CURRENT SITUATION

Citizens for responsible Animal Shelter Management was founded by several former Santa Cruz County Animal Services Authority (SCCASA) employees. We believe;

I.                    The Shelter Manager has in the last year instituted a hostile working environment for staff and volunteers.

II.                  The care given to the animals in the last year has declined due to; short staffing, lack of training for new staff (in all departments except for Animal Control), elimination (by management) of key supervisory positions, reinstatement of outdated policies, and loss of senior staff due to harassment by the Shelter Manager.

III.                The management is not adhering to the Hayden Bill which mandates the humane treatment of animals in municipal animal shelters.

IV.                The staff of the SCCASA understand that if they voice their concerns to management, they will be punished either by harassment from the Shelter Manager or euthanasia of the animals they advocate for.

V.                  The mission statement of the SCCASA is not being met.

VI.                The SCCASA Board is complicit in this by allowing mismanagement of staff after numerous complaints have been brought to their attention.

HISTORY

Santa Cruz County Animal Services Authority (SCCASA) was created in 2002. Formerly, the municipal (county funded) animal shelter was known as the Santa Cruz SPCA, but Santa Cruz County opted to drop its contract with the SPCA to do sheltering and animal control, and open its own animal shelter. Thus, SCCASA was born (and the SPCA became what it is today, a private non-profit animal rescue and education organization). Today, SCCASA is overseen by a Board consisting of a representative from each of the jurisdictions that buy into the Joint Powers Authority. SCCASA or ASA for short, adopted most of the policies of its former entity and almost all of the SPCA staff were hired into the new agency. In 2004 in an agreement with the City of Watsonville, the ASA took control of the animal shelter at 580 Airport Blvd and all operations were absorbed into the ASA

Since then the ASA has gone through several General Managers and Shelter Managers. In October of 2007 a new Shelter Manager was hired and this is where the majority of the problems for the agency started. In January of 2008 a large group of employees at the ASA drafted a document to the former General Manager and the ASA Board stating their concerns with the new Shelter Manager. The General Manager addressed some of the issues and attempted to make change, but the board members decided not to become involved and allow the General Manager to resolve the complaints. Shortly after, the General Manager was forced to resign by the Board of the ASA. Concurrently, the Shelter Manager was given a slap on the wrist. As a result, there began a series of punishments and retaliation for those staff that had signed the document. These staff member s were effectively silenced (three resigned because of the hostile work environment) and no more complaints were lodged. It was at about this time that some volunteers began having problems with the management as well.

Recently, the ASA Board hired a new General Manager with many years of experience in municipal animal shelter management. The staff and volunteers saw this as a new opportunity to share their concerns about the state of the shelter as a direct result of the Shelter Manager, and welcomed the new General Manager. Unfortunately, many staff and volunteers have been silenced or ignored by the new General Manager after voicing their concerns. For instance, the General Manager received information that there had been unlawful management practices carried out by the Shelter Manager. He requested through a trusted source that any person having a complaint send that complaint with clear documentation to him via email. Many volunteers and a small number of staff took this action. One long-time former employee and current volunteer was fired from her volunteer duties as a result. Several others were banished from their normal duties as volunteers. But the overall response of the new General Manager was no response at all. Almost all of these staff or volunteers never received any reply at all, including one of the two volunteers who witnessed disturbing wrongful euthanasia practices.

 

COMPLAINTS

   What follows are the most common complaints filed against the current management of the ASA;

I.                    The management of ASA often euthanizes animals that could be placed elsewhere. For instance, on several occasions over the last three years, when the kennels have been full, the management has opted to euthanize large amounts of animals rather than call rescue. They have also failed to call the former foster parents for some of those animals so that they could be re-fostered. Instead, the animals were euthanized.

II.                  A new Foster Care policy that states foster parents may have only one foster ‘situation’, i.e., one litter or a single kitten or puppy. They may not mix two singles together which would benefit the animals since early socialization within a litter is vital. This also creates more euthanasia as there are not enough foster homes for all of the single kittens and puppies that come into the shelter, let alone the adult cats and dogs.

III.                Restrictions on animals in non-public areas including; these animals may not be handled by volunteers while they wait to go up for adoption. Sometimes, for several weeks at a time these animals are left in small cages with little to no human interaction and no environment enrichment. Often they are not given a proper diet (older animals who need canned food because they have rotting teeth, etc)or euthanized when they show no improvement but they have not been given adequate animal care (cats who have an Upper Respiratory Infection and cannot smell food because their noses become sealed with mucus which should be cleaned daily,  and are then euthanized for not eating, is one example).This is inhumane for the animals.

IV.                A new policy which states that animals now have a ‘deadline’ for euthanasia. This is new; the agency has always had a policy of not setting a deadline (or date for euthanasia) in the spirit of case management.

V.                  Reducing food intake for cats to 1/8 of a cup twice daily and confining them to small Plexiglas enclosures with little environmental stimulation

VI.                Reducing the rabbit cages from 15-21cages to 6, thus creating more euthanasia.

VII.              A hostile working environment and an atmosphere of fear that has created undue suspicion and tension in the shelter;

A.      Staff has been informed by the Shelter Manager that they may not meet outside of work to discuss work issues.

B.      Staff has been informed by the Shelter Manager that they should not fraternize with volunteers outside of work.

C.      Volunteers have been accused by the Shelter Manager of conspiracy against her and trying to get her fired. These false accusations cause volunteers to feel unwelcome and fearful of the management.

