FSAC/KCSPCA
BOARD MEETING / APRIL 13, 2015
As
usual, these are notes from members of the public who attended this
meeting. They are not official
minutes. Our comments are in parens and italics. The public is not allowed to speak at these
meetings. No agendas are available for
review, nor are any of the materials referenced made available to the public.
Those of us who regularly attend these meetings:
Catherine Samardza, Crystal Sweeney, Carol Furr and Ricky Shehorn. Senator Patricia Blevins and Hetti Brown,
director of the Office of Animal Welfare, were present to speak to the
board. There were a number of other
“public” members – several SPCA staff members, volunteers, Marlene Oetzel (LNF
Dog Rescue) and Donna Watson (Bring Rudy Home).
Someone
from FSAC was recording the meeting, as was Marlene Oetzel. After waiting 6 weeks to see if anyone would post the video of the meeting, we are posting our notes.
The
meeting was called to order.
Board
president Alex Moore welcomed Senator Blevins and Ms. Brown, saying the board
was very excited and interested to hear what they were going to talk about.
The
minutes of March 9 were approved, and Mr. Moore moved right to Senator Blevins
and Ms. Brown. Ms. Brown handed out some
materials and gave a power point presentation.
The presentation reviewed the history leading up to the formation of the
OAW, noting that the office was created on recommendation of the Animal Welfare
Task Force. She also explained that the
Office was placed in the Department of Health and Social Services because
animal welfare is a critical component of social welfare, that animals are an
integral part of the community and families.
She
reviewed OAW’s work in its first year, working with the Spay/Neuter program to
extend the reach of the program and restructuring how the funds get out to the
non-profit groups, and increased marketing to those who qualify for
assistance. The Office also publishes a
newsletter.
She
noted that the AWTF heard from Brian Whipple (former KCSPCA ACO chief) that
there needed to be consistent training for animal control officers. Currently there is nothing at the State
level, no resources for training. The
Office has researched and developed an ACO training and certification
curriculum and expects it to be ready in late summer. The training will be offered free to all
current animal control and cruelty investigations officers.
Ms.
Brown reported that she was aware that cruelty enforcement needed more funding
and attention from prosecutors. Senator
Blevins had sponsored legislation allocating $100,000 for cruelty enforcement;
this is the first time ever that money has been set aside for this from the
State. OAW is working with the Attorney
General’s Office to define the process; the prosecutors want to be called prior
to a warrant is issued. There will also
be reports required. She said that “it’s
a start, it’s not perfect.”
The
Dog Control Panel (often referred to as the Dangerous Dog Panel by FSAC leadership
and staff) has been reinstated; OAW worked with the counties to get it up and
running again.
(NOTE: There are a great many questions concerning
this Panel; who is nominating members and alternates, are the qualifications
specified in the law for Panel members being met, who exactly is responsible
for the Panel? Because Sussex County says it is all OAW, OAW says it’s all the
counties, and at least one transcript says it was done on behalf of OAW, and
the cases read “DEACC v. John Dogowner” – not Sussex County v., or Kent County
v.)
Regarding
shelter support; OAW has heard from all Delaware shelters, and is now
consulting with a national organization to work with the shelter to help with
adoptions and reducing the length of an animal’s stay in the shelter.
OAW
will have oversight on animal welfare laws, and address new issues as they come
up. In the past there has been no way to
submit a complaint or for inspections to happen. She referenced Safe Haven, saying if there
had been a mechanism in place, the complaints could have been investigated and
inspections could have been done. She
noted that most states have a mechanism for complaints and investigations. Delaware will now have that for animal
control officers and for shelters.
Ms.
Brown reported that community cats is the largest animal welfare issue facing
the Office. They are developing a
community cat resource team to work with colony caretakers. The Office is also looking for new funding
sources for TNR.
She
announced that OAW is promoting bite prevention by developing a “Bite
Prevention Team” and working with a national organization to educate the public
and promote safety.
The
Department of Agriculture has asked OAW to take over the Animal Emergency
Response program. Ms. Brown said that
she has heard from both FSAC and DESPCA that they no longer wish to participate
in this program, so OAW is developing a response team of volunteers, headed by
a veterinarian.
She
then began to discuss animal control services; noting that this was discussed
at length by the Animal Welfare Task Force, and the Task Force recommendations
were for the Office of Animal Welfare to address the issue by researching programs
and make a recommendation to consolidate services, and to decide what services
are necessary. Ms. Brown reported that
FSAC’s board president and executive director met with Governor Markell to
discuss consolitation at the State level and long term planning. She also reported that the executive director
told her that FSAC wants to get out of government services and become a humane
organization again.
