Note the date in the upper right hand corner of the picture, this was taken less than a month before an out of area Animal Rightist rode into town on her high horse, and colluded with our Assistant County Manager. The intent was to destroy Brode, what they did was destroy WCRAS. What will follow are documents showing the constant harassment and battery of complaints that this Animal Services Manager lived with for over two years. The Nevada Humane Society, including it's Vice- President ( And Washoe County Sherriff hopeful )Trooper Chuck Allen sytematically filed complaint after complaint against the Manager for trying to uphold the laws of NRS 574 and Washoe County 55. Gina Greisen was the face of the complaint, but do you ever see Kevin Ryan without his little buddy? Didn't think so. It will take more than one post to get all the FOIA material I have been given, out here, but we are up to the task. The DA was in it up to the knees as well because 55.800 din't pan out so well. Some of documents will be annotated, others are so blatant they don't need it. The first is Bonney Brown's reply to Marsha Berkbigler after Marsha sent a RFP to NHS without checking with the BCC. Can we say Marsha should not voted on any Longley Lane issues ??. Stay tuned.
1 From a PDF:)
Outsourcing Washoe County Regional Animal Services
to Nevada Humane Society
Marsha, thank you for your interest in hearing from NHS about the possibility of operating
animal services for Washoe County on a contract basis.
Summary
This document identifies benefits and considerations regarding the outsourcing of Washoe
County Regional Animal Services (WCRAS) functions to Nevada Humane Society (NHS).
Background
Historically, many cities and counties choose to outsource animal services for their community
to a local humane society or SPCA. Recently, local governments have increasingly looked to
privatization or outsourcing of a number of community services in an effort to address the
reduction in revenue caused by the recent economic challenges.
Outsourcing of animal services is generally chosen for two reasons:
• Public perception—Most members of the public feel that a humane society or SPCA has
both the appropriate animal care expertise along with the best interest of the animals
in mind which often times reduces public concerns and complaints to government
officials.
• Cost Savings—These private organizations can generally provide this necessary public
service at a lower cost, in part due to the overlapping nature of services with their
own work and also the lowering of employee costs.
In Washoe County (WC), the animal services functions have been regionalized and in part, are
already outsourced to NHS. Under the current agreement with NHS, WCRAS has responsibility
for field operations and the sheltering of stray animals while NHS has responsibility for owner
surrendered animals, including their housing, veterinary care and the handling of all pet
adoption services for WC. This has enabled the county to save resources by outsourcing
services which is traditionally an integral part of providing animal services to a community.
The two parties share a facility on Longley Lane that was constructed in 2005 and occupied in
February, 2006. NHS paid $4.5 million toward the cost of building the county-owned facility,
essentially paying rent in advance and enabling the county to lower the amount financed for
this needed facility. Additionally, NHS pays 58% of the maintenance and utilities for the
ongoing operation of the shared facility, though NHS does not always have control over the
expense decisions that are made. (58% is the percentage of the facility that is designated for
NHS operations.)
This community is extremely animal-friendly with nearly 10,000 residents adopting pets each
year from Nevada Humane Society and an additional 1,000 annual pet adoptions occurring in
the community from the SPCA of Northern Nevada. Citizens voted by a substantial majority to
tax themselves to create this partnership between WCRAS and NHS at a time when other
proposals were voted down.
2
While we need to respect the public’s commitment to this cause and maintain the support for animal services in the community, we also need to find ways to reduce the tax burden to local taxpayers. This proposal offers a way to accomplish both of these goals.
Advantages
Cost savings—Overall program cost would be reduced by:
• Eliminating redundancies in administrative staffing costs.
• Streamlining shelter operations by combining similar functions/services for greater efficiencies. (For example, currently operating two admissions/intake rooms—front and back on both sides of the facility.)
• Eliminating duplicate record-keeping, data entry, and paperwork generated in duplicate, which is substantial given that currently thousands of animals are entered into and dispositioned out of two systems.
• Making bulk purchases and obtaining quantity discounts on materials and supplies.
