Boks vs. Winograd--a Proposal

.
Ed Boks placed a shot across the bow of generic no-kill movement gurus a, b, and c, which in my opinion refers to Nathan Winograd. Boks states these gurus have never proved that they have ever turned any shelter system they consulted with into N0-Kill. Of course, Nathan has been sniping at Boks for a year, so turn-around is fair play..

Yes, until Nathan is as transparent with his statistics since 2002 as has been Boks, we cannot judge the relative success of either. The statistics of his Philadelphia experiment would be crucial to an objective assessment as Philly is a large municipal shelter system.

I believe Boks is wrong in stating Winograd is not a real guru because he has never run a large shelter system and is only a consultant. He further snipes at Winograd because Nathan charges a “hefty consultation fee.” This accusation does not make sense as Boks himself is receiving a hefty salary for running LAAS. Why should Nathan not be allowed to make a living?

Yes Winograd turned down Villaraigosa’s offer of the GM spot. He also never submitted a consultation plan or fee proposal. Therefore, he appeared uninterested in the position and Villaraigosa appointed Boks. I also believe a large part of Winogard’s reluctance to take the job was the red tape and civil service-loaded personnel problems which are short-term, near insurmountable.

Whether Nathan is waiting in the wings or not, I don’t know, but he would be very reluctant to do anything in LA for fear of ADL turning on him as they have on everyone else. He told me he was horrified by the mutual assured destruction tactics of the various pro and anti Boks groups in LA. He said the various factions were worse than Republicans in their tactics.

I am also sure that ADL would attack Winograd at some point unless he were only a short-term consultant training Knaan to take Boks’ place. (Then they would attack Knaan six months later.)

Boks again snipes at Winograd asking why the latter has never publicly offered to help. This rhetorical question is disingenuous as I doubt Boks would accept his help anyway, unless Nathan did not charge for the consult and only reported his findings to Ed.

One commissioner and others have stated LAAS has, or is about to implement all of the programs Winograd has suggested in his seminars and journal. This may or not be true. I asked ADL to submit a list regarding Winograd’s suggested programs so that I could do a free comparison with the current and proposed LAAS programs. They never bothered to respond. I asked for the same info from Boks, he also failed to respond. Why does each side resist a comparison?

Not only is it necessary to list and compare programs, but each has to be evaluated for success or failure. ADL just mocks Boks but cannot prove or disprove the results of the LAAS. Nathan has never revealed—so far as I know—even the success or failure of individual programs in Tompkins County let alone Philadelphia. He reveals goods stats of Tompkins County, but not of which programs prodiced what results. Boks does list stats such as for fosters and New Hope as well as now stats for unweaned animals.

I do not think Winograd should be brought in as a consultant to Boks or LAAS. The collision of egos would be an 8.6 ego-quake that might destroy all of Los Angeles by having it slide into the ocean.

As I stated before, I thought Nathan should be brought in to head an expanded private effort—a separate, well-funded private shelter so that he and Boks can pretend to work together, but which would also add a vast marketing outlet for homeless animals. Everywhere Winograd is accepted by animal activists as a no-kill guru. Therefore, were he to come here, at least for a while, there would be an unprecedented private/public cooperative effort such as that which made San Francisco the no-kill leader in the country.

Instead, I now suggest that Nathan be brought in to be the CEO of Gary Michelson’s Found Animals Friends Foundation, which is dedicated to making Los Angeles No-Kill and would give Nathan approximately the same salary as Boks so that neither can bitch. Maybe Michelson could offer Winograd $1 more than Ed makes.

About the position:

FAF is striving to reduce the number of homeless animals and the number of animals killed in shelters each year. FAF is already considered by the city government to be an important participant in animal welfare issues. The Executive Director will interact with policy makers on various animal related matters including best practices with respect to the following issues: overpopulation of companion animals; low licensing rates; funding of animal related services (both public and private); spay and neuter; the problem of backyard breeding; and the problem of puppy mills and other breeder related issues. The FAF goal is to become a national model of the no-kill and TNR (trap/neuter/return) approaches to the urban animal problems with results that are not only humane but also fiscally wise. The organization is well funded for the near future but expects to become a self-sustaining organization through fee-for-service programs, corporate partnerships, and other opportunities.

The Position: Executive Director. FAF is looking to identify a vibrant and dedicated person to develop and launch the program in Los Angeles and personally build the organization nationwide. This is an ideal position for a self-starter with financial and operations management abilities and a desire to make a difference in the animal welfare community. The application deadline is February 7 and the salary is between $130-180,000 a year.

Contact (Liz Fanning): lfanning@harrisrand.com

What more can Los Angeles ask for? Boks and Winograd, forced to work together; imagine. If they succeed together, both will be heroes; if they fail together, both will be boobs. If Winograd does not apply for this position, which would give him a national and well-funded platform for his N0-Kill Nation movement, I would want to know the reason why. Effectively he would be a national spokesperson for no-kill and would not need head any shelter.