2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 November 13, 2008
5:37 PM
1. Call to Order and Roll Call
Present, Commissioners: Sally Stephens, Laurie Kennedy-Routhier, David Gordon DVM, Andrea Brooks, Philip Gerrie, Pam Hemphill, Vicky Guldbech – ACC.
Absent, Commissioners: Angela Padilla, William Herndon – SF Police, Bob Palacio – SF Rec & Park
2. General Public Comment
Lurilla Harris – ACC had taken a bagged dead cat from her front porch that she intended to have cremated at her vet. Very upset because ACC was not called and had trespassed on her property and removed the cat which was also private property. Complaint was that anonymous phone call had been made to ACC. ACC had entered her property without knowledge or permission then taken her property. Wants ACWC to recommend to ACC that anonymous phone calls to ACC only be allowed to take animals on the street or public places.
Richard Fong – Wants a recommendation of gratitude to former Commissioners of ACWC: Mara Weiss DVM and Christine Garcia.
Martha Hoffman – Would appreciate having a Rec& Park representative present on the Commission.
3. Approval of Draft Minutes from October 9, 2008 Meeting
Comr. Hemphill – Clarification of statements she made at last meeting.
Minutes approved unanimously with changes from Comr. Hemphill.
4. Chairperson’s report and opening remarks
Comr. Stephens – Budget cuts to City Attorneys office to aid ACWC will be cut to 30 hours a year. Current fiscal year, about a quarter of the way through, has used 40% of allotted time. Usage due to one time needs. Not ongoing. Be aware if contacting City Attorney because time will be billed. Doesn’t know what happens if Commission exceeds 30 hours.
Comr. Routhier – Concern when needing City Attorney to help in drafting legislation for Commission. In the past, agenda had not been double checked. If allowable hours get tight can Commission forgo agenda checking?
Comr. Stephens – Agenda checking is not a big use. In theory we don’t draft legislation. Only recommend to Supervisors.
Comr. Routhier- Yes, the City Attorney only checks our recommendations.
Comr. Hemphill – How is time budgeted? Is a two minute question counted at two minutes?
Comr. Stephens – I only have increments of 15 minutes. I thought the City Attorney was a limitless resource. I did not know there would be limits on City Attorney’s time before getting the email.
4. Public Comment
Cynthia Cox – Suggests drawing on Comr. Padilla who is a lawyer before going to City Attorney.
5. Status and tracking of letters of recommendation requesting action by the Board
Update of status of letter sent to the Board over animal welfare issues as the SF Zoo.
Comr. Brooks – Attended Joint Zoo Committee, JZC, meeting last month. Aware of addition of two seats. One appointed by our Commission . The other appointed by JZC is a vet. We have no say in the appointing of a vet. Both seats are non-voting. Has to be non-voting because of Zoo Lease Agreement says only so many seats can be voting. Discussion now is who to appoint? Suggest appointing someone currently on ACWC Commission. Once Commission decides on a person, it is done.
Comr. Hemphill – Thought person we would appoint would not come from ACWC Commission.
Comr. Stephens- Wasn’t talked about specifically. Decision from Joint Zoo and Rec & Park was only that we appoint someone.
Comr. Brooks – We can discuss and appoint in this meeting now. Zoo representative is here, Bob Jenkins, to answer questions.
Bob Jenkins – Schedule for JZC, is third Thursday every month at 1PM to 2PM at City Hall. Plans to have every other meeting held on the fourth Thursday at the zoo from 5PM to 6PM.
Comr. Hemphill – Recommends Comr. Brooks.
Comr. Brooks – Nominates Comr. Stephens. Comr. Stephens was equally involved. Schedule at work would make attending difficult.
Comr. Gerrie – Troubled that appointed representative is non-voting.
Comr. Brooks – Agrees. Hopes to inquire as Commission moves forward to fill that seat to see if there is way around the Zoo Lease Agreement restrictions.
Comr. Gerrie – How many are voting and non-voting?
