Since it is a big deal, I’d like to ask a few more questions about the Western University partnership. When I envisioned a partnership with a vet school, I had in mind a partnership of LA’s vet staff with an externaship/research institution, not a total abandonment of an in-house staff.
Before we even consider this partnership, we need to do a cost-benefit analysis.
How much would it cost to hire ten new vets , outfit their offices, and provide medical supplies and surgeries? If we don’t know that, how can we even talk about a partnership where the school is going to run everything?
Will the school provide 10 FTE services? How much will that cost vs. LAAS doing it themselves? Who is going to pay for the infrastructure, how much is budgeted now for LAAS vet services, and how much will Western charge?
Unless we know this, it is like building a huge condo complex without an EIR and an admission that LAAS can’t do it themselves-which they probably can’t. This relieves Boks of both responsibilities and accountability.
Regarding Boks No-Kill March, he killed 540 cats and dogs, but also another 135 other animals, for an 18% kill rate with respect to that month's impounded numbers, which is lower than SF’s yearly average.
But Boks is bumping the figures up be juggling the animals for a good March month, which he can announce before his three-month-late 2006 report. Adoptions are down as well as euthanasias, meaning the shelters are crowded. There are over 800 dogs in the shelters and the in-shelter deaths are three times what they were last year. The 18% figure is not sustainable. March is a slow month, wait until May, when his numbers turned South big-time last year.
On January 6 next year, he'll issue another No-Kill December report announcing a decreased euthanasia rate of -12%--saving animals that were not even impounded. There will be no annual report.
Why couldn't Boks admit from the beginning that LAAS and he had major problems and humbly ask for help? Now is too late; everyone has branded him as truth challenged in every way, taking personal credit for anything positive coming out of LAAS, and denying facts like not having taken even a small step to No-Kill in 2006.
Boks told me to admit to any problem was to play into ADL’s hands, but being obsessed by what they, and other said about him, robbed him of credibility and many animals of their lives. During March through June, Boks must have spent 40% of his time defending himself against ADL, 40% chasing women, and 20% running the shelters. If he had spent 50% of his time in, analyzing and managing the shelters, his numbers MIGHT have been much better, and much of the animal community might still be behind him.
But he blew it. I can’t imagine he has any support outside of Phyllis and the media until they catch him in his ever more grandiose lies.