I have received letters from all over the country sharing support for the Hooters for Neuters event. So far I have received eight. Rather than print all, I share the one sent by our own Lori Golden. Maybe we can stop Guss from killing hundreds of cats, dogs and rabbits after all.
Re: Hooters for Neuters
I applaud LA Animal Services GM Ed Boks for thinking outside the box, and for wanting his grossly underfunded department to be the recipient of the Hooters for Neuters fundraiser. Yes, the bikini-clad Hooter girl poster was tasteless, but the poster that replaced it with the dog in the tee-shirt was adorable! It wasn’t as if LAAS was putting on the event themselves!!
How hypocritical of Laura Chic and other council people for saying Hooters’ money is not needed! At a time when pet overpopulation is reaching new highs, and when it is difficult enough to convince men to spay and neuter their animals, this event was a great idea. I’m sure the City is more than happy to receive the taxes Hooters pays into the City coffers each year.
The funds generated by this event could have gone a long way to assist low income people in getting their animals spayed and neutered. This is the ONLY way to turn off the faucet of pet overpopulation, which is the primary cause for the killing of so many animals in our City Shelters!
These critics need to get a sense of humor!
Lori Golden
The Big Picture
Some of you out there wonder why this site exists at all. Who cares about Boks, LAAS, ADL, ALF, Ferdin, SHAC et al, and regard them as a bunch of cranks of no import?
You would be mistaken. The ADL-LA and ALF and similar organizations across the country are the vanguard for a growing revolutionary movement that plans to radically remake this country by any means they think necessary. The ADL-LA/LAAS struggle locally is only one small arena where they develop new methods of extortion, terror and other ways of manipulating individuals, corporations and government.
As the website http://www.targetofopportunity.com/ correctly points out, corporations, AND local governments roll over and play dead when confronted by these organizations with their new array of revolutionary tactics. Brownshirt terrorism has morphed into cyberterrorism. The City of LA has, until recently, had no success in dealing with ADL-LA and ALF. The recent conviction of Pam Ferdin and Jerry Vlasak only gives them an opportunity to grandstand.
LAAS employees are harassed and many feel terrified. City officials have no overall strategy for dealing with these groups torn between freedom of speech principles, and the need to maintain order and peace.
You may think this means nothing, but it is not. It is a big deal and should be thought of that way. The FBI considers animal and eco activists the second most dangerous groups of terrorists in the country, even ahead of all the right wing, neo Nazi, Aryan Brotherhoods, KKK types. Why is this? Because they use the concept of animal rights as an excuse to form increasingly effective networks of budding revolutionaries. Most everyone loves animals and hates abuses and cruelty. They have a locked in and highly impassioned power base and appeal.
If there is any doubt about the growing power networks of these groups, we only have to look at their advisory boards; they are filled with celebrities that tinny-minded people think are second only to the Pope or Bill Gates in terms of being role models and founts of knowledge.
On the Advisory Board of Sea Shepherd Society alone, we find Pierce Brosman, Martin Sheen, Richard Dean Anderson, Linda Blair, James Cromwell and Rutger Hauer just to name a few. PETA has five times as many celebrities involved in various capacities.
Jerry Vlasak has been and probably still is involved with all of the players in these organizations.
Personally, I think the country needs MAJOR changes. I think animal rights and welfare should be a central core value along with universal health care, a more egalitarian distribution of income and educational opportunities, control over corporate power and abuses, reversing the Republican rapacious destruction of the environment, and financially re-invigorating government in the role of enabling and helping people, after years of Republican starvation.
But, we are dealing with revolutionaries where the raison detre is animal liberation, a noble purpose I share, but implementation is through tactics and strategies that hurt and kill animals in ways that animal welfarists do not. An example is ADL-LA/ALF actions against Ed Boks. This is training for them, a pseudo cause to crystallize and refine political action, but acting in ways that impede rapid progress towards No-Kill.
The real question YOU need to ask is do you want to ignore them and see what happens? Do you want to join THEIR revolution, because it will never be yours, they have set the agenda and appointed the key players? Or, do you want to oppose them by stomping them while they are still small and uncoordinated? This would be the Republican approach so deftly refined by the Ashcrofts, Cheneys and Bushes.
Then again, if they are suppressed, without these radical leaders, how does one make change? How can we really help the animals in both the short and long term? What are the alternatives? How do we expand the cracks within and between ruling ideologies and competing power structures to create real change given the Weltanshauung of indifference and helplessness?
Is it to be a revolution from below as has fueled most revolutions in the past, a coup led by Lefties likeDean andGore, will it be a spiritual struggle that lasts many lifetimes, or will it never happen at all? You decide.
You would be mistaken. The ADL-LA and ALF and similar organizations across the country are the vanguard for a growing revolutionary movement that plans to radically remake this country by any means they think necessary. The ADL-LA/LAAS struggle locally is only one small arena where they develop new methods of extortion, terror and other ways of manipulating individuals, corporations and government.
As the website http://www.targetofopportunity.com/ correctly points out, corporations, AND local governments roll over and play dead when confronted by these organizations with their new array of revolutionary tactics. Brownshirt terrorism has morphed into cyberterrorism. The City of LA has, until recently, had no success in dealing with ADL-LA and ALF. The recent conviction of Pam Ferdin and Jerry Vlasak only gives them an opportunity to grandstand.
LAAS employees are harassed and many feel terrified. City officials have no overall strategy for dealing with these groups torn between freedom of speech principles, and the need to maintain order and peace.
You may think this means nothing, but it is not. It is a big deal and should be thought of that way. The FBI considers animal and eco activists the second most dangerous groups of terrorists in the country, even ahead of all the right wing, neo Nazi, Aryan Brotherhoods, KKK types. Why is this? Because they use the concept of animal rights as an excuse to form increasingly effective networks of budding revolutionaries. Most everyone loves animals and hates abuses and cruelty. They have a locked in and highly impassioned power base and appeal.
If there is any doubt about the growing power networks of these groups, we only have to look at their advisory boards; they are filled with celebrities that tinny-minded people think are second only to the Pope or Bill Gates in terms of being role models and founts of knowledge.
On the Advisory Board of Sea Shepherd Society alone, we find Pierce Brosman, Martin Sheen, Richard Dean Anderson, Linda Blair, James Cromwell and Rutger Hauer just to name a few. PETA has five times as many celebrities involved in various capacities.
Jerry Vlasak has been and probably still is involved with all of the players in these organizations.
Personally, I think the country needs MAJOR changes. I think animal rights and welfare should be a central core value along with universal health care, a more egalitarian distribution of income and educational opportunities, control over corporate power and abuses, reversing the Republican rapacious destruction of the environment, and financially re-invigorating government in the role of enabling and helping people, after years of Republican starvation.
