Gmail Brad Jensen<sheltertrak@gmail.com>

Madison Barkley's Installments

madison barkley<madisonbark22@gmail.com> Last Update: Thursday, Dec 18, 2008


  1. Important information about LAAS "no kill" seminar
       What Ed Boks instructive responses really mean.
  2. Official LAAS information behind the "no kill" claims of Ed Boks
  3. PlusOne/MinusOne
  4. Boks/Barth new idea will kill more LAAS animals
  5. What did Ed Boks do with 1,000 UNWEANED KITTENS?
  6. Unmasking Ed Boks "No Kill Equation"
  7. Boks/Barth are not following up on spay/neuter of LAAS animals
  8. Boks/Barth claim to increased adoptions, unmasked
  9. Unmasking Ed Boks euthanasia directives
  10. Boks euthanasia moratorium. NOT.
  11. Boks claim that LAAS is the #1 adoption agency in the world, UNMASKED
  12. Someone wants me to reveal my identity
       Special: I am not affiliated with the ADLLA and their petition.


  1. According to Boks we are now 100% no-kill
        UPDATE: According to Boks we are now 100% no-kill
        REMINDER: Please Attend City Personnel Meeting investigating Boks/Barth

  2. Unmasking Boks plea to keep his job
  3. Boks at his diabolical best
  4. An email from Boks to LAAS staff
  5. It's a Puppy Mill Christmas for Ed!

 


Installment #1

 

Important information about LAAS "no kill" seminar

 

This is a lengthy but extremely important and eye opening e mail.  I urge you to read in its entirety.


Anonymous for now, if you recognize my writing you are welcome to contact me.

 

Tomorrow Wed August 20th, Ed Boks will be presenting one of his seminars on "RESCUE GROUPS".

 

There is NOTHING that Ed Boks can teach us about rescue that we do not already know. If you know Boks and have worked with him, you know that the one value of attending any of his so called seminars is to support Ed Boks since he will use the attendance as evidence of his "success" in getting people to show up.

 

The only possible value of attending would be to use it as a chance to get Boks/Barth to reverse the recent negative changes they made in the New Hope program.

However, remember that Ed Boke is famous for his lies and empty promises. He will charmingly agree to take your opinions under consideration but no change for the animals will take place unless it serves him personally.

 

Ed Boks has already agreed to form several "committees" in the past ostensibly working to improve the New Hope program, improve conditions at the shelters and implement public educational programs. Nothing these committees brought to the table was ever implemented. All of the committees dissolve because Ed Boks not only refused to take recommendations and input for positive change but actually falsely claimed that these committees approved changes when they did not.

 

If you do choose to attend the seminar I ask you to challenge Ed Boks on the following:

 

Why is the Northeast Valley animal shelter not open to rescuers without the need for an advance appointment during very restricted hours? If he blames a poor economy read further and ask him the following:

 

 Why did he, while our economy is failing, hire a second Assistant General Manager?

No General Manager in the history of LAAS ever had two AGM. The cost of these AGMs is approximately $200,000 in salary and benefits a year? Why does Ed Boks need 2 Directors of Fields Operations at the approximate cost of $230,000 in salary and benefits a year? Why does Ed Boks need 4 new District Supervisors of  Operations at the cost of approximately $407,000 in salary and benefit per year?

 

All at a time when LAAS' budget has been cut to the point that the department is slated to lay off 28 ACTs and the animal food budget has been reduced starting in Sept 2008 from $7,125 per shelter per month to $4,750 per shelter per month.  That is a reduction of approx $100,000 a year in the food budget while the number of animals under his care continues to increase.

 

The following is documentation we have that illustrate how Boks/Barth report their killing, and it is very disturbing. It appears that this is one way he can deliver his false no-kill claims. 

 

The numbers below came for LAAS documents.

 

Ed Boks declared March 2008 as a "No-Kill Month". That month one LAAS district shelter euthanized approximately 271 animals. All but 21 were killed for behavioral, medical and unweaned. So that means that 250 in one shelter in one month were so ill and aggressive that they had to be killed.

 

 In April of 2008 two of the highest kill LAAS district shelters  euthanized approximately 898 animals. All but 38 were killed for behavioral, medical and unweaned. So that means that 860 animals in 2 shelters in one month were so ill or aggressive that they had to be killed.

 

In June 2008, 223 animal were euthanized in one of the district lowest kill shelters and NONE were reported as being killed for time and space. So here again,  223 animals were killed in one shelter in one month due to illness and aggression.

 

In July 2008; 165  animals euthanized in another low kill LAAS district shelter, again, NONE for time and space.

                                                                                                

Since "no kill" accepts euthanasia for the medically and behaviorally unadoptable animals, these euthanasia rates lead one to believe that the killing was only 5% of the animals actually killed in LAAS.

 

However, in closely reviewing these numbers, it begs the question how could it be that 95% of animals killed in LAAS are killed because they are unadoptable. How does Ed Boks define "behavioral, medical or IRS"?  Any of us that have adopted or rescued out of LAAS know that those are impossible odds. As a matter of fact, most of the animals labeled aggressive or sick are not. However, without using such tactics Boks/Barth team cannot show the mayor that they have created any positive change in LAAS. 

 

 

 

The numbers above are not to illustrate the euthanasia rate. We are all aware the "no kill" will take time and planning to achieve. These numbers prove that Boks/Barth have failed to create a viable no kill solution but have succeeded in created a way of misleading the city of Los Angeles and its mayor.

 

Another method they use to provide false numbers is warehousing the animals.

 

 In July of this year Ed was accused of warehousing the animals to improve his numbers.

To achieve the appearance of less killing, Mr. Boks  warehouses the animals until they develop behavioral and/or medical issues and  then euthanizes them for being medically or behaviorally unadoptable. In so doing the time and space numbers remain minimal.

 

THESE ARE NOT SOLUTIONS TO NO KILL, THIS ARE ILLUSION THAT KEEP BOKS AND BARTH EMPLOYED.

 

Some of you may not know that the LAAS shelter staff is extremely unhappy with Mr. Boks. performance and would like a change to be made. The staff is behind the humane community 100% and will support all rescue groups in every effort. For the first time in the history of LAAS the staff and rescuers are on exactly the same page.

 

Do you really want to take out time and attend this seminar or any other of Boks' seminars? The only result will be that Ed Boks can show that someone showed up to support him and will continue to ignore what we tell him we need to help save the lives of our city animals.

 

 

 

   TOP 

Installment #1 (Cont'd): What Ed Boks instructive responses really mean.

 

This is my response to Ed Boks Blog below.

My response is in RED italics.

Anonymous

 

From the Desk of Ed Boks

Nothing featured here represents the official position of the City of Los Angeles or LA Animal Services unless otherwise specifically noted.

Wednesday, August 20, 2008

Boks Provides Instructive Responses to Anonymous Attack

Another nasty e-mail is circulating the internet. The anonymous author seems intent on squashing any public dialogue in Los Angeles that would help lead our community to achieving its No-Kill goal and transform LA into the most Humane City in the USA. My responses to this anonymous person's allegations are in bold. Anonymous is in italics. Please note that "anonymous" has no suggestions or recommendations to offer.

Anonymous: Tomorrow Wed August 20th, Ed Boks will be presenting one of his seminars on "RESCUE GROUPS".

There is NOTHING that Ed Boks can teach us about rescue that we do not already know.

ED: If you are a rescuer, I would largely agree. But these workshops are not for rescuers alone. They are for the entire community, most of whom don't have a clue about the needs or our animals, our rescuers, and our department. These workshops are designed to help us think out side of the box (or the Boks, if you prefer) and come up with some new ideas, strategies and alliances to help save more lives.

Anonymous: If you know Boks and have worked with him, you know that the one value of attending any of his so called seminars is to support Ed Boks since he will use the attendance as evidence of his "success" in getting people to show up.

ED: Actually, my role in these workshops is that of a secretary, to document the ideas and suggestions of the community. A panel of rescuers and other experts will be present to engage on the topics being discussed.

Anonymous: The only possible value of attending would be to use it as a chance to get Boks/Barth to reverse the recent negative changes they made in the New Hope program.

ED: The purpose of tonight's workshop is to discuss program enhancements, so we welcome discussion on this topic. To put the above allegation into context it is important to understand that there were only two significant changes in the New Hope program. One was reinstituting the $28 spay/neuter fee. This is a fee that rescue partners had routinely paid until the advent of the New Hope program in 2006. The department waived that fee for one year and there was no increase in the number of animals saved through New Hope. The fee was waived to help New Hope partners rescue more animals.

It was difficult to justify waiving the fee a second year when it had no measurable impact the first year. Nonetheless, the department secured a $160,000 grant from the Found Animal Foundation so we could waive the fee a second year. Unfortunately, there was still little increase in the number of animals saved and the grant money was spent. So the department had to reinstitute the fee this fiscal year to help off-set a 15% budget cut.

It would be great if the rescue groups would work together to obtain a grant to cover this fee, as the department did for the rescue groups in 2007.

The second change was asking New Hope partners to share adopter information with the Department so we can follow up on licensing. The Department is rightfully under a lot of pressure to increase licensing and we would appreciate our New Hope partners understanding this new requirement - and that it will lead to saving the lives of any licensed and tagged dog brought to any of our Centers.

Anonymous: However, remember that Ed Boke is famous for his lies and empty promises. He will charmingly agree to take your opinions under consideration but no change for the animals will take place unless it serves him personally.

ED: Serving as the general manager of LA Animal Services is a difficult job, particularly when personally criticized by anonymous mudslingers. However, every effort I make is dedicated to doing the best job I can for the City and the animals in my care.

Anonymous: Ed Boks has already agreed to form several "committees" in the past ostensibly working to improve the New Hope program, improve conditions at the shelters and implement public educational programs. Nothing these committees brought to the table was ever implemented. All of the committees dissolve because Ed Boks not only refused to take recommendations and input for positive change but actually falsely claimed that these committees approved changes when they did not.

ED: Actually, the New Hope program we are discussing tonight is the result of the work of two separate committees, one in 2006 and one in 2007. The department is also working with a committee on the formation of a marketing strategy for the spay/neuter ordinance, with remarkable results you will soon all see. The department has a track record of working productively with committees. Not perfect, as some committees have gone astray from staying focused on the business of saving lives and improving procedures and practices, but we are determined to continue working with the community and individuals committed to developing and implementing life saving strategies!

Anonymous: If you do choose to attend the seminar I ask you to challenge Ed Boks on the following:

Why is the Northeast Valley animal shelter not open to rescuers without the need for an advance appointment during very restricted hours?


ED: The Mission (Northeast Valley) Animal Care Center is not open to the public with the exception of our New Hope partners. The Center has very limited staffing, so we have no choice but to meet New Hope partners there by appointment.

Anonymous: If he blames a poor economy read further and ask him the following: Why did he, while our economy is failing, hire a second Assistant General Manager?

ED: Hiring an Assistant General Manager for operations has been a two year process that obviously began long before the current economic slowdown. This position is critical to the success of the department and I make no apologies for filling it with the most qualified person I could find. Improving the direct oversight over shelter and field staff is a critical function in a department with our history.

Anonymous: No General Manager in the history of LAAS ever had two AGM. The cost of these AGMs is approximately $200,000 in salary and benefits a year?

