News media and the Animal Welfare Task Force recommendations

Post Written by Cathy Samardza
Posted by Doug

Tuesday, May 7, 2013

THE NEWS MEDIA, THE ANIMAL WELFARE TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS, THE KCSPCA AND THE DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE                                                                                                              

This blog is my reaction to correspondence I have had with journalists who have written about the AWTF recommendations.  For those who have read any of my blogs before, this is new material related to a familiar theme.  For those who haven’t read my blogs, you don’t have to know what came before.  Sort of like a good book series – you can tell what’s going on even if you haven’t read the rest.

Please note that this is a very long document, because it includes certain e-mail streams in their entirety.  My e-mails are in blue italics, the reporters I corresponded with are in black italics.  My comments are in regular font, and occasionally bold.

The Kent County SPCA director and board president are extensively quoted in the news media.  When no one else is quoted, that is only valid reporting when those stories are human interest articles about the KCSPCA.  

When a story concerns the Statewide Animal Welfare Task Force and its recommendations, and only Kevin Usilton and Alex Moore are quoted in the article, that is bias.  Readers should expect actual reporting, including research to ensure that an article about such a Statewide issue is accurate and that any quotes are in context (as in, let your readers know that the KCSPCA is publicly lobbying against those recommendations and shelter standards).

Recently the Cape Gazette  printed an article about the AWTF recommendations.  It was written by Rachel Swick Mavity.  http://capegazette.villagesoup.com/p/993498Task force aims to create new office to oversee animal issues - By Rachel Swick Mavity

capegazette.villagesoup.com

There are a lot of things wrong with this article – starting with the very beginning.  The Public Hearing was held in November, NOT December, and the reporter was in attendance.   So I commented on the Cape Gazette online page, and posted my comments elsewhere on FaceBook. 

The public hearing was in November, not December. The recommendations call for rabies exemptions for BOTH cats and dogs who are unable to tolerate the vaccine, as certified by a vet. This was in response to a member of the public at the November hearing. The KCSPCA has only referred to HSUS testing dogs once - and HSUS state director will not discuss it. At one of the AWTF meeting, the KCSPCA director stated that they test the animals based on their own criteria - which have been challenged and criticized a number of times. He has also lobbied to reduce the hold time for stray/lost animals and to be allowed to euthanize healthy animals without a vet exam when surrendered for euthanasia by the owners - to which the DVMA rep said vets do not euthanize healthy animals simply because they are unwanted. Rachel Swick Mavity, I think you need to do a better job researching your articles.

 But I really had problems with the article, so I e-mailed the reporter.

 On May 1, 2013, at 2:16 PM CSamardza wrote:

I believe someone should have done a better job fact-checking your article.  The AWTF public hearing was held in November, not December. 

The AWTF recommendations include rabies exemptions for cats AND dogs that are unable to tolerate the vaccine, as certified by a vet.  This was in response to a dog owner who attended the public hearing, because he is unable to get his dog licensed due to her allergy to the vaccine.

You quoted the KCSPCA in your article regarding temperament testing.  The KCSPCA director stated in one of the AWTF meetings that they have their own criteria for temperament testing animals, and the test is given by their own staff.  These criteria and the testing have been the subject of criticism and complaints.  The KCSPCA recently stated, in the April board meeting, that HSUS tested 23 dogs for them.  The HSUS state director, Hetti Brown, would not comment on this when I asked her via e-mail.  There was never any mention of HSUS testing KCSPCA animals at any of the AWTF meetings.  Did you check this information with Ms. Brown?

You quote KCSPCA leadership as stating that the AWTF is trying to fix something that isn't broken.  Just because the KCSPCA has the dog control contract in 2 counties, and can provide kennel inspections for those counties, does not mean there are no problems with the system.  More importantly, the proposed AW office will ALSO have the authority to inspect the shelters, and enforce the shelter standards laws in Title 3 - which currently are NOT enforced due to an omission of language in the legislation.  And shelters are currently specifically exempt from kennel inspections under Title 9.

Did you ask any of the other shelter directors their opinion of the recommendations?  I realize that KCSPCA has the Sussex County dog control contract, and also that Sussex County Council wants to give it back to the State; but the quote from Hal Godwin about an "unfunded mandate" is another chorus of the song that Kevin Usilton has been singing about the shelter standards laws since he began at the KCSPCA  (and which, by the way, he was told in one of the AWTF meetings, are similar to regulations governing any other industry doing business in Delaware, not an unfunded mandate).

Sincerely,

Ms. Mavity’s response:

Hi Catherine - 

I am sorry you found my article so off-base. I interviewed Alex Moore of KCSPCA and got the information from him in the quotes. I attempted to get in touch with Safe Haven in Sussex, but did not hear back. Those are the two dog control agencies in our area. Mr. Moore is entitled to his opinion, as are you. If you would like to write a Letter to the Editor, please feel free to do so. Send it to newsroom@capegazette.com and include your name, town you live in, and phone number.

The November vs. December was just a slight slip-up on my part - I was at the hearing and I believe talked to you then. Other than that error, I do not see any specific factual errors in my article. I had the recommendations in hand, outlined them in the story, and talked to our local dog control group. While you may not agree with Mr. Moore, it does not mean it is a factual error. I did factually report what he said. 

Rachel Swick Mavity
Reporter and Page Designer
Cape Gazette newspaper

Ms. Mavity passed off reporting the wrong date – of an event she attended – as a “slight slip-up” and said she corrected it on the on-line version of the article.  Shouldn’t a reporter check the accuracy of dates in an article before going to print?   I checked my calendar before I commented.  

This lack of attention to detail, let alone the bias of the article in only reporting what the KCSPCA has to say about the recommendations, does not engender confidence in the quality of this reporter’s work, or the Cape Gazette’s editing staff.

And while she may have quoted Mr. Moore accurately, to print his comments on the AWTF recommendations without noting that the KCSPCA has been lobbying against them does not tell the whole story.

I was impressed, however, that she took the time to contact me right away.  So I e-mailed her back:

On May 1, 2013, at 3:32 PM, CSamardza wrote:

Thank you for your response, but I notice you make no mention of the quotes regarding temperament testing and the HSUS. Also, Mr. Moore may be entitled to his opinion, but printing his opinion without comment from any of the other 20+ AWTF members is a rather one-sided and biased story.

And while I may write a letter to the editor, I have found that once a newspaper in Delaware takes such an obvious position, letters to the editor in opposition are often ignored or drastically edited.

This was Ms. Mavity’s response:

Catherine Samardza

 I am looking into it. I did call Safe Haven but got no response. I made several calls on the story - are you on the task force and want to do an interview? 

Is there another Sussex person on the task force that would want to comment for a story?

It seems I only get lambasted on these stories after I try to get comments and no one comments. Then it's all furor because only KCSPCA commented. 

I apologize, but it is frustrating for us reporters too. I read the recommendations and got the information I could from that. I read the minutes from the task force and attended the public hearing. If I weren't trying to be objective I would have ignored all of that. 

I will try to contact Hetti Brown and HSUS about the temperament testing issue. Other than that, I fixed the date of the hearing and the vaccination of dogs and cats in the online version. I want to work with everyone, but it is kind of disconcerting when I am getting attacked all over the Internet for a story that I worked hard on and tried to get as many people to comment in. We are a Sussex paper so of course I went to my Sussex sources. In past articles I have used people from out of the county and been attacked for that. It's a no-win situation for me. I hope you understand that.

Also, the Cape Gazette does minor editing to Letters to the Editor. As long as they aren't attacking one person - which we could be liable for - then they are published in a timely manner. I think you must be confusing us with some of those other papers. 

I think it is interesting that Ms. Mavity, a reporter in public news media, is so sensitive to criticism that she finds it frustrating when people comment negatively on her stories.

