1. Call to Order and Roll Call at 5:33pm
Commissioners present: Annemarie Fortier; Shari O’Neill, DMV; Jennifer Mieuli Jameson; Zachary Marks; Susanna Russo; Sally Stephens; John Denny; Rebecca Katz
2. General Public Comment
No public comment.
3. Approval of Draft Minutes from the August 8, 2013 Meeting.
No public comment.
Minutes approved.
4. Chairperson’s report and opening remarks
None.
5. New Business
A) SFPD Vicious and Dangerous Dog Unit.
Discussion regarding staffing of SFPD Vicious and Dangerous Dog (VDD) Unit. The history of the VDD is that dog bites and complaints were overseen by the public health department. In 1996 or 1997, a grand jury recommended moving this department to a municipal court, where disputes between dog owners would be settled. This was an undesirable solution, as many of the dogs and dog owners were passionate and, frankly, a bit dangerous. This was during an ear of a spike in dog fighting in the city. In 1996 or 1997, a grand jury recommended moving this department to a municipal court WHERE THERE WOULD BE ARMED BAILIFFS AND MORE SAFETY. At that point, SFPD assigned TWO officers to the VDD UNIT, ONE TO DO INVESTIGATIONS, ONE TO ACT AS HEARING OFFICER. In 2010, the police department moved to broaden the role of the VDD office to include regular patrolling of streets and other general officer duties. This Commision took no action at this time. However, the public opposed this idea, as they saw that the VDD officer had respect from the community for handling cases fairly and objectionably. The hearing officer, currently Officer John Denny, truly works to understand the cases. Euthanasia is uncommon and only for the worst cases. Normally, he recommends training, muzzles and fences for vicious dogs. Officer Denny not only responds to complaints, but he will proactively speak to dog owners about potential problems with their dogs. Officer Denny works with incoming police officers in the academy to train them in dealing with dogs. Lawyers and animal advocates find the SFPD VDD Unit to be consistent and fair with their findings and recommendations. Officer Denny is retiring in 2014 and no replacement has been named.
Officer Denny: Many times, all that is required is a phone call to the dog owner to resolve an issue. It is good that the public has a place to call if their dog is bitten or bites. But so many times, it is simply an issue of neighbors not getting along.
Commissioner Stephens: For the past two years, it has been only Officer Denny and Animal Care and Control (ACC) doing investigations.
Rebecca Katz: The case of Diane Whipple, the young woman mauled to death by a neighbor’s dog, drew attention to the handling of vicious dogs. Preceding her tragic death, there had been 66 incidents reported about the deadly dog, but people were still unaware. ACC has been picking up cases from VDD, but the ACC is already stretched. In addition to the allocated officer, the VDD prevents a potential conflict of interest with ACC in that if a dog is ruled too dangerous and must be euthanized, it is ACC which must destroy the animal. If the authority to make this ruling were assigned to ACC, it would appear to lack checks and balances. The VDD has been a model for many jurisdictions.
Officer Denny: Prior to the Whipple death, even if there was a police report made, that report would be filed within the General Investigative Unit of the SFPD, not looked at often and often not investigated. Last year, there were 850 dog bites reported, which include dog-on-dog and dog-on-human, of which 125 went to the VDD court. ACC only reports bites where skin is broken, so without the VDD, many incidents would go unreported potentially.
Commissioner Fortier: Why do we think that an officer has not been assigned as a replacement?
Commissioner Stephens: Because since 2010, there has only been one officer at VDD, whereas there had been two previously. None was reassigned when one left.
Katz: It has already been two years without a second officer.
Commissioner Jameson: Must it be a sworn officer?
Katz: It’s best to have someone with experience, authority and a gun.
Officer Denny: There can be some dangerous situations, like when the dog fighting was happening in the city.
Commissioner O’Neill: Does Officer Denny have a successor in mind?
Officer Denny: I am sure there are people who are interested, but I have not been approached by anyone.
Officer Katz: There was Vicky Guldbech, an ACC officer, who could make a good hearing officer.
