Madison Barkley Installments (copies)

As you all know there has been an e mail exchange between Ed Boks and an anonymous writer which Ed Boks has been responding to on his Blog. Since you as rescuers are short on time, I have decided to summarize these facts as they are extremely important for us as members of the Humane community of Los Angeles.

I am sending you this e mail as a fellow LA rescuer who has probably worked alongside with each of you over the years. Due to some security sloppiness in high level management, I obtained official documentations which have confirmed what many of us have suspected for a while. All of my statements come from facts derived directly from LAAS Chameleon, e mail records, SOPs (Standard Procedures of Operations) and LAAS internal memos.

Ed Boks states "the Department is over 95% on its way to achieving Phase I of No-Kill."

Ed Boks would like us to believe that 95.75% of all animals killed are too sick or vicious to be deemed adoptable. Here is how Ed Boks latest "no kill" charade works.

Define no kill as killing only animals who are medically unhealthy and vicious.
Label 95.75% of your dead animals as medically unhealthy or vicious.
Using these labels leaves only 4.25% of the dead animals labeled as killed for time and space.
By using these labels you have found a way to call yourself over 95% no kill.

As rescuers we all know that those odds are impossible.

Although Ed Boks claims over 95% "no kill", this is what really happens. In real number terms, out of the 11,829 dogs and cats killed YTD as of August 19, 2008, 11,327 were deemed medically or behaviorally unfit for adoption.

In using Ed Boks numbers varified by Chameleon records, roughly 1 out of every 3 animals impounded into LAAS are so hopelessly sick or vicious that they must be killed.

At this rate all Ed Boks needs to do is mislabel a few extra animals and he gets 100% no kill.

The number of Animals in LAAS has increase by 300% and Boks/Barth have reduced the food budget by 30%

Ed Boks claims that his department goes to tremendous length and performs surgeries to treat the sick and injured. This morning alone, counting only two district shelters , 16 dogs are in the shelter hospital severely injured and are not receiving the treatments he claim.

Ed Boks is laying off 28 ACTs yet plans to spend close to $830,000.00 to fattened up his upper management.

I will reveal my identity when Ed Boks and the mayor agree to meet with me and the rescue community and put the truth on the table. If you would like to join me in addressing city officials regarding Boks/Barth, I invite you to contact me at MadisonBark22 @ gmail.com I promise to keep your response and identity confidential unless you tell me otherwise.

Thank you for now, more information to come.

Anonymous.

First, I have received e mails inquiring why I am remaining anonymous, using the pseudonym Madison Barkley. Revenge by Boks/Barth is only one small reason. Most important is that if I reveal my name the flow of information that I now have at hand will promptly stop.

Three weeks after Ed Boks took over as head of LAAS, he implemented his "PLUS ONE / MINUS ONE" program. According to Ed's January 26, 2006 intra-department correspondence, the basis of this program is "very simple: the daily goal of each District is to have at least one additional adoption and one less euthanasia as there were on the same calendar day from the previous year." In his memo, Ed uses the following example "Last year, the East Valley district adopted out 10 animals and euthanized 5 on the last Friday in January...This year, for the last Friday in January, goal for East Valley will be at least 11 adoptions and no more than 4 euthanasias."

Two and half years later, the problem with Ed's "exciting new program" is that it comes without any new and genuine strategies to actually increase adoptions or decrease euthanasia. As such, "PLUS ONE / MINUS ONE" cannot work. After all what do you do when the shelter fills up on any given day and no one is coming into the shelter to adopt? Without any adoption programs and/or incentives the animals end up being warehoused.

As of this morning LAAS has approximately 2317 cats and dogs only. As you can see warehousing creates overcrowding, resulting in illness and behavioral issues. This enables Ed Boks to have another way to sign off animals for euthanasia due to being medically and behaviorally unfit for adoption. Since the medically and behaviorally unadoptable animals do not count as a kill under Ed's "no kill" charade, warehousing is another method that makes it possible for Bok/Barth to claim their 95.75% "no kill" Phase I rate .

While warehousing Ed Boks submitted a budget proposal to reduce 39 ACT position which would have led to 28 layoffs. Thankfully, the Mayor (not Ed) resolved the problem. However, the fact that he proposed it in the first place shows his lack of concern and lack of planning for the animals. Is Ed Boks waiting for the mayor to resolve the warehousing issue too?

More to come in the next installment.

Madison

8-28-08

Below is an internal LAAS E mail (in Red italics) dated Aug 14, 2008 and written by Linda Barth to upper management. Note that E mail was written by Linda and Ed is copied on it. When Ed Boks wants to test his ideas he has someone else deliver them. This way, as always, if the idea works he takes the credit, if it fails, he can throw someone else under the bus.

LOOK AT HOW MANY MORE ANIMALS BOKS/BARTH WILL KILL AS A RESULT OF THIS LATEST IDEA.

Please note that this is not intended to criticize Gillian Lange or The Lange Foundation.

Here is what Linda Barth says in her Email:

For what I hope are only the remaining months that Northeast may still be non-public use, we should consider the possibility of experimenting with some unusual ideas that we can try there but would be too hard to do at the animal care centers operating at full capacity.

Months ago, Ed spoke to several different New Hope groups, at various times and for various reasons, who asked if they could use 5 to 10 kennels at our care centers to hold animals when they have a shortage of fosters. That doesn't seem practical right now at centers struggling at peak capacity. The question is: could we try out some versions of that idea at Northeast in order to learn what, if anything might work in the future?