Also, please note that several months ago the Cape Gazette printed a letter from Marlene Oetzel that attacked Safe Haven Animal Sanctuary and its director.  No one at the paper seemed worried about libel or liability then.  So maybe they would print a letter from me in its entirety. Who knows?  Maybe I’ll try.  And yes, in the past my letters to the Dover Post and DE State News have been edited to take out any mention of complaints against the KCSPCA – including the information regarding threats against me (and others) by Kevin Usilton through electronic media (not only have many of us saved these e-mails, it was reported to the Attorney General’s Office). 

My response to Ms. Mavity:

 I do understand about the Sussex viewpoint, but......this is a statewide issue. And one problem with the TF - which I made public comment about at the September 2012 meeting - was the unbalance of members from NCC vs. Kent and Sussex. I believe there were only 3 from each of the lower counties, and KC lost one when Lincoln Willis lost his election.

Since this is a SW task force, that could give you some leeway for comments from outside Sussex County. Also, DESPCA has a Georgetown location - did you call them? Safe Haven may not want to comment because the KCSPCA supporters and others did a number on them at the public hearing, and both before and after the previous director left. I don't know if anyone else from the TF would be willing to give an interview, but the members are listed in the recommendations. Besides Hetti Brown, one in particular is Jennifer Ranji - who assisted Senator Blevins in writing the shelter standards laws.

I am not a member of the TF, although I attended 6 of the 8 meetings and the public hearing.  I work with a group of people; collectively we attended 7 of the 8 meetings and the public hearing. And we made public comment in response to discussions at the table every month.

 One of those comments was to the effect that the AWTF could not fix the animal welfare and control system in Delaware because it wasn't broken - it was never a cohesive whole to begin with. Another was to tell the TF that Kevin Usilton had lied to them, telling them that Philadelphia Animal Control only held stray animals for 24 hours; in fact they have a mandatory 48 hours for dogs (and I have the e-mail to prove it).

 KCSPCA formed the DE Animal Care and Control section of their organization to take advantage of the State decision that the counties provide dog control - to provide income for their organization. While the counties must use Title 9 as the basis for their dog control, there is room in the law for them to amend and add to the requirements. In my experience, the counties never really looked at the Code, they just wanted someone to take care of the problem and awarded the contract to the KCSPCA, because they were the only bidder at that time. KCSPCA has lost sight of the fact that limited contracts are not a sure thing; they have complained bitterly that Safe Haven and the KC Levy Court "took" their contract. In fact they lost the bid because they walked out of a meeting with KCLC rather than answer questions regarding how the money would be spent. Then lied about it repeatedly in print. They have refused to do animal welfare in Kent County since July 2012 because "we don't have a (financial) relationship with them" (quote from more than one board meeting). They are also the only shelter saying that the CAPA laws are an unfunded mandate and have been attacking Senator Blevins and the AWTF recommendations since March, including an end-run around the Task Force with a letter to the legislators. When you print what the KCSPCA has to say without other comments, or noting that history, it is a one-sided and biased article, no matter what your intention.

I appreciate that you are between a rock and a hard place - but this issue - in the long run - is about people as much as it is about animals, and it deserves clear, balanced and factual reporting.

 I have not heard back from Ms. Mavity. 

I also exchanged e-mails with James Fisher, who wrote an article about the AWTF recommendations for the News Journal.http://www.delawareonline.com/article/20130422/NEWS/304190009/Delaware-task-force-proposes-new-leash-dogs-lives

My e-mail to JF on 4/22/13

I am a member of the public who attended most of the AWTF meetings. I am part of a group who has been calling for accountability of the animal control officers and for compliance with the Companion Animal Protection Act (CAPA) collectively since 2011.

Your article on the Animal Welfare Task Force, based as it is on the final recommendations and a featured quote from Kevin Usilton, barely skims the surface of what is going on with this issue.