Bob Jenkins- All other members are voting. Three Commissioners from Rec & Park and three members from the Zoo Board. Chairmanship alternates from year to year. Going from someone from Rec & Park to the Zoo Board and back every year.
Comr. Routhier – Would this added seat have a term limit?
Bob Jenkins – Believes Commissioners are re-appointed every year.
Comr. Stephens – Would be willing to serve.
Comr. Brooks – Moves to nominate Comr. Sally Stephens to fill seat. Seconded by Comr. Routhier.
5 Public Comment
Mark Ennis – Seat does not have to be filled by someone from the ACWC Commission. It can be someone from the public. Three voting members are from the Zoological Society and three Mayoraly appointed. Supports looking outside of ACWC. Since only an advisory position, person needs to be a strong voice for the animals. Estimates seat would need 20 to 30 hours a month to do properly. Commission should not rush into filling the seat.
Deniz Bolbol – Doesn’t believe adding an advisory seat will address animal welfare issues at the zoo. Hopes whoever is appointed is outspoken not just reasonable. Current structure of JZC, since 1994-5 has been ineffective. One hundred million has been spent on the zoo and problems still remain. Person appointed needs to visit the zoo several times a month. Needs to do research of practices of other zoos. Read that giraffes die prematurely at zoos due to incorrect food that affects their ability to eat. Spend at least 20 hours a month. Person needs to keep up with all the studies and papers on requirements for zoo animals. Thanks Commissioners for their work for the zoo animals. Defeat by the Board of turning zoo into the first rescue zoo in the world was likely given that it was the first try.
Pat Cavilla – Supports Deniz’s comments.
Richard Fong – Unclear of purpose of appointment of additional seat. Attended JZC meeting. Only talked about finances. Fare increases. Not animal welfare. Not food requirements.
Public comment closed
Comr. Gerrie –Would like to include members of the public as possible candidates. Commissioners are a small pool to choose from and time requirements are considerable.
Comr. Hemphill – Would like someone with wildlife expertise. Supports delaying decision of nominating.
Comr. Routhier – What would be benefits of nominee being a Commissioner?
Comr. Brooks – A Commissioner would be up to speed on zoo issues.
Comr. Guldbech – Have heard members of the public with equal amount of knowledge.
Comr. Brooks – What would be the process to accept members of the public for the seat?
Would like to get the seat filled as soon as possible.
Comr. Routhier – Perhaps a similar procedure that we follow for appointment? A cover letter and resume in advance of appearing in person for consideration?
Comr. Stephens – What would be the criteria for the seat?
Comr. Routhier – There are several components. Knowledge of zoos. Knowledge of wildlife. To communicate well and effectively is an important component.
Comr. Stephens – Effectiveness is interesting issue. During meetings of animal rights advocates and the zoo requested by Supervisor Dufty, problems on both sides about negotiating in good faith. Resulting in nothing coming out of it. People wound up yelling at each other. Not listening. Nothing resulted to help the animals. The idea of appointing someone from our Commission was to be more effective. Not someone just saying no.
Comr. Routhier – We would have to consider that in the person we choose. In the past we have had all or nothing people serving on this Commission as well. The person should be someone that may not agree with the majority but would be respected nonetheless.
Comr. Brooks – Is there a primary e-mail address for our Commission?
Comr. Stephens - No. Letters could be sent. We have a mail address.
Comr. Gerrie – We wouldn’t have much time if we received letters as they are distributed at the beginning of each meeting.
Comr. Routhier – If we had a deadline we could be prepared in advance of our meeting.
Comr. Stephens – There may be legal requirements in submitting applications.
Comr. Gerrie – Any applications would have to be public and available on line 72 hours before our meeting.
Comr. Guldbech – I can ask an attorney I know. A mailbox may be sufficient.
Comr. Brooks – A deadline could be December 15th.
Comr. Routhier – Doesn’t care as long as enough time is given to review any applications.
