Time to review

Yesterday, Ross Pool and Animals Services stated that "there are no records" for medical for Stu for 2009. Strange because there are records going back to 2005 and also 2010. Wonder what happened to them...

First posted WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 24, 2008

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 athttp://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 caseBS104874) 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.

About those meeting minutes...and the Board Secretary, Ross Pool

For as long as I've known there was  Department of Animal Services Board of Commissioners, Ross Pool, a Management Analyst (grade/salary/job description unknown), has been it's Secretary. Unlike other Boards and Commissions, this Board/staff seems to like to give Pool power that is not within the job description of Secretary. One of those powers is to pretend to be a Commissioner. Others are to open and close the meetings, determine agenda items, comment on agenda items, re-arrange their order and, in general , to be a pompous ass.

Los Angeles Charter and Administrative Code references:
Sec. 21.3.  Assignment of Employee as Commission Secretary.
     As required by Charter Section 504, the general manager of each department under the control and management of a general manager shall assign an employee of that department, other than a member of the board, as the secretary to the board of commissioners of the department, if any. The Council may by ordinance, at the request of the general manager concerned, combine the position of secretary with any other position in any department.  The board of each department under the control of a board of commissioners shall assign an employee of that department, other than a member of the board,  as the secretary to the board of commissioners.

I know of no record where this Board assigned Ross Pool to this position. I'll ask (LOL). I also know of no Council ordinance which permits Pool to hold both a "management analyst" position AND the position of Board Secretary. I'll ask about that, too. If neither exists, then there is a violation (s) of the Administrative code by this Board and the General Managers and/or interim general managers.

Sec. 21.4.  Duties of the Secretary.

   The secretary of each board created by the Charter or by ordinance shall keep a record of the proceedings and transactions of the board, specifying the names of the commissioners at all meetings and giving the ayes and noes upon all votes. The secretary shall post and publish all orders, resolutions and notices which the board shall order to be posted or published, and shall perform such other duties as are imposed upon him or her by the Charter, ordinance, or order of the board.

Why should we care? Because, for one (there are many issues concerning Pool's "work" as secretary and more of them will be reported in forthcoming blog posts), there have been no minutes of Board meetings posted since the posting of minutes for a February meeting. Normally, at each Board meeting, there is an item in which the Board is asked to approve the minutes as compiled by Pool. Often, Commissioners request changes to the minutes to reflect what actually happened and what was said, rather than Pool's often bent interpretation of what was said and/or done. Often, at subsequent meetings, Pool does not make the requested changes or the changes are just ignored either by Pool or at the direction of whichever person seems to be controlling the Board at a given time. Since Boks's demise, it has been Linda Barth (and Jim Bickhart since forever) who controls the Board, what they may place on their agendas and when.

All of this obstruction serves the purpose of keeping the public in the dark. In order to determine what happened at a Board meeting, one must either attend on a weekday at 10:00 a.m (call first..they may have canceled due to a  controversial issue being threatened to be addressed by the public) or download a gigantic 30+megabytes file of audio and wade through the whole thing. I suppose you could call Barth and ask her or call Pool, but that is not what is supposed to happen and you are not likely to get a straight answer, if any.

Sec. 21.20.  Applicability of Charter Provision 506.

     Each city department, office or commission created by ordinance shall comply with Charter Section 506, unless expressly provided otherwise by ordinance.

(To be continued...)

Minutes- Where are they?

from Jeff de la Rosa to Linda Barth , Kathy Davis , Melanie Ramsayer , Irene Ponce , Ross Pool cc Councilmember Dennis Zine date Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 4:25 PM subject Minutes- Where are they? mailed-by gmail.com

Where are they past February? It's nearly August. If they have been approved, please post them on the website. Downloading gigantic files posted by a person with no understanding of digital audio files is not a substitute for the actual MINUTES as approved by the Board.

As you know, the City and the room where the Board meets is fully capable of "LIVE" and on-demand meeting video/audio. The taxpayers have paid for that. We also pay Ross Pool's salary and Linda Barth's salary and we don't do that in order to be dis-informed .

Thanks.