• Dramatically improving overall efficiency, the flow/ability to move animals, through better use of space and ability to make decisions more quickly.
• Creating enhanced operational flexibility for the future which would significantly reduce the likelihood that additional shelter space would be needed to be constructed as a result of future community/animal population growth.
• Eliminating current communication concerns which cause frustration and inefficiencies for citizens, government officials and the two parties.
• Preserving the fund balance for building and fleet maintenance. Current management is rapidly spending this down.
Improved Customer Service for the Public―including:
• Extended hours for lost-pet redemption (evenings, weekends, most holidays and into the evening hours) which would increase redemptions and citizen satisfaction, decrease length of stay, and lower costs.
• Simplification of services where citizens would only need to deal with one entity when it comes to reporting or seeking help with animal concerns. This would reduce citizen confusion and frustration.
• Enhanced benefits from more consistent use of proactive programs to address common problems that citizens experience, such as excessive barking, intact roaming dogs, neighbor issues, containment of dogs that repeatedly escape, free-roaming cats, low-cost spay/neuter assistance, and veterinary care needs when pet owners cannot afford it.
Potential Challenge
Washoe County would have to find suitable placement or lay off approximately 30 employees. Current staff could be given preference in NHS's hiring, however, with the pay differential; some may not be interested in this opportunity.
3
Financial Overview
In reviewing WCRAS budget documents, it appears the current budget for the animal services program is approximately $4.8 million, which is believed to be $674,000 in excess of current revenues. It is assumed that this overage will be addressed by utilizing the program's existing fund balance (approximately $4.5 million), which was amassed during the housing boom. Assuming program costs remain relatively the same for the next five or six years, the fund balance will be exhausted and the program will likely have to be subsidized by the county's general fund (approximately $800,000 annually) or drastic reductions in staffing and services will need to be made.
While further discussion would be needed, NHS estimates it could provide the same services, with the addition of expanded hours for the public to redeem lost pets and generally more efficient services for the community, at a substantial savings of $800,000 to $900,000.
Assumptions
This concept recommendation is based upon current information available to NHS and will require further details and discussion to work out a mutually fair and equitable agreement between the two parties that would meet the needs of the citizens and the animals of the community. This proposal includes the following assumptions, which are open to discussion, of course:
• NHS provides shelter operations and field operations for Washoe County, with the exception of criminal matters and animal permits, and would be compensated at a mutually agreed upon amount substantially lower than current costs.
• Code Enforcement would employ an officer to handle Kennel, Cattery, Exotic and Dangerous Dog Permits.
• Code Enforcement or local police (TBD) would enforce State Statute Enforcement/Misdemeanor Citation cases (dangerous dog, hot car, animal cruelty, etc.).
• Civil penalty authority provided to trained field personnel.
How is Carson City doing this, they have no training at all ?
• Washoe County or the Sheriff’s Office keeps the recently donated Command Center vehicle and provides operation and coordinates with field services staff during disasters to provide for the needs of animals.
• Vehicles and equipment including the dispatch center for RAS would be leased to NHS. NHS would carry insurance on the vehicles and equipment.
• Performance Standards would be established based on current performance levels, including median range response time for various types/priorities of calls (also calls that were scratched), Return-to-Owner rate and other reasonable measurements of performance. These would be reviewed annually.
• Policy review and appropriate code revisions made related to the following:
o Recognition of TNR in codes.
o Clarity on policies in relation to euthanasia of owned animals (owner requests for pet disposal, euthanasia, and other medical requests).
4
o Recognition of return-to-owner policy.
• The fund balance would be used for capital improvements and vehicle fleet replacement.
Conclusion
Outsourcing the WCRAS shelter operations and field services to NHS would be a substantial benefit to WC by creating a more efficient and coordinated operation, resulting in substantial cost savings ($800,000 or more annually) in addition to increased service levels and citizen satisfaction.
Below is NHS whining in black text, and my answer ( which was provided to the BCC ) is in Red. Do these people do their homework ?
