Navigating Activism: Los Angeles Animal Services as a Case Study
How Activists Can Overcome Government Stonewalling to Achieve Meaningful Change
Animal activists often face significant challenges when attempting to enact change, especially when dealing with unresponsive or inefficient government agencies. Los Angeles Animal Services (LAAS) serves as a pertinent case study in understanding the continuum of activism that may benefit activists both in Los Angeles and in other communities facing similar challenges.
This article aims to illustrate the continuum of strategies activists can employ when confronted with persistent obstacles. Within this context, a Grand Jury Inquiry may emerge as a powerful last-ditch tool within the collaborative approach, which emphasizes working within legal and political frameworks before resorting to more direct forms of activism.
The Continuum of Activism
Collaborative Tactics
Collaborative tactics focus on creating sustainable, long-term changes through established legal and political frameworks, before resorting to more direct forms of activism. This method involves a combination of strategic planning, public relations, and legislative reform, emphasizing collaboration, education, and the evolution of societal norms and policies - in other words, everybody working together.
Activists working within this framework aim to build consensus and work within existing structures to foster improvements. This approach is particularly effective in democratic societies where public opinion and legislative processes can drive significant change. It is a method that seeks to address root causes and create frameworks for ensuring ongoing protection and welfare for animals; however, for this approach to work, government officials need to be willing to collaborate.
Direct-Action Tactics
In contrast, direct-action tactics involve immediate, bold actions to confront illegal or unethical activities directly. These methods can include protests, public demonstrations, and other forms of civil disobedience designed to draw urgent attention to critical issues. Direct-action tactics are often employed when collaboration efforts fall short, particularly in situations where governments are unresponsive or complicit in maleficence or animal cruelty.
Direct interventions can achieve immediate results by halting harmful operations in real-time and drawing public attention to urgent violations. This approach can force authorities to address pressing issues and can be a catalyst for broader systemic change.
Case Study: Los Angeles Animal Services
The Problem
Los Angeles Animal Services has been under scrutiny for high euthanasia rates and allegations of mismanagement. Despite media coverage and public outcry, the department's management and local government officials have remained largely unresponsive to calls for reform. This persistent stonewalling has frustrated activists who are dedicated to improving the welfare of animals in the city.
Exploring a Grand Jury Inquiry
Given the unresponsiveness of LAAS and city officials, activists have considered whether a Grand Jury Inquiry would be an appropriate next step. A Grand Jury Inquiry operates independently and has the authority to subpoena documents and testimony, conducting a thorough and unbiased investigation into the department's practices. This legal mechanism can uncover hidden issues, apply pressure for accountability, and provide concrete recommendations for reform.
A Grand Jury Inquiry is a potent tool within the collaborative approach to activism and often serves as a last-resort measure when other efforts have failed. It brings legal authority to bear on systemic issues, ensuring they are addressed comprehensively. By exposing inefficiencies and mismanagement through a formal investigation, a Grand Jury Inquiry can pave the way for meaningful reforms and hold unresponsive officials accountable.
The relevance of a Grand Jury Inquiry is supported by various legal frameworks:
U.S. Constitution: The Fifth Amendment provides the foundation for the use of Grand Juries in serious criminal offenses. This can be extended to include investigations into public corruption and systemic failures in government agencies.
Los Angeles City Ordinances and State Laws: While specific Los Angeles city ordinances may not directly empower citizens to demand a Grand Jury Inquiry, California state laws (such as California Penal Code Sections 888-939.91) provide the necessary framework. These laws empower citizens through the Grand Jury system to demand transparency and accountability from city officials and agencies, making a Grand Jury Inquiry a viable option for addressing concerns with LAAS.
Transition to Direct Activism
When collaborative approaches, including a Grand Jury Inquiry, fail to produce the desired results, activists may turn to direct-action tactics. The reluctance of officials to work with their constituents often necessitates such measures. Direct activism becomes essential when collaborative efforts and legal interventions are exhausted or prove ineffective.
In the case of LAAS, if a Grand Jury Inquiry were to reveal significant issues yet still fail to prompt reform, activists might resort to more confrontational tactics. These could include organizing large-scale protests, engaging in civil disobedience, or leveraging media coverage to exert public pressure on officials.
Legal Support for Direct-Action Tactics
Direct-action tactics, including civil disobedience, are legally and ethically supported under specific conditions. The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects the right to free speech, assembly, and petitioning the government, underpinning the legality of non-violent protests and demonstrations. Civil disobedience, defined as a public, non-violent, and conscientious breach of law, has historically played a crucial role in driving social change, from the Boston Tea Party to the Civil Rights Movement.
