IN THE NEWS

2008

January 3, 2008 - Culver City News - Death of Puppy Sparks Investigation

January 16, 2008 - Culver City Observer - Letters - Anita Jaskol

January 16, 2008 - Culver City Observer - Letters - Deborah Weinrauch

January 16, 2008 - Culver City Observer - Letters - Kimberly King

January 24-30, 2008 - Culver City Observer - Carson Animal Shelter Draws Protestors

January 24, 2008 - Culver City News - Poster Dog for Survival - "Alaskan Husky emerges from the Carson Shelter 10 months later" by Gary Walker

January 24, 2008 - Culver City News - Letters - Long List Against Carson Shelter - Deborah Weinrauch

January 24, 2008 - Culver City News - Letters - In Search of New Council Members - Anita Jaskol

January 24, 2008 - Culver City News - Letters - Boo to Service Contract - Sandi Mineo-Rust

February 7, 2008 - Culver City News - Silbiger Joins Demands for Multi-City Shelter Probe

February 13, 2008 - Los Angeles Times -L .A. County Animal Control Chief Defends Agency

February 21, 2008 - Culver City News - Shelter Critics Not Swayed

June 19-25, 2008 - Culver City Observer - Animal Control Officer Approved For 24 Months

Oct. 16, 2008 - Culver City News - Animal Officer OK'd

Oct. 21, 2008 - The Front Page Online - Animal Control Officer Groundwork Has Been Done

Oct. 23, 2008 - Culver City Observer - Animal Control Officer Gets A Step Closer

Nov. 13, 2008 - Culver City Observer - Hawthorne Chosen To House Culver Animals

Nov. 13, 2008 - Los Angeles Wave - City Council OKs Animal Shelter Contract.

2007

August 30, 2007 - Culver City Observer - Council Votes To Give County Control by Martha Tucker

September 6 - 12, 2007 - Culver City Observer - Letters - Judy Johnston

September 6 - 12, 2007 - Culver City Observer - Letters - Charles Aguado

September 6 - 12, 2007 - Culver City Observer - Letters - Sandi Mineo-Rust

October 11, 2007 - Culver City News - Letters;
October 20, 2007 - Culver City Observer - Letters
Selina Lee

December 6, 2007 - Culver City News - Letters - Dena and Craig Snedden

December 20, 2007 - Culver City News - Letters - Charles Aguado

December 27, 2007 - January 2, 2008 - Culver City Observer - Burke Orders Investigation of Carson Animal Shelter

top

2006

January 12, 2006 - Culver City News

January 19, 2006 - Culver City Observer - Letters - Charles Aguado

July 6, 2006 - Culver City Observer - Letters - Randi Woodrow

July 13, 2006 - Culver City Star - What to do About Bad Dogs at the Park by Anna Scott

September 7, 2006 - Culver City Star - Council in the dog days of summer by Anna Scott

October 12, 2006 - Culver City News - Letters - Mehaul O'Leary

November 2 - 8, 2006 - Culver City Observer - Letters

top

2005

June 9, 2005 - Culver City News - Animal Group Organizes

June 9, 2005 - The Independent - City Council to Consider
Agency for Pet Control by Mary Frances Gurton

June 16, 2005 - Culver City News - Animal Group for Local Control

June 23, 2005 - Culver City News - Letters - Kim King, Michael S. Harwood, MD

June 23, 2005 - Culver City Observer - Letters - Wendy Wilson, Karyn Gatt

August 11, 2005 - The Independent - Friends of Animals happy that council will look for closer animal control site by Mary Frances Gurton

August 11, 2005 - Culver City Observer - by Sue Chehrenegar

Sept. 1, 2005 - Culver City Observer - Letters - Katherine Barlow

top

Culver City News
June 9, 2005

Animal Group Organizes

What had been a local Raintree animal welfare group is now a city-wide organization called Friends of Culver City Animals, according to one of its, founders, Deborah Weinrauch.

Members of the group are to speak at the Culver City Council meeting Monday night. The Council is scheduled to discuss renewal of its contract with the Los Angeles County Department of Animal Care and Control. Weinrauch said the Friends want a local animal shelter and animal control officer.
top

The Independent
June 16, 2005

City Council to Consider Agency for Pet Control
By Mary Frances Gurton

A group of 27 Culver City residents calling themselves "Friends of Culver City Animals" asked the City Council Monday to create a local animal control agency.

Deborah Weinrauch and several other residents complained before the council of the "up to one-hour response time" required for a Los Angeles County Department of Animal Control agent to respond to a call, and of a specific instance where an opossum was left on a street for two days.

"The cost of such a program is greatly outweighed when compared with the benefits a local program would bring to the city," Weinrauch said.

For seven years the city has been contracting with the Los Angeles County Animal Control Dept. for field services, sheltering services in Carson and licensing services. Also, the department conducts an annual rabies clinic in Culver City.

"The yearly revenues from licensing dogs in Culver City would pay for the costs of one full-time officer, a part-time assistant and other costs of running a local service," said Culver City Postmaster Russ Knowland.

This year, the cost for LA County Animal Control services was $58,754 minus revenues for license fees, penalties, and housing of $32,482, which brought the net payment to Los Angeles to $26,272.

The city's recently adopted dog license fees alone could bring in almost $13,000 to offset the cost of the existing program, according to staff reports, but that would still not be enough to cover the costs for a new animal care and control program.
top

Culver City News
June 16, 2005

Animal Group for Local Control

Members of Friends of Culver City Animals urged the City Council on Monday night to plan ahead for an animal control officer to work out of the Culver City Police Department.
The Council took renewal of its contract with the L.A. County Animal Care and Control Department off of its agenda before the meeting, but Mayor Albert Vera gave time to a few members of Friends to make their case.

