S.F. Animal Welfare Commission puts our Board of Commissioners to shame

It seems as though (from recent "Board Reports" submitted to Council by Linda Barth) we-- the 2nd largest city in the nation-- want to emulate the practices of smaller cities when it comes to our Animal Care and Control. Here's one for you that's putting us to shame.

The San Francisco Animal Welfare Commission.

Highlights:

		Publicly Held Monthly Meeting   2nd Thursday of each month (no meeting will be held in the month of December)--I bet they don't cancel any of the other 11 meetings. 5:30pm City Hall, room 408 Interested individuals are welcome to attend

The Commission of Animal Control & Welfare is a representative body acting as the eyes and ears of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors with regard to animal issues within the City. The Commission is an advisory body and makes recommendations to the Board. The Board of Supervisors is responsible for all policy decisions and development.





Enacting Legislation Section 41.2


In addition to any other powers and duties set forth in this Article, the Commission of Animal Control and Welfare shall have the power and duty to:





Hold hearings and submit recommendations regarding animal control and welfare to the Board of Supervisors and Chief Administrative Officer. The Commission may study and recommend requirements for the maintenance of animals in public, private, and commercial care. The Commission may work with the Tax Collector to develop and maintain dog-licensing procedures and make recommendations. The Commission of Animal Control & Welfare is made up of seven voting commissioners and four non-voting commission members. The voting commissioners are appointed by the Rules Committee and approved by the Mayor for two-year terms. Non-voting commission member are City employee delegates representing Animal Care & Control, the SF Police Department, the SF Health Department (seat currently vacant), and the Recreation & Park Department (attending on an as-needed basis).



The Commission of Animal Control and Welfare shall consist of the Director of Animal Care and Control or his or her designated representative, seven members to be appointed by the Board of Supervisors and one city department representative member appointed by each of the following: the Director of the Department of Health or his or her designated representative, the Chief or Police or his or her designated representative, and the General Manager of the Recreation and Park Department or his or her designated representative.

The members appointed by the Board of Supervisors shall be six members representing the general public having interest and experience in animal matters and one licensed veterinarian practicing in San Francisco.


Contact information: (yes, they have an office)

Mailing Address City Hall

Attn: Commission of Animal Control & Welfare

1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, Room 362

San Francisco, CA 94102

( 415) 554-6074 (and their own phone number which is NOT the Department of Animal Care and Control--someone takes messages for them)
sfgov.org/awcc
Hey...check out those minutes. One can actually tell what happened at the meeting and who said what. And wow...the June meeting minutes are posted and it's only July!
http://www.sfgov2.org/index.aspx?page=2177
 


Excerpt of minutes:

7. Unfinished Business (they return to subjects rather than pretend they never existed)

7 A)

Continuation of discussion and possible action to recommend to the board that they pass an ordinance prohibiting the sale of cats, dogs and possibly other small animals in pet stores. Ordinance is intended to stop the sale of dogs and cats from puppy mills  as well as decrease euthanasia rates of other small animals in city shelters.

Comr. Gerrie – Last month our Commission voted to recommend a ban on the sale of dogs and cats in SF including a ban on selling certain small animals not from rescues or shelters. That part was not included in the agenda so we are revisiting the issue this month. Our intention was two-fold. First, was to endorse a compassionate, symbolic as well as preemptive ordinance to stop the sale now and in the future of puppy mill dogs and cats in SF. Only one store in SF currently sells puppies not from shelters or rescues.

Our second intent was to include other animals, many wind up at ACC which cares for them and are eventually euthanized or taken by rescues. If we could stop the sale of “other” animals, they would not wind up at ACC. We felt that banning “others” now would be more doable along with banning the sale of dogs and cats. A separate ordinance just for “others” may prove difficult to pass.

