Alarcon Moves to Make Boks Resign

Councilmember Alarcon introduced a motion in Council today to make Boks resign via a vote of no confidence. It was seconded by Tony Cardenas, Bernard Parks, Greig Smith and Dennis Zine.

As soon as I can find the video, I will post it.

The Motion:

The City of Los Angeles faces a continuing crisis in the management of the Department of Animal Services by its General Manager, Ed Boks. These problems range across a gamut of issues: facilities, management and operations, and priority setting and follow up. These problems have caused a severe problem for the City in implementing its laws, policies and procedures.

The people of Los Angeles have responded to the uncontrolled growth of cats and dogs and a high euthanasia rate in the city with support for Proposition F to upgrade and build new shelters. Unfortunately, today the new and much needed Northeast Valley and the Harbor shelter facilities are unused or underused due to lack of proper planning and management.

The City of Los Angeles adopted one of the nation's most comprehensive "Spay and Neuter" Ordinance in 2008 (179,615). Since the adoption of the new Ordinance, as anticipated, there has been a significant and welcome increase in the demand for spay and neuter services. Rather than be prepared to address the increased demands, Boks unilaterally suspended the City's programs, causing confusion about the city's goals and its commitment to becoming a "No Kill" city. Upon being challenged, he "unsuspended" a part of the program, without any reasonable explanation of the original decision or the turnabout, other than as a response to a budget cut. Mr. Boks did not consult with the City Council, Animal Services Commission or the Spay and Neuter Advisory Committee.

Mr. Boks embarrassed the City by a promotion called "Hooters for Neuters" to raise funds for the Department. In 2008, Mr. Boks created and pushed the idea of a pit bull training academy to be run by ex-convicts. In both instances, Mr. Boks took unilateral action. Furthermore, upon examination, the decisions were found to have been made in private, without regard to City policies or practices. When challenged, these actions were reversed without any adverse impact.

Los Angeles pays its general managers very well. In return, the city asks general managers to adhere to city laws, policies and procedures, to consult with the public and city advisory committees and to keep elected city leaders apprised of any significant changes in their department's operations and processes.

Mr. Boks has consistently failed in his responsibility. He should know better. Because of his actions as described above and in the media, how can the City of Los Angeles have confidence in his ability and desire to do the best for Los Angeles? Obviously it can't.

I THEREFORE MOVE that the City Council adopt a vote of no confidence in Ed Boks, General Manager of the Department of Animal Services and call upon him resign this position immediately.

Trust Me; Buy VCA Stock Now!

VCA stock symbol WOOF on Nasdaq has risen $6.00 to 23.01 in 2-1/2 weeks.

Buy it. It had a great 2008 annual and 4th quarter performance despite the economy. It is going up 12% per week. It is getting a lot of attention from two market watch groups. The six month potential is to at least $35, where it was not long ago, and an 18 month potential to $50.

Also, it allows you to go to stockholder meetings and make comments about what you think they should be doing. You can buy single or multiple shares at a time. Go to Each trade is $7. buy 20 shares at a time and the trade cost is 35 cents each.

You will not lose on this.

If you want more info, go to:

URGENT- Donations Needed for Cat's Surgery.

On Saturday, adorable and faithful friend Cole was attacked by a dog living with him.

We were able to stop him from being killed but his rear leg is badly broken. Surgery will cost $3000 in Los Angeles. So far we have had him stabilized and he is receiving anti-biotics, pain medication and 24-hour care.We are trying to raise funds for his surgery. The alternative are not what anyone wants: amputation (less expensive but not fair) or euthanasia (unacceptable). Please donate as much as you can, even small donations of $5 or $20 dollars will help. We have raised $469 so far but he needs surgery ASAP to prevent having to re-break the leg if it start to heal incorrectly.

Please cross-post a link to this post anywhere and everywhere you think will do some good.Absolutely ALL donations will ONLY go for Cole's care. Thank you.
Jeff (&Cole)

Link for donation:

A Letter to Rick Orlov

Dear Mr. Orlov,

With regard to your front page Daily News article Sunday, you state Boks problems were caused by unhappy politician’s trying to divert attention from their own problems. Who are these politicians?