Co-founder Deborah Weinrauch told the Council her relatively new group has gathered 700 signatures so far in support of localizing animal control. She said the group recognized that the city must renew the contract with the County Department for a year because the current agreement expires at the end of June. "What we're asking is that you consider how our Police Department can begin providing animal control field patrol and how the general fund budget for this basic government function can be restored to what it was for the 1998-1999 and 1999-2000 fiscal years" to make way for a local control patrol officer, Weinrauch said.

She asked for a Police Department or staff report on how such an officer could be implemented into the community.
Jim Berland told the Council: ''A local animal control officer who knows our city, our people and our animals and works closely together with other city departments, will improve the quality of life in Culver City." He said that goal "is within financial reach. Remember, we pay for animal control officers from the County. I don't want to see us spending
$57.02 an hour on an animal control officer stuck in traffic on the 405 when he or she could be driving the streets of Culver City."
top

Culver City News
June 23, 2005
Letters to the Editor

For Local Control

I was shocked to learn that LA County animal control officers based in Carson can come from as far away as Rolling Hills or Beverly Hills are responding to a call from Culver City. What a terrible waste of time and money!

Not to mention the fact that by the time they arrive in Culver City, it may be too late. We have a very fast response time from the Culver City Police Department for things like muggings; why not for dog attacks that can be even more dangerous?

Kim King
Culver City

Dead Animal Hazard

As a doctor and long time resident of Culver City, I am sick and tired of seeing dead animals lying in our streets for a prolonged period of time. Besides being hideous to look at, these animals are prey for other animals and rodents and are a health hazard.

I say that we need someone in town whose job it is to dispose of dead animals immediately, before they pose a health threat to the rest of us. Better yet, how about an animal control officer who can pick up stray animals and return them to their homes before they become a hazard to drivers, or road kill?

Michael S. Harwood, MD
Culver City
top

Culver City Observer
June 23 - 29, 2005
Letters to the Editor

I was one of several persons that attended the Culver City Council meeting on Monday, June 13, 2005. Several members of the Friends of Culver City Animals were given the opportunity at this meeting to speak to the Council about the need for local animal control in the form of an animal control officer in Culver City to handle the myriad of animal-related issues that every city encounters, Culver City included.

Culver City residents are getting the same animal control service as residents of unincorporated LA County, but we are paying 33 percent more in dog license fees. We are paying the same as in cities like EI Segundo, Redondo Beach and Torrance. In those cities, they currently have city-based animal control officers. These cities don't rely on the County. In El Segundo and Redondo Beach, they have well-established, city-maintained dog parks. In Torrance, dogs are allowed on-leash in every city park.

Here in Culver City, we are paying more than residents of Manhattan Beach, where they have 3 animal control officers in their police department, and an area in a park for off-leash dogs. We are paying more than residents of Santa Monica and their police department has animal control officers as well as an animal shelter.

This City Council determines how much residents pay in dog license fees, and the level of service that residents receive. I think it's fair to say that responsible dog owners, who are residents of Culver City, are being ripped off because they wind up paying the bulk of the license fees while other residents shirk their license responsibilities and don't pay the fees. I understand that there has been talk about using dog license fees to pay for a dog park, but until we have city-based animal control officers or a dog park in place, we are paying more without getting more.

Wendy A. Wilson
Culver City
top

I am a resident of Culver City. I recently have been witness to the lack of animal assistance and control officers in this city. For about one whole week there has been a dead cat and a possum on Jefferson near Culver City Park where I walk my dogs.

I have called in to animal control in Carson where our city is contracted out to report it. I have not seen any results and the removal of strays and dead carcasses like this is not happening in a timely manner.

For the health of youth too young to know better and for the health of my own animals this must change. Yesterday I was witness again to the compounded disgust when a car was parked on top of the carcass of the dead cat. I do not think it is fair to assume its ok to the driver of the parked car or any resident walking by in this city to have dead animal carcasses not being removed for weeks.

What's more is that the animal control we lack here is unnecessary. There needs to be a city division of the animal control system in Culver. This is an important endeavor for our city and hopefully we can see results for the requests we have been making. I am not the only one who feels this strongly and we all hope the city decides what is best.

Karyn Gatt
Culver City
top

The Independent
August 11, 2005

Friends of Animals happy that council will look for closer animal control site

by Mary Frances Gurton

Members of Culver City's Friends of Animals were appeased Monday when the City Council promised to look into methods for getting local animal control services faster and closer to home.

"I find it disheartening to hear the same complaints tonight that we heard two years ago," said Councilman Alan Corlin, "and to have the animal control people present again saying they know nothing about it."

After hearing complaints from residents and input from county animal control officials, the council unanimously passed a motion agreeing to, among other things, discuss with the City of Santa Monica about possibly contracting with them rather than Los Angeles County Animal Control's faraway Carson center for local services.

They also said they would look into the possibility of setting up a telephone hotline service that would ensure faster response times.

Culver City Friends of Animals has repeatedly requested that the city set up its own animal service center.

"There is no response from [the Carson animal control center]," said Dena Snedder, who also read a long list of services the center is obligated to but never undertakes. "You can violate animal laws in Culver City and not be cited. What is it going to take for the city to get local control to protect us?"

