Detailed Report on April 12, 2013 Hearing on Local Law 59 “Progress”: Who’s Telling the Truth?

INTRODUCTION

The New York City Council Health Committee heard testimony about progress under Local Law 59.  NYC Department of Health (DOH) and Animal Care & Control (AC&C) representatives assured the Committee there was progress galore.  Health Committee Chairperson Carmen Arroyo wasn’t so sure, nor were other individuals (including including Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer) who addressed the committee.

It’s correct that additional funding from the DOH has allowed the AC&C to start rebuilding its depleted staff and restoring some key services. However, it’s also correct that the AC&C Management team (handpicked by the DOH) are the ones making those staffing and services decisions, thereby shaping the AC&C for years to come.

As you read through our report, you’ll learn more about the current AC&C Management Team and their master — the DOH.  Then decide for yourself whether the AC&C is on the right path to becoming a progressive and humane shelter.

We have identified the following 2 key issues that were not addressed by either the Committee, the AC&C or the DOH at the hearing, but merit a wider conversation:

1.      The AC&C Poses A Serious Public Health Risk: Putting aside the moral question of how AC&C animals are treated, there’s another issue that should concern City and State health officials as well as animal health professionals.  For years the DOH has allowed AC&C shelter conditions to develop a host of diseases, some growing in severity and deadliness.  AC&C infects almost 100% of its animals, and then sends them out into the general population to infect even more animals.  Moreover, there is the real danger that one day the AC&C will create a super bug… one resistant to antibiotics.  Even more ominous, one of these diseases may jump species: from dogs/cats to humans.  Then we’ll all be in quite a pickle— caught in a health epidemic caused by none other than the Department of Health. 

2.  Beware Backroom Deals and Private Agendas:  The DOH has demonstrated that it cannot be trusted with overseeing the welfare of our City’s homeless animals.  But AC&C animals face another danger: undue influence by special interest groups and private agendas.  As MBP Stringer warned:

“I don’t think we should restructure [the AC&C] behind closed doors, winking and nodding … taking care of somebody or some agenda.”

One such agenda is to declare the AC&C “no-kill” in 2015 regardless of whether animals continue to be killed unnecessarily.  Current AC&C Management will have no qualms about falsely claiming “mission accomplished” in 2015.   If we allow that to happen, NYC will never have a shelter system deserving of the public’s trust and support.

That said, below are detailed highlights from the April 12^th Hearing.  At points we have inserted our notes and commentary. To view the entire hearing, click on this link.

Deputy Health Commissioner Daniel Kass and AC&C “Interim” Executive Director Risa Weinstock provided the first 2 hours of testimony in praise of Local Law 59. The Mayor’s Alliance and the ASPCA (both of which secretly negotiated what ultimately became Local Law 59) echoed the DOH and AC&C’s testimony about progress.

Kass and Weinstock: the "Weird" Couple

AC&C HIRING

Increasing AC&C Staff Numbers: 

(NOTE: The AC&C began downsizing staff in October 2009 in response to drastic budget cuts by DOH.  By September 2011 the AC&C was down to 125 employees from a high of 185  two years earlier,  That’s a 33% decrease.)

Weinstock testified that since September 2011 the AC&C has been hiring in a thoughtful manner, never rushing to add employees.  They emphasize quality over quality.  She said the AC&C is “really … attracting quality people.”  The AC&C now has 200 employees with only 33 more positions to fill.

(NOTE: One and a half years after passage of Local law 59, the AC&C has only 15 more employees than it did in September 2009.)

Executive Director:

(NOTE: The position of AC&C Executive Director was vacated in October 2012 when Julie Bank unexpectedly resigned citing “family reasons.”)

Chairman Arroyo asked Kass and Weinstock how the search for a new Executive Director was coming along.  They looked at each other sheepishly.  Kass said he should answer “because she [Weinstock] has a vested interest.”

(NOTE: “Vested interest” indeed.  It’s obvious the DOH isn’t looking farther than the person who sat next to Kass. Weinstock is a lawyer, and we’re told she has an excellent relationship with the DOH.  Kass described Weinstock’s “leadership at AC&C [as] thoughtful, strategic and impactful.”  Prior to coming to the AC&C in 2008, Weinstock had no experience with an animal shelter. During her previous stint as “Interim” Executive Director [i] (October 2009-April 2010), Weinstock acceded to the DOH’s demand to cut AC&C services. When Health Commissioner Farley demanded that the AC&C budget be cut to the bare bones, Weinstock agreed. She oversaw the dismantling of core shelter services knowing full well that AC&C animals would suffer.  But anyone who wants to keep his or her job with the AC&C must obey the DOH.)

Later in the hearing MBP Stringer told the Committee that the AC&C deserves a “world class” executive director.

