Jeff de la Rosa Has a New LAAS Blog

I welcome Jeff''s new blog:

I hope uncovers much needed information.

The problem with ALL outsider blogs is none of us has the real insider information.

Yes, we may have highly reliable confidential informants for a time, but a lot of what we do is speculate based on bits of information correlated with other bits, etc., and usually no way to get consistent insider information, and if we do, how relevant is it to beget beneficial change?

More power to you Jeff.

What we need is for Jim Bickhart to start an anonymous blog tp put out real positive info about LAAS, Villaraigosa, the ACTF, as well as "speculations" about other things going on.

We'd like info about, for example, how the environmentalist's lawsuit requiring a CEQA study of TNR has impacted Boks' TNR initiative.

I'd like to hear what info the City has been able to gather about TNR over its 2 years of study. Anything?

Jim, either you or one of your staffers please start a new anonymous blog so we can get some real insider info--or disinformation to counteract my "speculations."


Anonymous said...

But Jim is so busy posting dis-information on this blog - how will he ever find the time???

Anonymous said...

The lawsuit against the Dept has not affected Boks' TNR programs. He's still giving free feral cat vouchers for spay surgery. He's still telling the public to TNR their unwanted cats instead of dumping them. He's still giving cats to New Hope partners who are placing the cats in colonies.

Ed Muzika said...

The lawsuit was to prevent an offical citywide TNR policy WITHIUT a CEQA study. It was not meant to suppress all sterilizations, destroy colonies or punish rescue groups.

To end even informal TNR would be fooolishness of the highest level.

Jeff de la Rosa said...

Thank you, Ed. You are too kind.
To clarify--although I have written many posts on BoardWatch. It is not my blog. There are others who contribute. Our focus is the Board of Commissioners, who, we understand is supposed to be running the Department.

The Board, who met less than 50% of the required (by law) times in 2008, has failed us and the animals miserably. They are beaten down by Bickhart and Blackman and Dov Lesel, their City Attorney in residence. It may be that we at BoardWatch come to the conclusion that there is no Board of Commissioners. In that case, we say "so be it." At least that would be one lie out of the way. Until then we will challenge them to act or get the hello out. Brown left in a huff over the Boks Trial. The rest of them (or you , as the case may be, Ms. Ponce) can get the hell out too. We will either find Commissioners who will do the work or we will have no Commissioners. What's the difference?

Statistics show that BW's most avid readers are...LAAS employees from the top down (but heavy at the top). What are they most interested in reading? Our link to the Daily News database of City salaries. Yep!
They just want to see what their friends and enemies are making.

Great! Happy New Year.

Happy New Year.

Anonymous said...

If Ed Boks is telling the public to TNR then WHY did the Animal Cruelty Task Force seize Ron Mason's cages (and subsequently steal them)?

WHY did Small Claims Court Commissioner Martin Green liken Ron's cages to the gun of a felon? Furthermore, since Commissioner Green's flouting of the law in Ron's case has been brought to his superiors' attention why does Green still have a job?

Why is Ed Boks allowed to make up the law as he goes along like some banana republic tyrant as it suits his shifting needs for PR?

Why is this city a complete joke when it comes to animal care and why do we hire completely unqualified losers like Ed Boks, who had already been fired by major metropolitan areas like Maricopa County, Arizona and New York City? I'm guessing it's because neither Antonio Villaraigosa nor his flunkies know how to use Google, since Boks' history is quite easy to find.

I wonder if the illustrious Jim Bickhart could ask Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa to zip his pants for a hot second and answer these few basic questions -- or is he too busy shoveling Ed Boks his six-figure salary from our tax money?

BoardWatch said...

I think, in answer to your last question, that the Mayor would find it "unduly burdensome" to comply with a request like that from Bickhart.

*The "unduly burdensome" is from Linda Barth's own rewriting of the California Public Records Act which we covered in "The High Cost of Doing Nothing, Part III" over at the BoardWatch blog thingy and which Barth spent her New Year's Holiday flagging off of Craigslist.

Ed Muzika said...

Whenever there are citizen complaints about the government or courts, the system protects itself and themseleves. There has been no response to my email to Commissioner Green's boss.

LAAS went along with Ron's TNR efforts for almost 2 years until one "rescuer" went to Ron's property to pick up 2 kittens. She saw what she thought was an abomination and reported him to LAAS, and shortly thereafter the raid.

Don't let another rescuer on your property--ever. It appears that other "rescuers" are more dangerous to rescuers than the ACTF. The only difference is that the ACTF/LAAS kills the "rescued" cats, probably to the satisfaction of the complaining "rescuer" who thinks the cats are better off dead.

Who knows what goes on inside of Villaraigosa's rather primitive mind?

Boks' history was not readily available on the Internet when he was hired. Animal Friend and I took a long time to get the info and tease out what was verified truth and what was rumor. ADL was able to obtain better info by caling people in NYC.

Even now I have seen no proof that Boks was asked to resign in Phoenix.

The real problem is Tony and his obstinate opposition to removing Boks despite all the employees telling Zine's Committee how bad a manager he is.

Anonymous said...


While I was able, a year and a half ago, to find plenty of damning info about Ed Boks via Google, I was just being ironic when I suggested Villaraigosa Google him. One would think that in Los Angeles Villaraigosa would have access to professionals who can do the work of vetting a high-profile candidate for a major position such as General Manager of Animal Services.

Are we under the impression that if the Mayor of Los Angeles calls the Mayor of New York's office they're not going to take his call?

Google or no, Villaraigosa could have found out all he needed to about Ed Boks in a single afternoon. But, if the rumors are to be believed, all Antonio Villaraigosa needed to know was that Boks presented potential access to Gary Michelson and his many millions of dollars.

Gary Michelson has proven (to the tune of 75 million dollars, not including his new Found Animals Foundation) that he is a true friend of animals. If he wants to have even more impact on the welfare of homeless animals in L.A., he might want to think about making it clear that Boks needs to go. As long as Antonio Villaraigosa thinks by keeping Boks he may gain access to future campaign support dollars from Michelson, the homeless dogs, cats, rabbits and more of Los Angeles are doomed.

Anonymous said...

They just got rid of the head of LAUSD, another person the Mayor recommended. The guy had no experience and couldn't lead the Department. There's a big article about the guy's innate problems. He never could have done the job. This guy actually did a better job than Boks, yet Boks still has a job. Why? The head of the LAUSD even realized he couldn't lead the Department. He wanted to leave. Boks must realize that he can't lead the Department. Most of the employees signed the letter of no confidence. Why is Boks still here?

Anonymous said...

After Boks is gone, and things get worse, remember I told you so.

Jeff de la Rosa said...

If you had spine enough to post your name, we might remember. Otherwise...

Yes, it will be a rough start for whoever replaces Boks. Much like where Obama is starting from-in the wake of a complete failure and morally bankrupt moron.

Anonymous said...

How can things get worse? Intake and euthanasia are up. True, the economy may get worse causing intake to go up a little more. But, I think a new Director wouldn't overcrowd the kennels causing an increase in natural dying. I'm all for a more humane shelter.

Anonymous said...

They need to find someone who can lead the Department. Boks has no ability to lead people. If he could, he wouldn't have hopped from one city to the next.

Why didn't our Mayor, or should I say his Deputy Mayor Jimmy Blackman, check out Boks past. You can't just read positive press releases and believe everything they say. Boks is a master liar.

Ed Muzika said...

I am sure they did check him out. But 37 months ago there was not much on him.

All the stuff about New York did not come out until May of 2006. Then it was found out a group was suing the Mayor about their AS and they supported Boks who provided a long legal response pointing out how several officials sabataged his efforts.

Back then I suported him because I thought a lot of the chareges and allegations against him were wrong and unwarranted.

And, what was the Mayor of NYC to say to Villaraigosa? Boks did not perform up to expectations? So what? Most GMs have management problems and still get hired.

Imagine if Winograd were vetted if he wanted the job. Can you imagine what that would reveal? I think Winograd has more enemies than Boks and George Bush combined. But does that mean Winograd would not be able to do the job?