Other residents described dead animals left for days after being reported despite the agreed upon pick-up time being "within an hour."

Laura Stewart described a large, hungry dog who roamed freely around her neighborhood for over three weeks with literally no response from the Carson center, including answering the phone.

Other residents also said when they called the center the phone rang with no answer.

"We pay the highest fees of any city in the area," said Stewart, "but we receive the poorest services."

Joining those who complained about the center's lack of phone response, Corlin, who initiated the motion, said, "I called the Carson animal center two or three times this week and got no answer."

When questioned by Corlin about various expectations regarding dead or dangerous animals and call and response times, officials from the county control center who were invited to offer information regarding the complaints were of little help.

"The center is pulling together a call dispatch center that might help with the phone problems," said one official. "I was not aware of the problems being discussed here. I will look into them."

Neither officer offered explanations nor solutions.

The main obstacle to the creation of a city-run animal control center was funding, according to officials.

Chief Administrative Officer Jerry Fulwood explained that the contract currently costs the city $62,000, a surprising decline from last year's cost of $74,000.

Fees would have to be tripled, he said, to meet the expected cost of up to $300,000 for creating a new center, which would include hiring at least one animal control official and setting up an animal control facility.

Carol Gross, who paused when organization members became audibly disgruntled regarding her comments, echoed Fulwood's cautionary financial comments.

She said, "Like anybody in the audience, the city only has a finite amount of money to make choices with."

City staff will return to the council within 90 days regarding their findings.
top

Culver City Observer
August 11 - 17, 2005
By Sue Chehrenegar
Observer Reporter

At Monday night's Council meeting more than 20 members of the audience wore tags bearing the slogan "Friends of Culver City Animals." The "Friends" counted among their membership both new and long-time Culver City residents. Their organization appeared to include members of many different age groups, and their supporters represented many different ethnicities.

Their diversity underscored the breadth of the City's community of animal lovers. Some of the voices of those tag wearers spoke up during the first of the agenda's public comment sections.

The first comment addressed the issue that had brought the large audience - the City's decision to use contracted animal control services. Deborah Weinrauch and two other "Friends" detailed the results of their own investigation into ways that the City could correct the absence of a City animal control officer. Ms. Weinrauch made reference to the willingness of one agency to donate a truck for use by such an officer. She also said, "There is an animal shelter in Los Angeles that is interested in relocation to Culver City."

Ms. Weinrauch returned to the podium when the Council took-up Action Item A-3, a consideration of removal of the City's contract with L.A. County Animal Control and Canvassing Programs. She made reference to her earlier appearance on June 13. Alluding to others who had shared her views on that evening, she said, "Many of our speakers expressed concerns about health and safety issues."

Ms. Weinrauch had some questions for the Council. She asked, "How much would it cost Culver City to hire our own control officer?" Then speaking for many of the "Friends," she said, "Our resident dog owners need to know why they are paying for dog licenses." Finally, showing that she had done her home work, she said, "A dog control program would cost less than 0.1 % of our [City's] annual budget."

Jay McDaniel came to the podium with more information about the needs of all the "Friends." He said, "Animal control is control of all animals, not just dogs. Who benefits from animal control?" Mr. McDaniel answered his own question by offering a long list of animal control services including animal vaccinations, pet store inspections, resolution of accidents caused by animals and control of abandoned animals. He concluded by saying, "Residents of Culver City will benefit from local control".

Two younger City residents emphasized a problem that seemed to catch the attention of Alan Corlin. A small girl named Terri spoke about making daily trips to Carson to inquire about a lost cat. She recounted how she had gotten conflicting information from the workers at the Carson facility. She complained about having to wait in a long line, and about later discovering that the answer she sought had escaped notice of the Carson employee charged with entering information into the computer database.

Another young girl, Yvonne, echoed many of Terri's complaints. She had encountered problems while searching for a dog that had disappeared. The appearance of both girls stood out, because each made an excellent presentation, while a parent watched proudly in the background.

Following the public comments CAO Jerry Fulwood said, ''The issue of animal control surfaced about a year ago." After providing some figures to underline the extent of the problem, Mr. Fulwood said, "We need to look at ways that we can work with the community. We have a very difficult budget to balance this year."

Steve Rose said, "Adding a program is always a difficult issue...To have a proper animal control program, it'll take four to five employees to make it a 24-hour program."

Carol Gross had similar thoughts. "I think Mr. Rose has been reading my notes," she said.."There could be dogs loose from outside our City; they don't recognize the City boundaries. It would be very nice if we could have our own shelter ...Right now we have not been able to restore some of the services that were cut."

Gary Silbiger added another thought. "When we talk about animal control officers.. it is one of safety and control," he said.."Of the 8 cities surveyed, six of eight have their own program."

Silbiger moved that Culver City hire its own animal control officer.

Corlin asked the representatives from the County to come to the podium. Then Mr. Corlin asked the County employee to respond to the problems detailed in the public comments. The County representative said, "I'm not aware of these problems."

Corlin said, "That's your answer?!" Corlin then tried to get other information from the County employee. He said, "We asked for a separate line. Perhaps you could give us information on that."

The County representative said, ''The staff who are answering the phones have other duties."

Corlin asked, 'What is a reasonable number of rings that I should get?"

The answer: "All calls should be answered within a minute."

Corlin: "What percent of time is related to animals other than canine?"

The answer: :We take care of dead animals and animals other than canine."

Corlin: "Right now it's a quarter to nine. How many officers are on duty?"