But, we are dealing with revolutionaries where the raison detre is animal liberation, a noble purpose I share, but implementation is through tactics and strategies that hurt and kill animals in ways that animal welfarists do not. An example is ADL-LA/ALF actions against Ed Boks. This is training for them, a pseudo cause to crystallize and refine political action, but acting in ways that impede rapid progress towards No-Kill.
The real question YOU need to ask is do you want to ignore them and see what happens? Do you want to join THEIR revolution, because it will never be yours, they have set the agenda and appointed the key players? Or, do you want to oppose them by stomping them while they are still small and uncoordinated? This would be the Republican approach so deftly refined by the Ashcrofts, Cheneys and Bushes.
Then again, if they are suppressed, without these radical leaders, how does one make change? How can we really help the animals in both the short and long term? What are the alternatives? How do we expand the cracks within and between ruling ideologies and competing power structures to create real change given the Weltanshauung of indifference and helplessness?
Is it to be a revolution from below as has fueled most revolutions in the past, a coup led by Lefties likeDean andGore, will it be a spiritual struggle that lasts many lifetimes, or will it never happen at all? You decide.
From the Maddies Fund Re LAAS Transparency
Of the 5200 plus animal control departments in the US and the thousands more humane societies, SPCA, and animal welfare organizations only five met the Maddie's Foundation's expectations for "transparency". See attached letter from Richard Avanzino, CEO of Maddie's Foundation:
At this time, transparency is not prevalent. But, here are examples of organizations headed in that direction:
• Los Angeles Animal Services (There is a statistics link on the hompage at
http://www.laanimalservices.com/.)
• The Dane County Humane Society (http://giveshelter.org/about/stats/)
• The Tompkins County SPCA (Click on http://www.spcaonline.com/sp_newlink.htm
and scroll to "How'd We Do Last Year.")
• The Humane Society of Boulder Valley (http://www.boulderhumane.org/gen/faq.html)
• The Richmond SPCA
(http://www.richmondspca.org/site/DocServer/february_06.doc?docID=1403)
You can also go to the Maddie’s Fund website (www.maddiesfund.org/projects/index.html).
We publish statistics of our funded projects on-line and in our Annual Report.
To further encourage transparency, Maddie’s Fund has established a series of new grants
(http://www.maddiesfund.org/grant/starter_grants_index.html) that reward organizations for gathering and publishing their statistics.
And, in conjunction with other national organizations, we are working on the creation of a central website that will host statistical data gathered from animal welfare organizations around the country.
We are hopeful that the Asilomar Accords (http://www.maddiesfund.org/organizations/asilomar.html)
will be a significant factor in stimulating transparency. The ninth Guiding Principle of the Accords states: “We believe in the importance of transparency and the open sharing of accurate, complete animal-sheltering data and statistics in a manner which is clear to both the animal welfare community and the public.”
Clearly, we are not yet at a point where transparency is the norm among animal welfare organizations. But because we believe this practice will ultimately help save more lives, we hope, for the animals' sake, that many organizations will see the true merit of moving in this direction, and that transparency does indeed become commonplace in the very near future.
Sincerely,
Rich Avanzino
CEO, Maddies Fund
At this time, transparency is not prevalent. But, here are examples of organizations headed in that direction:
• Los Angeles Animal Services (There is a statistics link on the hompage at
http://www.laanimalservices.com/.)
• The Dane County Humane Society (http://giveshelter.org/about/stats/)
• The Tompkins County SPCA (Click on http://www.spcaonline.com/sp_newlink.htm
and scroll to "How'd We Do Last Year.")
• The Humane Society of Boulder Valley (http://www.boulderhumane.org/gen/faq.html)
• The Richmond SPCA
(http://www.richmondspca.org/site/DocServer/february_06.doc?docID=1403)
You can also go to the Maddie’s Fund website (www.maddiesfund.org/projects/index.html).
We publish statistics of our funded projects on-line and in our Annual Report.
To further encourage transparency, Maddie’s Fund has established a series of new grants
(http://www.maddiesfund.org/grant/starter_grants_index.html) that reward organizations for gathering and publishing their statistics.
And, in conjunction with other national organizations, we are working on the creation of a central website that will host statistical data gathered from animal welfare organizations around the country.
We are hopeful that the Asilomar Accords (http://www.maddiesfund.org/organizations/asilomar.html)
will be a significant factor in stimulating transparency. The ninth Guiding Principle of the Accords states: “We believe in the importance of transparency and the open sharing of accurate, complete animal-sheltering data and statistics in a manner which is clear to both the animal welfare community and the public.”
Clearly, we are not yet at a point where transparency is the norm among animal welfare organizations. But because we believe this practice will ultimately help save more lives, we hope, for the animals' sake, that many organizations will see the true merit of moving in this direction, and that transparency does indeed become commonplace in the very near future.
Sincerely,
Rich Avanzino
CEO, Maddies Fund
May Shocker
After the May disaster re number of neonates killed, we should all rededicate ourseleves to the unfinished work which the rescue community and LAAS have struggled so hard to attain: to reach a time where the only animals that will be killed are the terminally injured and dying, and LAAS’s services will be devoted to finding owners, adoptions and stopping animal cruelty.
FROM CRAIGS LIST:
Date: 2006-06-16, 9:52AM PDT
It is physically impossible to just stop the killing in LA instantly. The shelters and streets would fill up with animals quickly. Ed Boks has implemented many new and wonderful programs since he came to LA. Things are improving. He is the best General Manager we have ever had. Take a look at all the things he's done here in his reports:
http://www.laanimalservices.com/GMReports.htm
We've never had a GM who has written and posted reports about his progress. We've never had a GM be so honest about his numbers. We've never had a GM who was willing to talk to and work with the animal community. ADL asked to have a "competent, dedicated, educated, compassionate" GM. We have one, Ed Boks. Yes, the shelters are still full. Would you rather have the shelters empty and the freezers full?
He's giving the animals every chance he can. We just can't adopt our way out of this problem. We need to turn off the faucet. We need more spay/neuter. We need money for mores pay/neuter programs and spay/neuter education. A lot of the animals killed in May were kittens and puppies. Do you think the employees enjoy killing kittens and puppies? Of course not. If only ADL would use their money and efforts on spay/neuter, LA couldbecome lo-kill more quickly.
Attacking the Department, City, employees, volunteers, donors and commissioners will not make the City lo-kill. Those attacks actually kill more animals. If you're not part of the solution ADL, you are part of the problem. Just stoptheyelling and start helping. Re: LA NO KILL & LO KILL
Date: 2006-06-16, 10:55AM PDT
I totally agree with the person who posted this. I am a volunteer atSouth L.A. animal shelter. The staff and volunteers who work at that shelter are incredibly dedicated, caring and hardworking. They are the ones who put the work in for animals day in, day out, twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week. Anyone who posts on this board complaining and criticizing better haveFACTS and SOURCES to back up their whining, because I have seen with my own eyes how caring and hard-working the shelter people are.