What is past, is past.

We need only look at what has happeded in the 3 years since he came.

First year, some improvement in numbers then drifting backwards, then huge decrease in cat kills, followed by numbers drifting upwards again to pre-Boks levels.

It is just a fantastic shame so many animals are dying. It is a shame Villaraigosa seems so strongly to support Ed even though we hear he is on the outs with the Mayor and is looking for a job elsewhere.

I hope Ed does well at some other KIND of job. I don't think he makes a good manager. He be great in PR or fundraising or being a politician. He has some good people skills.

I really do wish him the best.

Jeff de la Rosa said...

A guy with his vindictive streak will never be a good leader and in a union environment you must be a good leader.

A guy who only cares (and only can care) about himself will never be a good manager.

We need both and Boks is neither--and never will be. Someone with a conscience might realize that he is only doing harm and move on. I think he enjoys the fight.

It's truly sociopathic behavior which is detailed quite well at

Sad in a way, but most tragic for the animals who have no say in the matter.The weirdest thing is that they read this stuff. I had to tell Barth to get back to work the other day when she kept hitting BoardWatch.

Anonymous said...

Ed Boks was reprimanded by the Mayor's office in New York many times. He was reprimanded by the commission that oversaw him. He admitted that he lived in fear that he would be fired at any time. In New York Boks didn't have front man Jim Bickhart lying to the Mayor on his behalf and covering up his many mistakes. Boks has also mastered the art of blaming others for his mistakes. He is saying that euthanasia is up because employees are lazy and hate animals. And he wonders why the employees don't want to follow his direction. Another reason the employees don't want to follow his orders is because his orders are generally illegal, inhumane, unethical or untruthful. He's asked employees to commit crimes for him.

Anonymous said...

Last commenter: What crimes are we talking about? It could only help to get that information out, even anonymously. I've heard things that were disclosed anonymously, on this site and others, and when I call my County Supervisor, or Villaraigosa's office, or the City Council, I ask and it's hard for them to refute stuff when they know it's true, regardless of how I (or any other voter) found out the information.

Once they confirm it, or fail to deny it, it's part of the record. I'm guessing the more facts the public knows about Boks (rather than the facts being hidden by Bickhart, etc.) the sooner he'll be fired.

Politicians don't mind crime, but they hate anyone finding out about it.

Anonymous said...

The largest issue is Ed is incapable of doing the job. Running a huge department is running a business and Ed has ZERO business experience. I agree, he'd make a great fundraiser, PR guy, he was probably a wonderful preacher...but he's not a business man. He can't keep his facts straight telling people one thing and then contradicting is no wonder the department is in shambles. The employees try to follow direction but then they are given one opposite direction followed by another.

He is leaving.

Part of the reason NY was quiet about him is Ed had filed a lawsuit against the city before he "left." So it's not possible to comment with an ongoing lawsuit. The other reason they didn't comment as they just wanted him gone. He was a complete nightmare to that city.

Ed posts bold face lies on his "bio." He did not start the "freinds of" group in Arizona or in NYC. Both were started before he appeared there. Those are easy facts to check and no one seems to call him out there.

If someone wanted to hire a Private investigator, there is much more to find. The mayor would not want to be embarrassed by what is found.

Jeff de la Rosa said...

What crimes?
You can review the video of the Oct.7 2008 Special Meeting of the Personnel Committee. Former chief vet Dr. Rainey said Boks ordered her to dispense prescription drugs to adopters. The City has no pharmacy license, so this is illegal.

You can report all the Boks illegal activity you want to your Mayor, County Supervisor or Councilmember. They don't care.

Anonymous said...

Boks asked the chief vet to give drugs to rescuers. She didn't have a pharmacy license so that would be illegal. Still, Boks told her to do it, and she refused.
She stated this in the personnel meeting.

Boks asked two rescuers to physically assault one of his critics. One threatened the critic, the other did nothing.

Boks wanted ALF to attack employees he didn't like. He asked rescuers if they could tell ALF to attack those employees. He wanted them to quit.

While in NY, Boks went to a bank and took out a loan in the name of the city animal shelter. He had no authority to do this, and was reprimanded.

