“You do what you can with the resources given.”
– Mayor Greg Ballard
The words of the mayor of Indianapolis are hard to get out of your head when you know 8,000 adoptable animals/year are killed at Indianapolis Animal Care and Control.
Read more about the super bowl scam and wonder no more why there will be no relief from the 25th floor.
January 5, 2012
Dear Mayor Ballard,
As the Mayor of Indianapolis, is your administration willing to end the killing of adoptable companion animals in our city for just one day?
On June 11, 2012, communities all over the United States will end the killing of healthy and treatable animals, even if it is just for one day.
Nationwide Campaign to Make USA No Kill on June 11, 2012
The community has been well informed that Indianapolis Animal Care and Control Division has received 63,000 animals since 2008 and killed 50% of them on the Ballard administration watch,… that has committed less than 0.5% of the city budget to the division.
After watching 7 seconds at time stamp 3.01- 3.08 of the video of animals pouring into a dump truck from a conveyor belt, how hard would it be for the administration to do what is right, respectful, commit and say, “Yes, let’s end the killing of healthy and treatable animals now.” ??
Is Indianapolis the Super Bowl of sports? Or the Super Bowl of killing healthy and treatable animals?
Respectfully,
Warren Patitz
Resident/taxpayer
Indianapolis, Indiana
A flurry of media attention has recently been focused on Indianapolis Animal Care and Control, the most perpetually neglected municipal division in the self-anointed “world class” city (not!) of Indianapolis — host to the 2012 Super Bowl. This is a city with an administration that can (and does) spend 50% of the division’s budget to complacently kill one animal per hour without remorse.
According to Indianapolis Mayor Ballard in a channel 6 interview, “You do what you can with the resources given.”
It seems the city can materialize the resources of millions of taxpayer dollars where desired: $33.5M for a basketball team, $100M for a “North South” development deal, $12M to renovate a downtown street with heated sidewalks for a single upcoming football game, finance (with tax dollars) and give away a Broad Ripple parking garage to the contractor, and support a unilateral decision by the city council president to sign a secret near-$250K redistricting contract.
At the September 4th Public Safety committee budget hearing, it was made patently clear that the city can and will co-mingle the precious resources of public donations for IACC into the city budget. Clever accounting, eh? http://indianapolis.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=3&clip_id=6658
The city of Indianapolis suffers not from an overpopulation of animals, but from an overpopulation of memory-impaired politicians who do what they want with private and public money and have no concern about killing 9,000 animals a year. The city suffers not from insufficient money, but from the absence of a moral compass.
The true signature of our “world class city” is the graphic footage in the October 27th news report of animal carcasses rolling off a conveyor belt into a dump truck headed for the landfill.
Surely we can do better than that with “the resources given”.
Thanks to Channel 6 and Kara Kenney, who investigated and reported on the abysmal conditions and operations of Indianapolis Animal Care and Control.
Oct 27
City Without Solution for ‘Horrible’ Animal Problem
Record Shows Shelter Kills 1 Animal Every Hour
http://www.theindychannel.com/news/29603538/detail.html
Oct 28
Advocates: Indy’s Animal Overpopulation 100% Preventable
City Euthanized More Than 8,000 Animals Last Year, Records Show
http://www.theindychannel.com/news/29616874/detail.html
Nov 5
*Buffy The Microchipped Dog
(See letter below, printed with permission from a reTails board member)
Nov 8
Indianapolis Mayor Greg Ballard is re-elected Mayor.
Nov 9
Indy Animal Care and Control Head Stepping Down
http://www.theindychannel.com/news/29728690/detail.html
Nov 11
Lost Dog Nearly Euthanized Despite Microchip
Animal Care and Control Policies Questioned
http://www.theindychannel.com/news/29749025/detail.html
* Behalf Of Maureen Owen?
Sent: Saturday, November 05, 2011 11:37 AM?
To: reTails list?Cc: fbi-list@feralbureau.org
?Subject: [reTails List] Buffy the microchipped dog?