You nitpickers and complainers ought to be ASHAMED of yourselves. I don't see you in the shelter cleaning up puppy vomit and talking topeople about alternatives to surrendering their pet. How about taking Spanish classes so you can at least communicate with half the people Who come into shelters.
Do you know how many people hate to give up their pets because their landlords found out, or they got evicted and have to find someplace to live and don't have the luxury of time and money to find housing thatwill accept their pet? Landlords are a HUGE reason people have to give up their pets. Howabout working with the city to get a law passed requiring a percentageof housing to allow pets? How about a law requiring all landlords to accept at least a cat? Come on, let's all support the new G.M. and all the shelter workers andwork together for the animals. Anything less is egoistic. RE: LA NO KILL/LO KILL
Date: 2006-06-16, 12:31PM PDT
Yes a large part of why there are SOOOOOO MANY animals in the shelter system is that we have a very large immigrant population who do not know or understand the importance of spaying and neutering their pets. The bottom line is without education and the ability to CONSTANTLY REINFORCE the importance of spay and neuter (economic asstistance etc), we will NEVER start to make progress!! We can't just throw up our armsand give up--- as a community we must figure out a plan and get going!!! I was in South LA shelter last night and "counseled" a sweet familyabout their new adoptee...right down to explaining the importance ofregistering their information with AVID etc.
They were so happy just tohave someone to help them and give them some information. The ACT wasSUPER sweet but they ARE SO BUSY and UNDERSTAFFED; I was just happy to help a family (I even gave them my phone # to call if they had questions or needed help). There are people out there that want to do the right thing (as well as the many who are not doing the right thing by their animals!!!). We all just need to get on the same page and help those that need toget on that page as well!!! LA & NO KILL or LO KILL
Date: 2006-06-16, 10:21AM PDT
Somehow all the name calling, finger pointing, personal agendas need tobe redirected to what we all really want---the progress towards a lowkill/no kill shelter system in LOS ANGELES!!!!
The fact that the cityspends $20.0 million euthanizing adoptable pets is mind boggling andhorrific!!!! Resources must be put towards Public Service Annoucements etc. (ideas to get the message out there) about SPAY & NEUTER!!!!! The public, through ignorance and indifference, is a HUGE part of thepet overpopulation problem!!!! For people to bash a new GM is nuts-give the guy a chance to try to turn it around!! This is not going to happen overnight!!
TME is the bigfactor here!! The rescue community is so disjointed that in the end it is the animals we are all trying to help that are suffering and dying while all thehumans bicker!!!! DON'T BREED OR BUY WHILE SHELTER ANIMALS DIE!!!! ADOPT A HOMELESSPET!!!!
Ed:
Just a note to advise that I am going to submit a note to theCommissioners about Torrie Strawn's DAILY excellence, today being aperfect example. Much of the public's frustration with this department (while FAR fromthe only thing) is that there are far too few Torries and those that wehave have been historically held down...in fact, punished, for being-god forbid - a star.
Moreover, it's frustrating when people like torrie (and the few otherstars) are not elevated to training level authority....to stronglyinfluence who is deserving of jobs at LAAS. I could probably name adozen people who fit that category, and I imagine you know who they are, and that they have been historically held down and punished.
Torrie: thanks for everything today. You took an emergency situationand showed what stars can do.
Daniel Guss
FROM CRAIGS LIST:
Date: 2006-06-16, 9:52AM PDT
It is physically impossible to just stop the killing in LA instantly. The shelters and streets would fill up with animals quickly. Ed Boks has implemented many new and wonderful programs since he came to LA. Things are improving. He is the best General Manager we have ever had. Take a look at all the things he's done here in his reports:
http://www.laanimalservices.com/GMReports.htm
We've never had a GM who has written and posted reports about his progress. We've never had a GM be so honest about his numbers. We've never had a GM who was willing to talk to and work with the animal community. ADL asked to have a "competent, dedicated, educated, compassionate" GM. We have one, Ed Boks. Yes, the shelters are still full. Would you rather have the shelters empty and the freezers full?
He's giving the animals every chance he can. We just can't adopt our way out of this problem. We need to turn off the faucet. We need more spay/neuter. We need money for mores pay/neuter programs and spay/neuter education. A lot of the animals killed in May were kittens and puppies. Do you think the employees enjoy killing kittens and puppies? Of course not. If only ADL would use their money and efforts on spay/neuter, LA couldbecome lo-kill more quickly.
Attacking the Department, City, employees, volunteers, donors and commissioners will not make the City lo-kill. Those attacks actually kill more animals. If you're not part of the solution ADL, you are part of the problem. Just stoptheyelling and start helping. Re: LA NO KILL & LO KILL
Date: 2006-06-16, 10:55AM PDT
I totally agree with the person who posted this. I am a volunteer atSouth L.A. animal shelter. The staff and volunteers who work at that shelter are incredibly dedicated, caring and hardworking. They are the ones who put the work in for animals day in, day out, twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week. Anyone who posts on this board complaining and criticizing better haveFACTS and SOURCES to back up their whining, because I have seen with my own eyes how caring and hard-working the shelter people are.
You nitpickers and complainers ought to be ASHAMED of yourselves. I don't see you in the shelter cleaning up puppy vomit and talking topeople about alternatives to surrendering their pet. How about taking Spanish classes so you can at least communicate with half the people Who come into shelters.
Do you know how many people hate to give up their pets because their landlords found out, or they got evicted and have to find someplace to live and don't have the luxury of time and money to find housing thatwill accept their pet? Landlords are a HUGE reason people have to give up their pets. Howabout working with the city to get a law passed requiring a percentageof housing to allow pets? How about a law requiring all landlords to accept at least a cat? Come on, let's all support the new G.M. and all the shelter workers andwork together for the animals. Anything less is egoistic. RE: LA NO KILL/LO KILL
Date: 2006-06-16, 12:31PM PDT
Yes a large part of why there are SOOOOOO MANY animals in the shelter system is that we have a very large immigrant population who do not know or understand the importance of spaying and neutering their pets. The bottom line is without education and the ability to CONSTANTLY REINFORCE the importance of spay and neuter (economic asstistance etc), we will NEVER start to make progress!! We can't just throw up our armsand give up--- as a community we must figure out a plan and get going!!! I was in South LA shelter last night and "counseled" a sweet familyabout their new adoptee...right down to explaining the importance ofregistering their information with AVID etc.
They were so happy just tohave someone to help them and give them some information. The ACT wasSUPER sweet but they ARE SO BUSY and UNDERSTAFFED; I was just happy to help a family (I even gave them my phone # to call if they had questions or needed help). There are people out there that want to do the right thing (as well as the many who are not doing the right thing by their animals!!!). We all just need to get on the same page and help those that need toget on that page as well!!! LA & NO KILL or LO KILL
Date: 2006-06-16, 10:21AM PDT
Somehow all the name calling, finger pointing, personal agendas need tobe redirected to what we all really want---the progress towards a lowkill/no kill shelter system in LOS ANGELES!!!!
The fact that the cityspends $20.0 million euthanizing adoptable pets is mind boggling andhorrific!!!! Resources must be put towards Public Service Annoucements etc. (ideas to get the message out there) about SPAY & NEUTER!!!!! The public, through ignorance and indifference, is a HUGE part of thepet overpopulation problem!!!! For people to bash a new GM is nuts-give the guy a chance to try to turn it around!! This is not going to happen overnight!!
TME is the bigfactor here!! The rescue community is so disjointed that in the end it is the animals we are all trying to help that are suffering and dying while all thehumans bicker!!!! DON'T BREED OR BUY WHILE SHELTER ANIMALS DIE!!!! ADOPT A HOMELESSPET!!!!
Ed:
Just a note to advise that I am going to submit a note to theCommissioners about Torrie Strawn's DAILY excellence, today being aperfect example. Much of the public's frustration with this department (while FAR fromthe only thing) is that there are far too few Torries and those that wehave have been historically held down...in fact, punished, for being-god forbid - a star.
Moreover, it's frustrating when people like torrie (and the few otherstars) are not elevated to training level authority....to stronglyinfluence who is deserving of jobs at LAAS. I could probably name adozen people who fit that category, and I imagine you know who they are, and that they have been historically held down and punished.
Torrie: thanks for everything today. You took an emergency situationand showed what stars can do.
Daniel Guss
ADL Getting Desperate, Begins to Just Make Things Up
Regarding ADLLA’s latest post where they said:
So called "progressive" Los Angeles is MILES behind other cities in advertising our wonderful shelter animals to the residents of L.A. No creative newspaper ad's, no radio or TV advertisements--nothing--nada. This concept of rallying the residents of a city to embrace and participate in the fostering, bottle feeding, adopting and walking of animals at their local shelters should have been learned in the first week of Animal Sheltering 101. But LA's six animal Death Camps are NOT EVEN IN THE PROCESSION!
At the No Kill Solutions seminar last October, Nathan Winograd showed the audience the incredibly compelling, dramatic and humorous advertisements he had the Ithaca shelter implement in upstate New York, which resulted in residents flocking to the shelter to adopt.
But under the General Manager (Scammer) Ed Boks, there is nothing-nada-to be found. No enthusiastic and dedicated Assistant General Manager, no intelligent or compassionate head Veterinarian, no creative and energetic Public Relations Officer, not even basic public outreach.
Even the Salt Lake County Animal Services runs a "Pets of the Week" ad in its major newspapers. But Boks can't seem to get his nalgas in gear to place similar solicitations throughout Los Angeles. Guess he's too tied up drinking with his girlfriends at night and attending events to network. Boks spends more time then most politicians do going to cocktail parties, fund raisers and gala's, when he ought to be spending time working on basic common sense policies that would save the lives of animals.
You know the ADLLA is getting desperate when they have to start making stuff up just to get a post out.
To the best of my knowledge, the department has a cable TV show, has its animals advertised on the Beverly Hills cable show, stages and promotes/advertises multiple mobile adoptions every month, has staged the first of what will surely be more special weekend adoption events at specific shelters, brings several animals a month to City Council meetings so those animals and the whole adoption process gets promoted on Channel 35 to the people who watch those cablecasts and re-runs, they work with others to get LAAS animals covered via other animal-related TV shows (like the one that was taping at the Best Friends event this weekend) and for all I know they DO place ads (though I won't swear by it).
Is there a full-time public relations officer? Admittedly no, and there's a reason for that. The old one was loaned by Stuckey to the Personnel department when she complained of being harassed by the ADL, and she's still on the Animal Services payroll, refusing to quit and failing to find another job, either of which must happen before she can be removed from that payroll.
So, under City law, Animal Services can't even free up her salary to use for a replacement or for any other purposes.
Is there an AGM whose job it is to move animals out of the shelters? Not yet, and there's a good reason for that too. Boks created a new AGM position so that someone who will have the skills and talents to focus on those operational issues could be hired instead of a classic City bureaucratic type, but he couldn't advertise for the job until the City Council approved the position and funding for it. That approval was received toward the end of May and the position is now open to applicants and can be filled as soon after July 1 as the task of identifying the best candidate will permit.
Is there a new Chief Vet? No, because the position is still filled by the existing Chief Vet who is on official medical leave and cannot be dismissed until she's been in that situation for a year. Her medical leave is based on stress, stress partly induced by ADL pranks and threats against her at her private residence.
ADLLA actions and others who attack Boks and the LAAS ARE killing animals. I am continually amazed that the ADLLA just does not get it.
So called "progressive" Los Angeles is MILES behind other cities in advertising our wonderful shelter animals to the residents of L.A. No creative newspaper ad's, no radio or TV advertisements--nothing--nada. This concept of rallying the residents of a city to embrace and participate in the fostering, bottle feeding, adopting and walking of animals at their local shelters should have been learned in the first week of Animal Sheltering 101. But LA's six animal Death Camps are NOT EVEN IN THE PROCESSION!
At the No Kill Solutions seminar last October, Nathan Winograd showed the audience the incredibly compelling, dramatic and humorous advertisements he had the Ithaca shelter implement in upstate New York, which resulted in residents flocking to the shelter to adopt.
But under the General Manager (Scammer) Ed Boks, there is nothing-nada-to be found. No enthusiastic and dedicated Assistant General Manager, no intelligent or compassionate head Veterinarian, no creative and energetic Public Relations Officer, not even basic public outreach.
Even the Salt Lake County Animal Services runs a "Pets of the Week" ad in its major newspapers. But Boks can't seem to get his nalgas in gear to place similar solicitations throughout Los Angeles. Guess he's too tied up drinking with his girlfriends at night and attending events to network. Boks spends more time then most politicians do going to cocktail parties, fund raisers and gala's, when he ought to be spending time working on basic common sense policies that would save the lives of animals.
You know the ADLLA is getting desperate when they have to start making stuff up just to get a post out.
To the best of my knowledge, the department has a cable TV show, has its animals advertised on the Beverly Hills cable show, stages and promotes/advertises multiple mobile adoptions every month, has staged the first of what will surely be more special weekend adoption events at specific shelters, brings several animals a month to City Council meetings so those animals and the whole adoption process gets promoted on Channel 35 to the people who watch those cablecasts and re-runs, they work with others to get LAAS animals covered via other animal-related TV shows (like the one that was taping at the Best Friends event this weekend) and for all I know they DO place ads (though I won't swear by it).