1 (one )
The overarching
issue is the lack of trained animal welfare professionals at the helm of WCRAS.
As a result of either a refusal to accept, to understand, or to even
investigate animal services/animal welfare best practices WCRAS is retreating from
its current reputation of progressiveness and industry leadership to an agency
that would feel more at home 30 -50 years ago. This threatens Washoe County's
unparalleled reputation and achievements in animal stewardship
The mission of WCRAS remains
the health and safety of both the citizens of Washoe County and the animals
residing within Washoe County. This is done through following both law and
protocol on animals within our custody and the community at large. We follow industry best practices, and above,
including air exchange and floor space per animal. These are owned animals and must be treated accordingly. Animals
in our custody are cared for one per kennel or cage when age appropriate.
Pervasive/Operational
Issues
•
Information Sharing
Historically,
data from the previous month is available just a few days into the following
month. This was possible because of the county's large investment into software
that permits up-to-the-minute data reporting ($30,000 annually). Under new
policies data is "available" the second Wednesday on the month. NHS
has never received the information on time and must repeatedly request the
information. This lack of and untimely information-sharing reduces the ability
to be agile, respond and indentify trends, and ultimately save lives
.WCRAS pays over $25,000 per
year for the Chameleon license, at one point NHS was a signatory on the license
. They felt the $12,500 required to
maintain access to the Chameleon data base was beyond their budget and switched
to Pet Finder. A much cheaper product
that does not interface with Chameleon. When they gave up payment for the
Chameleon product they also lost access to that data. When Mr. Schneider was AC
manager he gave them unauthorized access to that data base which violates the
terms of agreement with Chameleon
.
As of 1/8/2014 WCRAS has
refused to provide NHS with the "Pre Euth-List" highlighting animals
that are scheduled for euthanasia. This allows all parties involved to see the
global picture and prevent unnecessary euthanasia
. It has never been the policy of WCRAS to release the
information on animals scheduled for euthanasia. This is an internal decision and not subject for public comment.
To enter into such a protocol would put the County in the role of “overflow”
holding for rescues. The responsibility
for getting and animal pulled lies on the agency wanting that animal.
Announcing the euth list always results in drama “pity pulls” or a slew of requests for holds up kennel space
in WCRAS causing euth to become more likely for owner surrenders, since by law
they don’t have a hold time.
Furthermore, due to either
confusion or internal issues/policies animals are not hitting
"available" lists. Thus, NHS is tracking every animal by hand to
prevent these new restrictive policies for resulting in needless euthanasia.
That said, this will become impossible when intake predictably balloons as we
head into spring. Animals will fall through the cracks. Animal information is
no longer consistently or uniformly shared with NHS. This could prevent us from
providing needed modifications for animals with special needs. WCRAS also
provides limited/inconsistent medical history (other than currently prescribed
or
provided
medications/treatment by WCRAS). All of this leads to duplication of efforts as
well as mitigates our ability to make good matches and provide eyes wide open
information to all adopters, as is our policy. In addition, WCRAS expects NHS
to share all our evaluation information with WCRAS volunteers, albeit we then
later are criticized for doing so.
The responsibility for tracking animals lies
with the rescue organization. Generally an animal becomes available 5 days
after intake. It’s fiscally more practical for various agencies to contact or
follow the WCRAS than expending limited resources doing the foot work for the
rescues. The burden lies on the NHS
because at this time animals cannot be released to any rescue until NHS signs
off on it.
Under previous policies the location in
which animals originated from was shared with NHS. Using GIS technology (best
practices in animal welfare) NHS has tracked animal intake. This allowed for
NHS to proactively indentify "hot spots" and then provide resources to
those neighborhoods or areas affected to mitigate animal intake and assist
families with animal retention and birth prevention resources. This also helps
indemnity hoarder situations.
Again, this references a
former managers (Mitch’s) decision to
violate the terms of agreement with Chameleon, while also allowing unauthorized
access to privileged information about owners of animals in County custody.
If NHS is continuing to data mine on our systems, that should become a criminal
matter for our DA’s office.
