The pictures and the e-mail concern the Los Angeles California Shelter system's search for a General Manager. Whatever the truth of the e-mail what speaks volumes is the picture of precious animals dead in these bins.
''Murdered shelter dogs and cats thrown like worthless trash into garbage cans.
We know that Mayor Villaraigosa needs some good publicity and good will right now especially with the recall campaign to remove Villaraigosa by petition gaining momentum; so the question remains will he FINALLY pick the most qualified candidate and be a hero to the humane community and the City, or prove himself to be just another corrupt politician like we think he is?
We believe the recruitment for a new Los Angeles Animal Services (LAAS) General Manager was bungled from the beginning by none other than Jim Bickhart. Jim Bickhart claims he was not part of the most recent GM recruitment process, but reliable sources in the Mayor's office and in the City of LA's Personnel Department have reported that this is not the case. If the four plaintiffs do end up filing a law suit against the City of Los Angeles, they will not only find out the names of the candidates who made it to the Mayor's desk, but if the one he picks to be the next GM of LAAS was indeed the most qualified of the original twenty-two candidates. The facts that are being kept in such secrecy from the very people who are PAYING the GM's salary WILL come out if Jim Bickhart, Steven Harman, Margaret Wheelen, Linda Barth and some of those on Bickhart's 'secret committee' are deposed and video taped under oath, and possibly sooner if we get this information through reliable sources.
Animal Defense League believes that Jim Bickhart devised a clandestine recruitment process to deliver nothing but the same failed lower-tier ideas seen causing death at LAAS and other kill shelters today. (If we're wrong about this, we'll be the first to acknowledge it.)
But you have to ask yourself, why else would the first round of interview questions for such a specialized and important position as General Manager for the Los Angeles Animal shelter system be as routine and doctrinaire as these:
1. "What professional achievement are you most proud of ?"
2. "What professional effort did you make that came out badly ?"
3. "Describe a professional achievement for which you made a great effort and it came out well."
4. "Describe a professional situation for which you made a great effort and it came out badly."
Oh puh-leassse! How are those questions going to help anyone discern who knows how to address the impounds, killing, budget crisis, employee and volunteer issues, public relations deficiencies and rampant disrespect for LAAS management? How are those questions going to help to discern if any of the candidates KNOW how to implement programs which are proven to drastically decrease the kill rates and dramatically increase the adoption rates?
Or what about this one:
5. "You give an assignment. You come back in a few months and don't like the result. You feel yourself getting angry. What do you do?"
Frankly these are the types of questions asked when hiring a mid-level manager for an easy department already running well! LAAS has had a revolving door of five GMs in ten years, and each went down in flames. How are questions like these going to find the person who CAN and is QUALIFIED to do the job?
Here's another couple of "beauts":
6. "Comment on the DEFINITION of No Kill."
Hello?? It's not the DEFINITION that matters, it's the person's plans, commitment, ability and track record in taking No Kill ACTION that matters.
Now correct us if we're wrong but isn't this a recruitment interview for the job as the General Manager for THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES?
Shouldn't the questions have dealt with how the candidates would deal with this city's fiscal crisis? How about what plans the candidates have for this city's thousands of kittens who will be born this summer who this city can't help because of the Court Order prohibiting cat TNR in this city? What will the candidates do regarding the spay/neuter clinics built but still sitting closed and empty in this city? What are the candidates plan to finally work as a team and vastly increase the amount of committed rescuers and volunteers in this city? What would the candidates do to finally organize, motivate and inspire the LAAS employees in this city? What plans will the candidates implement to finally reach out in more creative ways using proven marketing and advertising techniques to residents, media and wealthy donors that can help the animals in this city? What are the candidates plan for implementing a successful foster program not only to bottle feed and care for puppies and kittens, but for the poor evidence animals who languish inside their tiny cages, never being taken out to exercise for months at a time, in this city? And of course, if one or more of the candidates has animal shelter experience, WHAT WAS THEIR ACTUAL ACHIEVEMENTS at the shelters they previously worked? Do they like Ed Boks have a history of mismanagement, cover up's, law suits (that are valid) filed against them and/or kill rates in their shelters that are as high as LAAS ?
We believe that none of the twenty-two interviewees were asked ANY questions like the above during the first round of interviews. Why would anyone have faith that the interview process so far has any chance of revealing which of the people interviewed is the leader we need to finally bring LAAS into the forefront towards No Kill and to start working and partnering with Los Angeles residents? Isn't this a bad game of "Blind Man's Bluff," trying to pick a GM of a very troubled, turbulent and disorganized department in this secretive, unprofessional and non-transparent way?
After the failures of Jerry Greenwalt, Guerdon Stuckey and Ed Boks, the nonsensical questions asked in the first round of interviews could never find a knowledgeable and qualified individual who will finally lead LAAS into being the No Kill leader (or even one of the contenders!) The questions that were asked by Steve Harman promise to leave LAAS as just another place with the same tired old ideas that don't work. We'd like to know who prepared these idiotic questions and why the city used OUR money to pay Harman over twenty-six thousand dollars to ask his foolish questions; (we don't know that yet, but if the plaintiffs decide to file a law suit against the City under the California Public Records Act, they'll be sure to find out!)
Fourteen of the twenty-two candidates first questioned have already been cut. We know that at least two of those cut (both female incidentally) would be vastly better than those who might become GM. These two, Laura Beth Heisen, Esq., and Jennifer Conrad DVM, one a doctor of veterinary medicine and the other a well respected attorney, have spent hundreds of thousands of hours of their own time working to implement programs that would save the lives of our city's shelter animals and have qualities and knowledge that possibly those remaining lack.
If the most qualified candidate is NOT chosen to be LA's next General Manager of LAAS, plaintiffs can't wait to file suit against the City for using OUR TAX DOLLARS and refusing to reveal information that the tax payers have a right to know; and also for having a biased individual over see a sordid recruitment process. The plaintiffs' will also sue the city to get the information they legally deserve regarding Jim Bickhart's 'secret committee' who interviewed the second round of candidates, the questions they asked, and exactly what knowledge and experience they possess in humane progressive sheltering methods that would enable them to discern which of the final candidates to send to the Mayor's office?
In the end, it will all come down to whom the Mayor chooses and if he/she are indeed the most qualified of the twenty-two applicants who were initially interviewed. If anyone in the 'humane community' of Los Angeles finds out through sources or through the plaintiffs' law suit that a highly qualified individual was rejected and a lesser qualified candidate was nominated by the Mayor for appointment as GM of LAAS, we believe it will surely be the Mayor's downfall and the cruel legacy he and his mayoral staff leave behind in the world of city politics; not only in the year 2010, but when the Mayor and his staff
are out of a job in 2013."
***********************************************************************
ADL-LA Disclaimer: Nothing contained in this publication is intended to encourage or incite illegal acts. Some of the information in the posts have been received anonymously and ADL-LA cannot make any guarantees for the accuracy of these reports. Any views or comments stated in this report are not necessarily the views of ADL-LA.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment