Mayoral Staffer Responds to ADL Charges Re GM Search

Below is the response to the ADL charges that the GM selection is totally controlled by Mayoral staffers who have no interest in a progressive No-Kill General Manager:

First, Personnel is preparing (and may have already completed) a response to the first PRA request from last week and I'm told it will include the kind of info the City would normally feel it can release about a search when such a request comes in.  I provided no guidance on that, as I am not an expert on the topic.

Every one of the so-called "no kill experts" ADL listed in their e-mails was called and either spoken to or engaged via an e-mail dialogue (like NW), both to be asked if they would consider applying and for suggestions as to who else to recruit and what to look for.  Most of them were spoken or communicated with at least twice. 

And the only entity who's interviewed candidates so far is the search firm.  But the search firm, while it plays a role in providing info from the first round of interviews, is not deciding who should be interviewed in the next round.  Neither am I. 

I don't know all the questions that were asked of candidates in the first round, but I do know they were asked to define "no kill" and assess how feasible they thought it was in a fully public shelter system, and also how best to work with the politicians and the public on the sticky issues that come up with Animal Services.  We all heard loudly and clearly the topics raised by the people who testified at the Commission hearing and wrote to us, and we took no issue with making sure the key ones were factored into the search and the interviews.  By the way, with regard to the public hearing, no one said anything there that hadn't already been brought up in writing or in other contexts.

As I told the Animal Services Commission in early March (out loud in public), more than 120 people applied, 22 were interviewed and six to eight will go forward to the next round.  There doesn't have to be an inside source in the Mayor's office (and I know there isn't one) when the information ADL is misquoting and mischaracterizing was provided by yours truly in a public forum and can be heard on a recording posted on the City website for the last month. 

The only list of questions we have is the master list of about 180 submitted by dozens of people in response to the Mayor's request a few weeks ago.  The process of winnowing it down is not complete yet.

I would challenge ADL to publicly document any evidence they have that the City "promised" some kind of transparent process that would lead to the names of candidates being released publicly during the process.  And I know they can't because there isn't any.  All they can document is their own demand.  You more politely urged and asked for more transparency, but I know you have no evidence of any such promise either.  This search is being carried out in a manner very comparable to other City GM searches, and I know I've told you that before.  The main difference is that we've included members of the stakeholder public in at least one more of the steps than is usually the case.

Additionally, I am not a Deputy Mayor, I have no staff (and probably no cronies either), and I take more advice from the Personnel Department staff than I give them.  And, on any important decision regarding this process, I seek and receive guidance from people higher up in the Mayor's office who provide such direction for all of the GM searches.

The only other thing I will say is that not all of the candidates likely to be interviewed in the next round have direct animal control experience.


Anonymous said...

"This search is being carried out in a manner comparable to other GM searches" is the statement by the responder.

The question to be asked is, why wasn't the first GM search conducted like this? Why was Boks, who didn't even meet the minimum requirements just handed the job?

That is the question to ask the responder.

Anonymous said...

If I remember correctly (and I do), it was the "animal community" who wanted Boks.

In my mind, the question to be asked is: Who will that particular community be happy with besides Nathan Winograd?

Oh well, too bad. The mayor doesn't care about any of you anymore. You can thank your big mouth, dumb ass, violent fellow "animal activists" for that.

I hope the GM position just sits there open. We don't have the money anyway.

Ed Muzika said...

The animal community certainly did not want Boks. He was foisted on us. No, that community is deeply divided concerning Winograd, and he does not want the job anyway.