Five Council members have expressed grave concern with Mr. Boks’ ability to manage LAAS and to tell the truth—Zine called him a liar. The only politician that supports Boks is the Mayor.

Are you saying that Parks, Zine, Cardenas, Smith and Alarcon are dissing Boks because they have problems? This seems to be what you say in your article.

Where did you get the current kill number of 18,000 vs. 23,000 when Boks started? Did you get it from Boks? You know about Boks’ reputation as a liar, therefore why did you not check his numbers on Animal Services own website,

The numbers are provided on an annual to-date basis.

Boks started on January 1, 2006. The to-date figure ending March 1 for his first full year, 2006-2007, the euthanasia number was 19,273.

The to-date number for this year, going on his fourth, is 19,394. NO CHANGE!!

Even the year his numbers went way down, 2007-2008, euthanasia to 15,196, the number of animals that died in the shelter due to disease and fighting from overcrowding rose to the highest level ever, 1,284, double any other year in the department’s history.

You did not mention the dramatic increase in animals that died in the shelters after Boks started stuffing them full because he refused to kill animals that would ruin his statistics. Dana Bartholomew reported this story in your own newspaper over a year ago. Therefore the animals died of disease rather than being deliberately killed, but his euthanasia numbers looked good.

In fact, if you look at the last four years altogether, including 2005-2006 when 20,857 animals died from euthanasia, disease and fighting, compared to 20,353 for the last 12 months, we still find NO CHANGE.

One of the most significant ways to reduce killing is to return lost animals to their owners. Under Boks that number has ranged from 4,300 to 4,600, compared to the 4,700-5,000 per year before Boks started.

There has been no improvement in Animal Services kill numbers despite the $150,000,000 bond issue that has built or renovated five shelters, gave Boks an extra five million dollars in his budget, and added another hundred employees to deal with the City’s homeless animals. Los Angeles is just as deadly for unwanted or lost cats and dogs as it was before Boks came.

You talked about none of this. You only mention there were complaints of lack of progress.

AND, you didn’t even mention the letter of no confidence signed by over one half of his own staff, and explain what problems staff had with him.

You didn’t do any fact checking at all for your story, did you Mr. Orlov? Basically you blamed five councilmembers, staff and especially the animal community for Mr. Boks’ “firestorm” of criticism, and not his utter failure to make ANY progress towards No-Kill in the 39 months he has been here.

I assure you we will be fact-checking all of your future articles.

Orlov Refuses to Do Homework; Defends Boks as Victim of animal community and unhappy politicians

Rick Orlov wrote an extremely inaccurate exoneration of Ed Boks this morning, more or less blaming everyone but Ed Boks for his problems. It appears that to save his job at the failing Daily News, he decided to write the most outrageous and slanted article possible to create his own firestorm of controversy.

1. Orlov blames Boks’ problems on, “Unhappy political bosses looking to divert attention from their own offices.” Does he mean Zine, Cardenas and Alarcon? I'll bet they are glad to hear that.

2. Orlov blames Boks’ problems on animal activists, providing examples of the “rage that animal activists have directed towards Boks.”

3. Then Orlov seems to blame the entire LA animal community and Council, as well as staff with all their criticisms for making the job of general manager impossible for anyone.

Orlov writes, “ long he will be able to withstand the firestorm that seems eventually surround every director of Animal Services.”

4. Orlov writes, “In the past decade alone, the department has had four permanent directors replaced, plus a number of lower-level officials who fled after the threats became too much.”

He says Dan Knapp was replaced when hospitalized for nervous seizures said to be related to job pressures, followed by Greenwalt who resigned after protests at his home by animal activists. Then he mentions Stuckey’s job as so tenuous and threatening that his wife refused to move to LA.

Orlov says that under Boks, the euthanasia rate has dropped from more than 23,000 to about 18,000 in the past year.

