FSAC/KCSPCA BOARD MEETING 03/10/14 NOTES

 

Five of us attended this meeting:  Catherine Samardza, Peter Siracuse, Crystal Sweeney, Julie Wilson and Carol Furr.  Our comments in parens and italics.

 

Treasurer’s Report:

Frank Newton reported that he hadn’t received a report (from the accounting firm) until that morning.  42% of the way through the year, 44% of income received, only 35% of expenses.

 

He noted an anomaly concerning payroll taxes.  A board member said that Wilmington has a wage tax (Wilmington contract has been signed, this will affect their bookkeeping regarding salaries).

 

Board President Alex Moore said that the Wilmington contract now gave them animal control for the entire state.  (actually, the contracts are for dog control, not animal control)

 

Board members had questions concerning un-named expenses and income; they were told it was “miscellaneous” and “unallocated.”  The executive director started to talk about “vehicles that we purchased.”  Mr. Moore asked if he wanted to discuss that during the Treasurer’s Report;   the executive director said no.  The report was adopted by the board.

 

(Why would a financial report have unspecified expenses listed?  Why wouldn’t you discuss a vehicle purchase during this section?  Doesn’t matter, they never mentioned the vehicles up again.)

 

Mr. Newton announced that the board needed to pass a resolution to open an account with the Delaware Community Foundation (discussed last month, an endowment account).  It was noted that restricted funds (such as bequests that specify what the money can be spent on) should all go into this fund.  It was reported that the DCF has had a good return rate on its investments, and that the Dover office was run by Donna Stone, who is “a supporter of us.”  The account would be opened with $20,000.00; $5,000.00 is the minimum amount.  The interest return would be 3%, and since the DCF meets with donors all the time, they could direct any donations meant for animals to the KCSPCA fund.  Mr. Newton read the resolution aloud to the board and after some further discussion, it was passed.

 

Fundraising Committee

Carol Kisner reported that they made more money than they though at the Dover Downs event.

 

They are getting ready for the race, but did not realize they had to reserve the pavilion at Killen’s Pond.  They are working on that now.  They are deciding on the color for the t-shirts – navy, or blue and white.  Ms. Newton asked that the names of the sponsors on the back of the shirts all be a similar size and spacing.  Ms. Kisner said that it is a different vendor this year, and the shirts will be different.  It was noted that the sponsor names on the shirts needed to be all the same size, all the same price, to be fair.  Mr. Moore asked if the committee had done pledge sheets yet; Ms. Kisner reported that Lisa Chase (director of development) has a letter to go with the sheets, but it is not out yet. 

There was discussion about the next Evening for Animals, and alternate venues other than Dover Downs.  There were further comments about discontinuing the oyster dinner and contacting sponsors for other events.

 

Nominating Committee

The chair of this committee was unable to call in to the meeting, so there was no report.

 

Executive Director’s Report

The executive director reported that 171 animals were adopted in February, the second-highest month for adoptions.  The adoption fee was reduced to $20.14 for “pitties and kitties.”  97 dogs were returned to owners, 74 were euthanized and 13 were transferred.  He (again) reported that the transfer fees to rescues were dropped, and that pitbulls “were always free.”

 

It was asked “why are rescues pulling form other states and not us?” 

 

(This question would seem to indicate that the board members don’t know what’s going on; many rescues would love to pull from the KCSPCA, but they are not “approved” by the director.)

 

The director also said that the public needs to be educated about cats and owner-responsibilities.

 

He reported that he met with Hetti Brown, director of the Office of Animal Welfare, and she is interviewing for a Deputy Director, an enforcement officer, a program coordinator and an administrative specialist.  The office staff will also include a contractual vet.  The office will provide oversight for animal welfare and the spay neuter program. 

