.
August 21, 2007 Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa announced on the steps of City Hall that Los Angeles Animal Services was the number one and largest pet adoption agency in the nation. That's wonderful news except for the fact that it's completely untrue.
LA Animal Services isn't even the largest or best in the immediate area. LA County Animal Control takes in more animals and adopts out more animals. Other shelters save more animals and euthanasia fewer than the City.
Marcia Mayeda who runs the much larger LA County Animal Control got wind of his press release and sent this to the media.
"Yesterday, Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa announced that the City of Los Angeles’ Department of Animal Services is the largest animal adoption agency in the United States. This claim is inaccurate. The County of Los Angeles’ Department of Animal Care places more animals each year than the City of Los Angeles. The City of Los Angeles placed 25,279 animals last year, compared to 28,309 animals placed by the County. In the 2005-06 fiscal year, the City placed 24,515 animals compared to 27,670 for the County. In the year prior to that, the City placed 24,190 animals and the County placed 28,203."
The Mayor made a few other "inaccurate" statements. He stated "for the first time in LA history, LA's animal shelters have saved and adopted out more animals than euthanized." This again is not true. LA City has saved more animals than it's euthanized since 2004, two years before the Mayor appointed the new General Manager Ed Boks and a year before Villaraigosa himself was elected Mayor. Does anyone in his office bother to check their facts?
The Mayor's press release went on to say “LA Animal Services has consistently reduced euthanasia over the past five years in the double digits." They have "cut the euthansia rate in half since 2002." Again, not true. The euthanasia rate did not go down at all during Boks' first year on the job in 2006. Very recently it's gone down a small percentage due to number manipulations. Boks is putting more animals in each cage so he doesn't have to euthanize them. Twice as many animals are dying from disease and fights caused by this overcrowding. He also is refusing to take in some animals. The current small reduction in euthanasia is equal to the increase in animals dying from overcrowding and the reduction in intake. There has been no double digit decrease ever. The records clearly show the euthanasia rate has not been cut in half since 2002.
Next the Mayor said that they reunited 16% of cats and dogs with their owners. Try 9%. The year before that it was also 9%, before that it was 10%. Fewer animals and a lower percentage are being reunited and the City is lying then bragging about it?
The Mayor's staff contacted ABC reporter John Gregory to cover this "historic" event, and that's when the story gets even wilder. Gregory reported that "L.A.'s Animal Services Department received a very special honor on Tuesday. The department's animal adoption agency won top national honors." The only thing is that the Department didn't win an award of any kind from anyone for anything. The Mayor merely framed a certificate of appreciation and showed it at the press conference. In effect he called a press conference to give a certificate of appreciation to himself. Many reporters have said that our Mayor has a big ego but this indeed does take the cake.
The Mayor's press release went on to say “LA Animal Services has consistently reduced euthanasia over the past five years in the double digits." They have "cut the euthansia rate in half since 2002." Again, not true. The euthanasia rate did not go down at all during Boks' first year on the job in 2006. Very recently it's gone down a small percentage due to number manipulations. Boks is putting more animals in each cage so he doesn't have to euthanize them. Twice as many animals are dying from disease and fights caused by this overcrowding. He also is refusing to take in some animals. The current small reduction in euthanasia is equal to the increase in animals dying from overcrowding and the reduction in intake. There has been no double digit decrease ever. The records clearly show the euthanasia rate has not been cut in half since 2002.
Next the Mayor said that they reunited 16% of cats and dogs with their owners. Try 9%. The year before that it was also 9%, before that it was 10%. Fewer animals and a lower percentage are being reunited and the City is lying then bragging about it?
The Mayor's staff contacted ABC reporter John Gregory to cover this "historic" event, and that's when the story gets even wilder. Gregory reported that "L.A.'s Animal Services Department received a very special honor on Tuesday. The department's animal adoption agency won top national honors." The only thing is that the Department didn't win an award of any kind from anyone for anything. The Mayor merely framed a certificate of appreciation and showed it at the press conference. In effect he called a press conference to give a certificate of appreciation to himself. Many reporters have said that our Mayor has a big ego but this indeed does take the cake.
Reporter Gregory had one last thing to add, "City shelters have a no kill policy, but that doesn't mean animals are not euthanized." The shelter does not have a nokill policy which is exactly why they are euthanizing them by the thousands per year. The City has since blamed the mistakes in ABC's reporting on the reporter.
99% of what the Mayor said in his press release and at the press conference was untrue. I only tried to verify this one press release. It makes you wonder how many other press releases for other Departments are completely untrue. It also makes you wonder why the Mayor is supporting and promoting a General Manager who most likely provided him with the untrue information. Ed Boks has made the Mayor look a fool.
Ann Angeleno
AnnAngeleno@yahoo.com
.
Boks' Claim of Being #1 Adoption Agency Exposed
.
O.k. here are the numbers for Boks claim to be the largest adoption agency in the US..
This is for LA Animal Services for FISCAL 2006-07,
and for Calendar 2006 for County Animal Care and Control.
Ed chose fiscal 2007 because those numbers are better for him. If we used 2006 for complete comparison, he’d do even worse.
.................................FY06-07 ....2006
Cats&Dogs ..............LAAS ..........LACACC
RTO .........................4,321 ..........6,182
Adoptions ..............15,113 ..........18,276
NewHope/Rescue ...5,840 ..........2,882
LAAS adopted 15,113
County adopted 18,276
Add rescue groups (Why? This is not something LAAS did, it was non-profit rescue groups, but Boks is taking credit for them.)
LAAS had 5,840 cats and dogs released to rescue groups
County had 2,882 released to rescue groups
LAAS Total 20,953 Adopted + Rescued
County Total 21,158 Adopted + Rescued
So Ed is dead wrong on two counts, adoptions for cats and dogs, and adoptions and rescued for cats and dogs. Beside, if you compare his calendar 2006 figures against County, he would fare even worse.
So what does Ed do? He throws in Rabbits and “Other Animals.” No other shelter really keeps those stats publicly available. We’d have to do a request for public documents to get the County’s rabbit and Other Animal figures. Mayeda certainly is not giving him those figures, and he knows no one else can produce data to prove him wrong. So he can freely say anything he wants in this area.
But on straight out adoptions of dogs and cats, he is a liar by 20%.
Even adoptions and rescues of dogs and cats he is off by 200, and if we compared his calendar 2006 against County 2006, he’d be worse off by almost 900.
The spreadsheet with data can be seen at:
http://spreadsheets0.google.com/ccc?key=pVc6YQelmdXWAkzEstmlaSA
O.k. here are the numbers for Boks claim to be the largest adoption agency in the US..
This is for LA Animal Services for FISCAL 2006-07,
and for Calendar 2006 for County Animal Care and Control.
Ed chose fiscal 2007 because those numbers are better for him. If we used 2006 for complete comparison, he’d do even worse.
.................................FY06-07 ....2006
Cats&Dogs ..............LAAS ..........LACACC
RTO .........................4,321 ..........6,182
Adoptions ..............15,113 ..........18,276
NewHope/Rescue ...5,840 ..........2,882
LAAS adopted 15,113
County adopted 18,276
Add rescue groups (Why? This is not something LAAS did, it was non-profit rescue groups, but Boks is taking credit for them.)
LAAS had 5,840 cats and dogs released to rescue groups
County had 2,882 released to rescue groups
LAAS Total 20,953 Adopted + Rescued
County Total 21,158 Adopted + Rescued
So Ed is dead wrong on two counts, adoptions for cats and dogs, and adoptions and rescued for cats and dogs. Beside, if you compare his calendar 2006 figures against County, he would fare even worse.
So what does Ed do? He throws in Rabbits and “Other Animals.” No other shelter really keeps those stats publicly available. We’d have to do a request for public documents to get the County’s rabbit and Other Animal figures. Mayeda certainly is not giving him those figures, and he knows no one else can produce data to prove him wrong. So he can freely say anything he wants in this area.
But on straight out adoptions of dogs and cats, he is a liar by 20%.
Even adoptions and rescues of dogs and cats he is off by 200, and if we compared his calendar 2006 against County 2006, he’d be worse off by almost 900.
The spreadsheet with data can be seen at:
http://spreadsheets0.google.com/ccc?key=pVc6YQelmdXWAkzEstmlaSA
Mayor Repeats Boks' Lie that LA Is Both No-Kill and also is the Biggest Adoption Agency in the US.
Boks lies to the Mayor, the Mayor lies to a reporter, and the reporter repeats the lie, representing it as fact. AND, KABC wants to copyright their lie!
From KABC-TV:
By John Gregory August 21, 2007 (KABC-TV) -
"L.A.'s Animal Services Department received a very special honor on Tuesday. The department's animal adoption agency won top national honors."
"Pet adoptions in Los Angeles are up and the city is now beating out other big towns like New York in finding homes for unwanted animals. "We're announcing that Los Angeles Animal Services is the number one public animal adoption agency in the United States of America," L.A.Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa said."
(Comment: RECEIVED A VERY SPECIAL TOP NATIONAL HONOR FROM WHOM JOHN GREGORY? WHO FED YOU THIS LINE? HAVE YOU CHECKED ANY FACTS WHATSOEVER? WAS IT THAT THEY WON TOP HONORS FROM HIS HONOR ONLY?
In fact, the statement about being the number one adoption agency is false. LA County adopts more:
LAAS adopted 15,201 while LA County adopted 18,276 in fiscal 2006.
I am assuming Boks included New Hope rescues, and returned to owner categories, in order to get his number of "adoptions" to 25,000.
But LA County, when you add those same three categories, "adopted" 27,000.
The County may be murderers extraordinaire, but because they take in so many more animals, even with their terrible percentages, they adopt out more animals than Los Angeles Animal Services.)
Take a look at the chart supplied by Brad Jensen of Sheltertrak.com:
County adoptions, 18,276, LA City Adoptions, 15,201.
"The city's Animal Services Department celebrated the news with a pet adoption fair on the steps of City Hall."
"City shelters have a no kill policy, but that doesn't mean animals are not euthanized. It's still a last resort for pets they can't find homes for.There are still plenty of challenges facing L.A. Animal Services, and one of the big ones is pit bulls and what to do with them."
(Comment: Everyone who has hesitated to bring a pet to LAAS for adoption in the past, can now dump their animal with a peaceful mind.)
Copyright © 2007 KABC-TV. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
It just keeps getting deeper and deeper.
Boks' Math; Vets
.
Boks has set out Clifton Merritt’s statistical analysis of shelter killing in the US. Merritt is an anti-disciple of No-Kill who has argued that all definitions are worthless.
However, Merritt guesstimated animals killed in various shelter systems and gave estimates of feral cat populations and killing trends.
He also listed the specific outcomes of well over a hundred shelter systems, including LA.
However, Boks juggled the numbers Merritt provided and inserted fiscal year 2006-07 instead of 2006.
LAAS killed 19,216 cats/dogs in 2006, but Boks listed 17,314 which Boks said Merritt wrote. He put in Fiscal Year instead of the regular year.
Boks said LA averaged 4.3 animals killed per 1,000 residents according to Merritt, but in fact, Merritt reported 19,216/4,000,000, which is 4.8.
Not like these numbers mean anything.
Boks also offers his analysis:
(The basic question LA City critics keep asking is, "Why can't Los Angeles be like San Francisco?" The answer is that Los Angeles is exactly like San Francisco, if you compare like-to-like demographic units. For example, …if you compare San Francisco and San Mateo County to Los Angeles, the combined S.F./San Mateo number and the current Los Angeles County number per 1,000 humans would be just about identical.)
Well, using similar logic,why don’t we compare Los Angles City/County and San Bernadino and Kern County, with San Francisco, Mateo and Sonoma Counties? It is very interesting to note that the Boks supplied figures have exact numbers listed for LA City, LA County and San Francisco, the S.F. Bay area—whatever that is—has an estimate number of 50,000. I don’t know whether Ed through this number in or it was a Merritt estimate.
Merritt's numbers also show that for the Northeast U.S., whatever that means to him, the kill rates per 1,000 population was 1.7, or about 1/3 of LA City
AS IF THESE NUMBERS MEAN ANYTHING. THEY DON’T. IT IS ABSOLUTELY STUPID TO MEASURE PROGRESS TOWARDS NOKILL ON THE BASIS OF NUMBERS OF ANIMALS KILLED PER THOUSAND. If that were the measure, NYC would have been no-kill years ago.
On a more interesting note, LAAS now has four vets working and one close to hire. It is an international mix of nationalities and religions.
One American Jew, my former vet Steve Feldman; one Fillipino; one Chinese and one Indian. Maybe the Chinese is Taoist and the Indian Hindu or Buddhist.
Boks has set out Clifton Merritt’s statistical analysis of shelter killing in the US. Merritt is an anti-disciple of No-Kill who has argued that all definitions are worthless.
However, Merritt guesstimated animals killed in various shelter systems and gave estimates of feral cat populations and killing trends.
