Issues that FSAC doesn't want you to know about, let alone talk about

I began this blog at the end of July, AFTER FSAC/KCSPCA terminated their contracts.  Then, in the week I was off-line, they reversed themselves, and tried to extort more money by presenting their seven-point proposal demanding that the State and counties pay bonuses, overtime, severance packages and unemployment compensation for the employees that would lose their jobs when the Office of Animal Welfare took over animal welfare and control enforcement.

But while there's a lot going on, what I have to say in this blog is still valid.  So.....

If you’ve been following the Kent County De Dog Control Pro/Con page, you are aware that there are complaints about FSAC leadership & employees over-reaching their legal authority.  If you haven’t been following very long, you may not be familiar with some of the details, so I’m going to review some of the issues. 

Most recent incident:  Jake and Nancy Smith. Their dog, Millie, was found to be “potentially dangerous” as by the Dog Control Panel. Back in April, 2015. That has a 2-year “probation” period with specific guidelines for whenever the dog is in public.  Tuesday, 7/21/15, Jake and Nancy went to court on criminal charges FSAC filed against them.  Those charges included dog at large (and biting a human), harboring a dangerous dog and hindering prosecution.  FSAC/DE Animal Care and Control employees got Jake and Nancy Smith to say "yes" to a plea agreement that included requiring Millie to be muzzled, Nancy to plead guilty to dog at large/biting human, and dismissed the hindering prosecution charge against Jake. The Deputy Attorney General and the Judge both agreed to the deal. Why Jake’s attorney agreed is a mystery.   This “deal” allowed FSAC to subvert the Dog Control Panel decision and authority.   The DCP designation of “potentially dangerous” does NOT come with a requirement for muzzling.

(And funny, this deal was made behind closed doors and not mentioned in the courtroom at all. Guess it’s one of those “do as I say, not as I do” issues for FSAC.)

The Smith’s case against FSAC – which charged that the FSAC “ACO” that filed the warrant for his arrest was not qualified in law to apply for the warrant, was dismissed prior to the 7/21 court date.  This IS Delaware.  Think about the Medical Examiner’s Office scandal.  How many people might come forward if they found out FSAC employees don’t legally qualify to do what they’ve been doing? 

Think no one else has concerns about their authority?  Well, back in September 2012 my notes from the AWTF say this:

Mr. Lippstone (Governor's Office) gave a review of the current, fragmented system of animal control, including some fiscal notes.  Mr. Lippstone’s presentation reviewed the current legislation, noting that there are many different names for animal control officers, including different definitions, and these should be better defined and clarified.  Mr. Petit De Mange (KC Administrator) asked that the authority of these agents also be defined, including their limitations – because a “sworn officer” is different from a “dog warden.”  Other clarification needed:  “adequately trained” (referring to dog wardens in Title 9).

But I digress.  Back to the subject at hand – which is the Dangerous Dog law and the Dog Control Panel.

DelCode Title 9 Chapter 9 subchapter II – Dangerous Dogs

924 (b) (excerpt)………….The Panel shall announce its decision at the conclusion of the hearing. After announcing its decision, the Panel shall provide the owner with written notice of the action taken and the reasons therefore. The decision of the Panel is final.

924 (d) (excerpt)……..if a dog is determined to be dangerous and the Panel directs the animal control agency to dispose of the dog by euthanasia, the owner may appeal the Panel's decision to the Court of Common Pleas within 10 days of the receipt of the Panel's decision.

So, if an owner has an issue with the Dog Control Panel, unless euthanasia is involved, the Panel’s decision is final and cannot be appealed.  If the Panel directs euthanasia, the dog owner only has 10 days to appeal euthanasia.

FSAC, however, was allowed to charge dog owners with harboring a dangerous dog even though the dog HAD NOT yet gone before the Dog Control Panel.  And I don’t believe there was any determination that Millie was inherently vicious or in the habit of unprovoked attacks.  But FSAC/DEACC convinced the Attorney General’s Office and the Court to add dangerous dog provisions to a plea agreement three months AFTER the Dog Control Panel’s decision.

DelCode Title 11, Chapter 5, Paragraph 1327

§ 1327 Maintaining a dangerous animal; class E felony; class F felony; class A misdemeanor.

A person is guilty of maintaining a (a) dangerous animal when such person knowingly or recklessly owns, controls or has custody over any dangerous animal which causes death, serious physical injury or physical injury to another person or which causes death or serious injury to another animal.