 

Paul Davis (KCLC liaison nominated and appointed by KCSPCA) asked about the dangerous dog panel (actually called the Dog Control Panel). Mr. Usilton explained that the counties are tasked with appointing members to this board, and that FSAC cannot serve on the panel because “we generate the complaints” (through dog control contracts).  He said he has asked the counties to appoint members but nothing has happened.  He also reported that most people surrender a dog that is dangerous, and the New Castle County law is more stringent on this matter than the State.  Mr. Davis suggested that rather than leaving it to the counties, to reach out to FSAC membership.  He said he was surprised they haven’t considered this.  Mr. Usilton explainted that the language in the law is very specific; a veterinarian, an animal behaviorist and a K-9 officer must serve on the panel.  He also noted that he had served on the panel, along with Beth Petersen, who was the chair.  Mr. Davis suggested that maybe the legislation could be changed to allow for a bigger panel, made up of people who like animals, like “our membership.”

 

(Despite Mr. Usilton’s explanation, Mr. Davis did not seem to realize that anyone on the board or a member of the FSAC/KCSPCA is precluded from this panel because of the conflict of interest.  Also, I have e-mails from Ms. Petersen indicating that the panel did not examine or interact with the dogs themselves, that they depended on and found in favor of the animal control officer’s report.  Why have a panel, then?)

 

Mr. Usilton reported that the shelter passed the annual insurance inspection, and that today (March 10) was Sherry Warburton’s first day as chief of animal control.  He also commented that she was handed a lot of issues to deal with. (Julie Wilson’s complaint regarding the treatment of the elderly chihuahua on the catchpole, among others.)

 

Board members were referred to the list of names sent to them by Ms. Chase.  The list is for review, to remove people who may have died.  Ms. Chase is also considering renting a solicitation list to add new names to the mailing list.  Ms. Chase is also working on a new draft brochure, all aimed at doubling adoptions for June, July and August (Rachael Ray Challenge time frame).

 

The FSAC received a $125K grant from the Longwood Foundation for kennels and a property fence. 

 

They have been spending $2K a month on all their printers and copy machines, and are getting a quote to update the equipment.  They hope to reduce costs by half - $900  from $1800.  They are actively looking for a full-time veterinarian.  Right now they have 3 part-time vets and work with an animal hospital.  Mr. Usilton noted that it has been difficult, because when anyone googles the FSAC/KCSPCA it’s a nightmare.  He said that Chester County SPCA has been getting similar press, and found a newly graduated vet for their staff. 

 

Mr. Moore again asked if they could change the bylaws.  Mr. Schwartz said that written notice of the change, including the language to be used, must be given to board members in advance of the next meeting.  He said that should go out in the next few days for next month (April 2014.  They’ve been talking about this for months.  How hard is it to get this together?)

 

New Business

There was discussion concerning the NC and Wilmington contracts.  The NC County contract has been signed.  Mr. Moore said that the amount of time to negotiate was 3 months, back and forth.  Mr. Usilton said they signed on January 5 or something (for  January 1 start date).  Mr. Moore  said that they told NCC how long it would take, and they didn’t care.  He complained that they have negotiated a contract with somebody every month all year, and it is a waste of time.  Mr. Davis asked if there was that much difference between counties, couldn’t one contract for all 3 counties at the same price work?  Mr. Moore said that he wants to meet with the Governor to explain what’s going on and see if they can’t have a state agency to make and apportion out the cost between the counties.  He said that all the counties are onboard with this and would love to do it.   Mr. Usilton said a lot had to do with the politicians and lawyers that are involved in the councils.  For example, Sussex wanted to add a barking dog ordinance, but they have the least animal control (dog control, people, dog control!) support in the State, and didn’t want to pay $30,000 for the additional service.  And now people are angry that there is no enforcement.   “I think that part of the Office of Animal Welfare, and why Alex met with Ed Kee to start that process to get them,  the State to take over for dog control.  They will have an animal control officer but they don’t want to take over animal control because it’s too expensive.” 

