Whistleblower hotline: (213) 785-6098

Wednesday, January 25, 2006

Waiting Out Stuckey?

According to CNS, the Los Angeles City Council once again delayed a decision yesterday on whether to reinstate Guerdon H. Stuckey as general manager of the Animal Services Department.

The council is scheduled to discuss the matter again today. Under city charter rules, the council can take up to 10 meetings -- through Feb. 1 -- to consider whether to overrule Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa's decision last month to fire Stuckey, who made a plea for reinstatement on Jan.

Today marked the council's sixth meeting in which a decision was held over.

If no decision is made, it would be the equivalent of denying Stuckey's appeal, according to the City Attorney's Office.

It would take 10 votes on the 15-member council to overturn the firing of a general manager, but only eight to approve a severance payment. Stuckey was fired Dec. 15 and replaced with Ed Boks, who held a similar job in New York City and favors a no-kill policy regarding pets which cannot be adopted.


Anonymous Anonymous said:

Yeah, but MAV and Animal Services staff keep postponing the big public DOG AND PONY SHOW they're planning, to make Boks official and show off the new GM.

They've scrapped two press alerts already where he was going to make a grand entrance at a public venue where AS was holding a community event. The next one's set for the week after the Feb. 1 deadline.

Maybe they're not all that sure about support on the council??

January 25, 2006 8:20 AM  

Anonymous noel park said:

Great picture! Thanks for running it again.

See, we can learn something from our animal friends.

January 25, 2006 8:25 AM  

Blogger Walter Moore said:

Villaraigosa has now been in office seven months, and still the slaughter continues. The issue isn't who's the manager of animal services. The issue is who's mayor. The Stuckey/Boks sideshow is a red herring.

January 25, 2006 8:56 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

They are prepared to send Ed Boks to Public Safety then City Council for approval as soon as February 1 comes and goes. It's in the online docs. They will NOT reinstate Stuckey. They will let his appeal lapse.

Today in City Council they will have another closed session meeting to discuss his threatened litigation. I personally believe that they will give him a few bucks just to get rid of him. Legally they can't give him a severance package but they can throw some money at him in exchange for an agreement not to sue the City. The guy has no legitimate claim but lawsuits cost the City money.

I watched the City Council meeting where Stuckey pleaded for his job. That man is the biggest liar I have ever seen in my life. It was bad enough that he lied to the commissioners, Mayor's office, public all the time but to flat out lie to the councilmembers like that on the record was nuts.

He said he was never given goals, never told he was doing a bad job. He was give MANY goals which he did not meet. He was reprimanded at every single commission meeting. On top of that lie he did some nice emotional acting for the Council. He said his wife was too frightened to ever move to LA. She lived here until recently! It's in the Daily News and LA Times articles. If she never moved here, then why is he claiming moving expenses? He even invited his kids down here, took off work for a few days just to show them the town. I pity the next person who hires the guy.

January 25, 2006 9:03 AM  

Blogger PETA NO! said:

This time next year LAAS will still be euthanizing animals. This time five years from now LAAS will be euthanizing animals. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS "NO KILL". Just get that through your heads. Now go have some tofu and wheatgrass. Then go smoke some grass.

January 25, 2006 9:11 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

no-kill, lo-kill, it's just semantics and marketing. Yes, they will always have to euthanize some animals. Get over it, peta.

January 25, 2006 9:33 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

What an ego this Stuckey has. Nobody wants him. I can't imagine trying to force my way into staying where I wasn't wanted.

You know what?

(I think it's because he's black. Uh huh, I think it's purely racial..)


January 25, 2006 9:59 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Keep bringing up the race card, bubbie, and it's just a matter of time before someone gets desperate and plays it.

Once it's played, it TRUMPS everything in this limo-lib town.

And IF he plays it, he's back in as GM, within 6 months.

Bet the plantation!

January 25, 2006 10:30 AM  

Blogger huzzafuzza said:

Stuckey apartment gets smoke bombed by the animal rights freaks - Stuckey looks like a "deer in headlights" now he's a "scapegoat" this smells like a "skunk"

January 25, 2006 5:14 PM  

Anonymous bubbie said:

I think you are crazy to think such a thing. He can scream race card from the top of Mulholland and let it echo to San Pedro, but he will NOT keep his job because this has nothing whatsoever to do with race.

I just knew one of you would bring it up.

January 25, 2006 6:11 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Bring up the 800-lb gorilla sitting in the middle of the room?

Who would do such a thing.

Bernard Parks

Bernard Parks

Bernard Parks

(Give me ONE good goddam reason, without spinning your toupe off, why this is ANY different than Hahn firing an incompetent Parks????)

January 26, 2006 7:55 AM  

Blogger Archie Bunker said:

AV is smart, he'll fire Stuckley on March instead of February on Black History Month.

Unless he has one of those animal rights people call Maxine Waters a cunt instead of a Bitch like Rick Caruso, then He'll get out of it.

January 27, 2006 8:04 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

To 7:55

There is no difference between Hahn firing an incompetent police chief and AV firing an incompetent animal services GM.

January 29, 2006 12:18 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

So who is behind the special call item for the jan 31 meeting to give Stuckey 12 weeks of work at $50,000 of the taxpayers hard- earned money? Are the AOAs (Amigos of Antonio) going to lose this battle... or have they sold out a political compromise for an exclusive sole source unnecessary contract for $50 big ones of the public's dole?

January 30, 2006 3:06 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home