Occasionally our animals are connected to an arrest or cruelty this
information is private and does not belong in the hands of third party, non
government persons. I don’t understand
the use of “indemnity” in the closing sentence. I don’t think they do
either. Another issue with giving
animal pick up addresses is allows the persons turning the animal in to be
harassed by NHS or in the case of cats I’m sure that NHS would just dump the
cat right back were the person turned it in from. NHS mentions GIS technology,
I agree it’s great, they should get their own and pay for it, not use WCRAS. As
far as hoarder situations, legally those belong to WCRAS, that is a criminal
matter, Ask Lauretta…
2 ( Two ) NHS
is required to provide all adoption
information to WCRAS so that licenses can be pursued and microchips updated.
WCRAS does not regularly update their microchip information for all animals
resulting in sometimes poor return-to- owner response and even returning
animals to the wrong families.
The responsibility for
updating the micrchip is on the owner. WCRAS can only scan the existing chip,
we are not an investigative body. Most of the adoptions done by NHS are not
licensed and the chip is seldom filled out by the adopter. At one point there
was a memo passed through NHS suggesting not to register chips for 2 weeks
because of the high return rate and the confusion that caused. The returning to
wrong family situation was prompted when a dog was returned multiple times and
readopted by NHS without NHS updating the chip.
Animal Care
Animals at WCRAS are not adequately treated
on consistent basis according to animal welfare industry best practices. There
have been countless animals that have
languished
at WCRAS, suffering without receiving proper medical intervention or being
humanely euthanized. There are countless examples, one being a cat that was
left with for 5 days with a ruptured abscess, ruptured tongue, insufficient
renal function, and once pulled by NHS (just to put the animals out of its
considerable misery) our veterinarian found the cat had 10% body hydration.
NHS' veterinarian immediately euthanized the animal following a very disturbing
exam. The second example, is a dog that came into WCRAS with ruptured mammary
(had mammary chain masses some of which had ruptured) this animal sat in WCRAS
8 days
.
The above statement is
subjective in combination with innuendo.
If WCRAS is being accused of animal neglect that is a crime, and
deserves a day in court allowing / mandating that NHS furnish proof of
these allegations. Our tolerance for frivolous criminal false allegations
that cost the taxpayers is thin. If NHS felt an animal was being wrongly
treated they have the responsibility to document that with time day and Animal
ID. The other scenario is they
knowingly left an animal suffering for several days and did not pull it. Any animal in custody over 5 dysy (
excepting court cases ) could have been pulled sooner. That NHS chose to leave the animal 8 days is
telling.
Pervasive issue, especially with cats but far
from limited to cats.
NHS staff has witnessed community service
and/or sheriff office inmates "hosing"
animals
out kennels. This is a deeply disturbing practice that can foster dog
aggression and disease transmission. This practice has been widely discredited
by the animal welfare industry. Untrained staff cleaning leads to poor animal
outcomes and increased disease transmission.
Heresay, if this is
documented, NHS needs to provide proof.
Ongoing baseless harassment is counter intuitive to a working
relationship.
Over 25% of cats transferred under the
"feral" designation are in fact not feral and are adoptable or even
owned cats. This is a large issue considering the current status of TNR. Total lack of ringworm containment best
practices
NHS can certainly decline any
transfer, and having extensive experience with cats can make the feral
determination for themselves.This is also excerbated by NHS dumping tame cats
into the TNR program. I know one lady that has 5 of these cats that were
crawling all over her and they were eartipped.
Operational
There have been a rash of recent cases in
which microchipped animals with owners (and current information on record) have
been transferred to NHS and adopted. This has been a result of WCRAS not
keeping their Microchip database accurate, not checking the national databases,
and frankly, refusing call long distances (even though the taxpayers provide
them cell phones). This resulted in a deeply upsetting event involving two
labs, thanksgiving, and a child with autism. Luckily, NHS staff worked to
resolve the situation and save Washoe County considerable embarrassment.