Is there a full-time public relations officer? Admittedly no, and there's a reason for that. The old one was loaned by Stuckey to the Personnel department when she complained of being harassed by the ADL, and she's still on the Animal Services payroll, refusing to quit and failing to find another job, either of which must happen before she can be removed from that payroll.
So, under City law, Animal Services can't even free up her salary to use for a replacement or for any other purposes.
Is there an AGM whose job it is to move animals out of the shelters? Not yet, and there's a good reason for that too. Boks created a new AGM position so that someone who will have the skills and talents to focus on those operational issues could be hired instead of a classic City bureaucratic type, but he couldn't advertise for the job until the City Council approved the position and funding for it. That approval was received toward the end of May and the position is now open to applicants and can be filled as soon after July 1 as the task of identifying the best candidate will permit.
Is there a new Chief Vet? No, because the position is still filled by the existing Chief Vet who is on official medical leave and cannot be dismissed until she's been in that situation for a year. Her medical leave is based on stress, stress partly induced by ADL pranks and threats against her at her private residence.
ADLLA actions and others who attack Boks and the LAAS ARE killing animals. I am continually amazed that the ADLLA just does not get it.
Boks at this Weekend's Best Friends Event
While the ADL rants and just makes up stuff about Boks--which I called the big lie in the past, actual rescuers say this about Ed at this past weekend's Best Friends Event:
From craigslist:
No other General Manager I can remember ever participated in the Best Friends Event to the extent that Ed Boks did this Sunday.
In the past, the GM's usually showed up for an hour or so, greeted people and left. Ed, the new General Manager of LAAS, spent the entire day at the event and in the LAAS booth. He was available to hold animals and trouble shoot issues that came up. This is a large and complicated event for LAAS to carry off and in the past was often froth with problems.
His presence and consistent availability throughout the day helped make this the smoothest LAAS event I have ever participated in. He was available to assist with every issue that came up at a moments notice. Additionally, at previous BF events the bailing out process for rescues has been extremely chaotic. All the rescues I spoke to shared that at Sunday's event, the process was well organized and went very smoothly. Ed stood by his staff, volunteers (who camee in large numbers and were amazing) and animals and it made a huge difference.
Ed Boks, thank you for making a difficult and emotional day easier.
RE: Ed Boks At th Best Friends Event
Reply: I agree with you!!! I was totally impressed by him not only being there but he made it a point to talk to everyone. How great is that?? I know a lot of people have bashed him before he has been given a chance which is totally unfair!!
How will LA Animal Services EVER make any inroads to ANY problems if everyone can't at least put forth a united front and MOVE FORWARD and stop ALL of the personal agenda crap....whatever!!!
He was personable, concerned, helpful etc. He was there until IT was ALL finished-he didn't bail early on a beautiful day but stuck through the event to its end!!!! Give the guy a chance!!!! I don't see anybody else offering any alternatives!!!! Every "manager" working for the city should put forth such an effort!!!!!
Great job Mr. Boks!!!
I ask, would Stuckey have done this? Would Greenwalt have done this? We all know the real reasons that the ADL and their lackies are attacking Boks: getting their own people in charge and as employees so that they can experiment with methods from a No-Kill expert who will not be coming to LA to help them out as long as the character assassination war continues. Also, there is the unseen puppet master in the background, who knows of whom I speak, who might carry great weight to end this whole mess and should do it now.
They must also assume that the war they started and all the alienation and bickering created, will end the minute they get the GM they want. The nastiness they created will last a long, long time. their actions have divided and torn LAAS and the animal community as a whole and the animals pay through a legacy of death.
From craigslist:
No other General Manager I can remember ever participated in the Best Friends Event to the extent that Ed Boks did this Sunday.
In the past, the GM's usually showed up for an hour or so, greeted people and left. Ed, the new General Manager of LAAS, spent the entire day at the event and in the LAAS booth. He was available to hold animals and trouble shoot issues that came up. This is a large and complicated event for LAAS to carry off and in the past was often froth with problems.
His presence and consistent availability throughout the day helped make this the smoothest LAAS event I have ever participated in. He was available to assist with every issue that came up at a moments notice. Additionally, at previous BF events the bailing out process for rescues has been extremely chaotic. All the rescues I spoke to shared that at Sunday's event, the process was well organized and went very smoothly. Ed stood by his staff, volunteers (who camee in large numbers and were amazing) and animals and it made a huge difference.
Ed Boks, thank you for making a difficult and emotional day easier.
RE: Ed Boks At th Best Friends Event
Reply: I agree with you!!! I was totally impressed by him not only being there but he made it a point to talk to everyone. How great is that?? I know a lot of people have bashed him before he has been given a chance which is totally unfair!!
How will LA Animal Services EVER make any inroads to ANY problems if everyone can't at least put forth a united front and MOVE FORWARD and stop ALL of the personal agenda crap....whatever!!!
He was personable, concerned, helpful etc. He was there until IT was ALL finished-he didn't bail early on a beautiful day but stuck through the event to its end!!!! Give the guy a chance!!!! I don't see anybody else offering any alternatives!!!! Every "manager" working for the city should put forth such an effort!!!!!
Great job Mr. Boks!!!
I ask, would Stuckey have done this? Would Greenwalt have done this? We all know the real reasons that the ADL and their lackies are attacking Boks: getting their own people in charge and as employees so that they can experiment with methods from a No-Kill expert who will not be coming to LA to help them out as long as the character assassination war continues. Also, there is the unseen puppet master in the background, who knows of whom I speak, who might carry great weight to end this whole mess and should do it now.
They must also assume that the war they started and all the alienation and bickering created, will end the minute they get the GM they want. The nastiness they created will last a long, long time. their actions have divided and torn LAAS and the animal community as a whole and the animals pay through a legacy of death.
NYC Mayor and Animal Care Directors Sued
Look at what Boks walked into when he took over AC&C of NYC.
First, look at the lawsuit against the Mayor and Animal Care Directors, six months after Ed Boks left.
Second, look at the horrible 2002 Comptroller’s Audit of Care and Control that led to Ed Boks being brought to NYC.
NEWS RELEASE:
SHELTER REFORM ACTION COMMITTEE
P.O. Box 268 - Gracie Station
New York, NY 10028
visit our website: http://www.shelterreform.org/
F O R I M M E D I A T E R E L E A S E
Contact: Gary Kaskel 212-249-9178
MAYOR & ANIMAL CONTROL DIRECTORS
SUED OVER CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
Health Commissioner Accused of Double Dealing
June 1, 2006 -- A watchdog group that has followed the City’s animal management
policies for a decade has filed a lawsuit to remove the Mayor and three other city
officials, including the Health Commissioner, from controlling the board of directors of the nonprofit corporation that the City contracts to operate the animal shelters and perform animal control duties.