Dear Commissioners (and Brenda Barnette):

Dear Commissioners-

I think you know that the animal community in Los Angeles is less than enthusiastic over the lingering doubts about Brenda Barnette's methods of attaining lower kill rate numbers. I have been contacted by numerous people in the community and also many supporters of my dog, Stu who remains in your impound system after 5 years of lies, broken promises and back room dealing.

While I am certainly willing to give Ms. Barnette a fair chance to show us what she intends to do-- and how-- and I don't care "what kind of clothes" she wears or "which church" she attends, I do care about the creepy tone of the various councilmembers' comments on the "pit bull problem." As you know, the problem is not within these wonderful creatures, it is in the back yards of those who breed them for profit and the cruelty of fighting.


Below is an email from the "open door" shelter from which Brenda Barnette has come which you have no doubt seen. This email was sent from Seattle Humane on the day of Ms. Barnette's appointment to GM of LAAS.

Please be advised that any similar policy, or plan to export pit and pit mixes to other cities to be killed there or the institution of in-shelter temperament testing will not be tolerated in Los Angeles. As a so-called "student" of Winograd's No Kill philosophy it is abhorrent that Barnette would have ever practiced what you read below. We are watching and listening. For many, many years the Board upon which you sit has forbidden temperament testing in our shelters and you must continue to do so. For the moment, we are at peace with the department and although Pamelyn Ferdin has decided to turn in her conscience, the rest of us have not done so.

Finally, while recorded versions of your meeting are useful for anyone who has the time to wade through hours of audio, written minutes which are promptly posted upon approval by the Board are essential for the public, especially now. You have allowed your Board secretary and Ms. Barth to keep the minutes of your meetings from the public for at least 4 months. Please have all approved minutes posted to the city's website without delay.

Thank you.

Jeff de la Rosa

P.S. For Winograd's opinion of this sort of testing, please see http://www.nokilladvocacycenter.org/pdf/Temperament%20Testing.pdf

From: admissions@seattlehumane.org
To:
Sent: 6/18/2010 1:15:01 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time
Subj: RE: Relinquish a dog


Hello,

With any Pit Bull or Pit Bull mix we place for adoption embassadors to the breed. This means that the dog cannot have any previous history of aggression of any kind. If the dog does not have a history of aggression than the dog will recieve a behavior assessment after it has been surrendered to our shelter. During that assessment our behavior program manager and behavior team assess the dog's temperament. If the dog passes the behavior assessment then we place the dog out for adoption. If the dog does not pass the assessment we will not place the dog up for adoption. There are no rescue organizations that work with us and pit bulls . If the dog is not an adoption candidate with us the only option is euthenasia.

We do have a callback option. With a mandatory donation of 200$ at time of surrender we give you the oppportunity to claim your pet if he/she is not an adoption candidate with us. That $200 is not refundable.

We would like to speak with you about your dog's temperament and our policies before scheduling an appointment. You may leave us with a phone number where you can be best contacted.

Thank you,
Admissions

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.

Stu's Dad Seeks Contempt Order for Boks, Barth &Pool

More despicable acts that start with the letter "C."

Jeff de la Rosa, owner/guardian of the "evidencedDogs" Stu and Maeve will appear in Court on Monday, March 16, 2009 to seek an ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: CONTEMPT due to the willful and malicious disobedience of lawful Court Orders regarding his 14-year-old dog Maeve. C'mon down! Sorry, no popcorn allowed in Court. Read the Notice to the offenders' attorney here. What's an Order to Show Cause? See here.

UPDATE: Mar. 16, 2009:
See Post: "Pinocchio Goes to Court"

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.

REWIND: 2008 January 14 Board Meeting

"The Board lacks the power and the will..." - fellow LAAS Critic, December, 2008.

Let's rewind through 2008 and see what got done and what didn't, shall we?
At the end we'll have a snappy spreadsheet and a performance grade for 2008.+/- Read more...

Well, let's see...why don't we start with the agenda of the first meeting of 2008.
BW Comments in italics

Drum roll!

Commission Meeting Agenda for January 14, 2008

10:00 a.m. City Hall

President: Tariq Khero, V.P.: Kathy Riordan;Glenn Brown, Irene Ponce, Archie Quincey, Commissioners.