ED: For years before my coming to LA, the local animal welfare community insisted the City find a General Manager who would hold the department accountable for results. The three cardinal principles for success are Leadership, Focus, and Accountability. You cannot hold the Department accountable for results if you don't allow for leadership. One person alone cannot effectively manage an organization with eight locations, seven of which are open 24/7, with officers in the field 24/7 covering over 490 square miles that is Los Angeles, and taking in 150 animals a day. All one has to do is look at the stream of General Managers who have graced the revolving door known as LA Animal Services over the past few years to know this is true.

 

Ed, you state that you have 8 locations with 7 being open 24/7. The only one not operating 24/7 is administration and that is where the layoffs should occur.


For any organization to be successful the first rule is to get the right people on the bus and then to get the right people into the right seats on the bus. That is not an easy task in LA, and it took time, but the results are the only way to evaluate success. I believe you will see the type of leadership and results the LA community has been demanding.

Anonymous: Why does Ed Boks need 2 Directors of Fields Operations at the approximate cost of $230,000 in salary and benefits a year? Why does Ed Boks need 4 new District Supervisors of Operations at the cost of approximately $407,000 in salary and benefit per year?

ED: See the above answer. LA Animal Services is sometimes viewed very simplistically, as a company of dog catchers and kennel workers who operate on autopilot. However, Animal Services it is a very complex and dynamic organization. The District Supervisor positions are positions that were mistakenly eliminated several years ago as a budget saving measure. What that did was eliminate any opportunity for left Managers to grow into executive-level positions. Through the reinstitution of these positions we will establish a well run, accountable department that will be able to select its future GMs and AGMs internally and not from out of state.



Anonymous: All at a time when LAAS' budget has been cut to the point that the department is slated to lay off 28 ACTs and the animal food budget has been reduced starting in Sept 2008 from $7,125 per shelter per month to $4,750 per shelter per month. That is a reduction of approx $100,000 a year in the food budget while the number of animals under his care continues to increase.

ED: The food budget was over budgeted in the past and we never spent the entire line budget allocated for food.

 

By your own admission there has been a tremendous increase of animals  entering your system. To date there has been an increase of approx 300%, of animals. Are you seriously claiming that 300% more animals are going to use 30% less food.

 

The layoffs are the result of authorized hiring done specifically to prepare for the opening the new Mission (Northeast Valley) Center.

 

No Ed, the layoffs are due to bad planning, bad budget management and a lack of a real plan to reduce the overpopulation of animals other than through continued killings decided by programs with cute names like "Heart to Heart".

 

If the City continues in its decision to not open that Center and to reduce operating hours, then, under current circumstances we have no choice but to lay off the extra Animal Care Technicians we hired to staff it. Efforts are being made by members of the City Council and others to remedy the situation, but the results are not yet known.

 

No matter what reason was behind the hiring of these ACT, given the increased numbers of animals under your care, these ACTs are needed in order to care for the animals and help the public adopt them. Make cuts from the top Ed, not from the bottom. It is inconceivable that any General Manager would need 2 AGM, 2 Directors of Field Operations and 4 District Supervisors totaling approx $826,000.00 in salaries and benefits a year. The city's budget states that the entire cost saving of NOT OPENING the North East Valley shelter is approximately $860,000, about the same amount that you waste on management fat.

 

 



Anonymous: The following is documentation we have that illustrate how Boks/Barth report their killing, and it is very disturbing. It appears that this is one way he can deliver his false no-kill claims. The numbers below came for LAAS documents.

Ed Boks declared March 2008 as a "No-Kill Month". That month one LAAS district shelter euthanized approximately 271 animals. All but 21 were killed for behavioral, medical and unweaned. So that means that 250 in one shelter in one month were so ill and aggressive that they had to be killed.

In April of 2008 two of the highest kill LAAS district shelters euthanized approximately 898 animals. All but 38 were killed for behavioral, medical and unweaned. So that means that 860 animals in 2 shelters in one month were so ill or aggressive that they had to be killed.

In June 2008, 223 animal were euthanized in one of the district lowest kill shelters and NONE were reported as being killed for time and space. So here again, 223 animals were killed in one shelter in one month due to illness and aggression.

In July 2008; 165 animals euthanized in another low kill LAAS district shelter, again, NONE for time and space.

Since "no kill" accepts euthanasia for the medically and behaviorally unadoptable animals, these euthanasia rates lead one to believe that the killing was only 5% of the animals actually killed in LAAS.

ED: The recent increase in animal impounds has led to an increase in the number of animals euthanized. This is the first increase in pet euthanasia in the past six years. The Department successfully reduced pet euthanasia over 50% in the past six years, and 22% in 2007. YTD 2008 has seen a 37.38% increase in euthanasia (10,217) compared to 2007 YTD (7,437). However, when the numbers are normalized to account for the increase in impounds, the euthanasia rate is up only 3.49%.

 

 

The reason for the 22% reduction of euthanasia in 2007 was not due to a plan that you implemented. It was due to the new shelters and consequent addition kennel space.

So, what does that mean to achieving No-Kill?

Phase I of No-Kill is achieved when no healthy animal is killed due to a lack of space or resources.

 

This is precisely why you are resorting to mislabeling animals as having illness and behavior issues that warrant death and claiming 95% of the thousands you kill are unadoptable.

In April of 2008 you killed 1257 animals, approximately all but 63 of those  animals were killed for medical or behavioral reasons. Another words,1194 animals in your shelter were killed, in one month alone, for being medically and behaviorally unadoptable.



Phase II is achieved when we end the killing of animals in need of medical treatment.

YTD 118 cats and 384 dogs were killed due to insufficient holding space and/or resources. These healthy pets represent the challenge to achieving Phase I of the City's "No-Kill" Goal.

 

Ed, you have just confirmed what we always knew about your numbers.

YTD from January 1 to Aug 19, 2008 according to Chameleon the number of euthanasia is 11,829 and according to you your statement above it is 10,217. I am not certain where you got your numbers as they differ from Chameleon. According to Chameleon the total amount of Cat killed YTD as of Aug 19, 2008 is 7,360 and total amount of dogs killed is  4,469 for a total of 11,829.

So according to these numbers 7,242 cats were deemed so unadoptable YTD as of August 19, 2008, that they had to be euthanized and  4,085 dog were considered so unadoptable they had to be euthanized YTD as of August 19, 2008.

 

Just to be clear, YTD ending Aug 19, 2008 a total of 11,327 dogs and cats were killed due to being medically and behaviorally unadoptable while the total number of dogs and cats killed YTD was 11,829.

 

Ed, you are insulting the intelligence of the humane community, the tax payer, the mayor and city council of our city by making this outrageous claim .



YTD, the Department is over 95% on its way to achieving Phase I of No-Kill.

Ed, just mislabel a few more and you will reach 100%

The Department has always welcomed and invited the closest scrutiny to how these numbers are collected and reported. To date, no one has taken us up on our invitation. But the numbers are what they areā€¦

Anonymous: However, in closely reviewing these numbers, it begs the question how could it be that 95% of animals killed in LAAS are killed because they are unadoptable. How does Ed Boks define "behavioral, medical or IRS"? Any of us that have adopted or rescued out of LAAS know that those are impossible odds. As a matter of fact, most of the animals labeled aggressive or sick are not. However, without using such tactics Boks/Barth team cannot show the mayor that they have created any positive change in LAAS.

ED: I know, the animal welfare community finds this type of success impossible to believe. That is why the department has always shied away from reporting on this and has only reported its numbers in terms of "beating hearts in" and "beating hearts out".


Ed, you are failing to answer or recognize the question and instead claiming success where there is obviously none. Let me restate the question. How is it possible that approximately 95% of animals killed in LAAS are too ill or behaviorally unsound to be considered adoptable?


Our staff doesn't evaluate animal's behaviors, by directive of our Commission. But we do evaluate them by observation. Animals that demonstrate dangerous behavior are not placed for adoption BUT THEY ARE MADE AVAILABLE to our New Hope Partners. So no animal is arbitrarily euthanized for behavior without having an opportunity to be considered and evaluated for seven days by our 140 New Hope partners.


Anyone who truly works with the Department knows that we have animals in our Centers for half a year or more, you know that we perform some of the most amazing life saving surgeries, we go to tremendous lengths to save lives, more so than any other municipal shelter system in the country.

 

Ed, provide us with the report that came with the above mention conclusion and the supportive documentation showing the life saving surgeries done and how many.

Moreover, currently you have 8 severely injured and ill dogs in your North Central Shelter waiting for help? Why are you not going to "tremendous lengths" or performing "amazing life saving surgeries" for them.

 

As far as keeping animals for half a year or more, it is called warehousing.

 

In the last year, our veterinary team expended over $300,000 in medical supplies and medicines. So yes, only around 5% of the animals euthanized are healthy, sound animals.

The Mayor's office pays close attention to the work of the Department as well as to the concerns of the humane community regarding our operations and our results and is well aware of the progress we are making in a number of areas as well as of the challenges we continue to face.

 

 ED, WE DO NOT SEE HOW THE MAYOR HAS ANY AWARNESS OF YOUR LIES AND FAILURES, SET UP A MEETING WITH US AND THE MAYOR AND I WILL REVEAL MY IDENTITY.

Anonymous: The numbers above are not to illustrate the euthanasia rate. We are all aware the "no kill" will take time and planning to achieve. These numbers prove that Boks/Barth have failed to create a viable no kill solution but have succeeded in created a way of misleading the city of Los Angeles and its mayor.

ED: If anonymous wants to work with the Department in identifying just how we are deceiving ANYONE, I welcome them to come forward. Notice that anonymous provides no solutions or recommendations, only personal attacks. If anonymous or anyone else thinks they have something constructive to recommend regarding achieving "no kill" apart from promoting certain personalities who are either unqualified for or show no interest in working here, I welcome those ideas. I believe we are employing viable no kill solutions to the best of our abilities in a difficult environment, and they form the basis of the workshop series. Also, once again, the Mayor's office is completely familiar with everything that is going on.

 

Again, set up a meeting with the mayor and we will share with him all of the ideas presented to you in the past by numerous New Hope partners and tax-payers which you ignored.

Anonymous: Another method they use to provide false numbers is warehousing the animals.

In July of this year Ed was accused of warehousing the animals to improve his numbers. To achieve the appearance of less killing, Mr. Boks warehouses the animals until they develop behavioral and/or medical issues and then euthanizes
them for being medically or behaviorally unadoptable. In so doing the time and space numbers remain minimal.

ED: This is not an easy task; and it does point to the already-mentioned need for a more accountable management structure. The Department is committed to achieving "No-Kill". Yes, we keep animals a long time in an effort to find them homes. Our Centers have a cadre of dedicated volunteer dog trainers who work with the animals to make them more adoptable while they are with us and to help them stay as sociable and healthy as possible. As mentioned above, we have an improved - and remarkable - veterinary program dedicated to fighting the constant threat of disease and treating animals as quickly as possible as needed.

Are we slow to euthanize animals? Yes. And I am in the process of implementing a program to make the process even slower. Each Center has what we call a "Heart-to-Heart" Team. They are charged with evaluating the animals before deciding if they should be euthanized. The team is made up of the Center Manager, the Animal Care Technician Supervisor, the Veterinarian, and the New Hope Coordinator or their designees. They review the length of time the animal has been with us, the health of the animal, the behavior of the animal, and our New Hope and adoption options. Only when this team feels we have exhausted every live saving option for a particular animal is that animal euthanized.