Comr. Gerrie -E-mail applications would be any easy way to share applications among Commissioners.
Comr. Guldbech – E-mails could be forwarded to me at ACC. I could then send them to all Commissioners.
Comr. Stephens – How do we notify the public what we are doing?
Comr. Routhier – Assumes that possible applicants would know and pass the word along.
Comr. Guldbech – We could set the deadline for January 5. If we only get a few we will be OK.
Comr. Stephens – I could post applications on our website under supplementary material.
Comr. Routhier - Would you be responsible and work with the webmaster to post everything?
Comr. Stephens – Feels there are too many aspects as to procedure that are unclear. Better to work out the details for the next meeting and then decide in February. At the January meeting we would have the information ready. Hopes to have application forms ready by the end of January. There is too much we don’t know. We’ve never done anything like this.
Comr. Gerrie – Hopes to speed the process and not become too complicated in details. Doesn’t think there will be many applicants willing to devote the time.
6 Unfinished Business
A) Discussion and possible action to send a letter to the Board recommending developing an ordinance banning the renting of pets in SF.
Comr. Brooks – Distributes model legislation from pet ban ordinance of the Boston coalition group. Defines terms such as foster care and type of animals included. Model legislation has not be updated or altered. Is direct from the Boston group.
Comr. Stephens- Concerned that it be clear that ‘shared flexible ownership’ is just for profit not for joint custody of dogs. Unclear as to target directly at businesses such as Flexpetz.
Comr. Brooks – Feels language is clear.
Comr. Stephens – A lot of people take in animals and take care of them for profit.
Comr. Hemphill – Are there other Flexpetz type of businesses or can we focus on this one company?
Comr. Brooks – There is only one in the US but there are others across the world.
Comr. Gerrie – Looked up Flexpetz’s owners, one man and his girl-friend. He has had questionable failed businesses with animals previously. They are based in Montana. It seems we fighting just one guy. Their operation appears to be rag tag, not a well funded corporation. We might be taking this too seriously in trying to ban the practice.
Comr. Brooks – Feels he is more of a threat. Business could possibly thrive. Legislation will ensure that they don’t thrive. Want to make sure no new locations open up.
Comr. Hemphill – Would like the focus of the model legislation to be on stability for the animals versus the liability of problem Flexpetz dogs.
Comr. Brooks – I would not be drafting the legislation and we would not have to include the model legislation in what we send to the Supervisors.
6 A Public Comment
Deniz Bolbol - Supports putting opposition on the books and caring about the animals.
Public comment closed
Comr. Routhier - Since there are big and small issues with the model legislation we should say it is available versus it being attached. It would be better to meet Supervisors face-to-face to sell it and get support.
Comr. Guldbech - Supports Comr. Brooks cover letter. Doesn’t feel language of Boston model legislation fits SF’s needs.
Comr. Routhier - Makes a motion to support letter with typo changes, to send to Board of Supervisors. Seconded by Comr. Hemphill.
Motion passes unanimously
B) Discussion only of developing policy of Live Release from SF shelters.
Comr. Stephens – Comr. Padilla who is overseeing this item is unable to attend tonight. Had spoken to her earlier. Comr. Padilla had planned to schedule a special meeting of ACWC in December so that Nathan Winograd can speak. He was unavailable at other regular meeting times. Plan to have representative from SFSPCA and ACC at the January meeting. Name changed from “no-kill” to “life release”. Name change was more honest as “no-kill” can be misleading. The objective is as many animals get behavioral attention or medical intervention as possible.
Comr. Gerrie – Would like to make a statement of concern. Read book Redemptiom by Nathan Winograd. Was disturbed by attack made towards several groups, primarily Humane Society of the US, HSUS, in the book. Contacted HSUS to hear their response. Was referred by HSUS to a group that features Nathan on their website call, “Center for Consumer Freedom” , CCF, founded by Rick Berman. They are funded by Philip Morris and represent the alcohol, tobacco, and fast-food industries and attack organizations that support more humane treatment of animals. I don’t know how this fits in, or if it does but am skeptical of what Nathan has to say because of his statements against HSUS. There may be credibility there. No-kill sounds good. I feel by focusing on Nathan, we might be being used by CCF to attack HSUS. I want to look at this first before we plan a special meeting so that Nathan can speak. I want to sort out why he attacks HSUS in his book before I feel comfortable with him speaking to our Commission.