The KCSPCA and the DESPCA are the ONLY two shelters (DE has 5 shelters that are run by non-profit organizations on property owned or leased by the organization) that have legislative authority for investigating and enforcement of animal cruelty cases. IF the case is won in court, the SPCA involved receives the penalties and fees assessed. However, in the meantime, they must hold any animals impounded as evidence, bearing the cost of caring for them. This is the only real instance where there is a State mandate that the shelters involved are not being paid. I do believe that the financial aspect of this service should be addressed. However, the law calls for the police - state, municipal or county - to also investigate animal cruelty reports. They always defer to the SPCAs. The system needs an overhaul, particularly because there are documented reports of officers from both organizations refusing to investigate cruelty reports.

In addition, the KCSPCA, the DESPCA and Safe Haven are all authorized by their contracts with the counties and the City of Wilmington to enforce Title 9 and Wilmington dog control requirements. And here is where things get interesting and why State oversight of the animal control officers/dog wardens is necessary. There is no consistent training given to these officers, they have arrest authority, carry batons and, according to the Governor's office and others (notably the KCSPCA board), they are answerable only to their private non-profit board. The proposed office would have responsibility for developing training for and oversight of these officers.

Secretary Kee and members of the AWTF have also said that despite the laws that make up CAPA (spread across several DE Code chapters), there is no authority in the law to inspect the shelters or enforce any of the provisions. The proposed office would have that authority.

You should also be aware that of the 5 shelters and their directors, ONLY Kevin Usilton has said the State should pay the shelters for the animal welfare services that they were formed as non-profits to provide. Only Kevin Usilton has said the CAPA requirements cost the KCSPCA money, and only Kevin Usilton has lobbied to REDUCE the amount of time an animal should be held at the shelter before euthanasia. 

There is currently no legal definition of "unadoptable" and no requirement to use national best practices in evaluating an animal that is brought into the shelters. The KCSPCA has been the subject of a number of complaints - and lawsuits - regarding their "temperament tests" and euthanizing animals based on these tests. Mr. Usilton also feels they should be able to euthanize animals based only on an owner's request. At the last AWTF meeting, the DVMA rep told him that no veterinarian will euthanize a healthy animal just because it is unwanted.

Before you use quotes from Kevin Usilton as a basis for any future articles on this issue, you may want to bear in mind that he has openly offered to violate Delaware law in his bid for Kent County dog control, lied to the AWTF about hold times in Philadelphia, and has been lobbying against the AWTF recommendations for months, because the consensus of the group did not go his way.

No, I am not a fan of the KCSPCA. But every statement I have made here has witnesses - and the official minutes of the AWTF - to back me up. I believe that we have a long way to go, but the proposed new office is a first step in addressing complaints against ANY shelter or animal control officer - both of which are needed here in Delaware.

Mr. Fisher’s response 4/22/13:

Catherine- thanks for reading the story and providing me with carefully thought-out comments on it.

We have reported the recent lawsuit accusing the KCSPCA of mistreating animals and being too quick to euthanize, and we're watching to see what happens with it in court, certainly.

I did see the sections of the report addressing animal control officer training, and the story does mention the proposal in the report to develop statewide standards for ACOs. I was interested by the reports of people feeling threatened by ACOs in some encounters- would like to learn more about that problem.

The story also reports, as you note, that the report encourages inspections of shelters, which don't know happen, and would give the new office that authority.

James Fisher

Reporter, The News Journal

 As with Ms. Mavity, I was initially impressed that he took the time to respond.

My response to him on 4/22/13

Thanks for responding. In January 2012 we documented many complaints concerning the KCSPCA - including abuse of power of the animal control officers and photos of the conditions at the shelter - and delivered the materials to every elected official, the Cape Gazette, the Dover Post, the DE State News and the Dover office of the News Journal. We have also contacted Doug Denison, Antonio Prada and Chris Flood. And met with Secretary Kee. All to no avail. So I'm a little skeptical of the "wait and see" approach. If you are really interested in knowing more about the abuse of power and intimidation I/we would be glad to talk to you. This was ongoing under Murrey Goldthwaite and continued under Kevin Usilton - and keep in mind that the ranking officer under both directors was/is Brian Whipple. One of my concerns when the AWTF discussed animal control officers - which I made public comment about - was that no one asked regarding complaints about/concerning the officers. It was all focused on cruelty and Title 9 investigations. And 2 of the worst officer-abuse cases - under Murrey Goldthwaite - were settled in favor of the complainant but included a non-disclosure agreement. Fortunately, both told their story to others BEFORE the NDA, and since Delaware is so small, I also was able to find people who could verify the reports. Other reports include arrest for dog-at-large charges never cited, and in which the officers never found the dogs loose, removal of children from a home on the say-so of an animal control officer, arrest for terroristic threatening when a homeowner became upset that an ACO entered his home without permission.......all complaints where little-to-nothing was done to help these people (1 legislator and 1 KCLC commissioner helped constituents get their dogs out of impound). Telling people to hire a lawyer - at a minimum of $2,500 retainer - is not feasible in this economy.