He also listed the specific outcomes of well over a hundred shelter systems, including LA.
However, Boks juggled the numbers Merritt provided and inserted fiscal year 2006-07 instead of 2006.
LAAS killed 19,216 cats/dogs in 2006, but Boks listed 17,314 which Boks said Merritt wrote. He put in Fiscal Year instead of the regular year.
Boks said LA averaged 4.3 animals killed per 1,000 residents according to Merritt, but in fact, Merritt reported 19,216/4,000,000, which is 4.8.
Not like these numbers mean anything.
Boks also offers his analysis:
(The basic question LA City critics keep asking is, "Why can't Los Angeles be like San Francisco?" The answer is that Los Angeles is exactly like San Francisco, if you compare like-to-like demographic units. For example, …if you compare San Francisco and San Mateo County to Los Angeles, the combined S.F./San Mateo number and the current Los Angeles County number per 1,000 humans would be just about identical.)
Well, using similar logic,why don’t we compare Los Angles City/County and San Bernadino and Kern County, with San Francisco, Mateo and Sonoma Counties? It is very interesting to note that the Boks supplied figures have exact numbers listed for LA City, LA County and San Francisco, the S.F. Bay area—whatever that is—has an estimate number of 50,000. I don’t know whether Ed through this number in or it was a Merritt estimate.
Merritt's numbers also show that for the Northeast U.S., whatever that means to him, the kill rates per 1,000 population was 1.7, or about 1/3 of LA City
AS IF THESE NUMBERS MEAN ANYTHING. THEY DON’T. IT IS ABSOLUTELY STUPID TO MEASURE PROGRESS TOWARDS NOKILL ON THE BASIS OF NUMBERS OF ANIMALS KILLED PER THOUSAND. If that were the measure, NYC would have been no-kill years ago.
On a more interesting note, LAAS now has four vets working and one close to hire. It is an international mix of nationalities and religions.
One American Jew, my former vet Steve Feldman; one Fillipino; one Chinese and one Indian. Maybe the Chinese is Taoist and the Indian Hindu or Buddhist.
Two Excellent Sites on Catfood and Nutrition and a Boks Spoof
.
Since everything in cat food seems to be a poison unless you make it yourself, I looked for a good site for guidance.
I found several, but the one I like best is by Dr. Pierson who appears to be located in the South Bay.
http://www.catinfo.org/
http://cats.about.com/cs/catfood/a/catfoodindex.htm?PM=ss12_cats
Also, for your viewing pleasure, and anti-Boks spoof on youtube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GiIzQuxlbaM
Since everything in cat food seems to be a poison unless you make it yourself, I looked for a good site for guidance.
I found several, but the one I like best is by Dr. Pierson who appears to be located in the South Bay.
http://www.catinfo.org/
http://cats.about.com/cs/catfood/a/catfoodindex.htm?PM=ss12_cats
Also, for your viewing pleasure, and anti-Boks spoof on youtube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GiIzQuxlbaM
Friskies Bites Dust
.
Remember good the old days when cat food had chicken, beef, and turkey, and there was no "With gravy?"
Remember too when kidney disease, hyperthyroidism and cancer were far less prevalent than now, and we were told that the average lifespan of indoor cats was 17 years?
Remember when an office call on a vet cost $20 and there was no charge for a recheck within two weeks?
Remember when we were told to stay away from fish canned food because it caused FUS?
Now, can you find anything made by Friskies or other supermarket cat foods that is not fish based, or has replaced meat with contaminated gravy?
An article from the LA Times today:
An epidemic of thyroid disease among pet cats could be caused by toxic flame retardants that are widely found in household dust and some pet food, government scientists reported Wednesday.The often-lethal disease was rare in cats until the 1980s, when it began appearing widely, particularly in California cats.
That was at the same time industry started using large volumes of brominated flame retardants in consumer products, including furniture cushions, electronics, mattresses and carpet padding.
Scientists from the Environmental Protection Agency noted a possible connection between hyperthyroidism and flame retardants. The chemicals -- known as polybrominated diphenyl ethers, or PBDEs -- mimic thyroid hormones, so experts have theorized that high exposure in cats could cause overactive thyroids.Cats that remain indoors and eat fish-flavored canned food were found to be the most highly contaminated.
People in the United States have the highest PBDE levels in humans worldwide, but U.S. cats are even more exposed -- some with levels 100 times greater, according to the study.
We inhale or ingest dust, mostly from hand-to-mouth transfer," said Petreas, who did not participate in the study.The risk to cats that eat dry food and live in homes with average contamination is minimal, the study said, while "at the other extreme, maximal PBDE exposure" occurs in cats that eat fish-flavored canned food and live in houses with highly contaminated dust.
Cats that eat canned food containing whitefish, salmon and other seafood are exposed to PBDE levels up to 12 times higher than cats that eat dry food, and five times more than cats that eat poultry or beef canned foods, the study said. The chemicals build up in oceans and other water bodies and magnify in food chains.
However, much of the exposure -- for cats as well as people -- comes from dust, not food. Cats, while sleeping, often come in direct and prolonged contact with upholstery, carpeting and mattress materials that contain flame retardants. In addition, they often sit on electronic equipment. "Because of their meticulous grooming behavior, cats would effectively ingest any volatilized PBDEs or PBDE-laden dust that deposited on their fur during such activities,
In people and cats with the highest levels, Petreas said, "it's explained not by diet, but more contact with contaminated sofas, computers and other consumer products."Two pervasive PBDEs, used mostly in foam cushions, mattresses and carpet padding, have been banned in the United States since 2004.
Remember good the old days when cat food had chicken, beef, and turkey, and there was no "With gravy?"
Remember too when kidney disease, hyperthyroidism and cancer were far less prevalent than now, and we were told that the average lifespan of indoor cats was 17 years?
Remember when an office call on a vet cost $20 and there was no charge for a recheck within two weeks?
Remember when we were told to stay away from fish canned food because it caused FUS?
Now, can you find anything made by Friskies or other supermarket cat foods that is not fish based, or has replaced meat with contaminated gravy?
An article from the LA Times today:
An epidemic of thyroid disease among pet cats could be caused by toxic flame retardants that are widely found in household dust and some pet food, government scientists reported Wednesday.The often-lethal disease was rare in cats until the 1980s, when it began appearing widely, particularly in California cats.
That was at the same time industry started using large volumes of brominated flame retardants in consumer products, including furniture cushions, electronics, mattresses and carpet padding.
Scientists from the Environmental Protection Agency noted a possible connection between hyperthyroidism and flame retardants. The chemicals -- known as polybrominated diphenyl ethers, or PBDEs -- mimic thyroid hormones, so experts have theorized that high exposure in cats could cause overactive thyroids.Cats that remain indoors and eat fish-flavored canned food were found to be the most highly contaminated.
People in the United States have the highest PBDE levels in humans worldwide, but U.S. cats are even more exposed -- some with levels 100 times greater, according to the study.
We inhale or ingest dust, mostly from hand-to-mouth transfer," said Petreas, who did not participate in the study.The risk to cats that eat dry food and live in homes with average contamination is minimal, the study said, while "at the other extreme, maximal PBDE exposure" occurs in cats that eat fish-flavored canned food and live in houses with highly contaminated dust.
Cats that eat canned food containing whitefish, salmon and other seafood are exposed to PBDE levels up to 12 times higher than cats that eat dry food, and five times more than cats that eat poultry or beef canned foods, the study said. The chemicals build up in oceans and other water bodies and magnify in food chains.
However, much of the exposure -- for cats as well as people -- comes from dust, not food. Cats, while sleeping, often come in direct and prolonged contact with upholstery, carpeting and mattress materials that contain flame retardants. In addition, they often sit on electronic equipment. "Because of their meticulous grooming behavior, cats would effectively ingest any volatilized PBDEs or PBDE-laden dust that deposited on their fur during such activities,
In people and cats with the highest levels, Petreas said, "it's explained not by diet, but more contact with contaminated sofas, computers and other consumer products."Two pervasive PBDEs, used mostly in foam cushions, mattresses and carpet padding, have been banned in the United States since 2004.
About Mary Cummins
.
I have known Mary Cummins for about 18 months now. We met a total of four or five times, once at Boks office planning how to best support Ed and the department, two or three times at Boks/community meetings, and once at Mary’s house for a planning meeting with Ed when he failed to show because he was afraid activists would blog about his hanging around his groupies. At that time, he didn't want anyone to know where he lived, so his place was out and I lived far away from either. Her “significant other” was there on that occasion.
We talked on the phone maybe ten times—tops. We have hundreds, maybe a thousand or more emails, mostly during the period when we were supporting Boks. We have hundreds of replies to or emailed from Boks re all kinds of things, from defending him and the department, to reviewing kill stats to commenting on his posts.
She was never his lover. She has been in a committed relationship ever since I met her. In the hundreds and thousands of emails,phone calls, or meetings was there even one indication of a romantic bond between them.
Nada. When attacks on Boks seemed to be going nowhere, the anti Boks people in the animal community attacked us to force us to stop defending Ed. She defended me and provided moral support.
She is one of the most intelligent woman I have ever met, and one of the most committed to the welfare of animals. She rescued and returned to the wild 1,400 wildlife in 2005. Her work and reputation were heavily damaged when she spent so much time and energy defending Boks. Then even Boks even went after her when he (allegedly) had two LAAS field people search her house.
She tried to prevent the killing of hundreds of ground squirrels poisoned by the City of Santa Monica. If you think she was obsessed, look at my postings about County Vector Control and Santa Monica officials killing squirrels. During her birth control project of the SM squirrels, there, she used to routinely rope and lower herself over the edge of the 200 ft cliffs in Palisades Park to treat the burrows with a cholesterol ingredient known to cause temporary sterility in small mammals.
Several of you have remarked to me as to how much she helped you when you had problems with wildlife or even with your animals. She can be relentless and selfless when it comes to helping animals or her friends.
Her only fault is her exuberance in the defense of friends. She pissed off a LOT of people when they attacked Boks and she responded in kind. She will counterattack to the same degree she and her friends are attacked. She was not afraid to go toe to toe with lots of people that attacked her friends of herself.
AND, she apologized to everyone that she had been overly enthusiastic when defending Boks.
I want to remind everyone that Mary is not your enemy. We all want to get rid of Boks. She has been providing statistics and information, including the transcript of Boks before Council when they reamed him for the way he went about the Pit Bull Academy.
Will you get off it and focus on the real problems at hand, saving animal lives at LAAS by whatever means needed, including exposing several general managers as the incompetents or liars that they are? Talk to her if you will to see if you can now get together for common goals.
.
I have known Mary Cummins for about 18 months now. We met a total of four or five times, once at Boks office planning how to best support Ed and the department, two or three times at Boks/community meetings, and once at Mary’s house for a planning meeting with Ed when he failed to show because he was afraid activists would blog about his hanging around his groupies. At that time, he didn't want anyone to know where he lived, so his place was out and I lived far away from either. Her “significant other” was there on that occasion.
We talked on the phone maybe ten times—tops. We have hundreds, maybe a thousand or more emails, mostly during the period when we were supporting Boks. We have hundreds of replies to or emailed from Boks re all kinds of things, from defending him and the department, to reviewing kill stats to commenting on his posts.
She was never his lover. She has been in a committed relationship ever since I met her. In the hundreds and thousands of emails,phone calls, or meetings was there even one indication of a romantic bond between them.
Nada. When attacks on Boks seemed to be going nowhere, the anti Boks people in the animal community attacked us to force us to stop defending Ed. She defended me and provided moral support.
She is one of the most intelligent woman I have ever met, and one of the most committed to the welfare of animals. She rescued and returned to the wild 1,400 wildlife in 2005. Her work and reputation were heavily damaged when she spent so much time and energy defending Boks. Then even Boks even went after her when he (allegedly) had two LAAS field people search her house.
She tried to prevent the killing of hundreds of ground squirrels poisoned by the City of Santa Monica. If you think she was obsessed, look at my postings about County Vector Control and Santa Monica officials killing squirrels. During her birth control project of the SM squirrels, there, she used to routinely rope and lower herself over the edge of the 200 ft cliffs in Palisades Park to treat the burrows with a cholesterol ingredient known to cause temporary sterility in small mammals.
Several of you have remarked to me as to how much she helped you when you had problems with wildlife or even with your animals. She can be relentless and selfless when it comes to helping animals or her friends.
Her only fault is her exuberance in the defense of friends. She pissed off a LOT of people when they attacked Boks and she responded in kind. She will counterattack to the same degree she and her friends are attacked. She was not afraid to go toe to toe with lots of people that attacked her friends of herself.
AND, she apologized to everyone that she had been overly enthusiastic when defending Boks.
I want to remind everyone that Mary is not your enemy. We all want to get rid of Boks. She has been providing statistics and information, including the transcript of Boks before Council when they reamed him for the way he went about the Pit Bull Academy.