Chairperson Arroyo repeatedly noted that the relationship between the DOH and the AC&C is “weird.”  She asked why a supposedly independent charity would be so closely aligned to a government agency?  Weird, indeed.

Reducing AC&C’s Budget Because of “Underspending”:

(NOTE: In September 2011 Kass assured the Committee that the promised additional monies to the AC&C would always be there.)

Chairperson Arroyo noted that — a few weeks earlier — the DOH told the Health Committee that it wanted to cut AC&C’s Fiscal 2013 budget by $800,000 because of projected AC&C “underspending.”  He explained that the AC&C still had 70 open positions, so it wouldn’t need the $800,000 right away.  But at the April hearing Kass had revised his numbers.  He said that the DOH wants to cut only $600,000 because the AC&C filled many positions in the past few weeks.  He assured the Committee that come fiscal 2014, all the cut monies would be restored to the AC&C budget.

Medical Staff Hires:

Medical Director:

(NOTE: In January 2013 MBP Stringer published a scathing report on the AC&C.  One criticism was the absence of a Medical Director since February 2010.  Suddenly the AC&C is all fired up to hire a Medical Director.)

Chairperson Arroyo asked when the AC&C would hire a new Medical Director. Weinstock said the AC&C has interviewed two candidates “who are very interested and with good credentials.” She said the AC&C must be sure the candidates are “comfortable with shelter medicine” before making an offer.

(NOTE: Weinstock’s statement should be a red flag.  Apparently neither candidate has practiced in a shelter before, much less a high kill/high disease shelter like the AC&C.  It will be quite a wakeup call for the candidate who gets the job.)

Weinstock testified that for the past 2 years the AC&C has had a “consulting” arrangement with the ASPCA which will end in June.

(NOTE:  Weinstock was talking about a dial-a-medical director arrangement.  If anyone at the AC&C has an urgent medical question, they’re supposed to call the ASPCA consultant for guidance. While Weinstock studiously avoided identifying that ASPCA consultant by name, it is none other than Dr. Stephanie Janeczko, who used to be the AC&C’s Medical Director until she walked away from the job in February 2010.)

Weinstock said that if the AC&C hasn’t hired a Medical Director by June, the ASPCA has already agreed to extend the dial-a-medical-director arrangement … but on a limited basis.  In response to Arroyo’s persistent questioning, Weinstock conceded it would always be better to have a Medical Director on staff, full time, and in the shelters.

Veterinarians: Weinstock says the AC&C is able to offer better salaries to attract veterinarians. Kass said the AC&C is supplementing its medical services with per diem vets.

(NOTE: Another red flag.  Local Law 59 was supposed to enable the AC&C to forsake use of per diem vets.  So, just how many full time vets is the AC&C still short?  No one’s telling.)

Licensed Vet Technicians:  This is positive news.  Weinstock reported that the AC&C now has a “tremendous” number of licensed vet techs, by offering to help employees prepare for and pass the vet tech licensing exam. The AC&C has also increased the salary being offered.  (NOTE: What exactly is a “tremendous” number?)

Adoption Staff Hires:

(NOTE: The Stringer Report lambasted the AC&C for labeling transfers of its animals to rescue groups as “Adoptions” and how actual AC&C adoption numbers (animals going directly to the public) have plummeted over the past 3 years.)

Both Kass and Weinstock used the word “Placements” … explaining the term covers the following three ways animals leave the AC&C alive: (1) transfers to a rescue group; (2) adoptions directly to the public; or (3) returns to owner.

Weinstock reported the AC&C has created a new Adoptions Staff.

(NOTE: The AC&C’s recent focus on Adoptions comes none too soon because Weinstock reported that “a grant” funding the AC&C’s New Hope staff has ended.  (NOTE: New Hope employees coordinate to transfer of AC&C animals to rescue groups.  The Mayor’s Alliance has ended its grant to New Hope (because the Alliance no longer receives grant monies from Maddie’s Fund). Thus, going forward the AC&C has no choice but to abandon its slavish reliance on rescuers and to learn how to perform a core shelter function: adopting animals to the public.)

Chairperson Arroyo asked if the AC&C kept track of what happened to animals after they are transferred to rescue groups.  Weinstock said “no.”  They could, but they don’t.

(NOTE: The AC&C doesn’t want to know what happens to those animals because that kind of information could prove embarrassing.  The AC&C might have to disclose how many animals die from AC&C-borne diseases after going to rescue, and how many linger in cages or kennels for weeks, months, or even years, as rescuers try to find permanent homes for them.)

Management/Employee Relations: Weinstock said the AC&C’s hiring methods have resulted in a “stronger team and better retention rate.”  She said the highest turnover is at the entry level positions for Animal Care Officers (ACO’s) — the employees who clean cages or sit at the front desk and deal with customers.