I wanted to share with all of you the saga of Buffy and the letter I sent to?Teri Kendrick, Administrator of IACC. If the city had to be accountable to the same ordinances taxpayers are, and if they would provide the same?level of humane treatment to the animals under their care as they mandate to pet owners, reTails would never have had to be in existence. In the meantime, though, we will continue to save as many ‘Buffys’ as our limited resources and funding allows. A huge thank-you to both of the reTails?fosters that saved this dog. ??
A few days ago, reTails transferred a stray dog from Darcie Kurtz, kennel manager of IACC. The dog was in imminent danger of euthanasia, per Ms. Kurtz. The dog was taken to Allisonville Animal Hospital where it was examined for arthritis, and as a matter of routine, was also scanned for a microchip. A microchip was found immediately, and the information led directly to the owner. The owner was even a client of AAH, and the dog had been in for treatment as recently as last month. The dog had been missing for 2 weeks, lost during a storm, and the owners were overjoyed to get their dog back, but appalled that the dog was not scanned at IACC, and because of not being scanned, was going to be put down.??
This is not the first time I have presented the problem of animals not being scanned for microchips to IACC staff, and Ms. Kurtz in particular. Each?time, I am told that all animals are scanned, and the problem will be addressed. The owners of pets in the city are required by law to have microchip or tag identification on their pets. They are penalized if they fail to follow the law. When IACC fails to uphold their legal duty to scan each animals for a microchip, the shelter or staff is not penalized; the animals, owners and taxpayers are.?
There is absolutely no excuse for this to happen. Scanning requires only 30?seconds and it is just waving a wand over the animal. My granddaughter, who is 9 years old, is able to do it without help. This doesn’t take extra manpower and whoever brings the dog back to a kennel could easily scan for a chip. If a dog is able to be killed, it is able to be scanned. ??
I have been asked time and time again what my problem is with IACC, and time and time again I tell them there is no accountability for any actions, any infractions, any abuse or neglect that has occurred to an animal at IACC. The city does not abide by its own ordinances and yet they are not fined. No one is held accountable. Animals die when people fail to do their jobs at IACC. You have even stated that you would have issues releasing a dog to an owner that has not picked up an animal within a certain time, you have said you have problems with owners who have lost their pets and don’t think of them as kindly as we would. Any animal can get lost and life happens…kids open doors, gates get opened, petsitters don’t know the routines of the dogs and dogs scamper off. This can happen to diligent owners, and though there are irresponsible pet owners, it is not acceptable to treat the public as irresponsible. They are taxpayers and they expect competence and respect from you, and they expect humane treatment with their pets and they expect city workers to do their jobs. ???
It is extremely difficult to find a lost pet in this city. There is no centralized lost/found location, and going to ACC to find their pet is almost worthless, as it requires searching every kennel and even offices every day. Who can take time off work every day for weeks to go search the facility for their dog? After the 4-day wait, the animal can be killed and many are. Most people are not even aware their animal could be there. Most dogs do not wander far from their homes, but the dogcatchers don’t make any effort to ask, or even leave any handouts in the area. Think of the tax dollars and animals’ lives that could be saved with a few minutes of the dogcatcher’s time. Preserving the life of a pet is secondary to punishing the owners for their pet being loose.
The excuse is always that IACC has no time or money for this. Think of the time, manpower and tax money wasted hauling the animal, housing, paperwork, fining the owner and ultimately, killing/disposing of the animal.
Channel 6 bravely showed graphic video of the killed animals at IACC, being dropped off the conveyor belt into the garbage truck. This is one of the repercussions a pet owner faces when their dog is lost, and it is inexcusable.
What is needed at IACC is a caring, compassionate and passionate director, such as we had with Doug Rae. It was the city’s only hope. He was willing to go the distance to fight the union and make the drastic changes that need to occur to stop the killing of over 9,000 animals a year, and he was discarded for “too many MAC stray dog calls”. Despite having more dogcatchers, Ms. Kendrick, stray dog calls still seem to be the number one call to the MAC, according to the story presented by Channel 6 last week. Mr. Rae was given only 8 months to solve decades of bad sheltering practices and you’ve had two years and have made NO progress.
