Response to PR016

Date: Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 8:26 PM
Subject: Response to PR016
To: William Fujioka


Dear William Fujioka:

In Marcia Mayeda’s August 12, 2008 press release (see attached file or http://animalcare.lacounty.gov/cms1_104844.pdf), she stated, “The Los Angeles County Department of Animal Care and Control today announced it is entering into its third phase of a multi-year department improvement program, established in 2001, to improve the operational effectiveness of the nations largest animal care and control agency.” On August 22, 2008 I requested a “copy of the Departments multi-year department improvement program, which was established in 2001.” On September 8, 2008, Patricia Learned replied to my public record request and stated, “The Department has no specific records responsive to your request for ‘[c]opy of the Departments multi-year department improvement program, which was established in 2001.’” In my September 11, 2008 response, I asked why the Department responded stating the Department has no specific records responsive to my request when the programs existence was stated in Marcia Mayeda’s press release. In response to my response, on September 23, 2008 Diane Reagan stated, “The Department responded accurately to this request in their letter of September 8, 2008.”

The fact that the multi-year department improvement program doesn’t exist has been acknowledged by County two times. Why did Marcia Mayeda lie in her press release and state that this program exists when it clearly does not?

On September 23, 2008, Tony Bell, Michael Antonovich’s spokesman, told the Daily News that “[f]raud and waste in county government cannot be tolerated.” Are you going to hold Marcia Mayeda to this standard for defrauding the press and public by blatantly lying in her press release or are you going to allow her to get away with this like you did when she conspired to obstruct justice while under investigation by the Drug Enforcement Agency?

"i agree that everyone did an outstanding job on this matter! However, we do not need a paper trail on this. Everyone, please delete these e-mails from your computers and empty the trash files. Thanks!" - Marcia Mayeda, reply to DEA Crisis email

Read More...

Summary only...

Fraud and waste in county government cannot be tolerated... unless you're Marcia Mayeda

The below article appeared in the Daily News yesterday. As stated by Antonovich below, if fraud and waste cannot be tollerated, then why is Marcia Mayeda allowed to get away with so much including conspiring to obstruct justice?

Fraud cases, misconduct up in county

By Troy Anderson, Staff Writer
Article Last Updated: 09/22/2008 09:02:36 PM PDT

Reports of fraud and misconduct by Los Angeles County government employees have increased steadily in recent years, possibly because of the worsening economy, officials said Monday.

During the nine months ending June 30, the Office of County Investigations opened 676 investigations into allegations of fraud and misconduct, according to a new report on the county's fraud hotline. They substantiated 91 tips, referring them for prosecution or disciplinary action.

During that time, seven county employees were convicted of crimes, 13 were fired and 18 were suspended, the highest number of suspensions and convictions since at least 2000.

By comparison, in 2005-06, officials investigated 571 tips. By the end of the current fiscal year 2008-09, they expect to receive nearly 1,000, according to county budget documents.

OCI chief investigator Guy Zelenski said the worsening economy may explain part of the increase.

"Usually, when the economy gets bad, people sometimes get desperate," Zelenski said.

At the same time, he noted the county has seen fewer instances of misused office computers after the county installed Web filters to block inappropriate sites.

The misconduct ranged from children's services managers approving overtime requests for each other to animal-care workers loaning money to co-workers during work hours at 50 percent interest to parks employees stealing a bag of more than $3,400 in cash collections.

"I've seen a lot more cash thefts," Zelenski said. "Cash is very liquid and easy to convert to personal use."

Among the most serious cases last fiscal year:

A Los Angeles County children's services supervisor was sentenced to three years in state prison for fraudulently billing more than $500,000 for child care that was not provided.

A Registrar-Recorder's Office employee allowed a private solicitor unauthorized after-hours access to a secured county work area to prepare documents for his private business, costing taxpayers more than $4,000. The employee also admitted to having sex with the solicitor in the office.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Federal Trade Commission are investigating unidentified individuals who used counterfeit county warrants to defraud the public in an international mail scam costing taxpayers more than $20,000.

"Fraud and waste in county government cannot be tolerated and Supervisor (Michael D.) Antonovich is pleased that the hotline has become a vital tool for people to report instances of fraud and waste of taxpayer money," said Tony Bell, spokesman for Antonovich.

troy.anderson@dailynews.com 213-974-8985

Read More...

Summary only...

Shelter assessment report invoices

I obtained the invoices for Dr. Mangiamele's audit of Los Angeles County shelters via a public record request. You can download the invoices here. The total cost of the audit was $64,633.33. All that money was spent and not a lot has changed. I'm waiting for a response from County regarding which account was used to pay for the audit (i.e. Department Trust Account, Department Donation Account, Department Revenue Account, etc.).

Read More...

Summary only...