Commissioner Stephens: I recommend sending a letter to the Board of Supervisors urging the SFPD to maintain a properly staffed Vicious and Dangerous Dog Unit with a police officer as investigator and either a second police officer or a contracted person as hearing officer. Alternatively, if the Unit is assigned to Animal Care and Control, it should have a high-level, full-time investigative officer, due to the complex nature of the cases, and either a staff or contracted hearing officer added to ACC’s staff. The VDD hears cases where aggressive dogs have either bitten or threatened people or other animals and determines what measures, if any, are needed to ensure public safety in the future. These measures can range from ordering that a dog be muzzled when in public to euthanasia in the most extreme cases. Because of the Unit’s reputation for fairness in its decisions, dog owners and others in the community see the VDD Unit as a worthwhile and useful tool to deal with the problem dogs and dog owners and want to ensure it continues after current personnel retire.
Public Comment:
Nancy Stafford, dog walking association, ProDog: There are 178,000 dogs in the city. We hope to see this unit continue to operate.
Corinne Dowling, formerly worked at ACC with animals in custody, including those being held from the VDD: The VDD is professional and fair. The officers are compassionate, work well with the dog owners. VDD is vital to the city and its canines.
No other public comment.
Public comment closed.
Motion to send letter to the Board of Supervisors unanimously approved.
Commissioner Marks: What is the procedure for sending the letter? Do we see the final draft before it is sent?
Commissioner Stephens: Normally, the letter is sent after approval, without recirculating to the commissioners, but we could review the final draft before it is set.
B. Professional Dog Walker Permits. Discussion only to update the Commission on the implementation of legislation that requires professional dog walkers who walk four or more dogs at one time to obtain city permits. The legislation, passed by the Board of Supervisors in 2012, went into effect on July 1, 2013. Representatives from Animal Care and Control and from the Recreation and Park Department’s Park Patrol will be invited to provide updates on how many professional dog walkers have applied, and problems that have occurred in the implementation, and how the permits will be enforced.
This legislation initiated about ten years ago in this Commission.
This item was added to the agenda by Commissioner Marks. He invited the RPD Park Patrol to attend but had no response from them.
ACC Presentation lead by Anne Bingham, shelter services employee at ACC.
Bingham: Permit process works well when the documents are completed. Since inception, there have been 198 vehicles inspected, 131 permits issued, 128 vehicle placards issued. ACC has spent 540 staff hours since May on this initiative. There are believed to be 400 or more professional dog walkers in the city. Problems with implementation include: the software was not ready until June 26, and it can be glitchy. ACC was unable to access the tax collectors database until recently, forcing some applicants to request hard copies of tax records. The tax records are now accessible by ACC, but not on the Saturdays, which can be a busy time for applicants. Regarding the dog walkers, some have only had their vehicles inspected, but have not completed the process to have license issued. We have heard that they are waiting to hear how the GGNRA dog policy changes are resolved before moving forward with the city license, as they can walk dogs on GGNRA land without the license. Some are waiting to be cited before getting licensed. The federal government shutdown brought more applicants to ACC, as some areas were closed and inaccessible to dog walkers. There was some confusion about who could apply for a license. For the mandatory training component, some dog walkers are training their staff in-house, having been approved to do so. There have been complaints about the expiration date of the permit, as the issue date is mid-year.
Commissioner Stephens: How many training programs have been approved?
Bingham: in May, 4 schools. Currently there are 9, a few more are approved for in-house training only.
Commissioner Marks: Are training schools issuing certificates?
Bingham: Yes
Katz: Some dog walkers have tried to establish earlier business starting dates to avoid training by back paying taxes.
Bingham: Yes, this was a challenge, but now ACC can find the set-up date of the business, regardless of when business licensing tax was paid.
Public Comment:
Nancy Stafford: The Association of Dog Walkers have cited a few problems, including the length of time of the process, which has been 2-3 hours for some. The business certification can be a problem, as some people do not keep these records. But the tax collector will print this business license history if requested. And the definition of “sately equipment” required by the dog walkers is a problem, as some might want choke chains and shock collars to be permitted. Does “approved” mean the city has approved these devices, or are dog walkers allowed to carry them when the dog owner has approved them. This area is unclear in the law.
Public Comment closed.
6. General Public Comment
No public comment.
7. Items to be put on the Calendar for Future Commission Meetings
Commissioner Marks - Review of coyote issue. Follow up with Parks and Rec regarding issuance of violations of dog walking permits. Licensing and regulation of assistance animals.
No public comment on Future Meetings.
8. Closing Review of Task Allotments and Next Steps
9. Adjournment at 6:49pm