For the purposes of this section, "dangerous animal" means any dog or other animal which: (b)

Had been declared dangerous or (1) potentially dangerous by the Dog Control Panel pursuant to subchapter III of Chapter 17 of Title 7;

Had been trained for animal fighting, or that has been used primarily or occasionally for animal fighting; (2)

Had been intentionally trained so (3) as to increase its viciousness, dangerousness or potential for unprovoked attacks upon human beings or other animals; or

Has an individualized and known (4) propensity, tendency or disposition, specific to the individual dog, for viciousness, dangerousness or unprovoked attacks upon human beings or other animals.

(Yes, this is the current Delaware Code.  Someone seems to have forgotten to change the reference section to Title 9, Chapter 9, Subchapter II)

BUT - does this section actually allow a judge to add dangerous dog requirements to a potentially dangerous dog determination after the Dog Control Panel's decision?  If so, what's the point of the DCP? 

For whatever reason, our judicial system took whatever the FSAC employees said as gospel. We don’t know if the judge was aware that the dog had been evaluated by the Dog Control Panel.  We don’t know that anyone checked. No one – as in Jake Smith’s attorney – objected.

And if you’ve been paying attention, you know this is all a pattern of behavior.  The Attorney General’s Office won’t prosecute FSAC’s animal cruelty cases? FSAC wrote a law to go after pet owners in civil court. Who cares if there is just cause or even due process? FSAC wrote HB204 to circumvent the Attorney General's Office. 

“Circumvent” – not MY word.  Used by the FSAC president when discussing HB204.

And now they’ve figured out how to get around the Dog Control Panel decisions.

And that’s just the most recent issue that has been made public.  For those who may not be aware of some of the other complaints against FSAC/KCSPCA employees, here are just a few.

Title 9, Chapter 9, Subchapter II (suspected dangerous dog impound) and Title 3, Chapter 8207 and 8208 (quarantine impound) does not include authority for FSAC to refuse an owner’s access to their pet during impound. And I know from personal experience that this was not the case in 2011.  This FSAC policy seems to have started last year, when the owner of a dog impounded as dangerous started taking pictures and video of his dog’s deterioration in their care. When DEACC found out, they banned him from seeing his dog. In Jake Smith’s case, they not only refused him access to Millie, they also refused access to Millie’s vet. Millie came home with pneumonia.

Before Kent County Levy Court got specific in their contract, FSAC/KCSPCA enforced the Planning Code of 4 domestic animals per household. Not knowing that Kent County Levy Court was unaware of this, people gave up their pets to the shelter when “animal control officers” told them to do so.  FSAC also went after barking dogs, which is ALSO the in the Planning Code under the noise ordinance. In fact, in 2012, one “ACO” used a barking dog report as an excuse to enter a home and take pictures – and then called CPS to remove children from the home. Long story, so let’s just say that when the victim of that abuse of power petitioned for a hearing, CPS could not produce the pictures that supposedly depicted a home so terrible that they removed 3 children, putting 2 into foster care for a week (yes, that’s how long it took her to get them back).

Don’t you wonder when, in those three month “ride alongs,” the “ACO” was trained in this kind of social work? 

When that same “ACO” (now promoted to “sergeant”) and a colleague showed up at a home earlier this year when the homeowner was not present.  A neighbor (who has a documented history of harassing this homeowner) called in that he "heard" a dog in distress. The "ACO" admitted that she knew the neighbor had a history of calling animal control just to cause trouble. When the two "ACOs" convinced the person inside to let them into the house, a camera came out and pictures were taken. The homeowner was contacted and told to provide a list of her pets and their names and proof of rabies vaccinations. No, there was no report of either a dog bite to a human or animal.   They just wanted to get into this home and see what was there.  And yes, the pet owner had her pets vaccinated.  There was no violation, or reason to suspect a violation, of this nature.

Other DEACC personnel have also bullied or finessed their way into homes with only minors present. When faced with an adult who knows their civil rights, DEACC personnel get aggressive and in one case we know of, verbally abusive. And they are vindictive.  Jackie Dyer has been targeted by another “ACO” – because he failed his drug test in 2006, and he didn’t think Jackie remembered him (she was administering the tests).   Despite video and a witness to the contrary, she was charged with dog-at-large.  In Jake Smith’s case, he believes his arrest for hindering prosecution was in response to him insisting that DEACC have a warrant to take his dog.

