Friday, April 23, 2010

Some Notes from yesterday's Shelter Commission meeting

Since this meeting was not posted ahead of time, I wasn't able to attend. But I've received some intelligence about the topics discussed.

Not much new, really - there was the same amount of obsessing over non-essentials.

One member, who is already sitting in a whole shitpot of committees, thought up a bunch of sub-committees for committee members to join. The public was not treated to the names or responsibilities of the sub-committees.

The most disturbing subject was the HSUS visit. Seems that even though they are being paid$25k to show up and tell DAS what they're doing wrong, the HSUS rep is demanding that their meetings with Animal Services be confidential. In other words, no public may attend.

This appears to be in violation of certain state codes, but instead, members of the Commission discussed how they could get away with keeping the meeting confidential. Remember, we have lawyers and judges in the Commission.

The only hopeful element was a new Commission member, Gloria Blum. She had no problems pointing out the shortcomings at the animal shelter, including a Yorkie with newborn puppies in the Lost and Found section that had not been provided with any sort of shelter or proper bed. She said "they were just on plastic, or on the cement floor". When she discovered the scene, most of the dog's puppies were already dead, and the two survivors were obviously suffering. Kent Robertson's explanation? It was a "training issue". Yeah, right.

More Commission highlights coming up as I receive them.


Cindy said...

Good for Gloria Blum, wonder when we'll be hearing about her in the news, found in a ditch somewhere or raided?

Cindy said...

Forgive my rudeness FP, thank you for the update!

Feline Provocateur said...

No need to apologize, Cindy.

An interesting tidbit just arrived in my email - seems a member of the Commission has been cited several times for too many animals in her home (30-odd cats!). But she always manages to have the citations swept under the rug as she's on the Commission. I'm trying to find out if I can get copies of the citations.

Considering she lives in a small house, I see no way she could keep 30 cats in there without installing a special HVAC system (it needs to change out the air about 7 times per hour) and hiring daily cleaners.

If this is true, she's breaking the law, pure and simple.

Cindy said...

Is this person a rescuer?, licensed? or unlicensed? or are they her own personal cats? I don't suppose you are willing to tell us who she is?

Feline Provocateur said...

She is technically a rescuer, and has been seen at the veteranarian's demanding discounts because she belongs to a nonprofit rescue. But if the city is issuing citations, something's going on. And I've never seen her doing adoptions anywhere.

I'm afraid I can't publish any names yet, but if I can legally get copies of any of the citations issued, I'll scan and post.

Cindy said...

Have you asked for an open records on who is signed up with the city as permitted/licensed rescue? that gives them the right to inspect.

I know of 2 people with copies of those up to early this year. Only 2 people on the Shelter Commission (as I understand it) are legal. Skip Trimble and Rebecca Poling but that doesn't mean I am right on this, just was led to believe it.

Rosebud said...

Well, the list of approved rescues is subject to a open records request. Should be easy to narrow down from there, although my guess is the request will not be honored within the required time frame, and a request will have to be submitted to the AG. But we have found that patience and tenacity pay off. And the need for names, doesn't need to be public, as long as one of us knows. FP, you rock!

Also, we have requested the data regarding Intact Permits, and how many specifically have been denied and on what basis. They are FAR outnumbered by intact "registrations". There have been instances of intact registrations triggering a "home visit" by DAS to "personally advise" said owner that an intact permit is required, and in some cases to attempt an illegal search. And since the permit has narrow requirements (needed only if the intact animal is to be bred within that twelve month period) I think it behooves us to further "explore" the "procedural" policy. DAS employees don't seem to be comfortable with explaining it to the public on a consistent basis. If you "call" for INTACT PERMIT IS required if you have an intact registration. And since you must qualify for one of the "exemptions" to own or breed an intact dog, it would be nice if DAS actually knew what constituted "proof" of those exemptions. Of course, they have no clue. The ordinance seems to say for those who have had "legal" eyes peruse it, it seems that the permit is ONLY required in breeding, not in simply OWNING an intact animal. However, as long as no one challenges DAS, they continue to tell citizens that both are required by policy. However, it doesn't seem to apply to citizens who read the ordinance for themselves, and "intimate" legal action. Those seem to "magically" not need the permit. So, we'd like to see some stats and guidelines regarding permits and the approval/denial process and statistics for said permits. Do you suppose they really exist? I guess we're going to find out...

Cindy said...

Rosebud, we would like to see those stats if/when you get them, can you let us know? It does sound as if you have multiple people involved, good luck, I understand the AG was involved in the original person/group receiving the double-handful of rescues that were approved for legitimate rescue in Dallas. We were unsure if others were not approved or if they did not fill out the required forms submitting to unannounced inspections. I understand there are less than a dozen that were approved by early 2010 since the 2008 ordinance change.