 

(Not sure I’m following here, why talk to Secretary Kee of the Dept. of Agriculture about this?  Isn’t responsibility for shelter standards being transferred to DHSS/Office of Animal Welfare?  Dog control has never been under Agriculture, to my knowledge.  I thought it went from DNREC to the counties - CSamardza)

 

Mr. Usilton also said that “we bear the brunt of aggravation that comes with it.” People who are happy don’t come forward.  People who are unhappy because there is not strong enough enforcement, or we’re enforcing pet owners too much complain, so we bear the brunt of those complaints but “some people go to the County because they’re friendly with someone there” but for the most part dispatch handles complaints.

 

Mr. Davis said again, they could incorporate all 3 counties into one contract.  Mr. Moore said he could call him later to talk about that.

 

(But the counties are different sizes in area and population, and seem want different things from dog control.)

 

It was noted that the board made sure they were not losing money on the contracts.  Mr. Usilton  e-mailed everyone the materials, so they could see the process, “could see what we went through.”  He also said that the City of Wilmington came to them after DESPCA fired their executive director and discontinued service to Wilmington.  He said he asked Wilmington about the $250,000 for a shelter, and was told that they were promised a “a lot of stuff” and nothing ever happened.

 

Mr. Moore said that the contracts are for dog control, and they are not going to allow the counties to enforce laws other than dog control, and “there are people in each organization who want to control them through the dog control contracts.”  “Kevin got everything out of the contract that did not have to do with dog control.”   I think everyone is happy now.  The counties know know that if someone calls and complaint about sheltering or adoptions, they say that’s not part of our contract and you have to go to them” and “it’s working out great for the counties because they are not stuck in the middle of things that they have nothing to do with.”

 

(We realize that adoptions and conditions at the shelter are not directly animal control, but why shouldn’t the counties and Wilmington be able to ensure that the dog control contractor complies with State laws?  Especially for dogs impounded under contract? The counties can make sure YOU treat your dog humanely as required by law, but can’t field complaints about how impounded dogs are treated at the shelter?  What about ensuring that the shelter they contract with complies with the laws?  If you can’t complain to the counties, is the only authority you can complain about FSAC/KCSPCA, the KCSPCA?  Because right now, there is no legal authority for the Office of Animal Welfare to enforce State laws regarding shelter conditions and adoptions.)

 

Mr. Moore then brought up the subject of whether or not the FSAC/KCSPCA will continue to do cruelty investigations.  They went around the table to get everyone’s input.

 

Mr. Ricky Pryor said that he felt they should stop doing the investigations, particularly if this was the only reason they were subject to FOIA. 

 

Mrs. Elestine Cooper and Mr. Davis objected, saying they could not stop doing cruelty investigations, it’s why the KCSPCA was formed.

 

Ms. Kisner asked if this was because of issues with the AG’s Office (reported on in previous meetings).

 

Mr. Moore said that there were 3 reasons:  1) they receive no money for housing impounded animals in cruelty cases; 2) the AG’s Office isn’t prosecuting many of the cases; and 3) the designation (investigation and enforcement authority) subjects them to FOIA.

 

Mr. Schwartz corrected him, saying it was only one reason they must comply with FOIA; (They also receive money from the State in the Grant-in-Aid bill.)

 

Mr. Moore said they are not gaining anything, they are expending money and not accomplishing the task.

 

Mr. Davis said he understood the issues, but he had concerns – it’s how they incorporated, and who will do it?  He said someone has to do it.  He said there’s pitbull fighting down in Meadowbrook Acres, and he could not vote for discontinuing the investigations.

 

Mr. Dave Lititz agreed with Mr. Davis.  Mr. Pryor said they don’t get anything for it, maybe they’ll take us seriously if they see what happens when we don’t do it.  Someone said, animals will suffer.  Mr. Pryor said they should show them what life would be without them, maybe they’d take them seriously when we give them rock-solid cases.