This isn’t about the firing of Doug Rae, though. It is about the city not doing its job and animals dying as a result.
Maureen Owen Board Member, reTails, Inc.
The following editorial is submitted by local animal advocate, Robin Kennedy. Ms Kennedy points to the slick accounting of the Ballard administration to comingle $52,000 of public donations into the 2012 budget of IACC as well as the disregard of not consulting the division administrator on the proposed budget cut.
On September 4th the Public Safety Committee met to hear public comments and consider the 2012 budget for Indianapolis Animal Care and Control. The proposed budget would have cut nearly $200,000 gutting the materials and supplies for the shelter including money for medical care and spay and neuter surgeries. Public Safety Director, Frank Straub and the committee in what can only be considered poor business practice made this decision with no input from the Shelter’s Director, Teri Kendrick.
However dozens of animal welfare advocates packed the room to let the committee, Mayor Ballard and Director Straub know that this is unacceptable. So many people turned up for the meeting that it had to be moved to another room. And many more people emailed and made phone calls in support of the animals. Many thanks to all the rescuers, rescues and advocates that came together to show their support for the animals of our city.
While we appreciate 2011 funding levels being restored in the 2012 budget we need to realize that IACC continues to be woefully under funded. In 2009 18,000 pets came through the back door of IACC. Funding of $185,000 to cover materials and supplies for 18,000 pets equates to $10.27 per pet. Not nearly enough to adequately care for the number of pets they receive. Forcing the staff at IACC to make the choice of substandard care for the majority of pets or to increase the number of pets killed everyday. The number of pets killed everyday is at about 20 per day or about 40%.
In addition to the inadequate funding there is No food budget for a City Department that cares for 18,000 pets per year. This is completely irresponsible. What backup plan is there if donations dry up? In addition to that, there is no provision made for the different species including wildlife that is surrendered at IACC.
While the Public Safety Committee and Director, Straub would have us believe that they are actually funding the budget to 2011 levels, this is misleading. There has been approximately $52,000 in donated money that has been unavailable to IACC for an extended period of time due to red tape; this money is now being made available. However it is incorporated in the 2012 budget, this actually results in a decrease of the 2012 budget that will likely go unnoticed by the public.
In a statement made to WTHR Channel 13 on September 14th Mayor Ballard said “it’s not a doomsday scenario either”. Mayor Ballard, I beg to differ for 40% of the animals that die every day at IACC it is a doomsday scenario.
Robin Kennedy
Animal Advocate
The proposed budget cut for IACC by the public safety committee has drawn a great deal of attention from the animal welfare community.
The response is hard to ignore. Consider:
1. Monica North, who pens for the Examiner, “The animals of Indianapolis need you to be their voice” is the first journalist to get this right:
“If animals are deemed not adoptable for any reason (including a minor illness) or if space is needed for incoming animals, then they kill animals to make space.”
http://www.examiner.com/pet-rescue-in-indianapolis/the-animals-of-indianapolis-need-you-to-be-their-voice?CID=examiner_alerts_article
Ms North is very clear about this. They do not “put down.” They do not “euthanize.” They do not “put to sleep.” They (the city – with your tax dollar) kill animals for space.
The Humane Society of Indianapolis and the administration at IACC need to get this right: ADOPTABLE ANIMALS ARE KILLED FOR SPACE.
Why, at the 11th hour of a budget cut, is attention about what goes on (or not) at IACC just now coming to the attention of the public and the councillors? Maybe it’s because the self-delusion has coddled all with the “gently put to sleep” lullabye that is perpetuated by these agencies’ rhetoric. Get rid of these euphemisms. It’s time for adult conversation.