5% of the time this difficult process leads to the death of a healthy animal to help alleviate overcrowding.

 

 

Heart to Heart is Pasadena's H.A.R.T Program which you took as your own without giving them credit. More important, it cannot work without a)Temperament Testing (which you are NOT allowed to do) and b) A functioning program of professionally trained trainers and a shelter system that is willing to extend all possible medical need to save the animal.


Anonymous: THESE ARE NOT SOLUTIONS TO NO KILL, THIS ARE ILLUSION THAT KEEP BOKS AND BARTH EMPLOYED.

Some of you may not know that the LAAS shelter staff is extremely unhappy with Mr. Boks. performance and would like a change to be made. The staff is behind the humane community 100% and will support all rescue groups in every effort. For the first time in the history of LAAS the staff and rescuers are on exactly the same page.

ED: I am well aware of the concerns of some staff and I try to be available to discuss them. I am absolutely confident in saying I know these statements about total unity between the staff and humane community are inaccurate. Complaints from rescuers and others about incidents involving staff have not disappeared into thin air as anonymous apparently would have us believe.

 

Ed, complaints and dissatisfaction will occur in any system. What the Humane Community and Staff stand united on is that you are not doing your job. Ed, stop trying to deflect blame onto others when the problem is you and Linda Barth.

I try to support both my staff and the rescue community and doing so sometimes raises the ire of one or the other when conflicts arise. Those conflicts arise because staff and the rescuers are NOT always on the same page. The Department's management team spends too much time working on solutions to these issues for this "unity myth" to be credible. Finding solutions to these challenges is the purpose of tonight's workshop.

 

Ed the conflict I am referring to is that the staff and the humane community want a GM that gets the job done. The overwhelming complaints are against you and Linda Barth.

If someone has a better approach to managing these situations, I'm open to discussing. I want what is best for the Department.

 

Arrange a meeting with the mayor, we will put the truth on the table and let the truth speak for itself.  

Anonymous: Do you really want to take out time and attend this seminar or any other of Boks' seminars? The only result will be that Ed Boks can show that someone showed up to support him and will continue to ignore what we tell him we need to help save the lives of our city animals.

ED: I cannot imagine what the value of squashing dialogue is. What is this anonymous person afraid of?

 

We are all afraid of two things. First, retaliation. You and Barth have been known to do so and our greatest fear is that you will prevent us from saving the animals. Second, dialogue with you has only proven to enable you to perpetuate your lies.

 

Posted by Ed Boks is the General Manager of LA Animal Services. at 3:11 PM

 

   TOP 

Installment #2

Official LAAS information behind the "no kill" claims of Ed Boks

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.

1. Define no kill as killing only animals who are medically unhealthy and vicious.

2. Label 95.75% of your dead animals as medically unhealthy or vicious.

3. Using these labels leaves only 4.25% of the dead animals labeled as killed  for time and space.

4. 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.

 

   TOP 

Installment #3

PLUS ONE /MINUS ONE

 

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

   TOP 

Madison 4th installment (8/28/08) Boks/Barth new idea will kill more LAAS animal

 

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 positiveā€¦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:

 

1.  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.

 

2.  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.

 

3.  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.

 

4.  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?

 

5.  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? 

 

6.  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

 

   TOP 

Madison's installment #5 What did Ed Boks do with 1,000 LAAS UNWEANED KITTENS?

Ed looks the Mayor and City Council straight in the eyes and lies about his "success." 

 

Given the transparency Ed Boks claims, why do his numbers not add up?  In a recent Email, we looked at the monstrous lie by Ed Boks that he has reached "95.75% No-Kill."  That claim is insultingly false. By Boks' own admission, euthanasia is now UP by 37% (click on link to view) http://www.laanimalservices.blogspot.com/.  That charade required use of LABELS to hide Boks/Barth's killing. 

 

TODAY'S EMAIL ILLUMINATES ANOTHER CHARADE BOKS/BARTH USE TO HIDE THEIR KILLING.  This one is simple.  They just DON'T REPORT IT. 

 

Boks claims he is transparent because his statics are posted on LAAnimalServices.com.  Let's go there.  Under "About Us" click on "Statistics".  Scroll down and click on "This Month's Statistics for Department" (which really shows multiple year statistics).  We know that Ed Boks has failed to do anything new to reduce the crisis of unweaned kitten overpopulation and euthanasia, so let's look at the statistics for unweaned kittens.   Look with me if you like:  http://laanimalservices.com/PDF/reports/UnweanedKittensIntakeNOutcomes.pdf

 

Here are all categories of kitten outcomes Boks/Barth report; some show live release and some show other than live release.  Also, if you scroll to the very end, you see impounds.  Here, for the last fiscal year, 2007 to 2008, are Ed Boks' "transparent" statistics:

 

Unweaned Kittens

2007/08

Live Release

 

Adoptions

    441

New Hope Placements

 1,050

Returned to Owner

        4

   Total Live Releases

 1,495

 

 

DOA

      29

 

 

Died in Shelter (Not Euthanized)

    331

Euthanasia

 3,447

Escaped

        4

Stolen

        0

    Total Other Than

          Live Release

 3,782

 

 

TOTAL OUTCOMES

INCLUDING DOA

 5,306

 

 

Impounds

 6,474

 

 

KITTENS UNACCOUNTED FOR

(Impounds less total outcomes including DOA)

 1,168

 

What does this mean?  It means that Ed Boks and Linda Barth are hoping you, the media and the Mayor will look at the kitten outcomes they DO give you, and not notice that they are hiding the outcomes of 1,168 kittens by simply not reporting them to you.  That is, of the 6,474 unweaned kittens impounded in 2007/08, Boks/Barth think it is okay to not tell you what happened to a full 1,168 kittens.  They admit to killing 3,447 kittens, while another 1,168 kittens disappear from Boks/Barth reporting before your very eyes.  We just aren't told what happened to them.

 

IN WHAT PRIVATE INDUSTRY AND IN WHAT RESPONSIBLE GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION CAN SOMEONE SIMPLY FAIL TO ACCOUNT FOR 1,168 OUT OF 6,474 OF SOMETHING AND KEEP THEIR JOB?  

 

Boks/Barth have failed to report what happened to 1,168 out of 6,474 unweaned kittens, or over 18% of the unweaned kittens in their "care." 

 

Worse, Boks/Barth have reported the statistics in a way that misleads the public and City officials into thinking things are not nearly as horrible as they truly are.  In glancing at the spreadsheet provided by Boks/Barth it is easy to be lulled into believing that it is accurate and that Boks/Barth are doing something about the unweaned kitten overpopulation crisis, when in fact they are not. 

 

If Boks/Barth try to tell you that the missing kittens are still in the shelter, then the shelter should have roughly 1,168 unweaned (only those under 8 weeks of age) kittens. Interestingly, the number of unweaned kittens in LAAS shelters on August 31, 2008, per Pet Harbor, were no more than 160.  (515 were under one year of age, including the unweaned kittens.)  1,168 unaccounted for minus no more than 160 unweaned kittens held in the shelter leaves at least 1,012 unweaned kittens unaccounted for by Boks/Barth.

 

WHAT HAPPENED TO THE REMAINING OVER 1,000 UNACCOUNTED FOR KITTENS! 

 

One more time this begs the question, what are Boks/Barth doing with numbers. No matter what their reasoning, the best that can be said is that Boks/Barth have completely failed in their duty to properly track and report their department's activity and have again given reason to doubt anything coming out of their mouths or their keyboards. 

 

Madison

 

 

   TOP 

Madison's installment #6 Unmasking Ed Boks "No Kill Equation"

In this and following installments, I will be addressing each one of the  "Ten No-kill equation recommendations"  stated in Ed Boks' document "IMPLEMENTING THE NO-KILL EQUATION IN LOS ANGELES " which appears on the LAAS website http://www.laanimalservices.com/PDF/ED/No-killanalysis.pdf .

 Recommendation 1. FERAL CATS TNR PROGRAM 

In this document Boks states that "The Department has no formal TNR (Trap/Neuter/Return for feral cats) program yet because a proposal to change City law to officially permit such a program has been delayed by threats from environmental and wildlife organizations insisting that TNR is unacceptableā€¦"

Boks goes on to say that "Since 2006 the Department spays or neuters over 8,000 feral cats annually independent of and in addition to any formal spay/neuter or TNR programsā€¦"

However, as  we have see too often  Boks' numbers  do not mirror the truth. The 8,000 feral cats he quotes in the LAAS document is NOT the number he reported in the Los Angeles City 2008-09 budget  found on the LA mayor's website.

Click on   http://www.lacity.org/cao/budget08-09/2008-09bluebook-Volume1.pdf and go to page 44 of the PDF document (although it is marked as page 26 of the document). The heading of the page is INDICATORS OF WORKLOAD (continued).  On the left is a column title PET STERILIZATION PROGRAM, scroll  down 14 lines where you will find "Pilot  Feral Cats Program". Continue across the page where you will see that Boks reports that the number of feral cats the department actually spayed or neutered since he became LAAS General Manager is NONE.

Now we know that LAAS did spay and neuter some feral cats.  Most of them were done in that North Central spay/neuter clinic by the operator that was only there a short time and then left the city (to go to Burbank).  But here is what Ed tells the Mayor he did and it sure does not jive with the JIVE BOKS TELLS THE PUBLIC. Kinda like the jive he tells the mayor about his 95.75% no kill "phase I" when in actuality the completion of "phase I" is not even in sight.

 

To add insult to injury, Boks goes on to state, " There is no record of any municipality funding more feral cat surgeries annually than LA City."  Not according to Ed Boks' annual budget reporting to the Mayor which the Mayor posts to his website.

 

Boks continues on with TNR information which is correct but as always his diatribes are hypocritical. Similar to the hypocritical diatribes he delivers about LAAS achieving "no kill", Boks does not do what he advocates.

 

In the LAAS document, Boks states, "TNR is being practiced in more and more communities across the United States and around the world with amazing results". Sadly for our city's feral cats LA is not one of those communities and Ed Boks is not moving us in that direction.

 

Ed goes on to say " TNR is practiced in lots of places."  Then why not here in LA? Simple!  Because although Ed tells you some of the obstacles, he has not done anything to face, manage or eliminate any of them. Kinda the same way he has done nothing about "no kill" except preach theory. While Boks blogs, preaches and theorizes, animals including feral cats keep dying.

 

Madison

 

   TOP 


Madison installment #7 Boks/Barth are not following up on spay/neuter of LAAS animals.

Thanks to Ed Boks and Linda Barth's mismanagement from March 2008 continuing to the present, every month approximately 350 dogs and cats were released from LAAS shelter to new owners without being spayed or neutered.

For each of these animals LAAS keeps a record (called a D-300). Until March 2008 the POP officers followed on all the LAAS D-300. Starting in March 2008 Boks/Barth implement another bad idea and took the POP officers away from their duties following up on these D-300.

Guess who they put onto the project of following up on unsterilized animals released to new owner by LAAS to make sure those animals get spayed or neutered.

NO ONE!

