And so it continues...round 10 in the fight for Stu.

A new article has been published about my dog, Stu's plight and the uncertain future of "no kill" in Los Angeles. Check it out.


Liana Aghajanian | 13 Oct 2010
Saving Stu and an Uncertain Future for Los Angeles Animal Services
There has been no animal that defines the face of Los Angeles Animal Services (LAAS) in the last five years better than Stu, a Lab/Staffie mix that has been essentially…

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.

A Working Animal Commission...At Work in San Francisco

I haven't delved into the issue at hand; nor do I quite yet understand all the ramifications of a ban on all animal sales ("pets"). I'll let you know when I do. The point of sharing this piece is to illustrate the power of a real and working Animal Commission...not unlike our own Board of Commissioners. Read on...

Fur and feathers fly as San Francisco weighs ban on pet sales

What began as a proposal to ban sales of dogs and cats quickly grew to include birds, hamsters, rats and other small mammals. Shelters and rescue groups could still offer adoptions.

July 25, 2010|By Maria L. La Ganga, Los Angeles Times

Reporting from San Francisco — Here in the land of animal companions and their faithful guardians — do not call them pets and owners — a battle is raging over just what it means to be creature-friendly.

In true San Francisco fashion, city officials are considering a ban on sales of almost all pets. If the prohibition passes, it would mean no cats for sale here, no dogs, no hamsters, no rats, no guinea pigs, no macaws, no parakeets, no cockatiels, no finches. If Junior wanted a snake, Mom could probably still buy him one within the city's precious 47 square miles. But forget about those mice for Drago's dinner.

 

The proposal started out small: prohibit commerce in cats and dogs as a way to discourage puppy mills and kitten factories. South Lake Tahoe and West Hollywood passed such laws within the last 18 months; in Texas, Austin and El Paso are considering similar ones.

But this being San Francisco, the discussion didn't stop there.

After multiple meetings of the Animal Control & Welfare Commission and hours of impassioned testimony — peppered with the word "symbolic" — the narrow proposition blossomed to include most creatures great and small. The commission is set to vote on a ban in August. If it passes, the Board of Supervisors will weigh in.

Read the whole story.
Related links
Listen to NPR story
Read NPR transcript

 

Board of Commissioners to dump appeals process?

STATEMENT AGAINST REVISIONS OF THE LOS ANGELES MUNICIPAL CODE, WHICH WOULD, IN EFFECT, DO AWAY WITH THE APPEAL PROCESS ENTIRELY IN “BARKING DOG” AND “DANGEROUS ANIMAL” CASES.

BY JEFF DE LA ROSA
_________________________________________________
Please read the Department's proposal to change the Municipal Code here.


“A proposed mark-up of the relevant LAMC sections is on file and will be provided to the City Attorney.”

Why? Why this is not "provided" to the Board and to the Public before the item is discussed or passed? Let’s see it, please.

Most notable of the reasons stated in the Dept.’s report for “revising” the appeals process are:

1. The current system is burdensome to the Board.
2. The Board delays scheduling of appeals.
3. The Board is not qualified to hear appeals.

First, I think that recently slamming the Board with a meeting consisting entirely of multiple appeal hearings was a calculated move—a move calculated to coerce/convince the Board to give up the appeal process. Helen Brakemeir has campaigned to be in charge of this for a long time. Are we now giving it to her? Please don’t.

To my knowledge, sections 53.18.5 and 53.34.4 of the municipal code were crafted after significant study by a panel of citizens. If that was not the case, it should be now. Any changes which affect so many lives of people and animals must be studied carefully before being changed as radically as is proposed. The process MUST be fair to all parties. The proposed changes effectively do away with the appeal process and leave only a “review” by the General Manager.

My initial reaction to the idea that the Board is overburdened by appeals is “too bad.” With power, there is responsibility. The Board is the ONLY chance of an impartial entity having any review of a decision to revoke a license or declare a dog as dangerous. The reason that appeals are most often too “extensive” is that the current procedures for appeals are not followed. Please refer to the Resolution regarding how appeals are to be conducted. The Board meets twice per month—sometimes. If the work isn’t getting done, perhaps more meetings should be scheduled and certainly no meeting should be canceled without being rescheduled.

“…the Board is compelled to delve deeply into the case...”

