Ed Needs a Lie Detector

From Ed Boks blog:

“267 dogs and 273 cats were euthanized in March 2007. 25% of the cats were orphaned neonate kittens (68). Thanks to LA Animal Services' Baby Bottle Foster Parents and many New Hope Partners 204 neonates were safely placed in loving homes in March 2007 and were spared euthanasia. (Orphaned neonates are kittens too young to survive on their own and require round the clock foster care until they are weaned at eight weeks of age.)”

What does this paragraph say to you? LAAS paced 204 neonate kittens through rescues and bottle feeding fosters in March?

Ed was talking “orphaned neonate kittens,” in the second sentence, and “orphaned neonate kittens” in the last sentence. Since the whole article was about killing thousands of kittens, the context of everything would point to his saying 204 neonate kittens were placed in homes.

Here is what Carla Hall, LA Times reporter wrote:

“The foster program helps, but it has not stopped the killing of kittens. Even as L.A. Animal Services touted a dramatically low euthanasia rate for March, the city put down 68 orphaned kittens. The agency did, however, place 204 neonatal kittens in foster homes.”

As pointed out in my earlier post, 96 New Hope rescues and 37 fosters = 133 placed. Add 6 unmentioned adoptions, and we get 139.

After Carla Hall questioned Ed about the discrepancy, he said what he meant as opposed to what he told her and what he posted in his blog:

267 dogs and 273 cats were euthanized in March 2007. 25% of the cats were orphaned neonate kittens (68). Thanks to LA Animal Services' Baby Bottle Foster Parents and many New Hope Partners 204 neonates were safely placed in loving homes in March 2007 and were spared euthanasia. (Orphaned neonates are kittens too young to survive on their own and require round the clock foster care until they are weaned at eight weeks of age.)

Here is the retraction the LA Times ran today:

FOR THE RECORD:Shelter kittens: An article in Thursday's California section about kittens in Los Angeles city and county animal shelters said L.A. Animal Services had placed 204 neonatal kittens in foster homes in March. The actual number placed outside city shelters was 139. —

A commentor to a previous post suggested that Boks misled the public and reporter Hall to make it appear that LAAS was placing 3 times as many kittens as they were killing, instead of twice as many.

Someone in the Mayor’s office who had warned Ed about the poster in the Hooter’s event, told me that Ed said, “Go ahead with the poster; it is easier to ask for forgiveness than for permission.”

These two examples reveal a person whose fundamental nature is to deceive and who only requires truth from his detractors. As a matter of fact, I have seen many employees in government bureaucracies who are like this, they lie not because they have to, but because it is convenient and prevents trouble for them.

This brings up issues ADL and others have raised, such as:

1. Did Boks say on his application for the LAAS GM position that he had a B.A?
2. Was he fired after all from NYC?
3. Was he forced to leave town in Phoenix in “a hurry?” (I have heard this from many sources at very high levels outside of LA.)
4. Did he lie (YES) when he denied that he supplied the LA Animal Lover blogger and I with insider information in order to counteract what he called false charges leveled by ADL, Dan Guss and others? Was much of the information he gave us a “spin” on the truth such as neonates?
5. Is Boks now lying and saying that former supporters who are now critics, just jilted lovers with an axe to grind? I think this might be labeled slander if true and something to be tacked onto a potential lawsuit.
6. Is he lying when he denied sending porno emails to female rescuers?
7.Was he lying to me when he said he worked 18 hour days, or did he “really” mean he was conscious for 18 hours a day?
8. Was he lying to me when he said LAAS would be doing 120,000 spay/neuters a year? (Of course, he could have meant during 2045 A.D.)
9. Was he lying when he said he'd present his 2006 annual report to the Commissioners during April? 10.Did Villaraigosa really offer Winograd an opportunity to consult with LAAS before Boks started?

Last, but not least, was he lying when he said:

"LA made a great leap towards No-Kill in 2006," and, "March was a No-Kill month."



Anonymous said...

Yes, I took it the same way when I read it. He should have said puppies and kittens. It is deceiving, could be an honest mistake, but I doubt it.

Anonymous said...

Great post. You now know the real Ed Boks. If only the Mayor knew this before he hired him. Could have spared everyone a lot of grief. Could have spared a lot of animals their lives.

Here's another lie. Boks said that a certain boistrous male detractor is just a scorned wanna-be gay lover. He also said that this man wanted a job. Total BS. This man is not gay. He did not make a homosexual advance on Boks. Boks offered him a job, repeatedly, even though there was no position available. Later Boks had to admit there was no job.

Boks offers people things when he has no intention of following through. He thinks he can win friends this way. All he ends up doing is making enemies. He has no people skills.

Anonymous said...

Yes, he was lying, and still is lying. Once a liar, always a liar.

Anonymous said...

All of these lies are intended to deceive, which is a major character flaw. The decisions made reflect very bad judgment. As well as a lack of regard for, and a commitment to, doing what is right. He demonstrates through his actions and his blatant arrogance that he believes he is above following the rules. He has no respect for others or he would not lie to us. He seems to hold true to his motto: "...it is easier to ask for forgiveness than for permission.” And uses this m.o. as a premeditated safety net in his own mind. Telling lies that are not necessary and the inability to keep up with all the lies is standard for the profile. These character flaws obviously strongly effect his ability to do his job. All this, coupled with the lack of performance. It's unacceptable and offensive.

Then, he has the audacity to demean those that don't approve of his misconduct in his job, his lack of job performance, as well as his lack of a successful track history, as anything ranging from "jezebels scorned" to "terrorist," using the m.o. - "Offense is the best defense."

Animals are dying while he's using LAAS as his personal playground. To me, it doesn't matter if you're a former girlfriend, an activist, etc. What matters is this: Is your mission rightful for the animals and are you committed to it? Notice that despite all the differences, none of his critics have done anything as terrible to each other as his betrayal to each of them and to the animals. He pits people and groups against each other, fuels the fire and depends on conflict and differences amongst the various groups to distract and hinder progress, to cloud the watchful eyes, and to serve as his weak defense for wrongdoings. This is another form of manipulation.

Whereas, the points being made about the lies, the poor job performance, the lack of a successful track record and too much killing are SHARED. The objective of saving the animals from being needlessly killed is mutually agreed upon amongst various individuals and groups. There's something very positive to be said for those that can look beyond their differences in pursuit of a mutual goal for the betterment of the animals.

Clearly, the consensus is that this GM has demonstrated that he is unethical and is not what is best for the animals. This is not what any of us wanted.

Anonymous said...

We don't need a lie detector for Boks. If his lips are moving, he's lying

Anonymous said...

Boks trashes anyone who doesn't agree with him, doesn't support him or questions him.

He calls his employees "lazy idiots." He blames his failure on them. He says rescuers are "part of the problem" yet to their faces he tells them they're a "godsend to the animals." He calls some activists who support him, his friend, ones that don't are "terrorists." He calls one ex-girlfriend in New York a "scorned ex" because she said some negative yet truthful things to people about him. (not the nice Dr., someone else). She calls other local LA women nasty things if they didn't want to date him and don't support him any more. That guy is all over the place. He is friend to no one, especially himself. This is why he has to go from city to city. People find out what he's really about then he's pushed out.