Mr. Orlov, let us do the fact check you failed to do.

First, the euthanasia rate has never been at 23,000 since Boks has started. He started on January 1, 2006. Since that time euthanasia has fluctuated from about 19,500 when he started, down to about 15,500 then back up to 19,500 now. How is that progress towards no kill?

Dan Knapp had epilepsy, not some nebulous nervous seizures, and was suffering from “static gran mal seizures,” meaning they were happening all the time. Knapp hid his condition from the City until after he started. The animal community more or less loved him until the mayor made him round up street dogs prior to the Democratic Convention in 2000. He was fired by the Mayor while he was in the hospital.

Stuckey never had any animal experience before coming on the job. He was a community outreach director in a small city back East, and didn’t have a clue as to how to run the dept. he didn't even have a dog or cat himself.

Greenwalt was just another hack bureaucrat waiting out his time for his pension and who had been fired for incompetence from Animal Services by Knapp a year before Greenwalt took over. He retired, and did not resign.

Orlov inaccurately quotes Zine. “Zine chairs the council's Personnel Committee and he said he has compiled boxes of complaints from employees over how Boks runs the agency.” In fact, Zine showed Council one large full box of complaints from staff as well as emails from the animal community and others about Boks. Zine was making a point that it was not just the animal community that opposed him.

It is these little yet glaring errors of fact that allows Orlov to lay the blame for Boks’ messes at everyone else’s doorsteps but Boks’.

Where did Rick receive his training as a reporter, Costco?

Council demands revival of pet neuter program

By Rick Orlov, Staff Writer
Posted: 03/28/2009 12:00:00 AM PDT

An angry Los Angeles City Council on Friday ordered the Department of Animal Services to reinstitute two popular spay-neuter voucher programs as two council members called for a vote of no-confidence in department head Ed Boks and urged Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa to replace him.

A stoic Boks took the criticism and acknowledged his mistakes, but said he would not step down from the job that pays him $181,000 a year.

"I'm sticking it out," Boks said after the nearly hourlong tongue-lashing by council members who brought up not only the most recent controversy, but past decisions by Boks.
Councilman Richard Alarcón, who introduced the no-confidence motion that was deferred to a future meeting, said he was frustrated with the constant problems with the department.
"It's one thing after another with this department," Alarcón said.

"First, it was Hooters for Neuters" - an ill-fated promotion with the restaurant chain.
"Then a Pit Bull Academy and now this. When are we going to see some improvement?"
An angry Councilman Dennis Zine brought out a box full of e-mail complaints involving Boks and fired a series of questions, some rhetorical, while refusing to allow him to consult with an aide.
"You're the general manager, you should know the answers," Zine said. "I will be honest with you: I have no confidence in your ability to run this department. It has been one thing after another with you."

Boks said he recognized he has made errors, but that he has tried to correct them as they emerged.

The most recent involved the decision to suspend two popular voucher programs, valued at $30 and $70 each, on March 10 when he realized the department would not be able to pay for all the vouchers that were being used.

"When we realized the vouchers being redeemed exceeded our projections, we knew we we had to take steps," Boks said.

Also, he said, the department wanted better controls on voucher distribution.
The $70 vouchers are given to the elderly and poor to offset the costs of spay or neutering of their pets. The $30 voucher is available to anyone.

Councilman Tony Cardenas said it seemed shortsighted to suspend the program - particularly at this time of year when animals are breeding.

"Now is when the animals are going at it," Cardenas said. "These vouchers are for the human owners of the pets to take responsibility. I've never seen a dog or cat walk into a clinic on their own and say, `Cut me up."'

Boks acknowledged the decision seemed counter to the city's policy to encourage spay and neutering as a means of reducing unwanted animals and lowering the euthanasia rate.
Villaraigosa's office would not comment on the council dispute or Boks' future, but spokesman Matt Szabo would only say:

"The mayor supports the efforts to reinstate the spay and neuter voucher program, and looks forward to working with the council and public to make Los Angeles Animal Services the best animal services department in the country."