No they are not. It is only the Board itself which makes the choice whether or not to delve “deeply into the case.” If the Board were to follow the actual rules for appeals, this would not happen. It would be interesting to know how many Commissioners even know these rules. Please review them first, before voting on this item.

If the current appeals process is burdensome to the Board, then the process should be streamlined and rely more on limited-length written statements from the parties which outline and explain why the original decision is invalid. The actual appeal hearing should be limited to 15-20 minutes. This is all you get in the California Court of Appeals and it should be good enough for the Board appeals.

Delays? To my knowledge, it is the Department and Ross Pool who are responsible for the scheduling of appeals. To address delays, the appeal should be heard within a specified time of the filing of the appeal request. Problem solved.

The Board is not qualified? If the Board is qualified to set policy which affects the lives of people and animals in the City, then its members are qualified to hear appeals of decisions which are the result of those policies. There is no entity within the Department as qualified or impartial as the Board. Expecting a General Manager or other “designated individual” to be the final arbiter is placing too much power in the hands of ONE person. “Designated individual?” Like whom? Helen Brakemeir? One of the other Captains who have been found unfit to run a District? No. Is a General Manager, who most likely has less animal experience than a Board member, more qualified? No.

As I see it, the pitfalls of with proposed changes are:

1. Quasi-judicial decisions are placed in the hands of law enforcement officers. This is NOT exemplary of our system of justice. Where are the checks and balances? This is akin to having a police captain hear your speeding ticket case. Whether “directly involved” or not, there is too much probability that a law enforcement officer -read ACO- would hold a bias against an appellant.
2. The final decision is placed in the hands of the chief animal law enforcement officer or another law enforcement officer. See #1.

SUGGESTIONS IF THE BOARD WANTS TO CHANGE.

1. Appoint a citizen panel/tribunal comprised of animal experts to hear appeals. Train them in property law and due process OR get some lawyers to sit on the panel who actually understand due process. Offer training an alternative to license revocation.
2. Follow the rules and procedures which are currently in place. They might work.

This needs more study by qualified people before being passed. Please continue the item and get input from experts…like Bobby Dorafshar or the other members of Spay Neuter Committee.

I have no objections to the proposal to clarify the definition of “barking dog.” It’s necessary.

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

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

Board Meeting Report- May 26, 2009; Part I

This meeting was held Tuesday at 6:00 p.m. at a library at Western and 39th St.

The need for a change in meeting schedules and venues.

Let me first say the all Animal Services Board meetings should be held in the evening. Attendance at the regular Monday City Hall meetings is always dismal and consists of Phyllis Daugherty (to her credit), Jim Bickhart, the Mayor's...um...representative and Aimee Gilbreath, Executive Director for Gary Michaelson's organization (always looking snappy with great shoes, too); parties to appeal hearings, and sometimes, me. Oh...and Laura Beth Heisen. Cool as we all are, for going to these Monday shindigs, we are not representative of the City of Los Angeles nor are we representative of the concerned-about-animals public and various organizations (Rescues). Putting aside that Gary Michaelson is responsible for Boks coming here, his work and sizeable donations in the area of spay/neuter are commendable. And the Gilbreath outfits and shoes are always a treat.

Even a 6 p.m. meeting is difficult for any working person (or sane person) to attend. This last one was difficult for Secunda and Khero, Commissioner and President, respectively, to attend. Anyone (Ross Pool and Linda Barth) who thinks that 6 p.m. at the height of Los Angeles traffic rush hours is a good time for a meeting is out of their mind. Consider the source. One can only assume that inaccessible meetings are by design. Yes, it's easier for Barth and Pool to leave 221 N. Fig at 5 and arrive at the meeting at 6, but they are the only people for which this is a conventient or accessible meeting time. Yes, I'm paranoid.

So here's my proposition: At least one meeting per month should be held "off campus" (outside City Hall, because they would charge a fortune for a night meeting). City Council meets regularly at the Van Nuys location which is set up for City meetings, with video, audio, etc. I will look into this and see what can be done to allow LAAS to use these facilities. The question has always been cost. On Tuesday, there was much to do about the limited availability of the meeting venue. "We" had it for 4hours, with that 4 hours beginning at 5:30 for set up. With an appeal, which took nearly an hour (or more) scheduled, this left real meeting time of only 2 hours. Huh?!