(NOTE:  AC&C union employees have been working without a contract for the past 3 years, contributing to frayed employee/employer relations.  We’ve also been told that a class action alleging discrimination has been threatened.)

Chairperson Arroyo asked the AC&C to provide the precise staffing by position in all 5 AC&C locations (the 3 shelters and 2 receiving centers), and to identify the positions that are still open.

FUNDRAISING 

Weinstock noted that because the AC&C is a 501(c)(3) charity, they can fund-raise.  Chairperson Arroyo asked AC&C to provide the amounts the AC&C has raised over the past 5 years.  Arroyo will learn that it’s precious little..

(NOTE: The AC&C’s fundraising problem is twofold: people don’t want to donate to (1) a government agency (and the AC&C is effectively an extension of the DOH; or (2) a poorly run/high kill shelter (even if the AC&C weren’t viewed as a government agency).  The public simply isn’t interested in giving to the AC&C, despite the efforts of the AC&C “Fundraising Committee” (belatedly created in January 2012) and their “Director of Fundraising.”)

Both the Alliance and the ASPCA representatives stated that while the additional funding from the DOH has helped the AC&C restore services and staff, the AC&C needs a lot more money to operate properly.

Jane Hoffman (Mayor’s Alliance) and ASPCA Rep Testifying

The promised baseline budget of $12 million in fiscal year 2015 is simply not enough to run the AC&C.

DISEASE CONTROL

NOTE:  Neither Kass nor Weinstock discussed whether the almost 100% infection rate among AC&C animals has decreased.  That would be an important indicator of whether the AC&C is able to provide basic medical and hygienic care to its animals. Rescuers and adopters regularly contact us about the increasing severity of diseases afflicting AC&C animals.

There’s something dangerous brewing inside the AC&C shelters, but neither the DOH nor the AC&C wants to discuss the problem.

SPAY/NEUTER AND TNR SERVICES

Health committee members asked how many NYC animals are spayed/neutered (S/N) each year.[ii]

(NOTE: The more interesting question would have been many of its own animals the AC&C spays or neuters compared to the number of AC&C animals the ASPCA spay/neuters for the AC&C?  The AC&C has been relying increasingly on the ASPCA to perform S/N.  What’s ironic is that S/N is the only medical procedure the AC&C will perform.  Yet, the AC&C’s medical staff apparently isn’t up to doing that one type of surgery.)

Kass testified that in 2010 a New York State Law created a NYC “Animal Population Control Fund” which the DOH administers.  The funding comes from the increased licensing “surcharge” for unfixed dogs.  On April 12^th, Kass told the Committee that the “Animal Population Control Fund”  raised a “substantial” amount of money which the DOH uses to subsidize the ASPCA and The Toby Project for providing low-cost or free S/N services.  He said the DOH is looking for other organizations that want to be funded for S/N.

Chairperson Arroyo talked about the importance of Spay/Neuter/Return (TNR) for feral cats and asked Kass what the DOH does to support TNR groups.  Nothing, he said, oh, except the DOH has posted on its website the names and contact information for 4 TNR groups if anyone has a question about TNR.

RECEIVING CENTERS

(NOTE: Local Law 59 relieved the DOH of having to create shelters for the Bronx and Queens.  In exchange, the DOH promised to enhance the services of those boroughs’ “receiving centers.”)

Kass reported that the Bronx and Queens receiving centers operations have been expanded: from operating just 2 days and 1 day, respectively, per week to 5 days a week.  However, he didn’t volunteer any information about another key promise: replacing the tiny and decrepit Queens receiving center with a former vet hospital located.  Only when Chairperson Arroyo pressed the point, Kass responded that the DOH had “worked doggedly” (smiling at his clever pun) to secure the vet hospital, but things just “didn’t work out.”  He spoke very, very fast and it was hard to understand him.  Apparently price was the sticking point.  Kass assured the Committee that the DOH would keep looking.  Oh, yes, indeed.

(NOTE: We thank Queens Councilmembers Peter Vallone, Jr. and Jimmy Van Bramer for attending the hearing (they’re on the Health Committee) and questioning the DOH about the missing Queens “receiving” center.  In an upcoming article, we’ll focus on the Queens situation, and how Queens residents continue to be ignored despite all the DOH promises.)

The promised improved animal services for the Bronx have also been a fantasy. Read the statement of Bronx Community Board member, TNR rescuer, and community activist Bernadette Ferrara explaining how Local Law 59 has done little to improve conditions for the Bronx’s dogs and cats and their owners.)

INTAKE NUMBERS AND FIELD OPERATIONS 

Kass waxed poetic about how AC&C intake numbers have dramatically decreased for the past 3 years, and he knew why: rescue groups were acting proactively to keep animals from entering the AC&C.

