These are highlights from the Annual Board Meeting of New York City’s Animal Care & Control, held January 18, 2011 (videos of the meeting are at the end of the highlights): COMPOSITION OF THE BOARD: The Board remains the same. Dr. Thomas Farley (head of the Department of Health) continues as AC&C Chairman. The Board unanimously voted to give John O’Connor and Dr. Jay Kuhlman a 2-year term on the Board. (Their current terms were expiring.) For the 4th year in a row, Parks Commissioner Adrian Benepe has been a no-show at AC&C Meetings. (He sends someone in his place.) Patrick Nolan (a publishing executive with no background in animal welfare) is beginning his third year as a Director. Police Inspector David Colon from NYPD is in his 6th month occupying a seat reserved for the NYPD. He has been preceded by a succession of NYPD representatives -- who come and go, making no contribution to the AC&C. Inspector Colon has no experience in animal rescue. Bruce Doniger (AC&C’s Treasurer) continues as such. Prior to joining the AC&C a few years ago, he had no experience in animal rescue. For 5 months, he served as an Interim Executive Director, although he had never managed an animal shelter. Dr. Kuhlman will replace AC&C employee Richard Gentles as secretary FUNDRAISING COMMITTEE: In its 16 year history, the Board has never had a Fundraising Committee. They voted one into existence at the Jan. 18th meeting. That’s probably a good idea, given that the DOH has savaged the AC&C’s already insufficient budget. Two members of this new Committee (O’Connor and Doniger) are Wall Street gurus, who have never raised a penny for the AC&C through their years on the Board. REPORT BY EXECTIVE DIRECTOR JULIE BANK: Ms. Bank gave a calm but upbeat report on the AC&C’s finances, programs and “challenges”: Finances: Ms. Bank reported that even though revenues were down, the AC&C was able to balance its budget by reducing expenses. (Dr. Farley complimented Julie Bank on her fiscal restraint.) Ms. Bank briefly mentioned three recent service cuts: that the AC&C "made public" by pointing to a slide on her PowerPoint presentation: (1) discontinuing its Lost & Found system; (2) discontinuing its general telephone number for the public; and (3) reducing its Field Operations. (NOTE: Ms. Bank did not go into details about the ramifications of those cuts on the public and their pets. For example, by no longer picking up stray cats, these former pets are left to multiply on the streets before dying painful deaths.) She noted “the changes of services” in a puzzling way: “The service changes allowed the AC&C to maintain general functions in the way they are doing this at this point.” Fundraising: Ms. Bank announced the AC&C’s new fundraising program, that will create 3 restricted funds: (1) for general animal care, (2) for special-needs animals (including fosters), and (3) for education about responsible pet ownership. She noted that the AC&C’s 2 Christmas holiday fundraising mailings were successful in that (a) the AC&C covered its costs and (b) made some money. (What Ms. Bank didn’t discuss (and probably can't due to the DOH restrictions) is how the AC&C must be able to raise millions of dollars every year to make up for the DOH’s continual cuts to the AC&C’s budget. She discussed the success of the AC&C’s arrangement with PetSmart resulting in 100 cat adoptions of cats at the East Harlem PetSmart store. She discussed the AC&C’s outreach to encourage individuals to hold fundraising events for the AC&C. Volunteers: Ms. Bank briefly noted that there had been criticism of the time (NOTE: 7 months) taken to launch its new volunteer program. However, she announced that over 200 new volunteers were about to enter the AC&C shelters. Her Power Point presentation showed there will be a total of 52 volunteers in Brooklyn and 251 in Manhattan. (We'll check back in a month to see how many volunteers, on average, are in the shelters every day of the week). Euthanasia: Ms. Bank’s Power Point also showed that euthanasia continues to decrease. Ms. Bank said people misunderstand the AC&C’s euthanasia statistics. She began with the example of a geriatric dog with hanging mammary tumors. She said the dog is “adoptable” if someone wants to adopt the dog. (The implication was that the animal – although not “healthy” -- was nevertheless “adoptable.”) She reported “no healthy animals were euthanized this quarter.” (NOTE: the AC&C’s website makes this claim a bit differently:
behavior concerns) and the reason for their euthanasia is solely a lack of available cage space for incoming animals. We are currently not euthanizing healthy animals. overcome its chronic “space” problem. She stated that the AC&C follows the ASILOMAR Accords (adopted by Maddie’s Fund read more) to assign each animal to one of the ASILOMAR categories below:
published a “MATRIX” which would list the specific conditions falling within each ASILOMAR category. (Other communities receiving Maddie’s Fund grants have published their individual matrices.) For example, at the AC&C does mild gingivitis automatically disqualify a cat from being in the ASILOMAR “healthy” category?) Is an animal rated “moderate” for temperament assigned not “healthy”? If so, is it a “treatable” or “untreatable” condition?) Adoptions: Ms. Bank noted that direct adoptions from the shelter were down due to various factors: the economy, “saturation,” and landlord restrictions. She also observed that rescuers who pull from the AC&C were “struggling a little bit” to find homes for the animals they pull. (NOTE: AC&C rescuers are struggling … a lot). Intake: Ms. Bank noted a positive trend -- that intake numbers had decreased. (NOTE: Ms. Bank made no mention of a key reason for this decrease: beginning mid-October 2010, the AC&C stopped rescuing stray cats and bringing them to the shelters. Historically, stray cats brought in by AC&C van drivers have constituted thousands of shelter animals every year.) Dr. Farley had only two questions for Ms. Bank. After noting that it is "nice to see euthanasia numbers go down" he asked which animals were most at risk of being euthanized. Ms. Bank responded that "anecdotally" more cats than dogs are euthanized, but that the AC&C's challenge is dealing with "bully breed type dogs and adult cats." Dr. Farley's second question was whether the AC&C "can make a substantial difference" in reducing the numbers of cat intake. Again, Ms. Bank did not take the opportunity to note that the AC&C is reducing cat intake by leaving cats on the streets to die. She spoke about encouraging adoption and having the public spay/neuter their pets. REPORT BY ACCOUNTANTS AND BTQ AUDITORS Rushing through their reports in barely audible voices, these two individuals echoed what Ms. Bank had already said: even though revenues are down, by reducing expenses, the AC&C has a balanced budget. The AC&C Board had no questions for the accountants. ANIMAL CONTROL POPULATION FUND Due to the efforts of New York State Assemblypersons Micah Kellner and Linda Rosenthal, New York City now has an “Animal Control Population Fund” (ACPF). The Fund monies are to advance spay/neuter in NYC. That’s good news. The bad news is that the DOH is in charge of collecting the monies and managing the ACPF. (Read Shelter Reform’s account of the December 17th hearing of the Health Committee, regarding the ACPF and the DOH’s 20-year track record of failing to secure licensing compliance by dog owners.) The Board voted to allow the AC&C to “negotiate” with the DOH for use of some of those funds. However, the DOH’s rep (Mr. Kass) was vague about how the DOH would use those monies, and what, if any, amounts would ever go to the AC&C. PUBLIC SPEAKERS’ PORTION OF THE AC&C MEETING When all of the official Board business was completed, Dr. Farley opened the floor to public speakers, limiting each person to 3 minutes. (NOTE: AC&C’s Board Minutes have never reflected public comments made during these meetings. We’re confident that the January 18th Board minutes will be no exception). Some speakers called for the Director’s resignations. Others asked them what they had done ever …. for the AC&C animals? When asked when any of them had visited AC&C shelters, Dr. Farley proudly responded he had visited the shelters just the prior week. (We are unaware that, prior to this visit, Dr. Farley has ever stepped foot inside an AC&C Shelter.) Other board members would not answer anything. (A link to the video of the public speakers’ session as well as videos for the rest of the meeting are at the bottom of this page) The Board started the meeting 15 meetings late. Dr. Farley made up for that lost time by cutting off the speakers’ portion to a mere 17 minutes. QUESTIONS' THE BOARD SHOULD ANSWER Here are other questions we believe AC&C Directors should answer: For Dr. Farley: Will the DOH ever create the mandated (by law and court order) animal shelters in the Bronx and Queens? The DOH is currently appealing from a September 2009 court order finding the DOH had violated the law and ordering the prompt creation of those