Boks violated his employee contract with New York and disclosed confidential information to outsiders. He later helped an activist group sue the city. They activist group lost the lawsuit. Gary Kaskel who headed that group then got a job with HSUS.

There are many more incidences of Boks asking people to break the law and breaking the law himself.

Anonymous said...

Boks drives drunk. That's illegal.

Boks has been totally drunk at public work events.

Boks flashed his badge to get into the off-limit area of a club. He told them he was LAPD even though his badge just says animal control.

I don't know if this is illegal. He lied to council members, the mayor, city attorney, commissioners and the public about just about everything.

Anonymous said...

The Mayor is currently looking for a PR person. Maybe they should transfer Boks to the Mayor's office. He's a wonderful liar, just like the Mayor.

Anonymous said...

I don't know if flashing your Animal Control badge to get into a club is illegal, but it sure is sad...

Poor Boks, to be a con man and be so pathetic at it.


Anonymous said...

What lawsuit did Boks file before he left NYC? The one from shelterreform? That was after he left. Boks threatened to sue NYC for employee/employer violations. Supposedly NYC promised Boks he could do all the PR on his own. After he flubbed up, the city told him to zip it.

Boks was sued along with NYC right before he was "fired/left..." He was sued in November 2005, then was fired in December 2005. He was sued for unlawful termination. He fired a black guy with lots of experience then hired his white buddy with no experience and he had a criminal record.

Anonymous said...

Uh...impersonating a police officer is a felony, I believe. You'd need proof.

I think that flashing your Animal Control badge would best work in some of the clubs in Tijuana. Right Mr. Boks?

The person with the most dirt on Boks is Mary Cummins and if she ever comes clean there will be a shitstorm. Imagine all 700 of those emails being made public including the ones where he wants people hurt, etc. Cummins won't come clean if she wins her lawsuit or signs a settlement agreement. If they settle , there will be a clause to keep her mouth shut.

Still, anyone that sues Boks can get Cummins's emails by subpoena.

Anonymous said...

Shelter Reform sued NYC June 2006, six months after Boks left/was fired. Boks was sued right before leaving/being fired. Maybe that was the final straw for NYC. Check out Boks affidavit in the June 06 lawsuit. He said he feared being fired all the time. That would mean that the Mayors office thought he did a bad job. Boks admits in the affidavit that the Mayor's office hated him.

Anonymous said...

Not that anyone would pay attention to Son of Naysayer, but don't get all hung up about the Rainey stuff. There's nothing illegal about Boks asking a vet to dispense meds and if she told Boks no, there's simply no issue.
Eh, Rainey has enough issues of her own to be saying weird things like the city needs a "pharmacy license." She's wrong.

Okay, now back to your gossiping, spreading half-truths, little white lies, innuendo, supposition, insinuation, inferences and good old hearsay.

Nothing you are all lying and guessing about is remotely illegal, but have fun. When Boks quits (for a better, less stressful job), you can all take credit for his "being fired" and then be shocked when things get worse regardless of who the GM is.

Jeff de la Rosa said...

To Son of ...I mean, Ed Boks...If Rainey is wrong, cite the code section, wanker.

And yes, there is an issue when a GM tells and employee to break the law.

Anonymous said...

>>Former chief vet Dr. XXXXXX said Boks ordered her to dispense prescription drugs to adopters. The City has no pharmacy license, so this is illegal.<<.

Not so!

From the California Code of Regulations, Title 16:

An animal being adopted may be sent home with a prescription drug prescribed by a licensed veterinarian if the latter has "established a veterinarian-client-patient relationship with the animal patient or patients and the client."

An animal shelter does not need a pharmacy license! The public is not coming to have their various prescriptions filled by the agency. However, the shelter practitioner may prescribe a medication to a specific animal which he/she knows clinically and upon which he/she has done a physical examination. Clear instructions and proper labeling would need to be accompany the prescription. This would be totally legal if that veterinarian-
client-patient relationship exists.
The reason LAAS (and most municpal shelters) do not dispense prescription medications is because of the enormous expense that would be involved. It is the citizen's responsibility to have their newly-adopted animal seen by a veterinarian in the private sector once it leaves the shelter. The financial responsibility is borne by the new guardian of the pet.