 

Mr. Davis asked if anyone had talked to Beau Biden.  Mr. Usilton said “you can’t get in to Biden,” but he spoke to Kathleen Jennings, the chief prosecutor, trying to get their cases more attention.  He noted that the Animal Welfare Task Force recommended that the new Office of Animal Welfare train and offer certification for animal control officers.

 

(At the January meeting, Mr. Davis suggested that better training in reporting and collecting evidence might help the AG’s Office take them more seriously.)

 

Mr. Moore said they had spent 2 years trying to get support from the DAGs and funding.  They wanted to have their own DAG, trained in animal cruelty issues.  But dogs are nothing to anybody.

 

Mr. Davis suggested a news release about the problems.  Mr. Pryor said that was his point, to get support from the public.

 

Someone said that animal cruelty is their mission, they shouldn’t give it up.  Ms. Beth Burleson said she agreed with Mr. Pryor.  If they continued to do it, animals just go back to an abusive environment. 

 

Mr. Usilton said that out of 323 cases brought to the AG’s Office, only 5 had convictions, and it cost the FSAC $100K, no reimbursement.  He did note that some of those charged surrendered their animals, so the shelter didn’t have to hold them for 60 days. 

 

There was mention of a Hartly woman whose animals they had taken when she went into a nursing home.  “She’s paying her own way in the nursing home, she could have paid us.”

 

(This is an interesting assumption, with no proof offered for this.  The woman may be “paying” her way in the nursing home by signing over her home and/or other assests to the nursing home or to Medicaid.)

 

Mr. Moore said that he thought they should do cruelty, and that they should take dogs away from people,  but that the only way to get attention is to say, if you don’t pay us, we won’t do the job.  The cruelty investigations are not a contractual obligation, and no one will help until we say, this is it, we are done.  If we say no more, within a month we will have action.

 

Ms. Mavis Newton asked “do they care?”  Mr. Moore said, oh yes, they will jump everywhere.”

 

Mrs. Betty May Hamilton asked if they had jurisdiction for the whole state; Mr. Usilton said that the DESPCA also does cruelty investigations.

 

(I have been attending these meetings for 2 years.  Ms. Hamilton has been a board member for many, many years. Yet she – and others – are continually at a loss, or confused, over what the FSAC actually does or has authority to do.)

 

Mr. Moore said the DESPCA is not doing cruelty investigations.  Mrs. Cooper said, they never have.  Mr. Moore noted the case of the frozen dog in Sussex County that the DESPCA refused to respond to.  He also said that Murrey (Goldthwaite, former director) had to go to the legislators to get the KCSPCA authority outside of Kent County.  He said “we’d do all the work (in Sussex and New Castle) and hand it over to DESPCA, and nothing happened.”

 

Mr. Davis noted that the DE State Police have jurisdiction regarding drugs, pitbulls, Title 7, 9.

 

Mrs. Hamiltona gain mentioned the 40 cats they took in from the little old lady in the nursing home.

 

Someone said they’d like to believe that, in a month or two, action would be taken; but what will happen?  If there is no proof of dog fighting, they legally have to give the dog back.

 

Mr. Usilton mentioned the man who killed his ailing dog with a baseball bat; the charge was dropped to conspiracy, but the man can still own animals, it wasn’t a cruelty conviction.  He also mentioned a case about a samoyed, unresolved, in which the owner is still breeding samoyeds.

 

(Funny, not once did they mention Sherene Lindo’s case, where her neighbor shot her dog, and the AG’s office dismissed the case because of the report from the KCSPCA vet.  But that’s another blog.)

 

Someone asked if there was any other path to file a case other than the AG’s office.  Mr. Usilton said that only running-at-large went to JP court, but it wasn’t cruelty and the penalty is different.

 

Mr. Schwartz said the problem is that

 

1. animal cruelty laws are tied to criminal law in Delaware.  He felt if they could get a prosecutor to take on a case, even if the judge ordered restitution for costs, the likelihood of collecting was pretty small.
2. Probation officers are too busy to chase down monetary penalties.
3. Prosecutorial discretion; if they are busy, they don’t have to prosecute everything, they want to get the more serious crimes first, murder, rape.  Animal cruelty is down on the totem pole.