Still want to hear more?

I have not heard back from Mr. Fisher.  Not so impressed with either reporter any more.

For those who are new to my blogs, some background (for everyone else, a review):  In January 2012 we (the group of people I have been working with since 2011) sent over 22 documented complaints to every elected official in Delaware (State and counties) and to the Cape Gazette, the DE State News, the Dover Post and the Dover office of the News Journal.  We have been told by some of those people that they never got the materials.  I find that strange, because they were hand delivered to the offices, county seats and Legislative Hall.  We have also sent information to Leanne Matlach (WBOC), Angelica Spanos (WBOC), Doug Denison (News Journal) and a Philadelphia TV station.  All of whom said they were interested.  Then – nothing.

Although the original complaints were of problems under the KCSPCA’s previous director, please remember that many members of the KCSPCA Board remain the same.  Some have been on the Board for well over 20 years. Under the current director, many of the old problems have been ongoing, and new complaints have been made.  While the number of complaints finding their way to me has reduced since Safe Haven became the dog control vendor for Kent County, complaints concerning the KCSPCA have not disappeared completely.

The KCSPCA leadership and employees would like you to think that the reason no one has responded to these complaints is because:

-          We are disgruntled pet owners and former board members

-          We are a small group of people with private agendas

-          We are a group of fringe extremists of the no-kill movement

I find the last particularly funny:  No-Kill Delaware has banned me from their page, because I am not a no-kill advocate.  I am a civil rights advocate because of the abuse of power that has been demonstrated by the KCSPCA animal control officers, and the violations of Delaware law evidenced by the KCSPCA shelter.  Do I support no-kill?  I have been involved in cat rescue since I lived in Queens, NY, back in the late 1980s.  What do you think?

I was contacted by one reporter last year, but his comments and questions were clearly geared to supporting the KCSPCA.  Specifically, he said that since the KCSPCA handles 15,000 animals a year, only 22 complaints (back in January 2012) means they are doing a good job. First, there are more complaints – many people are/were afraid to come forward; some told their stories, then refused to let us use their names.  Second, we believe that that this is only the tip of the ice berg – that it is only about 10% of the complaints that are really out there.  We believe there are complaints lost out there partly because complaints to the KCSPCA are excused, belittled or ignored and partly because none of the State agencies giving the KCSPCA authority will take responsibility.  So where do people go to file a complaint?  And third, many of us question the KCSPCA figures.  Based on their posted statistics, they do not handle 15,000 animals a year – so either they are lying, or they are not documenting all the animals that come through the shelter – which is required by law.  Some of those who wish to remain anonymous are former employees who have told us that many animals are killed without documentation. And we are not the only ones who have questioned the KCSPCA statistics. 

Secretary Kee told the AWTF that he only had 5-6 complaints since the shelter standards laws have been implemented.  In 2012 alone we know of a dozen people who contacted him with complaints against the KCSPCA.  That doesn’t count the earlier ones we sent to him – and met with him about - in January 2012.  And we know that Safe Haven detractors made complaints to him about that shelter.  Why is he lying about the number of complaints?  He recently told someone else that he only has 3 complaints against the KCSPCA.  Strange, how the number is going down……is the Dept. of Agriculture treating complaints like points on a driver’s license?  But it’s all a moot point; no matter how many complaints Secretary Kee gets, he apparently does not have the authority to enforce the laws put in place under Title 3.

