Welcome to the Jungle
We ran a post this morning on developments on the animal front, and linked to the newest City Beat article entitled, "Welcome to the Jungle -- Protest! Smoke bombs! Euthanasia videos! Resistance to L.A. Animal Services chief Guerdon Stuckey has inspired a citywide discussion of what it means to be an activist, and thrown the department into disarray"Needless to say this article is causing a stir down in City Hall. Here's the latest scuttle I have heard from two different anonymous sources.
Stucky knows he'll probably be fired. He tried to get two commissioners and Jim Bickhart fired but he was unsuccessful. He has decided to take all of his vacation time after this article came out. He was questioned about the article. He knew he was going down. He'll conveniently be out of town from this 11/19 to 12/4, and then some...Uh Oh. Do we have another flip to go with the previous flop?
Posted by Anonymous @ 11/10/2005 03:00:00 PM
11 Comments:
Stupid leaders, private and public, jump into leadership roles and do the drastic thing of cutting off heads before assessing the issue.
In this case it's wise to evaluate people BEFORE taking the drastic action of firing them. These animal lunatics would have the City prioritize animals over many more important human issues(that's right, I said human with the implication that we humans are more important than dogs and cats).
This issue is complex. And saying that firing one person is going to solve this problem is simplified and ignorant.
The Mayor's team accessed the issue before he became Mayor or he wouldn't have said that he would fire him. He's been accessing it for the past 125 days since he took office. He's spoken with the king of the no-kill movement, Nathan Winograd. Winograd believes and others agree that it's mandatory to have a compassionate, knowledgeable, motivated General Manager. Stuckey is definitely not that which is why he's failing. Do a little research into the issue. Check out his track record. You should evaluate the guy yourself before jumping in with your statement.
Too fuc*in bad. I'm more concerned about little kids gettin caught between the cross fires of gang warfare than a pit bull getting put down. There are limited resources, and unfortunately dogs and cats are not at the top of the priority list.
The Mayor and his staff researched the animal issue before coming out with his "animal vision" for his campaign. He knew the GM was a problem back then. That's why he said he'd fire him. Here's Antonio's plan which came out six months before he was elected
http://www.antonio2005.com/vision?id=0004
The current GM Stuckey has made it appear that he's doing more positive things for animals but he hasn't really done much. He posts positive stories on the website and gives good lip service to the public and councimembers but the numbers aren't really changing. In fact missing animals went up 333% since he arrived. That's staggering! It also means the rest of his numbers are suspect. What's he hiding in that figure?
Yes, LAAS is underfunded but making positive change won't take money. Yes, I said that. There are a ton of people who want to donate and help but they won't under the current circumstances. As well, there are some programs, managers who should be cut so that money can go to spay/neuter efforts. Nathan Winograd's no-kill plan makes a lot of sense. He's helped turn around other cities. Right now he's turning about Philadelphia which has similar problems, similar numbers though the City is smaller.
For reference, there were over 9,000 animals that just went missing. They could have been euthanized for all we know. Previous missing animals were about 3,000. Someone sent me this
57,930 animals impounded
24,932 were killed
18,902 of them were adopted
4,845 were returned to owners
9,000+ missing! How do you lose 9,000 animals?
FYI, when Hahn nominated Stuckey for the position, I, along with other people who care about pets, spoke against Stuckey at public hearings on his appointment. We objected to his appointment because he had absolutely no experience in this field, whereas -- I love using lawspeak -- other candidates with stellar credentials had a track record of saving animals. Despite that testimony, Villaraigosa voted FOR Stuckey.
Later, when Villaraigosa realized he could get votes for mayor by promising to fire Stuckey, he did just that. After winning the election, however, Villaraigosa broke his promise, and has expressly refused to fire him.
So there are really at least two issues here: i) why did Villaraigosa break his promise; and, more importantly, ii) what is the best way to make our shelters no-kill ASAP.
The plan I proposed (which is at my website), did not emphasize increased spending. Rather, in my opinion, we need mandatory and free spaying and neutering to prevent unwanted animals from being born in the first place. I also proposed using "retail" methods to get people to adopt, and requiring landlords to accept tenants with pets, provided they didn't become a nuisance (noise or mess-wise), and provided the landlords would never be liable to third parties for attacks by pets.
The city, by the way, has PLENTY of money for animal services, but has squandered it to reward special interests by, e.g., paying around $800 per square foot to construct new shelters.
So go adopt some dogs and cats, would you?
Look, Antonio knew damn well that Stuckey was not qualified. That is why he promised to fire him. Well, that and the votes of course.
His staff had long known that Stuckey and his arrogant self had to go.
Just because half of the "animal people" are complete lunatics and threatened Stuckey with a smoke bomb.. ooh big deal anyway, now Villaraigosa is refusing to fire the incompetent fool.
Imagine Stuckey thinking he had the power to get any of the mayor's staff fired. What a dick.
Over 75%of the voting public passed a bond measure four some years ago. I guess that means 75% of the voting public are lunatics because they care about animals.
Mayor V needs to stop hiding behind the smokescreen of a few radicals. Enough Antonio, step up to the plate. How about doing what is right for the animals and the people despite kept or unkept promises?
I understand this general manager admitted at a meeting he cannot manage his staff. That is apparently on record. What? The manager said he cannot manage? Come on folks, he is perfect for the job.
Perhaps the "normal" animal activists should separate themselves from the "radical" animal activists and they'd get more respect.
Perhaps Antonio should listen to his staffers who obviously told him to fire Stuckey. If you put staffers on an issue and then back down over perceived threats from whack job "lunatic" animal activists, you wouldn't seem to be very trusting of your staffers.
It doesn't really matter what you think of Antonio, not one of you out there who are "in the know" can deny that Blackman or Bickhart aren't intelligent, loyal, long time supporters of the mayor.
Stuckey was trying to get them fired? I'd like to hear what rumor mill that came from. I can't believe that is possible.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home