Ethical justifications for direct action emphasize that such measures are necessary to address significant harms that cannot be remedied through collaborative means. Legal defenses, such as the "demands-of-conviction" and necessity defenses, allow activists to explain and justify their actions in court, highlighting their deep moral convictions and the urgency of their cause.
A Balanced Approach
The continuum of activism encompasses both collaborative and direct-action tactics, each playing a crucial role in driving social change. The situation with Los Angeles Animal Services underscores the necessity of utilizing all available tools, including a Grand Jury Inquiry, to hold unresponsive officials accountable and advocate for animal welfare.
Collaborative efforts can build lasting change through systemic reform, while direct action provides the necessary urgency and visibility to address issues that cannot wait. When collaborative methods are exhausted, direct-action tactics become essential. Together, these approaches form a comprehensive strategy for achieving meaningful and impactful progress in the fight for animal welfare, ensuring that the commitment to safeguarding animals remains unwavering.
Steps to Initiate a Grand Jury Inquiry
Gather Evidence and Document Issues: Collect detailed evidence of mismanagement, high euthanasia rates, or other issues within Los Angeles Animal Services (LAAS). Document specific instances and compile any supporting materials such as photos, videos, reports, and witness statements.
Form a Coalition: Organize a group of concerned citizens and activists to lend support and credibility to the effort. Create a unified front to show the widespread concern and demand for accountability.
Contact the County Grand Jury: Reach out to the Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury. The Grand Jury operates under the authority of the Superior Court and is responsible for investigating public agencies and officials. The contact information for the Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury is available on the Los Angeles Superior Court's website.
Submit a Complaint: Prepare a formal complaint outlining the issues and evidence. Be clear, concise, and specific about the allegations and the desired outcome. Include a cover letter explaining why a Grand Jury Inquiry is necessary and how it could benefit the community.
Request a Grand Jury Investigation: Submit the complaint and supporting evidence to the Grand Jury, requesting an investigation into LAAS. Follow up to ensure the complaint has been received and to inquire about the next steps.
Engage Public Officials and Media: Inform local government officials, such as city council members and the mayor, about the submission to the Grand Jury. Engage the media to raise public awareness and apply additional pressure for an investigation.
Advocate and Monitor: Continue to advocate for the investigation and monitor the progress. Be prepared to provide additional information or testimony if requested by the Grand Jury.
Stay Persistent and Organized: Maintain a well-organized approach and keep the coalition informed and engaged. Persistence is key, as these processes can take time.
A Grand Jury Inquiry is a potent tool within the collaborative approach to activism and often serves as a last-resort measure when other efforts have failed. It brings legal authority to bear on systemic issues, ensuring they are addressed comprehensively. By exposing inefficiencies and mismanagement through a formal investigation, a Grand Jury Inquiry can pave the way for meaningful reforms and hold unresponsive officials accountable.
Disclaimer: The information provided in this article is for general informational purposes only and is not intended to be legal advice. I am not a lawyer. For specific legal advice, please consult with a qualified legal professional.
Ed Boks is a former Executive Director of the New York City, Los Angeles, and Maricopa County Animal Care & Control Departments. He is available for consultations. His work has been published in the LA Times, New York Times, Newsweek, Real Clear Policy, Sentient Media, and now on Animal Politics with Ed Boks.
“Mismanagement and inefficiencies” is such an overly generous way to describe what’s going on at LAAS. The only tool in their kit seems to be killing. I understand that we are a in true crisis, most of which can be laid at the feet of irresponsible dog owners and backyard breeders. Nonetheless, LAAS has a duty to operate in compliance with Hayden’s law. Yet they continually and intentionally shirk their responsibility by mislabeling dogs as “behavioral” so that they can be killed without counting against live release rate. And as you’ve pointed out, they have been unresponsive to offers of assistance from the public, trainers, veterinarians and other professionals even though they would come at no cost to LASS. They refuse to enforce spay/neuter laws or establish any kind of meaningful low cost or free S/N clinics despite the fact that they are sitting on millions of dollars in donations to the Animal Welfare Trust Fund. Having worked both as a transporter/puller and foster, I’ve had the opportunity to engage with animals that were red listed for supposed “aggressive” behavior. Every single one of them was nothing but loving, affectionate and deserving. This constant mislabeling of dogs in order to kill them more quickly is not simply mismanagement but rather a willful and conscious decision. The number of staff that I’ve encountered that have very little understanding of dog behavior or flat out distain for them is shocking. But how do you make people care who simply do not?
What is going on with LAAS? Why have they been such a persistent problem? The tools are really available to transition to a no-kill or low-kill facility.
I've been following this via the No Kill Advocacy Center, and it's heartbreaking.