Security is required (usually an LAPD officer, at overtime, I'm sure) at a cost that has been estimated at $400 (I stepped out for 5 minutes during Tuesday's meeing and had to convince this LAPD officer that he should let me back into the library. He seemed to think that one could not leave and return to a PUBLIC MEETING. I let him know. He caved and let me in. So cost and venue are the issues. I'm sure that if a vote were taken by the Board, that my proposition would pass. The meetings on Monday's are not convenient for working attorney, Tariq Khero;or for working agent, Ruth Ann Secunda. Okay, Kathy Riordan is not a morning person, so 10:00 a.m. sucks for her, too.

Next, Part II: What happened at the meeting?

>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 up to No Good!"

That's what the post to the Craigslist Pet section says. Here it is:

ED BOKS and Linda Barth are planning to make a MAJOR POWER GRAB to change the Los Angeles Municipal Code so they can change/reduce the unaltered dog license differential WITHOUT proper notification to the public and hearing before the City Council.

If his current scheme passes the Commission on Monday, Boks will be on his way to destroying the licensing differential annually and input and destroying the spay/neuter program that has successfully reduced the number of dog impounds to our shelter for the past ten years.

PLEASE write to President Kathy Riordan at ninekitties@aol.com and to all Commissioners and City Council Members and the Mayor tell them to OPPOSE any efforts to turn over financial power to Ed Boks, who has in no way proven his competence either in Los Angeles, nor in his previous jobs.

From what we understand from Maricopa County and New York, Boks destroyed the established systems of both these departments before he was fired or left. We CANNOT ALLOW THIS TO HAPPEN IN LOS ANGELES.

You may just cut and paste the above if you don't have time to write, but PLEASE ACT TODAY!!

Well, if you were to look at Monday's agenda here, you will find 27 pages of "Fun with Ed Boks" +/- Read more...

You see, Ed is on a "power grab" to make dozens of changes to the Municipal Code which would:

1. Increase the dog license term from 1 to 3 years. Now your three year license will cost you $45 for an altered animal--up front.
2. Give Ed the power to raise license fees without approval of the Board or Council.
3. Institute a "puppy license." Yep any age dog must now have a license. Currently a puppy is not consiered a dog until 4 months, so if you have 3 dogs already, you can still rescue and rehome a puppy without Black Helicopter hazing your home.
4. "Expand and emphasize the responsibility of breeders, commercial establishments, and others to report information to the Department on dogs sold for licensing follow-up." NOT SO FAST BOKS! This is a second lame attempt to make pet sellers AND RESCUERS, NEW HOPE OR OTHERWISE to report to Boks the names and addresses of adopters. UMMM. WE SAY NO, BIG BROTHER , ED!

Oh there's so much more, including changes that go against state law. Here's the link again. Go Read. And then GO TO THE BOARD MEETING on Monday, Feb. 23, at 10:00 a.m. at City Hall and tell Ed where to go during public comment. There is nothing in these proposed changes that is good for animals, owner/guardians, rescues or anyone else.

BOARD Wants Settlement in 4-Year Old Cases

Last night, I attended the 1st 2009 "off-campus" (not at city hall at 10AM) meeting of the L.A. Animal Services Board of Commissioners. Attendance was DISMAL: the parties for 2 appeal hearings (who left after their gig), Phyllis Daugherty (never misses a meeting), Laura Beth Heisen (Chair of the Spay and Neuter Sub-Committee), Kim Carnochan(rescuer, volunteer and Stu supporter), Kathy Davis (AGM/Operations and relegated to a chair with the rest of us), Jim Bickart (Mayor's Office). THAT's IT! On a Monday evening. In the Valley! Has everyone given up? Don't, because progress+/- Read more...

is being made as BoardWatch will outline in the next post.

Lots of news-- both good and bad-- to report from the meeting, but I will start with my own selfish agenda, pun intended.

As many of you know, I have, for 3 years, urged the City of Los Angeles to come to an amicable settlement regarding my dogs, Maeve and Stu which would bring them both home alive and leave me to continue my life in peace. It seems that the Board is now willing to entertain just that and I welcome it and I'm grateful for their wisdom and compassion.