You may not believe everything I have written in this blog, or any other.  But I am not a lone voice in the wilderness.  There are others also working to hold the KCSPCA accountable. I have posted notes about the KCSPCA Board meetings and the AWTF meetings – meetings which were attended by others who reviewed those notes for accuracy. 

This group of activists includes an elected official, a nurse, 2 vet techs, 4 former KCSPCA board members (including one of the vet techs), a woman who works with horses professionally, a man who has worked in law enforcement, a stay-at-home mom, and 2 of us are administrative professionals.  Some of us don’t have cats, some of us don’t have dogs, some have both.  Some of us aren’t actively involved in rescue, others are.

If we can do all this work and research, why can’t Delaware’s journalists?  What kind of journalist or reporter are you if you can’t check your facts or look into complaints that range from violation of animal welfare laws to civil rights abuse by animal control officers?  Or note that the people you are quoting in your article about Task Force recommendations have publicly argued against those recommendations?

The point of all this is that there is obviously a problem with the news media and most of the elected officials in Delaware.  They refuse to investigate any of the many complaints that we have brought to their attention.  At the very least, you would think that someone would have stepped up to look into this.  Even if that someone only wanted to try to prove us wrong, an investigation that involves more than asking the KCSPCA leadership about the complaints is warranted.

And I want to be very clear:  to our knowledge, there has been absolutely no follow up from any news media journalist and very little from any of the elected or appointed officials.   The KCSPCA leadership and supporters have said that since nothing has come out of the complaints, they were baseless.  A complaint cannot be determined baseless unless there is an investigation.  What we have heard from Secretary Kee and the AWTF is that there is no authority to enforce the shelter standards laws.  That is very different from saying a complaint has been investigated and is unfounded.

As one of our group said last year:  “Either there are an awful lot of us out here with nothing better to do than lie about the KCSPCA, or there is a problem with the KCSPCA.”

And, as evidenced by their continued silence, that problem encompasses our elected officials and the news media in Delaware.

Get it right!

By Cathy Samardza

 In a series of comments on the delaware online forum under Doug Denison's article, J. Jacob Carter believes that FOIA is a burden that all shelters will soon have to deal with.  I don't believe that, because the two SPCAs in the State have to comply with FOIA mainly because of enforcement authority (which JJC argues, as well).  But even IF the other 3 Delaware shelters were required to comply with FOIA, what burden ensues? If a shelter is having a board meeting, how is it a burden to allow members of the public to sit in?

   If someone requests information subject to FOIA, the shelter is allowed to charge for
reasonable costs related to that request (and if the request has to do with information they
are required to make public anyway, there should be no significant staff time involved).
JJC is unhappy with the shelter standards laws that were written without authority for
enforcement, and because of the foster/adopt S/N loophole - but is critical of the formation
of the Animal Welfare Office that would be tasked with that enforcement.  JJC often
posts and blogs that the shelter standards, or CAPA laws, are an unfunded mandate and a
conspiracy of the no kill movement.


I agree that the shelter standards laws should have been written better.  The foster loophole in the S/N section should be closed.   I don't, however, see those laws either as part of a conspiracy or as an unfunded mandate.    They are industry regulations.  For example, doctors and contractors are required to have specific insurance.  I’m sure there are regulations for hospitals and other types of businesses as well.  Some of them are even nonprofit.  Should they be paid for compliance with the laws?



But I am not a no kill advocate, and I am not a conspiracy theorist.  And I have seen nothing that makes me  believe that the DE shelter standards laws are part of some NK conspiracy.

I believe that transparency and accountability are crucial when employees of a private nonprofit agency are given arrest authority.  Representatives of BOTH SPCAs stated during an AWTF meeting that training for their officers is not standardized between agencies and that even within a particular agency the training may differ.  I don't agree with JJC  that all dog wardens - or anything else you call them - need to have access to DelJIS.  And those that do should be supervised by actual law or code enforcement officers.