Animal Care & Control of NYC Inc. (AC&C) was formed by the Giuliani Administration in 1994 to replace the ASPCA which relinquished the municipal animal control contract after 100 years (1894-1994). Although AC&C was formed as a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit corporation, its critics claim that it operates as a city agency, with the Mayor appointing its board members along with three City commissioners as permanent members.
“This arrangement is fraught with conflicts of interest and loyalties, and ultimately it’s the animals who suffer as a result,” says Marie Mar, an attorney and co-chair of the Shelter Reform Action Committee (SRAC), which is the plaintiff in the lawsuit against the City and AC&C.
“New York City underfunds the animal management contract by provising less than half of what is recommended by humane professionals,” said Gary Kaskel, SRAC’s other cochair. “The City of Los Angeles spent $15 million (Muzika: Actually, more like $18,000,000.) last year when we spent only $7.2 million.” Kaskel adds.
ACC’s annual budget allocation is a line-item on the Department of Health & Mental
Hygiene’s budget and the contract renewal is not subject to City Council approval. “The chronic underfunding is allowed to happen because the NYC Health Department sits on both sides of the bargaining table at contract time with no oversight or accountability,” complains Kaskel. “There’s no money for proper vet care or medications or paying living wages for staff. It’s the animals who ultimately suffer,” says Kaskel.
ACC’s current contract expires at the end of June and the lawsuit seeks to invalidate
such contract, order a “fee for services” contract be awarded at proper funding levels, and remove the current board and the Mayor’s right to appoint its members.
(Muzika note: The background to all this is the truly horrendous 2002 Comptroller’s Audit of the Center for Animal Care and Control.)
http://www.comptroller.nyc.gov/bureaus/audit/02-06-06_ME01_109a.shtm
This is a very, very brief outline of what the audit's conclusions:
According to CACC’s Monthly Animal Activity Reports, during calendar year 2000 a total of 60,877 animals came into its shelters—55,376 cats and dogs, and 5,501 other animals. Of these 60,877 animals, 14,270 were adopted, 677 were returned to their owners, and 41,203 were euthanized. (Muzika’s note: that is an astounding euthanasia rate of 68%!)
Audit Limitations
(Muzika's note: Notice the auditors’ distain for CACC.)
Throughout the audit, CACC imposed obstacles that prevented us from conducting audit tests as we deemed necessary. CACC prevented us from obtaining a complete and accurate view of its operations and from obtaining all of the information necessary to develop a full set of constructive recommendations to help improve its operations.
The limitations imposed by CACC included its refusal to allow us to interview staff members without a supervisor being present, its refusal to allow us access to certain documents, and its delays in the production of some other records. In addition, it was very difficult to arrange a meeting with the board of directors, and only two members of the board eventually met with us. The audit limitations necessitate certain qualifications to our findings, described below.
Since we were unable to independently interview any employees, such as kennel attendants, veterinarians, veterinary technicians, and adoption counselors, who would have been able to give us direct, first-person observations of CACC’s actual daily operations, we could not obtain a full account of management problems, inaccuracies in the organization’s records, or possible misstatements of the organization’s policies and practices.
Because CACC denied us access to certain records that may have contained adverse information regarding the conditions at CACC shelters and the treatment of the animals kept there, and delayed our access to other records (providing the opportunity for the removal or alteration of records), our record review may not have uncovered the full extent of the problems of animal abuse and neglect, accidental euthanasia, and poor veterinary care described in this report.
In addition, since we could not interview all of the board members—who are ultimately responsible for overseeing CACC’s operations—we may have missed the opportunity to gain insight into the reasons for some of the problems CACC is facing.
Results In Brief
CACC does not provide humane conditions for all of the animals in its shelters and has not made aggressive efforts to increase adoptions of homeless animals. This report describes our findings in three main sections.
The first section, "Animals Are Not Always Sheltered under Humane Conditions," discusses the inadequacies discovered during our visits to the shelters, including that dogs are rarely, if ever, exercised, animals were not provided constant access to water, contagious animals were sometimes kept in the same wards as non-contagious animals, and at the two larger shelters, animals’ cages were not consistently spot-cleaned; evidence that animals in CACC shelters are sometimes subjected to abuse and neglect; the fact that some animals have been accidentally euthanized; and evidence of poor veterinary care in CACC shelters.
The second section, "CACC Has Not Made Aggressive Efforts to Increase Adoptions," presents recent CACC adoption statistics and discusses some of the likely reasons that adoption levels are low and have not improved over the last three years. These reasons include: limited public awareness of CACC and its adoption services and a lack of aggressive efforts by CACC to improve public awareness; inadequate use of off-site adoptions; inadequate efforts to ensure that the adoption process is encouraging to all potential adopters; CACC’s discouragement of some rescue groups that take animals from its shelters; the apparent inappropriate limitation of the pool of animals available for adoption; and a lack of adoption services at CACC’s Queens and Bronx facilities.
The third section of the report, "Possible Causes of CACC’s Shortcomings," discusses the fact that CACC compounds the problem of under-funding by failing to aggressively raise funds on its own and by failing to take sufficient advantage of volunteers. It also discusses a problem evidenced by CACC leadership apparently interpreting the organization’s mission more narrowly than it was originally conceptualized and failing to aggressively pursue some of the goals outlined in its mission statement, such as, "providing humane care for all New York City animals in need" and "reducing the number of homeless animals through increased adoption."
Lastly, under "Other Issues," we discuss the facts that: CACC’s board violated its bylaws by meeting and voting on certain items without the required quorom present; CACC’s board appears to have violated the letter and spirit of the Open Meetings Law by speaking at almost a whisper and thereby preventing attendees from hearing their discussions; and CACC’s contract with DOH does not include specific and measurable performance requirements or standards.
Many of the findings in this report are supported by the results of our surveys of individuals acquainted with CACC’s operations (former employees, customers, and individuals from rescue groups who work with CACC) in addition to our document reviews, observations, and interviews with CACC management.
In total, six of eight former employees, 36 of 59 rescuers, and 14 of 33 customers we surveyed criticized aspects of CACC’s operations and management. Their allegations and the results of our testing painted a similar picture—that of a shelter system in which: inadequate resources and staffing levels prevent the provision of some of the basic necessities for humane animal care; the frustrations of over-worked or unqualified employees are sometimes taken out on the animals; opportunities to help animals and increase adoptions are squandered; and, perhaps most notably, the status quo is perpetuated by a management that is not truly committed to all aspects of the organization’s contract and mission, namely, to provide high quality, humane, animal care and place as many animals as possible in adoptive homes.
