Mendocino County Grand Jury • 2004-2005

Wet Kennels and Low Morale Animal Care and Control Report

Published: June 13, 2005 4 pages
View Original PDF

Findings and Recommendations 12 findings

F1
In the past, the Board of Supervisors has exercised only indirect oversight of the ACC; oversight and evaluation responsibility was assigned to the County Administrative Officer, but neither the intent of the Board nor the oversight practices of the CAO’s office has been apparent to the public.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
The Grand jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors ensure the formation of a Citizen’s Advisory Committee to oversee the Department of ACC. (Findings 1,2)
F2
A flawed management style in which both favoritism and intimidation are used to keep employees unsettled creates a culture of fear at the ACC which affects work efficiency, staff interaction and, inevitably, treatment of the animals housed at the facility.
No recommendations for this finding
F3
The ACC Policies and Procedures manual omits or imprecisely describes many procedures which are performed frequently, even daily, by (707) 463-4320 staff and/or volunteers. (See ACC Complaint Report 2004-2005 Grand Jury.)
Related Recommendations (1)
R3
The Grand Jury recommends that the ACC give education and training for employees a high priority in budget expenditures; a skilled, proficient staff should mean a more efficient use of ACC software and equipment and reduce staff turnover in the Department. (Findings 3, 4, 5, 6, 7).
F4
As a result of Finding 3, there is a potentially dangerous gap between procedures and “practices”. The “practices” are described by employees as verbal or understood instructions which vary in application and consistency.
No recommendations for this finding
F5
Education and training of ACC employees is sporadic and inconsistent; some employees may receive formal training, others receive informal and often insufficient training onsite, still others receive little or no training for mandatory tasks.
No recommendations for this finding
F6
There are no funds in the latest ACC budget allocated to education and training. While it is possible that this is the result of a bookkeeping procedure, it may also reflect the lack of priority given to these activities within the Department.
No recommendations for this finding
F7
CHAMELEON, a highly rated, complex and expensive software specifically designed for use by agencies such as ACC, is underused by the County Department, primarily due to a lack of employee training.
No recommendations for this finding
F8
While the ACC advertises itself as “working towards eliminating euthanasia”, there is no stated and transparent policy regarding the definition of an “adoptable” animal. Which employees make these decisions and what guidelines are followed are not clear; the “unadoptable” animal faces euthanasia.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5
The 2003-2004 Grand Jury recommended that the ACC “develop a positive working relationship with the Humane Societies.” These non-profit groups were encouraged to reciprocate. This Grand Jury reiterates this recommendation and, in addition, strongly urges the ACC to utilize licensed, non-profit animal shelters and rescue groups in a concerted effort to promote adoption rather than euthanasia. (Findings 8,9, 12). Comments The management of the ACC appears to be primarily committed to showing a profit, in contradiction to its Mission Statement. This may explain the ACC’s reputation in the animal welfare community as more interested in collecting fees from those groups offering adoption services than in finding good homes for as many animals as possible. Too many clients are met with hostility and rudeness at the front desk of the Ukiah facility; too many employees serve multiple probations which seem more a means of staff control than a time for education and training; too many directives to employees are verbal and inconsistent rather than clearly codified in written form to which all can refer; too many animals are designated as “unadoptable” for reasons that are unclear and/or arbitrary. It is true that the Board of Supervisors has the ultimate responsibility for the management philosophy and style of every County Department. As stated in (707) 463-4320 Recommendation 1, however, the Grand Jury strongly urges the Board to form a community advisory committee to facilitate public scrutiny of a troubled Department.
F9
The situation described in Finding 8 makes it impossible to measure the degree to which ACC euthanizes animals which private animal shelters and rescue groups might judge as adoptable.
No recommendations for this finding
F10
Euthanizing animals as a necessary professional activity is rated statistically as one of the most stressful tasks an employee is asked to perform. There is no evidence that ACC offers any formal counseling and/or debriefing to employees who must routinely euthanize animals at the Ukiah or Fort Bragg facilities.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4
The Grand Jury recommends that the ACC institute formal stress management procedures to meet the needs of those staff members who are involved in the euthanasia process. (Finding 10).
F11
Both the ACC Administration and numerous additional witnesses have testified that generating revenue is the primary goal of the department.
No recommendations for this finding
F12
Beds, although available, are not used in the Ukiah ACC facility, forcing dogs to sit, stand and lie on cold, often wet, concrete floors. This situation, which can be injurious as well as uncomfortable, arises because facility attendants complain of extra work required in cleaning cages which contain beds. (707) 463-4320
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
The Grand Jury recommends that the Ukiah ACC facility utilize the beds at their disposal; dogs in all cages must have a dry place off the concrete available to them. (Finding 12).

Comments 1