OAW
has worked with DNREC (where dog control services were mandated prior to 2010)
and animal control programs across the country, using data from the Division of
Public Health and FSAC. She said that
whe was recommending the State take over enforcement and delivery of service,
but not sheltering or subsequent return to owner operations. OAW has been working on how a State
enforcement program should be structured.
She also noted that she understood that FSAC leadership fel that it was
time consuming to renegotiate contracts every year, making it impossible to do
any long-term planning.
(Please
note – all the contracts I have seen are for one year with 2 years of
extension, which does not seem to require “time consuming” negotiation every
year.)
Ms.
Brown summarized issues in considering animal control: 1) public-private
partnership for service; 2) the issue of multiple contract negotiation with
responsibility for dog control belonging to the counties or
municipalities. She noted that two other
service providers dropped out, leaving no options to negotiate. 3) She acknowledged that community cats are
completely ignored in the current laws, and any new program needs to be more
comprehensive. 4) the need to better
integrate animal control services with law enforcement services; for example,
animal cruelty violations are crimes that don’t go through the same process as
other crimes. She said that, taking all
of this into consideration, a greater role for government in animal welfare and
control is being recommended by OAW.
She
then turned to Senator Blevins to continue (and now the meeting got interesting).
Mr.
Moore said that first, he wanted to clarify their meeting with the
Governor. FSAC would like the State to
handle negotiating long-term contracts with the counties for FSAC. He said “we do not want the State to take animal
control, we do a great job and we believe in our ACOs, we don’t need a State
agency to train them. We’ve been doing
emergency response with no problem at all, and have sent our people to other
states, that’s how competent we are.”
He
further told Ms. Brown that it was a “slick” presentation, but what she was
saying was not what they wanted.
Ms.
Brown responded that the board voted to end participation in emergency
response. A board member asked,
“when?” The executive director answered,
when the board voted not to sign the MOU being offered. The board president said that was not because
they couldn’t do it.
Ms.
Brown said that she was told that FSAC did not have the resources to set up
other facilities. The board president
said that was because there was no funding (to pay FSAC).
(Notes
of November 2014 - the executive director told them that they could just handle
Kent County and did not have the staff to handle the whole state, the vice-president
had concerns about some of the requirments, and the board agreed NOT to sign the
Memorandum of Understanding that was offered.)
Ms.
Brown said that OAW is re-formatting the State emergency response program for animals
based on the information she was given; she further said that FSAC could opt in
again.
A
board member asked if there was money; Ms. Brown said the funding was through a
Homeland Security grant. Mr. Moore responded
“and it takes 8 months to get paid.”
Ms.
Brown acknowledged that was a problem, and said if FSAC’s position changes, they
could come to the table to discuss it.
The
executive director noted that FSAC still has the equipment for emergency
response. Ms. Brown responded that the equipment
belongs to DEMA, and it was taking longer to transfer ownership (to OAW) than
expected. She thanked him for taking
care of it in the meantime.
Senator
Blevins said that it was time to change government’s role in animal welfare and
control, and that was why they were reaching out to the FSAC board. She said that animal control and rabies
control was a government responsibility.
“We counted on non-profits, and you stepped up, but it’s bigger now, and
government needs to take a bigger role.”
Centralized and standardized services is at the State level, with State
resources.” She further said that the
details of the program was something that “we need to work out together.” She suggested that some of the FSAC board
members, along with the executive director, should sit down with the other
Delaware shelters to begin the process.
She said that she and Ms. Brown have already met with DE Humane
Association and Faithful Friends, and that DESPCA was next. She reiterated that they needed input from
all the shelters.
The
FSAC treasurer said he had a serious issue with the budgetary information on
Page 2 of OAW’s recommendation for a State animal control enforcement
unit. He said that it was totally
unrealistic, and that hiring 14 casual/seasonal employees for law enforcement
was unreal.
(But
it’s okay to hire people and have them act as law enforcement with 3-months of
“ride alongs” as training?)
Senator
Blevins said that they recognized there were problems in the recommendations,
that the details provided were samples, and overall suggestions, not the final
determination. She further said that she
agreed that the work cannot be done by a part-time staff.
A
board member complained that dog control was being “taken over.” The Senator said that, to some degree, it has
to be that way. The board member said,
“We never requested you to take over. We
want the State to deal with the counties and contracts and let us do the rest.” The board president added, “What we had
before with DNREC, it was great.” He
also said “We have not gouged any county in this State, no matter how we’ve
been treated by any county, we have not gouged them.” He added that they were experienced, and none
of them (the board) wanted to do it (dog control) without a 5-year contract. A board member said, “we do it well.”
