Someone said regarding Boks that if and when he goes, his replacement may be worse. That is, beware of what you wish for.
So far, despite my warnings, the animal community has not developed a strategy for finding a new GM who may or may not be better. New York has gone so far as to pick someone with no shelter experience and lots of management experience. Hahn picked Stuckey who also had management but no shelter experience. He did better than Boks in terms of lowering the euthanasia rate, but we bumped him with a united opposition and got Boks.
Do we want to do this again?
I have suggested getting the mayor to form a search committee comprised of several well-known shelter directors and maybe Winograd to help select a replacement through some sort of mayor-accepted group after Boks is booted. However, Hahn did exactly this through his non-transparent Berstein-led selection committee. We got Stuckey. ADL got rid of Greenwalt and we got Stuckey. Again ADL led the opposition against him and we got Boks.
Damn it, we have to open a serious discussion about finding a replacement or at least a replacement strategy or else we may get someone worse. If we don't have something to offer the mayor in this regard, he would not know what to do either--you leave him facing a lose-lose situation, and a win--possibly lose situation for us with no clear path for a solution.
As one reporter I know asked,"Can anyone do the job?" We have made it clear we have opposed all of the last four GMs. Can any prospect think this will not happen to them? Who would accept such a job except for a passionate local?
But there may be some outsider who is capable and willing to come. I understand Carl Friedman of the San Francisco municipal shelter system is retiring next June. He wants to go back to NYC for a period of retirement and then he said his options are open. However, he did suggest that the Animal Services' Commission should have a lead role, and this makes sense even though many of us oppose all the Commissioners.
Then there is someone like Tara Derby who has made great strides towards bringing Philadelphia to no-kill in 2-1/2 years, going from 85% kill to 60% save. Philly has a union, but no civil service because it is not a government agency, it is a private non-profit. She thinks this is not an insurmountable obstacle to getting to no-kill.
Boks has been bad-mouthing both these people to the press and the mayor's office to head off this solution. Who does the press and mayor believe, Boks or us? The mayor has rejected us as a source for information or help for him to do anything.
So far Boks is one or two steps ahead of us because he has the mayor's ear and support.
My feeling is, and my hunch is that if Boks goes, we might get someone much worse in terms of being able to make LAAS work.
If this is the case, what is the point of opposing Boks?
Give me something to work with and we can start a discussion. If you are not willing to do this, I think we are lost, and the status quo is the only solution. You--YOU--cannot leave it up to Villaraigosa to make a decision if he thinks that whomever he picks will not get the same sort of reception from us as we gave to Stuckey and Boks unless that person obtains some immediate success. Even then, the most successful GM will still have snipers in the department and union itself as well as vocal locals who oppose one dog or cat who was unnecessarily killed and it becomes a cause for them. Now Villaraigosa thinks no matter whom he selects there will be no peace and no help to his electability. What options are we giving him? What clear path can we offer him? So far none--we have only given him problems.