long-overdue shelters. You are challenging the plaintiff’s lawsuit, claiming that the rescue group doesn’t have “standing” to sue the DOH. If a rescue group doesn’t have standing, who does? Is there any person, entity or NYC taxpayer who has the right to challenge what the DOH is doing to the AC&C? What has happened to the former library the DOH purchased over 2 years ago in the Bronx? At one time the DOH said it would use a portion of the building as a shelter. What is your history and experience in animal rescue? What qualities do you possess that you believe make you suitable not only to serve on the AC&C Board but to be its Chairman. For Each “Independent” Director: What is your history and experience in animal rescue? What abilities do you possess that you believe make you are qualified to serve on the Board of the largest animal shelter system in the U.S.? Have you ever adopted an animal from a shelter? Please explain how you have challenged the DOH regarding any of the following: (1) the budget monies set by the DOH; (2) the budget cuts set by the DOH; (3) the cuts in services the DOH has required or allowed the AC&C to make, (4) the DOH’s power to pre-approve any and all public statements by the AC&C, (5) the composition of the AC&C Board; (6) the Mayor’s unfettered right to appoint directors to the Board; (7) the DOH’s selection of the AC&C’s 10 Interim and full Executive Directors over the past 16 years, (8) the DOH’s failure to create full service animal shelters in the Bronx and Queens, (9) the DOH’s appeal from the lawsuit finding it had violated the law by failing to create those shelters. For Each Director: How many times have you visited an AC&C shelter while you have served on the board? How many times have you made an unannounced visit to an AC&C shelter? If you’ve ever visited a shelter, have you seen any conditions that have concerned you? THE DIRECTORS’ INSISTENCE THAT THEY HAVE NO CONTROL OVER THE AC&C’S BUDGET The AC&C’s budget is set by the DOH. Logically, one would think that having the DOH Commissioner as Chairman of the AC&C board, the AC&C would have a foot up on getting a decent budget. Untrue. In past Board meetings, when members of the public have challenged the Directors about the AC&C’s budget (set by the DOH), Director John O’Connor could always be counted on to say that the Directors “have no power over the budget,” and that the public should bring up this issue with the City Council. The Commissioner of Health would always nod his head in agreement. Their position is false. The DOH has absolute power to assign a workable budget to the AC&C, but it chooses not to. This is how the budget process works. Each year, the Mayor tells the various City Departments and agencies what the overall budget will be, and how he expects them to work within those constraints. For example, during this continuing economic downturn, Mayor Bloomberg has instructed each City entity to reduce their respective budgets and personnel numbers by a set percentage. The DOH (for this year) knows it will have a total budget of $16 billion (reduced by 2% from 2010). Acting within the confines of that total budget number, the DOH presents a proposed budget to the Health Committee of the City Council, showing how it will divide up its $16 billion dollar pie. Historically, the DOH has carved out only a tiny fraction of 1% for the AC&C budget. The reason is political: the DOH has no mandate for providing for the care and health of animals. Its mandate is to provide for the health and care of people. The only mention of animals is to protect people from them (e.g., rabies, “dangerous” animals). When the DOH presents it proposed budget to the Health Committee every year, it always allots a tiny amount for the AC&C. The AC&C Directors (including Dr. Farley as DOH Commissioner) are effectively arguing that the DOH shouldn’t be faulted for allocating an unreasonably small amount for the AC&C. Instead, it’s up to the City Council to vote to give extra monies to the DOH that would be earmarked for use by the AC&C. In short, the AC&C Directors claim it’s “not their job” to advocate for a decent AC&C budget.. Shame on Mayor Bloomberg for perpetuating this unworkable structure. Shame on Dr. Farley for disserving the private charity (the AC&C) that he runs, and shame on the other AC&C Directors for not speaking out. View The Videos Of The Board Meeting |
| Shelter Reform Action Committee (SRAC) ShelterReform.org: Everything you ever wanted to know about the AC&C, but were afraid to ask. |