In Defense of Animals (IDA) is a national animal protection organization with approximately 7,000 New York State members, most residing in New York City. IDA's New York office has been very involved in improving the shelter system in New York City since the transition by the ASPCA was announced in 1994.
Regarding the legislation to reform the 1894 law, some have sought to make this a competition between the existing Center for Animal Care and Control (CACC) and a community of animal advocates. The fact is, this legislation would simply repeal the exclusive authority of the mayor to designate animal protection duties. In so doing, it allows flexibility into a system where traditionally there has been none, and in which animal control functions have suffered due to the inhumane attitudes and opinions of one individual. By placing that authority with other city officials, this legislation would allow animal control to be supervised by a body of officials who have a sole mandate to advocate for animals to the benefit of the animals and the people who daily interact with them.
The New York City Council has shown strong support for these bills indicating their awareness of the shortcomings with the current system. Indeed, a lengthy investigation was completed by the City Council in July 1997, revealing fundamental, grave problems in the operations of the CACC. Although several of these problems may have been corrected in the nearly two years since the investigation, it remains true that the underlying problems remain the same.
Certain myths have been propagated by individuals opposing this legislation. IDA would like to address those myths.
MYTH: The CACC is a not-for-profit organization and not a city agency.
FACT: While incorporated as a not-for-profit by the City of New York, the CACC is run more like a city agency than a nonprofit. Under the existing structure, the mayor and his designees have total control of CACC. Under the articles of incorporation, the organization has only the limited mandate to provide animal control services, and the organizational bylaws call for five directors, three of which are city officials and the other two of which are to be appointed by the Mayor or his Deputy Mayor of Operations and may be dismissed at any time without cause, as has already occurred in the CACC's brief history.
The CACC receives the vast majority of its funding-- nearly $8 million annually as of July 1, 1999 -- from the city. Although this may change gradually over time, a significant portion of the CACC's funding will continue to be provided by the city and as such, will continue to be subjected to the limitations of the city's budget.
The Humane Society of the United States evaluated the operations at the CACC. In its lengthy report, HSUS devoted a large section to commenting on what they described as CACC's "hybridized" structure.
"CACC ... was established as a not-for-profit corporation under New York State law. However, unlike most nonprofits, it was formed not by a group of concerned citizens, but rather by the City of New York, in an effort to continue to keep the animal control functions outside the city bureaucracy."
"The resulting structure is a supposedly independent not-for-profit organization that is structured in a hybridized fashion and functions more as a department of city government working under an appointed political commission."/FN1
"From a strictly practical perspective, The HSUS believes that the organization cannot function most effectively in this dual role, and it is incumbent on the Board of Directors to determine which format shouldpursue."/FN2
MYTH: The CACC would be prevented from soliciting private donations.
FACT: Bills A 1218 and S 3963 would simply allow the city of New York to designate someone other than the Mayor to supervise animal control duties. It is anticipated that the New York City council would subsequently vote in a Department of Animal Affairs to be in charge of all animal matters. Preliminary legislation to outline the Department of Animal Affairs specifies that this department shall be controlled by a Commissioner -- of specified qualifications and appointed by the Mayor -- who would have "the power and duty to award contracts and services for facilities with such public or private institutions or agencies, as may be necessary and proper to carry out the provisions of this chapter." Thus the existing CACC would not be legislated out of existence, but rather would be enhanced by a number of provisions specified by the creation of a Department of Animal Affairs. Nothing in this chapter would prohibit theCACC from continuing to solicit private donations.
We respectfully urge you to PASS this legislation.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Barbara Stagno
In Defense of Animals
June 21, 1999
_______________________________
1/ The Humane Society of the United States, Evaluation Team Report on the Center for Animal Care and Control, November, 1998, page 21
2/ HSUS report, page 22.
Regarding the legislation to reform the 1894 law, some have sought to make this a competition between the existing Center for Animal Care and Control (CACC) and a community of animal advocates. The fact is, this legislation would simply repeal the exclusive authority of the mayor to designate animal protection duties. In so doing, it allows flexibility into a system where traditionally there has been none, and in which animal control functions have suffered due to the inhumane attitudes and opinions of one individual. By placing that authority with other city officials, this legislation would allow animal control to be supervised by a body of officials who have a sole mandate to advocate for animals to the benefit of the animals and the people who daily interact with them.
The New York City Council has shown strong support for these bills indicating their awareness of the shortcomings with the current system. Indeed, a lengthy investigation was completed by the City Council in July 1997, revealing fundamental, grave problems in the operations of the CACC. Although several of these problems may have been corrected in the nearly two years since the investigation, it remains true that the underlying problems remain the same.
Certain myths have been propagated by individuals opposing this legislation. IDA would like to address those myths.
MYTH: The CACC is a not-for-profit organization and not a city agency.
FACT: While incorporated as a not-for-profit by the City of New York, the CACC is run more like a city agency than a nonprofit. Under the existing structure, the mayor and his designees have total control of CACC. Under the articles of incorporation, the organization has only the limited mandate to provide animal control services, and the organizational bylaws call for five directors, three of which are city officials and the other two of which are to be appointed by the Mayor or his Deputy Mayor of Operations and may be dismissed at any time without cause, as has already occurred in the CACC's brief history.
The CACC receives the vast majority of its funding-- nearly $8 million annually as of July 1, 1999 -- from the city. Although this may change gradually over time, a significant portion of the CACC's funding will continue to be provided by the city and as such, will continue to be subjected to the limitations of the city's budget.
The Humane Society of the United States evaluated the operations at the CACC. In its lengthy report, HSUS devoted a large section to commenting on what they described as CACC's "hybridized" structure.
"CACC ... was established as a not-for-profit corporation under New York State law. However, unlike most nonprofits, it was formed not by a group of concerned citizens, but rather by the City of New York, in an effort to continue to keep the animal control functions outside the city bureaucracy."
"The resulting structure is a supposedly independent not-for-profit organization that is structured in a hybridized fashion and functions more as a department of city government working under an appointed political commission."/FN1
"From a strictly practical perspective, The HSUS believes that the organization cannot function most effectively in this dual role, and it is incumbent on the Board of Directors to determine which format shouldpursue."/FN2
MYTH: The CACC would be prevented from soliciting private donations.
FACT: Bills A 1218 and S 3963 would simply allow the city of New York to designate someone other than the Mayor to supervise animal control duties. It is anticipated that the New York City council would subsequently vote in a Department of Animal Affairs to be in charge of all animal matters. Preliminary legislation to outline the Department of Animal Affairs specifies that this department shall be controlled by a Commissioner -- of specified qualifications and appointed by the Mayor -- who would have "the power and duty to award contracts and services for facilities with such public or private institutions or agencies, as may be necessary and proper to carry out the provisions of this chapter." Thus the existing CACC would not be legislated out of existence, but rather would be enhanced by a number of provisions specified by the creation of a Department of Animal Affairs. Nothing in this chapter would prohibit theCACC from continuing to solicit private donations.
We respectfully urge you to PASS this legislation.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Barbara Stagno
In Defense of Animals
June 21, 1999
_______________________________
1/ The Humane Society of the United States, Evaluation Team Report on the Center for Animal Care and Control, November, 1998, page 21
2/ HSUS report, page 22.
