NOTES FROM THE 11/15/12 ANIMAL WELFARE TASK FORCE MEETING

PLEASE NOTE:  THESE ARE MY NOTES FROM THE MEETING, THEY ARE NOT THE OFFICIAL MINUTES.   So these notes are what I considered the highlights of the meeting. 

TF members (may have missed some):  Senators Blevins and Peterson / Rep. Jacques / Secretary Kee / Hetti Brown, HSUS / Mike Petit de Mange, KC / Hal Godwin, SC / Kristin Dwyer, NCC / Kevin Usilton, KCSPCA / Jane Pierantozzi, FF / Anne Gryczon, SH / Ann Cavanaugh, DESPCA / Patrick Carroll, DHA / John Rago, Wilmington / Jennifer Ranji / Andy Lippstone, Gov’s Office / Kathy Gallagher

Public attendees (I know there were some that I missed, since we are not asked to identify ourselves publicly):  3 members of the DESPCA board / Doug Beatty / Carol Furr / Sherene Lindo / Julie Wilson / Cathy Samardza / Lynn Nellius

The meeting began with a short discussion of the minutes of both September and October; everyone had a chance to review them, and both documents were approved.

Senator Blevin reported that the TF lost Lincoln Willis as a member  (lost his election), and that he would not be replaced until January.  (this drops the downstate members to 5)

Jennifer Ranji gave a brief history of the shelter standards law.  She included the fact that she and Senator Blevins went to the 5 large shelters to get their input on developing a set of basic standards.  In 2009 the leadership of all 5 shelters agreed on the standards.  Initially, the standards only applied to dogs; Murrey Goldthwaite (then KCSPCA director) said it should be cats as well.  The proposed standards were also distributed to the veterinary community and small shelters for input.  The bill was passed unanimously in only 3 ½ weeks.

No penalties for violations were included in the law because all the shelters agreed to the standards, and it was for the benefit of the animal welfare community.  It was noted that it became harder to get everyone together to discuss issues and concerns with the requirements, in that respect, it was felt that the TF was helpful.

The shelter standards laws (also known as Companion Animal Protection Acts, CAPA) are held in 4 sections of Title 3 of the DE Code. 

The first section discussed was Chapter 80, regarding the health of animals in shelters.  The following two sections were discussed:

1 – vaccination within 8 hours of intak

2 – health examination in 72 hours

Mr. Usilton stated that the vaccinations were a challenge for KCSPCA.  Their two off-site locations did not have a vet, and animals were not examined until they got to the shelter.  He said it was cost-prohibitive to hire a vet to go to the satellite locations.

It was pointed out that in Section 8002c it states that the health examination does not have to be performed by a veterinarian – a vet-tech is acceptable.  The animal has to be examined by someone who can determine whether or not it needs further medical attention.

Section 8002A states that the shelters must be advised by a licensed veterinarian; the veterinarian does not have to be a full-time employee of the shelter or on-site at all times.

Mr. Petit de Mange asked about the vaccination requirements – stating that in the proposed KCSPCA dog control contract for FY13 the cost increase was 61% and vaccinating the dogs was the reason given.  The county requirement is for dog control, not cats.  The shelter made an issue of this and asked Kent County for more money.  Ms. Ranji stated that the county requirement is only for dogs; Murrey Goldthwaite was asked about this before the law was enacted; he assured Senator Blevins that they were already vaccinating and it would not cost the KCSPCA money.  Ms. Ranji also stated that this part of the discussion was for shelter standards, not dog control; Mr. Petit de Mange said he understood that, but the shelter standards requirement resulted in a dispute over who pays for this.

Senator Blevins said that this (vaccinations, health exams) were basic shelter care.  Mr. Usilton stated that this was an unfunded mandate that may have been easier to deal with in 2009, the shelter could absorb th cost.  He went on to talk about record keeping and how this “allows investigation by these people.”  He also stated that “we can’t raise money for every animal to be vaccinated” and “then we get investigated.”  (This didn’t make sense during the meeting, either.)

Senator Blevins asked for clarification, saying “you used to vaccinate, but now you’re not as a cost-cutting measure?”  Mr. Usilton replied “we shut the doors.”  Senator Blevins said “that’s your cost-cutting measure?”  Mr. Usilton said, “that, and shutting the door.”  Senator Blevins expressed confusion and dismay.

Ms. Ranji said that she didn’t understand the talk about a “new mandate.”  This is not a new mandate, the government was told that this was being done.  This was the cost of shelter business.  It was noted that Dr. Moyer was not present, but he has said that “you cannot vaccinate early enough.”

Ms. Gryczon noted that the drugs for putting down an animal are more expensive than the vaccination drugs (feline distemper, bordatella).  Ms. Cavanaugh said they (DESPCA) learned that if you don’t vaccinate on intake, cats get sick at the shelter.  Vaccination on intake is the nationwide standard.  Ms. Gryczon noted that they have no kennel cough at SH.  Ms. Cavanaugh said that if animals stay healthy, they get homes or tranferred to other rescue groups faster.  Vaccination is a cost-effective way to keep them healthy long enough to get homes.

Mr. Petit de Mange stated that the requested 61% increase was for vaccinations – he said nothing increases that much, but vaccines were the reason stated by the KCSPCA.

Ms. Ranji noted that in the past dog control contracts were supporting shelter operations, so when those costs go up, other funds go down; and they wanted the contracts to pay for it.  But this (vaccination) is a basic thing that has to be done.

Discussion went back to the issue of health evaluation/exam not required to be performed by a veterinarian.  Senator Blevins said that as long as a protocol is developed by a veterinarian, and an animal is seen by a vet if there is a problem, the exam does not have to be done by a vet.

Ms. Pierantozzi noted that vaccination on intake is the national standard, and Faithful Friends does this without funds from contracts.

Ms. Brown noted that not only do animals get adopted faster when they are healthy, the process is a good experience for the individual adopting the animal.

Mr. Usilton said that it is a matter of “crowd control” and bringing in one sick animal can infect them all.  He also stated that there is only one open-door shelter (in Delaware) and that one shelter is going to bear the brunt of sickness.

He also asked about shelters that don’t know about this (vaccination?  Shelter standards?).  He stated that there is one rescue group in Delaware going after the Cecil County, MD contract.  He said that this rescue would take animals to Maryland to euthanize and get a Delaware credit. 

He was asked which shelter, and refused to say.  Several people insisted, asking “who does that?” (take animals from Delaware out of state to euthanize them).  Others said that if there is a shelter opening in Delaware that no one knows about, the information for shelter standards in Delaware needs to get out there (to the shelter/rescue community).

In our experience, the Delaware CAPA laws are being discussed nationally; we find it hard to believe that anyone considering opening a shelter/rescue in Delaware would be unaware of the laws.  Also, the rescue community may not partner together much, but they ARE aware of each other.  We don’t believe anyone could be active in Delaware in this way and no one would know about it.

Ms. Gryczon said she knew of one rescue group in Cecil County – “Buddy for Life” that works locally in Maryland and Delaware.  Senator Blevins asked what this group was doing in Delaware; Ms. Gryczon said they are fostering animals with Delaware residents.  Someone asked, then what’s the issue with Delaware?  Mr. Usilton stated they were bringing animals to Delaware for adoption.  Ms. Gryczon noted that animals crossing state lines are required to have a health certificate.

And yes, Mr. Usilton’s comments were as unconnected and made as little sense the first time.  He began by saying a Delaware rescue was going to euthanize animals in Maryland, and finished by complaining that a Maryland organization was fostering animals in Delaware.

Ms. Ranji said the TF members had to think about how this would work (new shelters).  Senator Blevins asked, how the State would know about someone starting a shelter in Delaware.  Ms. Dwyer thought they could be identified when they applied for a business license; Mr. Usilton said a business license was not required.  Ms. Pierantozzi suggested a shelter could be identified when they filed incorporation papers.  Ms. Dwyer felt that the paperwork with the CAPA requirements could be handed out with a business license (if a license was required).  Senator Blevins directed Ms. Ryan to put this on the list of issues.