The answer:: "two people."

Corlin: "And 12 hours from now, how many people?"

The answer: "five or six."

Corlin then said, "Someone should call a shelter closer than you are." He went on to present his suggestions. First he said, ''The path into trouble is not necessarily the same path out of trouble." Then he addressed the Staff and said, ''There's a 45 day grace period if we want to break this contract, is that correct?"

A member of City staff said, "Actually it's 90 days."

Corlin said, "I would hope that Culver City is not the lone island of this complaint.. Contact those cities close to us. Let's find out if we can get the dogs impounded dropped-off somewhere other than Carson. When a dog is picked-up, it should be inputted in the computer. I move that we go ahead with the contract, but arrange for licensed dogs to be closer for a pick-up. Mandate canvassing in Culver City."

Carol Gross said that she was willing to second Corlin's motion, if it also recognized the CAO's suggestion that City staff look at ways to work with the community. Corlin agreed to amend his motion to include that suggestion.

Corlin said, "I want our staff to interact with the County."

Silbiger said, "We want to resolve this as quickly as possible."

Corlin said, "I want to address the individual problems that people have."

Mayor Vera, finally provided an opportunity to speak, said, "Most of the things you want to say, they said already. I want staff to go ahead and give us reports and also to work with a committee."

Rose, speaking to the CAO asked, "When is the next COG meeting?" Mr. Fulwood said, "The 29th.

Then the Mayor addressed the audience, specifically the "Friends," and I said, "This Council will get back to you."

All five Council members voted in favor of the motion made by Corlin. The Council had thus reached a decision on the item that had been the focus of the first public comments.
top

Culver City Observer
September 1 - 7, 2005
Letters to the Editor

Two weeks ago, an open meeting of the Culver City Council was held, where the principle part of the evening was spent in the discussion of animal control services for our city. A number of people took part in expressing their desire for a city-based animal control officer and shelter and their reasons for the request. The Council, to their credit, expressed concern that this issue is now recurrent, having been introduced less than two years ago and clearly inadequately addressed by the County that currently does the animal control duty in Culver City.

They also expressed concern about additional expense that would be incurred by taking animal control in-house. I also took part in the discussion. However, due to time constraints, I was unable to present financial data that I had put together for the meeting that would address in some measure those fiscal concerns. I would like to present some of the data here.

As of the 2000 census, 5,249 dog owning households were recorded in Culver City. I realize that is five years old however, it is in all probability a safe bet that the number is approximately the same now. Given a $30 average of the combined license fees of $40 and $20 per dog - based on fees for non-neutered and neutered dogs respectively -- that amounts to $157,470 in license fees per year.

Let us also consider that a number of these dog-owning households own more than one dog. This is plenty to pay for a Culver City Animal Control Officer, who again, is in a better position to actually collect those fees and additional revenue from citations than a county officer who must split his or her time between animal emergencies in 32 city and county areas. I will add that in the first six months of 2005, only 422 licenses were paid up and for the entirety of 2004 only 2015 license fees were paid.

In addition, I would like to suggest that a city-based Animal Control Officer would be more cost effective. As it stands, a larger portion than should be of the hourly field service fees are being spent on mileage - time on the road - instead of on the call, and vehicle wear and tear. All of these expenses will be reduced by having a local officer.

In short, I hope that the possibility of increased revenues and lower costs will be examined as the Council moves forward on this issue.

Katherine Barlow
Culver City
top

2006

Culver City News
January 12, 2006

Friends of Culver City Animals made another pitch for a full-time animal control officer for the City. The group's estimate of the cost for starting an in-house animal control system varies widely from the City's.

The City has contracted with L.A. County's Carson facility for several years for animal control services.

Rose told the organization that Culver City couldn't possibly undertake such a project at a time when the Council has temporarily stopped labor negotiations with City employee bargaining units.

Gross said the impression that Culver City has never had its own control officer is wrong.

Silbiger said the City should seriously examine having its own system "because we're a city that believes strongly in local control.. And this is a health and safety issue, like with police, fire and emergencies."

Corlin said the City needs to apply more pressure to Los Angeles County to have a dedicated phone just for Culver City to avoid long waits getting through about animal emergencies.

Referring to the Friends and the need for monitoring options, Vera said: "This group isn't going away."
top

Culver City Observer
January 19 - 25, 2006
Letters to the Editor

On Monday night, January 9, Culver City residents concerned about public health and safety, and innocent animals unable to speak on their own behalf, were given an eloquent and impassioned voice by their champions, the Friends of Culver City Animals.

With an impressive array of facts - taken from a commissioned cost analysis report prepared by a certified public accountant, and a concise and logical line of reasoning - the speakers from Friends of Culver City Animals got the attention of the members of the City Council of Culver City, as well as the audience who crowded the hearing room in support of FCCA's goals.

At the urging of Ms. Deborah Weinrauch, the City Council agreed to form a sub-committee consisting of Mayor Albert Vera and Vice Mayor Gary Silbiger to folloW up on the issues raised by FCCA. Ms. Weinrauch made it clear that the stated goal of Friends of Culver City Animals is to implement local control of animal related issues so as to provide for prompt and compassionate animal related services - with an eye towards insuring the health and safety of Culver City residents and animals.

Ms. Weinrauch urged the members of the council to maintain a dialogue with FCCA and to revisit this important issue in 60 days. During the interim period she asked the council members to review the CPA report that was now made available to them so that they could see for themselves that this growing organization's goals are both realistic and financially sound.

