at the next Council Meeting? Will they draft and approve a resolution decrying Stu's innocence and the Department's denial of Due Process of Law in this case? Only time will tell. Meanwhile, we await the opinion of the Court of Appeals. President Khero said , as though he knew, that the Court would surely not release their decision before the next regularly scheduled Board Meeting currently on the books for July 13.

By the way, where was the fifth Commissioner, Ruthanne Secunda? She was conspicuously absent. If the Board had tried to take action, Secunda's vote may have been crucial, since she has previously been sympathetic to the cause of Stu and has let it be known that she would like to see this nightmare end favorably for Stu.

Explain Stu's case to me, Jeff...

As this saga come to what I hope will be a positive resolution for Stu and me, many people are still asking of me what the things were that the City did or did not do which resulted in Stu and me being deprived of Due Process and a fair hearing in this life and death decision process.
First let me explain what Due Process is. The Constitution of the United States and our California Constitution guarantee us certain inalienable rights.

1. We may not be deprived of life, liberty or property without Due Process of Law. That means that :
2. We must be properly notified of the accusations we face and notified of the time and place of a hearing or trial of the issues ;and
3. We must be given an opportunity to present evidence, witnesses in our defense and confront witnesses and cross-examine that witness who may offer testimony against us.
4. The matter must be heard by a neutral, disinterested and impartial trier of fact (judge). In this case, an Animal Control Officer acting as hearing examiner. For the appeal, a panel of Commissioners. We asked for all 5 but were given only 3—the most conservative three-3 lawyers.

Additionally, the Los Angeles Municipal Code is quite specific on how hearings for license revocation (for dogs) and dangerous animals shall be conducted.

The Initial Hearing and General Manager’s Decision:
So, in Stu’s case, what did they do right?


+/- Read more...

1. They notified me of the charges and the time and place of the hearing.
2. They allowed me to cross examine my accuser, but interrupted my questioning, prevented me from asking certain questions regarding the “victim’s” motivation for possibly being untruthful and ruled many of my questions as “irrelevant.”

What did they do wrong?
1. See (2) above.
2. Witnesses

a. The Department’s own Administrative Hearing Guide informs the public of the proper way to request that witnesses be called to appear. I followed it. They did not.

b. They received my written request for several department employees and one LAPD officer to be summoned to appear as witnesses but refused to summon them. Their explanation for this was that they didn’t have to summon any witnesses that the Department did not request.

3. They denied my request to have Stu (and Maeve, in her separate case) evaluated by Dr. Richard Polksy on shelter property. This prevented me from presented evidence which would have shown that Stu was not a dangerous animal and bit only in self-defense as reaction to :
a. Not being able to flee (she closed him into a room and approached him in a corner).
b. Having his wound irritated by the “victim.”

4. Helen Brakemeir. Los Angeles Municipal Code Section 53.18.5 provides that the Hearing Examiner make his report and recommendations from the hearing to the General Manager. Back then, it was Guerdon Stuckey who had just been asked for his resignation. The General Manager shall review the report and recommendations and either accept, reject or modify the Hearing Examiner’s recommendation. This recommendation was to revoke my license for Stu but not to declare him to be a “dangerous animal.” The G.M. may also return the case to the Hearing Examiner for further review modification, if necessary.

This didn’t happen the way the Municipal Code says it should have happened. Instead, somehow and for some reason (her friend, Capt. Karen Stepp despised me), Captain Helen Brakemeir, with no apparent authority, intercepted the Hearing Examiner’s report and wrote her own opinion which urged the G.M. to declare Stu to be “dangerous” and thus killed--even though she did not hear the testimony nor did she attend the hearing; nor was she a hearing examiner or in any other position of authority related to administrative hearings. Brakemeir’s memo states that she wrote the decision letter declaring Stu to be dangerous and placed in folder on the Department’s computer network for Stuckey to sign.