Owner remorse is not uncommon.
The burden of retrieving the owned animal, remains with the owner. The releasing agency connected to the
adoptive home bears the responsibility for checking with “owners of record
”they may find through a chip scan. NHS should deal with owners who may have abandoned the animal in shelter
and later felt regret. Again WCRAS is not an investigative agency.
TNR - total lack of understanding of national
best practices and again a shocking lack of consistency (more to follow). Along
with this and other issues, WCRAS is singlehandedly threatening our communities
no-kill moniker and subsequently jeopardized the almost
TNR is animal abandonment and
is in violation of Rabies law. State law follows the CDC which follows the
recommendations of the AVAMA for inoculations. There are communities that have
codified TNR in direct conflict with state law. Some are being sued. The
Florida Veterinarians Association successfully sued in Tampa to get TNR
stopped. The feds have made a formal (
pre injunction ) request to the city of Albuquerque to cease and desist TNR
protocol Currently being sued to the
knees on this too J
3 ( Three )
1 million dollars that comes into Washoe County via Maddies Fund ( just one example )annually.
WCRAS has again reversed policy and
provides owner requested euthanasia to residents for $25. Previously NHS has
been notified when this was requested and could pull viable animals that did
not require euthanasia and adopt those animals out. Why are taxpayers paying for needless, convenience-based
euthanasia,
The Nevada Humane Society, by
PSA, is responsible for doing ORE. They
abandoned their legal responsibility.
It is in the interest of the owner and the animal that humane euthanasia
be permitted and provided as stated in the contract. WCRAS has always had the legal ground to contain any animal it
recognizes as being in jeopardy of abandonment. The Nevada Humane Society does
not have the right or authority to override the wishes of the owner for the
humane disposition of their animals. Timely pulling of stray cats is the
responsibility of NHS.
Owner surrenders are now, at an alarmingly
increasing rate, being accepted by WCRAS. This is in juxtaposition to almost 8
years of policy and mitigates NHS' ability to prevent intake, assist the
community, and gather information about the pet being surrendered. This
information is essential to quality placement of previously owned animals and
puts NHS staff, volunteers, and visitors at risk. Again, this in total
contradiction of industry best practices.
The role of NHS was
never to “ prevent intake” NHS remains the legal dedicated facility for
owner surrenders. Looking at the
statistics provided on the NHS website shows clearly they are pulling from the
County instead of accepting from the public.
When the public is turned away from NHS they can come down the walk 30
feet, or they can dump the animal in the desert. Our role is to provide safety
for the animal and the community. We accept any unwanted animal for the animals
safety as well as the community.
WCRAS has changed its hours at least
three times in the last six months. Their website is never updated and provides
flatly incorrect information about a range of issues. This is enormously
frustrating to the public and makes zero sense in terms of WCRAS' inability to update its data on its
website puts Washoe County in breach of
contract
with Maddie's Fund. This threatens our entire community's ability to secure
funds from one of the largest animal welfare grantors in the world. We received
the prestigious Community Lifesaving Award because of collaboration, that
spirit of cooperation is gone.
The decision to accept
Maddie’s funding is up to the Agency. Nationally more shelters are declining
Maddie’s Fund due to the strings attached which do not balance out on the
negative impact of No Kill.
WCRAS transfers animals to groups without
501(c)3 status or a Nevada Business License
This
has been verified through the Secretary of State's office and is in violation
of WCC .
Please provide definitive examples of
violation of WCC by WCRAS
Changing
policy regarding the disposition of bite animals to prevent NHS from taking
them. Not all bites are from dangerous animals. The animal who began this fight was a 6 week old kitten who bit a
person while being rescued from the jaws of a dog. The state legislature deemed
the county interpretation of the law ridiculous..
The rabid feral kitten that
bit the child in Florida was 2.5 pounds, Rabies doesn’t strike by age or
weight. WCRAS is within the purview of
their duties to protect the public from any animal that may pose a bite/ rabies
risk.