It is gratifying to see that the members of the city council are now beginning to appreciate the fact that bringing animal control under local authority is as realistic and advantageous as having our police and fire services under local control. Action in that regard will serve to enhance the quality of our community and the well being of our residents.

Charles Aguado
Culver City
top

Culver City Observer
July 6 - 21, 2006
Letters to the Editor

On Tuesday, June 20th, at approximately 7:45pm, I walked my dog to the Culver City dog park. We'd been going to the park several times a week since it opened and I enjoyed being able to exercise my dog off leash. While we were playing I was viciously attacked by one of the large dogs in the park while trying to protect my dog. The dog bit my left hand as I was trying to get her off of my dog's throat, while its owner looked on without acting. The dog's owner never tried to help me or contain her dog. My hand became painful and started to bleed and swell immediately.

When I questioned the dog's owner, she said her dog had "only attacked one other dog before" and that her dog had all of its shots. She said that she and her dog were "always at the dog park", so if I had any questions I could find her there. She did not give me her name or contact information. The dog had a collar, but I couldn't see the tags. The owner seemed unfazed that this was the second time her dog attached a dog, and now a person at the Culver City dog park.

My hand worsened, so I took my dog home and went to the emergency room at Brotman medical center. The intake nurse there told me that any dog who bites a human and punctures the skin must be quarantined for 10 days to screen for rabies. The medical staff at Brotman debrided and bandaged my wounds, gave me a tetanus shot and prescribed two antibiotics which I took 4 times a day for a week.

I am a physical therapist and I work with disabled veterans. Because of these injuries, I was unable to perform certain aspects of my job for several days. Although I have medical insurance, I am sure that I will have significant bills as a result of this incident.

Our dog park is on the far end of the city without an animal control officer to patrol the park. I have never seen any official check on the dogs. I don't know if the dog that bit me was vaccinated, and there was nothing I could do when the owner wouldn't help me or give me her name. Certainly she did not feel obligated to provide any information, probably because she knew there would be no repercussions for these dangerous attacks.

As a resident of Culver City I am thrilled to have a dog park within walking distance of my home. My dog and I had become "regulars" at the dog park, and for the most part enjoyed our interactions with other dogs and their owners. I am concerned, however, that with so many dogs in one area, and without local animal control, that the injuries I sustained could have been prevented, especially since the owner admitted that her dog had attacked another dog at the park.

If there was an authority to whom the first attack could have been reported, perhaps the second attack, on me, would not have occurred. And by the owner's own admission, since she and her dog are "always at the dog park", is a third attack, possibly on a child or possibly more serious than what I sustained, inevitable?

I attempted to file a police report several days after the incident. When I explained the nature of my complaint, I was told that this was not the business of the Culver City police department, and it was suggested that I bring my concerns to the city council, which I did. I subsequently was able to file a police report, and I also filed a report with the county animal services. My dog and I have not returned to the dog park since this incident occurred.

Regarding the services we receive from the county department of animal control, four months ago, on March 6, 2006 I paid my dog registration fees at city hall. To date, my check has not been cashed, and I have not received my dog tags from the county, although I have a receipt stating my dogs are registered. So, should anything happen to my dog and she was brought to Carson, she would be considered an unregistered dog, although I did my part to register her in March.

I hope that this information will help the city recognize the importance of local animal control, especially now that our dog park is open and in full swing. The public safety of both residents of Culver City and their animals cannot be compromised, and if one serious dog attack can be prevented in our city then resources will have been well spent.

Randi Woodrow
Culver City
top

Culver City Star
July 13, 2006
By Anna Scott
Staff Writer

What to do About Bad Dogs at the Park

Pets: Attack on a Culver City resident raises the question of posting a guard at the facility.

On a recent evening in the Culver City Dog Park, a physical therapist stepped into a canine brawl to protect her dog from attack by a large pit bull and came away with bite marks in her wrist so deep she had to visit the emergency room.

The victim, Culver City resident Randi Woodrow - who frequents the park with her mixed-breed, Bailey - reported the incident to the Culver City Police Department the next day. The police referred Woodrow to the City Council, who suggested she contact county authorities.

"The problem was...the [other dog owner] didn't give me her name," Woodrow said. "It's wonderful to have a dog park, but [Culver City] has no local means to monitor what goes on; we need local animal control."

Culver City's animal control services, including licensing, public safety operations and humane control of domestic and wild animals, are currently contracted through the Los Angeles County Department of Animal Care and Control, located in Carson.

"They're just too far away to provide the level of service we need in Culver City,"said Deborah Weinrauch, director of the grassroots organization Friends of Culver City Animals, which has been working to form a local animal control unit since May 2005.

"We get complaints [from residents] called into our hotline about dead wildlife that's not being picked up, injured wildlife, strays, dog attacks, residents who have lost pets," said Weinrauch. "If we have somebody close, our laws can be enforced. Right now it's practically impossible to crack down."

The need for a local authority has "absolutely" become more urgent since the opening of the dog park on the corner of Jefferson Boulevard and Duquesne Avenue in April, says Culver City Mayor Gary Silbiger.

One of only four off-leash parks on the West Side, the park attracts dozens of pet owners from both in and outside of Culver City every week.

"If there's a dog incident in our park," Silbiger said, "a local control officer could be there in five minutes. If we call the county, most of the time they don't send anybody; if they do, it could be hours. I think it's extremely important for Culver City to have its own local animal control officer."

But others say the city doesn't have the resources.