 

He felt the solution was to split off animal cruelty from criminal law.  It should still be a crime, still discretionary for prosecutors, but it would work better from their perspective – a civil animal cruelty provision could go to JP court, including fines and forfeiture of the right to own animals, liens on property.  It would keep us out of the Dept. of Justice and could be effective.  If we draft legislation and get a friendly legislator to propose, then lobby for enactment…our legislative committee could take that up.

 

He suggested tabling the motion to explore the possibility of revising the animal cruelty laws.

 

Mr. Davis asked if this would eliminate animal cruelty as a felony;  Mr. Schwartz said no, let the State prosecute felonies, but civil penalties in JP court such as seizure of animals, forfeiture of ownership – wouldn’t be part of DOJ.  Mr. Burleson asked if this could be done in this legislative session.  He said it could, but March to June was a short time, and it would only happen if Senator Blevins wants it.  Someone said, then recruit her.  Someone asked if this was a problem in other places (states).  Mr. Usilton said, no, just here.  He then talked about the cruelty case with the man whose dog was never clipped/groomed, and plea-bargained (for a lesser charge).  He said that was how he got the meeting with Kathleen Jennings.  He posted the story online, told people to contact the AG’s office, and they got slammed.  He wants the public to understand their frustrations with the confines of the current cruelty initiative. 

 

Mr. Davis said we have to be fiscally responsible, but if we’re not going to do it, who will?  Mrs. Hamilton said she wanted to continue if they could afford it, but we can’t take it out of the mission statement. 

 

Someone said they could not, in good conscience, vote not to continue animal cruelty investigations.  They were all for Mr. Schwartz’s suggestion, but not in favor of stopping.

 

Mrs. Newton said she all for preventing cruelty to animals, and felt Mr. Schwartz’s suggestion was worth trying to start for this legislative session.  Mr. Newton said they were incorporated as the KCSPCA, still the corporate name, and their charter.  There was no contract with anyone, everything was donations and fundraisers.  He said he strongly objected to stopping, felt that changing the law was the best alternative, and wanted to keep doing it whether we get paid or not.

 

Mr. Moore said the issue is a big deal, they needed to “search our souls and think about what was said.”

 

Mr. Pryor said he wasn’t talking about stoppping tomorrow, give 90 days notice.  He thought it might have more effect in conjunction with sponsoring a bill.

 

It was suggested that the issue be tabled until the end of the legislative session, then they could re-visit the problem.

 

Mrs. Hamilton said they should go to the public via the media, get the word out there.  Mr. Moore said they could do a press release.  Mrs. Hamilton said it should have all the facts, the costs.

 

Mr. Usilton said he had a meeting scheduled with Hetti Brown and Chris Motoyoshi (acting director, DESPCA).

 

Mrs. Cooper said that her husband Arley, was a DE State Trooper, and their attitude about dogs was to “shoot first, ask questions later.  If we leave it to police, dogs are not going to make it.”

 

Mr. Davis said the press release can’t all be negative.

 

Mr. Pryor said, we’re not being funded, there’s no satisfaction, and it’s not helping to have the cases dropped.   He also said he liked Mr. Schwartz’s recommendation.

 

Mr. Schwartz made the motion to table the issue; Mr. Pryor seconded, and the motion carried.

 

Mr. Schwartz said he’d try to have something for the next meeting, and felt it was prudent to get Senator Blevins to sponsor the bill and push it.  They need to win her over.

 

A publicity campaign was suggested.  Mr. Davis said that if they stopped cruelty investigations, there would be adverse publicity.  Mr. Schwartz’s suggestion was more diplomatic and they should move forward on it.

 

Mr. Moore said they needed to move this issue forward.

 

The meeting was adjourned.

 

(This is not a word for word transcript.  These are my notes, reviewed by others who attended the meeting for accuracy.)