During Public Comments I asked the Board to take the matter of settlement up. I informed them that their own lawyer, Deputy City Attorney Todd Tak Shing Leung is waging an unholy war in Court on their behalf. Although everyone knows that Stu is not dangerous, even though that's the label Guerdon StuckeyBrakemeir (who?) slapped on him (rejecting the Hearing Examiner "not dangerous assessment") , along with a death sentence 4 years ago, Stu spent 2 years locked away at the "Annex", 4 months outdoors in the winter months at Tia's Villalobos Pitbull Rescue (no, he's not a pit bull), and then tossed back in the concrete jail at North Central for another 9 months in 2007, then finally moved to a happy place, thanks to the Board (Kathy Riordan,Marie Atake, Tariq Khero, Glenn Brown) who voted unanimously to accept the very generous offer of Bobby Dorafshar of New Leash on Life to house, feed and love Stu at the very posh K9s only boarding palace (see button at left).

Stu's case in now in the Court of Appeals, 2nd District , Division 4 Case no. B202071. You can go to the Court's website and see it's progress or lack thereof. The Court of Appeals reviews decisions by Superior Court Judge's. In this case, Judge David Yaffe (See (who?), at the under-the-table urging of Captain Helen Perched on a Throne in ‘Wonderland’) rushed through a 9 minute hearing on the life of a dog and slipped on some feeble caselaw offered up by City Attorney Leung. The very same case law that Judge Chalant said had no relevance in Maeve's case, hence the win for Maeve. The way it goes in Appellate Court is this:

1. Appellant (me) files their opening brief (this was delayed for many months due to me having to replace my former attorney with myself--but not before I racked up over $10, 000 in fees.) This sets forth the case history and reasons why the lower court's judge screwed up. Mine was 46 pages of the 50 page limit.
2. Mr. Leung was given 60 days to file his opposing brief which was due January 18, 2009. He didn't file it. This is called default. But because the law is fair, the clerk sends a notice saying that if the brief is not filed within 15 days, the case will be decided on my brief and the record alone. The City will be barred from appearing at the oral argument hearing of the case. So I wait.
3. On the 15th day , at 3:05 PM (court closes at 4:30) the clerk posted the following entry: NO RESPONSE TO RULE 8.211 NOTICE. CASE PLACED IN READY FILE. This means the case is ready for the 3 justices and the presiding justice to examine and set a hearing date. I was encouraged.
4. At 5:05 PM the clerk's notice was deleted and replace with RESPONDENT'S BRIEF ON APPEAL FILED. So, the City , at the very last moment, filed an 8 page, huge margins, double-spaced in 13 point type piece of crap brief which showed absolutely no effort yet took 79 days to make if from 200 N Main to 300 S Spring. That's 79 extra days that Stu and I had to wait with Stu away from home and me pining for his return, worried every day that he will be killed and tossed into a boiling vat ("rendering") with the rest of the carcasses of the 25, 000+ pets and companion animals who will be killed by Ed Boks and an uncaring Antonio Villaraigosa. this year. You can Google "rendering" but I suggest that you do not.

What did the brief say? Well the 8th page is just his signature, but prominently in there is this: "the attack was a vicious mauling." Problem is...there is nothing in the official record to back-up this lie. He forgets to mention that the Hearing Examiner and Preeminent Dog Behavior Expert Richard Polksy, PhD disagree and both believe Stu is NOT DANGEROUS.

In fact, the only folks who think Stu is dangerous are 1) the "victim"--- now $300, 000 richer from State Farm Insurance-- Tatiana Edwards a.k.a. Tati Edwards a.k.a. Tatiana Katryne (stripper name?), my one-time lover and employee, 2) Former Captain Karen Stepp (forced to quit due to "employee morale problems") who is now "stepping" on animals for Marcia Mayeda, 3) Guerdon Stuckey (fired by the Mayor and now gentrifying North Carolina as a bureaucrat) 4)Debbie Knaan, pulling down big money by not prosecuting animal cruelty cases for the County D.A and 5) Ed Boks (soon to be fired)...oh yeah 6) Todd TakShing Leung (pulling down nearly $200, 000 of your tax dollars fighting self-represented dog owners and LOSING).