"It's very expensive to have somebody work for the city," said Councilman Alan Corlin. ''The decision to have [local] animal control at this point would mean cutting something else. Do I think the county should be providing better service? Yes, and that's where I think our attention should be."

Nonetheless, earlier this year the council assigned a sub-committee to work with Weinrauch to investigate the feasibility of creating an animal control agency in Culver City.

Over the past year, the Friends have collected more than 1,300 petition signatures from Culver City residents, produced several animal-related incident reports for the council's review and found a nearby animal welfare organization willing to donate an animal control truck.

But Corlin remains skeptical. "When they get back to me with how much it costs, then I can vote yes or no," he said.

Friends' members are working on a cost analysis and plan to consult with officials in Torrance, where a "very successful" citywide animal control unit was formed earlier this year, Weinrauch says.

The Torrance Animal Control Unit, under the jurisdiction of the city's police department, employs two officers, one supervisor and one administrator full time. Since 2005, the number of lost pets reunited with their owners in Torrance has more than doubled, according to reports.

Meanwhile in Culver City, dog owner Matthew Waldman, who brings his dog, Socrates, to the dog park's fenced-in sandlots twice a week, worries about the lack of an outside monitor in the neighborhood.

"There was one time another dog was charging [Socrates] over and over," Waldman said. "I was standing right next to the owner and I was surprised she didn't say anything. Finally, I had to stand between her dog and my dog.

"Dogs get aggressive, but it all comes down to people. Maybe it would help to have [an officer] do spot checks at peak hours; if people see a person of authority they'll act accordingly. It's human nature."
top

Culver City Star
September 7, 2006
by Anna Scott

Council in the dog days of summer

City Hall: Officials OK program to canvass for unlicensed dogs, but issue remains unsettled.

City Council has decided to start a canvassing program to register unlicensed dogs, but the new initiative leaves at least one council member and local animal control advocates feeling excluded from the decision-making process.

In June, the council's animal control subcommittee, made up of Mayor Gary Silbiger and Vice Mayor Alan Corlin, met with representatives of the grassroots organization Friends of Culver City Animals to discuss several issues, including the problem of unlicensed dogs.

"[At the meeting] there was a long, protracted discussion about canvassing," Corlin recalled. "I suggested, why don't the Friends go [door to door]" to offer licensing services to residents known to be current or prior pet owners.

"But [Culver City Friends of Animals Director] Deborah [Weinrauch] said no, she wanted someone under the color of authority to do the canvassing," Corlin said.

The program approved at last Monday night's council meeting will have an L.A. County animal control official conduct the canvassing, and should therefore meet Weinrauch's criteria, Corlin concludes.

Weinrauch, however, claims that the issue was not decided either way at the June meeting and that the Friends were not properly notified before Monday of city staff's proposal.

"We are pro-licensing and we are pro-vaccinations," Weinrauch was careful to make clear first. "We pro mote... returning pets to their owners whenever possible."

"But.. we had not resolved any issue [in June]. [Monday] night the tone was that we thoroughly debated it. It had been brought up, there were ideas bantered about, but it was merely in the discussion stage. We were informed [of the proposal] at the same time as the rest of the public."

Because she had not yet had a chance to confer with other Friends members, Weinrauch said, she did not wish to comment on whether or not the group is pleased with the new program.

If there are objections, however, they might be based on the fact that a County official will conduct the canvassing, rather than a local authority.

The Culver City Friends have long lobbied for a local animal control officer, which officials have said the city can not afford.

Currently, Culver City's animal care and control services including licensing, public safety operations and humane control of domestic and wild animals , are contracted through the Los Angeles County Department of Animal Care and Control, located in Carson, which Friends representatives argue is too far away to provide prompt responses to animal-related emergencies.

" They want an animal control officer.. but they don't have any idea of what the real costs are," Corlin said this week.

Regardless, he added, at the June meeting there was "a discussion of specifically getting someone from the County [to do the canvassing]. What came out of that meeting was, somebody's got to do it."

Weinrauch, however, isn't the only one who takes issue with the subcommittee's process. On Monday, Silbiger, who reportedly left the June meeting early, said, "During the time I was there, there was no discussion of this."

"The process wasn't done properly," the mayor said, arguing that the proposal had not passed through the proper channels before coming before the council for a vote.

"It went thoroughly through the subcommittee," Corlin shot back, going on to point out that the mayor was aware after he left the June meeting that it would continue without him.

"Just like if I were to leave [the council meeting] now, I wouldn't expect you to stop," Corlin said.

Despite the disagreements over procedure however, the council voted unanimously Monday to adopt staff's proposal and local pet license canvassing will begin in early 2007.

As required, the city will notify residents of upcoming canvassing efforts through local newspapers, its community calendar, public service announcements and cable crawlers on Channel 35.
top

Culver City News
October 12, 2006
Letters to the Editor

Local Animal Control in Torrance

In response to Peggy Zimmerman's letter (Who to Call?, Sept. 28),1 have some exciting news to report. Last week I was fortunate enough to be invited by the Friends of Culver City Animals on an exploratory field trip to the Torrance Animal Control office. We were greeted by the mayor of Torrance, Frank Scotto, the police captain who set up the animal control program, John Neu, and the staff of four full time employees.

The mayor proceeded to tell us of the overWhelming success of the program in Torrance and more importantly, how it is self-sufficient and not a financial burden to the city. Mayor Gary Silbiger was on hand to receive the information and I assume he will be reporting back to the other council members about his experience. One of the field officers told of a meeting with one of their council members, who had originally voted against the project on budgetary grounds, where she expressed a change of heart once she saw the success of the program.