Several of you are aware that a similar request has recently come from Gillian at the Lange Foundation. Let's be prepared to discuss the pros and cons, but first let's lay out the issues.

Start with the idea that a New Hope Partner in good standing would make a formal request to use 5-10 kennels and maybe some cat cages for some period of time. They would handle all expenses, bring their own supplies, and have staff there or coming regularly to take care of the animals completely. Our responsibility would be to allow access, maybe some storage, and intervention (medical or otherwise) if something happens and the rescue partners are not present or readily available.

We need a list of all the details we would need to consider and make a decision about, in order to sketch out a program. Please make some time today or tomorrow, and send back to all parties, what you think are the key terms that would have to be included in such a program, and major issues that should be considered. Think positive... this could be a first try of an idea that matures and evolves to something terrific.

In the above e mail Boks/Barth ask for "issues to be considered".

The following are issues that Boks/Barth clearly did not consider while dreaming up this latest excuse for not opening the Northeast Valley shelter, even now that the Mayor gave Boks the money for staff to get the shelter open and keep shelter operating hours as they are:

Misuse of city Proposition F property:
City taxpayers voted approval of the $19-million Proposition F shelter to be used as a public animal shelter. No one voted "yes" so their tax dollars would subsidize private rescue groups.
Waste of city resources and also enabling unfair competition with other rescue groups:
I wonder how Boks/Barth propose New Hope partners pay the city for use of the five to ten kennels Boks/Barth want to give a New Hope partner at the taxpayer-funded public animal shelter. Have Boks/Barth had the city appraiser determine the fair market rental value of that space, and will they charge that amount to NH partners.
Misuse of city staff resources:
Boks/Barth state LAAS staff would be available to provide "intervention (medical or otherwise)". Boks/Barth want LAAS staff to provide that added service for a private rescue group when LAAS does not have enough staff, as is, to take proper care of the existing and growing number of animals in their care. From one side of their mouths, Boks/Barth just told us they have such a huge financial deficit that they had to lay off 28 workers. Even after Council member Alarcon and the Mayor found a way to give Boks/Barth the money for the 28 workers, Boks/Barth still claim such poverty that they plan to cut back the shelters' public operating hours and raise adoption fees for public, and they already raised adoption fees for the rescue groups who do Boks/Barth's jobs for them by rescuing LAAS shelter animals, providing them needed veterinary and other care, socializing them and finding them permanent homes, It is remarkable that Boks/Barth now have the money to pay staff to take care of privately owned animals.
Security problems:
Boks/Barth will give a New Hope partner's volunteers "access" to the NE Valley shelter. There is a city taxpayer paid security guard at Northeast Valley. LAAS management claims it is afraid of terrorists. Yet, Boks/Barth are willing to give "access" to non-city volunteers. Are they prepared to allow all city volunteers and NH partners the same 24/7 access to all LAAS facilities?
Unreliability of 24/7 volunteer care; potential for animal neglect; potential liability for privately owned animals:
Boks/Barth say the NH partner's volunteers will "have staff there or coming regularly to take care of the animals regularly." What exactly do they mean by "regularly"? Will New Hope partners be sending volunteers round the clock, seven days a week, 365 days a year to care for five to ten kennels of animals in Mission Hills, or will our tax dollars be spent for LAAS staff to take care of privately owned animals who are using taxpayer funded city resource real property? More important, unless New Hope partners will provide volunteers round the clock for 365 days a year to care for their animals, LAAS employees would have to do it at the cost of taking the time and care away from the LAAS animals. Additionally, what is Boks/Barth's plan if a New Hope partner volunteer is not at the shelter when two NH partner dogs have a serious fight and both are injured, who will be liable? Who will pay for the emergency veterinary care if the private groups claims it was not needed?
Liability to private volunteers:
With volunteers showing up at all hours, what if one is hurt or killed at the shelter, or in the parking lot? Who is liable? Is there any chance that one penny of tax dollars would pay for liability, or pay to defend against liability? I wonder what the city attorney would think of this. In fact, since it is city property, what if one of New Hope''s animals bites a NH volunteer. Given the budget crisis LAAS is facing, can LAAS afford a law suit.

It is disturbing that Boks is waisting more of his time and more of middle management's time to work on a cost and liability-riddled idea when their time would be much better spent in implementing real solutions and developing creative ideas that will increase adoptions and reduce euthanasia. Wasted management time like this illustrates why Boks is planning to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on six more middle managers. While Boks/Barth spin their wheels birthing these ideas, they need a second AGM and lots more middle managers to do the actual department work.

Boks/Barth's idea to give away LAAS kennel space to a private group will lead to EVEN MORE KILLING, when killing is already up over 37% per Ed Boks' own admission: Boks/Barth are killing animals for time and space. Ed Boks claims "only" 4.25% of animals are killed for time and space. As discussed in my previous e mails, that is a charade created by Ed Boks' mislabeling and warehousing. Whether going by Ed Boks' nonsensical claim of 4.25% killed for time and space or the truth which is enormously more killed for time and space, he is still killing animal for time and space. Then why is he giving that needed LAAS kennel space to a rescue group rather than providing it for the LAAS animals. HOW MANY MORE ANIMALS WILL BOKS/BARTH KILL TO MAKE SPACE FOR NEW HOPE PARTNERS TO BE ABLE TO PUT THEIR ANIMALS IN LAAS CAGES?

How dare Boks/Barth kill even one LAAS animal when they are using even one LAAS cage space for a private party.

More soon to come in installment #5

Madison