Thus, since March 2008, LAAS has release nearly 2100 unsterilized dogs and cats. For those unsterilized dogs and cats released by LAAS, Boks/Barth have had no mechanism in place to even find out if the animals are getting sterilized, let alone to insure that they do get spayed or neutered.

By not following up to ensure spay/neuter of animals Boks/Barth released to the citizens of Los Angeles, Boks/Barth are contributing to the already overwhelming pet overpopulation of our city.

This, while the new spay/neuter ordinance has been in effect since late February 2008.

Gestation for cats and dogs is approximate 63 days. It has been 6 months since LAAS stopped following up. I wonder how many have been born due through your negligence.  Boks/Barth, are you going to blame this one on the employees too? Or is it the foreclosure market again?

Madison

 

   TOP 


Madison installment #8--Boks/Barth claim to increased adoptions, unmasked

An earlier installment revealed an outrageous claim that was later confirmed by Boks/Barth. The claim that LAAS has reached over 95% Phase I No-Kill.

This installment will illuminate how Boks/Barth, who thus far have created NO new adoption programs since they began management of LAAS, claim that they are responsible for  increased adoptions.

Let's use a simple analogy. Two sweater boutiques open. Little boutique contains 10 sweater shelves on the sales floor, while Big boutique contains 100 sweater shelves on the sales floor.  At the end of the day Big boutique  claims they had a more profitable day because they sold 90 sweaters verses Little boutique which only sold 9 sweaters.

By simply counting sweaters, one would agree that Big boutique is more successful.  In reality, or if we "normalize" (using a Boksism) the number, Little boutique and Big boutique sold the same percentage of sweaters. Big boutique has larger capacity space and therefore can provide a greater selection, providing more customers with what they need. So they bought more.

This may seem simplistic but it is precisely what Boks/Barth are claiming and the proof is below.

As you can clearly see from the following series of charts, dog adoptions fluctuated but did not increase substantially until one thing happened.  That thing is the opening of the new $159-million dollar Proposition F animal shelters.  Those shelters were approved by voters on November 7, 2000 and had nothing to do with Boks/Barth.  Boks takes credit for the increased adoptions. But in reality, Boks deserves no credit.  He merely had the serendipity of walking into Los Angeles  right before the new shelter started to open.  You will remember that each shelter opened at a different time.  The time each shelter opened is noted on the charts below and you will see, it matches. 

*The numbers below appear on the LAAS website. Click on link, select the district shelter and click on "dogs". http://www.laanimalservices.com/about_stats_care_center.htm

North Central Shelter

Dog Adoptions

 

Year ending August

Dog

Adoptions/New Hope

 

07/08

2,944

 

06/07

2,591

Ā¬ New shelter opened 10-2006 ($10.6-million)

05/06

2,176

 

04/05

2,106

 

03/04

2,261

 

02/03

2,199

 

01/02

2,073

 

 

 

East Valley Shelter

Dog Adoptions

 

Year ending August

Dog

Adoptions/New Hope

 

07/08

4,288

Ā¬ New shelter opened 5-2007 ($23.4-million)

06/07

3,522

 

05/06

3,214

 

04/05

2,980

 

03/04

2,948

 

02/03

2,785

 

01/02

2,727

 

 

 

West Valley Shelter

Dog Adoptions

 

Year ending August

Dog

Adoptions/New Hope

 

07/08

2,773

Ā¬ New shelter opened  8-2007 ($17.8-million)

06/07

2,192

 

05/06

2,130

 

04/05

2,072

 

03/04

1,862

 

02/03

1,915

 

01/02

1,985

 

 

 

West LA Shelter

Dog Adoptions

 

Year ending August

Dog

Adoptions/New Hope

 

07/08

1,509

Ā¬ New shelter opened Nov-2007 ($25.5-million)

06/07

834

 

05/06

875

 

04/05

828

 

03/04

869

 

02/03

910

 

01/02

908

 

 

 

 

Harbor Shelter

Dog Adoptions

 

Year ending August

Dog

Adoptions/New Hope

 

07/08

956

Ā¬ New shelter opened June-2008 ($18.7-million)

06/07

748

 

05/06

778

 

04/05

651

 

03/04

651

 

02/03

665

 

01/02

663

 

 

 

More proof:

 

If adoption increases  were due to any Boks/Barth adoption programs, wouldn't they happen across-the-board at all the shelters?  They don't.  Here is what happens:

 The increased adoptions took place at different times.  That is because the new shelters opened at different times.  Not because of any Boks/Barth adoption program.

There is no new SLA shelter.  Consequently there is no significant increase in SLA adoptions.

 

South LA Shelter

Dog Adoptions

 

 

Year ending August

 

Dog

Adoptions/New Hope

(No new shelter)

07/08

3,700

 

06/07

3,675

 

05/06

3,338

 

04/05

3,329

 

03/04

3,248

 

02/03

3,575

 

01/02

3,238

 

 

If we want more adoptions, Boks/Barth better get busy asking voters for another $159-million. 

Just like the sweater analogy gives the illusion that Big boutique sold more sweaters then Little boutique. This proves that the only reason adoptions increased is due to the increased  holding capacity in the new shelters and that the adoption increases have nothing to do with Boks/Barth.

We have now unmasked that Boks' biggest claim to fame, increased adoptions, was caused by the bigger new shelters and not by anything Boks/Barth did and  even with the increased adoptions, euthanasia has still increased by 37%.

What exactly have Boks/Barth been doing? 

Madison

 

 

   TOP 


Madison installment #9 Unmasking Ed Boks euthanasia directives.

Yesterday, Thursday September 11, 2008, at approximately 5 PM, Ed Boks went to the East Valley Shelter with three public adopters and an LAAS volunteer. Boks said he wants to speak to a supervisor regarding how they choose which animal will be euthanized.

Boks first questioned the supervisor himself. Boks then instructed the supervisor to submit to interrogation by members of the public and Boks allowed the members of the public to continue interrogating the supervisor. Exercising this employees right, the supervisor declined to submit to the interrogation without union representation.

Ed Boks is setting up the employees to throw them under the bus for his own euthanasia directives.

It was only two months ago that Ed Boks sent his e mail directive on euthanasia. Boks sent his euthanasia directive on July 13, 2008. In it, Boks states:

1.    "Place ALL animals on the Red Alert immediately, with the exception of animals the Center Managers believe the public will adopt within a reasonable amount of time."

2.    "Place all incoming stray and owner relinquished animals on the Red Alert at the time of impound."

3.    "Animals employees or volunteers (trainers) have a vested interest in can be discussed and can be held up to 21 days, but only with Center Manager approval. The animals are not to be held any longer without GM [Ed Boks] approval."

4.    "Manage euthanasia decision using the Minus One Goal DAILY."

5.    "I [Ed Boks] will assist the respective Center Staff next weekend when the bulk of these animals complete their seven day Red Alert to help them select animals for euthanasia using Minus One goals as a guide."

.

Boks almost never visits the shelters. What is the special occasion that gets Boks to actually show up in a shelter? To help select animals to be killed.

Boks' directive covers the time span from impound through euthanasia, yet Boks NEVER mention ADOPTIONS.

Once again Boks solution is warehouse or kill.

When Boks blames the shelter staff for their euthanasia decisions or numbers let's remember the staff is simply following Ed's directives.

Madison

 

A clarification to Madison installment #9 regarding euthanasia directives 

I would like to clarify the e mail I sent out this morning.

Ed Boks' July 13, 2008 euthanasia directive was directed only to "East Valley and SLA" the two shelters with the highest impound rate. Boks states in his e mail directive "I have directed East Valley and SLA to take the following steps to respond to the overcrowding in these centers. These directives are to continue until Center animal population are within reasonable limits."

Once again, Ed Boks offers only two solution WAREHOUSE or KILL!

In response to a number of individuals asking me why center managers are not planning their own adoption programs. Let me clarify the matter. Adoption events require funding and administrative support, the only people able to authorize adoption events are Ed Boks, Linda Barth and Kathy Davis.

Madison

 

   TOP 


Madison installment #10 Boks euthanasia moratorium. NOT.

In my last installment (#9), I addressed Boks directive to have all animals at South LA shelter and East Valley shelter Red Listed immediately including all incoming strays and owner surrenders  with the exception of animals the center Managers believe the public will adopt within a reasonable amount of time. Boks directive also stated that he would visit the Centers to help select the animals to be euthanized.

Today, I am unmasking Boks new directive that Boks sent to all LAAS Centers,  this time requesting a "moratorium on all behavior" euthanasia.

Here is the e-mail Ed Boks sent to all LAAS Centers on Sept 11, 2008:

 

From:      Ed Boks

TO:            Anidept@lacity.org

CC:            Louis.Dedeaux@lacity, Kathy.Davis@lacity.org

Date:       9/11/2008 8:01 PM

Subject:  Moratorium

 

Starting immediately, I am enacting a moratorium on all behavior related euthanasia. Medical staff may continue to authorize medical related euthanasia for humane reasons as appropriate. Center Managers may continue to authorize space/time euthanasia as appropriate for shelter population management. Center Managers are expected to effectively use Plus One/Minus One, Green and Red Alert, and Heart to Heart tools to manage shelter populations.

However, only AGM Kathy Davis, Captain Louis Dedeaux, and/or I may approve euthanasia for reason of behavior.

Any questions of this directive are to be directed to AGM Davis, but there is to be no delay in its implementation.

 

Remember that, up until this new directive, it was perfectly fine in fact encouraged to kill animals for behavioral. Why? Because medical and behavioral DO NOT count as euthanasia according to Ed Boks' Phase I "No-Kill" definition.

Now Boks states that "Center Managers may continue to authorize space/time euthanasia." However, in the same breath Boks states that he expects the staff "to effectively use the Plus One/Minus One." 

Well here is the problem.

Remember, Boks' Plus One/Minus One equation means that Center Managers MUST adopt one more animal then they did the same day of the last year and kill one less animal then they killed that same day last year. For example, if last year a Center adopted 10 dogs/cats, then that center is expected to adopt 1 more dog/cat same day this year, meaning they are expected to adopt 11 dogs/cats same day this year. If that Center killed 1 dog/cat same day last year, then that Center is expected to kill one less dog/cat same day this year, meaning no dog/cats be killed that day.

So essentially Boks is stating in his new directive that "Center Managers may continue to authorize space/time euthanasia", but are "expected to effectively use One Plus/Minus one."  The problem?  What do Center Managers do with the animals that cannot be killed due to "Minus One"? Warehouse. Which will lead to inhumane conditions and/or animals either fighting or becoming sick, leading to euthanasia under medical because they are considered unadoptable under medical.  This will enable Boks to keep killing animals, while maintaining the illusion of his 95.75% self-defying "Phase-I No Kill".

It is clear that Boks gave the staff directives that are impossible to adhere to and end up in the same result.

Note that nowhere in this directive, as always, is there any mention of fresh ideas that will increase adoptions or reduce intake.

Once again Boks solution is Warehouse or Kill.

An additional problem with this particular directive is Boks' statement that "only AGM Kathy Davis, Captain Louis Dedeaux, and/or I [Ed Boks] may approve euthanasia for reasons of behavior."

