COUNCIL HEARS REPORT AND COMMENTS ON PET ADOPTION CENTER

  

Brenham City Council heard a report and public comments today on the conditions at the Pet Adoption Center.  Director of Community Services Wende Regonis lead an ad hoc committee that looked into issues raised by Carol Jensen on September 7th.  Ragonis stated that the committee talked with the various stakeholders in the Pet Adoption Center and is recommending that an expert in animal management be hired as a consultant.  She stated that Tim Crum of Animal Shelter Services out of Arizona will likely be retained to give his recommendations for the shelter.  She also stated that John Snowden has voluntarily stepped down as Animal Services Supervisor and has returned to full time duty with the Brenham Police Department.  Tammy Jaster, currently the Supervisor at the Blue Bell Aquatic Center will take over as interim director until a permanent replacement can be hired.  Carol Jensen also addressed the council, reading a lengthy response to the committees report.  Her statement was critical of Police Chief Craig Goodman’s support of Officer John Snowden performance as the Center’s supervisor. Jensen said she hoped the new paid consultant would set the hiring qualifications for the next supervisor.

Brenham Mayor Milton Tate thanked Jensen for her comments and asked that they be added to the report. (shown below)  He stated that he and the council want to get the Animal Adoption Center back on track and that they are looking at all of the aspects of operating the center.

Carol Jensen's statement to city council:

COMMENTS: CITY OF BRENHAM’S SHELTER REPORT   November 2, 2017

Mayor and City Council, thank you for the opportunity to speak.  Also here today in support of changes at the Pet Adoption and Care Center are:   (whoever makes it to the meeting)

Included in the City’s report is a copy of the inspection report of Dr. Melinda Hergert from the Texas Department of State Health Services. This inspection of the shelter occurred on September 27. An October 25 media report stated that “the Pet Adoption Center recently had a surprise state inspection and it received the highest marks possible in all areas.” This wording has caused confusion and needs to be clarified. The statements I will now read with respect to this inspection have been confirmed as accurate by Dr. Hergert via telephone on October 31.

The inspection was not a “surprise” inspection.  It was the annual inspection mandated by the state for the purpose of evaluating the rabies quarantine facilities. The only ratings available are “Satisfactory,” “Unsatisfactory,” or “Probation.” The Brenham shelter received the “Satisfactory” rating. The rating applies only to the rabies quarantine facilities, items 38-46 on the inspection report.  Nothing else is rated by the state.  The state does not evaluate or enforce adequacy or competency of care and welfare of animals. The inspector can make recommendations for improvement, which Dr. Hergert did. Some of her comments can be found on pages 3 and 4 of her report, which are not legible in the copy included in the City’s report. I requested a readable copy from Dr. Hergert, which she emailed to me.  I have forwarded this legible copy to Wende Ragonis to use and duplicate as needed.

Dr.Hergert’s comments include recommendations regarding cat litter, food storage bins, shelving, too many kittens in one cage, sick kittens that need to see a vet, fostering, fund raising, marketing, donations, volunteer program training, more exercise and playtime for dogs, toys, blankets, beds, etc. for dogs.  The official end result of the inspection provided by the state is a certificate indicating that the shelter has complied with the provisions of Chapter 826 of the Health and Safety Code and is therefore licensed to operate as an Animal Quarantine Facility.

I would like to clarify that the only document authored by me included in the 51-page City report we are discussing today is the first one I emailed to you September 5. This was a discussion of deficiencies discovered during my hours of personally volunteering at the shelter. Subsequent to providing this report to you, I emailed to each of you three additional documents which provided the results of my review of approximately 900 pages I received from the City under the open records act.  The information in these three documents is essential, in fact critical, to anyone reading the responses of the Animal Services Supervisor and the Police Chief included in the City’s report.  In their responses, both the Supervisor and the Chief have denied, minimized, justified, rationalized or defended various of the deficiencies I revealed in my “personal experience” document. The three documents I produced as a result of my review of the City’s and the shelter’s own records prove explicitly and further expose the severity and extent of many of the deficiencies. The inclusion of these three records-review documents as part of this City report is essential, and I now formally request that they be officially added as a permanent part of the report.  Tuesday October 31 I provided copies of the three documents to Kacey Weiss, Deputy City Secretary to be duplicated as needed for inclusion as a permanent part of the City’s report.