Comr. Routhier – Focus on what is best for the animals and take what is credible.
Comr. Gerrie – Didn’t want to give Nathan an hour for a special meeting without a counterpoint to his remarks.
Comr. Routhier - Would be more productive to have meeting with other groups represented. SPCA & ACC. Would be better to have what SF’s reality is versus one-sided meeting. Want to hear all sides.
Comr. Guldbech – Would like to hear what Nathan has to say.
Comr. Hemphill – An hour seems like a long time for one speaker. Suggests give 20 minutes to speakers.
Comr. Gordon – Would like Nathan’s talk to add to what he wrote in his book. We should all have read his book. Not rehashing what he wrote. Not interested in fingerpointing. Wants to hear specific information about SF.
Comr. Guldbech – A half hour per speaker would be plenty of information.
Comr. Gordon – Nathan could provide written material for more in depth information.
Comr. Routhier – Prefers Nathan, SPCA, and ACC to all speak at the same meeting maybe the regular January meeting. Be more inclusive.
Comr. Gerrie – Commissioners just received a second copy of Nathan’s book “Redemption” signed by Nathan. That is the second copy received. Feels fishy as to why this issue is so important that we receive two copies of his book.
Comr. Stephens – Does he get financial support from CCF?
Comr. Gerrie – I don’t know. Would like to think that his testimony is credible. CCF is known for smearing HSUS as did Nathan in his book.
Comr. Stephens – Does he have a connection with the group? Or just interview him? Just because someone is interviewed on a website doesn’t mean they support the goals of the website.
Comr. Gerrie – Unsure how connected but his book Redemption is featured prominently on the website.
Comr. Routhier – Was at SPCA when Nathan was there. He did a lot of good work for the animals.
Comr. Gerrie – Sounds good. Troubled by saying things against groups without a chance to respond.
Comr. Guldbech – All the more reason to have the different groups together at the same time versus a separate meeting just for Nathan.
Comr. Brooks – If Nathan can’t make it for a regular meeting we should have a special meeting with all three parties, Nathan, ACC & SPCA. Important to have Nathan because of his role in this movement.
Comr. Gerrie – Would like to include HSUS in these meetings as Nathan was specifically critical of them.
Comr. Stephens – How did you find out about CCF?
Comr. Gerrie- Contacted person I know there to see if she knew anything. She gave me some contact numbers in the animal shelter division but I didn’t reach anyone. She referred me to the CCF website.
Comr. Stephens- We need to hear public comment on this.
Comr. Routhier -Don’t we have an invited speaker? If people comment on Comr. Gerrie’s remarks, will they also be able to comment after the invited speaker?
Comr. Stephens – Sorry. Forgot we had an invited speaker. Members of the public can comment once on each agenda item. Would be better to hear from our speaker first so people can comment on all aspects of the issue, including speaker’s comments. Apologize for confusion. We have one invited speaker from FixSF, Kathleen McGarr.
Kathleen McGarr – Represents group that supports ‘no-kill’ versus ‘live release’. Reads two letters from agencies that have had success implementing no-kill policies. From SPCA in Charlottesville, VA and from Nevada Humane Society.
From Susan Coggit, Executive Director, Charlottesville SPCA. Is only facility accepting stray and abandoned animals. Supports no-kill policies in agencies throughout U.S. Three to five million animals are euthanized every year in U.S in animal shelters. Excuse is too many animals, not enough homes. About 60 million households in U.S. have pets with average of two pets per household. Fifteen percent obtain pets from animal shelters. In 2005 Charlottesville SPCA decided to achieve no-kill status in three years from a 50% kill rate. Increased save rate to 90% in two years. Euthanasia is option only for animals with serious behavioral or medical conditions. Followed example set by SFSPCA and Tomkin County SPCA. Same programs advocated by Nathan Winograd. Program works when implemented fully. Encourages SF to take the lead in no-kill.