  
What was missing from our discussion and decision last month was hearing from pet stores that would be affected. I’ve talked with the three big pet stores in SF that sell small animals, Petco, Animal Connection, and Pet Central. Representatives from  Petco are here today. Pam and I met with Petco and ACC last week to talk about the ban and possible alternatives in which Petco and the other stores would take ACC’s unwanted “others” and sell them in their stores. Similar to the adoption Pact that ACC has with SPCA. It has been illegal to sell rabbits in SF since 1978. Petco recently announced they would only be selling rabbits from shelters and rescues nationwide. An ordinance banning the sale of “others” may be ineffective as they would still be for sale just outside the city. Are there any comments or questions from Commissioners before I invite our speakers up? (HEY...he's running the meeting- A commissioner is running the meeting--not a "secretary." or an AGM)

Just food for thought. I thought I might send one of our meeting minutes --with audio--up there and get some input. Nah.

~ Jeff.

A Working Animal Commission...At Work in San Francisco

I haven't delved into the issue at hand; nor do I quite yet understand all the ramifications of a ban on all animal sales ("pets"). I'll let you know when I do. The point of sharing this piece is to illustrate the power of a real and working Animal Commission...not unlike our own Board of Commissioners. Read on...

Fur and feathers fly as San Francisco weighs ban on pet sales

What began as a proposal to ban sales of dogs and cats quickly grew to include birds, hamsters, rats and other small mammals. Shelters and rescue groups could still offer adoptions.

July 25, 2010|By Maria L. La Ganga, Los Angeles Times

Reporting from San Francisco — Here in the land of animal companions and their faithful guardians — do not call them pets and owners — a battle is raging over just what it means to be creature-friendly.

In true San Francisco fashion, city officials are considering a ban on sales of almost all pets. If the prohibition passes, it would mean no cats for sale here, no dogs, no hamsters, no rats, no guinea pigs, no macaws, no parakeets, no cockatiels, no finches. If Junior wanted a snake, Mom could probably still buy him one within the city's precious 47 square miles. But forget about those mice for Drago's dinner.

 

The proposal started out small: prohibit commerce in cats and dogs as a way to discourage puppy mills and kitten factories. South Lake Tahoe and West Hollywood passed such laws within the last 18 months; in Texas, Austin and El Paso are considering similar ones.

But this being San Francisco, the discussion didn't stop there.

After multiple meetings of the Animal Control & Welfare Commission and hours of impassioned testimony — peppered with the word "symbolic" — the narrow proposition blossomed to include most creatures great and small. The commission is set to vote on a ban in August. If it passes, the Board of Supervisors will weigh in.

Read the whole story.
Related links
Listen to NPR story
Read NPR transcript

 

Ron Kaye's Plan to Overhaul the Commissioner Selection Process

 Read the whole story.


Kaye says, "The mayor simply has too much power.

A simple solution that would find popular support would be to allow the mayor only one appointment and give the Controller, City Attorney and the Council one each.

The fifth commissioner should be chosen by the Neighborhood Councils.

This would at least create some semblance of balance and actually empower the Neighborhood Councils in a way that City Hall has fought since their inception.

We don't need commissions that are simply going to roll over to the orders of the mayor and Council. We need people who will stand up for what's right, not sign off on what's wrong."

The post-Phyllis Daugherty Dept. of Animal Services--Enter: Brenda Barnette

 In response to Ed Muzika's call to "stop" Phyllis Daugherty.

It's almost like we need to teach people how to participate in their government in this town. Why is that? Look at the last mayoral election. Pitiful, yet everyone complains about AV.

What is it about this city that makes people whine but do nothing?

Yes, chances are that no council members will be in their seats when you make your public comment. They're in the back making deals. Still, you must go if you are able. You can get free parking from your council district office with a phone call.


There was a time..oh... 5 years ago...when people besides Phyllis went to Animal Services Commissioners' Board  meetings. At night, on an off campus meeting (4x a year) there might have  be 100 people or more. Even in the daytime there were more than just Phyllis in her regular seat.

People gave up on the Board/Commission (it's a "Board" of Commissioners BTW...not a Commission). They are thought of as a rubber stamp and a lot of times they have been. Conscientious and courageous Commissioners have resigned or been fired for speaking their true opinions and trying to effect real change. Elections for officers are often fixed by the Mayor's office.

So why participate? Because only you can change it. I can't even count the number of times I have moved the Board or the Department to submit to the law. I was loud--persistent. They couldn't take it anymore and gave in.  Today, the last 5 months of meeting minutes were posted on the Board's LAAS page. Why? Because I demanded it...openly. Why were they withheld for so long when they had been approved a long time ago? Guess. The Secretary forgot? No. By design. Whose design? Guess.