Is Boks planning to have AGM Kathy Davis, Captain Dedeaux (who held the title of Animal Behavioral Health & Safety Coordinator, before being assigned to manage the West LA shelter ) and himself, spend their days running from shelter to shelter to assess the behavior of animals being considered as behaviorally unadoptable.  Who will be running the WLA animal shelter, managing LAAS operations and writing Boks' blogs while Captain Dedeaux, AGM Davis and Ed Boks are busy driving around in LA traffic between 7 city shelters.

And are we doing temperament testing now?

Way to go Boks.  Any population reduction ideas yet?

Note that in this directive, as in all others, Boks does not provide the staff any innovative ideas or resources for increasing adoptions and reducing intake. Nevertheless, Boks does not hesitate to blame shelter managers and staff for not increasing adoptions and not "managing euthanasia".

Has Boks forgotten what his job title is?

Madison

 

   TOP 


Madison Installment # 11-- Boks claim that LAAS is the #1 adoption agency in the world, UNMASKED

 

This installment will illustrate how  Boks/Barth just can't get their claims right.

 

On September 9, 2008, with the knowledge that L.A. Animal Services staff was about to present their vote of "No Confidence" in General Manager Ed Boks and Assistant General Manager Linda Barth to the Los Angeles City Council, Ed Boks wrote a letter to the City Council members.

 

The following is just one of the inaccurate claims Boks makes in his letter:

 

"In the past two years, we have become the number one pet adoption agency in the world, with over 25,000 adoptions annually."

 

 Boks is absolutely correct about the total number of LAAS adoptions. In fact the exact number is 25,277 for the 12 months ending August 31, 2008.

http://www.laanimalservices.com/PDF/reports/CatNDogIntakeNOutcomes.pdf   

But that does not make LAAS the "number one pet adoption agency in the world." 

 

 Ed, please provide your data on this astounding claim.  For example, I am wondering how many annual pet adoptions are done in Switzerland.  I also hear adoptions are pretty darn good in New Zealand.  And France does well too.  What data did you get for those countries, Ed? 

 

OK, we know you did not even ask.  You just made it up. Does the mayor consider that ethical?

 

Let's look at the real facts. It would take way too much time to research the adoption rate of the world, so I have decided to stick to the USA.

 

Boks conveniently chooses to report his number according to the method that give the best illusion of his success.  For example, in this same letter, Boks uses a percentage and raw numbers for his increase in spay/neuter (we will address this in future installment.).  However, when claiming to be "number one in the world" in adoptions, Boks choose to use ONLY the raw number.  Why?  Because as you will see in the chart below, the applicable percentage is not very impressive. In fact it is nothing more than average.

 

When you are dealing with statistics you cannot just state raw numbers without putting them in context.  Outcomes depend on what comes in. That is, we have to count number of impounded animals in order to measure the success of how many animals were adopted.

 

Below is a chart that presents both intakes and adoption for LAAS and the national averages, representing adoptions in the context of impounds.

 

 The LAAS figures are the latest (12 months ending August 31, 2008) from Boks' statistics.  The national average figures for intake and adoptions are the current estimates taken from the Humane Society of the United States website showing HSUS estimates.  http://www.hsus.org/pets/issues_affecting_our_pets/pet_overpopulation_and_ownership_statistics/hsus_pet_overpopulation_estimates.html

 

                                                       NATIONWIDE

                                                       Estimated Average

                                LAAS             (HSUS figures)

 

Adoptions                25,277            3 to 4 million

 

Intake                      51,040            6 to 8 million

 

Adoptions as            49.52%          50%

Percentage of 

Intake

 

Comparing Boks/Barth's LAAS results, we can see that the best Boks can claim is that LAAS adoptions are no better than AVERAGE.  The national average adoption rate is 50% of intake.  The Boks/Barth adoption rate is just shy of that. 

 

Not quite the greatest in the world.  Hardly even the greatest in the country.  But it sure sounded good Ed.  And some people used to believe you. 

 

 

Madison

 

 

   TOP 

Madison installment 12-- someone wants me to reveal my identity

 

I was forwarded an e mail from a Bobby Fisher stating we should continue living with Boks/Barth. I guess that means that we accept Boks/Barth illusion of "No_kill, accept their number games and live with their 37% increase in euthanasia. In that same e mail a Michael O'Brian asked me to reveal my identity. Here is my response.

 

What matters is LAAS facts.  LAAS facts will not change just because Michael knows the identity of Madison. Michael states that "Comments, statistics, figures etc. have very little effect on me and most rational people if the individual proclaiming them is hiding who they are".  Madison's installments are not proclamations, nor are they speculations. Madison's installments are FACTS. Madison provides links and copies of internal e-mails and SOP's (Standard Operating Procedures) that substantiate every installment. All of Madison's pieces can be verified by simply going to the provided links and doing the math or calling Ed Boks and/or Linda Barth and asking them for copies of the referenced internal e mails and Standard Operating Procedures.

 

As I stated in an earlier installment, Madison Barkley is a pseudonym. Why? Revenge by Boks/Barth is one reason. In revealing my identity I stand to lose my privileges and status which would hurt the animals. If I reveal my identity  Boks/Barth would make certain that the flow of information that I now have at hand will promptly stop. 

 

Madison is not just one person. Madison has many sources and what Madison post is a compilation of verifiable facts.

 

Madison's sources include LAAS staff as well as volunteers and rescuers. Each of them have reason to fear retaliation. Ed demonstrated his first step in retaliation with Kathy Davis at the East Valley Shelter on Sept 11th, 2008. The staff called in the union to protect them, rescuers or volunteer DO NOT have that same right to protection.

 

Now let's address Bobby Fishers statement "I  will be  the last one to say that Ed Boks is doing an outstanding job as the in charge  for the pounds, but I do remember the previous people that held that position  and how horrendous of a job they did." I will address each of Bobby's examples:

 

FACT: Bobby states, "They would have never dreamed of  ever having new hope partner adoptions where rescue groups could get a  discount or no fee to take animals; bottle feeding for kittens, etc. " Rescue group programs and discounts have existed in the past.  New Hope is a new name given by Boks for a program that was previously invented. In Stuckey's era rescuers  received a discount and the program was called "Adoption Partners". In Greenwalt's days rescuers received discounts and were called "Rescue Partners". In fact, the discounted rates have existed since Sharon Morris who was General Manager in 1998. A program Morris called "The participant Shelter program". As usual Ed renames an existing product and calls it his own and then takes credit for it.

 

IN FACT, because Boks/Barth's licensing record is so bad Boks/Barth had to find a way to recoup their uncollected licensing revenue (Laura Chick's recent audit put it at about one million dollars). So now Boks/Barth are requiring New Hope partners to submit their adopters private contact information to LAAS so they can recoup their losses.

 

FACT: Bobby states, "Not  too long ago Boks even went to bat for Tia of the pit bull rescue to get a  program where she could have used a closed city kennel in connection with  people ex cons who wanted to work with the animals.". The Pit-bull Academy was pitched by Tia Torres and failed by Ed Boks and Linda Barth. The failure occurred when Boks/Barth decided, again, they did not have to follow city protocol. When City Council was made aware that Ed Boks and Linda Barth were creating a program behind their back, giving away city property without the knowledge of city representatives, ignoring union rules, failing to protect the city from liabilities and essentially spending our city's tax payer's money without permission, the program was cancelled.  

Boks/Barth have demonstrated great difficulty following official protocol. Their arrogance causes more harm than good for the citizens and animals of our city.

 

FACT: Bobby states, "Unless, you have a proven  individual from the rescue world THAT THE MAYOR AND COUCEL has signed off it  would be foolish to expect a replacement to step in and turn things around."  To be a good General Manager and Assistant Manager does not require one to be from "the rescue world". What is required is for that leader to have integrity and hear and fully understand the voices of the people he/she is leading. Ed Boks and Linda Barth have received much advise and feedback from various committees and Los Angeles rescuers willing to assist them in creating new adoption programs, owner retention programs and relinquishment counseling, just to name a few. They say they are open to listening but over and over their actions illustrate the FACT that they do not implement the suggestions given to them.

 

FACT: Bobby states " I read in one Email a complaint of too many dogs in kennel  runs....  Hello, the alternative is simply to kill them faster". Boks/Barth's only solution for the overpopulation of our city shelters is warehousing or killing animals and then blaming shelter management for mismanaging their district when IN FACT they are simply following orders from Boks, Barth and Davis. Keeping animals for a longer period of time is a wonderful idea if it is backed up by a program that will assist in getting the animal out into homes. Without such programs or incentives, keeping animals is called Warehousing. Warehousing leads to overcrowding which results in medical and behavioral issues and inhumane conditions for the animals. Most tragic, the extended stay, without new adoption programs and incentives, still results in the same end, the death of the animals.  

 

This is not a contest of personalities. What it is an examination of FACTS.

 

Madison
 

   TOP 

Madison special installment: I am not affiliated with the ADLLA and their petition.

 

It has just come to my attention that my Installment #12 is being circulated with the subject line "Petition to fire Ed Boks".

 
I want to make it crystal clear that the only petition I support is the LAAS staffs' vote "of no confidence in Ed Boks as General Manager and Linda Barth as Assistant General Manager for LA Animal Services".
 
Although we share a common goal of seeing Ed Boks replaced, I am in NO WAY affiliated with the ADLLA.
 
This e mail is not intended to open up a discussion on Madison vs ADLLA. I do not want to detract from the issue at hand, which is, the removal of Ed Boks and Linda Barth for the sake of the citizens and animals residing in the city of Los Angeles.
 
Madison
 
PS: If you would like to attend the Personnel Committee Meeting in which the vote of no confidence will be heard, you are welcome to attend.
 
Here is the Daily News article about what led up to the Personnel Committee Meeting.
 
Personnel Meeting is scheduled for October 7th at 6:00PM
 
Van Nuys City Hall
14410 Sylvan Street
Van Nuys, CA 91401
(818) 756-8121
 

Click Here for Directions to Van Nuys City Hall    TOP 


Madison installment 13--According to Boks we are now 100% no-kill

 

I was just forwarded an e-mail that someone received from Ed Boks. Did you know that according to Boks' new auto signature we are now 100% no-kill.

Below please find a copy of Ed Boks' new auto signature. Notice that the only two options Boks says can happen to an LAAS animal is to be reunited with the  owner or to get adopted. What about  the  many thousands of animals who got killed and continue to be killed in LAAS, especially now that Boks increased euthanasia by 37.38% (This number can be found in my installment titled "Ed Boks instructive responses to installment #1" or on Ed Boks' blog)

 

Oops, I forgot, we can ignore those deaths because those deaths are part of Boks' charade. The charade being that roughly 1 out of every 3 animals impounded into LAAS are so hopelessly sick and/or vicious that they must be killed and therefore do not get counted as a kill according to Boks' No-Kill  equation(This information can be found in my installment 1, 2 and 3 and confirmed on Boks' blog).
Link to blog

Ed Boks' new auto signature:

Ed Boks
General Manager
LA Animal Services
221 N. Figueroa, Suite 500
LA CA 90012
Phone: 213.482.9558
Fax: 213.482.9511
www.laanimalservices.com

We create happiness by bringing pets and people together.