2. Congratulations to the animal welfare community (that generally remains self-restrained) for coming forward to address face-to-face the public safety committee tonight (09/14/11) about the embarrassing deficiency of the proposed IACC budget, those who proposed it and completely eliminated from the equation the IACC administrator.
Do the people responsible for this budget proposal need to be retired to the private sector?
Addendum 09/15/11
Animal Lovers Fight Indy Budget Cuts
Reporter Kara Kenney and anchor Todd Conner dismiss the euphemism “euthanize” and use accurate vocabulary in reporting the deaths of adoptable animals at Indianapolis Animal Care and Control.
http://www.theindychannel.com/news/29188753/detail.html
“Thumbs up” to North, Kenney and Conner
August 31, 2011
Dear Mayor Ballard, Safety Director Straub and Councillors,
Like all taxpayers, I appreciate a responsible public servant. Mayor Ballard, responsible use of tax dollars was a key part of your campaign. I know, because I worked for your campaign. During that time, I shared with you a proactive spay/neuter plan that could improve effective use of tax dollars at Indianapolis Animal Care & Control. You told me “If I become mayor, I’ll look into that.” “WHEN you become mayor,” I replied.
But almost four years later, nothing has changed for IACC. Many of us taxpayers are disappointed to see that mortar and brick and no-bid city contracts seem to have become the order of the day — again. We are saddened to see that public money can be found for a North/South (City Way) project ($98M), $33,5M for professional basketball, $12M for renovation of Georgia Street in anticipation of the Super Bowl, and a major renovation of a public safety director’s office, complete with an elite personal security force — yet IACC continues to lack the funds to even maintain adequate sanitation. And earlier this year, it was discovered that $54K of donations made by private citizens to aid desperately underfunded IACC somehow disappeared into the general fund. To date I have not heard that this badly needed money has been delivered to the division to which donors specifically designated it.
I realize that professional sports and street improvements bring money into our city. But surely, if funds can be found for heated sidewalks to enhance the comfort of Super Bowl visitors, a much smaller amount of money could be found to bring the ventilation system at IACC up to code and provide a tolerable environment for homeless animals and the dedicated, hardworking people who labor every day in deplorable, depressing conditions to help them?
As conditions at IACC deteriorate, the more it is costing taxpayers to solve the problem.
At present:
• IACC’s building at 2600 South Harding Street has an antiquated HVAC system that is very effective at transmitting airborne disease.
• It has no structural isolation areas to separate incoming animals from those who are ill.
• Many of the private not-for-profit “Rescue Partners” (http://www.indy.gov/eGov/City/DPS/ACCD/Community/Pages/RescuePartners.aspx)
that pull animals from IACC to reduce the ever-growing death toll are offering their help to other city animal shelters instead, because the cost to treat these diseases has become prohibitive for their limited treasuries. Hundreds of thousands of private dollars are spent by these organizations treating the animals. Private citizens attempting to do good by adopting from IACC are also burdened with these veterinary expenses.
• Local veterinarians are expressing reluctance to accept animals from IACC because of these resistant, infectious diseases the animals bring to their practices.
• Wonderful, dedicated personnel who were once enthusiastic are now frustrated, depressed and demoralized.
The public does not want its tax dollars used recklessly, nor does it want them used to kill healthy, adoptable dogs and cats. Mr. Mayor, Safety Director Straub, and members of the City-County Council, you can change this situation. To do so would win the respect of a group of voters who are, at present, very disillusioned.
There are many ways in which tax dollars are spent to improve the quality of life in our community. To provide an acceptable, safe and clean facility where homeless companion animals can be cared for and adopted would cost a mere fraction of the amount spent on major downtown renovation, bike lanes and other improvements, but it would show that Indianapolis regards all living things worthy of decent and humane treatment. And it would be a solid investment in another part of the city’s infrastructure.
A world class city is more than sidewalks and sports stadiums. It also demands that all city services be efficiently and effectively maintained.