So, as I am prone to do when one of my own is threatened, I fired off the following email:

To: Deputy City Attorney Todd Leung <Todd.Leung@lacity.org>
Cc: Ed Boks <Ed.Boks@lacity.org>, City Attorney Dov Lesel <Dov.Lesel@lacity.org>, Marie Atake, Bobby Dorafshar, Debbie Knaan <knaan@sbcglobal.net>, Assistant City Attorney Laurie Rittenberg <Laurie.Rittenberg@lacity.org.>
Subject: City's Brief on Appeal

Mr. Leung
.
I am in receipt of your 7-page brief on appeal. For the benefit of those copied on this message:

• Your brief was due on January 18, 2009.
• You had 60 days to prepare and file it, yet you did not.
• Court rules allowed you an additional 15 days following notice by the Court that unless you submit a brief within 15 days, you will not be able to file it and you will not be able to appear at oral argument.
• In total, including the 4 days it took for the court to send you notice that you were in danger of "default", you had 79 days to prepare and file this seven page brief which is basically a "pamphlet" comprised of "cherry-picking" and "scatter-gun" style tripe. It is unintelligible and a work of fiction.
• Your time to file this fish-wrap expired at 4:30pm on Friday 2/6.
• At 3PM the Court entered into it's docket that you had not filed a brief and that the case was "ready" to be submitted to the justices based solely on the record and my brief. There would be no oral argument permitted for the City.
• Then at the last minute, on the 79th day, you trotted your little brief over to the Court.
  

It's really typical of your style, this little brief, and an insult to your profession. When faced with a losing proposition, you just churn out a few lies, irrelevant case law, and blatant exaggeration like pasta tossed at a wall. It's really no wonder that they assign you the crap cases.

You should be ashamed of yourself for prolonging the suffering of an innocent animal and his owner by nearly 3 months, just to vex me and carry out the City's, Lesel's, Knaan's and Boks's agenda to harass and persecute Stu and me at at every opportunity for any reason. I didn't think I could ever be more disgusted by the lot of you. I was wrong. Thrashed in Dept. 85, by a layman in Maeve's case-- heard by a real judge and not that confirmed whacko in Dept. 86--you re-directed your humiliation onto Stu.

This fiasco began with a two-bit, wanna-be "actress" cashing in on her ex-boyfriend for $300, 000 in blood money and an illiterate "hearing examiner" attempting to reinvent the Constitution. Next, we had nonassignable-to-any-real-duties Brakemeir corrupting the process by inserting her fat thumb in the pie, followed by an under-fire G.M. who rubber-stamped Brakemeir's dirty work. For dessert, the "actress" giving unsworn testimony to three hand-picked buffoons-- all with law degrees-- who flunked the due-process course. They were led into the abyss by another overpaid shameful City Attorney who "decided" that violations of due process do not constitute a violation of due process. Then you entered the center ring with your childish antics,whining, hyperbole and fictional distortions of fact.

It is crystal clear to the entire public and even your own co-workers what has happened here: A huge. bloated and powerful government entity running roughshod over the law and it's own citizens for the amusement of it's "employees." On my mother's grave, you will not get away with this and I will use every legal means to make you pay. All of you. If, by chance, the Court is stupid--and I do not believe they are--and your band of corrupt idiots succeeds in killing my friend Stu, you will be held accountable.

See you in about a month or so for your thrashing by the Court of Appeals. Then in about 2 more years, when we do this again ad infinitum. You folks are really disturbed; and you , Ms. Knaan, are the scum of the earth. So, Todd, do they let you play in Federal Court? We'll see.

People constantly speak of 'the government' doing this or that, as they might speak of God doing it. But the government is really nothing but a group of men, and usually they are very inferior men. -- H.L. Mencken

NOTICE: This email may be copied, forwarded, printed and otherwise reproduced only in its entirety, including full reproduction and full expansion of any attachments at their original size (in this case all 60 pages of the file attached hereto), with full email headers and unredacted email addresses of the addressees. Any other use is strictly prohibited.

Yeah...rough, but he REALLY pisses me off!

Back to the Board Meeting:

After I let the Board know how their own lawyer is fighting dirty on their behalf, Kathy Riordan expressed that she would like to see a settlement. Commissioner Tariq Khero concurred. Commissioner Archie Quincey said something to the effect of "this has gone on long enough." No, Ed boks wasn't there. Linda Barth said that a "closed session" could be scheduled to discuss a settlement. Commissioner Irene Ponce made no comments but she looked shocked at the situation. In her defense, she knows nothing about the cases (unless Ed has filled her in). Too bad the room was empty. I think I may have seen a "nod" from Jim Bickart, but I can't be sure.