Public record request fiasco

Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2008 20:38:48 -0700
To: Don Knabe, Gloria Molina, Michael Antonovich, Yvonne Burke, Zev Yaroslavsky
Subject: Failure to respond to public record requests

Dear Board of Supervisors:

The public access to information about government is essential to government accountability and the right of public access to government information is protected not only by the California Public Records Act (Govt. Code Sec. 6250), but also by provisions in the California Constitution (Cal. Const. Art. 1 Sec. 3(b)(1); International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers, Local 21, AFL-CIO v. Superior Court (2007) 42 Cal. 4th 319, 329-331, 64 Cal. Rptr. 3d 693, 165 P.3d 488).

The Department of Animal Care and Control has not responded within 10 calendar days (Govt. Code 6253(c)) to public record request PR013, which was sent to the Department on August 15, 2008, PR015, which was sent to the Department on August 17, 2008, and PR016, which was sent to the Department on August 22, 2008.

In the Department’s response to PR012, which was sent on August 21, 2008, I was informed that the Department would need 14 more days to produce part of the records requested. The Department did not produce the remaining part of the records requested within the 14 day period (Govt. Code 6253(c)). On August 27, 2008, I sent an email to the Patricia Learned informing her that part of the records produced on August 21, 2008 were incorrect. I have not received a follow up to this email.

Yesterday, I sent an email to Marcia Mayeda following up on the public record requests that the Department has failed to produce. I requested that the Department respond with the dates each public record request was responded to and the dates each public record request was mailed. I have not received a response to that email.

The Department has obstructed and delayed the copying of public records (Govt. Code Sec. 6253(d)) by not complying with Govt. Code Sec. 6250, and has violated both Government Code and the California Constitution. If the outstanding public record requests are not produced by Monday, September 15, 2008 I will be filing a complaint with the California Attorney General’s Office and filing a lawsuit pursuant to Govt. Code Sec. 6258.

---

Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 21:11:35 -0700
To: Marcia Mayeda
Cc: Wendy Watanabe, William Fujioka, Diane Reagan, Patricia Learned, David Dijkstra, Don Knabe, Gloria Molina, Michael Antonovich, Yvonne Burke, Zev Yaroslavsky
Subject: Public record requests

Dear Marcia Mayeda:

I received your departments follow-up to PR012 and responses to PR013, PR015, and PR016 in the mail today.

In Patricia Learned’s August 21, 2008 response to PR012, she stated that the Department needed “the additional 14 days to respond as allowed by Government Code Section 1653(c).” The 14 additional days allotted for “unusual circumstances” is covered by Govt. Code Sec. 6253(c), not Govt. Code Sec. 1653. Day 14 was September 4, 2008. Patricia Learned followed up in a letter dated September 8, 2008. This is 4 days past the 14 days allowed by Govt. Code Sec. 6253(c). The September 8, 2008 follow-up letter states, “Since you have requested a compilation of these records in electronic format, you will be charged for creating that record as permitted under Govt. Code Sec. 6253.9 (b)(2).” Please identify the data compilation, extraction, or programming required to produce the record. On August 27, 2008 I sent you an email informing you that the budget numbers produced were for the wrong account and asked you to provide the names of substantial contributors. I have not yet received follow-up to this email nor was this addressed in the September 8, 2008 follow-up letter.

In Patricia Learned’s August 28, 2008 response to PR013, she stated, “We have not identified a record with a ‘description of the account(s) used to pay for the audit...’ etc. If you know of such a record, kindly identify it with more specificity.” I was requesting information regarding the account(s) used to pay for Dr. Mangiamele’s audit (i.e. Department Donation Account, Department Trust Account, Department Revenue Account, etc.). You read PR013 via email on August 16, 2008 at 7:13 AM and it was therefore received by the Department at that time. The August 28, 2008 response to PR013 was responded to 12 days after it was received by the Department, and as such is in violation of Govt. Code Sec. 6253(c).

In Patricia Learned’s August 28, 2008 response to PR015, she stated, “We cannot respond to your request for ‘ invoices billed . . . To help develop the strategic plan’ because it is too vague and ambiguous.” I was informed that an outside contractor was hired to help develop the strategic plan. I was requesting the invoices the contractor billed to the Department. The response also states, “We have been unable to locate all copies of the five years of ‘What’s Up DACC’ newsletter. Since you have requested a compilation of these newsletters in electronic format, you will be charged for creating that record as permitted under Govt. Code Sec. 6253.9 (b)(2).” Please identify the data compilation, extraction, or programming required to produce the record. Patricia Learned read PR015 via email on August 17, 2008 at 4:45 PM and it was therefore received by the Department at that time. The August 28, 2008 response to PR015 was responded to 11 days after it was received by the Department, and as such is in violation of Govt. Code Sec. 6253(c).