Respectfully,
Warren Patitz
Indianapolis Star reporter Alex Campbell penned an article in the Indianapolis STAR July 25, 2011 on the Humane Society of Indianapolis, headlined “Is limited admission improving the mission?”
The gist of the article was that HSI is operating within its means. But the article also reports:
“In June, the Humane Society (of Indianapolis) made its first big debt payment, to the tune of $200,000.”
The article barely touches on the financial misadventures of previous administrations that led to that debt and have hobbled the agency’s ability to operate at full potential.
It is honorable that Humane Society officials are taking the responsible action to address the debt that is no fault of the current officers. What’s regrettable is that the story never explains how the situation got this way.
Many in the community have witnessed the unfortunate behavior surrounding the HSI treasury since the 1970s. Otto Ray was an animal advocate who not only worked at the Humane Society, but sold the property on which HSI now stands to the Mary Powell Crume Trust. Older people in the community personally remember Mr. Ray.
Mr. Ray attempted to expose the Humane Society’s mismanagement of the Crume Trust 40 years ago. This note was left by Mr. Ray in the Crume Trust probate court folder:
“I have been a humane officer and investigator for 65 years and have lived in Indianapolis all my life; was 84 years old on March 6, 1972. I am writing this under a terrific handicap. I feel pretty helpless sitting here with a fractured hip, fractured neck, half blind, using a magnifying glass to see, have an impediment in my speech, and am compelled to use a walker when I move about.
I started exposing the humane society trustee’s bureaucracy in 1968 but at no time did I publicize the humane society’s embarrassing large assets; however because of the fact that conditions have become so bad and no one is attempting to help or speak for the poor defenseless animals who cannot speak for themselves, I am writing this article while hoping and praying that the public will demand a change of…. bureaucracy, because even the operators of any business or ball club would be removed under similar conditions. Instead of doing something for the animals they have been spending their time juggling facts, words, figures, numbers and everything else.”
— Otto Ray, July 20, 1972
The genesis of Move to ACT
Many people on the periphery of local animal welfare, or new to it, are not familiar with the origin of mtA. Move to ACT grew from the spirit of Otto Ray’s recognition that donors’ dollars do not always arrive at their intended destination — the animals. Mr. Campbell’s Indianpolis STAR article has revived this reminder. If the agency has just made its first big debt payment, one can only wonder how much of each donation “for the animals” is going to pay for service on debt?
Donors need to think about what they actually want their money to be doing.
In 2004, several local animal service providers rallied to protect the $3,400,000 public charitable trust (The Mary Powell Crume Trust) that provided more than $100,000/year in perpetual income to HSI to subsidize the care of animals in central Indiana. Challenged with a history of fiduciary misadventures, the trustee (HSI) wanted to put the trust at risk by using it as collateral for a $1,700,000 loan to make payment on its debt.
Move to ACT and other service providers opposed this action because animals in need were the assigned beneficiaries of this public trust. The trust money was intended to serve animals, not to pay service on debt.
To better understand the history and outcome of this concern and appreciate why mtA encourages heightened discretion in donating to an animal organization, we urge you to read a review of the Crume Public Charitable Trust violation by the trustee. This review comes from the attorney who represented the animal service providers. It can be viewed here.
The Humane Society of Indianapolis is fortunate now to have someone with the fundraising acumen of John Aleshire. If the “first big debt payment (is) to the tune of $200,000” …one can only imagine the profound financial impoverishment that exists and how much money needs to be raised to erase that debt. Until that time, the agency will remain limited in its financial outreach to animals beyond its walls.
Things have changed —haven’t they?
Fortunately the bureaucracy at HSI has changed. But now that HSI is rebuilding financial stability, wouldn’t this be a good time to start building stability with the “facts, words, figures, numbers and everything else” to which Otto Ray referred in 1972?
The announcment in 2009 to build an animal welfare center near Fountain Square was trumpeted with much fanfare and was exciting news. We learn from the Indianapolis STAR article that the location is yet to be determined, but HSI’s website advertises the clinic as “coming soon” and seeks donations with that appeal.
