It was alleged that in 2005, the then West Valley ACO, Stacy Dancy, gave Pierce College a heads up about animal neglect complaints involving Pierce farm animals. Purportedly this resulted in the sale to slaughter of the animals in question the day before there was to be an inspection by the LA Animal Cruelty Task Force.
The story is that Dancy, even while a student at Pierce, was running a for-profit farm business on the campus, involving her cows and may still continue.
Therefore, it appears that an Animal Services employee was moonlighting with her own private business on a community college campus, i.e., a state agency, and while so doing, gave Pierce faculty knowledge of animal neglect complaints against the College, and allegedly also informed them there was to be an inspection by the LA Animal Cruelty Task Force.
This sounds like a straightforward obstruction of justice problem as well as a tricky legal problem of an allegedly moonlighting employee using a state agency's premises to conduct a for-profit business called a "student animal project."
This letter was sent to me. It was written by Dick South, head of Pierce's Agricultural program and directed to Dean Rupert.
It states there was now a moratorium on "Student Animal Projects," which does appear to be a euphemism for private, for-profit animal businesses. Notice, the letter states that Stacy's and Sam's "projects" would not be affected by the moratorium.
That is, Dancy was allegedly running a for-profit business at Pierce even before 2003. Does this business arrangement continue even today? Has she been a "student" at a community collge for six or more years?
Click on letter to enlarge
Dick South cites the reason for the moratorium is complaints that the animals were being neglected; that is, no one was paying any attention to them, which is exactly what the http://www.piercefarmwatch.com/ website alleges continues today.
Has nothing changed? Can we expect the ACTF to bust another "hoarder" rather than conduct a surprise inspection at Pierce? Of course, it really wouldn't be a surprise, would it?
The story sent to me by commenters and included in several posts below, is that many, many LAAS and ACTF employees were aware of the complaints of neglect of the animals and of a planned ACTF that came 9 days late with the full knowledge of those employees.
Click to enlarge
The second document is an accounting statement dated May 31, 2005, two years and three months after South's moratorium letter, which states apparently $5,600 worth of cows were sold (although it does not say cow sales), and that the college received $1,980 during the first five months of 2005 for boarding cows. Is this still Stacy?
All of these legal issues are interesting, enough so that the whole story was run before an attorney at the City Attorney's Office. We'll see what happens. I was told by this person I should ask Boks directly if he intends to run an investigation.
Well, Ed, are you?