Patricia Learned’s response to PR016 is dated September 8, 2008. A response was due no later than September 1, 2008. You read PR016 via email on August 22, 2008 at 1:59 PM and it was therefore received by the Department at that time. Patricia Learned’s response was sent 17 days after it was received by by the Department and as such is in violation of Govt. Code Sec. 6253(c). In the response to PR016, Patricia Learned stated, “The Department has no specific records responsive to your request for ‘[c]opy of the Departments multi-year department improvement program, which was established in 2001.’” In your press release dated August 12, 2008, you stated, “The Los Angeles County Department of Animal Care and Control today announced it is entering into its third phase of a multi-year department improvement program, established in 2001, to improve the effectiveness of the nation’s largest animal care and control agency.”[1] If no record of this program exists, why did you state the existence of this program in your press release?

The response to PR016 also mentions that your department’s response is in “response to [my] letter to [your] office dated September 6, 2008 received by on September 8, 2008, requesting certain records under the Public Records Act, Government Code ‘ 6250, et seq.” This letter (see attached file) is my follow-up to Patricia Learned’s July 17, 2008 response to PR010 and your department has not yet responded to it. In this public record request, I requested the video surveillance footage of Felix Reyes abusing a Rottweiler at the Baldwin Park Animal Shelter and your department denied the request stating the record was exempt from disclosure. In addition to Government Code and legal authority I cited supporting that that the record is not exempt from disclosure, the fact that information is in a personnel file does not necessarily make it exempt information (New York Times Co. v. Superior Court (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 97, 103).

In addition to the above violations of Government Code, by delaying the copying of public records, your department is also in violation of Govt. Code Sec. 6253(4)(d).

[1] http://animalcare.lacounty.gov/cms1_104844.pdf

Read More...

Summary only...

Mayeda contradicts herself

In a response I received today for a public record request requesting a copy of the Department of Animal Care and Control's multi-year department improvement program, which was established in 2001, County replied, “The Department has no specific records responsive to your request for ‘[c]opy of the Departments multi-year department improvement program, which was established in 2001.’”

In Marcia Mayeda's press release dated August 12, 2008, she stated, “The Los Angeles County Department of Animal Care and Control today announced it is entering into its third phase of a multi-year department improvement program, established in 2001, to improve the effectiveness of the nation’s largest animal care and control agency.”

How can the Department be entering into the third phase of a program that they've admitted there's no record of? It looks like Mayeda lied to the press and the public.

Read More...

Summary only...

Reply to County's July 17, 2008 response to PR010

I recently submitted a public record request to the County of Los Angeles requesting the release of the Felix Reyes Rottweiler abuse surveillance camera footage, and County denied the request for records saying it was exempt from disclosure because the request included personnel information. Below is the letter I sent to County tonight via email.


September
6,
2008





Marcia Mayeda, Director

Los Angeles County Department of Animal Care and Control
5898 Cherry Avenue
Long Beach, CA 90805
Re: July 17, 2008 response to PR010

Dear Marcia Mayeda:

In Patricia Learned’s July 17, 2008 response to PR010, she
stated, “The
records
you
requested
include personnel information that is protected under California Constitution Article 1, Section 1.” Personnel, medical, or similar files are exempt only if their disclosure would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy (Gov. Code Section 6254(c)).



The public access to information about government is essential to government accountability and the right of public access to government information is protected not only by the California Public Records Act (Gov. Code Section 6250), but also by provisions in the California Constitution (Cal. Const. Art. 1, Section 3(b)(1); International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers, Local 21, AFL‐CIO v. Superior Court (2007) 42 Cal. 4th 319, 329‐331, 64 Cal. Rptr. 3d 693, 164 P.3d 488).


If you continue to deny this request for public records, you must therefore explain, not merely state, why the public interest does not favor disclosure as the burden of establishing an exemption is on the public agency (Vallejos v. California Highway Patrol (1979) 89 Cal. App. 3d 781, 787, 152 Cal. Rptr. 846). You must also release the names, titles or positions of each person responsible for the denial (Gov. Code Section 6253(d)).

Read More...

Summary only...

Blog traffic statistics for the LA County Sherrifs network

In the past 2 days, the LA County Sheriff's Department has visited this blog 4 times. It looks like the County of Los Angeles is back to wasting tax payer dollars by having the LA County Sheriff's Department monitor this blog yet again.

I put together a 7 page report detailing the activity of visits from the LA County Sherrifs network on this blog. The report is from January 15, 2008, when the LA County Sherrif's Department first started visiting the blog, to September 4, 2008.

The LA County Sheriff's Department owns the IP address block 66.120.226.0 - 66.120.226.25. The report was generated from visits from this IP address range identified with a network name of LA County Sherrifs.