Some of the Supervisor’s responses included in this City report are contradicted by his own records and answers provided as a result of my open records request. Some clearly show his lack of knowledge of animal care and city and state ordinances related to animal care. Some responses indicating that problems were a “one-time occurrence” were shown to be inaccurate later by statements and examples provided by others. Some problems that he says have been corrected were still ongoing problems as of last week.  None of the problems I revealed in my documents were acknowledged or addressed by the Supervisor until I presented them to Chief Goodman in July.  All of the problems were something that a qualified, competent, diligent supervisor should have realized and corrected without the need for the time-and-money consuming process that so many of us here today have had to endure for the past three months.

Fortunately, there is no reason to take the time to review in detail each of the Supervisor’s responses I take exception to, since we now know the Supervisor has “voluntarily” chosen to return to police work and there will be a new animal services supervisor.

The City’s report also contains the Police Chief’s “Administrative Report.” I also take exception to numerous statements in this report, and would like to briefly mention some of them, since the Police Department will apparently at this point continue to control the Shelter.

In the fourth paragraph on page 33 is the Chief’s statement “we took prompt and appropriate action to change and/or enhance those areas in need of improvement.”  Some of the problems with the physical plant, which are readily observable to the public, were remediated by actions taken by the Chief himself. But many of the problems related to care and welfare of the animals have still not had “prompt and appropriate action” three months later. This is a direct result of the lack of competent and diligent personnel and adequate supervision and accountability.

The fifth paragraph on page 33 says that the personnel “welcome suggestions that would help improve practices” and that the Chief is “grateful” that I “offered suggestions for improvement.”  On the contrary, my experience indicates that suggestions were not welcome and personnel were anything but grateful. In fact the Supervisor summoned his Captain to come over from the Police Department to inform me that I was no longer welcome at the shelter, as he videotaped me with his body cam.  The Chief asked me numerous times to not say anything “negative” about the shelter.  He considered it “negative” to simply post a picture of a dog on Facebook that said “Please adopt me from the shelter.  I’m traumatized from being here four months, and I need someone to give me a forever home.”

In this same paragraph on page 33 of the City report the Chief speaks of my “negative behavior directed toward shelter personnel.” My asking questions and making suggestions as I volunteered was apparently considered “negative behavior.” Yet it was apparently considered acceptable behavior when a shelter employee confronted me in the hallway, blocking my passage as she cried, screamed and threatened because she was unhappy that I had reported problems at the shelter. Her friend came to drag her away by the collar.  There were other instances of similar behavior, just during the short time that I was actually allowed to volunteer at the shelter.

In the first paragraph on page 34, the Chief says he “recognizes the importance of constantly evaluating policies and procedures to ensure best practices are accomplished,” and that “shelter personnel were aware of this philosophy and will continue their efforts to seek best practices.”  During all of my encounters with shelter personnel, there was not any indication of a desire or even an open mind toward any “best practices.” They were not open to questions or suggestions.  In fact, questions or suggestions were considered “negative behavior directed toward shelter personnel” mentioned in the previous paragraph of the Chief’s report.

In the third paragraph on page 34, the Chief says the “City of Brenham prefers to promote from within if viable candidates exist.” He utilizes the remainder of his report to justify his hiring of the Animal Services Supervisor and compliment the Supervisor, with the ultimate conclusion in his final paragraph that the Supervisor has “met or exceeded my expectations” and that the “goals of the shelter are being met.” To me, these statements are a clear indication of a lack of understanding as to how to hire a competent animal services supervisor and how to evaluate shelter personnel on an ongoing basis.  The “viability” of the candidate he hired is in serious question, and my reports from the past three months clearly show that shelter operations are not meeting expectations and goals that should be expected of any properly operated shelter are certainly not being met.