From Bonnie Brown, executive director NHS. Nevada Human Society summary 2007. Dramatic results in under a year. Found good homes for over 8000 formerly homeless pets. Increased adoption rates 53% for dogs, 84% for cats compared to 2006. Decreased dog & cat euthanasia by 50% compared to 2006. Increased volunteer ranks from 30 to over 1300. Expanded foster care program. Provided $55,000 in spay-neuter vouchers. Established animal-help desk to help keep animals in homes.
Comr. Brooks – Would like details on how the achievements were accomplished to help Commission.
6B Public Comment
Hope Johnson - Supports having speakers on no-kill at the same meeting. Agrees that Nathan is a controversial figure. Comments by Commission against him bordered on slanderous. Encourages Commission to hear what he has to say. Felt remarks against Nathan reflected on FixSF and because didn’t get a chance to respond to attack on Nathan right after it was made and before the invited speaker, concerned of censorship of the public by the Commission.
Susan Wheeler – Feral cat team, Supports, strongly, using term ‘no-kill’ versus ‘live release’. Term ‘no-kill’ is broad and a goal to work towards. Return title of no-kill. Will talk to Sunshine Commission if not. Changing ‘no-kill’ to ‘live release’ changes the subject of the discussion. Worked with Nathan at SPCA. He is the most inspiring person imaginable.
Barbara Iachini – Supports what Hope said. Members of FixSF had a cause and found a spokeperson in Nathan. Not fair to slander Nathan. Linking Nathan with an organization doesn’t necessarily mean anything. Lived across the country and found no one was ever confused by the term ‘no-kill’. Euthanasia implies that there is nothing else to be done for an animal. ‘Killing’ implies that there are options that were not taken. ‘Live release’ can mean releasing to high kill shelter.
Pat Lottspech – FixSF – Supports prior statements.
Mary Kennedy – FixSF & Friends of Roman Cats – Wants to move SF towards true no-kill. Wants to establish coalitions and connections with other no-kill communities and groups. Best Friends is good at building coalitions.
Lisa Vittori – Glad didn’t hear Nathan discussion earlier. Tendency to shoot allies. Nathan brings attention to important issue. Wants to stop using the term ‘adoptable’. Has several dogs deemed ‘unadoptable’. Adoptable is subjective. No-kill means no-kill. Hopes Nathan and others will come to speak at Commission.
Martha Hoffman - No-kill means goal is no kill. Doesn’t mean that some animals won’t lose their lives or wind up spinning in cages. Infuriated by comments about Nathan Winograd. They were slanderous. He can be contacted and will answer questions. Worked with him. He is inspiring and brilliant.
June Wilson – Disagrees with the title ‘no-kill’ prefers ‘low-kill’. Worked many years in kennels. High turnover of workers. Supports spay-neuter and a breeding license for breeders. Appreciates feral cat volunteers.
Kathleen McGarr – Allowing Nathan, ACC, and SPCA twenty or thirty minutes would foster a he-said, she-said, kind of thing. No in depth discussion being possible. Nathan took it upon himself to send Commission his book. Nothing fishy about it. He wasn’t trying to slip his agenda in. Comments were offensive. Nathan can explain nitty-gritty details if given enough time. Big issues for only 20 minutes. Give an hour. Can give ACC & SPCA same amount of time. Feels personally involved. Worked to get Nathan to Commission meeting. He deserves to be heard.
Kin Tso – ‘Live release’ same as ‘no-kill’ except no accountability. Had given Commission first copy of Nathan’s book. No-kill conference will be in Washintion D.C. this coming May. Sponsors well known such as Alley Cat Allies, Best Friend, and Maddies Center. Richard Avanzino is director who would not support someone controversial. Give Nathan a chance to speak.