Agency Response
In its response, DOH stated that it "disagrees with the report’s main findings: that animals are not sheltered under humane conditions and often receive poor veterinary care." However, DOH agreed with our adoption-related findings stating, "CACC has not been as successful as hoped in the area of increasing adoptions." DOH also agreed with our other findings, stating that its own on-site monitoring, which was expanded in July 2001, "to include a comprehensive review of all contractual requirements . . . has found deficiencies in CACC’s . . . customer service, volunteer program and education and outreach efforts." DOH also committed itself to increasing its site visits to four times a year, effective July 2002. DOH’s response is discussed in detail in the body of this report and is included in its entirety as an Addendum to this report.
DOH also appended a 28-page response from CACC to its own response. In its lengthy response, CACC took strong exception to nearly every aspect of the audit’s methodology and conclusions. Specifically, CACC alleged that:
"Many of the conclusions reached in this audit are not credible, as evidenced by: the antagonistic tone throughout the audit; the use of words and phrases of an inflammatory nature; the failure to use experts in areas requiring specialized knowledge; the slanting of the data presented; the inadequacy of the sample taken; the failure to make explicit the significant differences between CACC and the organizations with which it is compared in the audit; the failure to credit CACC’s significant accomplishments; and the use of anecdotal information from unnamed sources holding clear potential for bias against CACC."
Moreover, CACC alleged that there was "political influence in the audit process," claiming that the audit was "motivated by the political interest of [former Comptroller Alan Hevesi]." CACC further alleged that "the audit was conducted during the Mayoral campaign in which Alan Hevesi was a candidate who supported the special interest group’s call for the abolition of CACC." CACC’s executive director also stated, "CACC is surprised . . . that Comptroller William Thompson could be so ill served by his staff both in reporting and the issuance of this audit; one that was clearly motivated by the political interests of his predecessor."
In addition, CACC claimed that the audit was not conducted in accordance with GAGAS.
Specifically, CACC alleged that:
"The auditors established their own criteria for evaluating the performance of CACC ignoring technical standards for care . . . [The Comptroller’s Office] assigned auditors with no known skills or knowledge in the areas of humane animal care, veterinary medicine or labor law . . . samples were neither random or statistically significant . . . the subject audit is neither objective nor balanced . . . [auditors] failed to provide a reasonable perspective for the findings they recorded as they have repeatedly failed to provide the proper context for the frequency of occurrences . . . four different scopes suggest that the auditors knowingly ignored the Governmental Auditing Standards relating to audit planning and that CACC was not afforded proper due process."
The Comptroller’s Office, after carefully reviewing CACC’s response, has concluded that CACC’s arguments are invalid, that they are based upon distortions and misrepresentations, and that the audit’s findings should not be changed.
If you read the entirety of the lawsuit against Bloomberg, as well as the entirety of the 2002 audit, it is quite clear that anyone taking over CACC in 2003 would be in for a hard, if not impossible time. Imagine, having a budget less than half of LA's, yet with almost 20% more impounds AND walking into a minefield of competing political and financial interests.--Well, again, maybe not so different from LA.
First, look at the lawsuit against the Mayor and Animal Care Directors, six months after Ed Boks left.
Second, look at the horrible 2002 Comptroller’s Audit of Care and Control that led to Ed Boks being brought to NYC.
NEWS RELEASE:
SHELTER REFORM ACTION COMMITTEE
P.O. Box 268 - Gracie Station
New York, NY 10028
visit our website: http://www.shelterreform.org/
F O R I M M E D I A T E R E L E A S E
Contact: Gary Kaskel 212-249-9178
MAYOR & ANIMAL CONTROL DIRECTORS
SUED OVER CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
Health Commissioner Accused of Double Dealing
June 1, 2006 -- A watchdog group that has followed the City’s animal management
policies for a decade has filed a lawsuit to remove the Mayor and three other city
officials, including the Health Commissioner, from controlling the board of directors of the nonprofit corporation that the City contracts to operate the animal shelters and perform animal control duties.
Animal Care & Control of NYC Inc. (AC&C) was formed by the Giuliani Administration in 1994 to replace the ASPCA which relinquished the municipal animal control contract after 100 years (1894-1994). Although AC&C was formed as a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit corporation, its critics claim that it operates as a city agency, with the Mayor appointing its board members along with three City commissioners as permanent members.
“This arrangement is fraught with conflicts of interest and loyalties, and ultimately it’s the animals who suffer as a result,” says Marie Mar, an attorney and co-chair of the Shelter Reform Action Committee (SRAC), which is the plaintiff in the lawsuit against the City and AC&C.
“New York City underfunds the animal management contract by provising less than half of what is recommended by humane professionals,” said Gary Kaskel, SRAC’s other cochair. “The City of Los Angeles spent $15 million (Muzika: Actually, more like $18,000,000.) last year when we spent only $7.2 million.” Kaskel adds.
ACC’s annual budget allocation is a line-item on the Department of Health & Mental
Hygiene’s budget and the contract renewal is not subject to City Council approval. “The chronic underfunding is allowed to happen because the NYC Health Department sits on both sides of the bargaining table at contract time with no oversight or accountability,” complains Kaskel. “There’s no money for proper vet care or medications or paying living wages for staff. It’s the animals who ultimately suffer,” says Kaskel.
ACC’s current contract expires at the end of June and the lawsuit seeks to invalidate
such contract, order a “fee for services” contract be awarded at proper funding levels, and remove the current board and the Mayor’s right to appoint its members.
(Muzika note: The background to all this is the truly horrendous 2002 Comptroller’s Audit of the Center for Animal Care and Control.)
http://www.comptroller.nyc.gov/bureaus/audit/02-06-06_ME01_109a.shtm
This is a very, very brief outline of what the audit's conclusions:
According to CACC’s Monthly Animal Activity Reports, during calendar year 2000 a total of 60,877 animals came into its shelters—55,376 cats and dogs, and 5,501 other animals. Of these 60,877 animals, 14,270 were adopted, 677 were returned to their owners, and 41,203 were euthanized. (Muzika’s note: that is an astounding euthanasia rate of 68%!)
Audit Limitations
(Muzika's note: Notice the auditors’ distain for CACC.)
Throughout the audit, CACC imposed obstacles that prevented us from conducting audit tests as we deemed necessary. CACC prevented us from obtaining a complete and accurate view of its operations and from obtaining all of the information necessary to develop a full set of constructive recommendations to help improve its operations.
The limitations imposed by CACC included its refusal to allow us to interview staff members without a supervisor being present, its refusal to allow us access to certain documents, and its delays in the production of some other records. In addition, it was very difficult to arrange a meeting with the board of directors, and only two members of the board eventually met with us. The audit limitations necessitate certain qualifications to our findings, described below.