D.      Staff have been publicly belittled and harassed in front of their co-workers by the Shelter Manager.

E.       Shelter management have set volunteers and staff against each other;

i.                     Shelter Manager has told employees that volunteers are complaining about them.

ii.                   Shelter Manager has told volunteers they may not speak with staff about concerns over an animal; they must go to her only.

VIII.            Retaliation for those employees or volunteers who voice their concerns;

A.      One long-time former employee and volunteer was fired from her volunteer duties for submitting concerns to the General Manager.

B.      Several other volunteers have been banished from non-public areas after they voiced their concerns.

C.      A foster parent was forced by threat of law enforcement to bring her foster kittens back to the shelter. This was only days after it was publicly revealed at an ASA Board meeting that she witnessed a wrongful euthanasia by the Shelter Manager.

D.      A brand new ‘Volunteer Agreement’ which is unwelcoming and hardly mentions the care given to the animals. The new agreement gives several guidelines for what volunteers may NOT do and then eleven reasons they could be terminated.

E.       Staff is afraid to speak up for themselves and their rights as employees for fear of retaliation. They also fear retaliation in the form of euthanasia for the animals they advocate for.

IX.                Not filling the vacant position of Volunteer and Foster Care coordinator and allowing the Shelter Manager to absorb it.

A.      This has resulted in many volunteers leaving.

B.      Foster parents are not being recruited

X.                  Eliminating the position of Client Services Supervisor and allowing the Shelter Manager to absorb it.

XI.                A daily and steady stream of ever changing policies and procedures by the Shelter Management that leave staff and volunteers confused and afraid to make any move, even if it IS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE ANIMALS.

XII.              Lists of up to 30 animals sent to foster parents and volunteers with instructions that foster homes must be found for these animals in 24-48 hours “or else”.

As a result of these complaints Citizens for Responsible Animal Shelter Management would like to point out the mission statement of ASA;

“Through community involvement, education, adoption, and humane law enforcement, we work to preserve the well being of all animals and bring an end to the homeless animal crisis.”

In light of the current conditions at the ASA, crasm believes that the first three words indicate a crucial breakdown in the mission of the agency.  By creating a hostile work environment for not only staff, but volunteers, the ASA contradicts those first three words; “Through community involvement”. By leaving animals in the non-public areas (Isolation wards, the feral Cat room, the lost and found cat and dog rooms, and the garage) without quality human interaction (at least 15 minutes) and environment enrichment, the ASA contradicts its statement to “preserve the well being of all animals”. By having a foster care policy that states that foster parents may only have one foster ‘situation’ i.e., one litter or one single kitten or puppy, and by denying rescue of animals to 501(c) (3) animal rescue organizations, which would lessen the population at ASA, the ASA contradicts its statement that it will work to, “bring an end to the homeless animal crisis”.

OBJECTIVES

Citizens for Responsible Animal Shelter Management believe that municipal (government funded) animal shelters have a responsibility to provide humane care to the animals (and it is the law; Hayden Bill), to provide a safe and supportive workplace for their staff, and a welcoming and friendly environment to their volunteers and clients. This is not only the right way to run an animal shelter so that adoptions are increased and euthanasia is decreased, but because the tax payers demand it. The current management have come to believe that they are above the law and not accountable to the tax payers. Because of this and because of our failed past efforts to work with the management to resolve these issues internally, we have no alternative but to expose their unethical and irresponsible practices to the public.

Through our efforts we want to see;

I.                    A management team dedicated to the animals, the staff, the volunteers and the community they serve, rather than a paycheck or their own control-based agendas.

II.                  The removal of the current Shelter Manager.

III.                A Volunteer and Foster Care Coordinator who appreciates the volunteers and supports them.

IV.                A new policy allowing volunteers who are specially trained to work with the animals in the non-public areas.

V.                  An increase in the amount of rabbit cages

VI.                Case by case diet management for special needs animals

Santa Cruz County prides itself on being a progressive community, yet our local municipal animal shelter is deteriorating by being managed in an antiquated animal control mode. The current management take credit for a comparatively low euthanasia rate (compared to other jurisdictions), but really it is because of a mandatory spay and neuter ordinance enacted in SC County 13 years ago, and because of the dedicated work of numerous volunteers and rescue groups. The last year has seen this agency reach a new low, and not because of the staff, but because of the management.

 

 

 

WHAT YOU CAN DO TO HELP

1.     Join crasm and help us make a difference. Contact info@crasm.org

2.     Become a volunteer at ASA

3.     Attend the monthly board meetings and show your support for the employees and animals (board meetings are held the third Monday of every month at 3 pm at the County building; 711 ocean street in Santa Cruz, 5th floor).

4.     Write a letter to the board of directors stating your concerns( we can help, contact info@crasm.org)

5.     Write a letter to your local Supervisor stating your concerns( we can help, contact info@crasm.org)