WCRAS provides
cat traps but under current leadership, citizens are no longer being given
information regarding TNR (which saves the taxpayer the expense of housing
these animals) WCRAS staff does not inform people that the cats may be
euthanized, instead they are told that they will go for adoption.
WCRAS would be derelict in it’s enforcement duties to encourage the
abandonment of any animal.
Feral Cats
TNR saves taxpayer dollars, prevents
euthanasia and is the only scientifically sound method of controlling and
reducing free roaming cat populations.
Returning to a Trap, Contain, Kill model will
result in the loss of millions of dollars in foundation support to Washoe
Country animal welfare groups and will cost Washoe County an estimated $250 per
animal. The community is being misled
in the County's participation in this program.
TNR is not self supporting and is in violation of state
law .Nor does it reduce population, more cats are abandoned to the colony
setting where food is often made available.
This food attracts wildlife which completes the “ rabies bridge” from
wildlife to pet to human. There are more and more conflicts between the
catfeeders and the community, why else are there 3 pages on Alley Cat Allies
telling me how to deal with “ your’ ferals
4 ( Four ) Advantages to Nevada Humane Society's Operation of WCRAS
•
IVlassive increases of service delivery to residents. Right,
that’s why you have to make an appointment to bring a surrender in, and they
want WCRAS to turn their backs too.
•
Establishment of animal services best practices to allow for better stewardship
of companion animals, better response to citizenry, better service and
decreased expense to taxpayers BS
•
Robust spay or neuter availability for Washoe County citizens, truly changing our
short and long term animal intake projections. NHS
allows to many rescues to “ promise to neuter “ when there is no medical reason
not to spay before release. Their policy has stated it’s silly to spend money
to neuter “ highly adoptable dogs” I have been told by volunteers there (NHS ) that they use funding for all animals interchangeably, regardless of where it came from. That is just repeating gossip, but would be worth checking into.
Kinda forget state law.
•
Offer sterilization at reclamation
•
Explore better outbreak control techniques
•
Increased medical interventions that prevent intake and provide an unparalleled
level of service to Washoe County.
•
Decrease in redundancies and an increase in efficiencies.
•
The ability to maximize the WCRAS complex
• Stabilization and reduction of expense to Washoe County
and the preservation of the WCRAS fund. Otherwise, the future of WCRAS is
deeply troubling and will almost certainly lead to a mass reduction of
services.
• The ability to be proactive and respond to community
trends and data to better serve residents and mitigate issues.
The reduction of
cost by the addition of services.
•
Massive labor cost savings They are losing a million a year, read the IRS 990's
•
The ability to leverage NHS' national reputation and fundraising ability The public shelter is fully funded.
•
The ability to leverage NHS' 100,000 household database We don’t need
your database, we have one
•
The ability to leverage our 8,000 person volunteer corps Anybody ever see a list?
•
The ability to call on our 2,600 family Foster Network.
May we see the list?
• A combined organization would save taxpayer funds,
increase money raised, and better utilize existing resources.
•
Provide veterinary care to every animal housed at 2825 Longley regardless of
location, reducing animal suffering and providing better health outcomes.
•
Decreasing length of stay of animals, provide better outcomes and reduced costs
This so BS the length of stay is 5 days, NHS is the
one with length of stay issues.
•
Better knowledge of animals in our care thus being better able to provide 360
degree adoption information, adopter support and protect our community. Say how, you fired your humane officers you have no field
services, Carson City is a train wreck.
• Provide
service rather than just enforcement We do both at
WCRAS
•
Make Washoe County into THE MODEL for collaboration and animal welfare. We
would become the example and the destination for animal welfare training and
knowledge sharing
This is not worthy of a response
Pictured is Barry Brode and that GIGANTIC HAND that crushed poor Gina Greisen, and gave the Managers office the fuel it was seeking to ditch that "enforcement mentality" and step out of the box and be " innovative, forward thinking, and incredibly stupid all at one time. After reading the FOIA it seems clear that John Helzer hated the manager who was found " guilty of doing his job" and trying to get a lid on the loons.