There are no posted minutes nor cancellation notice for this meeting. Ross Pool's job.
Surprised?
Did it happen?
We don't know.
If it did happen, here's how they would have spent the meeting--

1. ORAL REPORT OF THE GENERAL MANAGER

No report filed on the Commission web pages. Ross Pool's job. It's okay, these are usually filled with skewed "euthanasia" statistics.

2. COMMISSION BUSINESS
A. Approval of the Commission Meeting Minutes for November 13 and December 10, 2007

That's it! That's all the Commissioners had planned to address at this first meeting
of the year. Minutes from 2 months ago from a meeting no one can remember. Ross Pool's job.

B.Oral Report by the Commission on Meetings and Events attended.
Oh, and this too. Sorry.

Here's Ed Boks's agenda:
3. GENERAL MANAGER RECOMMENDS FOR BOARD ACTION

(That's Ed Boks-"rhymes with 'hoax'"- for you newbies-sounds serious!)

A. Policy to Guide the Handling of Permit Applications which include Elephant Walks and Similar Events for the Public (Revised Report)
"Policy to Guide the Handling"? WTF is that if you translate from bureaucrat(EB) doublespeak?

Here's the summary:
That the Board adopt requirements for issuing permits for elephants or other inherently dangerous wild animals, as detailed in the body of this report, and direct staff (that's EB-he likes to be called "staff". It's works well when the blame finger swings around if he who fucked up was not Ed, but "staff.") to implement the requirements immediately.

Basically, this is aimed at the very controversial "elephant walks" staged by Ringling Bros. Circus which a lot of us despise. Lots of rules and regs for the Circus: IDs for each elephant, health records, "dangerous" history of the elephant, if any, etc. This is instead of banning the elephant exploitation because, hey, it's profitable!*

What did they decide?

Who knows? No minutes. Ross Pool's Job.

We'll see when/if they come back to this. Also Ross Pool's Job-to keep things on the agenda until they are disposed of.

4.DISCUSSION ITEMS

This is when they make a plan to talk about stuff they can do nothing about until they place it on the agenda for a vote or "board action." The "discussion" has to be placed on the agenda, prior to the meeting, too. No, it's good. They need to discuss things. This is when they usually ask "staff" (Ed) for more info or for a report to be generated which nobody has time to generate.
So, minimum time to get from discussion to voting= 6 weeks because Meeting 1 gets the discussion item on deck, Meeting 2, they discuss, meeting 3 they act --or not..maybe they need more info or forgot about the whole thing-it happens!

A. Update on City Attorney’s Draft of Revised Proposed Transfer Permit Ordinance
-Update report regarding Board’s modified approval to make Transfer Permit Ordinance apply to all animals.

Sheesh! That's Assistant City Attorney Dov Lesel, to you mister! This a new set of subsections in the L.A. Muni Code aimed at breeders and back alley animal peddlers. Pet stores and "other commercial" entities are exempt of course. Seems that the last time this was on in Nov. 07 (yes , 2 months ago), the board wanted to change it to cover "all animals, " not just dogs and cats. I sense Kathy Riordan in there. She's on top of it.

So, I guess this means that all non-commercial transporters of animals (who does that leave?) will be required
to purchase a permit and show where the animal came from and where its going. That little iguana has to be micro chipped, too. Yes, micro chip that snake and that little songbird in Santee alley.

• First offense-a warning.
• No permit 5 days after the warning-$500 fine.
• Still no permit in 45 days-A misdemeanor which the City Attorney will not prosecute and no one will go to jail or pay a fine.
• How will they catch these folks smuggling animals or selling pit bull puppies out of a pick-up truck? Why, it will be "complaint driven", of course, and those ACO's[Animal Control Officer] will rush right out there and ...give a warning.
• Then they'll follow up in 5 days and write a $500 citation.
• Then they'll follow up in 45 days and arrest someone. Right!
This is busy work for the Board to keep them distracted and another headline-seeking lame idea from Ed Boks that would accomplish nothing. He's good at that.

5. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD - (Comments from the public on items of public interest within the Board’s subject matter jurisdiction and on items not on the Agenda.)

This is you. Speaking your mind for the animals. You get 1 minute on each item and 3 minutes at the end to vent.
You got the cancellation notice, didn't you? Sorry, maybe Ross will pick up that $20 parking tab.

6. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
Requests from Commissioners for future Agenda Items.

Did they make any? No idea. No minutes of this meeting, if it ever took place.

7. ADJOURNMENT:
Next Commission Meeting is scheduled January 28, 2008, at Los Angeles City Hall, 200 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, California 90012.

[END OF AGENDA] (11:30 already?)
_______
Issues resolved: NONE (we don't count approving the minutes of past meetings).
Preview of 1/28/08: NONE of the above items are revisited.
BoardWatch Meeting Rating: F

We know, it's painful-- but stay with us. We don't get paid for this either.

*Care about Elephants?
Assembly Bill 777 which would have toughened the elephant cruelty lawin California died January 31, 2008- right around this meeting time. Ed Boks is a headline-seeker which is why, knowing that Sacramento would not pass this bill, he sought to be the elephant hero for L.A. Not a bad thing, but his motives are suspect. Remember the painted elephant for which Boks signed the permit ?



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

Does the Board of Commisioners have Goals for 2009?

Changes and Goals.

Change is good. Change keeps us fresh and on our toes.
Goals are good. Goals keep us focused and help us to achieve what needs to be done.
The Board needs changes and goals.

Here are some we would like you to consider:

1. MORE MEETINGS-
You folks really need to have more meetings. Let's look at the Department of Animal Services as a company. Please, can we do that? Yes, we know you don't make any money at this-You do it for the animals and the people of Los Angeles. Well, we need more for nothing. If you can't give us more, please step aside and we'll find someone who can.

Your company has a budget of what? $21 Million?+/- Read more...

Can you really run a company of that size on 2 meetings per month which last about 3 hours?We don't think so- At least we haven't seen you do it very well. Yes, we know those appeal hearings wear you out and then you just want to go home.
Well, how about you have appeal hearings before only 2 of your 4 meetings per month? Yep, we'd like you to meet 4 times per month. Why?

A. So many of your topics, goals and requests from "staff" never get any follow up. That's why. No follow up = no change and no goals met. You need to be able to say, "Get this to us next week" or "What can you have done by next week?"

B. Ed Boks needs a shorter leash. Seems every time there's a lapse in meetings, Ed executes a new lame-brained scheme that you find out about on Craigslist when you should have discussed that scheme and voted on it.
Can you say "Auctions for asian puppy mill dogs?" "How about "free dogs?" Hooters for Neuters anyone?
Yes, a shorter leash is what is needed to reign this out-of-control and rogue General Manager in. Is he speaking for you at those "press conferences?" You guys approve of everything he does, right?

C. There's a lot of work to be done and it's not getting done. It certainly didn't get done in 2008 with 11 meetings.

2. FIND A NEW BOARD SECRETARY- For those of you who have been to meeting, Ross Pool is the current Board Secretary and has been for ...jeez...how long? Anyway, Pool is useless. He make more that $70, 000 a year and is not doing the Board's work. Who is following up on all those issues you need more info about? Nobody.

A. Minutes should be prepared by the next meeting and posted on that day. No minutes means we don't know what you're doing or not doing--Just the way Boks likes it.

B. Pool is all the way up Boks's nasty butt. You need a Board Secretary who is doing the Board's work, not Ed's. Yes, the Admin. Code says the GM chooses the Board Secretary, but you can still express your disatisfaction and select an alternative. How 'bout one of those 30 managers who voted "No Confidence in Boks."

C. Pool thinks he's a Commissioner or at least he acts like he has power.

D. Where are the resolutions and motion that you passed in 2008 , 2007, 2006, 2005? Every one was signed by the Pres or VP , right? Just like the Admin Code (the law) says. Let's get those up on the web site, Can we?

3. REVAMP YOUR AGENDA PROCEDURE. Who makes these agendas, anyway--Ed Boks? We thought the Board sets their agenda. Tell us we're not wrong. If the Board doesn't set it's own agenda, then what are you doing there? By law, agendas must be posted on Friday before the meeting. In order to prepare for your meeting, you can't possibly not know what's on the agenda until Friday before. Right? Seems that you'd know at least part of your agenda for the next meeting at the end of the current meeting. In the minutes I've read, I don't see you placing items on the next agenda.