Mr. Lippman said that some registration had to be required.  Ms. Brown said that New Jersey had different categories of kennel licenses, including one for non-profit shelters; the licensing required shelters to be open to inspections and established a paper trail.  Senator Blevins thought that was interesting.

Mr. Usilton said that if shelters are expected to comply with standards, an enforcer should be designated and consequences spelled out “so you know what to expect.”  He asked if the law was guidelines or standards?  Would there be fines?  Who would be the agency enforcing the law?  Could a shelter be shut down?

Mr. Usilton then said that there could be a shelter with 45 cats – but was it a real shelter or a hoarding situation?  He then said that this kind of thing has helped shelters shut doors to resources.

Ms. Gryczon said that most cats (taken in a hoarding case) are killed, but the caretakers (in a hoarding situation) could be helped with retention instead.  She didn’t feel it was an either/or situation – and stated “there is a lot of in-between.”

It was noted that there is a lack of clarity in the law as to what is a shelter, and consequences (for violations).  Mr. Lippman noted that enforcement was in Secretary Kee’s shop.

Secretary Kee said that this has evolved for the Department of Agriculture.  According to his Deputy Attorney General, the only thing Ag has enforcement over is euthanasia.  He further stated that “we don’t enforce a lot of things people think we do.”  He said he has researched other states, and he asked if he could distribute material from North Carolina that addresses these issues.  He felt the NC laws could be a template to address shelters and kennels. 

Mr. Lippman said he mis-spoke – there are chunks (of Title 3/CAPA) where the Dept. of Agriculture does not have authority.

Actually, the animal population control section of Title 3 is not only under the Dept. of Agriculture, it is the one section where penalties for violations are listed.  We don’t know why Secretary Kee and the Agriculture DAG don’t agree with this – and yes, a complaint was registered on this and the section pointed out to Secretary Kee.

Secretary Kee said he has no authority to inspect.  Once he did an announced inspection, and learned a lot.  He said the law was a good first step, but there was a problem between implementation and perception.

Senator Blevins stated that it was written with all the shelters input and agreement, so oversight and penalties were not included.  Everyone agreed it was “basic standards.”  But now she was concerned about “rogue shelters” like Mr. Usilton was talking about.  Originally, there were quarterly meetings concerning the standards, but Murrey Goldthwaite (former KCSPCA director) stopped participating.  So the Task Force is the next step.

                                                          

Secretary Kee said there are perceptions out there, the North Carolina laws might be something to look at.  He was asked what kind of funding for enforcement he would be comfortable with; Secretary Kee said he would defer to the Task Force and the will of the Governor.  A strong fiscal analysis was needed.

Mr. Petit de Mange said that he believed the TF needed to get a handle on this – it seems to be a serious cost driver for shelters, and the public is bewildered when they can’t take animals to a shelter.

Senator Blevins said there were a lot of issues – cats, colony caretakers – all on the schedule to discuss.

Mr. Petit de Manges agreed but said it was hard for the public to understand.  If cost is a factor, “put a number on it and figure out how to pay for it.”

Ms. Ranji said these were regulations – the government doesn’t pay for it.  This is what has to be done to run a shelter in Delaware.  To suddenly say meeting minimum care costs is something the government must pay for …..a non-profit has to decide whether they want to be a shelter or not.

Ms. Cavanaugh said that this (care standards) were not the problem – keeping animals for years was the cost driver.  It costs about $10 a day.  She also said that lower euthanasia rates equal donations.

Ms. Ranji said that somehow shelter standards have become equated with “no-kill” but that was not in the law.  In fact, there is nothing to prevent euthanasia.  People talk aboaut this law as if it stops them from euthanizing.  It was noted that all the shelters are full, and it takes time to care for the animals.  Ms. Pierantozzi stated that the law doesn’t say you have to hold an unadoptable animal indefinitely.

Mr. Usilton said that there is no definition of adoptable, so the KCSPCA has temperament tests.  He said that the KCSPCA will euthanize for medical or temperament problems. 

In fact, the KCSPCA temperament tests have been the subject of concern with individuals and rescue groups.  We researched temperament tests, and none of the “tests” used by the KCSPCA are mentioned.  Also, adopters have reported that the evaluations on the kennel cards of dogs they adopted were totally inaccurate.  One dog was listed as “shy” – but actually was seriously ill with pneumonia; one dog’s card said “no kids, no cats, no dogs” but he fit into her household of animals smoothly; a third said “good with kids, cats, dogs” but was aggressive and bit the adopter and a kitten. 

Mr. Usilton said that the KCSPCA has been told they are not in compliance.  He talked about cage space, and animals that are not good with other animals.  Senator Blevins asked about empty cages in reserve.  Ms. Gryczon said that the law did nto say you have to fill every single cage, there is flexibility.  She did not see the connection between empty cages and kill v. no-kill.

Mr. Petit de Mange said that even though the shelters are non-profit, the public expects a service; he asked where is the safety net for the public?

Mr. Usilton again said that the shelter standards were an unfunded mandate; if the law expects public service, how would it be paid for?

Mr. Lippman said that, as a public body, there were contractual obligations;  Mr. Petit de Mange said that contracts have a price.

Senator Peterson said that the law was not an unfunded mandate – this is what you have to do as a shelter in Delaware.  The State has regulations for any number of businesses and does not pay for their costs.

Ms. Pierantozzi suggested educating the public as to what services are available – creating the central resource center talked about previously.

There was discussion concerning operational funding, and what to charge, whether or not to “lump cats and dogs together.”  Ms.Cavanaugh said there is software that tracks this sort of information.  Ms. Gryczon said that since SH is new to dog control, they have no past statistics to base their estimates on, but it can be done; for example, the intake coordinator spends 75% of his time on dogs.  Kennel staff is separated anyway between the dogs and cats.

It was noted that before Ms. Cavanaugh became director at DESPCA, a lot of animals sat in cages needed medical care.  That isn’t the case any more.

Ms. Brown referred back to her comment about different licensing categories for kennels/shelters; she said it was Pennsylvania, not New Jersey.

Senator Blevins reviewed shelter operations requirements:  Open to the public evenings and weekends; 72 hours hold on an animal; check for identification (chip, license); post animals online; maintain a list of lost animals; maintain a list of rescue groups.  She asked f there were any problems, or if any of this was burdensome.  Senator Peterson noted that a central list for missing animals has been suggested (by Donna Watson, missing Dachsund Rudy).  Ms.Dwyer said it should be central and include all counties. 

It was asked what a rescue group is, how to determine its legitimacy.  Mr. Usilton noted that if you don’t know a particular shelter or rescue group exists, you don’t know where to check for a missing animal.  He said that the KCSPCA also posts on Craig’s List as well as their website.

Ms. Gryczon said SH has more reclaims (in order) in the field; Craig’s List, FaceBook, Website.

Ms. Cavanaugh said that DESPCA has a software program for animal health and microchip information, not paperbased.  Senator Blevins asked if it should be mandated?  Ms. Cavanaugh said it should be used.  Mr. Usilton asked if microchipping could be mandated; Delaware has a much higher return rate because of microchipping. 

It was noted that all five shelters microchip; Ms. Cavanaugh said that many owners didn’t register with the service, but the software can track the animal anyway.

Senator Blevins referred to an issue where a microchipped animal was returned to a previous owner based on a rabies tag rather than the current owner on the microchip; the dog was never returned to the microchip owner.

Ms.Dwyer asked about the cost of microchipping; Ms. Cavanaugh said it was part of the operating costs and in the adoption fee.  She felt it was a non-issue.  Mr. Usilton said that chips cost about $5, with another $5 for registration. (this would appear to be the cost for the shelters, it is not the cost through veterinarians or pet owners direct to service.)

It was again asked if microchipping should be mandated for the shelters; Ms. Blevins noted that they were all doing this already.  The question of a new shelter was mentioned again.  Senator Blevins and Rep. Jacques asked about the software program to track the chips; Ms. Cavanaugh said that the DESPCA does about 300 animals per year, and it is not burdensome.  Ms. Gryczo noted that it takes considerable time to get a shelter up and running, that there would be time to get a new shelter in compliance.  Ms. Dwyer said that this would be an additional cost to the counties.  Secretary Kee asked how the State would register microchips?  Now it is done by the shelters or adopter.  It was noted that some adopters don’t register. And that it would be up to the sehlters since the microchip is registered to the shelters and they can track them.  Ms. Dwyer said that a price should be put on it and it should be covered by the adopter.

Mr. Usilton then changed the subject to the hold times in the shelter standards.  He stated that in Philadelphia, an animal is held only 24 hours, reducing the cost to the muncipality.  Ms. Ranji noted that there two hold times in Delaware – 72 hours for owner reclamation, and 5 days (48 hours more) before an animal can be adopted out.  She asked if he was talking about the 72-hour hold.  Ms.Brown asked what the average hold time for strays was; Mr. Usilton said it depended on where you are.  Ms. Gryczon said that it could be very short  or very long – particularly if an animal gets out while people are on vacation.  It was also noted that cats are more of a problem, because people trap cats and turn them in as stray.  In one instance, a man called because he wife had taken his cats to the shelter.  Ms.Gryczon felt the more time you can give an animal, the better.  She said that Safe Haven has a self-imposed 7 days for an owner to reclaim.  Ms. Ranji said there had to be a balance, and she was more comfortable with hold times for dogs than cats.  Senator Blevins agreed, stating that cats are different, and most people don’t even worry about a cat for 24-hours.  Ms. Ryan noted that since there is no central location for owners to check, diminishing the time for owners to find an animal could be a problem.  Mr. Usilton said it would speed up the process for animal control.  Animal control takes up  a lot of space.  Senator Blevins suggested coming back to this later.

The euthanasia rules were reviewed;  no empty cages available, no rescue groups coming forward to take animal, and euthanasia must be done by trained personnel.  It was noted that no definition of the training was written in the regulations.  Mr. Usilton said that holding an unadoptable animal for 5 days holds up a cage.  The exception for immediate euthanasia is for animals who are suffering (injuries, illness).  He said if an animal has a history, such as biting, they take the animal for owner-requested euthanasia.  But if not euthanized, the animal is unadoptable.  He then mentioned the exceptions that had been questioned during an audit, where animals were euthanized to protect the staff.  However, the Attorney General’s Office said that if the owner says the animal is adoptable, they cannot euthanize.

(This was not entirely clear; it is not the first time Mr. Usilton has mentioned the AG’s Office with cryptic comments concerning an ongoing investigation into the KCSPCA by that office.)

Ms. Gryczon said that Safe Haven has taken animals from KCSPCA that were deemed aggressive, but found that was not necessarily the case.  Another TF member said that she had taken in a cat from an owner that appeared to become vicious, but after two weeks he was calmer and became the nicest cat.  She felt you had to give an animal the benefit of the doubt.

Senator Blevins asked about fees for pets relinquished by the owner.  Mr. Usilton said it was $20 at the KCSPCA; Ms. Cavanaugh said DESPCA asked for a $50 donation; Ms. Gryczon said they asked for a donation, but no specific amount.

(I believe this fee is double for Kent County residents.)

It was stated that 5 days was a better time to see the character of an animal to decide if it was adoptable.

Mr. Petit de Mange asked about the 2 hoarding cases that KCSPCA had handled over the summer, and what happens to those animals.  Mr. Usilton said they impounded 94 and 101 cats.  They must keep the animals for 90 days in an animal cruelty case, providing vaccinations.  If the owner surrenders the animals, they keep the cats in a cage and then euthanize.  He said that keeping the animals 5 days costs a lot of money.  He said they could stop taking in animals, then there would be no cost. 

Mr. Petit de Mange said he wanted to know what happened to the cats from hoarders – what were their chances of getting adopted?

Ms. Cavanaugh said that in a cruelty case, the animals have to be kept (for trial).  Ms. Ranji said that probably no holding period will be right.  Mr. Usilton asked that the TF look at the “no empty cages” part of the law.  He said it leads shelters to hold animals because “no empty cages” means you’re euthanizing.  He said it was hard to meet this standard for “open door” shelters, and hoarder cases flood the shelters.

(Hoarder cases that are animal cruelty cases only affect KCSPCA and DESPCA; no one else has the authority for that).

Senator Blevins asked for clarification – she didn’t understand how, even if there are 7 empty cages, an animal could not be euthanized if it was needed.  She asked how many cages were normally kept open;  Ms. Gryczon said just a couple (out of 55 dog kennels, and space in Kent County).  Mr. Carroll said that none of the shelters are keeping empty cages.  Senator Peterson suggested adding an exception for owner-surrendered or unadoptable animals.  Senator Blevins said that the requirements keeps the euthanasia rates down. 

Mr. Usilton said that if the KCSPCA stops doing animal cruelty cases, they will have a lot of empty cages.

Ms. Ranji said it wasn’t as simple as it seemed, and asked how we deem an animal unadoptable?  There has to be time enough to do a behavioral assessment.  Reality is that some animals never come around, some may be fine.  (changing the hold time) assumes you knew an animal was unadoptable; that’s the cost of this provision, giving the benefit of a reasonable amount of time to give an animal a shot (at being adopted).

Ms. Gryczon said that using the term “unadoptable” in a broad sweep is dangerous.  Mr. Usilton asserted that the 5-day hold shuts the door for new animals.  Ms. Ranji said that provision was always there.  Senator Blevins said that the regulations for were never written for certifying vet techs for euthanasia, that the State dropped the ball on that.  Mr. Usilton said that KCSPCA staff performing euthanasia pass a written test developed by a veterinarian. 

Mr. Usilton said that the KCSPCA has temperament tests that they apply to determine whether or not an animal is adoptable.   He also said that we have to understand where we were:  he stated that in 2003 the KCSPCA euthanized 16,000 animals.  Last year, only 892 animals were euthanized, all unhealthy.

(If the KCSPCA euthanized 16,000 animals in 2004, it comes out to 44 animals a day.  Yet in a news article this year, Mr. Usilton said they expected to handle 15,000 animals this year - more than ever before.  So if they actually euthanized 16,000 animals in 2004, how many did they handle?  I simply don't believe Mr. Usilton's statement, and feel that some way to verify it should be found, rather than accept it as truth in the official minutes of the Task Force.)

There was discussion concerning the record-keeping for the shelters, specifically in reference to euthanasia.  Senator Blevins said it was necessary, so we can understand where the animals are coming from and where they are going.  There were concerns regarding the possibility of someone lying in the records.  Mr. Usilton mentioned the cost of paper and making copies of the records.  It was noted that notice to the rescue groups was required to be electronic, and that the record keeping was required by law.  Ms. Ranji asked which took more time, accurate record keeping or dealing with an investigation?

There were comments to the effect that reviewing the record-keeping requirements could be done; and that the volume of paperwork caused conflicts and a cost that was passed on to the counties.  Ms. Ranji pointed out that this was required in the Code, and that KCSPCA is required to keep them anyway.  Ms. Usilton said yes, but only for basic things; the more detailed stuff required for verifications of compliance was the problem.  Ms. Ranji said again that it is required by the legislation.  She asked why notification to rescues was an issue, why it was not noted in the file (for euthanization records)?  It was stated that there were a few things to go back to in this meeting.

Rep. Jacques asked Secretary Kee to get a copy of the North Carolina law to Ms. Ryan so she could distribute it to the TF members.  Senator Blevins also asked for the PA, NJ and Calgary, Canada laws and said she was afraid they were going to “drown in paper.”

Senator Blevins then reviewed the format for the Public Hearing on November 29 at Legislative Hall (7-9 PM, Senate Chambers).  She stated that she would not make any lengthy opening statements, that public comments would be limited to time depending on how many people wish to speak, there would be no “give and take” and the proceedings would be recorded.

Mr. Petit de Mange asked where the hearing had been publicized; Ms. Ryan said only on the General Assembly’s public calendar.  Senator Blevins said they would do a press release as well.  Mr. Carroll asked if the paramaters could be limited to certain topics, otherwise it could be unpleasant and difficult.