About Los Angeles Animal Services:  LA Animal Services rescues over
50,000 companion animals and nearly 10,000 exotic, wild, and farm
animals each year.  LA Animal Services accepts all lost and homeless
pets, taking in on average over 135 animals every day. 
Animals are
given shelter, vaccinated, medically evaluated and treated, housed, and
fed until they are reunited with their owners or adopted
.
  If you would
like to help LA Animal Services' life saving mission,
please visit:
http://www.laanimalservices.com/donation.htm.

Last I heard this illustrates lying by omission. Once again, Ed Boks is ignoring the deaths of 1 out of every 3 animals in LAAS.  To add insult to injury, Boks is using his misrepresentation in his official capacity, to recruit donors under a false premise for his city department.

How long will we continue to look the other way while Ed Boks continues to lie.

Madison

 

   TOP 

UPDATE on Madison installment 13--According to Boks we are now 100% no-kill

 

Yesterday Madison publicized Ed Boks' new and highly misleading auto signature. In it Boks  suggested that all LAAS animals are either reclaimed by owners or adopted, omitting the fact that 1/ 3 of LAAS animals are killed. After Madison made Ed Boks' serious omission public, Boks reacted by again changing his auto signature.
 
Here is what it says now:
 
 
We create happiness by bringing pets and people together.
 

About Los Angeles Animal Services:  LA Animal Services rescues over
50,000 companion animals and nearly 10,000 exotic, wild, and farm
animals each year.  LA Animal Services accepts all lost and homeless
pets, taking in on average over 135 animals every day.  Animals are
given shelter, vaccinated, medically evaluated and treated, housed, and
fed until they are reunited with their owners or adopted.  
LA Animal
Services is determined to eliminate euthanasia as a tool for controlling pet overpopulation. 
We are not there yet.  If you would like to help LA Animal Services' life saving mission, please visit:
http://www.laanimalservices.com/donation.htm
 
 
 
Madison
   TOP 

IMPORTANT REMINDER: Please Attend City Personnel Meeting investigating Boks/Barth

 

On Tuesday October 7th at 6:30pm, the LA City Council Personnel Committee has scheduled a special meeting to hear complaints and allegations of mismanagement by Ed Boks, General Manager of LA Animal Services and Linda Barth, Assistant General Manager of LA Animal Services.
 
This is an extraordinary action by the Personnel Committee and we will need as much support as possible if we are to make an impact.
 
Please come and show your support for the animals residing in the city of Los Angeles by attending this very important meeting.
 
Please note that your allegations and complaints will hold much more weight if they are accompanied by proof.
 
Please take this opportunity to be the voice for the voiceless in our city.
 
Councilmember Dennis Zine has been kind enough to schedule this meeting in the evening and in the Van Nuys Civic Center, so it would be more easily accessible.
 
Van Nuys Civic Center
14410 Sylvan Street
Van Nuys, CA 91401
(818) 756-8121
 
Madison
 
PS: It has come to my attention that ADLLA has sent out an e mail announcing this Personnel Committee Meeting. Please note that I am in no way affiliated with the ADLLA.
   TOP 

Madison's installment #14 - Unmasking Boks plea to keep his job

 

 

In this installment I will once again illustrate that Ed Boks cannot seem to tell the truth.  Not even in very important documents. 

This time I will examine Boks' September 9th, 2008 letter addressed to City Council Members.

To help keep this installment shorter, I will address Boks' claims in excerpts.  Please note that you may read Ed Boks' letter in its entirety by scrolling to the bottom of this e mail.  

Below, excerpts from Boks' letter are in bold black, and my clarifying annotations in red italic.

 

1.   "The LA Times is reporting today that a number of employees,

led by a small group of long-term middle managers, will ask your help to persuade the Mayor to have me and one of my assistant general managers, Linda Barth, terminated. They will present a number of accusations as reasons for their lack of confidence in me as GM."

 

No, the vote of "No Confidence" is not being presented by just "a number of employees. Over 150 LAAS employees, signed the vote of "No Confidence". A significant portion of employees were unable to sign because they are new and still on probationary status other employees did not sign for fear of retaliation. Additionally, it was not a "small group of long-term middle managers". To be exact, 30 out of 33 LAAS middle managers (Captains, Lieutenants and Kennel Supervisors) signed the "Vote of No Confidence". That means that middle managers at every one of Boks/Barth's seven shelters felt so strongly about their lack of confidence in Boks/Barth, that they were brave enough to sign the petition of "No Confidence" which was given to City Council.

 

2.   "Many of these managers find it uncomfortable that they are being held accountable for performance for the first time in many years."

 

As stated earlier, 30 out of 33 of LAAS middle managers signed a petition stating that they have no confidence in Boks/Barth management. Rather than holding himself accountable, Boks is trying to convince City Council that a full 91% of his middle managers perform in such a poor manner that they are the ones that need to be held accountable. I guess that for over 80 years Los Angeles Department of Animal Regulation (LAAS) has been run by unaccountable individuals and Ed Boks is the first to discover this problem.

 

3.   "If these employees were interested in finding real solutions to legitimate problems then they should bring their grievances to me directly. My assistant general managers and I have an open door policy."

 

What is it about "No Confidence" that Boks does not understand?  Boks has shown only that he covers up his problems and blames others.  Who asks for help from someone who has proven, over two and a half years, that they are either unable or unwilling to improve?  That is the reason for the employees' action.  The employees have "NO CONFIDENCE" that Boks/Barth will ever improve and they want competent leadership for their department. 

 

Boks/Barths' "open door policy" is a sham, as illustrated by the incident Ed Boks and Kathy Davis caused at the East Valley shelter on September 11, 2008. You can read it in its entirety in my Installment #9 (scroll down for a copy of that installment).

 

As rescuers and volunteers, many have personally experienced Boks' so-called "open door policy". Boks has had many meetings to solve problems and create improvements, only to slam his "open door" in our faces by ignoring us and giving us countless false promises that were never delivered.

 

4.   "We have made great strides at LA Animal Services."

 

           Let us now examine Boks/Barth "great strides"

a.     "Over the past two years we have: become the number one pet adoption agency in the world, with over 25,000 adoptions annually."

 

I have already addressed this claim in installment 11 (scroll down for a copy of that installment). The fact is that LAAS is not the "number one pet adoption agency in the world", In fact, it ranks just shy of average.

 

b.   "Over the last two years we have opened six new animal care centers, overcoming significant systemic design flaws."

 

Those "significant systemic design flaws" were in each of the new shelters because Boks failed to take action when the problems were first discovered.  Boks was already GM of LAAS for 11 months when the first shelter opened. Design flaws were obvious even to the lay public who complained at the grand opening of the North Central shelter. Ed Boks, as General Manager of LAAS, should have participated in or at least overseen the facility plans, given his self proclaimed expertise, and he should have noticed and corrected or minimized these "significant systemic design flaws." He did not. In fact, two and half years after he started, when the Harbor shelter opened, the same flaws still existed, this time receiving extremely negative and embarrassing media coverage.

Here is a link to the Daily News articles addressing the design flaws at the shelter.

http://www.dailynews.com/search/ci_9688303?IADID=Search-www.dailynews.com-www.dailynews.com

c.   "Over the last two years we have increased operational workload by 400%."

Boks' statement is wholesale hyperbole. According to the most up-to-date fiscal year 2008/09 budget which can be found on the Mayor's webpage, not one category of workload in any LAAS function increased by anything close to 400% (with one exception: public service announcements increased in two years from zero to seven.)

Scroll down this e mail to the chart entitled "LAAS Workload Indicators Reported on City Budget". Compare the ending figures from 2005/06 to 20007/08 and see just how inaccurate Boks' claim is when he tells City Council that LAAS increased by 400%.

Here is a link to the Mayor's webpages where you can view the official city budget showing LAAS Workload Indictors chart for the years covered by Boks' claim.

http://www.lacity.org/cao/budget07-08/Proposed_Blue_Book_2007-08.pdf, page 15 of the document, or page 33 of the .pdf file,

http://www.lacity.org/cao/budget08-09/2008-09BlueBook-Volume1.pdf, page 16 of the document, or page 34 of the .pdf file.

d.   "Over the last two years the Department's budget was reduced 15%."

 

This is easy. According to the official LAAS budget on the Mayor's webpage, it is a lie.  The budget went up not down over the last two years. Below is a chart that shows the budget numbers for the two year period during which Boks claims there was a 15% decrease. Once again Boks is making false claims, this time to City Council.

 

LAAS Budget Reported on City Budget

for the Last Two Years

 

Starting point: 2005/06

(Actual)

2006/07

(Actual)

2007/08

(Estimated)

Direct budget cost

$18,100,000

$20,200,000

$19,800,000

 

Here is a link to the Mayor's webpage where you can view a bar chart showing the official city budget showing LAAS budget totals for the two year change covered by Boks' claim.

http://www.lacity.org/cao/budget08-09/2008-09BlueBook-Volume1.pdf , page 14 of the document, or page 32 of the .pdf file.

 

e.    "Over the last two years we have rebuilt the Medical Program, fully staffing the veterinarians."

 

If Boks/Barth veterinarians are so fully staffed then why have Boks/Barth still not opened the spay/neuter clinics at North Central, Harbor, East Valley, West Valley, West LA and Northeast Valley shelters? Boks has been General Manager for 2 ļæ½ years. These taxpayer-built clinics sit unused and these clinics should have been opened when their shelters were opened, starting in November 2006 to May 2008.

Boks/Barth claim to have rebuilt the Medical Program. Yet, to date, in all 7 shelters, animals are left without any RVT or Veterinary care every night between 12 midnight and 8 in the morning. If you want proof, simply call any shelter after midnight and ask for an RVT or Veterinarian.

Boks claims to have rebuilt the medical program. Yet, in the last two years the LAAS amount spent on private veterinary care has not increased by one penny, even while the number of animals residing in LAAS shelter has doubled with the new larger shelters.

Also in "rebuilding" the medical program, Boks/Barth slashed the medical supply budget by over half. This, while the number of animals to be cared for in LAAS shelters DOUBLED with the new shelters.  See the chart below.

Here is the link to the official LAAS budget on the Mayor's city webpages.

http://www.lacity.org/cao/budget07-08/Proposed_Blue_Book_2007-08.pdf page 15 of the document, or page 33 of the .pdf file,

http://www.lacity.org/cao/budget08-09/2008-09BlueBook-Volume1.pdf page 16 of the document, or page 34 of the .pdf file. 

 

 

F/Y 2006/07

F/Y 2007/08

F/Y 2008/09

Medical supplies

$559,391

$269,141

$269,141

Private veterinary

care expense

$67,500

$67,500

$67,500

 

 

 

 

 

f.   "Over the last two years we have expanded partnerships with local rescue organizations from 50 to 140."

 

Boks is actually telling the truth here, he has expanded the number of New Hope partners. However, his "expanded partnerships" has not increased New Hope Adoptions. In fact, New Hope adoptions have decreased since Ed Boks became General Manager.

Here is the link to LAAS animal intake and outcome statistics.

http://www.laanimalservices.com/PDF/reports/CatNDogIntakeNOutcomes.pdf

 

Fiscal Year

Cats/Dogs

New Hope

Placements

Cats/Dogs

Intake

New Hope Placements as Percentage of Intake

2004/05

6,440

47,379

13.59%

2005/06

5,843

46,128

12.67%

2006/07

5,992

44,808

13.37%

2007/08

6,268

51,040

12.28%

 

As you can see, in fiscal year 2004/05, prior to Boks' arrival, New Hope Placements were 6,440, the highest they have been in the last 4 years. That is, 13.59% of impounded dogs/cats were rescued by rescue groups.