Will you get off it and focus on the real problems at hand, saving animal lives at LAAS by whatever means needed, including exposing several general managers as the incompetents or liars that they are? Talk to her if you will to see if you can now get together for common goals.
.
Re Eric Jones Sweetheart Deal by Boks
.
This is a comment received from my last post, expressing my sentiments exactly:
Any veterinarian in the world will tell you Dr. Eric Jones is making unheard of money (thanks to the taxpayers!). If we let it be known to vets that the city was giving out ridiculous money for this position, there would have been a lot of takers, that's for sure. This money should be going to hiring more vets.
This is just stupid management. It feels like George W. Bush is running Animal Services with all the lying, cronyism and just poor judgment. How did we get here?
.
This is a comment received from my last post, expressing my sentiments exactly:
Any veterinarian in the world will tell you Dr. Eric Jones is making unheard of money (thanks to the taxpayers!). If we let it be known to vets that the city was giving out ridiculous money for this position, there would have been a lot of takers, that's for sure. This money should be going to hiring more vets.
This is just stupid management. It feels like George W. Bush is running Animal Services with all the lying, cronyism and just poor judgment. How did we get here?
-----------------------------
You know how we got here. Villaraigosa hired him and staff (Blackman and Bickhart) turned a blind eye to his shenanigans. Why isn't the Commission reigning him in?.
The Fine Art of Moral Corruption
.
Pia, Tia and Eric Jones. What do they have in common?
All had fat, cushy contracts brokered by Boks, two of them operational even before they were approved by anyone, and the third caught by Council before fully operational.
I guess Ed thinks he can buy loyalty. Spread out City money to friends, announce the contracts later and ask forgiveness because he didn’t ask anyone for approval in the first place: No Personnel, not the Commission, not Council.
Personally, the more I know about Ed, the less I like him. To me these contracts are borderline graft.
Pia purportedly is an ex girlfriend and may be able to get Ed a job in the future with all the bucks and people she has and knows.
Who knows what relationship Boks has with Jones. He has the best of the cushy contracts, $320,000 a year and another 3,600 spay neuter surgeries upon which he gives the City a whole 7% discount each. How much does he make? Six hundred thousand, seven, eight, more?
Boks' report said Pia has been working since February. Boks didn't sign her agreement until May 24, three months later, and didn't send it in until June 22. I'm sure he sent this in late so that she'd almost be done with the work before anyone saw the agreement.
Hopefully the commission is now trying to make it so they have to approve of these cushy consulting gigs. Boks is out of control.
So when Boks gets bounced from here, which may be soon, he has a lot of friends bought and paid for with City money, to start his game elsewhere.
I am so happy Ken White is making 150% of what Boks is making at his new job in San Francisco. San Francisco knows how to get good people; they pay them a quarter million dollars a year.
Good people in S.F., Carl Friedman running the municipal side and some good people on the SPCA side.
.
Pia, Tia and Eric Jones. What do they have in common?
All had fat, cushy contracts brokered by Boks, two of them operational even before they were approved by anyone, and the third caught by Council before fully operational.
I guess Ed thinks he can buy loyalty. Spread out City money to friends, announce the contracts later and ask forgiveness because he didn’t ask anyone for approval in the first place: No Personnel, not the Commission, not Council.
Personally, the more I know about Ed, the less I like him. To me these contracts are borderline graft.
Pia purportedly is an ex girlfriend and may be able to get Ed a job in the future with all the bucks and people she has and knows.
Who knows what relationship Boks has with Jones. He has the best of the cushy contracts, $320,000 a year and another 3,600 spay neuter surgeries upon which he gives the City a whole 7% discount each. How much does he make? Six hundred thousand, seven, eight, more?
Boks' report said Pia has been working since February. Boks didn't sign her agreement until May 24, three months later, and didn't send it in until June 22. I'm sure he sent this in late so that she'd almost be done with the work before anyone saw the agreement.
Hopefully the commission is now trying to make it so they have to approve of these cushy consulting gigs. Boks is out of control.
So when Boks gets bounced from here, which may be soon, he has a lot of friends bought and paid for with City money, to start his game elsewhere.
I am so happy Ken White is making 150% of what Boks is making at his new job in San Francisco. San Francisco knows how to get good people; they pay them a quarter million dollars a year.
Good people in S.F., Carl Friedman running the municipal side and some good people on the SPCA side.
.
July Stats--Preliminary Analysis
.
The July numbers for LAAS are in—Except for neonate kittens, where even the June numbers are not up yet.
An analysis for the July numbers:
For cats/dogs: Died in shelter way up (2.5 X), new hope down a little, adoptions up, intake is down, euthanasia is down.
Intake is down 500 cats/dogs, euthanasia down 700, adopted up300. Drop in euthanasia number is equal to the drop in intake, increase in died in shelter and increase in adoption.
Boks basically improved things just by refusing kittens/puppies
though adoptions are still up almost 300. Perhaps because he didn't have to euth cat/dogs to make room for puppies/kittens that just get killed anyway?
The live release rate is down to 51% from 54%. I don't include foster, only released to foster because the fosters are still in the system..Dead release, which is euth and died in shelter is 42%, which is up.
.
Of course it's July which is a bad month. I'll compare it to last year but I think it's an improvement. Last year was a massacre and Boks is taking in way fewer, and adopting out more.
What is highly unusual is that "adoptions" of neonates is triple last year's July rate. Adoptions of neonates is illegal unless the little is released with their mother. These are not fosters, these are adopted by the public. It could mean that people are bringing in litters and staff is advising them to adopt them instead of fostering, or else the figures are wrong again, and neonates are later reclassified as kittens.
.
The July numbers for LAAS are in—Except for neonate kittens, where even the June numbers are not up yet.
An analysis for the July numbers:
For cats/dogs: Died in shelter way up (2.5 X), new hope down a little, adoptions up, intake is down, euthanasia is down.
Intake is down 500 cats/dogs, euthanasia down 700, adopted up300. Drop in euthanasia number is equal to the drop in intake, increase in died in shelter and increase in adoption.
Boks basically improved things just by refusing kittens/puppies
though adoptions are still up almost 300. Perhaps because he didn't have to euth cat/dogs to make room for puppies/kittens that just get killed anyway?
The live release rate is down to 51% from 54%. I don't include foster, only released to foster because the fosters are still in the system..Dead release, which is euth and died in shelter is 42%, which is up.
.
Of course it's July which is a bad month. I'll compare it to last year but I think it's an improvement. Last year was a massacre and Boks is taking in way fewer, and adopting out more.
What is highly unusual is that "adoptions" of neonates is triple last year's July rate. Adoptions of neonates is illegal unless the little is released with their mother. These are not fosters, these are adopted by the public. It could mean that people are bringing in litters and staff is advising them to adopt them instead of fostering, or else the figures are wrong again, and neonates are later reclassified as kittens.
.
ERIK JONES ITEM AT COMMISSION MEETING
.
Monday Ed will present a progress report on the Eric Jones operation at SLA.
Supposedly he performed 600 spay/neuters in May-June. That's 300 a month or 3,600 a year. I though Ed was saying each spay/neuter center was going to perform 10,000 spay/neuters a year.
Questions to ask Ed and Eric:
How much did Jones charge the City for each of the 600 s/n performed for LAAS above and beyond the $320,000 contract fee?
Is the additional $320,000 being distributed monthly, quaterly, etc.?
Did Jones perform any other general vet services to the public and what was the income Jones received from the public?
What amount did the City get--it was supposed to get 10% of Jones general vet income.
How was the request for proposals (bids) advertised? The final contract Jones got looks very different from the one I remember seeing on the table three months ago.
.
Monday Ed will present a progress report on the Eric Jones operation at SLA.
Supposedly he performed 600 spay/neuters in May-June. That's 300 a month or 3,600 a year. I though Ed was saying each spay/neuter center was going to perform 10,000 spay/neuters a year.
Questions to ask Ed and Eric:
How much did Jones charge the City for each of the 600 s/n performed for LAAS above and beyond the $320,000 contract fee?
Is the additional $320,000 being distributed monthly, quaterly, etc.?
Did Jones perform any other general vet services to the public and what was the income Jones received from the public?
What amount did the City get--it was supposed to get 10% of Jones general vet income.
How was the request for proposals (bids) advertised? The final contract Jones got looks very different from the one I remember seeing on the table three months ago.
.
Boks at Maricopa County
.
An anonymous email was forwarded to me as follows. It was not very well written so I abstracted the essence. The full email is below my summary. I have no idea if any of this is true or a fabrication to destroy Boks.
Prior to Ed's sneaky "No Kill" sell, the contracts for the cities in the metropolitan areas were up for renewal. This allowed any other qualified organizations to bid with each individual city. At that time, the Arizona Humane Society, under the superb leadership of Ken White, and also located here in Phoenix, was a big contender for the contracts.
There was a bid out for someone to run maricopa animal control. Boks was the director at the time. He knew people and potential contractors would be interested in bidding if licensing revenue was as high as it was normally. So, he reduced licensing income by not taking renewals or issue new licenses. This made other people not want to bid on the contract. Boks knew he'd probably be fired if the shelter system were taken over by the Arizona Humane Society.
Then Maddies Fund comes in and offers spay and neuter funds if all shelters agree to mass spay and neuter efforts. Two groups didn't want to do it for valid reasons. Boks then used the media to trash those two groups. One was the Arizona Humane Society. Boks just trashed Ken White, the Director, every chance he could. White is actually a good guy and is now the Director in San Francisco Peninsula.
The email writer also said that Boks did not invent the New Hope program. It was there before he worked there but he takes credit for it. Boks wanted the Maddies Fund money but wasn't a 501 3c, so he started a shelter support group that was a 501 3c, like he did here.
He got apiece of land from the city and built the adoption center. He told everyone all over the world that it was the first no kill shelter anywhere. (Take a look at Ed's blog. In his bio section he says just this.)
Maddies Fund and Best Friends spread the news far and wide. They made Boks a star.
Of course it wasn't a "no-kill shelter," it was and is an adoption center only. If animals weren't adopted, they went back to the real shelters and were killed.
An anonymous email was forwarded to me as follows. It was not very well written so I abstracted the essence. The full email is below my summary. I have no idea if any of this is true or a fabrication to destroy Boks.
-------------------------
Prior to Ed's sneaky "No Kill" sell, the contracts for the cities in the metropolitan areas were up for renewal. This allowed any other qualified organizations to bid with each individual city. At that time, the Arizona Humane Society, under the superb leadership of Ken White, and also located here in Phoenix, was a big contender for the contracts.
There was a bid out for someone to run maricopa animal control. Boks was the director at the time. He knew people and potential contractors would be interested in bidding if licensing revenue was as high as it was normally. So, he reduced licensing income by not taking renewals or issue new licenses. This made other people not want to bid on the contract. Boks knew he'd probably be fired if the shelter system were taken over by the Arizona Humane Society.
Then Maddies Fund comes in and offers spay and neuter funds if all shelters agree to mass spay and neuter efforts. Two groups didn't want to do it for valid reasons. Boks then used the media to trash those two groups. One was the Arizona Humane Society. Boks just trashed Ken White, the Director, every chance he could. White is actually a good guy and is now the Director in San Francisco Peninsula.
The email writer also said that Boks did not invent the New Hope program. It was there before he worked there but he takes credit for it. Boks wanted the Maddies Fund money but wasn't a 501 3c, so he started a shelter support group that was a 501 3c, like he did here.
He got apiece of land from the city and built the adoption center. He told everyone all over the world that it was the first no kill shelter anywhere. (Take a look at Ed's blog. In his bio section he says just this.)
Maddies Fund and Best Friends spread the news far and wide. They made Boks a star.
Of course it wasn't a "no-kill shelter," it was and is an adoption center only. If animals weren't adopted, they went back to the real shelters and were killed.
The email in its entirety
I thought I might share our experiences in Phoenix, AZ. The birthplace of Monster Ed and his outrageous ideas and his even more outrageous presentations of it to our Metropolitan area. MaricopaCounty Board of Supervisors, and the County itself created this misdirected moron, allowed him to keep his own budget by agreeing to not ask for any monies from the county, but instead to be self sufficient.
Prior to Ed's sneaky "No Kill" sell, the contracts for the cities in the metropolitan areas were up for renewal. This allowed any other qualified organizations to bid with each individual city. At that time, the Arizona Humane Society, also located here in Phoenix, was a big contender for the contracts, and under the then superb leadership of Ken White, was researching the past six months revenue from Ed's kitty to see if it would be worth the commitment contractually for the long haul.
Interestingly enough? During this research, County residents,, rescue organizations, and other shelters were having an alarming issue with license renewal and updating Rabies vacc info. This was an ongoing issue over many months, and interestingly enough we all were advised that updating info was approximately six months behind schedule.
By stopping renewals, new issuances, and Rabies fees, the numbers dropped drastically and didn't show the true revenue. This in turn discouraged several of the organizations to take the leap. However, one very industrious individual saw through this numbers game and reached out to some of the most recognized local rescue orgs for support.