Respectfully, neither party that is referenced in this blog (with respect to prescribing medications to adopted animals) is speaking with any credibility or knowledge of the law.

Jeff de la Rosa said...

Sorry, but you'll need to be more specific than "Title 16." What's the code section you're quoting?

Jeff de la Rosa said...

There is no prescriber-client relationship established between an adopter (or rescue) and an LAAS vet. Such a relationship would consist of the LAAS vet supervising the patient's treatment for the duration of the illness which we know is not the case.

LAAS is not equipped to properly package (labeling, containers, etc.) prescription drugs. under Bus.Prof. Code 4076.

You must have a pharmacy license to sell prescription drugs and although a vet may dispense "samples" which are properly packaged and labeled. LAAS has no such samples. So..."giving" away drugs in an envelope, or in your hand, which are not packaged and labeled according to Cal. Bus. and Prof. Code Sec. 4076 is illegal.

With all due respect.

Usually, if I have the option to believe Boks or a veterniarian, I choose the vet.

Ed Muzika said...


This is a lot of quibbling about Boks criminal mind and the technicalities of law and whether he committed a crime asking a vet to commit a crime.

Maybe a judge could weave his way through the codes.

You know I am no big supporter of Boks, but if the intent is to help the rescue groups and help animals, I am 100% for it, if the drugs are amoxi, Clavamox, wormers with instructions, etc.

I have seen so many animals go without treatment or using out of date medications for lack of money.

Jeff de la Rosa said...

I agree. They should provide low cost medications. Legally. Maybe the Board take this up. Right. Meanwhile, I will refrain from engaging with "anonymous" posters. If you can't back up your opinion, then it isn't worth anything.

Anonymous said...

If your pet needs antibiotics and you can't afford a vet or prescription, here is a solution. Go to the pet store and buy Fish amoxy in capsules. Empty contents of three capsules and mix with 15 cc of water, shake, use as liquid amoxy drops. This is what all the rescuers do.

If you know how to do dosage math, you can also buy farm, fish and bird medications. You don't need a prescription and they are 1/100th the price of cat/dog medications which are the exact same thing. A lot of people use this for humans too. Just be sure to get the dosage right.

Anonymous said...

The issue is not whether Boks has engaged in "illegal" acts, the issue is whether the man is capable of running a $26M dollar city department that controls whether large numbers of animals live or die. That answer is a clear NO.

To the person who thinks things will be worse when Boks leaves (which I give until the end of Feb.) Things can always get worse, but I predict they will get better.

There is also something in the works to privatize L.A.'s animal "care." which would be best case scenario.

The city employees and GM can take care of the animal "control" aspect and leave the adoptions to private entitities. Better for the animals, better for the public and MUCH better for the city budget (think Tony doesn't want to save the city $13M a year???)

BoardWatch said...

"the issue is whether the man is capable of running a $26M dollar city department that controls whether large numbers of animals live or die. That answer is a clear NO."

Well said. Have you seen what last slithered off the "Desk of Ed Boks?"

Apparently, we're celebrating Animal Services' Centennial! Strike up the band! As we mentioned in our short reply to this tripe, not once does he acknowledge his employees on this momentous occasion. Jerk.

As far as privatization goes, we agree and have always thought that it is the only solution for a city this large and a department, which in its 100 years, has proven itself incapable.

Anonymous said...


We know who you are, but that doesn't change the fact that your opinions are worthless.

Most people remain anonymous on this blog because there are so many nasty, sneaky, vindictive "animal activists" in Los Angeles.

Ed Muzika said...

Many people remain anonymous for exactly the opposite reason, they don't want to get in trouble with either LAAS or the City.

Jeff has a point. Make up a pen name and use it consistetly.

Ed Muzika said...

What is this I hear about privatization?

What aspects would be privatized? Adoptions? Medical care?

Would there be a single major entity taking over administration of all the rescues, or will there be a new, large non-profit such as in the San Francisco model and which Winograd suggested?