You have all seen the Records Review #3 document I sent to you regarding the hiring process last October for the position of Animal Services Supervisor.  All of the information was obtained through the open records act. That information proved that there were qualified applicants for the position, based on education and experience requirements related to animal care as listed in the published job description used for hiring purposes.  None of these qualified applicants were ever contacted.  In fact, no one was interviewed for the position.  A police investigator was given the position, even though he did not meet the education and experience requirements posted on the job description used to attract applicants. He had no animal-related education or experience.

After the police investigator was given the position, the official job description was altered to match his education and experience in the field of criminal justice, with no mention whatsoever of animal-related knowledge or experience.  This altered description also included, as the most prominent and detailed duty in the entire description, a requirement to continue to assist the Police Department in non-animal-related matters. The Police Department intended to continue using the Supervisor for police work. But his entire salary including all related benefits is charged to the animal shelter.  And, upon being given the job, the police investigator was immediately paid at the highest rate in the published range of pay offered for the advertised job, the rate for a “most qualified” candidate.

This hiring decision was the starting point for the many serious deficiencies at the shelter that were revealed in my reports and would have continued indefinitely had I not persevered because the welfare of the animals was too important to ignore.  There was now a person in charge who was not qualified. There was also not proper oversight of the operations at the shelter by Police Department management, as evidenced by one of the Chief’s comments when I first presented my concerns to him in July.  He said “We had no idea that any of these problems existed.”

In the first two paragraphs on page 35, the Chief discusses the Supervisor’s training during his year running the shelter.  The five days of Animal Control Officer training he completed does not suffice to replace the animal science degree and/or animal-related years of experience required by the original job description used to attract qualified applicants.

The list of “accomplishments” during the Supervisor’s tenure included on pages 35-37 contains a number of changes that happened only because of and subsequent to my presentation of deficiencies to the Chief in July. For instance, his “partnering with Jeana Bellinger to review and update city ordinances related to the shelter,” a work that was noted as not yet complete, is a critical duty of his job that had not been performed, since he had been in violation of and apparently not even aware of two City ordinances regarding vaccinations and spay/neuter records during his entire tenure at the shelter.  The “accomplishment” of “implementation of a new volunteer program,” embarked upon because of my documented deficiencies, has also not yet occurred.

Some of the “accomplishments” are the result of the efforts of others without meaningful involvement of the Supervisor. One of the most outstanding examples of this is that the Chief states as an accomplishment that “For the first time in the shelter’s history, rescue groups have been utilized to help support the mission of finding forever homes for both dogs and cats.” There were apparently 2 cats “rescued” by someone, but the 121 dogs rescued were the result of Julie Dodson learning of the dire situation for the shelter dogs and using her time and money and networking with other local and national rescue groups to remove as many dogs as possible. The Supervisor and the Chief never aided her rescue efforts in any way, and at various times actually hindered her efforts.  But they have now chosen to claim those rescue efforts as “their” accomplishment.

The Chief also claims the accomplishment of reducing the euthanization rate for dogs as compared to the prior year.  Julie’s determined efforts to save those 121 dogs were a huge factor in the reduction of that rate. Julie even held adoption events for shelter dogs. The shelter Supervisor and the Chief turned down Sally’s generous offer of a paid-for space at the extremely popular and well-attended Bluebonnet Festival in Chappell Hill in April. After they turned down this prepaid space because, as the Chief’s text to Sally says, the Supervisor “did not want to set up a booth,” Sally offered it to True Blue Animal Rescue. T-Bar was grateful to use the space.  They got great exposure for their animals with hundreds of people, were able to use it as an opportunity to educate the public about responsible pet ownership, and had five approved adoptions from applications taken that day.

Planning and executing adoption events was not a priority for the Supervisor, even though this is one of his stated duties.  But the Chief does list as one of his “accomplishments” the Clear the Shelters adoption event on August 19.  Four days before this nationwide scheduled event, the Supervisor asked Kathryn Kwiatkowski to quickly plan an event for the shelter.  He acknowledges in this City report that he found out about the national event in April from KAGS TV, but he “did not commit to anything” and said he would “get back to them.” He did not get back to them, but on Monday August 15, someone called the shelter and said they had heard on TV that the Brenham shelter was participating in the event. So, between the pressure of this unexpected media promotion of an event he had not planned to have, and the pressure of the complaints that I had revealed to the Chief over the past few weeks, he fortunately did decide he’d better do this adoption event.