Cynthia Cox – Difference between no-kill and live-release. No-kill is a value. Live-release is a statistic. Wants Nathan to speak on his own for an hour. He will present plan on how to get there. Hopes Commissioner Gerrie will say to Nathan’s face what was said tonight.
Michael Iachini – Supports no-kill language. Euthanasia is when an animal cannot be kept alive humanely. If animal can be kept alive with proper resources, but is not, that is considered killing. Euthanasia is what is humanely best for the animal.
Public Comment closed
Comr. Stephens – Would support a special meeting in December for Nathan. Twenty minutes in not enough.
Comr. Hemphill – Would like to see everyone speaking together. Everyone should feel comfortable speaking at the same meeting. A person’s associations and support should be open and transparent, It is not negative to air that.
Comr. Stephens – Doesn’t know if there is any connections or funding. Implication in what was said earlier was that there was funding involved.
Comr. Guldbech – Would like everyone to hear what is said at a special meeting. Representative from ACC or SPCA may not be present to hear. If department heads, who make the rules, make the decisions, they should want to hear Nathan as well as we do. Best way is to have longer meeting with everyone present.
Comr. Routhier – Not interested in curtailing peoples ability to speak on important topics. Regulated by Sunshine laws not allowing back and forth between the public and Commission but does allow for it between speakers and Commission. Would like to get what is and is not going on in SF. Is important to have everyone here to do better in the specifics of how.
Comr. Brooks - Supports having a half hour per speaker. Commissioners can also ask back-and-forth questions of a speaker extending the time. Committed to having longer meeting in January with all the speakers.
Comr. Gordon – Can Nathan make it in January?
Kathleen McGarr- He definitely cannot make it for the January 8th meeting .
Comr. Stephens – Perhaps if Nathan was available on another day in January, we could reschedule our regular meeting?
Comr. Gerrie – Supports having everyone at the same time. Even before learning of back ground information concerning Nathan, was troubled by Commission having a special meeting just for one person. Would like to invite HSUS as well in January.
Comr. Routhier – Prefer if HSUS came that their talk be specific to our issue versus just replying to Nathan. What can HSUS offer us?
Comr. Stephens – Would prefer to limit it to ACC, SPCA and Nathan in January. HSUS can come at another meeting.
Comr. Gordon – Doesn’t need repeating of basics of no-kill issue by speakers. Everyone agree with no-kill principles. Wants constructive movement forward. Doesn’t want a power-point presentation to be won over to no-kill. Wants tangible aspects to investigate.
Comr. Guldbech – Key phrase is ‘nitty-gritty’. Wants constructive information to figure out how to not kill animals.
7. General Public Comment
Lisa Vittori – Earlier issue concerning SPCA that Commission refused to address because it wasn’t a public agency. Now, SPCA is in these discussions as a quasi public agency, Commission not dealing equally. Current discussion with ACC and SPCA not acknowledging many rescue groups and hundreds of volunteers that take in animals. They need to be included in these discussions. Hears subtle form of censorship, which is anything we are uncomfortable talking about as a group. Glad of comments about Nathan were said in the open versus under the surface. Would like to call it a ‘pro-life’ movement but name has been taken by others.
Comr. Stephens –Rescue groups will be invited to speak at later meetings.
Kathleen McGarr- Sounds like Nathan will be limited in what he has to say. Will other speakers be limited as well?
Comr. Stephens – Apologized if it appeared that just Nathan was being singled out to what he could or couldn’t say. Want all speakers to focus on nitty-gritty. Just wanted to give all speakers equal time.
8, 9. Items for Calendar for Future Meetings and Task Allotments
Comr. Brooks – January meeting, will talk about application process for application to JZC. Plus three speakers regarding no-kill.
10. Adjournment 7:45 PM
Respectfully submitted by
Philip Gerrie
Commission Secretary