(Hmmm….there
are a LOT of people who would argue that…)
The
board president said it was going to cost more for the State to get “where we
are.”
Another
board member said that they wanted help with the prosecutors handling animal
cruelty charges. The board president
reported that the board vice president (and sometimes attorney) had drafted
proposed legislation to enable FSAC to bring civil action in a Justice of the
Peach court for minor cases of animal cruelty, to result in animals being
“forfeited to us.” He said he didn’t
know if the legislation had been introduced yet. It was also stated that they wanted to try to
get Senator Blevins in on that, because the General Assembly “looks to you in
these matters.” The idea was not to take
jurisdiction from the Attorney General’s Office – criminal prosecution for
cruelty offenses would continue. “But
they don’t really want to do minor offenses, they’re not interested and don’t prosecute,
so minor cases go unaddressed.” As an
example, he said that a dog being tethered in the hot sun is still animal
cruelty. FSAC leadership felt that civil
action could be taken when a complaint was found in accordance with
evidence. The board president said that
limited State funds meant there was no one in the AG’s office to represent
FSAC. This (proposed) law would “let us
take the animal.” He said it would be
less costly.
He
further stated that “It was suggested we don’t know how to build a case, and
need training. We do know, but police
don’t always show up. We have proposed a
way to circumvent that. We presented
this to Hetti, but Hetti was not interested.”
(Former
board member Paul Davis felt that better training, including investigations and
writing reports, was necessary. He also
said that this could lead to the AG’s office taking cruelty cases more
seriously. Our notes of January 2014. And then there’s that word – circumvent.)
Ms.
Brown pointed out that if the state takes over animal control enforcement, this
(proposed) legislation would not be needed.
The board president responded that they were very disappointed that her
office did not take the legislation and put it through with her support. Ms. Brown said she wasn’t asked to do
that. The executive director said,
“That’s why we gave it to you.”
Ms.
Brown then said that the executive director had told her FSAC would hold the
legislation; the answer was that no, they said they’d hold it until the next
session. (This was originally discussed prior
to the General Assembly reconvening, and the “next” session turned out to be the
THIS one.) The board president then said that Senator Blevins should take the
proposed legislation and support it. A
board member complained that often cruelty cases were plea-bargained down to a lesser
charge. Another board member announced
that Representative Sean Lynn had the legislation. (NOTE: Representative Lynn is married to an
FSAC/KCSPCA board member’s daughter.)
The
board vice-president said that there is no DAG assigned to animal cruelty
cases, there is always a rotation, and anyone who catches a (cruelty) case has
to catch up. He also said that “our
officers are probably more familiar than the DAG’s called to prosecute,” and
that it would be an improvement to have those officers bring civil cases, with
no plea bargaining.
Ms.
Brown said she met with the Attorney General’s office for feedback on the
proposed legislation. The majority of
cruelty cases were misdemeanors, and those cases could be handled in JP court
by the ACOs. She added that she asked
for a dedicated animal cruelty DAG; after reviewing the number of cases, which
is about 80 a year, it was determined that there was not enough volume to
justify a dedicated animal cruelty DAG; the office handles 500 cases a week.
Ms.
Brown further noted that the AG’s office said they were not getting reports
from FSAC until the day before a trial; the prosecutors wanted the dialog
started earlier. The board president
expressed surprise that the reports were not getting to the prosector until the
day before a trial. Ms. Brown told him
that the prosecutors were also asking that ACOs contact the prosecutors BEFORE
a warrant is served. She added that
training can be provided for prosecutors, and that training could be provided
for ACOs for JP court, because they are not trained for that.
The
board president asked why she wasn’t supporting the legislation; Ms. Brown
responded that she provided the AG’s feedback to Representative Lynn.
The
executive director explained that the delay in providing reports was because
the reports were written in ShelterPro, then put into LEISS, but the supervisor
has to approve it before it goes to the AG’s office. The board president said that it was
important in cruelty cases to act quickly.
(I
can’t make this stuff up. It just
doesn’t make sense. One is excusing the
delay, the other is saying reports need to be made quickly. AND the executive director then started to
say an ACO called a judge and asked for an extension, but the board president
stopped him, saying they couldn’t talk about that.)
Senator
Blevins said she just wanted to reach out to all four Delaware shelters, and
asked if there were any questions.
(In
fact, these questions seemed to have been prepared and assigned in
advance.)
A
board member asked Ms. Brown if ACOs were supposed to bring dogs that had
bitten people to a shelter, was she planning on building a shelter? Would there be ACOs in different counties
like FSAC has, or would they all be out of Newark? How was she planning to put her officers out?
Ms.