  Kent County chooses to have their dog wardens go through KC code enforcement officers to
cite violations.   There is no point in complaining that SH is not DelJIS certified.  It doesn’t matter.
JJC also complains that SH is not picking up as many dogs as KCSPCA did.  Others have
complained that SH does not patrol the way KCSPCA did.  Well, the KCLC contract calls
for response to calls for dogs at large.

  It doesn’t called for patrols.  It never called for
patrols.  If KCSPCA sent their officers out on patrols, it was on their own authority.  If
SH is really not responding to calls, please report them to their Board and the KCLC.  But
– one of the first complaints I ever received about SH not picking up dogs?  The person
complaining to me said she was “too busy” to call it in.  Hmmm…..As an aside, I have asked this question before, with no response.

  The KCSPCA patrols NC and Sussex counties under dog control contracts.  They investigate animal to human bites under a contract with the Division of Public Health as rabies investigations.  They investigate animal cruelty cases under Title 11 as authorized under Title 3 of the Delaware Code.  They are sworn to NCC, I am assuming they are sworn to Sussex; who are they sworn to for their State authority?  And when they show up at your house on shelter business – in uniform, with badge and weapon – by whose authority are they acting under color of law?

JJC accuses KCLC Commissioner Sweeney of trying to stir up trouble in Sussex County, when there have been no complaints there.  Well, there HAVE been complaints out of Sussex County, but, like so many of JJC's colleagues, they did not want to come forward publicly.  The one question that WAS brought to Sussex County's attention was dismissed by them as a misunderstanding.

Regarding the SH “insiders” that JJC refers to; there have also been KCSPCA “insiders.”  They are dismissed as “disgruntled” former employees or board members.  Arguing as devil’s advocate here, shouldn’t the same standards apply?  Why should SH’s “insiders” be believed, and those from the KCSPCA ridiculed?

   KCSPCA leadership is accusing three of us of defamation and libel and threatening us with charges and lawsuits.  Yet all we have done is posted complaints brought to us or posted elsewhere, our personal notes of the KCSPCA board meetings and the AWTF meeting.   We have talked or blogged about our personal experiences, and about the NCC audit, a public document created by an independent auditor.

 JJC has blogged with what amount to personal attacks on some of us, Commissioner Sweeney, the NCC auditor and the attorney who has filed suit against the KCSPCA.  The KCSPCA posts links to those blogs.  Who is defaming whom?

But if you have a valid complaint – against ANY shelter or dog control provider, or animal control officer - you need to shout until you are heard.  Valid complaint.  Complaining that SH does not have a vet on staff - which is not required by law and was discussed @ the AWTF - is not a valid complaint.  If you believe that all shelters should HAVE a vet on staff, then say so.  Lobby for it.

I want to note here that when I began this journey, I thought the KCSPCA leadership would be willing to listen, to investigate the complaints we brought to them, and respond in some appropriate manner.  That didn’t happen.  Then we thought, KC Levy Court needs to know that they should manage this contract better, and went to them.

   No one was out to “get” the KCSPCA.  But the KCSPCA attitude, the arrogance, the refusal to be accountable – that is a problem.  In my personal and direct experience with 3 other shelters, when I contact a director or  board member, they respond.  When I’m reporting a problem, they get back to me with what they did to fix that problem.  So things don’t escalate to the news or social media.

Valid complaints should be reported, recorded and investigated - by someone outside the any shelter’s chain of command.  But that's not happening.   The Animal Welfare Office will be tasked with that – to inspect shelters, enforce shelter standards, develop training for the animal control officers, and hear and investigate complaints against those officers.

But if you have a complaint, you need to step up and say, this is who I am, and this is what happened.  Don’t hide behind fake names, don’t make excuses and say there’s no point in coming forward.  Don’t argue your case with half-truths.  Don’t argue that violations of one shelter should be pursued while complaints against another are ignored.  And honestly, why should  anyone take you seriously if you’re not willing to identify yourself?

   Document your complaints in writing. And if you want the respect of being taken seriously, maybe
you should stop making fun of the complaints that others make.