 In fiscal year 2005/06, with 1/2 year of Boks' management, New Hope placements declined to 5,843. That is, only 12.67% of impounded dogs/cats were rescued by New Hope partners.

In fiscal year 2006/07, New Hope Placements were 5,992. That is, 13.37% of impounded dogs/cats were rescued by New Hope partners.

In fiscal year 2007/8 New Hope Placements were 6,268. That is, only 12.28% of impounded dogs/cats were rescued by New Hope partners.

Both as a percentage of intake, and in total numbers, New Hope adoptions under Boks/Barth are lower than when Boks began.

New Hope is Ed Boks' signature program which he touts as one of his strategic no-kill plans. These numbers illustrate that Ed Boks' signature program is a failure.

g.    "Over the past two years we have developed a cost-recovery model for updating adoption and permit fees that have gone largely unchanged since the 1960s."

 

Cost recovery model is a very simple concept that has been used since the corner lemonade stand: The price to the public is derived from the seller's cost, in this case, LAAS.

 

The problem that Boks does not address in his letter to City Council Members is that this Boks/Barth simple model produced flawed results.

 

First problem with Boks/Barth's model is their plan to increase adoption fees to $76 for a cat and $117 for a dog plus license. Boks/Barth gave no clear statement of whether or not the usual add-on fees for spay/neuter (planned increase to$32) and microchip (remains $15) are on top of those amounts. Our neighboring LA county shelter charges only $32 for a cat and $37 for a dog. http://animalcare.lacounty.gov/  So, in our tough economy what do you all think this genius idea will do for increasing LAAS adoptions?

 

Second problem with Boks/Barth's model is that it sets the pet store permit fee at the low cost of $275 annually.  This low amount misses the opportunity to raise revenue, discourage puppy mills, and discourage the importing of more animals into our city's pet overpopulation.

 

Here is the link to the March 24th 2008 cost recovery report to the Commission:

http://laanimalservices.com/PDF/commission/2008/third%20fees%20and%20charges%20Bd%20rpt.pdf.

 

This installment, as do previous ones, illustrates Ed Boks' inability to be truthful and accountable. Even while Ed Boks delivers an important letter to City Council begging to keep his job, Boks continues to demonstrate his lack of accountability,  integrity and competence by continuing to lie.

 

I wonder how City Council Members feel about being lied to.

 

Madison

  

 

 

Ed Boks' letter to City Councilmembers

 

September 9, 2008

 

 

Honorable Council Members,

 

The LA Times is reporting today that a number of employees, led by a small group of long-term middle managers, will ask your help to persuade the Mayor to have me and one of my assistant general managers, Linda Barth, terminated. They will present a number of accusations as reasons for their lack of confidence in me as GM. I would appreciate the opportunity to address these accusations at the appropriate time. I feel that they are unfair and for the most part, without merit.

 

At LA Animal Services we are attempting to institute a culture of excellence and

accountability. Many of these managers find it uncomfortable that they are being held accountable for performance for the first time in many years.

 

If these employees were interested in finding real solutions to legitimate problems then they should bring their grievances to me directly. My assistant general managers and I have an open door policy. We are always ready to listen to constructive criticism and work with our staff to improve operations. To date, none of the managers or employees in question has brought any of the concerns that you will hear today directly to me. Instead they have chosen to do an end run to City Council.

 

I am fully prepared to respond to each and every accusation if necessary. I ask only that I be permitted to do so before the Personnel Committee, which is a more appropriate forum for this matter.

 

We have made great strides at LA Animal Services. We have also, admittedly, made some mistakes along the way. I assure you that my management team and I are working very hard every single day to make LA Animal Services the best animal services department in the country.

 

Over the past two years we have: become the number one pet adoption agency in the world, with over 25,000 adoptions annually;  increased spay/neuter surgeries 53% from 26,000 annually to over 40,000; opened six new animal care centers, overcoming significant systemic design flaws;  increased operational workload by 400% at the same time the Department's budget was reduced 15%; rebuilt the Medical Program, fully staffing the veterinarians, with a new Chief Veterinarian starting next Monday; undergone the process to contract out our new spay/neuter clinics, with service in South LA already and Harbor and West LA to follow in the next few weeks and the remainder following; expanded partnerships with local rescue organizations from 50 to 140; developed a cost-recovery model for updating adoption and permit fees that have gone largely unchanged since the 1960s; recently completed an 8 month study of dog licensing that finally promises to provide long-term structural changes to improve the program; and we are partnering with ten of your offices and the Mayor's office to hold a series of public workshops to address animal control concerns in your respective districts.

 

And although the list goes on and on, we still have a long way to go. My door remains open to each of you and to all of our employees. It is my purpose to work together to find constructive solutions to making our department better.

 

Thank you for reserving judgment on these matters and allowing me to respond at the appropriate time and place.

 

Sincerely,

 

Edward A. Boks

 

 

Chart of LAAS Workload Indicators Reported on City Budget.

 

    The amounts budgeted for medical supplies and private veterinary care for fiscal years 2006/07 and 2007/08 are seen on the fiscal year 2007/08 official L.A. city budget on the Mayor's webpages at http://www.lacity.org/cao/budget07-08/Proposed_Blue_Book_2007-08.pdf, page 15 of the document, or page 33 of the .pdf file, The amounts budgeted for fiscal years 2007/08 and 2008/09 are seen on the fiscal year 2008/09 official L.A. city budget on the Mayor's webpages at http://www.lacity.org/cao/budget08-09/2008-09BlueBook-Volume1.pdf, page 16 of the document, or page 34 of the .pdf file.  There you can see how greatly Boks/Barth "rebuilt" the medical program: 

 

 

 

LAAS Workload Indicators Reported on City Budget[1]

 

Starting point: Total for 2005/06

(Actual)

2006/07

(Actual)

2007/08

(Estimated)

Staffing (number of employees)

291

321

320

Total field investigations

17,072

14,191

15,610

Animals picked up

14,521

9,894

13,500

Animals caught

4,053

3,947

4,770

Citations issued

975

455

546

Notice to comply

20,730

18,657

20,522

License applications issued

434

512

540

Total enforcement notices issued

40,713

33,465

39,878

Barking dog complaints received

2,057

2,200

2,400

Barking dog admin cases filed

78

110

80

Potentially dangerous animal cases filed

85

87

80

Hearings conducted

154

161

150

Permit inspections

1,009

1,179

1,404

Permit applications received

791

911

1,100

Permits issued

768

1,185

997

Animals impounded

57,063

55,570

53,915

Total animals microchipped

19,354

20,662

30,225

Mobile adoption events held

105

94

115

Number of animals taken to mobile adoptions

3,221

1,605

3,000

Dog licenses issued

124,802

126,538

130,699

Equine licenses issued

1,552

1,599

1,500

Breeder permits issued

267

502

300

Total spay/neuter surgeries

38,327

42,222

46,019

Media calls and requests

1,912

2,007

2,213

Private citizen and Organizational calls/requests

4,207

4,500

4,961

Press/media events

19

20

24

Other news/department coverage

72

60

65

News releases, news advisories and fact sheets

21

25

30

Public service announcements

0

5

7

Community outreach/education meetings

222

200

220

IVR calls received

467,568

470,171

480,000

Call center calls received

132,871

114,544

128,327

 

Madison installment #9 Unmasking Ed Boks euthanasia directives.

Yesterday, Thursday September 11, 2008, at approximately 5 PM, Ed Boks went to the East Valley Shelter with three public adopters and an LAAS volunteer. Boks said he wants to speak to a supervisor regarding how they choose which animal will be euthanized.

Boks first questioned the supervisor himself. Boks then instructed the supervisor to submit to interrogation by members of the public and Boks allowed the members of the public to continue interrogating the supervisor. Exercising this employees right, the supervisor declined to submit to the interrogation without union representation.

Ed Boks is setting up the employees to throw them under the bus for his own euthanasia directives.

It was only two months ago that Ed Boks sent his e mail directive on euthanasia. Boks sent his euthanasia directive on July 13, 2008. In it, Boks states:

1.    "Place ALL animals on the Red Alert immediately, with the exception of animals the Center Managers believe the public will adopt within a reasonable amount of time."

2.    "Place all incoming stray and owner relinquished animals on the Red Alert at the time of impound."

3.    "Animals employees or volunteers (trainers) have a vested interest in can be discussed and can be held up to 21 days, but only with Center Manager approval. The animals are not to be held any longer without GM [Ed Boks] approval."

4.    "Manage euthanasia decision using the Minus One Goal DAILY."

5.    "I [Ed Boks] will assist the respective Center Staff next weekend when the bulk of these animals complete their seven day Red Alert to help them select animals for euthanasia using Minus One goals as a guide."

.

Boks almost never visits the shelters. What is the special occasion that gets Boks to actually show up in a shelter? To help select animals to be killed.

Boks' directive covers the time span from impound through euthanasia, yet Boks NEVER mention ADOPTIONS.

Once again Boks solution is warehouse or kill.

When Boks blames the shelter staff for their euthanasia decisions or numbers let's remember the staff is simply following Ed's directives.

Madison

 

 

 

Madison Installment # 11-- Boks claim that LAAS is the #1 adoption agency in the world, UNMASKED

 

This installment will illustrate how  Boks/Barth just can't get their claims right.

 

On September 9, 2008, with the knowledge that L.A. Animal Services staff was about to present their vote of "No Confidence" in General Manager Ed Boks and Assistant General Manager Linda Barth to the Los Angeles City Council, Ed Boks wrote a letter to the City Council members.

 

The following is just one of the inaccurate claims Boks makes in his letter:

 

"In the past two years, we have become the number one pet adoption agency in the world, with over 25,000 adoptions annually."

 

 Boks is absolutely correct about the total number of LAAS adoptions. In fact the exact number is 25,277 for the 12 months ending August 31, 2008.

http://www.laanimalservices. com/PDF/reports/ CatNDogIntakeNOutcomes.pdf   

But that does not make LAAS the "number one pet adoption agency in the world." 

 

 Ed, please provide your data on this astounding claim.  For example, I am wondering how many annual pet adoptions are done in Switzerland.  I also hear adoptions are pretty darn good in New Zealand.  And France does well too.  What data did you get for those countries, Ed? 

 

OK, we know you did not even ask.  You just made it up. Does the mayor consider that ethical?

 

Let's look at the real facts. It would take way too much time to research the adoption rate of the world, so I have decided to stick to the USA.

 

Boks conveniently chooses to report his number according to the method that give the best illusion of his success.  For example, in this same letter, Boks uses a percentage and raw numbers for his increase in spay/neuter (we will address this in future installment.).  However, when claiming to be "number one in the world" in adoptions, Boks choose to use ONLY the raw number.  Why?  Because as you will see in the chart below, the applicable percentage is not very impressive. In fact it is nothing more than average.

 

When you are dealing with statistics you cannot just state raw numbers without putting them in context.  Outcomes depend on what comes in. That is, we have to count number of impounded animals in order to measure the success of how many animals were adopted.

 

Below is a chart that presents both intakes and adoption for LAAS and the national averages, representing adoptions in the context of impounds.