The Appeal before the Board of Animal Services Commissioners:
Grounds for Reversal of the General Manger’s decision.
At the appeal hearing held on March 8, 2006. My attorney (I did not have one at the original hearing) and I raised the issues above as grounds for reversal of the G.M. decision. At the time, we did not know about the Brakemeir memo and were very surprised that the G.M. was imposing a harsher penalty and a rejection of the Hearing Examiner’s recommendation. I did not learn of the Brakemeir memo, and the mystery was not solved, until I made a California Public Records Act request and the memo showed up in the pile of paper which I received from Ross Pool.

Debbie Knaan, The Biased Commissioner:

As my March 2006 appeal approached my attorney requested that all 5 Commissioners sit on the appeals Board (Khero, Riordan, Atake, Brown and Knaan). We felt that Atake and Riordan would pay closer attention to a decision which could end in the killing of an animal. We were denied this request as a “new” experimental appeal hearing calendar was being tried. This would involve only 3 Commissioners who would volunteer for evening appeal hearings held outside of regular Board meetings. We protested to no avail and were assigned Khero, Knaan, and Brown. Brown has been appointed to the Board only two months before.

On (or about) February 2, 2006 Deborah Knaan called me at my home. She was responding to my complaints that Stu was not being properly cared for at the pound (another story). After we discussed how that could or would be remedied, she said, “Tell me about the cases. And you have to tell the truth.” I found this to be unusual for a prospective “judge” to be interrogating me, but I knew she was a Deputy District Attorney and I was somewhat intimidated by what I viewed as her special authority. I told her everything I knew about both Stu’s and Maeve’s case.

Afterward, I called my attorney and he was shocked that she would engage in ex parte (without the other party) communication with a “defendant” prior to sitting on the appeal Board. Knaan also warned me, during the conversation, that the Board does not “always side with the animal.” In 2007, I discovered that Knaan had told both Marie Atake and Kathy Riordan that she thought I was a “liar and a creep.” She told them this before my appeal hearing and then participated in it. Ethically, and possibly legally, she should have disqualified herself if her feelings against me were so strong. My attorney should have disqualified her after she called me and interrogated me. Yes, she will be included in my lawsuit against the City of Los Angeles. Imagine you are arrested for …whatever. Before your trial, the judge calls you on the phone and asks for all the details about the case. Then he rules on your case. Whether he rules for or against you, both decisions would be tossed on appeal for judicial bias, or the appearance of that bias.

Knaan Runs the Appeal Hearing…Right into the Muck.

At the appeal hearing, Brakemeir appeared for the Department instead of the District Supervisor, Karen Stepp. I’ve always thought that Stepp would not hold up if she was accused of personal bias against me. Knaan took charge of the meeting, although technically, Khero as Vice President was supposed to run the thing. So there we were in front of 4 law degrees (City Attorney Dov Lesel included).

They took Maeve’s appeal hearing first and talked at length about my request for witnesses which was denied (this discussion and other documents is what caused the Judge in Maeve’s Superior Court Case to throw the case out).

After a short break, they started Stu’s appeal hearing. The “victim” was allowed to talk for awhile and even allowed to present new evidence. My attorney and I were constantly interrupted, by Knaan, and often precluded from finishing a point or topic. Because in depth discussion had already taken place in Maeve’s previous hearing, it was not repeated for Stu’s hearing. This is one of the things, discovered later, that caused Stu’s case in the Superior Court (different judge than Maeve’s) to suffer and which caused me to have to go on to the Court of Appeals, which added 2 years on to the already protracted process. If I were as experienced with legal procedure then as I am now, I would not have let this happen and world have forced the Board to allow us to repeat all of the discussion surrounding the requested, but denied, witnesses.

The Board's Appeal Decision.

On March 28, 2006, the Board rendered their decision at a regular Board Meeting held at a L.A. Library in the Valley. Can’t remember which. One might think that with two separate cases, they would take 2 votes and give 2 decisions. They didn’t. In one motion, they voted to uphold the General Manager’s decisions to revoke Maeve’s license and declare Stu to be dangerous (so he could be killed).
That ends the Department involvement as I headed on to Superior Court where I prevailed in Maeve’s case without an attorney—mostly due to a complete record which showed that 1) I had requested witnesses for my hearing and 2) that they were denied—a pretty clear cut case of denial of Due Process and that’s how the judge ruled. The lack of this evidence in Stu’s case is why we are where we are now.