The demand for vouchers has increased since the city adopted new licensing laws that imposed a $100 fee for all unaltered pets over age 6 months.

Boks said part of the problem has been the need to make cuts in his $19 million budget because of the financial crisis facing the city.

"It was a choice of cutting this or eliminating employees, something I was told I could not do," Boks said.
However, several council members said they felt Boks eliminated the popular voucher pr ogram to embarrass public officials.

Zine and Cardenas also said they felt Boks had purposely made the decision on his own rather than consulting with the Animal Services Commission or the Advisory Committee on Spay and Neuter.

Boks Gets Eaten Alive on Television

Item 19 starts at 1:41:25.

The fireworks at 1:51:10


Alarcon wanted to introduce an amendment for a Council letter of no confidence in Boks to be sent to the Mayor. The City Attorney said it was not possible and needed to be agendized.

Kitten Killing Up 33% During the Past 12 Months

Kitten impounds are up 38% during the past 12 months, with a kill rate of 62% including died in shelter.

During the past 12 months, 4,570 neonates were killed compared to 3,178 the year before. How is that for a foster program?

There was an increase of 1,402 neonate kittens impounded, and an increase of killing of 1,402, meaning a kill rate of 70% of the increased number of neonates.

There is no explanation of how the neonates came in, owner surrendered, found or feral.

What caused the 38% increase in kitten impounds? It doesn't seem like the mortgage crisis would have as much impact on kitten turn in as dogs, and the feral population is not impacted much by the foreclosures. We really need for the department to publish that data.

34,000 vouncers were issued, more than ever before, yet impounds are up dramatically. Why? Ed hasn't a clue apparently.

My Response to Zine's Criticism Of Boks Blogging

Mr. Zine,

Generally I agree with you about Mr. Boks.

But I think it is his wrong to criticize his blogging. He provides a lot of information and opinion not on the official AS website. Blogging is no different from any other communication medium such as giving talks or workshops, which Boks also has done.

Besides, it is his first Amendment Right to thus communicate.

According to the City’s website, 4 Councilmembers, the City Attorney, the Chief of Police and Ed Boks all have blogs.
Council District 11
Council District 13
Council District 14
Councilwoman Janice Hahn's Blog
LA Animal Services
Los Angeles Police Department
Office of the City Attorney Blog

The Chief writes one blog post per month with the other posts maintained by staff. The time of day ir not recorded.

The City Attorney writes his own blog posts at about one per week. They were all posted on City time.

Councilmember Rosendahl has ten posts on his blog and all but two were posted on City time.

Ed posts about one per week, a little more than Rocky, and only half on City time.

Regarding his management skills and ability to screw up, I agree with you, but Boks is an excellent, if not obsessively defensive blogger.

URGENT! South Bay Caretaker Needs Brief Help

I'm sending this email out to try and help Regan help rehome her Mom's cats.  Animal Control will be coming to her Mom's house tomorrow and we'd like to get the cats the help they need before they get taken away by AC.
There are a total of 35 cats of which there are 5 pregnant Moms. About 14 cats are already fixed. The rest are nice and friendly house cats. They are all ranging from age 6 months to 3 years.  

Please, if you can help take one or two cats - contact Regan's Mom.  Regan works for the military so it's hard to pick up the phone during the day - but you can reach her via her email. 
Susan McKenney (Regan's Mom)
Regan Taylor
Daugher in Viginia (leaving for Iraq in 6 months)
Regan wants to do whatever she can to keep the cats from being taken to the shelter.  These are good house cats. 
Please help her help the cats.
Thank you,
Cathy Nguyen

Vouchers Back; Zine Does Not Relent

Department head Ed Boks reverses his decision to suspend the program for low-income pet owners, a move that prompts more criticism of his management.
By Carla Hall 
March 26, 2009

The Los Angeles Department of Animal Services has reinstated its program to give low-income residents vouchers for free spaying and neutering of their pets, the department's general manager, Ed Boks, announced Wednesday. 