Then, Kim Carnochan read this letter/email from Marie Atake:

From: Marie <>
Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2009 15:58:04 -0800
Conversation: City Attorney casts cruelty on an old dog!
Subject: City Attorney casts cruelty on an old dog!

CROSS-POST PERMITTED

In my letter to Mayor Villaraigosa a year and half ago (http://marie310.blogspot.com/2007/09/resigning-from-laas-commission_03.html), I wrote the following, and it was referring to Stu’s case:

“Recently, the Commission discovered its serious procedural problems with a past appeal. I was not involved with this particular appeal, however, I felt it was the Commission’s sworn duty to right its wrongs, and restore its integrity, when the process was violated, with unfairness and prejudice appearing high and harmful.

“Unfortunately I have learned that certain members of your administration, this department and the Commission are incapable of acknowledging errors, therein misleading the public. Such actions (or inactions) are resulting in the needless suffering and death of many animals, mistreatment of the public, and wasting of financial and human capital.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bubMhSLA3sU

As of today, Stu is still in boarding after three long years. I wonder why people in power find tormenting the poor dog to be acceptable. If Mr. Boks has a vengeful vendetta, that’s one thing, but it is so wrong to use an innocent animal as a leverage. It’s time that they separate the two issues, and deal with them like adults.

Those who have not been following the case may not understand the complexity, but Stu could have been out of his confinement by now. The judge in the lower Court regarding his other dog (where he prevailed on exactly the same issues of due process) said “anything can be settled” referring to the City settling these issues with him and avoiding costly litigation. He has made offers of settlement, and they refused.

Not only have those in power failed to resolve the matter, but also they have engaged in an ongoing drain on city resources needed to fight this battle for three years and still counting.

I wish these people would use their tenacity and passion to actually make the world a better place, instead of focusing on making the lives of one dog and one man miserable — I’m really astonished with the wasteful and negative behavior of Mr. Todd Leung along with others who perpetuate this inhumane condition for Stu. I wholeheartedly understand his guardian’s frustration.

If we are to believe the Mayor’s statements that the city has a budget crisis, shouldn’t we see the City Attorney’s resources used to find a solution to this expensive and inhumane due process problem, rather than wasted on continuing years of litigation over a now 10-year old dog!

This is 1) sheer animal cruelty and 2) a total waste of our tax-dollars.

- Marie



Brief History of Maeve's Case

Maeve's license was revoked in a case of mistaken (lies) identity in 2005. A neighbor of mine (and former co-alumnus from NYU, who I used to have to toss out of editing rooms because she refused to leave when it was time for other students' editing session--It was my work-study job at NYU Film School in the glorious 80's). The Board denied my appeal and I have spent the last 3 years in Court securing a Court order to set that decision aside. From September 2005 to March 2006 Maeve lanquished at the "Annex" beating her tail to a bloody pulp. Then I was able to spring her, but since she was banned from the City, I boarded her at Bouquet Canyon Kennels, in the Santa Claria area to the tune of about $5,000 until the kennel owner left her to burn to death in the Santa Clarita fire of 2007.
I yanked her out of there when Charlotte Bell of Southbay Doggie Day Care came to the rescue and took-in Maeve since then in Manhattan Beach for over a year with tender loving care and lots of love, fresh air and exercise. I am forever indebted to Charlotte and reccomend that you trust her and her fine staff with you loved one.

The ruling to set aside the Department's decision (because they violated LA Municipal Code, their own hearing procedures and the 14th Amendment) was made on October 9, 2008 and judgment was entered November 13, 2008.

