Even CACC's "independent" board members are fraught with conflicts of interest, dubious philosophies and an unwillingness to openly discuss how CACC policy and procedures are formed. The following is the complete text of a letter from SRAC co-chairman to CACC board member Lia Albo requesting answers to such charges -- Ms. Albo refused to respond, even when asked a second time in a public forum.
GARY KASKEL
P.O. Box 268 - Gracie Station
New York, NY 10028
(212) 876-0090
gkaskel@aol.com
February 27, 1997
Ms. Lia Albo
c/o Fund For Animals Spay/Neuter Clinic
355 West 52nd Street
New York, NY 10019
Re: CACC policies and personnel
Dear Lia:
I am writing in follow up to our recent telephone conversations regarding the Center for Animal Care & Control, on whose board you sit.
There are three areas I am particularly concerned with. The first is your apparent support of Dr. Susan Kopp's policy of cutting off the private rescuers who had previously been taking animals from the Brooklyn and Manhattan shelters and placing them in private adoption. You made the statement that you were aware that many of the adoptions were to inadequate homes, but declined to cite even one example of such (with the exception to one apocryphal reference to animals living in automobiles).
I believe, in your position, you have an obligation to back up this sort of allegation with specific examples, and draw a conclusion in context to the entire number of private adoptions, which I believe are in the hundreds, each year. You must make policy based on the empiracle truth, and not some third-party reports that bolster your personal philosophy about how the homeless animal problem should resolved. Many of us are greatly disturbed that you have made numerous statements to the effect that destroying as many homeless animals as possible is the only way to alleviate the suffering of homeless animals.
You have now twice defended yourself to me as an animals rights advocate. But animal rights advocates don't want to kill animals, they want to save them and find loving homes for them. You complain that private rescuers don't do follow up on their placements. But does the CACC do any follow up on its placements? No way. You have stated that private rescuers should get their animals from the streets and not the CACC. Why? CACC kills more than 80% of the animals it takes in. A homeless animal is a homeless animal. I fail to see the difference. And I find your strident attitude impossible to penetrate -- not a good quality for a policy maker who is also custodian of homeless animals for the public.
Secondly, Marty Kurtz' resignation was only the first step in improving the management team at CACC. Doug Mansfield and Dr. Kopp must also go, or there will be no peace with the humane community. Both of these individuals have proven themselves hostile and untrustworthy of being the public's caretakers of homeless animals. Doug Mansfield is in my opinion a dishonest and morally bankrupt obstructionist of the truth and the public's right to know. His posture that the CACC is not subject to the Freedom of Information Laws is morally, ethically and legally unsound and he knows it. That issue is going to court and I believe the CACC's board of directors has lost all credibility for permitting Mansfield to argue it in the first place. It is a position that breeds mistrust and he simply is unacceptable as the legal advocate for New York's homeless shelter animals.
Likewise, Dr. Kopp has been described to me by numerous people who have worked with her as having a passive-aggressive personality, and her appearance on Channel 9 last September certainly bears out her stubborn side. This, in tandem with her participation in the completely unjustified dismissals of Joan Silaco, the volunteers and the private rescuers is enough evidence for me to conclude that she is simply not the kind of person I would want to make policy at the CACC. That is regardless of how well intentioned she is to "clean up" CACC's internal problems, as you have defended. Her heavy-handed methods and paranoia breed the same mistrust (which is backed up in your own independent management consultant's report) -- she is unacceptable.
Furthermore, if Dr. Kopp, as it has been recently reported, was in fact put in charge of the search for a new executive director, it is a preposterous conflict that will end in another wrong choice. Just what is wrong with you people on the Board allowing this job to go unfilled when you knew Marty Kurtz was leaving more than a month ago. It's positively irresponsible. Why don't you empower some of us to conduct a real search? At least we won't be politically motivated to keep our jobs in the screening process.
Lastly, I fear that your serving on the CACC board presents the appearance of a conflict of interest. I would like you to answer the following question. If you meet a wealthy benefactor who wishes to make a donation to animal causes, on whose behalf do you accept money? The Fund for Animals or the CACC? We really need you to answer this. You have apparently chided individuals for "interfering" with your "contacts" among wealthy donors. Exactly where does your first allegiance lie? The Fund or the CACC? To many of us, it smacks of a conflict of interest at the expense of the City's homeless animals. Please explain why your continued presence on the CACC board is not a problem. If you cannot, we believe you should resign.
In my opinion, since Marty Kurtz hand picked Doug Mansfield, Susan Kopp, Rosemary Joyce and you to work for the CACC, it would be best for the City and for the animals if you would all leave and allow a new team to work on the mess that has stagnated for the past two years.
Given the dire circumstances that presently exist, your prompt response to my questions will be appreciated.
Thank you.
Very truly yours,
/s/ Gary Kaskel
cc: M. Hamburg
J. Doherty
Y. Jiminez
T. Davis
R. Joyce
L. Murray
K. Freed
R. Giuliani
Shelter Reform Action Committee
Coalition for NYC Animals