But Boks' reversal of his decision to suspend the program two weeks ago, which prompted an outcry from animal welfare advocates and members of the Los Angeles City Council, did not placate one council member who is suggesting he resign. 

"I think it's time for Mr. Boks to find another place to work," Councilman Dennis Zine said. "It's been a continuing saga of him and his mismanagement."

Zine said Boks' recent actions were part of a list of decisions over the last few years that the councilman believed were ill-conceived.

Boks, who can be fired only by Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, said e-mails from the public and from animal welfare advocates praised his reversal. He added, "I stand ready and willing to meet with Dennis Zine any time, any place to help move the department forward. This has been an open invitation for well over a year."

Boks said he cut off vouchers for free sterilizations only as a last resort to cope with his department's budget shortfall. On Monday, council members excoriated him for not seeking the advice of the council or the advisory bodies to Boks' department before suspending a program that helps low-income residents comply with the city's ordinance requiring residents to spay and neuter their pets.

"You don't make a rash decision that undermines our spay and neuter program," Zine said. "The program is designed to keep animals alive and not be killed. And many low-income families want to comply but don't have enough money."

Daily News Folly

Some idiot at the Daily News asks for our opinion about the subsidy provided by the City for spay neuter. Apparently they don't know S/N surgery can cost up to $500 and the new law just laid this on the heads of 600,000 animal owners in the City. Here is their article. Flood them.

Is pet-neutering worth subsidizing?

Updated: 03/24/2009 09:05:28 PM PDT

Ed Boks, the head of Los Angeles Animal Services Department, raised hackles earlier this month when he decided to plug a hole in his budget by eliminating a popular spay-neuter voucher program.

The program helps low- and moderate-income residents get their pets "fixed" for free or at a deep discount so they can comply with the city's mandatory pet-sterilization law that went into effect just a few months ago.

But Boks' department, like every department in City Hall, is facing budget cuts. Boks said he had to focus on immediate needs and staffing first, and he cut the coupons to save $150,000.

Still, do anything that irks the animal advocacy community, which relies heavily on this voucher program, and you can expect howls of outrage. That's what happened, and now the City Council may force the department to reinstate the program, despite the fact that officials still have to cut city spending by millions of dollars.

The dust-up over this voucher program raises obvious questions about the city's responsibility for pet services. What do you think? Was Boks right or not?

While the voucher program might be helpful in getting people to abide by the city's spay-neuter law, is it the city's responsibility to give people a financial break? Or should pet owners take on the full cost themselves as part of the price of pet ownership?

Or is it a good investment to spent $150,000 a year to stop more animal babies from being born?

Could the voucher program pay for itself by cutting down on future stray animals that would find their way to the city's shelters?

Help us explore this hot topic. Send us your thoughts to

Please include your full name, the community or city in which you live and a daytime phone number. We will print as many responses as we can in Sunday's Opinionated section.

Boks Lies to Councilmembers About Blog Time

At the Public Safety Committee meeting on Monday, Ed Boks lied to the Councilmemembers and press present saying he only blogged on weekends.


This is not true. His blog entries have dates and times of day attached to each entry. Doing a brief investigation, one finds posts dated:


Wednesday, March 11, 2009 1:54 p.m.

Friday, march 6, 2009 5:04 p.m.

Monday, march 2, 2009 5:41 p.m.

Friday, February 27 3:30 p.m.

Sunday, February 15, 2009 9:41 p.m.

Saturday, January 31, 2009 2:13 p.m.

Monday, January 5, 20092:25 p.m.

Tuesday, December 30, 2008 7:25p.m.

Monday, December 22, 2008 2:39 p.m.

Wednesday, December 17, 2008 4:20 p.m.

Thursday, December 11, 2008 12:52 pm


Six out of eleven were posted during week during work hours. Only two out of eleven were posted on weekends, and two out of eleven were posted just barely after work. Over 50% of his most recent posts were done on the City's dime.