I don’t know how the Court of Appeal will rule on Stu’s case. The record is spotty and the evidence of Due Process violations is not so obvious. However, the Brakemeir memo is there and I make a big deal about it in my briefs and in my oral argument. I can only hope that the justices look closely at this case, as I have asked them to do and make a decision which conforms to the one made for Maeve: that I am entitled to a new hearing on whether Stu should be declared a dangerous animal. Stay tuned.

An Open Letter to the Animal Services Board of Commisioners

Tariq Khero
Kathleen Riordan
Archie J. Quincey
Irene Ponce
Ruthanne Secunda
Board of Commissioners
Department of Animal Services
City of Los Angeles
221 N Figueroa St. , 5th floor
Los Agneles CA 90012

RE: LA Superior Court Case no. BS104936/Court of Appeals Case B202071

Dear Commissioners,

As you may know, I requested a continuance/postponement of my oral argument in the Court of Appeals. which is scheduled for Thursday 6/18. It was my hope that the additional time might assist us all in coming to a reasonable solution.

Today, I received word that the Court denied my request. I also received a copy of the letter from Mr. Leung to the Court, vigorously opposing my request. I attach it for your info. As usual, Mr. Leung's writing is full of venom and loaded accusations. He asserts that I have no interest in settlement. I think that you know that is far from the truth. I have asked several times to have discussions. Just like the Corwins had...for hours....and hours.....two appeal hearings. A hearing which went on so long, that you had no time to discuss Stu's case.




What the City Attorney's office has proposed is an impossible situation which comes with the following realities:

1. Some unknown approved "facility" which will step up and take on the legacy of Stu. I spoke to Bobby Dorafshar yesterday and his feeling is that there is no such "facility" that would accept what the City is proposing. If you have not read the contract which Bobby had to sign, it is a very unfair and constraining agreement. Is is Bobby's opinion, and I agree, that there is no organization who will agree to do what the City is proposing. If any of you have suggestions, i would ask you to make them now.

2. For me to find an organization to take in Stu would require a lot of research ,networking and time. More time than Stu has. Mr Leung's proposal states that this all must be finalized and approved by Council prior to the Court's decision which could be announced in 3 days or 3 months. Nobody knows.

3. I must "bear the expense" of this facility's care for Stu. Truthfully, this fight has tapped me out I have nothing to offer anyone, which makes it less likely that a group will appear out of thin air.

4. Although I asked for clarification of the terms of the proposal over a month ago, Mr. Leung only sent them on June 8th. Then he made a bold statement to the Court that I have had the terms for "over a month." This is your lawyer. He works for you. Ironically, he works for me, too and the rest of the people in the City. Ross Pool also works for you. It is not the other way around.

All of these terms in Mr. Leung's proposal force me to agree that :

1. Stu is a dangerous dog. We and all the experts know that this is not true. If my hearings had been fair and if the proper file had been submitted to the Courts, Maeve, Stu and I would be out for our evening walk right now.

2. That Stu and I received a fair hearing and a fair appeal in your Department.

3. That I am incapable of properly caring for Stu. Anyone who knows me will tell you that I am more than capable. In fact, the absolute best place for Stu is with me, at home. Anywhere else his future is uncertain. Some organizations may decide to forego veterinary costs should he develop a health
problem--aside from the severe dental disease he already has. Who is going to spend money to prolong a 10 year old mutt's life? Only me.

None of these are true. You cannot wait for the Court's opinion. I am confident they will deny me. This is no time for politics and the whims of higher ups. You were entrusted to care for these animals and Stu is one of them. Please care for him.