 

 The LAAS figures are the latest (12 months ending August 31, 2008) from Boks' statistics.  The national average figures for intake and adoptions are the current estimates taken from the Humane Society of the United States website showing HSUS estimates.  http://www.hsus.org/pets/ issues_affecting_our_pets/pet_ overpopulation_and_ownership_ statistics/hsus_pet_ overpopulation_estimates.html

 

                                                        NATIONWIDE

                                                        Estimated Average

                                 LAAS             (HSUS figures)

 

Adoptions                25, 277            3 to 4 million

 

Intake                       51,040            6 to 8 million

 

Adoptions as            49.52%          50%

Percentage of 

Intake

 

Comparing Boks/Barth's LAAS results, we can see that the best Boks can claim is that LAAS adoptions are no better than AVERAGE.  The national average adoption rate is 50% of intake.  The Boks/Barth adoption rate is just shy of that. 

 

Not quite the greatest in the world.  Hardly even the greatest in the country.  But it sure sounded good Ed.  And some people used to believe you. 

 

 

Madison

   TOP 

Madison's Installment #15 - Boks at his diabolical best

 

What do you do when you want to distract the City Council members and the citizens of Los Angeles and get positive media coverage on a day when the news about you is really bad?

If you are a master manipulator like Ed Boks you come up with a brilliant distraction.

You call for a Press Conference with the Mayor and City Council Members on the same day that you are about to get nailed by your own employees, rescue groups and general public in front of the City Council.

An LAAS employee just notified me of a Tuesday morning press conference at City Hall. Another website has posted the invitation. The invitation reads:

"Mayoral Press Conference this Tuesday at 9 a.m. at City Hall. Come participate in this celebration of the new ordinance, which recently became enforceable October 1st. The Mayor will be there as will the entire City Council, featuring as well as expressing our appreciation to the law's co-authors CM Richard Alarcon and CM Tony Cardenas."

By now you all know that on Tues Oct 7 at 6:30 pm The City Council Personnel Committee is having a special hearing to investigate the vote of no confidence against Ed Boks, General Manager of LAAS and Linda Barth, Assistant General Manager of LAAS. Pretty scary day if you are Ed Boks. Almost as scary as the day in December 2005 when supervisors overseeing NY city animal care and control voted unanimously not to renew Ed Boks' contract.

We all agree that Spay/Neuter is an extraordinarily important subject matter. However, I find it diabolical that since the ordinance passed in Feb of this year and enforced October 1, that out of 31 days in October, the only day Boks finds to have a press conference covering this important ordinance is the morning of the day that his vote of "No Confidence" will be heard by the Personnel Committee.

I guess that is the only way Boks figured out how to look good on the day he will be unmasked.

Madison

   TOP 

Madison's Installment #16 - An email from Boks to LAAS staff

 

Below is an excessively long email from Ed Boks to his staff, addressing tomorrow's Personnel Committee meeting. In his excessive long Email Boks never acknowledges a single one of the employees' grievances. In fact, in reading his e mail one gets the impression that he is looking forwards to tomorrow evening and is inviting the staff to air their grievances.

Boks has apparently forgotten that the vote of no conference was initially signed written and delivered in March 2008. So Boks has been aware of this for at least 7 months.

Boks writes this fluff to his own staff, who work at LAAS and know very well the facts of LAAS. Boks tells them things like that they work in new shelters and that they almost lost their jobs due to the budget shortfall. They already know these things. The only reason Boks would review the obvious for them is his insulting attempt to placate and manipulate the employees by adding his P.R. gloss while ignoring their ongoing grievances.

Boks often speaks of "transparency". What is transparent in this e mail is Boks' panic, fearing a reprise of the same embarrassment he faced in 2005 when NY opted not to renew his contract.

More important, Boks/Barth have heard these complaints throughout their tenure. They has proven to employees and the humane community and many city officials that they are unwilling or unable to get the job done.

It is time to stop giving grace periods to management that has proven incapable of change.

Madison

 

From: Ed Boks

Subject: State of the Department - Please share with all employees
Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2008 09:01:43 -0700

As you know, Tuesday evening Council Member Zine is chairing a public hearing of the City Council Personnel Committee and on the agenda Mr. Zine is providing an opportunity to hear from employees, volunteers and members of the public on their concerns with the Department and with me personally. I want all employees to feel free to attend this meeting to speak their mind openly and honestly.

On the following Thursday morning, (Oct. 9th) I and my AGMs will be meeting with the Mayor's Office and Union officials to discuss an action plan for addressing your concerns. It is important to me that we identify problems, confirm facts, and resolve whatever differences may exist among us - and that we continue to work as a team.

I want to thank those of you who have taken advantage of discussing and forwarding your ideas and suggestions for making LA Animal Service a better, more responsive organization.

I also want to encourage those of you who have been reluctant to share your thoughts and ideas, to please do so. We are a team and we can only be more successful with your input and participation in the process.

I continue to have an open door policy and have made it even easier several weeks ago with a feature on the Intranet where you can contact me directly and anonymously if doing so in that manner will permit you to speak more freely and make you feel more comfortable in the process.

As a team we have made LA Animal Services the number one municipal pet adoption agency in the world. Each of your efforts to help promote our adoption program is greatly appreciated.

As a team we are now responsible for enforcing a historic spay/neuter ordinance designed to help reduce our shelter over crowding, especially with respect to neonates.

As a team we have moved into our new and remodeled Animal Care Centers. We have identified the issues that came from moving into new facilities and we have worked together to overcome many of them and we will continue to collaborate together to make these Centers the most welcoming, customer- friendly adoption centers in the nation, in addition to being pleasant places to work.

While we have one of the lowest euthanasia rates in the nation we are seeing an up tick in euthanasia for the first time in several years as a result of the housing/economic crisis. We are working hard to develop programs to stem the tide of relinquished pets and will continue to develop programs to help reduce these numbers. Concerned members of the humane and business communities are lending a hand to those efforts.

With the support of the Mayor and the City Council - indeed, at their insistence - we have continued the difficult task of moving our Department toward a future in which euthanasia truly is the option of last resort in managing the population in our Animal Care Centers. The work you've all done to make that happen is greatly appreciated and I know you share the Department's commitment to continuing that progress in a practical, realistic manner. Even if there occasionally will be moments when things aren't going as well as we prefer, turning the clock back is not an option.

This past budget cycle was very difficult, and the fear of impending layoffs was palpable and demoralizing. Thankfully, layoffs have been averted after a strong collaborative effort by management, staff, the unions, our commission and our constituents to convince decision makers that any layoffs would be detrimental to the fundamental welfare of the animals and people we care about and for. We are grateful to the Mayor and the City Council for being responsive to our shared concerns.

One need only read the newspaper to know we're not out of the woods yet for future budget years but, with your help Department management will keep making the case that each and every one of you makes a crucial contribution to providing the public and our animals with the service they require and deserve. We are also reaching out in a variety of directions to identify ideas and sources for enhanced revenues to support you and our Department's work.

While it may appear to be a time of unprecedented division within our Department I remain confident that our best days are before us. We have assembled, and will continue to assemble, a truly world class animal welfare organization. While there may be some disagreement regarding direction we are clearly moving forward and my door remains open for constructive dialogue. It is important that we all continue to strive together to be more professional and worthy of the trust put in us by our constituents.

Sincerely,

Ed Boks
General Manager
LA Animal Services
221 N. Figueroa, Suite 500
LA CA 90012
Phone: 213.482.9558
Fax: 213.482.9511
www.laanimalservices.com

   TOP 

Madison's Installment #17
It's a Puppy Mill Christmas for Ed! But not for the puppies or animals of LAAS.

 

By now many of you have heard that LAAS is having a special adoption event at the East Valley shelter for 10 overseas puppy mill puppies confiscated on June 30, 2008.

http://www.laanimalservices.com/puppy_mill.htm

What most of you do not know is that these animals were released from quarantine on November 5, 2008, which means all ten were legally available for adoption six weeks before Ed Boks is releasing them for adoption.  Ed Boks will be keeping these ten tiny puppies for six unnecessary weeks in LAAS shelters.  Why?  Simple! 

These pups became available election week, with news of the poor economy flooding the airways. The chance of getting these pups adopted was great, but by holding them for six more weeks in shelter cages until the Saturday before Christmas, Ed Boks could sell the ten for top dollar.  We all know that even a failing economy will not stop determined parents from buying the perfect gift for the holidays for their youngsters.  Boks will hit the pocket of the vulnerable consumer looking for the perfect gift to give their children on Christmas. 

Ed claims that his reasoning that LA Animal Services is utilizing the City ordinance required adoption-auction process to help ensure that the new owner/guardians of these puppies will have sufficient financial means to afford the medical costs they are likely to incur over the lifetime of these animals.

Ed's reasoning is absurd.  Since when does buying a dog for a high price equate to being a responsible owner?  How many owner turn-in animals were bought in pet stores for a hefty price?  If the puppies have medical and behavioral issues as Boks says, then why is the highest bidder the best home instead of screening for a home that understands a dog's medical and behavioral needs and has a stress-free home in which the puppies can acclimate after being deprived of socialization for so long?  This is just another one of Ed Boks' methods of rationalizing his indifference to animals and his need for maximum media attention. It also helps him earn some extra money to cover up for the fact that he has still done nothing to increase LAAS' net licensing revenue. 

Ten young pups have been living in city shelter cages since June 2008, yet Mr. Boks chose to keep them an extra six weeks in order to exploit them and to exploit Los Angeles public by withholding their sale until the time of year when more people are willing to pay a higher price.  So there the ten puppies sit since June with no chance of foster or adoption per Ed Boks , no socialization other than shelter employees, not running around and playing during their formative months.

 Why were these puppies not fostered in homes these last five months?  Because Ed Boks was worried that the fosters would not return them once they became available.  That would mean he could not increase his revenue and, more importantly, he could not be on TV.  What does this say about Ed Boks' management if he does not trust himself to be able to get back his own fostered animals.

What is even more concerning is that as of this evening there are 250 puppies in LAAS.  I can assure you they have not received the care that these ten "jetsetter" (Boks' term) puppies have gotten.  Take a look at the puppy mill pictures (by a professional whose website is in the photo corner)  and compare them to the approximately 250 puppies residing at LAAS as of this evening.

http://www.laanimalservices.com/findapet_viewall.htm

http://www.laanimalservices.com/puppy_mill_adopt_event.htm

To add insult to injury, Ed Boks' self-serving plan also misses a great opportunity to save lives throughout all LAAS shelters. Ed Boks has all 10 puppies at one shelter. The problem is, he should have put some of the puppies in each shelter.  This way, when the advertised puppy or puppies at each shelter gets adopted, all those adopters who were not the highest bidder will look around the shelter and fall in love with one of the 250 other LAAS puppies or 1,200 dogs and save one of those.  This would give EVERY dog at EVERY shelter a chance to be seen and saved.  But, by having all puppies at one shelter and thereby driving more bidders to the same location, the price will be bid up higher and Ed Boks will make more money.  More puppies and dogs will die than had Ed done it right, but that is not Ed Boks' concern.  Ed Boks will have taken more money from the public, and Ed Boks would have had all the media cameras at the same location where he could pretend to be the hero. 

Your mixed up priorities let the animals down again. Merry Christmas Ed.

Madison