The statistics include:

• General overview of visits
• Visits by city
• Search engine keywords
• Landing pages
• General network location information
• Sources of traffic
• Visitor types

You can view or download a copy of the report here.

Read More...

Summary only...

Blog traffic statistics for the County of Los Angeles network

I put together a 12 page report detailing the activity of visits from the County of Los Angeles network on this blog. The report is from January 6, 2008, when County first started visiting the blog, to September 4, 2008.

The County of Los Angeles owns the IP address block 159.83.0.0 - 159.83.255.255. The report was generated from visits from this IP address range identified with a network name of County of Los Angeles.

The statistics include:

• General overview of visits
• Visits by city
• Search engine keywords
• Landing pages
• General network location information
• Sources of traffic
• Visitor types

You can view or download a copy of the report here.

Read More...

Summary only...

Poll: Do you think Marcia Mayeda should be held accountable for issuing orders to destroy emails?

Marcia Mayeda told the Daily News, "The DEA visit to the shelter had already been completed and was over and done with, so clearly there was no attempt to hide anything because the whole event had already passed." This is in response to an email she sent to her staff stating, "i agree that everyone did an outstanding job on this matter! However, we do not need a paper trail on this. Everyone, please delete these e-mails from your computers and empty the trash files. Thanks!"

William Fujoka told the Daily News, "There was no intent to impede or obstruct any DEA action."

Do you think Marcia Mayeda should be held accountable? Take the below survey to voice your opinion on this matter.

Read More...

Summary only...

Fujioka and Mayeda lie to the press

It's obvious that Fujioka will not only defend Marcia Mayeda no matter what crime she commits, but will also flat out lie to the press along with Mayeda.

It was clear by the timing of the e-mail from Marsha Mayeda that "there was no intent to impede or obstruct any DEA action," said county Chief Executive Officer Bill Fujioka.

"The DEA visit to the shelter had already been completed and was over and done with, so clearly there was no attempt to hide anything because the whole event had already passed," Mayeda said Tuesday.

If there was no attempt to impede or obstruct or hide anything, why did Marcia send out an email that stated?:

"i agree that everyone did an outstanding job on this matter! However, we do not need a paper trail on this. Everyone, please delete these e-mails from your computers and empty the trash files. Thanks!"

And most importantly, why didn't William Fujioka allow the Office of County Investigations, Drug Enforcement Agency, and the US Attorney to conduct this investigation instead of County Counsel? I think the answer to that question is very obvious.

Animal official cleared of wrongdoing

L.A. COUNTY: Order to delete e-mails is found not to have obstructed DEA probe.
By Troy Anderson, Staff Writer
Article Launched: 09/02/2008 10:50:08 PM PDT

The director of the county's Animal Care and Control Department did not obstruct justice by instructing employees to delete e-mails in connection with an audit by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency, county officials said Tuesday.

It was clear by the timing of the e-mail from Marsha Mayeda that "there was no intent to impede or obstruct any DEA action," said county Chief Executive Officer Bill Fujioka.

However, Fujioka said he plans to meet with Mayeda to discuss the matter, and his office is conducting a review of the department.

"The DEA visit to the shelter had already been completed and was over and done with, so clearly there was no attempt to hide anything because the whole event had already passed," Mayeda said Tuesday.

"The department is consistently looking for ways to improve its operations and, while I'm very satisfied that we were not found to have done any wrongdoing, we're still looking for ways to do improvements."

The e-mail appears to have been sent by Mayeda and reads: "I agree that everyone did an outstanding job on this matter! However, we do not need a paper trail on this. Everyone, please delete these e-mails from your computers and empty the trash files. Thanks!"

Ry an O ls han, an animal-rights activist who requested an investigation, said to "dismiss something as serious as this speaks volumes to how much Marsha is allowed to get away with."

"Just the fact a director would ask their staff to delete e-mails, saying we don't need a paper trail, to me that is something somebody should not be allowed to get away with."

In one of three lawsuits filed against the department over the alleged abuse of animals at the shelters, attorney Orly Degani wrote that the DEA was investigating the department's improper use of euthanasia drugs.

Leo Grillo, founder of DELTA Rescue, the largest no-kill, care-for-life sanctuary in the nation, alleged in its lawsuit that the department failed to maintain accurate records regarding the storage and dispensation of controlled substances used to treat and euthanize animals and has allowed unqualified kennel workers to administer controlled substances.

Earlier this month, the department announced it had entered the third phase of a multiyear department improvement program to improve the operational effectiveness of the nation's largest animal care and control agency.

The agency, which has shelters in Gardena, Agoura Hills, Castaic, Lancaster, Baldwin Park and Downey, impounds more than 90,000 animals annually.

troy.anderson@dailynews.com

Read More...

Summary only...