So I ask you. I beg you. Please ensure that you meet on Monday and that you take meaningful and conclusive action to right this wrong and send Stu home. Believe it or not, you do have the power to send him home. You know the truth. You know he was treated unfairly. If you'd like to have a new hearing, let's do that; BUT PLEASE, DO NOT DO NOTHING; and DO NOT allow a pissed off City Attorney to take his wrath for me out on an innocent animal. This matter is as simple at this:

* Stu is not dangerous.
* The department screwed up.
* The lawyers screwed up.
* Judge Chalfant saw that this is true.
* Judge Yaffe did not have all of the facts. Neither does the Court of Appeals.
* The right thing to do is to amend your motion and overturn Mr. Stuckey's decision.
* Courts have this power. YOU HAVE THIS POWER. Mr. Leung will tell you that you don't. Why not ask the Attorney General's Office? They would be happy to give their opinion.

Rather than make me show you where it says that you can do this. SHOW ME WHERE IT SAYS YOU CANNOT. The Corwins still have their dog which has attacked 7 times. If I were white and rich, would I have Stu home already...?

This City Attorney's department will undergo major changes in a few days. Please let Stu benefit from what Mr. Trutanich is calling "public integrity enforcement" The last person who used that word --integrity--in this case was Marie Atake. There is no General Manager. There is a lame duck City attorney with some underlings who despise me. You are the Department. Please do the right thing.

Please do not be manipulated into making a decsion, or failing to act which will result either Stu's death or eternity behind bars...without comfort, love and the securtiy of his dad.

Thank you,
Jeff de la Rosa

Birthday Letter to the Board of Commissioners

Email addresses for your convenience:
"Tariq Khero" <tariqkhero@gmail.com>,
"Kathy Riordan" <ninekitties@aol.com>,
"Archie Quincey" <ajq1trq2@aol.com> ,
"Irene Ponce" <ireneponce@earthlink.net>,
"Ruthanne Secunda" <secundar@unitedtalent.com>,

Jeffrey de la Rosa
1880 Morton Ave.
Los Angeles CA 90026


June 7, 2009

RE: Cancellation of the June 8, 2009 Board Meeting.



Board of Animal Services Commissioners
City of Los Angeles
221 N. Figueroa St. 5th Floor
Los Angeles CA 90026


Dear Commissioners,

Today is my birthday and rather than “celebrating,” I am spending it on the issue which matters most to me. I have turned 49 today, but I was 40 years old when I rescued Stu from a place known to LAPD as “The Jungle” , a cul-de-sac in the Crenshaw area where officers will not respond because so many have been killed there. For the film, Training Day, The Jungle was, for the first time, used as a filming location. We, the film crew, moved in for 3 weeks of night shooting. Our security within the location was provided by members of the Bloods. LAPD provided security at the perimeter. On my first night there, I met Stu. He was running loose and was skinny and flea infested but he still gave a warm welcome to a crew of 300 with whom he socialized for 20 nights of shooting. When we left, I took him with me because he had no home and needed to be rescued. Before I knew of the Board’s existence, I use to spend birthdays the same way you do. I would like to return to some semblance of my previous life and am writing, again, to ask for your help in achieving that goal.

I can’t seem to find a Commissioner who knows why your June 8 meeting was canceled—for you. If you do not schedule and cancel your own meetings, who does—and why?


At the April 14, 2009 meeting of your Board, Commissioner Archie J. Quincey introduced the following motion:

“I would like to make a motion that the Commission overturn Mr. Stuckey’s decision on the Stu case based on an unfair hearing. Errors were made in the records of Stu; and the evidence must be considered in the case. The two small pieces of Maeve’s record are material to Stu’s case and should be included therein.

I therefore move that the Board direct the City Attorney to withdraw opposition to the appeal.

I further move that the City Attorney send a letter to the Court of Appeals asking them to send
the case back to Superior Court and direct the court to issue a Writ of Mandate for Stu’s decision to be set aside based on due process considerations".