So will donations go to the clinic, or to paying debt?
HSI’s promotional materials tell us “Nearly 10,000 unwanted dogs and cats were put down in Indianapolis last year. With your support, we’ll put an end to unnecessary euthanasia in Indy — once and for all.” The familiar euphemisms are there: “put down”, “unnecessary euthanasia”, “once and for all”.
But does “with your support” mean donations will go to solving the problem…or to paying debt?
HSI’s operations manager now “makes sure pet owners know that if their pets go to the city shelter, there’s a 50-50 chance they’ll make it out alive.” From the HSI website: “Note: the city shelter, IACC, is also overwhelmed and has to put animals down for space at times.” “…at times?” Documentation actually identifies that the chance of an animal coming out alive is closer to 45% and an animal is destroyed at the municipal shelter at about the rate of 1/hour. “…at times?”
And many more resources exist for the public in addition to those listed in the Animal Welfare Alliance flyer that HSI offers. HSI is welcome to point people with an animal in need to the Rescue Rally Directory
HSI’s Mutt Strut was named “Best Charitable Event” by readers of NUVO Newsweekly for the third year in a row. A yearly “Best Charitable Event” will be needed for years to come to raise enough money to make payment on debt service. Until that balance is paid, at-risk animals in the community will continue to be mostly served by the small and efficient animal rescue organizations that don’t get the public attention or the big donations, but rely on mindful and discretionary donors.
In the meantime, a plea from one of them – ARPO
URGENT NEWS: ARPO has had to make the heartbreaking decision to halt intake of homeless and abandoned animals due to a shortage of funds. Simply put, vet expenses have been kicking our butts! While we work on long-term strategies, please consider donating what we need most … cash! Visit our website to donate via PayPal or mail a check, payable to ARPO, P. O. Box 6385, Fishers, IN 46038. Thank You!
“Donations to animal causes is the fastest growing segment of American philanthropy” ~Nathan Winograd, Redemption
How much of that well-intended donation to a popular humane organization actually makes it to the animals?
If you don’t know, then you may also not know that you can donate to a central Indiana all volunteer, no kill rescue organization that will deliver 100% of your donation to care for the animals in need.
Such an organization might be:
• An all or breed-specific animal rescue
• A Cat shelter
• A Spay-neuter organization
• A Wildlife or exotic animal rescue
• A Transport Rescue
These organizations do not use donor dollars for fundraising, advertising, direct mailing, salaries and benefits expenses.
You can also look on these organizations’ websites, purchase something for them from their wish list or you can also purchase food or litter to donate to a food bank to help those less fortunate.
If you take the time to look at Guidestar you will see that the well-endowed and (very popular!) Humane Society of Indianapolis reports in the most recently posted 990 – annual spending of over $2,000,000 on fundraising, advertising, direct mailing, salaries and benefits alone!
So the next time you have money left over after filling up at the gas pump, look a little closer at where and how far your donation is going. You may be helping more animals by donating more wisely.
Educate yourself, stretch that donor dollar and consider helping the animal organizations who apply 100% of that donation to the animals in need.
More than a year ago, in an apparent attempt to deflect attention from an upheaval in the animal welfare community surrounding the calculated dismissal of the previous administrator of Indianapolis Animal Care & Control, the Indianapolis Animal Welfare Alliance was announced.
Created by HSI and select other groups that supported the orchestrated administration ouster, the IAWA announced lofty goals for 2010. One of those goals was to open a low cost animal clinic in Fountain Square. Targeted high-volume, low-cost s/n is certainly an essential part of the No Kill Equation and an additional clinic surely would be welcomed in any community.
“A million (dollars) is going to change the face of animal welfare in Indianapolis,” said John Aleshire, chief executive officer of the Humane Society. – Indianapolis Star, July 18, 2010
“Help us end problems for Indy’s animals once and for all.”
Question: Is it really “all about the animals,” or is it about the money?
Has anyone heard more?