That's not all.  I personally witnessed a senior "officer” (and one whose name keeps coming up in complaints such as Jackie Dyer’s) – supposedly an experienced animal cruelty investigator - attempt to walk off with an unsigned and unsealed evidence container.  He was also unable to describe a cat that he had just photographed, put in a carrier and transported.  There were other problems with his "report" to the Attorney General's Office that were not discovered until after the case was dismissed - when the owner of the dog that was killed called the Deputy Attorney General handling the case.

Then there are the shelter employees who support FSAC no matter what. Like the kennel manager who thinks it’s funny to post comments about one of our group being a drunk, including that we met at AA (no, we didn’t, but I don’t doubt that there is a better class of people at AA than at FSAC/KCSPCA).   WE haven’t made up stories about anyone.  And we don’t have to make up stories about this person.  A search on the Maryland Judiciary Page brought to light multiple charges against her including harassment, and one of assault with intent to commit murder. On that one, she was convicted of a lesser weapons charge, and managed to serve only 30 days of a 2.5 year sentence.  It’s an old charge, but it has a long life. The Maryland Assistant State’s Attorney was surprised when she was told that this person has posted on social media about being “locked and loaded” at all times. Why?  We were told that the length of her original sentence triggers a federal prohibition of her ever owning fire arms. This might explain why she’s so unhappy about OAW’s shelter regulations and new certification requirements for euthanasia technicians. Once the State does a background check on her, she may not be eligible to perform euthanasia at the shelter.

I have to wonder how many other FSAC/DEACC employees will be found to be ineligible to be certified euthanasia technicians or animal control officers.  

As if DEACC employees aren’t bad enough, we also have to deal with leadership threatening people via social media, contacting employers of those who criticize them, naming pigs after critics (using our last names) and trying to banning critics from the property to prevent attendance at board meetings.

FSAC leadership, employees and supporters dismiss the complaints and label critics as “no kill extremists” and “haters.” 

Oh, and we can't forget the "disgruntled former board members.  The reason one of our group was removed from the board?  First, she questioned the conditions at the shelter in the middle of July, when she saw dogs becoming ill with the heat.  Then she documented the conditions of several dogs and shelter cleanliness.  She only went to the Governor’s Office after her concerns were not addressed.

Tell me, do any of those issues I’ve written about sound like no kill issues to you?  There are also complaints about the shelter not complying with the shelter standards laws – those regarding the required veterinary care of the animals, timely posting of found animals, and those which were intended to reduce shelter killing.

I find it particularly ironic, because there are no kill advocates out there that dismiss me because I’m “just about the animal control officers.”  “Just” about civil rights, property rights and wanting a shelter to comply with the laws.

 At a recent board meeting, the FSAC vice president stated that most of the complaints are from the no kill community.  As noted above, that is not true.  The board president repeatedly said the DEACC employees are well trained, after public statements from the executive director that training is 3 months of “ride-alongs.”   After publicly stating that most of the DEACC employees didn’t want to work for the State, now they want OAW to hire those “officers.” 

Confused yet?  The board members seem to be.  They wonder why the OAW recommended a state agency for animal welfare and control enforcement as a government service. And why the legislators agreed with those recommendations.

Are they delusional?  Do they read the papers at all?  Any of them?  An “ACO” recently told someone that the executive director says that Sussex County is “begging” them to stay on.  Really?  I was at the Sussex County Council meeting, and read the Cape Gazette article.  It actually sounds more like Sussex is threatening legal action if they try to terminate the dog control contract early. 

WE, on the other hand, wonder why the board, employees and supporters continue their support when there are so many problems – with documentation - with the shelter and dog control operations.  Again, most of those problems have nothing to do with no kill advocacy.  We also wonder why our elected officials thought it was okay to turn non-profit employees whose training is three months of “ride-alongs” loose on the public to perform law enforcement duties. Why our elected officials AND the judicial system allow them police authority without police training or oversight (the fact that Title 9 says the counties are to ensure that any contractor hired is supposed to be “adequately trained” is an issue that no one will talk about.)

We wonder why it took so long for elected officials to step up and make changes. “Better late than never” cannot even begin to make the people who have lost pets under this system feel any better. Nor does it help people like Sherene Lindo and Nancy Smith, who now have to explain criminal charges every time they apply for a job. But – better late than never, right?

Everyone should be looking forward to the Office of Animal Welfare, Delaware Animal Services Division becoming a reality.   However, we also believe that cautious optimism should be tempered with continuing vigilance.  While it is our constitutional right to petition government for redress of grievances, it is also our responsibility to pay attention to ensure that any proposed or implemented solution actually works to correct the problem.