Anonymous said...

Privatization is in the works, can not give details as probably Ed (who clearly reads and comments on this blog) doesn't even know about it yet.

Will give you more when I can, but trust this, this will be a very good thing for the animals.

Anonymous said...

Before LA City handled animal control, animals were cared for by a few SPCAs which were private. They had their own animal shelter. They were run by women. In 1909 some men thought women's minds weren't strong enough to vote or run an SPCA. So they wrestled control away from them and the city took it over. Instead of caring for unwanted animals, they started killing them. Check out old editions of the Daily News and Los Angeles Express papers from 1890 to 1910. They're online.

Many cities work with private SPCAs and Humane Societies to run city animal shelters. Case in point, San Diego. The SPCA is next door to the city shelter. SPCA handles adoptions, animal cruelty cases, classes. City handles the rest. Going private would save the city money. Of course in this economy what nonprof would want to help LA. The westcoast regional office of HSUS shut down 12/31/08. Nonprofs aren't doing that well in general. Maybe Michelson will step forward?

Jeff de la Rosa said...

There are a lot of issues to consider when thinking about privatization. If the "control" part stays with the city, then who houses and cares for the animals which the city impounds? The private "shelter?" If the City is still in control of impounded animals housed with a private entity, then there really is not much of a difference unless the city turns over all strays, etc. to the private shelter and relinquishes control over them.

Then there are the evidence animals. Where do they go, to a pound run by the animal cops? I think that if privatization were to occur, some of the animal cops would become a problem without the "care" side of the agency keeping them in check. Before you could privatize, you'd either have to make a deal to keep the union employees on or eject the union all together from an area of work that has been "theirs" for a really long time. I think the best solution would be a new entity--an L.A. Humane Society with the requisite enforcement powers. Get the city out of the equation entirely.Let a real Board of Directors make decisions without being coerced by the mayor and his lackeys.There's no room for politics when so many lives are at stake.

To Anonymous: I guess you think Boks is doing a great job, which makes two of you in the whole city(or one, if you are EB) Whether you think my opinions are "worthless" or not matters little. The point is that I stand up and say them, and as a result Boks has harassed me to no end. Now he's under orders not to speak to me or about me because he's a liability magnet. So far, my worthless "opinions" have Boks at the wrong end of one court order with another on the boil. Prove me wrong and I'll admit that I'm wrong. You haven't done that. You, however, can be wrong and float away into the ether, snarking all the way.

So, what? You're afraid that Pam Ferdin is going to write a nasty post about you? Grow up and stand behind your words or go away. While this might not be war, it's not a game for the spineless. I will say one thing for Boks, no matter how derelict and wrong he is, he is not afraid to say what he thinks (except when he's posting anonymously). He will, of course, deny he ever said it.

With this much discussion, we should really move to a forum site. I'll look into it.

Anonymous said...

Boks told the Mayor six months ago that he was researching the beginnings of LA Animal Control. He thought it kind of started around 1909 but wasn't sure. He told the Mayor he'd make a big marketing deal out of the 100th anniversary of animal control for his re-election campaign. The Mayor only cares about positive press, doesn't even care if it's true or not. That's all this is, positive press as his exit strategy.

Today Boks praised LA because they are supposedly the "only" city who built new animal shelters. The Prop F bond fund was voted in under Dan Knapp. That was four GMs and three Mayors ago. That'd be like me taking credit for discovering America. Not only that but many cities have built new shelters.

I'm amazed Boks didn't say LA City was the oldest, biggest, best-est animal control in the universe. It's not even the oldest, biggest or best in the nation or even just the state. It's all bull.

Anonymous said...

Read this about the history of LA City Animal Services. Boks got it wrong. This hundred year crap is all bullshit.

If you look at california corporation records, you will see SPCAs in the area in the 1800's, way before the City stepped in.

Anonymous said...

If privatization occurs then whatever transparency currently exists will go out the door.

Brad Jensen

Ed Muzika said...

I don't think anyone would accept giving away 100 million in new shelters to a private group unless it were someone like Michelson who made all sorts of promises.