The December meeting will cover animal control officers; January will review cats.

Public Comments:

Carol Furr made a statement specifically in answer to Kevin Usilton’s comments about the AG’s investigation into the euthanasia files.  She reported that she had been contacted by DAG Anthony Davolos in January to help him decipher the boxes and boxes of euthanasia records.  She also told Mr. Usilton that, despite the treatment she and other members of the public received when attending the KCSPCA Board meeting (where we must remain silent while they make derogatory remarks or call us names), now it was his turn to listen.  She stated that she was not going to be quiet or go away, and she was not giving up.

(The next day Mr. Usilton posted on the KCSPCA FB page that “a member of the public had a melt down” and must have had “a liquid lunch” and it was “very sad.”  When Ms. Furr’s husband spoke at the Public Hearing, referring to this post and reporting how Ms. Furr had been treated by the Board while she was a member, Mr. Usilton posted a comment about him, saying again that it was “sad.”)

My statement to the TF is below.  I prefaced my comments by saying that it was written before I heard the reasoning behind NOT including oversight authority in the laws, and that it may sound harsh, but I still intended to make the comments. 

My name is Cathy Samardza and I live in Kent County.  I’ve spoken before.  Some of you are on my e-mail list.  You all know that I, and the group of people I work with, believe an unbiased, unaffiliated panel should be formed to handle oversight of and complaints regarding the shelters and animal control officers. I have mentioned the bureaucratic run-around anyone with a complaint is put through under the present system.  And although complaints about shelter standards have been touched on before, today you actually discussed those standards.  And in December, you will be discussing animal control officers.  So this bears saying, even if you have heard it before.

Carol Furr - Sherene Lindo – Donna Lavelle – Patty Baker – Migdalia Santiago – Brandi Butler - Eileen Adams – Chris Kinzer - Canine Nation – The Kirchner family – Bruce Howard – David and Krista Lawson – Bobbie Swain – Rebecca Monroe – Dennis O’Sullivan – Carol Torrey – Doug Beatty – Astare Gannon – Christine Kenney – Sara LeBright – Constance Smith – The National Great Pyranees Rescue – Patty Westfall – Rick Shehorn – Phyllis Frank – Julie Wilson

These are all people who have complained about shelter conditions, procedures and/or animal control officers.  I am surprised that Secretary Kee said he has only had 5 complaints since CAPA has been in effect.  Because I have referred at least that many people to him since October 2011, and I know others were sent to him prior to that.  Several of us met with him in January 2012 – and we never heard from him again, despite his assurance that there would be follow up.

Most of these complaints have been regarding the KCSPCA, under both the previous and current directors, and a Board of Directors that has been in place for years.  Almost every named individual tried to make their complaint to that organization first, before reaching out to Secretary Kee, their county officials, state legislators and the Governor’s office. This list does not include those who have reported fiscal management concerns, missing drugs or equipment, or individuals who have asked to remain anonymous for fear of retaliation.

It has been suggested that the number of complaints we have is small when compared to the number of animals the KCSPCA has handled, and actually means that they are doing a good job.  First, we believe these complaints are the tip of the iceberg, not the totality.  Second, if any other  agency- particularly enforcement - had even ONE of these complaints, there would be an investigation.  There would be accountability.  But because this is dog control and animal welfare,  violations of standards set by law and abuse of power are being ignored by those who should be taking responsibility.   I have said this before – animal welfare and control is also about people.

The argument that any organization subject to CAPA laws is a private non-profit and not subject to oversight and enforcement of those laws makes a mockery of the DE Code.  And it does not sit well with any of us – the public.  The confusion and apathy regarding who has responsibility and authority to inspect the shelters - while representatives of two of those organizations  inspect commercial and retail kennels -  is suspect. The argument that the laws do not allow for oversight or monitoring of shelter operations or animal control officers with the power of arrest, and do not include penalties for violations, strikes us all as poorly written legislation, and we have to wonder at those who vetted the bills as ready to become law.   We ask that you pay attention to these details now, and recommend that the General Assembly rectify those problems and omissions.