Now right on the heels of the six month stint, and the numbers game,came an organization we are all probably familiar with now..."Maddies Fund". Ed's free ride to the MoooooooooooN!
Maddies Fund stipulated in their grant that in order for 501c3's to receive access to what seems like an unlimited supply of cash flow, all the big rescue groups in theMetro area had to be on board and in agreement with Maddies Funds Mission Statement.
Two key organizations here in Phoenix were NOT on board with MaddiesFund and a lot of pressure was put on the bigger of the two not only by rescue, but by Ed Bok's (whom does not have a 501c3 non for profitorganization by which to access Maddies Fund) whom publicly attacked Ken White on many occasions in any and every newspaper or media source that would listen and print it.
Ed most certainly seemed to have many of these sources in his pocket. He basically would rail on Ken every chance he could, and poor Ken got one shot at responding to him publicly. And it was a most superb response.
You can find all these articles archived at azcentral.com I know that Ken's response was published in the Sunday Edition of Viewpoints. I believe the speal was My Turn or something like that. I cant recall how many years ago this was, but if you were to research to see when Ken went to the SPCA in SF Peninsula area, it would be prior by no more than six months.
Ed slammed Ken in many local papers, the New Times being one that allowed Ed to play dirty in the sandbox, and disallowed Ken to have a voice. Coalition All Breed Rescue of AZ was the other org opposing Maddies Fund and for many of the same principle reasons that Ken White was also opposing it.
Mainly it was a numbers game for Maddie, they only granted money for spay and neuter, and one of the brilliant ideas was to hold a S/N day at one of our major arenas (America West to be exact) and sterilize em all! Our concern focused on the actual individual dog and any underlying health issues, concerns or complications because there was no concern for the actual welfare of THAT dog. Only that it was part of the overall numbers.
A group called CABRA fought hard against the pressure to acquiesce, and most certainly against the attacks of Ed and his unsuccessful attemptto banish them forever from not only the New Hope Partnership Program (CABRA President Kathy Painter was one of the driving forces behind the conception, design and implementation of original the New Hope Partnership) and it was being utilized prior to Ed's reign.
So while Ed has everyone attacking Ken White, others and the AZHS from every angle, he is also forming a non for profit 501c3 org, a spin off of his revenue generating shelter (that will never qualify for grant money from Maddies) and in true Ed form, he dubbed it Friends of MCACC.This is how Ed got the grant monies out of Maddie's.
Now Maddies goal is of course No Kill by 2012 (?) ish, and once again in true Ed fashion, he finagles a pretty lil piece of property on some acreage that used to be an old DMV or something, lots of green green grass and large shady trees.
He dubs it the Adoption Center. An off site Disneyland variety that makes it easier for the public to visit as itskips the sad abused abandoned neglected stinking rotten noisy chaotic parts that keep the right types of adopters away.
Once again,( in true Ed fashion) he debuts his off site "Adoption"center NO KILL. Maddies Fund will certainly love that, and it makes the public feel all warm and fuzzy.
Just be sure not to mention those dogs at the Adoption center that take longer to be noticed, get sick, or develop behavioral issues get transported back to the shelter (about ten minutes away) to be killed.
Of course none of us in the rescue end of things buys this load of crap he is feeding the public, and the media just takes his every word as gospel and continues to report inaccurate info to the public.
The Adoption Site was just that, a showcase you might say, but it was never a shelter. There were no intakes there, no stray status, nada zip, all that was done prior to arriving at the "Adoption" site.
We all used to just laugh and laugh at NY for being so naive and stupid to eat Ed's bullshit, and many of us celebrated in true style and fashion after his departure here. So NY finally figured it out, it was certainly costly in many ways to them, and they fired his sorry ass.
But LA, like NY previously, didn't heed the warnings, or research carefully enough, for they fell into his bullshit trap too.
----------------.
As I said, this was emailed to me by someone else who removed all the personal information of the original writer. All of this could be a complete fabrication to hurt Ed for all I know. So take it with a grain of salt.
However, the person who email it to stated he/she had 4 independent verification sources.
.
.
Mary Cummins' Lawsuit Against Boks
.
As you are now aware, the other pro-Boks blogger is Mary Cummins. Both she and I defended Boks against all critics and were given insider information by Boks and others regarding any number of issues involving Ed and the department. I have over 700 emails from Ed et al regarding responding to attacks on Ed or the department.
Both Mary and I came under attack by a number of people, were threatened with lawsuits, slandered, vilified, etc., she more than I.
Mary underwent far more travail than did I. Because I was public, I had to temper what I said. Mary did not hold back nearly as much as I did. After a few months, most people in the animal community and the Mayor's Office knew she was the Friends blogger.
Because of that, she became too "controversial" and lost her website job with LAAS as well as her position with Michelson's Found Animal Friends, the latter because Ed never filled out the paperwork to renew her grant with Friends.
It is alleged that after Mary was fired, Boks approached her and said that they now could go out because they had no official relationship with each other. (I am always careful of how I say things. Alleged is one of my favorite words now, and, I actually was not there.)
Ed quickly distanced himself from both Mary and I after we became the focus of more anti-Boks persons' enmity than Boks himself. In other words, we were welcome when we defended him against any and all attacks,but if we were under attack, he suddenly did not know us. I felt this to be a form of cowardice.
Boks just disappeared. He had Mary's house inspected as some persons were peppering the Mayor's Office with claims that she was hoarding animals and Boks was protecting her--his alleged ex-lover. So, he threw her under a truck and--allegedly--got his own troops after her to make himself look above reproach. This certainly is abuse of his power. He said it was an "annual inspection," and that Mary was lucky she had not been "inspected" before. If you read her complaint, they did not even look at the cage area, but did an alleged warrantless search.
This is when I first felt contempt for him and became aware of how little Ed was concerned about anyone but himself. When I was threatened with lawsuits because of what I was writing supporting him and the department, he disappeared on me too. No support, no communication. Just "Bye, bye, don't need you anymore--actually, I am just scared to be associated with you if you get sued and it goes public." (Fake quotes supplied by me.)
It was during this same first quarter of 2007 that the year-end total statistics came out and we were shocked to find that Ed had been spinning No-Kill progress that had not happened. In fact,euthanasia had not decreased even 1% during his first year on the job. I think for a month or two, Mary and I were in such shock that we didn't know what to do.
I don't think it was until February or March that the shock of his failure to turn the euthanasia numbers around, and his personal lack of courage and loyalty in the face of adversity, led me to change my attitude towards him totally. I began to look closely at what he was spinning to see if the Wizard was nothing more than a hollow old man behind the curtain. That's what he was--except he is in his 50's.
All along I was appraised of the happenings outlined in Mary's complaint, real time, as we were in constant communication and therefore have a first hand knowledge of many of the events outlined in the precis below of the lawsuit. I was at ground zero while all of this was going down.
A precis of Mary Cummins' complaint:
Mary K. Cummins-Cobb vs City of Los Angeles, Edward Boks and Does 1-25Case No. BC3745961.
1. Breach of implied contract
2. Wrongful termination
3. Wrongful retaliation
4. Wrongful Harassment
5. Tortious interference with economic relations
6. Tortious interference with existing and prospective business relations
7. Intentional violation of the equal protection clause
11. While working for the Defendants, Plaintiff was subjected to unwarranted sexual harassment, among other things.
Beginning immediately after Plaintiff started working for Defendant Boks, he began engaging in inappropriate and unprofessional conduct, including by the way of explanation and not by way of limitation: (a)inappropriately touching, grabbing, feeling, hugging, holding and kissing Plaintiff(b) predicating Plaintiff's job as web master and computer trouble shooter on the condition that she work in his office so that she could be "right next to him all the time;" (c) making inappropriate and lewd comments about Plaintiff's looks and sexuality; (d) emailing and phoning Plaintiff, sometimes 20 times a day, asking her to go out on a date with him; (e) injecting a vulgar and prurient meaning into whatever topic was being discussed with Plaintiff regarding work: and (f) showing up at Plaintiff's home unannounced,uninvited, and drunk, after being told by Plaintiff not to come, in order to ask her out on dates, among other things.
12. Shortly after Plaintiff starting working with Defendant Boks, he began being attacked on the Internet by animal activists, who were not happy with the job he was dong at the Department of Animal Services. As a way of alleviating this problem, Defendant Boks asked Plaintiff to set up an anonymous blog site in order to rebut and refute the charges being made against him.
Plaintiff complied because she was afraid of losing her job and be in unable to help rescue her beloved animals.
13. Because Plaintiff is so well known in the animal rescue community, her anonymous blog was almost immediately recognized as being her work. Thereafter, on or about April 6, 2007 the animal activists began an attack on Plaintiff in addition to their attacks on Defendant Boks,sending emails, letters, and faxes to the mayor, city council members,commissioners, employees, and other animal rescuers wherein they libeled Plaintiff by accusing her of many untruths, including by way of explanation and not by way of limitation: (a) that she was a "911 terrorist," "a prostitute," and "a practitioner of squirrel pornography," (b) that she was "blowing the deputy mayor," (c) that there is a "bench warrant out for her arrest," (d) that she "keeps drugs and needles at her home to supply addicts," (e) that she is "biologically a male," (f) that she "posts pornography in children's chat rooms," (g) and that she is a "cyber stalker," among other things.
14. The animal activists also contacted all of Plaintiff's private clients, and everyone listed on her resume, as well as the Found Animal Foundation, and slandered Plaintiff by orally repeating all the false accusations listed herein above. These same activists threatened to kill Plaintiff and her clients, and smashed her car's windshield.They disrupted city council meetings demanding that Plaintiff be fired and threatened to sue Defendant if she were not fired.
15. As a result of these attacks, Plaintiff was forced to stay in her house, and was unable to go out because when she did the activists followed and stalked her where ever she went. On two occasions Plaintiff sent cease and desist letters to the animal activists, but the attacks continued unabated.
16. In or about June 2006, the Found Animals Foundation, which was one of Plaintiff's employers, as well as being responsible for the grant that enabled Animal Services to employ Plaintiff as a web master and computer trouble shooter, terminated Plalintiff from the position of Assistant to the director. Plaintiff is informed, believes and thereon alleges that her termination was precipitated by her failure to return the sexual advances of Defendant Boks, who then withdrew his support from the grant renewing process.
17. In or about June 2006 , Plaintiff went to the mayor's office seeking protection from the animal activists, but received none. She also complained about the sexual harassment, sex discrimination, the disparate treatment that caused an interference with her equal protection rights under the US and California Constitutions, and her employer, Defendant failure to properly protect her from said acts of harassment and discrimination, as more fully described hereinafter. Plaintiff is informed, believes, and thereon alleges that as an employee of Defendant, was duty bound to protect her from the attacks of the animal activists, and to provide her equal protection under the laws.
Despite her complaints, nothing was ever done to stop the acts complained of, and plaintiff is informed, believes and thereon alleges that no one was even reprimanded for these wrongful acts.
18. On or about July 21, 2006, shortly after visiting the mayor's office, defendant Boks terminated plaintiff as both a volunteer rescue partner and a paid web designer/computer trouble shooter for the Department of Animal Services, stating that he was forced to do so by the mayor's office, because the Mayor did not want to be associated with such a huge controversy as that embroiling plaintiff. Plaintiff is informed, believes, and thereon alleges that her termination was in retaliation for her complaints to the mayors office regarding the attacks from the activists, the sexual harassment, and the denial of equal protection of the laws, among other things.
19. Even after terminating plaintiff, defendant Boks continued to harass her for sexual favors, emailing and calling her, sometimes as much as 10 times an hour. Plaintiff is informed, believes, and thereon alleges that when she still refused to go out with him or provide him with sexual favors, defendant Boks retaliated against her by delaying her wildlife permit, without which she was unable to work as a wildlife rehabilitator, and by interfering with her relationship with the Found Animals Foundation. Plaintiff is further informed, believes and thereon alleges that Defendant Boks continued his acts of harassment and retaliation against Plaintiff as last as February 27, 2007 by sending two animal control officers to her home, where she keeps a number of wild animals she has rescued, in order to conduct an "animal inspection."
For all her years working as a volunteer for the Department of Animal Services, Plaintiff had never heard of an "animal inspection." Moreover, the "inspectors" did not examine the cages where the animals were kept, but instead conducted a warrantless search of Plaintiff's entire house and garage.
.
Now that the case is public, I think we'll will hear from many other women with similar experiences with Ed.
Part of my posting all this is that no one seemed to have taken notice or cared about Ed's poor showing with regard to implementing No-Kill. His stats stank. Now things may be changing in the right direction, but it is a day late and a dollar short. Also, the euthanasia numbers appear to be down mostly because he is turning animals away and holding them longer. Adoptions and fosters are up modestly, but explain nothing.
But maybe this lawsuit will give Villaraigosa a reason to review Boks' performance. Ed has been characterized as a walking liability for the City. Then again, who is AV to judge?
.
