I might have to be doing some apologizing

I had promised to back off from the Mason case if he were allowed to get his cats back and place them himself, or at least choose what organizations could adopt out his cats. Cocek sent a memo to this effect to Dov Lesel.

Ron said Boswell told him he could choose who could adopt the cats.

Then Ron was told at the front desk of the West Valley shelter that he could only adopt the cats to New Hope partners. He asked for a list, but the woman there refused to give him one. How the hell can you beat that logic?

I went ballistic.

However--I am trying to find this out--this may have been the decision of that single employee to refuse Mason disposition of the cats, not Boswell, not Boks, and ceratinly not Cocek. I have dealt with this individual before, and she is one of the least helpful people I ever met and certainly should not be at the front desk of any shelter. I am not the first to notice this because she wears her I.D. badge on her back, not in front so that people can read her name.

I'll find out more tomorrow.

If it turns out it was not Boswell's or Boks' decision to deny Ron Mason final disposition of the cats, I will shut up and I will also apologize repeatedly.


Anonymous said...

No matter how rude this woman is (and there's a guy at West L.A. who I bet could beat her - he's so rude I think he might actually be a bit crazy, and management there knows all about him...) the fact is if Boks, Boswell, etc. didn't make it clear to ALL staff, after all this, that Ron can deal with his cats, that's again an issue of bad management. Unless Boks and Boswell were planning to start manning the front desk themselves, a major part of getting things done properly is informing your staff of what needs to be done.

And putting aside for a second that if this woman is that rude she should have been fired long ago (another management issue) how easy is it for Boks and Boswell to say "Gee, it's not our fault, it's the fault of a single employee..."?

Ed, please save your apologies until Boks and Boswell (and the union, and everyone else who props ups this godawful LAAS infrastructure) are actually not at fault. Bad employees ARE their fault.

Anonymous said...

I find that you get back in life what you give. Have you given thought that you were giving this poor employee crap, an employee who has nothing to do with the decisions. Going "ballistic" on an employee of any business is wrong. Going ballistic on the boss however is another story. This woman is a victim just like the animals there. I have never experienced rude employees in shelters because I treat them with respect and that is returned. I say you need to apologize and also to all your readers who have tried to tell you about this no kill crap. You have called these people everything but white because they tried to educate you about no kill. You are seeing now that your readers were right but if anyone is rude, Ed, it is definitely you.

Anonymous said...

At first I thought commenter #2 was either extremely lucky or oblivious when s/he claimed not to have experienced rude treatment at a shelter. Either that or they weren't in a City shelter more than once (which s/he had better hope, what with shelter regulars' personal & banking information being distributed on street corners in West L.A. and Van Nuys).

But again, it's just an opponent of no-kill, with a not-very-clever attack on the concept of trying not to kill animals unnecessarily.

I really don't see what is driving the knee-jerk anti-no-kill people. What is so offensive to you about doing everything humanly, and humanely, possible not to kill animals?

This isn't about whether or not it's workable in the real world. It's not about what the actual hurdles are in achieving, or achieving progress towards no-kill. When someone calls it "no kill crap" they tell me that they have an active, energizing hostility towards the CONCEPT, and this I just don't get.

If you said, "We've tried, but x, y and z factors made it ultimately too hard on the animal population we were trying to save." I could understand that. I might want to try other options, but I would respect that you had the lives of the animals at heart.

But someone who twists the a completely unrelated post back to the CONCEPT of no-kill, only to dismiss it in three words: "no-kill crap," is someone who has something driving him/her that has nothing to do with the welfare of the animals.

I don't know why you're here, but I do know that you don't have the best interests of the animals at heart. Is it personal animus towrds Ed M.? Winograd? Do you think your hatred is going to persuade anyone?

Whatever you're doing, you're not good at it. All you're doing is venting very visible hate. So you'd better hope you DON'T "get back in life what you give." Not that I believe anything in your post was true except "no kill crap." That's all we need to know about you.

Anonymous said...

To respond to boks=death, this "anti no kill" person had a no kill sanctuary in the 60's, long before the rest of you got involved. You walk into a shelter with an attitude and you get an attitude back, simple. I don't do that and I get great service. I have stood there and watched this attitude so many times from the religious no kill people. It sucks. You put the blame and your hostilities on the wrong people, the problems don't lie with animal control, it lies with the elected officials that make the budgets. When was the last time you went to a budget meeting? That is why we can't move along because people like you continue to focus on the wrong things. You think we work our tails off everyday for 50 years so animals can continue to be euthanized at the shelters???? The entire movement would be much further ahead than it is if people like you would realize where to put your efforts and stop calling anyone who disagrees with you either anti no kill or working for animal control. This is the biggest problem we have in the movement. In other words, we are our own worst enemy by condemning each other because we think differently. I call no kill crap because that is exactly what it is as it is being presented by the likes of Boks and Winograd.

Anonymous said...

Great comment, #4. Treating people with respect often gets respect in return.