Yet, the motion has not been placed on any agenda and has not been acted on by your Board. Six weeks later, at the May 26, 2009 meeting of your Board, Commissioner Irene Ponce requested that the motion be placed on the very next agenda for a vote by the Board. That vote would have taken place on June 8, 2009. At the last minute on Friday June 5, 2009 this meeting was cancelled without explanation. We are not fooled, Commissioners. We suspect that you did not cancel this meeting. So why was it cancelled and by whom?

For too long, this Board has been controlled by a dishonest and corrupt General Manager. Ed Boks was forced to resign because he betrayed the trust of the City, its citizens and its animals. Two prominent lawsuits, on two coasts, showed that he was not only inept, but that he abused his position and power by discriminating against an employee based on race in New York City; and that he wrongfully terminated a female employee/volunteer who sued for sexual harassment. This last case cost the taxpayers of Los Angeles a $130,000 settlement which was recently approved by City Council.

Now, even as Ed Boks slowly backs out the door and continues to collect a huge salary paid from my taxes, you are allowing the mismanagement and interference with your Board to continue. I will not stand by silently and allow this to happen.

While I appreciate the recent efforts this Board has made to correct is lax and unlawful practice of failing to hold meetings, the cancellation of the June 8, 2009 meeting of your Board is a despicable act. I am well aware that your Board desires to have jurisdiction of this case returned to you so that a fair and just decision can be made which will result in Stu being allowed to return to his loving home after 4 years of horrible imprisonment. I am aware that your Board was to address and act on Stu's case at the meeting scheduled for June 8, 2009. We in the animal community are not stupid; and we see, very clearly, what is happening and how your Board is being manipulated in order to prolong and continue the persecution of this poor dog Stu and me.

I believe that Mr. Boks, various City Attorneys, Asst. General Manager Linda Barth, and Ross Pool are actively blocking an equitable and fair settlement of this issue. This is wrong. You have proposed settlement but are now permitting that negotiations on settlement to be obstructed by those who seek to continue to corrupt the work of the Board.

I believe that these people caused the cancellation of this meeting in order to silence the Board and keep them from taking action on Stu's case.

This has to stop. Now.

I am appalled that your Board allows itself to be manipulated by the very “staff” and Department which is, by law, under your control.

Please adhere to the law, search your consciences, back-up your words and immediately schedule a Special Meeting to take place without delay and well prior to the June 18, 2009 hearing in the Court of Appeals regarding Stu's appeal.

There is no need for another closed session. You have all of the information you need; and the City Attorney, who will soon have a new boss, has had ample opportunity to further his agenda by persuading and strong-arming you to refrain from doing the right thing. Please, instead of doing the work of the City Attorney, do the work of the animals and the people of the City of Los Angeles and take your position on the Board of Commissioners as an assignment of the public trust. You need only amend your motion and/or pass Commissioner Quincey’s motion to put this matter to rest. For you convenience, I attach a written motion. This is what all Board actions should look like, according Los Angeles [Administrative] Code Section 503 (c).

You must end this horrible tragic miscarriage of justice now with meaningful, definitive and unquestionably clear and bold action.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey de la Rosa (and Stu)




Enc. 4/14/09 Motion by Council member Dennis Zine

CC: everyone





Stu-Thanksgiving 2008

City Attorney (the old one) offers "Stu" Life without Parole.

Last April 14, 2009, Animal Services Commissioner, Archie Quincey introduced the following motion:


"At the next meeting (4/27) , I would like to make a motion that the Board direct the City Attorney to withdraw opposition to Jeff's de la Rosa's appeal in the Court of Appeals; and to direct the City Attorney to request that the Court of Appeals return the case to the Superior Court; and direct the Superior Court to issue a Writ of Mandate which shall order this Board to set-aside the decision declaring the dog, Stu as dangerous. I make this motion because the hearings in our Department were unfair and violated Due Process. This has gone on long enough."