As you are now aware, the other pro-Boks blogger is Mary Cummins. Both she and I defended Boks against all critics and were given insider information by Boks and others regarding any number of issues involving Ed and the department. I have over 700 emails from Ed et al regarding responding to attacks on Ed or the department.
Both Mary and I came under attack by a number of people, were threatened with lawsuits, slandered, vilified, etc., she more than I.
Mary underwent far more travail than did I. Because I was public, I had to temper what I said. Mary did not hold back nearly as much as I did. After a few months, most people in the animal community and the Mayor's Office knew she was the Friends blogger.
Because of that, she became too "controversial" and lost her website job with LAAS as well as her position with Michelson's Found Animal Friends, the latter because Ed never filled out the paperwork to renew her grant with Friends.
It is alleged that after Mary was fired, Boks approached her and said that they now could go out because they had no official relationship with each other. (I am always careful of how I say things. Alleged is one of my favorite words now, and, I actually was not there.)
Ed quickly distanced himself from both Mary and I after we became the focus of more anti-Boks persons' enmity than Boks himself. In other words, we were welcome when we defended him against any and all attacks,but if we were under attack, he suddenly did not know us. I felt this to be a form of cowardice.
Boks just disappeared. He had Mary's house inspected as some persons were peppering the Mayor's Office with claims that she was hoarding animals and Boks was protecting her--his alleged ex-lover. So, he threw her under a truck and--allegedly--got his own troops after her to make himself look above reproach. This certainly is abuse of his power. He said it was an "annual inspection," and that Mary was lucky she had not been "inspected" before. If you read her complaint, they did not even look at the cage area, but did an alleged warrantless search.
This is when I first felt contempt for him and became aware of how little Ed was concerned about anyone but himself. When I was threatened with lawsuits because of what I was writing supporting him and the department, he disappeared on me too. No support, no communication. Just "Bye, bye, don't need you anymore--actually, I am just scared to be associated with you if you get sued and it goes public." (Fake quotes supplied by me.)
It was during this same first quarter of 2007 that the year-end total statistics came out and we were shocked to find that Ed had been spinning No-Kill progress that had not happened. In fact,euthanasia had not decreased even 1% during his first year on the job. I think for a month or two, Mary and I were in such shock that we didn't know what to do.
I don't think it was until February or March that the shock of his failure to turn the euthanasia numbers around, and his personal lack of courage and loyalty in the face of adversity, led me to change my attitude towards him totally. I began to look closely at what he was spinning to see if the Wizard was nothing more than a hollow old man behind the curtain. That's what he was--except he is in his 50's.
All along I was appraised of the happenings outlined in Mary's complaint, real time, as we were in constant communication and therefore have a first hand knowledge of many of the events outlined in the precis below of the lawsuit. I was at ground zero while all of this was going down.
A precis of Mary Cummins' complaint:
Mary K. Cummins-Cobb vs City of Los Angeles, Edward Boks and Does 1-25Case No. BC3745961.
1. Breach of implied contract
2. Wrongful termination
3. Wrongful retaliation
4. Wrongful Harassment
5. Tortious interference with economic relations
6. Tortious interference with existing and prospective business relations
7. Intentional violation of the equal protection clause
11. While working for the Defendants, Plaintiff was subjected to unwarranted sexual harassment, among other things.
Beginning immediately after Plaintiff started working for Defendant Boks, he began engaging in inappropriate and unprofessional conduct, including by the way of explanation and not by way of limitation: (a)inappropriately touching, grabbing, feeling, hugging, holding and kissing Plaintiff(b) predicating Plaintiff's job as web master and computer trouble shooter on the condition that she work in his office so that she could be "right next to him all the time;" (c) making inappropriate and lewd comments about Plaintiff's looks and sexuality; (d) emailing and phoning Plaintiff, sometimes 20 times a day, asking her to go out on a date with him; (e) injecting a vulgar and prurient meaning into whatever topic was being discussed with Plaintiff regarding work: and (f) showing up at Plaintiff's home unannounced,uninvited, and drunk, after being told by Plaintiff not to come, in order to ask her out on dates, among other things.
12. Shortly after Plaintiff starting working with Defendant Boks, he began being attacked on the Internet by animal activists, who were not happy with the job he was dong at the Department of Animal Services. As a way of alleviating this problem, Defendant Boks asked Plaintiff to set up an anonymous blog site in order to rebut and refute the charges being made against him.
Plaintiff complied because she was afraid of losing her job and be in unable to help rescue her beloved animals.
13. Because Plaintiff is so well known in the animal rescue community, her anonymous blog was almost immediately recognized as being her work. Thereafter, on or about April 6, 2007 the animal activists began an attack on Plaintiff in addition to their attacks on Defendant Boks,sending emails, letters, and faxes to the mayor, city council members,commissioners, employees, and other animal rescuers wherein they libeled Plaintiff by accusing her of many untruths, including by way of explanation and not by way of limitation: (a) that she was a "911 terrorist," "a prostitute," and "a practitioner of squirrel pornography," (b) that she was "blowing the deputy mayor," (c) that there is a "bench warrant out for her arrest," (d) that she "keeps drugs and needles at her home to supply addicts," (e) that she is "biologically a male," (f) that she "posts pornography in children's chat rooms," (g) and that she is a "cyber stalker," among other things.
14. The animal activists also contacted all of Plaintiff's private clients, and everyone listed on her resume, as well as the Found Animal Foundation, and slandered Plaintiff by orally repeating all the false accusations listed herein above. These same activists threatened to kill Plaintiff and her clients, and smashed her car's windshield.They disrupted city council meetings demanding that Plaintiff be fired and threatened to sue Defendant if she were not fired.
15. As a result of these attacks, Plaintiff was forced to stay in her house, and was unable to go out because when she did the activists followed and stalked her where ever she went. On two occasions Plaintiff sent cease and desist letters to the animal activists, but the attacks continued unabated.
16. In or about June 2006, the Found Animals Foundation, which was one of Plaintiff's employers, as well as being responsible for the grant that enabled Animal Services to employ Plaintiff as a web master and computer trouble shooter, terminated Plalintiff from the position of Assistant to the director. Plaintiff is informed, believes and thereon alleges that her termination was precipitated by her failure to return the sexual advances of Defendant Boks, who then withdrew his support from the grant renewing process.
17. In or about June 2006 , Plaintiff went to the mayor's office seeking protection from the animal activists, but received none. She also complained about the sexual harassment, sex discrimination, the disparate treatment that caused an interference with her equal protection rights under the US and California Constitutions, and her employer, Defendant failure to properly protect her from said acts of harassment and discrimination, as more fully described hereinafter. Plaintiff is informed, believes, and thereon alleges that as an employee of Defendant, was duty bound to protect her from the attacks of the animal activists, and to provide her equal protection under the laws.
Despite her complaints, nothing was ever done to stop the acts complained of, and plaintiff is informed, believes and thereon alleges that no one was even reprimanded for these wrongful acts.
18. On or about July 21, 2006, shortly after visiting the mayor's office, defendant Boks terminated plaintiff as both a volunteer rescue partner and a paid web designer/computer trouble shooter for the Department of Animal Services, stating that he was forced to do so by the mayor's office, because the Mayor did not want to be associated with such a huge controversy as that embroiling plaintiff. Plaintiff is informed, believes, and thereon alleges that her termination was in retaliation for her complaints to the mayors office regarding the attacks from the activists, the sexual harassment, and the denial of equal protection of the laws, among other things.
19. Even after terminating plaintiff, defendant Boks continued to harass her for sexual favors, emailing and calling her, sometimes as much as 10 times an hour. Plaintiff is informed, believes, and thereon alleges that when she still refused to go out with him or provide him with sexual favors, defendant Boks retaliated against her by delaying her wildlife permit, without which she was unable to work as a wildlife rehabilitator, and by interfering with her relationship with the Found Animals Foundation. Plaintiff is further informed, believes and thereon alleges that Defendant Boks continued his acts of harassment and retaliation against Plaintiff as last as February 27, 2007 by sending two animal control officers to her home, where she keeps a number of wild animals she has rescued, in order to conduct an "animal inspection."
For all her years working as a volunteer for the Department of Animal Services, Plaintiff had never heard of an "animal inspection." Moreover, the "inspectors" did not examine the cages where the animals were kept, but instead conducted a warrantless search of Plaintiff's entire house and garage.
.
------------------------------------
Now that the case is public, I think we'll will hear from many other women with similar experiences with Ed.
Part of my posting all this is that no one seemed to have taken notice or cared about Ed's poor showing with regard to implementing No-Kill. His stats stank. Now things may be changing in the right direction, but it is a day late and a dollar short. Also, the euthanasia numbers appear to be down mostly because he is turning animals away and holding them longer. Adoptions and fosters are up modestly, but explain nothing.
But maybe this lawsuit will give Villaraigosa a reason to review Boks' performance. Ed has been characterized as a walking liability for the City. Then again, who is AV to judge?
.
Parolees Fired
.
The 6 parolees have been fired. Personnel decided Boks didn't have the authority to hire them.
Too bad, too bad. I think it is a good idea, but also think it to be a $280,000 a year gift to a friend. I don't think it a good idea to bring in a non-profit's existing program and make it part of the City's operation. Every other non profit in the City will feel left out unless they are Ed's friends.
Worse, no one knows how effective the program would be in terms of saving pit bull lives. Would it save 30, 50, 200, 300? If it saved an additional 200 animals, that would be at a price of $1,400 each. The program's funded amount would have bought almost 5,000 $60 spay/neuter certificates a year. But it is sexier to have a pit bull academy versus telling the press that LAAS gave out 45,000 spay/neuter vouchers in 2007 versus 40,000 in 2006.
Even then, there is little in the way to ascertain the effectiveness of any of LAAS's programs. There is no evaluation and control process that anyone has told me about.
I wish Ed would put his greatest effort into building an effective and large volunteer program and implementing it at all costs.This is what has helped all other cities greatly lower their kill rates.
If LAAS is not doing it, why not? What is the blockage?
.
The 6 parolees have been fired. Personnel decided Boks didn't have the authority to hire them.
Too bad, too bad. I think it is a good idea, but also think it to be a $280,000 a year gift to a friend. I don't think it a good idea to bring in a non-profit's existing program and make it part of the City's operation. Every other non profit in the City will feel left out unless they are Ed's friends.
Worse, no one knows how effective the program would be in terms of saving pit bull lives. Would it save 30, 50, 200, 300? If it saved an additional 200 animals, that would be at a price of $1,400 each. The program's funded amount would have bought almost 5,000 $60 spay/neuter certificates a year. But it is sexier to have a pit bull academy versus telling the press that LAAS gave out 45,000 spay/neuter vouchers in 2007 versus 40,000 in 2006.
Even then, there is little in the way to ascertain the effectiveness of any of LAAS's programs. There is no evaluation and control process that anyone has told me about.
I wish Ed would put his greatest effort into building an effective and large volunteer program and implementing it at all costs.This is what has helped all other cities greatly lower their kill rates.
If LAAS is not doing it, why not? What is the blockage?
.
Santee Alley Illegal Animal Sales
.
Email fromMadeleine Fisher-Kern
Councilman Weiss:
As my councilman, I would like to put before you an issue that has been a problem for many years with little in the way of a solution. Perhaps you can be the activist that puts it before the other councilmembers as it effects all their districts regarding health and humane concerns.
There has been an active illegal trade in animals in Santee Alley in the downtown garment district. This trade is done out of trucks and along the alley with the acceptance of a the kiosk owners who sell their goods in that area. Baby turtles are kept in buckets and taken out and placed in plastic containers filled usually filled with too much water. They are stacked up ten or more and allowed to sit in the heat in front of these kiosks till sold.
Individuals are seen walking up and down the alley hawking and holding either a young puppy, or young bunny, or some exotic reptile or caged birds. They are sold to anyone willing to pay the price. These people are neither licensed to sell or caring in the treatment of these animals.
What happens to these animals if not sold is not something that I wish to think about.
Including the concerns for these young animals is also the health concerns that face the unknowing person who purchases these unfortunate creatures. It is known that turtles and other reptiles spread salmonella and e-coli if not handled properly. It is known that these young animals get no veterinary care to assure their health. So, not only is this a humane concern, it is a concern for the Health Department and for our city.
The Department of Animal Services is well-aware of the Santee Alley illegal animal trade. Wildlife Officer Greg Randall is aware of this ugly situation and is in need of some strong support to help eradicate it. Jim Bickhart is a bit busy these days. This is most annoying as the Mayor has made several promises to the animal rescue community and has met none of them also being busy with other things.
Councilman Weiss, we need an LA Municipal Law 53.42 regarding Public safety and selling animals off the street that is more than a slap on the wrist. These animal traders must see that the ongoing selling of these animals is not feasible economically or legally. These animal traders must see that this city is serious about putting a stop to the possible health risk to this city's citizens and the animal abuse they are thoughtlessly involved in for illegal financial gain.