Private/public sheltering seems to be the way to go in successful cities such as San Francisco and Reno.

Reno still appears transparent, San Francisco not. SF seems to be falling apart too in terms of no kill goals according to Winograd.

Jeff de la Rosa said...

Re: the History of L.A. Animal Control.
The link you give is about L.A. COUNTY. While I find it hard to believe that L.A. CITY had their own department in 1909 with such a small population, it would require more research than I'm willing to devote to debunking Boks on this one.

Anonymous said...

A few years ago the board pressed management to direct the vets to include a medical history print out of adopted animals that received vet care and meds while impounded. This occurred as a result of adopters being unable to tell their vet what the animal was taking while at the shelter so as to ensure continuity (if needed) in treatment. Getting that info from the shelter was virtually impossible. Eventually, I believe, Dr Smith combined whatever forms existed into one so that the info was handy. Please correct me if that is wrong.
Regarding sending adopters home with meds, the only issue I heard about was the labeling on the bottles. Not sure if that was ever resolved. It seems like shelter meds come in the family value pack and not small bottles, which is why redistribution and labels, at a moment's notice, became an issue.

Anonymous said...

I'm all for public/private partnerships. However, since these are tax paid for shelters, I would think there'd be an issue handing one over to a private group. If that can happen (and lots of questions come to mind), it would still require departmental oversight (aka managment).

Maybe this is just what management would want. It would be a new layer of who to blame.

Anonymous said...

Thank you Brad for your comment. You are so right about going private. Then they no longer answer to the public for records request. Case in point is Inland Valley Humane/SPCA.

And we have several examples of how this ends in the suffering of the animals such as Lied and Philly. SF was mentioned, has anyone looked at their numbers? They handled so few animals in comparison to LA, it is stupid to put their names in the same sentence. Reno is being asked to prove their numbers now by the elected officials so their days are numbered.

Animal control needs to answer to the public always. It is the only way we can keep tabs on them. Private facilities can issue restraining orders to keep us out such as the case in Reno. Do we want that?

Anonymous said...

The link is to the county website. They've had the history of city and county animal control up there for years. There are copies of old newspapers from the 1800-1900s on the internet for LA City. They talk about animal control during those times. There were SPCAs before animal control. Then rabies got out of control so the city took things over.

Anonymous said...

Hi Brad,

Not the case. The way privatization will work is there will still be Animal Control. They will impound strays, work the streets, take care of licensing, dog attacks, cruelty investigations etc. They will do what Animal Control is set up to do and defined by it's name. They will NOT handle adoptions.

Much of the intake at the shelters are owner turn ins. Many disgused as "strays" by people who don't want to admit to turning in an animal.

The private groups would still adhere to transparency but would not euthanize animals. They would take in animals from the shelters when their time was up, owner turn ins.

San Diego does not work that way. The County public shelter and The Humane Society share the same "campus" but do totally different things. The Humane Society ONLY takes in owner turn ins, they do not take dogs from the County shelter..but that alone makes the county almost no kill because their intakes are so reduced.

It's a formula that works. San Fran and the SPCA there have a relationship that works all over the country and will work in L.A.

There is money to do this, plenty of money and it saves the city a lot too while keeping city jobs. The GM of the public department will have a huge cut in salary, which is a good thing.

It's all being done and will get Tony re elected. At the end of the day, that is what he wants.

Anonymous said...

Regarding medical records: The medical information was always, repeat always, given to private veterinarians upon request.
The department resisted giving detailed medical records to citizens, probably to avoid lawsuits or the kind of scrutiny going on here, i.e. a probe for political purposes. The department was not set up to care for animals not in the shelters so, the way they send home meds is substandard and might get them a slap on the wrist from Sacramento.
The department also tries to avoid giving a document that might appear to promise an animal is in good health upon adoption, like an animal health awareness form might.
Like your own medical records, the animals in the shelters medical records are the property of the organization providing the care. You have no "right" to those records, but you can ask nicely for them, or sue.

Anonymous said...

To fourth Anonymous from the bottom, as of this writing...(:

I recently got a dog out of an LAAS shelter to take to the rescue where I volunteer. The dog was older and had a couple of chronic health issues.