Brown responded that there were no details yet – but that was one of the four
key elements needed, Public-Private
partnership for service. The board
member asked if every shelter would then bill the State for services. Ms. Brown said that any program for services
must serve the public. The board
president said that she hadn’t yet talked to any shelter to take “your” animals
in. Ms. Brown said that there was no
agreement with anyone yet, these are recommendations and proposals.
Board
members asked how long this would take, because FSAC has contracts that need to
be negotiated. Senator Blevins said it
wouldn’t happen in six months, maybe a couple of years. She added that maybe the State could help
with contract negotiations. The board
president said that statewide laws all the same would make the process easier,
like a uniform code. He added that FSAC
has been working very well with all of the counties and that the counties are
happy, they “missed us when we didn’t do this.”
(Okay, for those who have been following along, there IS a
State-wide law for dog control – it’s called Title 9, Chapter 9. The ONLY contract FSAC has signed for JUST
Title 9, Chapter 9 is the Kent County contract.
NCC, Sussex, Wilmington and Milford all have additional tasks – mandated
response to cruelty calls, cats, owner surrenders, NCC included county
ordinances for nuisance animals and barking dogs. NCC and Wilmington include the right to audit
in their contracts, and Wilmington mandates a much more detailed monthly report
format. So, whose fault is it that all
the contracts are different? Oh right, FSAC negotiated those contracts.)
A
board member asked if the State takes over dog control, how would the counties
pay? Senator Blevins said there is a
base population (for the State and each county and municipality). The board member noted that the population of
New Castle County is 700,000 more (than the other counties). Senator Blevins said, they are getting a
bargain. The board president noted that
Sussex has a greater area, but Sussex won’t pay
for more officers, so “we don’t respond as quickly as we would like.”
(In
fact, Kent County pays more per capita for JUST Title 9 than Sussex, with more land
mass, or New Castle, with a higher population.
Ms.
Brown was asked if anyone on her staff had animal control experience. Ms. Brown said that a staff member has law
enforcement experience, and they are working with national experts such as the
National Animal Control Association. In
addition, Christina Motoyoshi, deputy director, was the interim director for
the DESPCA while DESPCA handled cruelty investigations. The board president said that wasn’t “dog
control.”
Another
board member said she was excited to see the new license plate for the
Spay/Neuter program. Ms. Brown said it
was a goal to have a low cost clinic in every county. She further said there was a gap between
government assistance and low cost services, and the Office is looking to serve
that need.
There
was discussion concerning the Spay/Neuter Committee meetings and notes, how to
access that information.
The
board president brought up the issue of cat colonies – saying there is no
ownership and if no one “owns” them no one is responsible. He then complained that people fed cats on
other people’s property, and a neighbor uses his water for the cats. He said there is no responsibility under the
law. Ms. Brown admitted this was a gray
area. The board president said that
until there is ownership, they (colony/community cat caretakers) have no
responsibility.
Senator
Blevins said she was not sure anyone would take on the task then (of caring for
colonies and “owning” them).
Another
board member wanted to know if anyone was checking on "these people" to be sure
they weren’t "scamming the State." It was
explained that the Low Income program has eligibility requirements; independent
clinics can establish their own eligibility.
(In
fact, the low-income rescue program also has requirements, AND FSAC is a participating
recipient of those funds.)
A
board member brought up the surplus State property sold to the Colonial School
District for $10, of which a portion was sold to Faithful Friends for $1. She wanted to know why that acreage was sold
for $1.00.
Senator
Blevins noted that this property was not in her district, and explained that
Colonial School District needed a school bus facility, and Delaware needed to
get rid of the property. The board
member then said, “How about buying us property?” Senator Blevins said to identify the property,
and ask. The board member said the
property given to Faithful Friends was only offered to Faithful Friends. The board president wanted to know how the
State decide that FF was better than the other shelters, why didn’t they offer
it to others. Senator Blevins said that
Faithful Friends asked, and the property was undeveloped.
The
same board member wanted to know how much the property was worth per acres; she
did some calculations and said, “$750K, very nice.”
Senator
Blevins said that the State does “unload” property in this manner.
(Conveniently,
neither FSAC leadership, staff or supporters appear to remember that in 1971 the
State “sold” KCSPCA property on Horsepond Road. For $1.00.)
The
board president noted that there were board members who would participate in
the meetings OAW was holding to discuss the new training programs, and the
emergency service program.
Ms.
Brown and Senator Blevins then left the meeting.
The
board wrapped up the meeting with a report on the Scamper at Killens Pond, and
a discussion concerning the auction of the B/W Delaware tag that was donated to
them. A generous supporter has bid
$4,000 to start the auction off.
The
meeting was adjourned.