If you would go to: http://metropettracker.com/extra.htm or go to www.metropettracker.com and click on the Extra! Extra! link. You will get a clearer picture from the two articles and more impressively, you will be able to read e-mails from those who live in the city and those who visit. Their reactions are not complimentary to our city's turning a blind eye to this crime.
Madeleine Fisher-Kern
Check her site out and please let me know more about this situation.
Email fromMadeleine Fisher-Kern
Councilman Weiss:
As my councilman, I would like to put before you an issue that has been a problem for many years with little in the way of a solution. Perhaps you can be the activist that puts it before the other councilmembers as it effects all their districts regarding health and humane concerns.
There has been an active illegal trade in animals in Santee Alley in the downtown garment district. This trade is done out of trucks and along the alley with the acceptance of a the kiosk owners who sell their goods in that area. Baby turtles are kept in buckets and taken out and placed in plastic containers filled usually filled with too much water. They are stacked up ten or more and allowed to sit in the heat in front of these kiosks till sold.
Individuals are seen walking up and down the alley hawking and holding either a young puppy, or young bunny, or some exotic reptile or caged birds. They are sold to anyone willing to pay the price. These people are neither licensed to sell or caring in the treatment of these animals.
What happens to these animals if not sold is not something that I wish to think about.
Including the concerns for these young animals is also the health concerns that face the unknowing person who purchases these unfortunate creatures. It is known that turtles and other reptiles spread salmonella and e-coli if not handled properly. It is known that these young animals get no veterinary care to assure their health. So, not only is this a humane concern, it is a concern for the Health Department and for our city.
The Department of Animal Services is well-aware of the Santee Alley illegal animal trade. Wildlife Officer Greg Randall is aware of this ugly situation and is in need of some strong support to help eradicate it. Jim Bickhart is a bit busy these days. This is most annoying as the Mayor has made several promises to the animal rescue community and has met none of them also being busy with other things.
Councilman Weiss, we need an LA Municipal Law 53.42 regarding Public safety and selling animals off the street that is more than a slap on the wrist. These animal traders must see that the ongoing selling of these animals is not feasible economically or legally. These animal traders must see that this city is serious about putting a stop to the possible health risk to this city's citizens and the animal abuse they are thoughtlessly involved in for illegal financial gain.
If you would go to: http://metropettracker.com/extra.htm or go to www.metropettracker.com and click on the Extra! Extra! link. You will get a clearer picture from the two articles and more impressively, you will be able to read e-mails from those who live in the city and those who visit. Their reactions are not complimentary to our city's turning a blind eye to this crime.
Madeleine Fisher-Kern
Check her site out and please let me know more about this situation.
Boksian Figure and Animal Juggling Create Another Paper Success
.
Boks announces another successful month for LAAS:
July 07 adoptions are up 21% (1,614) from July 06 (1,329). An additional 478 dogs and cats were placed by our New Hope partners in July 07, just a few less than July 06 when 488 dogs and cats were placed.July 07 euthanasia is down 28% from 2,597 to 1866. Cat euthanasia is down 28% from 1,732 to 1,244. Dog euthanasia is also down 28% from 865 to 622. Euthanasia for a twelve month period (August 1, 2006 through July 31, 2007) hit another historic low for dogs and cats, down to 16,585.
What is surprising in that adoptions are up 300, New Hope is down, yet 740 fewer animals were killed.
No mention is made of fosters this month.
This can ONLY beexplained by stuffing more animals into the shelter and refusing other animals.I'll bet when the July stats come out, dog and cats intakes will be down by 700 or more versus last year, and even more neonates will go missing.
.
Boks announces another successful month for LAAS:
July 07 adoptions are up 21% (1,614) from July 06 (1,329). An additional 478 dogs and cats were placed by our New Hope partners in July 07, just a few less than July 06 when 488 dogs and cats were placed.July 07 euthanasia is down 28% from 2,597 to 1866. Cat euthanasia is down 28% from 1,732 to 1,244. Dog euthanasia is also down 28% from 865 to 622. Euthanasia for a twelve month period (August 1, 2006 through July 31, 2007) hit another historic low for dogs and cats, down to 16,585.
What is surprising in that adoptions are up 300, New Hope is down, yet 740 fewer animals were killed.
No mention is made of fosters this month.
This can ONLY beexplained by stuffing more animals into the shelter and refusing other animals.I'll bet when the July stats come out, dog and cats intakes will be down by 700 or more versus last year, and even more neonates will go missing.
.
Philly Continues to Outperform LAAS
.
New stats in from Philadelphia show the live release rate for cats and dogs has fallen to about 57% for the second quarter from 66% in the first quarter. Both live save rates are substantially better than for LAAS.
The combined live save rate for cats and dogs for January 1 to June 30 of this year is 60%,again much higher than LAAS' 52%.
Three years ago (2004), the live save rate for Philadelphia was 27%. In 2005, live saves increased to 37% after Winograd, I believe, started his consulting. In 2006, live saves increased to 47% and now they are 60%. Live saves have more than doubled in three years.
In addition,during July,adoptions (1,017) were 50% higher than July 2006 at 34% of the 3,000 inpounds. They have scheduled 24 adoption events during August.
Philly takes in about 25,000 dogs and cats a a few thousand other animals. So they handle about 55% of LAAS impound load and have a live save rate of 60%,compared to LAAS, which has almost 7 times as many employees, seven times the budget and 6 times as much cage/kennel space.
Philly continues to outperform LAAS substantially because of its large volunteer force, lack of civil service restrictions, and good management.
LAAS is beginning to improve but not so dramatically.
See "downloads" at www.phillypaws.org.
.
New stats in from Philadelphia show the live release rate for cats and dogs has fallen to about 57% for the second quarter from 66% in the first quarter. Both live save rates are substantially better than for LAAS.
The combined live save rate for cats and dogs for January 1 to June 30 of this year is 60%,again much higher than LAAS' 52%.
Three years ago (2004), the live save rate for Philadelphia was 27%. In 2005, live saves increased to 37% after Winograd, I believe, started his consulting. In 2006, live saves increased to 47% and now they are 60%. Live saves have more than doubled in three years.
In addition,during July,adoptions (1,017) were 50% higher than July 2006 at 34% of the 3,000 inpounds. They have scheduled 24 adoption events during August.
Philly takes in about 25,000 dogs and cats a a few thousand other animals. So they handle about 55% of LAAS impound load and have a live save rate of 60%,compared to LAAS, which has almost 7 times as many employees, seven times the budget and 6 times as much cage/kennel space.
Philly continues to outperform LAAS substantially because of its large volunteer force, lack of civil service restrictions, and good management.
LAAS is beginning to improve but not so dramatically.
See "downloads" at www.phillypaws.org.
.
Reno No-Kill Status
.
Preliminary statistics for the Reno shelter system are in. This includes the County shelter, and the Nevada Humane Society shelter.
The spreadsheet below is very complicated and difficult to follow, but uses columns instead of rows. The emphasis of the spreadsheet was on % killed vs. total impound into the system. As you can see, the disposition numbers do not account for all the impounds less adoptions, transfers and killed. The other categories not accounted for are returned to owner and held in shelter. I have asked for a more complete spreadsheet.
Unlike almost all other shelters, Reno does not distinguish between died in shelter due to disease and euthanasia for other reasons. They are counted as kill in their kill statistics.
As you can see, the total county intake is about 8,000 animals. The overall kill rate for dogs is 8.8% and for cats 25.4%. They dropped the kill rate by about 50% compared to 2006.
I don't think of Reno as a particularly affluent community made up of rich, highly educated compassionate residents, as naysayers claim, even such as Bickhart, to explain the good stats.
Like most shelters in the 6-8,000 animal category, they have about a $3 million budget and about 50 employees. They do not have civil service, which Bickhart uses to explain LAAS and Boks' failures.
They have about 1/6 of LAAS' impounds, but only 1/8 as many employees.
What sets Reno markedly apart is that they have 700 active volunteers, or 14 for every employee. How many does LAAS have?
Volunteer staff is the key to success at all of the shelter with low kill rates, such as SF, Charlottesville, Philly and Reno. Further analysis of what volunteer numbers mean, of course, is necessary.
Reno has one volunteer coordinator, who is a volunteer her or himself, and three volunteer assistants.
Once again, it seems that total community involvement is essential to No-Kill. I assume this means a no-kill status is difficult to maintain because you have to keep the entire community involved.
By the way Naysayer, no more posting of your rants averring that all low kill shelter directors, even those who run public shelters not dependent on donations, are liars and that only you know the truth but need not supply any evidence yourself. I have had enough.
http://itisnotreal.com/Reno.pdf
.
Preliminary statistics for the Reno shelter system are in. This includes the County shelter, and the Nevada Humane Society shelter.
The spreadsheet below is very complicated and difficult to follow, but uses columns instead of rows. The emphasis of the spreadsheet was on % killed vs. total impound into the system. As you can see, the disposition numbers do not account for all the impounds less adoptions, transfers and killed. The other categories not accounted for are returned to owner and held in shelter. I have asked for a more complete spreadsheet.
Unlike almost all other shelters, Reno does not distinguish between died in shelter due to disease and euthanasia for other reasons. They are counted as kill in their kill statistics.
As you can see, the total county intake is about 8,000 animals. The overall kill rate for dogs is 8.8% and for cats 25.4%. They dropped the kill rate by about 50% compared to 2006.
I don't think of Reno as a particularly affluent community made up of rich, highly educated compassionate residents, as naysayers claim, even such as Bickhart, to explain the good stats.
Like most shelters in the 6-8,000 animal category, they have about a $3 million budget and about 50 employees. They do not have civil service, which Bickhart uses to explain LAAS and Boks' failures.
They have about 1/6 of LAAS' impounds, but only 1/8 as many employees.
What sets Reno markedly apart is that they have 700 active volunteers, or 14 for every employee. How many does LAAS have?
Volunteer staff is the key to success at all of the shelter with low kill rates, such as SF, Charlottesville, Philly and Reno. Further analysis of what volunteer numbers mean, of course, is necessary.
Reno has one volunteer coordinator, who is a volunteer her or himself, and three volunteer assistants.
Once again, it seems that total community involvement is essential to No-Kill. I assume this means a no-kill status is difficult to maintain because you have to keep the entire community involved.
By the way Naysayer, no more posting of your rants averring that all low kill shelter directors, even those who run public shelters not dependent on donations, are liars and that only you know the truth but need not supply any evidence yourself. I have had enough.
http://itisnotreal.com/Reno.pdf
.
After Boks, Who?
.
A little premature, but hey, why not?
Have you asked around other shelter directors for suggested successors like I have?
When I have asked recently, no one suggested anyone. When I asked them if they would come, the feedback I got was something like, "What? You crazy?"
When I was doing this same homework 3 years ago, EVERYONE, from Mike Arms, to Baptiste, to everyone, without reservation said Winograd. They told me LA would be tough and Winograd fit that bill.
I think they all think that LA is holding and will hold the next GM up to a much higher standard than would any other city.
Maybe this is why Winograd refused the job. Maybe LA is as much out of his league as it is obviously out of Boks' league.
No other city has given its animal services a budget of $25,000,000 and 7 basically new shelters, and what do we have to show for it? Marginally better stats than NYC with 3 smaller shelters and a budget of $8.5 million.
Actually, NYC has been doing fairly well since Boks left. I don't know whether they just have mastered Boks's style of no-kill math, or they are actually making substantial progress. We do know they are extremely overcrowded and are turning away animals which helps stats somewhat. I wonder if Greenwalt turned animals away?
AND, LA did make good progress under Stuckey, who was apparently a good (?) manager of community outreach in Maryland. Greenwalt made dramatic progress compared to anything Boks has been able to do here or at any of his other jobs. His kill numbers dropped 17% one year, and the smallest drop was 11%.
I have changed my mind in one respect. Mike Arms said it was all about marketing "used animals." There is good truth in that concept, but there is more to it than that.
I think you need someone to be GM who will do this because he loves animals and who was a huge success in some other area, such as business or the military, someone like Lee Iacoca who is a true turn around specialist, not intimidated by a 400 employee union-civil service department. You know, someone who made $5,000,000 a year or was an army general (or at least a colonel), who would have instant respect, maybe deep pockets, and a deep backfield like Riordan when he was mayor.
I think Riordan was a good if not great mayor because he had the capability of going around the blockages built into the system. Boks tries but he doesn't have the juice to get away with it and his program ideas are too small and not life-effective. They are show pieces to deflect attention away from his overall failure.
But I don't know anyone in the director industry that wants the LA job and VERY FEW (1), in even a moderate sized city, with smaller than a 20% kill rate. San Francisco is still the gold standard with a successful partnership between the municipal and private SPCA.
I would like to think Winograd could do it, but I think his constant backing away from involvement with LA is a signal sent loud and clear. Nathan is correct in one HUGE way: The City will not become No-Kill until it has the will to do so. Villaraigosa does not have that will or priority but its citizen's do.