To be continued...


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 II

More Law Breaking and Wasting of Your Tax Dollars or "Dollars and Nonsense"

Recently, the L.A. Daily News began a series of articles on City salaries increasing, while our Mayor increases fees and other tid-bits for City Services and cries, "The City is broke!" Armed with the results of their Public Records request to Laura Chick, City Controller, the Daily News has given the People of Los Angeles a Christmas present in a year of tough financial times for all of us: a searchable database of City employees salaries. That's right! You can now see how much you're paying these folks to run your City. Try it. One can pull up salaries by name, department or salary range. I believe the info is current as of April 2008.

What did we learn from this database?+/- Read more...

That 25 Los Angeles Animal Services employees are paid, from your tax dollars and your sanitation fees, etc., over $70, 000 per year! I know, you wish you would have dedicated your life to civil service! 14 of these folks are making over $90,000 and 6 are making over $100,000, yet we see miserable results in the improvement of care for the animals and a dismal success rate in the "No Kill" goal which Ed Boks has stated we've already achieved. These high priced civil servants are not the hard working folks you meet at the shelters who are actually doing the daily work of caring for our abandoned and sick animal friends--they are the Management. Let's remember that the Commissioners are paid nothing but are charged , by the Administrative Code with running this band of overpaid failures.

So, with all these well-compensated managers sucking in millions of dollars they can't seem to do what the law says the must do. This series focuses on two issues: Violations of the California Public Records Act and the neglect of an dog held in impound for 3 years while his owner battles the goons in Court.(See item #3).

Stu, the dog in question was impounded on September 16, 2005. Here's a time line and summary of the ordeal of an innocent dog:

August 2005: Jeff de la Rosa flies home to Ohio to his dying mother's bedside. Due to his urgent departure, he leaves his dogs in the care of his employee, Tatiana Edwards, at his rented building until he can make arrangements for boarding. Something Edwards does or doesn't do instigates a fight between two of the dogs that don't fight normally.
Stu's ear is torn in the fight. Edwards gets instructions from Jeff on what to do and she ignores them. Instead, she locks Stu in a small office and corners him. She attempts to slide a harness over Stu's injured ear and he bites her arm. Twice. She does not report the bite and makes an agreement with Jeff to cover her medical expenses.

September 15, 2005: Jeff comes home and finds that Stu has been stolen from his locked kennel.

September 16, 2005: North Central Shelter calls Jeff and tells him that Stu has been "turned-in" by a private citizen. He is told upon his arrival at NC that LAAS has just received a bite report from Edwards (a month later and the day after Stu was stolen. Coincidence?) and Stu will be impounded pending an administrative hearing to determine whether he is dangerous and should be killed.

November 2005: Hearing Examiner Mossman finds that Stu is not dangerous but was provoked.

December 2005: Former GM Stuckey rejects Mossman's findings and declares Stu to be dangerous.

March 2005: Yes, 4 months later. Jeff appeals Stuckey's decision to the Board of Commissioners. On the panel, two lawyers (Tariq Khero and Debbie Knaan) and a Commissioner with a law degree who does not practice law, Glenn Brown. Jeff claims Mossman violated due process and refused to summon department witnesses. LAAS also denied Jeff's request to have Dr. Richard Polksy evaluate Stu so Jeff could use his report as evidence that Stu is not dangerous. These 3 legal geniuses fail to see that due process has been violated (prodded on by Dov Lesel, Assistant City Attorney-salary $173,136.96) and refuse to grant Jeff's appeal. Jeff's legal costs to date: $5,000.

August 2006: Jeff takes the case to Superior Court charging due process violations and abuse of discretion by the Board and Stuckey. He also takes his other dog's (Maeve-license revoked) to Superior Court charding the same due process violations. He is opposed by Deputy City Attorney Todd Leung (annual salary $115,153.20).

Septmber 2006: Jeff visits Stu who is locked up in the "Annex" at the South L.A. "Shelter." He finds Stu filthy, tick ridden and with bleeding gums and a cracked tooth. He complains to Boks (annual salary $152,064.86) and the Board. They do nothing about Stu's health. Dr. Polksy examines Stu at Villalobos Pitbull Rescue and determines that he is not dangerous. Jeff complains and begs for medical care for Stu for the next two years. Cost to have Stu's teeth cleaned at this point-maybe $100.