Not surprisingly, Ed Boks , in his continuing quest to maintain his personal vendetta against me (hey, I'm the Sicilian guy!) ordered Hearing Examiner George Mossman to hold a "continuation" hearing for Maeve's following the Court's Order. Problem is that the Order said I'm entitled to a "new hearing" and there is no such thing in the LA Muni. Code as a "continuation" hearing in a case in which a FINAL decision was made on March 28, 2005. So, Mr. Mossman plans to hold a "continuation" hearing and finally subpoena the witnesses he denied me 4 years ago. I wonder if they are even around or if they remember ANYTHING! The Board seemed to think that such a hearing would be silly, but I'm just going by their expressions. I did ask them if all of them had been given a copy of the Court Order tossing their decision...they stared at me blankly. I do think that if they were not given the order that it would be reason for Contempt of Court against Ross Pool, Ed Boks and whomever else made that dumb decision. That means monetary SANCTIONS for the City and Todd Tak Shing Leung and possible JAIL TIME. Santions would go in my pocket, by the way. YOUR TAX DOLLARS.

So now, we wait for Ed Boks, Dov Lesel, Linda Barth and Debbie Knaan to decide if the Board gets what they want. To follow-up, I sent this email to Linda Barth <linda.barth@lacity.org> today:


Ms. Barth,

As you know, the Board (3 Commissioners: Khero, Quincey and Riordan) requested, during the February 9, 2009 Board Meeting, that the cases regarding Maeve and Stu be addressed in the near future. I will assume, then that any actions to schedule a hearing in any matter by Mr. Mossman are thereby suspended pending action by the Board. Please confirm that this is the case.

Also, please advise as to what you will be needing from me in order to effect such a meeting. If the Board will require actual settlement proposals, I am certainly willing to prepare those in time for any open or closed session. It would be my preference that the subject of a closed or open session (or the session itself) be placed on the very next agenda for a vote. While it is normally and rightfully, the Board which sets it's agendas, I am aware that Management often "contributes" to decisions regarding agenda items. As you must realize, time is of the essence as current and future litigation plans are moving forward. Likewise my own schedule needs to be taken into account. I will hold the next meeting date open in my schedule until I hear from you. If you will require a transcript from Judge Chalfant's Court of the proceeding in which the Judge made his statements re: settlement, I am sure Mr. Leung can procure that for you. I will be glad to provide the date on which that hearing(s) took place.

I look forward to your timely response.

P.S. As I stated during the Public Comments: Unfortunately, both of the appeal hearings held on Monday are invalid and must be re-heard for various reasons (the first appellant must be given a new administrative hearing BEFORE an appeal is heard per L.A.M.C.), but most notably because the Board's own Resolution re: Appeals is clear that :

1. The Appeals Commissioner (Vice-President) or (acting) President shall chair the appeal hearing.
2. The hearing shall be audio recorded.

• Officially, what is the reason the Commissioner Riordan was excluded from the appeal and left waiting in the lobby for the entire two hearings?
• Before your time, but at my appeal hearing, the District Supervisor was present (in the form of Capt. Brakemeir, unfortunately, who was not my District Supervisor). Why were there no appearances by the respective District Supervisors on Monday? Usually, they have at least some familiarity with the complaint(s) and charges.
• Why don't the Commissioners know what they may and may not do, when it comes to their review? It seems strange that they have to ask you or the Board Secretary for guidances when they've been hearing appeals forever?
• At my appeal hearing, there was no "management" present. Please refer me to whatever document, code or otherwise authorizes or necessitates the presence of a GM (whose decisions are at issue) or an AGM.
  

In one of your briefing points, you mentioned that shelter employees would be apprised of the law in some fashion. That's really a great idea, late or not. I would humbly suggest that all Commissioners receive some kind of refresher on things like their own resolutions, due process at the administrative level and the Los Angeles Municipal Code, Charter and Admin. Code. I know that the State's Office of Administrative Hearings has a training program for Administrative Law Judges which they offer to Cities and local governments. Maybe that would be a solution to prevent more unnecessary expense and trips to the Courthouse for both appellants and claimants. Please understand that I make these suggestions in all sincerity and only with the intention of saving others from what I've been though for the last 4 years.

P.P.S. Shock collars on dogs (or any other animal) are considered by responsible trainers to be inhumane (besides being ineffective). I hope this remedy will be removed from the Board's bag of "terms and conditions" as soon as possible.
Perhaps I might offer my time for some fundraising efforts for expert training for income-challenged appellants whose dogs will not stop barking. because they are left to live out of doors (neglect). Your department will soon be receiving letter #1 re: my neighbor at 1881 Morton Ave. who refuses to do anything about his dog's incessant barking (also neglect, no socialization and no exercise--I've never seen that poor Choc. Lab outside his yard) . No, I will not be the sole complainant and I do hope that just because a complaint comes from me, will not mean that it is handled any differently from anyone else's complaint.
People have asked what they can do.