Look at the city clerk's site. Search "animal." See how much LAAS legislation has been slammed through which you probably know nothing about since Boks left. Who did this? Kathy Davis? The Board?
Nope.

Don't call Phyllis or email her or harass her. She's excercising her rights from her one-person "movement." The only way to defeat her...if that's your aim...is to play the same game and outnumber her and out-argue her. These council members get antsy when the public shows up and get more "reasonable" and fair-minded. Magically. So show up.

Sadly, there are no night Board meetings this year. Budget cuts-- but that suits Linda Barth just fine. I think it's $400 per meeting for security and whatever. I can raise that. Do you think they'll accept it? I'm sure Barnette will like the idea of night meetings. We'll see. There will be changes big and small.

Personally, I'm hoping that Barth's (Phyllis has WAY too much influence over Barth) head rolls right over to another Department. Anybody?

About those meeting minutes...and the Board Secretary, Ross Pool

For as long as I've known there was  Department of Animal Services Board of Commissioners, Ross Pool, a Management Analyst (grade/salary/job description unknown), has been it's Secretary. Unlike other Boards and Commissions, this Board/staff seems to like to give Pool power that is not within the job description of Secretary. One of those powers is to pretend to be a Commissioner. Others are to open and close the meetings, determine agenda items, comment on agenda items, re-arrange their order and, in general , to be a pompous ass.

Los Angeles Charter and Administrative Code references:
Sec. 21.3.  Assignment of Employee as Commission Secretary.
     As required by Charter Section 504, the general manager of each department under the control and management of a general manager shall assign an employee of that department, other than a member of the board, as the secretary to the board of commissioners of the department, if any. The Council may by ordinance, at the request of the general manager concerned, combine the position of secretary with any other position in any department.  The board of each department under the control of a board of commissioners shall assign an employee of that department, other than a member of the board,  as the secretary to the board of commissioners.

I know of no record where this Board assigned Ross Pool to this position. I'll ask (LOL). I also know of no Council ordinance which permits Pool to hold both a "management analyst" position AND the position of Board Secretary. I'll ask about that, too. If neither exists, then there is a violation (s) of the Administrative code by this Board and the General Managers and/or interim general managers.

Sec. 21.4.  Duties of the Secretary.

   The secretary of each board created by the Charter or by ordinance shall keep a record of the proceedings and transactions of the board, specifying the names of the commissioners at all meetings and giving the ayes and noes upon all votes. The secretary shall post and publish all orders, resolutions and notices which the board shall order to be posted or published, and shall perform such other duties as are imposed upon him or her by the Charter, ordinance, or order of the board.

Why should we care? Because, for one (there are many issues concerning Pool's "work" as secretary and more of them will be reported in forthcoming blog posts), there have been no minutes of Board meetings posted since the posting of minutes for a February meeting. Normally, at each Board meeting, there is an item in which the Board is asked to approve the minutes as compiled by Pool. Often, Commissioners request changes to the minutes to reflect what actually happened and what was said, rather than Pool's often bent interpretation of what was said and/or done. Often, at subsequent meetings, Pool does not make the requested changes or the changes are just ignored either by Pool or at the direction of whichever person seems to be controlling the Board at a given time. Since Boks's demise, it has been Linda Barth (and Jim Bickhart since forever) who controls the Board, what they may place on their agendas and when.

All of this obstruction serves the purpose of keeping the public in the dark. In order to determine what happened at a Board meeting, one must either attend on a weekday at 10:00 a.m (call first..they may have canceled due to a  controversial issue being threatened to be addressed by the public) or download a gigantic 30+megabytes file of audio and wade through the whole thing. I suppose you could call Barth and ask her or call Pool, but that is not what is supposed to happen and you are not likely to get a straight answer, if any.

Sec. 21.20.  Applicability of Charter Provision 506.

     Each city department, office or commission created by ordinance shall comply with Charter Section 506, unless expressly provided otherwise by ordinance.

(To be continued...)