Of course the program succeeded due to the overWhelming support of the community - the same community support that I believe we already have here in Culver City.

So there is hope on the horizon, Peggy, for all of God's creatures who are unable to help themselves.

Mehaul O'Leary
Culver City
top

Culver City Observer
November 2 - 8, 2006
Letters to the Editor

I don't get it. Where there is a will, there is a way. Where is the will of our Culver City Council to help ensure the health and safety of our residents regarding animal issues? Our Council appears to have turned deaf ears and blind eyes to the presentations, signed petitions and anecdotal material from Culver City residents and Friends of Culver City Animals (FCCA), all urging the employment of a local Animal Control Officer to offset the delays, dangers and inconveniences associated with the dependence on the L.A. County Animal Control Officers' responses and the Carson animal shelter located sixteen miles south of us. And yet our Council voted to spend $85,000 for a temporary public art installation on Washington Boulevard.

What is our Council's objection to hiring a local Animal Control Officer? It surely can't be money. Where is the will? I don't get it!

Anita Jaskol
Culver City
top

2007

Culver City Observer
August 30, 2007
By Martha Tucker
Observer Reporter

Council Votes To Give County Control

When it comes to dogs and cats in Culver City, they have friends, advocates and business people in high places in their corner. The agenda item A-1 at the City Council meeting Monday night filled the chamber and caused uproar.

The item up for review and discussion was the Culver City Animal Licensing program, Animal Control Program, approval of an agreement with the County of Los Angeles Department of Animal Care and Control and approval of an Agreement, for animal Licensing Software with progressive solutions. Staff recommended that the city council review the city's animal licensing program, discuss canvassing, approve an agreement with the County of Los Angeles Department of Animal Control for shelter and other services, and approve software maintenance agreement with Progressive Solutions for a period of July 1, 2007 to June 30, 2012 or five years. The main disagreement was over the contract being one year or five.

It all got started on February 26, 2007, when the City Council appropriated $20,000 for the purchase of Animal Licensing Software from Progressive Solutions to accommodate the city's new In-House Animal Licensing Program on a trial basis. At that time, the City Council also adopted a resolution authorizing an animal licensing amnesty program for a period of April 1, 2007 to June 29, 2007. The purpose of bringing the animal licensing program in-house was two fold: 1) to help resolve customer service issues experienced by Culver City residents under the previous County Administered Licensing Program, and 2) to determine the revenue stream potential of an in-house licensing, program. After the Amnesty program, the City Council directed staff to return to the council with the results of the operations.

The in-house subcommittee consists of Mayor Alan Corlin and Council member Gary Silbiger, who have worked with staff and the Friends of Culver City Animals to prepare certain recommendations of the City Council. Subcommittee's recommendations are as follows: Consider if the city should continue to perform licensing duties in-house, recommend licensing in-house at a cost of $36,000 for a regular part-time position at administrative clerk level, and continue the in-house licensing program. And the subcommittee wasn't the only one with that recommendation.

Two veterinarians showed up at the dais to offer welfare to our dogs and cats. "We want to contribute," one said. We can help bring our animals to a local Culver City hospital to be reunited to their owners."

While Mayor Corlin thought the idea worthy of being discussed by getting together the hospitals and the council and see if it could work out. A friend of Culver City Animals came forward to voice her dissatisfaction to a renewal contract with Los Angles County for five years. We have always had the contract on a year-to-year basis. “Why, when we want to care for our own animals would we extend it? That was not mentioned at the Subcommittee meeting."

Another friend of the Culver City Animals also wanted a shorter contract with the county. He gave his reason as that Carson Center Shelter, the service area, has a 3 to 1 killer ratio. They defy the law by putting animals down on the site and Fox News did a story on the conditions, it was claimed.

Deborah Weinrauch of Culver City Animals said her organization has about 2,000 members and is growing weekly. “We oppose the renewing of the contract for five years. We need to give work to the in-house license program. If Culver City enters a five-year contract with Los Angeles County, we will refrain from all activity, unless it is a one-year contract," she said.

Councilman Silbiger said, "If in-house goes well, we see this as a first step in other programs. I'll make a motion for one-year renewal and a 30-day ability to withdraw. If we have five years, the new council will have its hands tied. A five-year program does not work."

A discussion of monies to run the program never got clarified. It just drifted from $138,000 to the worker getting $38,000, a discussion of canvassing the city looking for lost dogs.

After a banal discussion of convenience of location and distance at the Carson location, Vice-Mayor Carol Gross said, "Distance isn't a persuasive argument. I am careful to look after my dog. And in 30 years he was lost only once. Officers can't do canvassing if they are there to do other things. I would go with staff's recommendation. Do the contract renewal and when we're ready, we can change."

Councilman Scott Malsin commented that, "It’s a dollar and cents issue. The figures we got back from licensing are encouraging, but we're not there yet."

Councilman Steve Rose said, "The issue is an emotional one, but we need logic." He broke out with figures that dissuaded the use of in-house animal control. "I disagree with councilman Silbiger about having no more than a one-year contract. Multiple-year contracts lock in better prices." He said he would not support a one-year, but a five-year contract.

Mayor Corlin said he would support the one-year contract. We have to look at the true cost, and I don't know where it breaks even. I'd like to see true cost, but I don't see us weaning ourselves from the county anytime soon."

Councilman Silbiger said, 'We have to have priorities in any increase. Like we increased the cost of graffiti care." He made the motion.