On page 40, the Chief states that “John treats animals with love, compassion and respect.” Of course it is possible for anyone to “put on an appearance” of compassion, especially in a situation where “best behavior” must be on display to impress people who can affect your career. But the true test is what happens when nobody is watching or when the person wasting your time with questions about the welfare of the animals is just a “nobody,” a “pesky volunteer” who needs to be silenced as quickly as possible and made uncomfortable enough that they never return.  I was that “nobody,” that “pesky volunteer,” who almost succumbed to those tactics.  But the tears and nightmares and sleepless nights with visions of those animal’s faces would not allow me to give up the fight for the voiceless ones.  I observed no trace of compassion when I asked about the dogs’ 22-23 hour a day confinement in the enclosed part of their kennels, when I asked about the lack of concern that the dogs were never given access to the outdoor runs, when the Supervisor told me that an emaciated, worm-and-flea-infested, anemic puppy with a broken neck was “not sick and not skinny.” These are just the three examples that stand out the most in my mind.

Finally, I take exception to the entire last paragraph of the Chief’s report entitled “Conclusion.” Excerpts include: “Goals of the shelter are being met.” “John has the necessary qualities and capabilities to be successful.” “John has either met or exceeded my expectations.” Keeping these few quotes in mind, I would like to remind everyone of some of the issues I documented, including unwarranted euthanizations, underfeeding, flea infestation, worm infestation, solitary confinement, deficient exercise and socialization, inadequate updating of website and social media for adoptable dogs, no volunteer training or supervision, facility issues critical to the dogs that were never addressed, lack of supervision and job performance evaluation, inadequate and inaccurate recordkeeping, lack of knowledge of laws and ordinances related to shelter operations, violation of City Ordinance O-14-034 regarding vaccinations upon intake and violation of City Ordinance Article III, Section 5-43  and the Texas Health and Safety Code Chapter 828 by failing to obtain and document proof of sterilization of animals adopted out from the center.

If these issues can exist, and the Chief, as the person who has overall responsibility for the shelter, can say “goals of the shelter are being met” and that the person in charge of the shelter “has the necessary qualities and capabilities” and “has either met or exceeded my expectations,” I have real concerns about the ability of this person to hire a competent, diligent, compassionate animal shelter supervisor and to continue to be the party responsible for evaluating the supervisor once hired.

The Short Term Solution stated in the City’s report includes leaving the shelter under control of the Police Department with personnel reporting directly to the Chief of Police.  Considering everything that has been presented to you and to the Chief over the past three months and everything I have said here today, I would sincerely hope that the expert outside consultant would be the person developing a new appropriate detailed job description for use in hiring a new supervisor for the Pet Adoption and Care Center. I would hope that the consultant and the Leadership Team of Wende Ragonis, Ryan Rapelye and Susan Nienstedt would have the responsibility of interviewing, evaluating and selecting this new supervisor.

Thank you Mayor and City Council for your attention to and actions taken with respect to the shelter.  Thank you Susan Cantey, Danny Goss and Keith Herring for your service on the special sub-committee.  Thank you Wende Ragonis, Ryan Rapelye and Susan Nienstedt for your participation in the Leadership Team that has been instrumental in achieving significant beneficial changes for the shelter under difficult circumstances.  Thank you Jeanna Bellinger, Rebecca Ruffino, Kacey Weiss and the entire Records Management team for your timely, professional attention to detail.  Thank you Mark, Sally and Sonny, Julie, Trisha, Marion, Chris, Doreen, Kathryn, Kathy and Clay, Bob and Cathy, Lannie, Betsy, George, Melanie, Teresa, Alan, Lori and so many others who provided support in so many ways for the sake of the animals.