The vet tech on duty gave me the dog's medical records, but basically asked me to hide them and not show anyone else at the shelter that I had them.

I'm so used to the crazy at LAAS that I didn't think much about it. But not giving adopters medical info on the animals seems pretty sketchy.

But then again, what about LAAS, especially under Boks, doesn't seem sketchy?

To Brad -- couldn't they make privatization contingent on continuing to provide records as it's clearly in the public interest to do so?

Anonymous said...

Medical records on the animals LAAS impounds are a matter of public record. So I would venture to guess the reason for that vet tech asking you to hide them and not show them to anyone else at the shelter is probably just one of many reasons why staff, volunteers and rescuers showed up at City Council Chambers recently.

PRIVATIZATION: Maybe I'd be a little more onboard with the idea if someone were able to convince me that the City and/or LAAS won't muck this idea up (like others). There's plenty of money for it? That's interesting because last I checked the economic pulse, it was still kinda weak. Where is this money coming from?

Someone mentioned the possiblity of some sort of a contingency agreement allowing the public continued access to records. Perhaps but I'm thinking there might be some legal complications with this sort of arrangement. I'm certainly not the one to be discussing legal matters with though.

Someone else mentioned Inland Valley Humane/SPcA and I can tell you for a fact that I did NOT get positive responses from them or their attorney when I asked for something as simple as copies of their annual rabies activity reports (which they are required by law to submit to the state). In fact, their attorney (in a long winded letter) threatened slander. I have those reports now, no thanks to IVHS. But it just goes to show how uncooperative the private sector can get. Maybe they won't start out that way but when times get tough, they might just get defensive because after all... they want to survive.

Brad Jensen

PS - over 75% of all cat and dog outcomes at IVHS resulted in euthanasia last year (2007).

Ed Muzika said...


I can post the Inland Valley stats and liar's letter if you like, or if they are already posted on your website, I can post a link.

Regarding the transparency issue, I would think it manditory to make access to outcome records, finances and medical records available to the public as well as new owners.

What is the scoop on the Reno HS transparency? Is someone claiming they are falsifying both their own and the County records?

What about SFACC/SFSPCA? Are their similar allegations?

Anonymous said...

Example: the department has arrangements with Clinico and Value Vet, both private organizations. They have "leased out" so to speak their s/n services. The difference is Clinico is a not for profit while Value Vet is a FOR profit. Nothing wrong with that..but I suspect one would have no issue getting Clinco stats, might not be possibe with VV.

If you know anything about 501(c)(3)s and the IRS, then you know that the IRS REQUIRES transparency and they are getting much much more strict about it. Organizations are rapidly losing their status if they do not comply.

Los Angeles is a town of money, even in hard economic times and there are plenty of people who support good not for profits who are actually making a difference in the life of animals. There are also hundreds in millions of dollars in grants for not for profits that are succeeding in becoming truely no kill.

LAAS, although it has tried to raise private fund is unsuccessful because people don't tend to give to organizations that are #1-not transparent with funds and #2 they can't see their money working.

The private/public partnership will share the shelters. Some kennels utilized and managed by city workers for animal control purposes and the rest utilized and managed by the private not for profit.

Details are still being worked out, but I suspect New Hope partners will still get dogs out of the city side.

An RFP will go out inviting not for profits to "take over" each shelter, including the empty one and will include ahering to the regulations for transparency in info for shelters.

Change always breeds suspicion, but in this case it is a win-win.

Contracts will be short term so that those running their shelters effectively and successfully will be given the opportunity to take over more shelters when the contract comes up again.

Anonymous #3

Anonymous said...

The Public Information Act means nothing unless you are willing to hire an expensive lawyer to sue to force them to enforce it. The city must maintain documents. They must save emails, yet they don't. A public information act request was made to the city of LA to obtain emails to/from Department employees. The City said they only keep emails for 24 hours. They had nooooooo emails, end of story. Many requests have been made for public information. They either state the documents don't exist, are lost or they are confidential. A shady city can do whatever it wants.