June 2007: Stu now in jail 21 months. Judge David P. Yaffe (renowned wacko) denies Jeff's appeal to overturn the Board's decision. Tatiana Edwards is paid a $300,000 settlement by Jeff's homeowner insurance company or two bites on the arm Boks posts defamatory statements on the LAAS website which are 90% false and grounds for a lawsuit (case pending and award paid from your tax dollars). He also published Jeff's home address. Jeff is harassed by anonymous visitors to his home. Jeff continues to complain to the Board and they do nothing about Stu's health care. His teeth continue to rot in his mouth.

December 2006: Boks orders a night time raid on Jeff's home. Two Animal Control trucks position themselves SWAT-style in the street and light up Jeff's house like Dodger Stadium. Charges? None. Boks denies it ever happened (on the phone to Lindy Greene). Your tax dollars spent harassing a private citizen because Uncle Ed Boks is waging a personal vendetta against an outspoken citizen.

August 2007: Jeff appeals Stu's case to the Court of Appeals. Filing fee $625. Fee is waived due to Jeff's depressed financial condition brought on by the above events. If not waived, you would have had to pay this to Jeff if he wins.)
The Board of Commissioners votes unanimously to move Stu to sanctuary pending his appeal. If he loses, he will die.
Still no medical care for Stu. Jeff also learns that Debbie Knaan has violated ethical practices and due process by contacting him prior to ruling on his appeal, forming a bias and failng to recuse herself from the appeal hearings. She tells two other Commissioners about this and lets them know that she is biased against Jeff-- again prior to her hearing his appeal.

September 2007: Stu now in jail 24 months or 14 years in human terms. City enters a contract with Bobby Dorafshar's K9s Only luxury pet hotel and spa (many thanks to Bobby and the Board). Still no care for Stu's rotting teeth. Over the next year, Stu's gums bleed all over the tennis balls he plays with. More pleas for vet care. More ignoring of those pleas.

January 2008: Stu has lost a molar tooth due to advances periodontal disease. Gums still bleeding. More letters from Jeff to Boks and the Board. They do nothing.

August 2008: Bobby emails Jeff and says LAAS wants to take Stu to the Shelter and put him under general anesthesia to clean his teeth. Everyone agrees that Stu would never return alive from LAAS and that an outside doctor should do this. No response from Boks. Jeff's legal costs to date $14,000 +.

October 2008: Jeff wins the case for his other dog, Maeve, without an attorney. City is ordered to set aside their decision because Judge Chalfant says LAAS violated due process (XV Amendment), LA Municipal Code and their own hearing rules. Ed Boks is noticeably pissed that arch nemesis, Jeff de la Rosa, has had a win in Court when Ed has stated on the City's website that Jeff's claim that Stu did not have a fair hearing is a false rumor.

November 2008: Ed Boks is served with the Court Order and Judgment re: Jeff's dog , Maeve. City must pay Jeff $736 for his costs in the winning case. That's your money and the animals' money.


December 5 2008: Out of the Blue, Boks emails Jeff (through "Hoss Fool") and and says Stu , "your little dog" needs a "teeth cleaning." He says Jeff has to pay. Jeff says Boks is responsible and LAAS has to pay.

December 6, 2008: Boks agrees, in writing, that Jeff's written consent is required to treat Stu or put him under general anesthesia. Jeff wants Stu to be seen by a veterinary dentist because his condition is so far advanced and because Stu is losing teeth. Jeff agrees for Stu to be seen by his local vet so that Stu can get some meds and a preliminary exam to see how bad it is-provided that Jeff be present and that Jeff sign consent forms. Jeff's letters here
and here.

December 13, 2005: Jeff finds out that they secretly took Stu to the wrong doctor and put him under general anesthesia with Jeff's permission. No blood test prior to surgery and no x-rays to determine the damage of 2 1/2 years of neglect by Animal Services (Ed Boks). Details in Part III.




In Part III, we'll deal with the legal remedies Jeff is seeking and see how Ed Boks and the Board have created a liability (lawsuit) where your money will be wasted.

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.