So, we wait on Philly, which is Winograd's biggest test so far, but in the meantime, know any retired Marine generals who want to do No-Kill in LA? Maybe Kathy can talk her father into taking on the job. Tell him he can be canonized in a couple of decades if he carries it off.
On the other hand, this would be a one-shot fix. That is, it would require another Marine general in another city to get the same No-Kill there. Too many cities with needs, too few generals.
.
So, we are left with Boks who pretends success, Winograd who promises success on his terms, and a few sucessful shelter managers who don't want the job. Go figure.
But if Villaraigosa made No-Kill a priority, it would happen. That is apparently left for the next Mayor, who I had hoped would be Alarcon or Zine, both of whom seem keen on getting the killing down. But it looks like Antonio may not be moving up to Governor soon.
.
A little premature, but hey, why not?
Have you asked around other shelter directors for suggested successors like I have?
When I have asked recently, no one suggested anyone. When I asked them if they would come, the feedback I got was something like, "What? You crazy?"
When I was doing this same homework 3 years ago, EVERYONE, from Mike Arms, to Baptiste, to everyone, without reservation said Winograd. They told me LA would be tough and Winograd fit that bill.
I think they all think that LA is holding and will hold the next GM up to a much higher standard than would any other city.
Maybe this is why Winograd refused the job. Maybe LA is as much out of his league as it is obviously out of Boks' league.
No other city has given its animal services a budget of $25,000,000 and 7 basically new shelters, and what do we have to show for it? Marginally better stats than NYC with 3 smaller shelters and a budget of $8.5 million.
Actually, NYC has been doing fairly well since Boks left. I don't know whether they just have mastered Boks's style of no-kill math, or they are actually making substantial progress. We do know they are extremely overcrowded and are turning away animals which helps stats somewhat. I wonder if Greenwalt turned animals away?
AND, LA did make good progress under Stuckey, who was apparently a good (?) manager of community outreach in Maryland. Greenwalt made dramatic progress compared to anything Boks has been able to do here or at any of his other jobs. His kill numbers dropped 17% one year, and the smallest drop was 11%.
I have changed my mind in one respect. Mike Arms said it was all about marketing "used animals." There is good truth in that concept, but there is more to it than that.
I think you need someone to be GM who will do this because he loves animals and who was a huge success in some other area, such as business or the military, someone like Lee Iacoca who is a true turn around specialist, not intimidated by a 400 employee union-civil service department. You know, someone who made $5,000,000 a year or was an army general (or at least a colonel), who would have instant respect, maybe deep pockets, and a deep backfield like Riordan when he was mayor.
I think Riordan was a good if not great mayor because he had the capability of going around the blockages built into the system. Boks tries but he doesn't have the juice to get away with it and his program ideas are too small and not life-effective. They are show pieces to deflect attention away from his overall failure.
But I don't know anyone in the director industry that wants the LA job and VERY FEW (1), in even a moderate sized city, with smaller than a 20% kill rate. San Francisco is still the gold standard with a successful partnership between the municipal and private SPCA.
I would like to think Winograd could do it, but I think his constant backing away from involvement with LA is a signal sent loud and clear. Nathan is correct in one HUGE way: The City will not become No-Kill until it has the will to do so. Villaraigosa does not have that will or priority but its citizen's do.
So, we wait on Philly, which is Winograd's biggest test so far, but in the meantime, know any retired Marine generals who want to do No-Kill in LA? Maybe Kathy can talk her father into taking on the job. Tell him he can be canonized in a couple of decades if he carries it off.
On the other hand, this would be a one-shot fix. That is, it would require another Marine general in another city to get the same No-Kill there. Too many cities with needs, too few generals.
.
So, we are left with Boks who pretends success, Winograd who promises success on his terms, and a few sucessful shelter managers who don't want the job. Go figure.
But if Villaraigosa made No-Kill a priority, it would happen. That is apparently left for the next Mayor, who I had hoped would be Alarcon or Zine, both of whom seem keen on getting the killing down. But it looks like Antonio may not be moving up to Governor soon.
.
Council Chastises Boks
.
One of Boks' memorable sayings is, "It is easier to ask for forgiveness than for permission."
Unfortunately for Ed, Council doesn't do things that way. They want due process which includes their input, especially if it is in their district.
Concerning the transcript below, black text is transcript, red text is my highlight of things actually said by the persons indicated, but which I thought important to nore, and blue text is my sarcastic or nor sarcastic coments.
From a transcript:
Public comment on the item was first. Four parolees expressed supportfor the program, Teri Austen supported the program as did Daniel Guss.Guss asked if the LAAS commission had approved it. He believed they did not.
Tia Maria and her daughter both spoke for the program as did two other members of the public. Daugherty spoke against training aggressive pitbulls. Union head Julie Butcher asked if they had been adequate analysis, public vetting. She said she was not notified. Is having the first pitbull academy of any city a good thing? Maybe other cities use limited resources in other ways.
Boks then read a three page speech about the program. He said it will be housed at the SLA annex. Part time exempt city employees will be used. Villalobos is providing liability insurance. They will not rehab dangerous dogs. Six parolees will be on six month rotation, 1,000 hrs max per year. They will hire two supervisors to oversee them. Tia has alot of experience with pitbulls. There are no costs outside of salaries. $10K was donated to the program yesterday. (He said a lot more touting the program, just a summary of salient points).
Parks: I just found out about this today and it's in my district. There was no debate, no process, it didn't go to public safety or budget and finance. There are loose ends and what about liability. This is not vetted enough, not enough community input. We have a major dilemma. We want lower euthanasia, fewer dogs in shelters, want to help parolees,don't disagree on that, just not vetted enough. How did we get here without some review beyond the GM level?
Boks: Pitbulls were originally nanny dogs meant to protect children.What is liability? I briefed the animal services commission 3 times, if not 4. Only one commissioner asked questions via email. (Really Ed?)
The mayor told me to develop out of the box programs. Two employees will be union, six will not but they can apply.
Parks: Yes, the mayor said out of the box ideas but not outside of the normal process. (Oops!) It never went to public safety. What is the financial impact? It didn't go to budget or finance committee. You went over the numbers alright but you missed number 8, my district. (Oops!) The union brought up their concerns. I make a motion not to start this weekend. Pause it and take it through the process.
Labonge: I second that.
Cardenas: The council is in a dilemma. We want to reduce euthanasia and help the reentry of parolees but as Parks said, it hasnt' been vetted property, through the process. There is liability, we must be careful. This is the first time we've seen it. We have a process because we have a responsibility to our workers. We respect their opinion. Where are you getting the budget for this? Is it in your purview to shift it without coming to council?
Boks: We have a part time budget approved. We use it for special assignments such as this. Yes, the department has the authority to do this.
Cardenas: Not enough notification was made. I support and agree with you helping parolees and animals. Pitbulls can be the most docile pet.Unfortunately this got here the wrong way. I recommend to Parks. Try to move this forward before council goes on recess. Weiss can wave it from public safety. It could go to budget committee.
Parks: If we can waive it, we will but we don't have enough information today so, no. Budget and finance does not waive it.
Alarcon: I worked with Tia on anti-gang program 20 years ago. Just learned today she's doing this program. We want to reduce euthanasia but the question is the process. Does the dept have authority to contract outside without city council? Let's talk to the city attorney.
Boks: Tia is a volunteer.
Alarcon: Six are exempt, two are not? Boks: Two will be supervisors, employees who will be hired for the program.
Alarcon: So new positions are created for two supervisors?
Boks: Two are existing positions.
Alarcon: Did you give the opportunity to others to serve in this program?
Boks: Uhhhhh (Comment: Ooops!)
Alarcon: Our dept has no people who can train pitbulls?
Boks: Not to the degree that this program requires.
Alarcon: I gotta believe that some ACOs have the ability. There is acivil service process. Were they allowed to compete?
Boks: No, it's a special needs position.
Alarcon: Are they open or promotional? Open is from the outside,promotional is from the ranks. Did personnel approve these.
Boks: There was a competitive process. We worked with different parole boards. (Comment: Hey Ed, Alarcon was not talking about the competitive process you did in your own mind, but whether you involved the City's Personnel Dept.)
Alarcon:"This is not rocket science here. You put council in an awkward position. We want to encourage programs like this but we can't do it in the face of civil service system we manage. You have abused that privilege. You're dong it in our face. I don't appreciate it. Do it the right way. This needs to go to committee for review. I don't know why it didn't in the first place.
Boks: The Union expressed their concerns in a letter and we responded. (Comment: Oops; didn't Butcher just say she wasn't notified?)
Wesson: Where is this academy located? at the annex? That's district 10, my district. This is where the church wants to expand. How much money will this take from the city budget to do this for 6 months?
Boks: Salaries, supervisors $34K for two, $95K for 6 parolees, $129K total.
Wesson: For 6 months? So because of the way this was handled six people can't start work tomorrow. How long will this program last?
Boks: We will evaluate it every six months.
Wesson: We all have legitimate concerns for the process. We all said we could support the concept. Can we let it go ahead while we vet it? Six individuals are trying to have a second chance. It should have gone through the commission, city process.
Labonge: You said personnel reviewed it? (to Boks)
Boks: They are already in the payroll system.
Labonge: Parks is 1000% right. It should be vetted. You have to go through the process. You can't work outside of the process. (Comment: Oops!) I supportParks, start it now, just don't do pitbulls. If personnel department says it's okay to go to work tomorrow, put them to work. When did the animal services commission look at this?
Boks: We discussed it three times.
Labonge: As an agenda item?
Boks: It's in the minutes.
(Comment: Another Boks lie; it is not in any of the Commission minutes. Guss caught him on this.)
Hahn: We have the majority of parolees in my district. I try to find them jobs. That's not the point. If they're on payroll, let's hire these guys. The city's liability is not vetted. What if a dog gets a certificate and bites someone? Does liablity increase? I want to see the city attorney look at this. I want your commission to take a position on this.
Rosendthal: Gerry (city attorney), come on up. This didn't go through the process. Was under the radar screen. I'm a dog lover but Hahn is right about liability issues. Jerry, how did we get here, below the radar?
(Comment: Maybe because most of Council is stupid as witness them agreeing to pay Eric Jones DVM $1.6 million to get a 7% discount for City Spay/Neuters.)
Gerry: Boks has authority to hire personnel assuming that you funded the program. It's unclear. Boks has authority to have them work tomorrow.
Rosendthal: Can we do it before recess in the next couple of weeks?
Gerry:I'll look at it quick depending upon schedule.
Rosendthal: Can you put them on payroll now them bring it before council quick?
Greuel: Make sure personnel and city attorney are okay with it.
Alarcon: We must act legally on hires. Two supervisors would be union eligible. Don't think they went through the personnel dept. If we wait a week, we'll know more.
Gueuel: Motion to hire them today with approval of attorney and personnel, or continue it?
Labonge: Hire six, not the exempt positions.
Gerry: If Boks has the authority to hire them. I take it on faith that he does, council can't direct him to hire or not hire. (Comment: A City Attorney takes Boks' word on faith?)
Labonge: Alarcon was the former personnel analyst. His points aren't good points? I have to take my motion back because I didn't hear from personnel that it's okay.
Boks: I spoke with Wayland. She supports the program.
Greuel: If you can do that, that's the question. (Comment: Gotcha!)
Boks: I have the authority.
Labonge: Continue it to the 17th of August.
Greuel: No one is hired until it comes back through committee?
Parks: Make sure the program is funded, make that part of the review.
10 ayes. No one is hired until it goes through committee. Personnel committee, public safety committee, LAAS commission, budget and finance committe and the union did not approve this program. I do not see it in the minutes online now.
(Comment: Well, well, how many lies was he caught in today?)
.
One of Boks' memorable sayings is, "It is easier to ask for forgiveness than for permission."
Unfortunately for Ed, Council doesn't do things that way. They want due process which includes their input, especially if it is in their district.
Concerning the transcript below, black text is transcript, red text is my highlight of things actually said by the persons indicated, but which I thought important to nore, and blue text is my sarcastic or nor sarcastic coments.
From a transcript:
Public comment on the item was first. Four parolees expressed supportfor the program, Teri Austen supported the program as did Daniel Guss.Guss asked if the LAAS commission had approved it. He believed they did not.
Tia Maria and her daughter both spoke for the program as did two other members of the public. Daugherty spoke against training aggressive pitbulls. Union head Julie Butcher asked if they had been adequate analysis, public vetting. She said she was not notified. Is having the first pitbull academy of any city a good thing? Maybe other cities use limited resources in other ways.
Boks then read a three page speech about the program. He said it will be housed at the SLA annex. Part time exempt city employees will be used. Villalobos is providing liability insurance. They will not rehab dangerous dogs. Six parolees will be on six month rotation, 1,000 hrs max per year. They will hire two supervisors to oversee them. Tia has alot of experience with pitbulls. There are no costs outside of salaries. $10K was donated to the program yesterday. (He said a lot more touting the program, just a summary of salient points).