Are conditions vastly better for homeless animals in Indianapolis since the formation of the “Alliance”? Was this yet another promotion that wasted a lot of peoples’ time in meetings and consumed thousands of dollars of a generous benefactor to assemble a selective cheering section for HSI? And didn’t the alliance-building meeting facilitator transition into a lucrative salaried position at HSI?
Can the community believe that this “Alliance” was created for more than just a veil to enhance and promote a public image?
“Aleshire’s plan is heavy on public relations.” – IBJ February 4, 2009
Or is this more rice cooking with talk?
Move to ACT invites IAWA and HSI to let the community know what progress it has made to date.
On June 18, Mallory was enjoying the day on her front porch in the 2100 block of North Ritter neighborhood with her 7 month old daughter in her arms and dog, Tanker at her feet. Mallory has 2 dogs, Oreo, a spayed female and Tanker who had a pending appointment at FACE for a neutering. Unrestrained, Tanker took off from the porch after some distraction and Mallory’s other dog, Oreo, jumped the backyard fence to join in the adventure. Mallory quickly fixed a bottle for her baby, put her in the stroller and took off to find her dogs. Twenty minutes later she found her dogs, as had the roaming Animal Care and Control Officer, (ACO).
As Mallory was approaching Tanker and Oreo, the ACO whistled to the friendly and tail-wagging dogs who came right to the officer. Instead of writing just a ticket and letting Mallory take her dogs back home, the ACO, despite Mallory’s tearful pleas, loaded the dogs in the van to take them to Animal Care and Control.
According to family, calls to her city county councilor, Mary Moriarty Adams and neighborhood liaison, Ruth Ann Walker, were worthless. In the following weeks Mallory was denied access to visiting her dogs, her dog’s neutering appointment was missed, she fulfilled obligated appointments to her hearing and court dates, paid her fines and at the mercy of the environmental court, was allowed to retrieve her dogs on July 28. According to Mallory’s mother, “The dogs had become depressed, emaciated, had sores on their haunches and bellies and one had become aggressive as a result of being caged for so long.”
Q. Are dogs running at large a violation of city ordinance?
A. Yes.
Q. Did this young woman have previous “at large” violations?
A. Yes, two.
Q. Were the dogs vicious?
A. No
Q. Does ACC have an overwhelming population of animals that it is unable to safely accommodate?
A. Yes
Q. Do animals, who come into the building healthy, contract costly and sometimes deadly diseases?
A. Yes
Q. Did the ACC administrator have the discretion to release the dogs back into the custody of the owner?
A. Yes. Remember, administrator Teri Kendrick exercises her discretion at most anything… to translate the ordinance language that a rope that rotates 360 degrees around a steel pole is not a swivel, thus resulting in a code violation for a responsible owner.
See: “Inebriated with power,” http://www.movetoact.org/newsletters/2010/august.html
Ms Kendrick exercises the discretion to make the decision of what animal lives and what animal dies. Ms Kendrick has also made it clear at an ACC board meeting that she has the discretion (and exercises it) to deny people in violation of animal ordinances visitation with their dogs.
Q. Why would an administrator punish a person for an at-large violation by incarcerating their friendly dogs in an over-populated, rampant with deadly disease building and deny them visitation?
A. Because she can. These decisions appear to exhibit a need to exercise power and control vs practicing common sense and humane consideration.
Q. Does Ms Kendrick’s background as a city prosecutor in code enforcement factor into this callous decision-making to punish dogs as a way to punish a person?
A. You be the judge.
Move to ACT has also received citizens’ reporting that other ACO’s with whom they’ve had contact has been positive, being told by the officer that although they could take the violator’s dog to ACC, they wouldn’t because “it is no place for a dog to be.” Citizens can be grateful for the sensitivity and discretion of these officers who refuse to put dogs at risk to punish their owners.
As tax payers who pay public servants’ salaries, will we see wiser discretion on behalf of the ACC administration regarding putting innocent animals at risk as a means to punish code violators?