Actually though, I support Boks blogging. It is his First Ammendment right of free speech and there is a lot of valuable information or misinformation not on the Animal Services website. I am just glad he got caught in another lie.

Partial Transcript of the Public Safety Meeting

Public Safety, March 23, Boks' cancellation of voucher program without permission

Zine: The public knew before we knew. This is an additional blunder from Boks. How many times have things gone sideways because of his rash decisions. He's caused an uproar which is detrimental to animals.

Cardenas: (He's not on committee. He came to speak anyway) We try not to micromanage but we have yet to hear one logical explanation about how this is a step in the right direction. This is an exponential mistake that goes in the wrong direction. This is another example as Zine pointed out, the Pitbull academy. It just showed up all of a sudden. Welcome, it's Friday, here is your pitbull academy. I think it is symptomatic and problematic.

Boks: I would like to make a brief comment. AGM Barth is here today to answer detailed questions. The decision itself was something, could we have handled it differently? Yes. Di d it have to be made? It did. Demand for vouchers have sky rocketed in an unprecedented manner. It was a run on the bank. The city can't afford to give away $30 free coupons to anyone. We need to focus on vouchers for people who need them, seniors, poor. The $30 program was undermining our efforts (He got rid of all vouchers, $30 and seniors and poor)

Weiss: The city will euthanize a dog for free. We need to prevent that.

Boks: The City has been very effective reducing euthanasia rate for over 37 years. The economic crisis caused euth to go up in 2008. The programs are effective. We should target it more effectively for people truly in need. It should not be available free for all. I will take full responsibility for making the decision. Do we continue to give away coupons or try to be more effective in targeting the people truly in need.

Then 14 people came forward to speak against Boks and his decision to end the program, sorry for misspellings.=2 0Elizabeth Orick, Ed Buck, Phyllis Daugherty, Sue Taylor, Rebecca Chambliss, ?, Lynn Amano, Bobby Dorafshur, Mary Catalano, Pam Wilkenson, Amy Gilbreath (Found Animals Foundation), Peter Debeery, .A member of the spay neuter task force said they were never notified about the change. They heard it from a rescuer.  

Someone: We appreciate that you came forward, regret your decision and have offered to apologize. But then you launch into public policy stuff. Here is my problem. If you just said that it must be studied, fine. You did it wrong as a public policy manager. Council will order you to reinstate it. You study, then you act.

Boks: We have been studying this internally. The increase in demand caused problems. If we didn't cut this program, I could come back to you in May and say we can't make payroll. This is a serious issue.

Parks: I don't recall this item being presented as an alternative to closing the budget gap. (He's on that committee) We've asked Department heads, tell council what you intend to do so we are fully aware. I don't recall this issue coming up.

Linda Barth: I appeared at the budget committee. I talked about having to close the gap.

Parks: The process of closing the gap was not clear.

Barth: We couldn't make up the entire $300K out of the funds. I did mention it.

Parks: It went over our heads and others (sarcastically saying he never heard it). You need to submit it on the financial status report. You put us in a bind if you mention it but don't write it in the financial strategy report. That is a concern. You surprised us all when it became public.

Barth: I apologize if I wasn't clear

(Someone joked that  Parks has super hearing and never misses anything)

Smith? If Parks said you didn't say it, you didn't say it.

Zine: You have a tendency to do things without going through committee or following protocol. The pitbull academy is a prime example. You got us up in arms. Again, you come up with a decision. You didn't consult the committee, commission. We  have protocol. You don't work with anybody. 

You've alienated lots of people, councilmembers, animal lovers, me included. You are slapping them in the face, arbitrarily doing this. What about coming forward and saying we need to do this. It's one blunder after another. This is short sighted, a lack of responsibility. You have an AGM and you sit there. How will we handle this? You create a huge uproar. You tell people to stop a program then will spend more money to kill the animals. How do you run a department without consulting with the committee or commissioners? You bypassed them all. I introduce a motion. All you had to do was think. This is controversial. Lets get input. Everyone has to cut their budget. You arbitrarily say to cut this part? We sit together and work with a plan. 