(NOTE: Nonsense! That sudden dip in intake numbers was manufactured … with the AC&C closing its doors to thousands of animals.  From 2003 to sometime in 2009 AC&C intake numbers went down slowly but steadily due primarily to the increased availability of low-cost or free S/N. (The ASPCA provides the vast majority of those services.)  But in response to DOH budget cuts that began in 2009, the AC&C quietly began to slow down its Field Operations (the van drivers who pick up stray, abandoned and injured animals). The policy became official in September 2010 when the AC&C announced it would slash its Field Ops and no longer pick up cats.  Simply by refusing to pick up cats, the AC&C immediately cut its intake numbers by a few thousand a year.  And when the AC&C has fewer intakes, its kill statistics look better, because there are fewer animals to kill and you reduce the need to kill animals for lack of space.)

Beginning in September 2011 the AC&C promised to rebuild and expand its Field Operations.  Weinstock reported that the AC&C now has 18 drivers and will hire two more.  However, because the AC&C doesn’t have enough working vans, they’re doubling up the Field Ops employees – 2 drivers per van.  Weinstock said this doubling up is actually a good thing, because it allows new hires to be mentored by experienced van drivers.  Come Fall 2013 … when 12 new vans are expected to arrive … the new hires will know the ropes.

(NOTE:  No matter how Weinstock tries to spin the shortage-of-working-vans situation as a positive, the fact is that with fewer vans, fewer animals will be rescued from the streets.)

DOG LICENSING:

Kass didn’t volunteer any information about the DOH’s promise to increase dog licensing compliance.  Chairperson Arroyo asked why dog licensing has in fact gone down.  Kass responded that — given the increased surcharge (owners of unfixed dogs must pay $34)– the DOH should be congratulated being “successful in preventing a significant reduction.” (TRANSLATION: Kass suggested that the increased surcharge would dissuade owners from licensing their unfixed dogs. So, the decrease in compliance could’ve been a lot worse if the DOH hadn’t launched a two month campaign to encourage licensing.  Really, that was Kass’ defense.)

But Kass raised one interesting  issue: the need to secure Albany’s permission for a “home rule” exception allowing NYC to (a) increase the basic licensing fee for fixed dogs (it’s been $8.50 for years and years); and (b) engage in inventive methods to increase licensing (e.g., offering multi-year licenses, “vanity” plates, licenses available at vet hospitals and pet stores).  Kass said the DOH had proposed a “home rule” resolution to the Albany legislature, but nothing happened. Arroyo said she would work with the DOH to use her contacts in Albany to secure that “home rule” exception.  We’ll keep you posted.

AC&C BOARD OF DIRECTORS

Chairperson Arroyo noted that the DOH was slow to make good on its promise to expand the AC&C board by adding 2 more seats for “non-government” directors and that one seat remains vacant.  Kass responded that the DOH did fill the 2 additional seats.

(NOTE: Kass didn’t mention that it took the DOH 9 months to fill those 2 seats.).

He also said that the one empty seat remaining had been vacated by an existing non-government director.

(NOTE: Jane Hoffman of the Mayor’s Alliance later testified that the still-empty seat has been empty for a year, but it “should be filled by this time.”  And this is why we listened closely to a warning by MBP Stringer:

“I don’t think we should restructure [the AC&C] behind closed doors, winking and nodding and adding a seat [to the board], taking care of somebody or some agenda.”

If either the DOH or the Mayor’s Office continue to determine which “non-government” directors sit on the AC&C board … then the City Government will effectively continue to control the AC&C Board.  Moreover, there’s another danger which Stringer warns about: non-government directors can be captive private interests and private agendas, and this undue influence can be equally harmful to our shelter system.)

SUMMARY

Several other issues were addressed during the 3-hour session (e.g., how the AC&C approves adopters, how to encourage the public to microchip their animals, how to encourage dog licensing; how to expand advertisements about employment at the AC&C; how to advertise the expanded hours of the Bronx and Queens receiving centers; how the DOH finally established the “dangerous dog board;” how to promote TNR; etc.).

We chose to discuss a core number of issues we believe reflect on AC&C conditions and management.  But the other issues are important as well.

We hope this report is of assistance to our readers who weren’t able to attend the hearing.

[i] Weinstock was initially hired as the AC&C’s General Counsel in 2008.  Before coming to the AC&C, she had no experience with an animal shelter.  She left the AC&C sometime in 2009 (no reason given).  The DOH invited her back in October 2009 to be the “Interim” Executive Director.  She served in that capacity until April 2010 when the DOH hired Julie Bank. Bank kept Weinstock on as General Counsel and head of HR.  When Bank left in September 2012, the DOH tapped Weinstock again to be the “interim” Executive Director..