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

Back to the Board...

   If the activity of the Board of Commissioners of the L.A. Animal Services has been neglected here--and it has been--it's mostly out of frustration. I've attended countless meetings only to walk away with the same feelings that others have told me they have: The Board is a rubber stamp, etc. etc.

Well, it's a new day and we have a new GM in Brenda Barnette. Love or hate her appointment, she's coming. An unexpected plus in the circus that was the search and pre-confirmation process was the appearance of Board President Melanie Ramsayer at both the announcement of Barnette's appointment and at her "good luck" confirmation appearance in front the full 15 member City Council (all 15? when does that happen?). I've never met Ms. Ramsayer and have not been to a meeting since she was elected/appointed as Board president. Unless you're willing to wade through hours of audio --there have been no written meeting minutes posted since February (that's another post) so it's hard to know what they've been up to , if anything.

All that aside, in his several years as Board President, I never saw  nor heard Tariq Khero outside those meetings. It always seemed too me that he was installed for 2 reasons:
1. To keep Kathleen Riordan out of that chair; and
2. To take instruction from the Mayor's office well and be quiet about it --which necessarily meant keeping the Board's agendas limited to what was pre-approved for discussion and action.

That does not seem to be Ramsayer's M.O., at least not on the surface. Yes, she's the Mayor's girlfriend's pal and yes, she was "elected" after only a couple of months on the Board; and yes, she allowed the animal hearing appeal process to be grabbed from the board by "staff" (also another post); but at first glance, she's a HUGE improvement over Khero just on the basis that she cares enough to show up, say something and appear concerned and involved. After I attend a few meetings and shame them into posting some minutes, I'll let you know what I come up with.

Ramsayer actually spoke at Barnette's confirmation show and pledged the full support of the Board, which is nice--BUT what I think we'd all like to see is some original input from that group of five non-paid but pretty smart folks. In case you're wondering what the Board is actually supposed to do, according to the recruitment materials for the GM spot, here it is:


The Department of Animal Services
_______________________________


The Department of Animal Services offers a wide range of services that fulfills its mission to “Promote and Protect the Health, Safety and Welfare of Animals and People in the City of Los Angeles.” For a complete list of services provided, see the Department’s web site at www.laanimalservices.com.


LAAS is led by the General Manager with direct oversight from a five-person Commission appointed by the Mayor and confirmed by the City Council. The Commission sets policy, approves contracts and helps the General Manager establish a direction for the Department. The Commission holds public hearings on critical issues, identifies priorities to be addressed, and makes recommendations to the Mayor and City Council.


Since Barnette's mantra is working together to address the mess that is LAAS, let's see if we can't get the Board to actually participate rather than wait for stuff to come to them for approval. Barnette will need all the help she can get. If you take Ramsayer at her word, she's in for some actual contribution from the Board.

Oh yeah...according to the Administrative Code , it's time to elect Board officers again. Wanna predict , anyone?

She's in. Can the Campaign for Brenda Barnette be over now?

In response to Ed Muzika who is still campaigning for Brenda Barnette's appointment even though she's already been approved by Los Angeles City Council:

(My comment was too large for Ed's comments and he's not publishing mine anymore anyway).

Ed-


Are you asking us if we want Ed Boks or Stuckey back? I think you know that answer. Does "open door" mean mean that they do not charge to leave an animal? I think we charge $25 (I could be wrong)...it used to be $5.

Regardless. This is not Seattle and this is not a "Humane Society." I welcome her experience in those types of organizations and hope she can make a difference here, but you must admit that Zine, etc. are correct. The obstacles are enormous. There is no money for her to work with and she will have to go private for money which will may be successful or not. I'd be interested to know how much money she needs to get to her 80% promised save rate and how it gets spent.

I can't say that there are better candidates. There is no experience that would prepare one for this job which is why "previous" non-profit experience is nearly irrelevant. While I didn't even know that Heisen was applying, her insider experience (Commissioner, Chair of Spay/Neuter Committee) with the Department and the City and her knowledge of City politics --AND THE CITY ITSELF, as well as her professional experience as an attorney would have qualified her in my book.

Barnette will need to take an extensive tour of the City starting with Jan Perry's district as Perry requested. I think that with all of the homework and shelter hours (necessary) that Barnette will have to do over the first year, what we will have is Barth running the department as she has done (poorly) for 2 years.


There was before the Board today a proposal to take $30,000 from the spay/neuter resources to target free pit bull sterilizations. While we need to address this issue right away, this did not come from Barnette. It came from Barth with Davis's signature on it.

An in depth look at what taking $30K from that fund would do is needed. I don't know if the Board passed it. There have been no written minutes from the Board since February (Barth again).

Isn't the pre-appointment campaign over? What's the point of more Seattle comparisons now?

Doing the Math on Brenda Barnette

Let's look at some numbers. First, $191,000. That's the salary the Mayor wants (and will get) to pay Barnette. It's $10,000 more than Boks' last rate. I guess we can't have her making the same money as Linda Barth so she must make more. Meanwhile, recently a local pet supply store owner told me that Eric Garcetti called them asking for dog food donations. We can't afford to feed the animals, but we can afford over half a million dollars to pay Barnette, Barth and Kathy Davis (what does she do again?). Plus benefits which are more than the salaries.

80%. Barnette told the Public Safety Committee Councilmembers today that if she can the the cooperation and support of 70-80% of the staff and the animal community, that she can achieve an 80% "save rate" of all of the animals brought to the shelters. In five years. And get very close to that in 3 years. Okay, those are big words. How is she going to do that? Don't know.

Apparently there is a huge untapped pile of money in L.A. (or "Hollywood" if you ask Greig Smith)--and Ms. Barnette is gonna go get that money. Okay, so LAAS--a City Department --- is to be privately funded in order to do their job. Really, I don't know what to think about that.

Presently, a huge number of large and small rescue organizations (including ASPCA-LA) get their funding from the private sector. Will some of that money now go to the City of Los Angeles?

Are individuals who give financial support to rescue organizations supposed to give more money to fund the City shelters or are more people supposed to give period?

$50,000. Barnette told the Committee that she received a grant from PetSmart for $50,000 to spay and neuter pit bulls. All she had to do to get that money was to sterilize 700 dogs. Even at $100 a pop, that's $70,000--at $75 it would cost $52,500. How did she do that? I don't know. Nobody asked how. There was no explanation but the crows loved it.

"3." Basically, Zine put it best when he said she'll be doing a good job if people aren't complaining to him about Animal Services. Greig Smith said if she only accomplished one of her three goals:

"We need to get people..."

1. to agree that we want to save lives,

2. to agree on spay/neuter,

3. to agree that we need to address cruelty issues in the City

I think the public already agrees on all of those things. Does the City agree on that? Can we have some money , please?