You don't. You just do it. This is not a dictatorship. It's a democracy. You are slapping us all in the face, alienating all of us. You know I'm not happy with you. I'm waiting for a report back from personnel. I haven't received it yet. You don't run a Department without consulting others. Don't cause controversies. It takes our time. 

The easiest thing is to screen people instead of abandoning the program. You're in a squeeze because you got all upset, unnecessarily so. I'm frustrated. You slap the public, councilmembers. Just another disaster, another example of poor management and poor leadership.  You are responsible for this.

I was with Obama. He said he is the President. He doesn't blame anyone. He is responsible. Don't blame anyone Boks but yourself. You have a committee to deal with, people in the department to deal with so we don't have to spend our time here. I am very frustrated with your lack of leadership, lack of ability to get the job done. 

Boks: I respect your opinion. I regret alienating people in the City. We were never going to end the program, just temporarily suspend it.

Weiss: What's the difference between stopping it and stopping it?

Boks: We had to regroup while there was bleeding which was escalating. It seemed to me to be a prudent management leadership decision. We must put on the brakes and reevaluate.

Weiss? You're going to hear what you heard today times 15 on Friday (when all councilmembers meet). We feel the same way about you. You have a choice. You can continue to put up this defense or whatever you call it, or you can help us figure out how to get out of this mess. There is a motion in City Council on Friday. I know what we will order you to do. 

Smith? I am puzzled Boks. This is a major policy statement, not just a line item in the budget. It was never in the documents, I guarantee that. It was never discussed. It is shocki ng that when the Mayor made it a clear policy statement, to make this city nokill, that you made such a major change in that policy without public discussion. I am shocked. I supported you for a couple of years. My patience is wearing very thin. 

Boks: I am meeting with the chief of staff of Alarcon and Cardenas. I welcome your chiefs. We need to have that discussion.

Smith: Are there any other options? I am assuming you're looking at other options?

Boks: We are looking for funding from outside organizations. We have a $14M shelter we are not able to open because of the budget. 31 employees' funding ends June 31. 18 employees are in unfunded positions. We scrubbed our budget to make up the $14K deficit caused by furlough program. There are hundreds of thousands of dollars in vouchers out in the community. They are using record numbers and its escalating. We don't know yet how much in the red we could end up being.

Smith: Again, this is the dissonance here. This isn't personal about you. The dissonance is if you asked all of us, this is a challenging problem. If you asked us should we cut it then study it we would have said no. If you asked us to study it we would have said yes. You acted first, before consulting and studying. We won't dispute that it's a challenge. You shot first and want to ask questions later. That's our problem. That's the problem. 

Zine: That's been the case in the past. Your supervisors met with me. They  believe you are not competent in leadership. So do the public and personnel. You have time to do a blog. I don't know of any other GM who has time to do a blog. You find time to do a blog.

Boks: On my time off, on weekends (Comment: bullshit, check the times and dates)

Zine: You are the GM for a department in the City of LA. You are responsible 24 hours a day, just like councilmembers, chief of police. You have no time off, 7 days a week job. You blog to defend yourself or your actions. You have lost the confidence of the employees, supervisors and members of the public.

Smith: Our concerns seem clear to everyone but you. My chief of staff will join the meeting. This council will make you reinstate this program. You will have to work with them to manage your budget. This is not the way it will be managed. Unfortunately you won't acknowledge that today. You will hopefully begin to see the appropriate way to run this department. All the other GMs do. This was the wrong decision, the wrong way to make the decision.

Boks: I'm not disputing what the committee is saying.

Weiss: This issue will get resolved.The motion is on Friday. We had no action item today. The Mayor's office is very concerned as well. We will take action on Friday.

Here Boks Get His Butt Bit by Council

This is priceless. Ed starts talking about an hour in and then each councilmemember there kicks him several times. You'll love it. How can he not be fired now?

Go to this link and click on the March 23 Public safety meeting. Ed's show doesn't start for about 57 minutes.