Well, following that, the Board held a "closed session" on April 27, 2009. That's when they throw everyone out and talk to their "attorney." In this case, the City Attorney is Todd Leung, who lost to me in Court on my other dog, Maeve--same reason-Due Process was violated in that they refused to summon my requested witnesses and thereby did not afford me a fair hearing before depriving me of my "property." That's the 14th Amendment at work. After 3 years, Maeve is exonerated and according to Boks and Linda Barth, "the case is closed." Great, but what about Stu?

Stu Supporter, Marie Atake with Stu
(The only Commissioner to ever meet him. Atake quit the Board of Commissioners
partially because of the unfair treatment in Stu's case and impound)

Stu's hearing was held back to back with Maeve's (see http://myspace.com/save_stu forthe full story) by the same Hearing Examiner, George Mossman. Mossman also refused to summon the same witnesses for Stu's hearing, but that doesn't show in the record before the Court, because he didn't actually speak those words at Stu's hearing..only at Maeve's. Such is the rule of evidence. My first lawyer did not catch that the record for Stu was defective; neither did the second lawyer; and had they done that, they could have corrected the record in the Superior Court and Stu would most likely be home by now, having been deprived of a fair hearing before being sentenced to death.

For the last several months, I (and other Stu supporters) have been lobbying the Board of Commissioners to settle this matter before the final hearing in the Court of Appeals on June 18, 2009. With a defective record, I could lose the case and Stu would then be killed based on Stuckey's last word before he left with the door swinging. Boks picked up where he left off and made Stu out to be a vicious terrorist of a dog and tried to make this into L.A.'s own Whipple case, which it is not, by any means.

Experts and trainers (including New Leash on Life's and K9s ONLY's Bobby Dorafshar and Richard Polksy, Ph.D. http://dogexpert.com ) have examined and evaluated Stu. He is "not dangerous", they say.

In 5 years of being with me , he never hurt another animal or a human, until he was left with my former girlfriend/assistant when my mother was on her death bed in Ohio. Tatiana did something to cause a fight to break out in which Stu was injured-his ear was torn. Ignoring my instructions to let him out of the locked small office to chill out , she went in and closed the door behind her, and then cornered Stu. Then, she attempted to slide a harness over his torn ear, when he already was wearing a collar. He apparently bit her, though we are taking her word for this...it's probable that he did. He bit her twice on the same arm and retreated to a corner, so said she on her first explanation to me. However, once her mother convinced her to sue me for $6 MILLION (she settled for $300K), her "dog-bite" lawyer instructed her to weave a dramatic and tearful tale for Animal Control which included her being "dragged" back and forth across the floor by a, supposedly, death-seeking Stu. "I knew he would kill me." "I was screaming...I had to crawl out of the room after playing dead."

Well, not even that story persuaded the Hearing Examiner. He found Stu to be "NOT DANGEROUS" and reasoned that Stu had been provoked. But Captain Helen Brakemeir stuck her big thumb in the pie and before the report from the Hearing Examiner could even get to the GM, she wrote what is now known as The Brakemeir Memo, in which she disagrees with Mossman and lobbies for Stu to be killed because it was a "mauling" and he is "dangerous." Stuckey, who had just been asked to resign, rubber stamped the letter written by Brakemeir.

Now, four years later, it seems that someone in the Mayor's office (or perhaps Debbie Knaan, because I exposed her for having ex parte communications with appellant parties and witnesses while she was already selected to be a "quasi judge") still has it in for me and will not allow the Board to do what the Board seems to want to do--put an end to this nightmare and send S
tu home.

The City Attorney's offer is this (in an email...not even a letter):

They won't kill Stu as settlement of the case (and my lawsuit against the City), but he cannot come home. He must go to a "sanctuary" or "approved kennel." Basically, he will spend the rest of his life, like the last 4 years, confined. He does not deserve that and has not deserved any of this. If you agree, then please come to the Commission meeting on Tuesday May 26, 2009 and tell the Board they are wrong to listen to the City Attorney. Especially since the City Attorney has just lost his job!

