The following is the complete of SRAC's response to the Opposition Memos filed by the City and the CACC.
SHELTER REFORM ACTION COMMITTEE
A coalition of animal advocate organizations
and concerned citizens
P.O. Box 268 · NY, NY 10028 · (212) 886-3700 · info@ShelterReform.org
visit our website: http://www.ShelterReform.org
June 21, 1999
RESPONSE TO OPPOSITION MEMORANDA
LEGISLATIVE REFERENCE
S.3963 - by Senator Goodman - Rules Com.
A.1218 - by M. of A. Grannis - Cities Com.
TITLE
AN ACT to amend chapter 115 of the laws of 1894, relating to the better
protection of lost and strayed animals and for securing the rights of owners
thereof, in relation to authority over city's management of animals in any
city having a population of over two million
SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS
Section I of this bill amends Section 8-C of Chapter 115 of the laws of
1894, which established the power of any city having a population of over
two million to carry out the provisions of the act, by removing reference
to the Mayor.
RESPONSE TO OPPOSITION MEMORANDA
The City of New York and the Center for Animal Care & Control Inc. have filed opposition memos to this proposed legislation that purposefully misrepresent what this bill does and will do in the future.
In addition, the Fund for Animals Have-A-Heart Spay & Neuter Clinic also filed an unsigned opposition memo, which, upon information and belief, was written and disseminated by the clinic's director and a CACC board member, and was WITHDRAWN by the organization's main office after the unauthorized memo came to their attention. At this time, we are told the Fund for Animals takes no position on the bill.
The Mayor and the CACC expend great effort to defame this benign little bill for purely political reasons. They selfishly and cynically do so at the expense of hundreds of thousands of homeless animals that have been and will be killed. Fact is, all this bill does is allow the NY City Council to consider the merits of creating a Department of Animal Affairs without challenge from the Mayor. Nothing else. It does not mandate such a department. It merely opens a dialogue on the merits of doing so to the local representatives of the people of New York City.
75,000 New Yorkers signed petitions to put this issue on the ballot, which the City refused to do. The NY City Council sent a home rule message to the State affirming its members want the authority to take up the issue. In a democratic society, public issues must be resolved to the satisfaction of the people, not merely one Mayor.
The State law affected was written in 1894, more than one hundred years ago, when the political dynamic was very different than it is now. Perhaps a benevolent Mayor in tandem with ASPCA-founder Henry Bergh were needed to bring about change at that time. But in one hundred years, the City government has changed dramatically.
The Department of Health has a mandate to protect human health, not the welfare of animals. In fact, the Department of Health sees animals as a threat to human health and collects and kills them by contract. It has instituted no programs to reduce animal overpopulation by any other means than killing animals. A spay/neuter law is being considered by the City Council at this time, but incredibly, the Mayor and the CACC oppose it!
The Mayor argues that S.3963 and A.1218 is "an unnecessary intrusion onto the authority" of the Health Department. It is simply preposterous that the Mayor assert that a City agency has superior authority over the will of the legislature in a democratic society to place such authority elsewhere. The City speciously argues, "It is not at all clear what purpose a separate Department of Animal Affairs would serve." Who are they kidding? A City agency with a mandate to protect animals and solve the animal overpopulation problem is not a novel one. San Francisco has such an agency, and it is considered the model city for the rest of the country when it comes to its animal management, having dramatically reduced its kill-rate in just seven years of progressive programs.
The Center for Animal Care & Control Inc. (CACC) is a corporation that was formed by the Mayor in 1994 without any public hearings and then internally-awarded a Health Department contract. It is a sham charitable corporation whose board members are hired and fired, without cause, by the Mayor. It will never be able to fundraise as a real charitable institution because no one is going to give money to an entity calling itself a charity that is controlled by City Hall and kills tens of thousands of animals each year. In fact, the Mayor and the CACC shoot themselves in the foot when they argue that this bill would lead to the City's inability to cultivate charitable donations for animal welfare.
It is simply false to state that a new City agency would take over all functions, including those performed now by contract. In fact, such an agency could have the same right to contract out functions as the Department of Health does now. The City's stranglehold over CACC's budget, and CACC's inability to effectively fundraise, are a surefire recipe for failure. The same money spent by the City now combined with a real charitable contractor would provide the potential for a much higher level of funding in the future.
A real charitable contractor would also hire humane professionals -- unlike the Health Department and the Mayor have done. CACC claims, "Over the last four years, CACC has assembled a team with years of experience and expertise in all aspects of animal control and veterinary care." Yet the Executive Director of CACC is a City Hall appointed former member of the Mayor's Office of Operations with NO PRIOR EXPERIENCE in animal management on any level, and was installed by the Mayor over an available and experienced candidate because she would represent the interests of City Hall first and the animal advocate community second.
The City's failure to attack the root problem that causes animals to end up at the shelters to begin with is painfully evident in the Mayor's concluding remarks, "We believe that the addition of another layer of bureaucracy will not change these numbers. Instead we should encourage policies that promote responsible pet ownership, which can have more of an impact, than a separate department."
First, this bill would not eventually produce "another layer of bureaucracy," but rather would allow NYC to move authority from one agency to another. Second, the Mayor's theory of solving the problem by promoting responsible pet ownership rings particularly hollow in that (a) he has not done so, and (b) such encouragement simply will not work in place of aggressive programs modeled on other cities that have succeeded.
It should also be significantly noted that both the Department of Health and the CACC have been uncooperative with the City Council and private humane groups investigating the animal control contract in divulging information about its activities. Former CACC board chairman (and Sanitation Commissioner) John Doherty lied under oath to a City Council Committee about the hiring of the current executive director, and Health Department Assistant Commissioner Alan Goldberg likewise falsely claimed that he "did not know" who hires CACC board members (i.e., the Mayor) at another Council hearing. These are brazen attempts to deceive the public and evade government oversight. The statistical claims by CACC are unverified at best and grossly skewed at worst. There was, in fact, no "study" that concluded CACC had the lowest euthanasia rate of any large municipality, but merely a claim by a small west coast animal publication edited by a self-appointed "expert." Similarly, claims by the Mayor's office that CACC has reduced euthanasia by 46% are patently false. No reliable examination of CACC data is possible under the hostile atmosphere that City Hall and the CACC have fostered. Recent interviews with former CACC managers reveal that CACC has much to hide.
The Health Department's and City Hall's "thin the herd" mentality toward the homeless animal population is repugnant to most New Yorkers who know about it. The City is in a rowboat full of holes from which it can never bail out under the current mindset. This bill represents nothing more than an assertion of government of the people, by the people and for the people over government of the bureaucracy, by the bureaucracy and for the bureaucracy.
We respectfully urge that you PASS this bill as soon as possible.
Very truly yours,
/s/ Gary Kaskel and Marie Mar, Esq., co-chairs