Well, I would suggest writing, on paper preferably, or by email, to any of the people mentioned above and making your voice heard (calling is good too). You might also consider writing to your Councilperson, posting your views on Craigslist where Ed Boks will flag them off in his spare time. You might consider commenting here by clicking on "comments." Anything you do FOR my dog friends would be appreciated. You might consider showing up at the next Board meeting and making your opinion known.

Stay tuned. While I'm encouraged by this turn by the Board, I've been here before. We'll keep our paws crossed.

Who's Gagging the Board of Commissioners? Ed Boks?

Today, the Board of Commissioners rocketed into 2009 with the posting of their first agenda As you can see, our prodding of the Board to take up the issue of budget cuts which have resulted in food shortages+/- Read more...

and the lack of basic shelter supplies has resulted in the Board considering the 2009/2010 budget. But wait...what about the budget we're in now which is causing the shortages? I guess we'll all just have to show up on Monday and say our peace during the public comment portion of the meeting.

Oh darn. Hoss Fool, Board Secretary, still has that illegal statement on the agenda:

Public Comments: The Brown Act prohibits the Board and staff from responding to the speakers' comments. Some of the matters raised in public comment may appear on a future agenda.

The problem, Hoss, is that it is NOT TRUE.

The Ralph M. Brown Act is that portion of the California Government Code which governs the conduct of legislative bodies (or boards) and which was enacted to ensure "open meetings." The Brown Act is also referred to as "CALIFORNIA LOCAL AGENCY OPEN MEETING LAWS."

Section 54954.2(a) states:

No action or discussion shall be undertaken on any item
not appearing on the posted agenda, except that
members of a legislative body or its staff may brieflyrespond to statements made or questions posed by persons exercising their public testimony rights under Section 54954.3. In addition, on their own initiative or in response to questions posed by the public, a member of a legislative body or its staff may ask a question for clarification, make a brief announcement, or make a brief report on his or her own activities. Furthermore, a member of a legislative body, or the body itself, subject to rules or procedures of the legislative body, may provide a reference to staff or other resources for factual information, request staff to report back to the body at a subsequent meeting concerning any matter, or take action to direct staff to place a matter of business on a future agenda.

This "statement" on the agenda is a good trick to gag the Board but is is illegal.

Diligent as ever, our own Jeff de la Rosa has exposed this little problem and made aware the Board, Hoss Fool as well as Councimember Dennis Zine and President Eric Garcetti. No response as of yet.

When did this gag rule go into effect? Here's where it gets interesting.

The first meeting agendawhich bears this unlawful gag order on the Commissiners is June 25, 2007. Of course, no minutes for this meeting are posted at laanimalservices.com/commission. But we seem to remember that, at least Jeff, spoke during the comment period demanding action from the Board. Yep, this is the first meeting which was supposed to address the issue of Jeff de la Rosa's dog Stu and the horrid treatment he was receiving while locked up in the pound for 2 years by this time. Ed Boks had been blocking the discussion item for weeks but it did make it on the very next meeting agenda.

Yes, the gag order was in effect for that meeting and has been ever since. We've found our gagger!

Sorry, Ed. We Gotcha!

For your convenience: ed.boks@lacity.org, ross.pool@lacity.org,dennis.zine@lacity.org,eric.garcetti@lacity.org

S.G. BW staff writer.

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

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

From en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption :

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

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

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


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

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

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

The Board Went Dark

For 3 months.

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

Monday, October 13, 2008
Cancellation Notice Agenda

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


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

Monday, November 24, 2008
Cancellation notice

Monday, December 8, 2008
Commission Notice

Monday, December 22, 2008
Cancellation notice

Suspected reasons?

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

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

This is illegal. This is corruption.

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

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

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

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

Then the Board went dark.

Monday, September 24, 2007
Commission Meeting Canceled

Monday, September 10, 2007
Commission Meeting Canceled

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

Suspected reasons?

1. To make this Stu thing go away.

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

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

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

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

This is illegal.

This is corruption.

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

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

~BW

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.