BOARD OF ANIMAL SERVICES COMMISSIONERS CITY OF LOS ANGELES
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
6:00 P.M.
Exposition Park
Dr. Mary McLeod Bethune Regional Branch Library
3900 South Western Avenue.
Los Angeles, CA 90062
click for Google map

BREAKING NEWS: Animal Services Board Takes Aim on Death Star

OUR FIRST BREAKING NEWS!: Ed Boks and Linda Barth Guilty of Misappropriating Funds?


The meeting that wasn't supposed to happen turned the L.A. North Central Animal Care and Control center upside down, this afternoon, as the Board of Commissioners took out their blasters and put the Evil Empire, helmed by Barth Vader, square in it's sights.

When we last left the Board at their March 23 City Hall meeting, the next scheduled meeting was to take place on April 27. But, due to some heavy whining on our end, the Board quietly announced on Friday last that they would indeed meet twice in April and that their first meeting would today at 1PM at the NC "shelter." The room was small and initially stuffy as we trudged though the agenda. Ed Boks was absent again as he has been from every meeting, his own or City Council's, since Council skewered him in late March which was quickly followed by Councilmember Alarcon's "NO CONFIDENCE" motion.

Laura Beth Heisen, Bobby Dorafshar and Rachel Papp presented the Spay Neuter Advisory Committee's preliminary report which called for lots of things to happen which will further our goal to be a "No Kill" city. For 2 hours, the report was bandied about until finally, the Board voted to implement whatever measures could be quickly implemented as the report makes it way through the bureaucratic maze. Essentially, this dedicated and hardworking volunteer Committee has done the Department's job (for which we pay Boks and Barth dearly) for them and has proposed real procedures and protocols to alleviate the stall of the opening of the system's own spay/neuter clinics as well as other measures our highly paid management team should have been working on for the last 3 years.

Next, came the seemingly innocuous item 4: Discussion of a "Verbal update on Spay / Neuter Program Expenditures," This discussion began as simple presentation of "where does the money go," but soon, ever diligent Vice President Kathy Riordan wanted answers about why the Department (you, the taxpayer) has paid out--or been billed for-- $179,000 to the Sam Simon Foundation for Mobile Spay/Neuter surgeries, when Sam Simon has NO CONTRACT WITH THE CITY TO PROVIDE THESE SERVICES. You see, the Administrative Code provides that any expenditures to a vendor over $20,000, and which take place over more than a year MUST be only to a vendor who has an APPROVED CONTRACT with the City. Simon lost this contract to the Amanda Foundation 2 years ago, so why is he billing--more importantly, WHY ARE WE PAYING HIM ANYTHING?

The Amanda Foundation holds the current "spay/neuter van" contract with the Department and today was awarded a further 3-year contract. It seems that Sam Simon (billionaire (millionaire?) producer on the "The Simpsons" gravy train) has been billing the Department--and been getting paid--$80 per surgery- with no discount coupons being presented. Without a city contract, this puts him in direct competition with approved vets who are being asked to accept less money for their surgeries. In her comments to the Board, Teri Austen (Amanda Foundation) was "incensed!" She even asked the City Attorney's rep whether Boks and Barth making these payments amounted to "misappropriation of funds" which is a big "no-no" in government. City Attorney: "I can't answer that question." I answered it for her in my comment, "Yes, it is misappropriation of funds." I was incensed--the whole room was incensed but for Barth, who tried to wriggle out by saying that she wasn't there when the Simon contract was terminated and the Amanda contract took over. Linda Barth was there to approve payments to Sam Simon even though she knew damn well that Simon held NO CONTRACT and should have been paid exactly $0. Mention was made of Simon's 60 Minutes interview from which everyone assumed that Simon was paying for all of these surgeries out of the goodness of his deep pocketed heart. Not so, apparently. If this is not the death toll for Ed Boks and Linda Barth, then Lord only knows what it will take.
More coverage tomorrow including:

• a heroic "Save Stu" motion by Commissioner Quincey.
• a demand from the Board for an investigative "closed session" regarding the theft of Mary O'Connor's dog, "Hambone." The session will be "closed" because employees are accused of being involved in the theft of this disabled woman's dog.
  
