Previously I said Ed would not be able to produce the four sets of numbers supposedly supplied from County, the first three of which showed LAAS ahead of County, until a fourth set was received with an extra 6,000 animals placed. Boks supposedly "quickly dismissed" these numbers as having no basis in fact.
Marcia Mayeda says there was no correspondence. Boks now says there was no correspondence, just County numbers from an unidentified County employee over the phone.
How convenient. Four sets of numbers over three years? Mayeda gave three years of numbers and County came out ahead in each.
Thiis LAAS's reply to Brad Jensen's request for records:
--------------------------A response was received by LA City on Friday, September 21, 2007. Whether your announcement that LA County had responded to your request the day before had anything to do with it is up for interpretation.
The City responds by saying there is no written correspondence between City and County Animal Services regarding this issue; however the City had several phone conversations with the custodian of records on staff at County.
So apparently, neither agency is going to give up any documented proof that four sets of adoption numbers were ever provided to the City without someone specifically asking for what may or may not exist. Could be just some numbers scribbled on a sticky note for all anyone knows.
So... Lacking any credible documentation to substantiate the City's claim that four sets of increasing adoption numbers were provided by County I feel the City's claims should be dismissed as quickly as Boks has dismissed County claims they place more animals than City.
The next step is to identify the County's Custodian of Records for Animal Services to hear his denial of any such conversations. As you will note, Boks did not identify the mysterious employee who is the Custodian since Bollinger left.