Since we were unable to independently interview any employees, such as kennel attendants, veterinarians, veterinary technicians, and adoption counselors, who would have been able to give us direct, first-person observations of CACC’s actual daily operations, we could not obtain a full account of management problems, inaccuracies in the organization’s records, or possible misstatements of the organization’s policies and practices.
Because CACC denied us access to certain records that may have contained adverse information regarding the conditions at CACC shelters and the treatment of the animals kept there, and delayed our access to other records (providing the opportunity for the removal or alteration of records), our record review may not have uncovered the full extent of the problems of animal abuse and neglect, accidental euthanasia, and poor veterinary care described in this report.
In addition, since we could not interview all of the board members—who are ultimately responsible for overseeing CACC’s operations—we may have missed the opportunity to gain insight into the reasons for some of the problems CACC is facing.
Results In Brief
CACC does not provide humane conditions for all of the animals in its shelters and has not made aggressive efforts to increase adoptions of homeless animals. This report describes our findings in three main sections.
The first section, "Animals Are Not Always Sheltered under Humane Conditions," discusses the inadequacies discovered during our visits to the shelters, including that dogs are rarely, if ever, exercised, animals were not provided constant access to water, contagious animals were sometimes kept in the same wards as non-contagious animals, and at the two larger shelters, animals’ cages were not consistently spot-cleaned; evidence that animals in CACC shelters are sometimes subjected to abuse and neglect; the fact that some animals have been accidentally euthanized; and evidence of poor veterinary care in CACC shelters.
The second section, "CACC Has Not Made Aggressive Efforts to Increase Adoptions," presents recent CACC adoption statistics and discusses some of the likely reasons that adoption levels are low and have not improved over the last three years. These reasons include: limited public awareness of CACC and its adoption services and a lack of aggressive efforts by CACC to improve public awareness; inadequate use of off-site adoptions; inadequate efforts to ensure that the adoption process is encouraging to all potential adopters; CACC’s discouragement of some rescue groups that take animals from its shelters; the apparent inappropriate limitation of the pool of animals available for adoption; and a lack of adoption services at CACC’s Queens and Bronx facilities.
The third section of the report, "Possible Causes of CACC’s Shortcomings," discusses the fact that CACC compounds the problem of under-funding by failing to aggressively raise funds on its own and by failing to take sufficient advantage of volunteers. It also discusses a problem evidenced by CACC leadership apparently interpreting the organization’s mission more narrowly than it was originally conceptualized and failing to aggressively pursue some of the goals outlined in its mission statement, such as, "providing humane care for all New York City animals in need" and "reducing the number of homeless animals through increased adoption."
Lastly, under "Other Issues," we discuss the facts that: CACC’s board violated its bylaws by meeting and voting on certain items without the required quorom present; CACC’s board appears to have violated the letter and spirit of the Open Meetings Law by speaking at almost a whisper and thereby preventing attendees from hearing their discussions; and CACC’s contract with DOH does not include specific and measurable performance requirements or standards.
Many of the findings in this report are supported by the results of our surveys of individuals acquainted with CACC’s operations (former employees, customers, and individuals from rescue groups who work with CACC) in addition to our document reviews, observations, and interviews with CACC management.
In total, six of eight former employees, 36 of 59 rescuers, and 14 of 33 customers we surveyed criticized aspects of CACC’s operations and management. Their allegations and the results of our testing painted a similar picture—that of a shelter system in which: inadequate resources and staffing levels prevent the provision of some of the basic necessities for humane animal care; the frustrations of over-worked or unqualified employees are sometimes taken out on the animals; opportunities to help animals and increase adoptions are squandered; and, perhaps most notably, the status quo is perpetuated by a management that is not truly committed to all aspects of the organization’s contract and mission, namely, to provide high quality, humane, animal care and place as many animals as possible in adoptive homes.
Agency Response
In its response, DOH stated that it "disagrees with the report’s main findings: that animals are not sheltered under humane conditions and often receive poor veterinary care." However, DOH agreed with our adoption-related findings stating, "CACC has not been as successful as hoped in the area of increasing adoptions." DOH also agreed with our other findings, stating that its own on-site monitoring, which was expanded in July 2001, "to include a comprehensive review of all contractual requirements . . . has found deficiencies in CACC’s . . . customer service, volunteer program and education and outreach efforts." DOH also committed itself to increasing its site visits to four times a year, effective July 2002. DOH’s response is discussed in detail in the body of this report and is included in its entirety as an Addendum to this report.
DOH also appended a 28-page response from CACC to its own response. In its lengthy response, CACC took strong exception to nearly every aspect of the audit’s methodology and conclusions. Specifically, CACC alleged that:
"Many of the conclusions reached in this audit are not credible, as evidenced by: the antagonistic tone throughout the audit; the use of words and phrases of an inflammatory nature; the failure to use experts in areas requiring specialized knowledge; the slanting of the data presented; the inadequacy of the sample taken; the failure to make explicit the significant differences between CACC and the organizations with which it is compared in the audit; the failure to credit CACC’s significant accomplishments; and the use of anecdotal information from unnamed sources holding clear potential for bias against CACC."
Moreover, CACC alleged that there was "political influence in the audit process," claiming that the audit was "motivated by the political interest of [former Comptroller Alan Hevesi]." CACC further alleged that "the audit was conducted during the Mayoral campaign in which Alan Hevesi was a candidate who supported the special interest group’s call for the abolition of CACC." CACC’s executive director also stated, "CACC is surprised . . . that Comptroller William Thompson could be so ill served by his staff both in reporting and the issuance of this audit; one that was clearly motivated by the political interests of his predecessor."
In addition, CACC claimed that the audit was not conducted in accordance with GAGAS.
Specifically, CACC alleged that:
"The auditors established their own criteria for evaluating the performance of CACC ignoring technical standards for care . . . [The Comptroller’s Office] assigned auditors with no known skills or knowledge in the areas of humane animal care, veterinary medicine or labor law . . . samples were neither random or statistically significant . . . the subject audit is neither objective nor balanced . . . [auditors] failed to provide a reasonable perspective for the findings they recorded as they have repeatedly failed to provide the proper context for the frequency of occurrences . . . four different scopes suggest that the auditors knowingly ignored the Governmental Auditing Standards relating to audit planning and that CACC was not afforded proper due process."
The Comptroller’s Office, after carefully reviewing CACC’s response, has concluded that CACC’s arguments are invalid, that they are based upon distortions and misrepresentations, and that the audit’s findings should not be changed.
If you read the entirety of the lawsuit against Bloomberg, as well as the entirety of the 2002 audit, it is quite clear that anyone taking over CACC in 2003 would be in for a hard, if not impossible time. Imagine, having a budget less than half of LA's, yet with almost 20% more impounds AND walking into a minefield of competing political and financial interests.--Well, again, maybe not so different from LA.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)