• a demand for a report on why Danielle of Diamonds in the Rough (DIR) rescue is being harassed by the Harbor shelter ACOs, why she's been banned from pulling animals, and why her New Hope card was pulled. Danielle says, that ACOs who admired her work have been transferred out of Harbor. Seems like the current District Supervisor has it in for DIR and the Board wants to know why.

This was a meeting to be remembered. Too bad Ross Pool couldn't put it together to have a tape recorder there. Hope he took good notes.

>Special Meeting of the Board< By popular demand of one.

+/- Read more...

As frustrating as it is to have to continually tell the Board of Commissioners and Linda Barth (Is Ed Boks still around?) how to act like a board and not a garden club, sometimes the hours of work pay off. You may recall the post we did a while back which shows that the Board , by law, must meet AT LEAST 2 times per month according to the L.A. Charter and Administrative Code. For the most part, except for Riordan, this plea/demand/notice has fallen on deaf ears. However, at the March 23 Board Meeting, Jeff informed Commissioner Kathy Riordan that "Staff" had cancelled the meeting scheduled for today, April 13. Jim Bickhart was eavesdropping on this conversation and may have been instrumental in scheduling tomorrow's Special Meeting. That's the good.

If you know one person who knows of this meeting being held at the Los Angeles Animal Services North Central Animal Care and Control Center (Shelter), please tell us whom that may be. Hoss Fool, Board Secretary, has never been able to put together a way for y'all to be notified by email of meeting. Yes, you can ask, prior to every meeting, to be notified, but this is a big City--we have the technology. Council has the technology. You see, "Staff" (Barth, Boks, Bickhart) would rather NOBODY show up for these meetings. That way, the public will not be able to complain about the Department's negligence, lameness, boneheadedness; or just plain arrogance regarding all matters under their control.

So here it is--Your notice that there is a forum for you to air your thoughts, suggestions, ideas, gripes etc.

SPECIAL MEETING

(CLICK "SPECIAL MEETING" TO SEE AGENDA

SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA
BOARD OF ANIMAL SERVICES COMMISSIONERS
CITY OF LOS ANGELES
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
1:00 P.M.
North Central Animal Shelter
3201 Lacy St.
Training Room
Los Angeles, CA 90031
Tariq Khero, President
Kathleen Riordan, Vice-President
Irene Ponce
Archie J. Quincey, Jr.
Ruthanne Secunda

What they won't be discussing or taking action upon:

1. The Mary O'Connor Case which involves a shelter employee stealing a disabled woman's service dog.

2. The "Stu" case, which needs Board action to tell the Court of Appeal that the record is defective and should include documents which show that Due Process was violated on the road to kill Jeff's dog, Stu, who, if you ask anyone that matters, including: Bobby Dorafshar, George Mossman (hearing examiner), Captain Dedeux, Richard Polksy, Ph.D. --they will tell you (as they have told the Board) that Stu is NOT DANGEROUS and should not be killed.

(YES--BOTH OF THESE ITEMS WERE REQUESTED TO BE ON THE AGENDA BUT LINDA BARTH AND ED BOKS BLOCKED THEM). We're still waiting for the neutered Board to rent some balls and take control of their meetings, their agendas and the department. (See minutes which aren't there of 3/23/09 Board Meeting at which Kim Carnochan demanded the very same in her address during Public Comments.)

3. The Board's own NO CONFIDENCE motion regarding the inept General Manager Ed Boks. City's Council's motion of NO CONFIDENCE IN ED BOKS, has mysteriously been laid dormant. We suspect--um--WE KNOW that City Attorney candidate Jack Weiss is stalling the passage of this motion until he is elected. That way , he can be the City Attorney responsible for ridding us of Ed Boks. Please...your campaign before the lives of animals and the people who love them? Shame on you , Jack Weiss.

So gather up you civic duty and mosey on over to this meeting on Tuesday, April 14, 2009.

Ed Boks and the BIG FIX: New Board President To Be Assigned...err...ELECTED 3-23-09

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"