Parks: I just found out about this today and it's in my district. There was no debate, no process, it didn't go to public safety or budget and finance. There are loose ends and what about liability. This is not vetted enough, not enough community input. We have a major dilemma. We want lower euthanasia, fewer dogs in shelters, want to help parolees,don't disagree on that, just not vetted enough. How did we get here without some review beyond the GM level?
Boks: Pitbulls were originally nanny dogs meant to protect children.What is liability? I briefed the animal services commission 3 times, if not 4. Only one commissioner asked questions via email. (Really Ed?)
The mayor told me to develop out of the box programs. Two employees will be union, six will not but they can apply.
Parks: Yes, the mayor said out of the box ideas but not outside of the normal process. (Oops!) It never went to public safety. What is the financial impact? It didn't go to budget or finance committee. You went over the numbers alright but you missed number 8, my district. (Oops!) The union brought up their concerns. I make a motion not to start this weekend. Pause it and take it through the process.
Labonge: I second that.
Cardenas: The council is in a dilemma. We want to reduce euthanasia and help the reentry of parolees but as Parks said, it hasnt' been vetted property, through the process. There is liability, we must be careful. This is the first time we've seen it. We have a process because we have a responsibility to our workers. We respect their opinion. Where are you getting the budget for this? Is it in your purview to shift it without coming to council?
Boks: We have a part time budget approved. We use it for special assignments such as this. Yes, the department has the authority to do this.
Cardenas: Not enough notification was made. I support and agree with you helping parolees and animals. Pitbulls can be the most docile pet.Unfortunately this got here the wrong way. I recommend to Parks. Try to move this forward before council goes on recess. Weiss can wave it from public safety. It could go to budget committee.
Parks: If we can waive it, we will but we don't have enough information today so, no. Budget and finance does not waive it.
Alarcon: I worked with Tia on anti-gang program 20 years ago. Just learned today she's doing this program. We want to reduce euthanasia but the question is the process. Does the dept have authority to contract outside without city council? Let's talk to the city attorney.
Boks: Tia is a volunteer.
Alarcon: Six are exempt, two are not? Boks: Two will be supervisors, employees who will be hired for the program.
Alarcon: So new positions are created for two supervisors?
Boks: Two are existing positions.
Alarcon: Did you give the opportunity to others to serve in this program?
Boks: Uhhhhh (Comment: Ooops!)
Alarcon: Our dept has no people who can train pitbulls?
Boks: Not to the degree that this program requires.
Alarcon: I gotta believe that some ACOs have the ability. There is acivil service process. Were they allowed to compete?
Boks: No, it's a special needs position.
Alarcon: Are they open or promotional? Open is from the outside,promotional is from the ranks. Did personnel approve these.
Boks: There was a competitive process. We worked with different parole boards. (Comment: Hey Ed, Alarcon was not talking about the competitive process you did in your own mind, but whether you involved the City's Personnel Dept.)
Alarcon:"This is not rocket science here. You put council in an awkward position. We want to encourage programs like this but we can't do it in the face of civil service system we manage. You have abused that privilege. You're dong it in our face. I don't appreciate it. Do it the right way. This needs to go to committee for review. I don't know why it didn't in the first place.
Boks: The Union expressed their concerns in a letter and we responded. (Comment: Oops; didn't Butcher just say she wasn't notified?)
Wesson: Where is this academy located? at the annex? That's district 10, my district. This is where the church wants to expand. How much money will this take from the city budget to do this for 6 months?
Boks: Salaries, supervisors $34K for two, $95K for 6 parolees, $129K total.
Wesson: For 6 months? So because of the way this was handled six people can't start work tomorrow. How long will this program last?
Boks: We will evaluate it every six months.
Wesson: We all have legitimate concerns for the process. We all said we could support the concept. Can we let it go ahead while we vet it? Six individuals are trying to have a second chance. It should have gone through the commission, city process.
Labonge: You said personnel reviewed it? (to Boks)
Boks: They are already in the payroll system.
Labonge: Parks is 1000% right. It should be vetted. You have to go through the process. You can't work outside of the process. (Comment: Oops!) I supportParks, start it now, just don't do pitbulls. If personnel department says it's okay to go to work tomorrow, put them to work. When did the animal services commission look at this?
Boks: We discussed it three times.
Labonge: As an agenda item?
Boks: It's in the minutes.
(Comment: Another Boks lie; it is not in any of the Commission minutes. Guss caught him on this.)
Hahn: We have the majority of parolees in my district. I try to find them jobs. That's not the point. If they're on payroll, let's hire these guys. The city's liability is not vetted. What if a dog gets a certificate and bites someone? Does liablity increase? I want to see the city attorney look at this. I want your commission to take a position on this.
Rosendthal: Gerry (city attorney), come on up. This didn't go through the process. Was under the radar screen. I'm a dog lover but Hahn is right about liability issues. Jerry, how did we get here, below the radar?
(Comment: Maybe because most of Council is stupid as witness them agreeing to pay Eric Jones DVM $1.6 million to get a 7% discount for City Spay/Neuters.)
Gerry: Boks has authority to hire personnel assuming that you funded the program. It's unclear. Boks has authority to have them work tomorrow.
Rosendthal: Can we do it before recess in the next couple of weeks?
Gerry:I'll look at it quick depending upon schedule.
Rosendthal: Can you put them on payroll now them bring it before council quick?
Greuel: Make sure personnel and city attorney are okay with it.
Alarcon: We must act legally on hires. Two supervisors would be union eligible. Don't think they went through the personnel dept. If we wait a week, we'll know more.
Gueuel: Motion to hire them today with approval of attorney and personnel, or continue it?
Labonge: Hire six, not the exempt positions.
Gerry: If Boks has the authority to hire them. I take it on faith that he does, council can't direct him to hire or not hire. (Comment: A City Attorney takes Boks' word on faith?)
Labonge: Alarcon was the former personnel analyst. His points aren't good points? I have to take my motion back because I didn't hear from personnel that it's okay.
Boks: I spoke with Wayland. She supports the program.
Greuel: If you can do that, that's the question. (Comment: Gotcha!)
Boks: I have the authority.
Labonge: Continue it to the 17th of August.
Greuel: No one is hired until it comes back through committee?
Parks: Make sure the program is funded, make that part of the review.
10 ayes. No one is hired until it goes through committee. Personnel committee, public safety committee, LAAS commission, budget and finance committe and the union did not approve this program. I do not see it in the minutes online now.
(Comment: Well, well, how many lies was he caught in today?)
.
Boks Illegally denying Requests for Public Records
.
So many people smell so many rats in anything related to Ed Boks and LAAS, that because the department allegedly has received an excessive number of Requests for Public Records, they are now refusing to respond--illegally.
Brad Jensen has submitted a RPR that asked for a list of those who have submitted RPRs to LAAS since Boks became GM, to determine if there was excessive redundancy in the requests and what "excessive" means.
I'd like to know too. I made a RPR in March of 2006 and never got a response. At that time I was looking to see if anyone was trying to get any emails sent between Boks and myself.
I understand the department and Dov Lesel routinely ignore such requests. Mr. Jensen was lucky he got any response at all to his requests for impound data that led me to charge the department with alleged Hayden violations. Of course, since then--and it has been lots of months--his requests have fallen on deaf ears.
(I had thought of doing a request of the records Ed generated during their alleged investigation of the hundreds of records involved in answering my charges of Hayden violations. I knew they had the data because Ed said they generated it after my allegation. But I didn't because I didn't have the time to do a proper analysis.)
.
This is especially troubling as Boks's statistics on impounds and dispositions have become so weird that it is a full-time job just to guess at how he arrives at his figures. We just want to understand what has happened to the missing animals, such as the 291 missing neonates from May and June.
.
So many people smell so many rats in anything related to Ed Boks and LAAS, that because the department allegedly has received an excessive number of Requests for Public Records, they are now refusing to respond--illegally.
Brad Jensen has submitted a RPR that asked for a list of those who have submitted RPRs to LAAS since Boks became GM, to determine if there was excessive redundancy in the requests and what "excessive" means.
I'd like to know too. I made a RPR in March of 2006 and never got a response. At that time I was looking to see if anyone was trying to get any emails sent between Boks and myself.
I understand the department and Dov Lesel routinely ignore such requests. Mr. Jensen was lucky he got any response at all to his requests for impound data that led me to charge the department with alleged Hayden violations. Of course, since then--and it has been lots of months--his requests have fallen on deaf ears.
(I had thought of doing a request of the records Ed generated during their alleged investigation of the hundreds of records involved in answering my charges of Hayden violations. I knew they had the data because Ed said they generated it after my allegation. But I didn't because I didn't have the time to do a proper analysis.)
.
This is especially troubling as Boks's statistics on impounds and dispositions have become so weird that it is a full-time job just to guess at how he arrives at his figures. We just want to understand what has happened to the missing animals, such as the 291 missing neonates from May and June.
.
Winograd Calls Boks a Fraud
.
Without mentioning Boks’ name, Winograd accuses the Maricopa Shelter Director from 1998—2003 (Boks) of being a fraud.
Nathan from Best Friends (The actual link is currently down):
When San Francisco became the first city to end the killing of healthy, homeless dogs and cats, (most municipal) shelters had the leeway to kill most of the animals in their care and were doing little to change that policy, while shelter directors continued to be paid handsomely, gave national conference workshops, and were hailed as pillars of the humane movement by their colleagues. (Do you think he had Boks in mind?)
It has become common to hear shelter directors proclaim their shelters will beNo Kill in five years, or ten years, or, in some cases, even claiming that they are very nearly there already. (Do you think Boks would be included in this category? Yes he would.) It is a strategy of self-preservation, and it is becoming increasingly common.
In those communities that claimed “success” or near “success,” such asMaricopa County animal control in Phoenix, Arizona, a review of their statistics from 1998 to 2003 showed little change in the levels ofkilling or, at best, only modest declines consistent with other communities. After claiming at national conferences that MaricopaCounty shelters had not killed a treatable dog or cat in years, that the costs for No Kill initiatives were not being borne by taxpayers,that Maricopa County was a model of life saving, and that it would be No Kill within two years, its director left the agency in disarray. At thetime, the shelter was still killing over 29,000 dogs and cats a year,had a structural deficit in excess of a half-million dollars, and was nowhere near No Kill. In fact, according to former shelter managers, animals were being intentionally misclassified and poorly cared for andthe agency was near financial ruin.
Without mentioning Boks’ name, Winograd accuses the Maricopa Shelter Director from 1998—2003 (Boks) of being a fraud.
Nathan from Best Friends (The actual link is currently down):
When San Francisco became the first city to end the killing of healthy, homeless dogs and cats, (most municipal) shelters had the leeway to kill most of the animals in their care and were doing little to change that policy, while shelter directors continued to be paid handsomely, gave national conference workshops, and were hailed as pillars of the humane movement by their colleagues. (Do you think he had Boks in mind?)
It has become common to hear shelter directors proclaim their shelters will beNo Kill in five years, or ten years, or, in some cases, even claiming that they are very nearly there already. (Do you think Boks would be included in this category? Yes he would.) It is a strategy of self-preservation, and it is becoming increasingly common.
In those communities that claimed “success” or near “success,” such asMaricopa County animal control in Phoenix, Arizona, a review of their statistics from 1998 to 2003 showed little change in the levels ofkilling or, at best, only modest declines consistent with other communities. After claiming at national conferences that MaricopaCounty shelters had not killed a treatable dog or cat in years, that the costs for No Kill initiatives were not being borne by taxpayers,that Maricopa County was a model of life saving, and that it would be No Kill within two years, its director left the agency in disarray. At thetime, the shelter was still killing over 29,000 dogs and cats a year,had a structural deficit in excess of a half-million dollars, and was nowhere near No Kill. In fact, according to former shelter managers, animals were being intentionally misclassified and poorly cared for andthe agency was near financial ruin.
The 90% Rule:
Since 2001, the open door shelter in Tompkins County, NY has savedbetween 91-93% of all animals it takes in. The open door animal controlshelter in Charlottesville VA saved 92% last year. And so far thisyear, Washoe County NV is saving 91% of dogs. This is all dogs andcats, not just those some bureaucrat claims is “adoptable” and there isno exception made for “owner requested euthanasia,” animals seized under “dangerous dog” laws, or for any other reason.
Of all the animalscoming in regardless of reason, over 90% left the shelters alive.Therefore, it is safe to say that a shelter has achieved No Kill andhas therefore “zeroed out” deaths of savable animals only when it issaving approximately 91-95% of all animals it takes in.
A community achieves No Kill when all of its shelters do so. To put it bluntly: regardless of what claims shelters make, No Kill can only be achieved when at least 90% of all the animals impounded (regardless of reason) are saved. Anything short of that precludes a shelter—or community—from honestly claiming it is No Kill..
Link to Nathan's statement:
http://network.bestfriends.org/Blogs/PostDetail.aspx?bp=4909&g=
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)