Vice-Mayor Gross seconded the Silbiger motion, except for the one-year stipulation. It passed 3-2. Malsin, Vice Mayor Gross and Councilman Rose gave victory for the five-year contract.

Everyone seemed willing to live with the blow to animal activists, except Friends of Culver City Animals.
top

Culver City Observer
September 6 - 12, 2007
Letters to the Editor

I was present at the City Council meeting regarding the contract for Carson County Animal Shelter. The Council voted in favor of extending the contract with Carson Animal Shelter for five years.

I first went down to Carson to try to pull a dog out that I had seen for months roaming around Kenneth Hahn Park. Finally, Animal Control helped round him up. Normally, a dog like that is automatically 'put down' as its considered a 'danger' to the community. I was able to get a rescue group to sponsor him, so we could pull him from the shelter. The rescuer who accompanied me referred to the place as a 'holocaust.' I admit I was taken aback, and had never looked at it that way, but now I know exactly what she meant.

I, like most of my neighbors wanted to think that the shelter was actually a shelter.. where they somehow 'took care' of lost animals. Well they don 't... basically they kill and dispose of most of them because there are just too many. Carson is well known within the rescue community as a high-kill shelter. Is that really where we want the animals of our community going? Isn't the measure of a community how it treats it's children, elderly and animals?

They have a vet on staff but he does not actually treat the dogs or cats. They are initially checked and given shots but not treated for even minor problems such as kennel cough. Colds are rampant there and not treated. If an animal is unfortunate enough to have an injury, even a minor one, or a co ld... usually this is a certain death sentence no matter how cute or adoptable it is.

The dog from Kenneth Hahn Park was pulled by me, at my own expense (I have two dogs of my own) and boarded at a private facility until it was adopted by a wonderful couple. And he is a wonderful, sweet, friendly dog. If I had let Carson handle it, that dog would be long dead. I and many other big hearted members of our community do this again and again at our own expense, and spend countless hours looking for homes just so the animals don't have to go to Carson.

We would prefer to have a facility in our own city that takes care of lost animals rather than just kills them out of the eye of the public. A long term goal would be our own no-kill shelter but in lieu of that, there have to be alternatives to relying on the County. Carson services 32 cities, from Palos Verdes to North Hollywood. If you call with a problem, they say they will handle it 'within 24 hours.' This is really unacceptable.

Most members of the Council have not even been down to the Carson shelter to see it for what it is. That is, if they can brave the 405 traffic down there.

Sincerely and respectfully,
Judy Johnston
Culver City
top

Culver City Observer
September 6 - 12, 2007
Letters to the Editor

At the last City Council meeting of August 27, 2007 in Culver City Mayor Allan Corlin had the effrontery to attack Friends of Culver City Animals (FCCA) for not bringing in enough revenue to fund local animal services in Culver City. In particular, he took exception to FCCA's voluntary efforts to raise awareness of the animal licensing program by criticizing FCCA for not going door-to-door, to every home in Culver City, to inform residents of this new ordinance.

Of all the gall! FCCA voluntarily agreed, at the request of the city, to assist Culver City in informing the public of this ordinance. FCCA members spent countless hours in the hot sun trying to breathe life into an ordinance that was ill conceived and flawed from its inception, since it had no enforcement mechanism.

Not one word of gratitude was heard for FCCA from the Mayor, the Council, or any member of the City's staff. The failure to bring in enough revenue, by way of the new licensing ordinance, was the justification for the City Council to once again turn down efforts to bring local animal services to Culver City.

Since when are taxpayers supposed to become volunteers and do the city's job of raising revenue? We pay taxes for our government services. Are we to assume Culver City would go without sanitation facilities, street maintenance, public works, police, or a fire department because its residents failed to go door to door to raise revenue? Yet, it is the preposterous position of Mayor Corlin, and a majority of the City Council, that local animal control cannot be implemented unless it is totally self-supporting. If that is the case, why are we paying taxes? Aren't municipal services 100% tax-supported entities? And what of the obvious fact that Culver City is already paying a large sum of taxpayer dollars to the County for inefficient and deplorable animal related services?

It is absolute nonsense to suggest on the one hand that it is acceptable to have taxpayers pay for a poorly administered County run animal service program, while on the other hand arguing a replacement City-based program must be self supporting.

Mayor Corlin, Councilman Rose, and others have for years asked for documentation to support the feasibility of bringing local animal control to Culver City. Members of FCCA spent months gathering the impressive and overwhelming evidence in support of this position. In addition, these members of the Council said that they wanted to hear from residents through telephone calls, e-mails, petitions, declarations, etc. This was done, and in spades. It included a cost analysis by a Certified Public Accountant. In response, FCCA was the recipient of arrogant and condescending remarks by these individuals dismissing outright the very materials they had requested, with one member of the Council boasting that he never even read the detailed report he had requested.

Additionally, the Council took the opportunity at its last session to extend the contract with the County for animal control services for five years. This was done in spite of all the speakers in the audience, including veterinarians, who urged a one-year extension only. Not one reason was given to justify why the County was being rewarded with a five-year contract in spite of its dismal performance. Was this done, some have asked, in order to tie the hands of future members of the City Council for the next five years?

A majority of the residents of Culver City have repeatedly asked for a change from County-based animal control services to local animal control services. The will of the majority has repeatedly been ignored. In future elections, the voters of Culver City will have an opportunity to elect or reject individuals based on their platform and record. The voters of this community will remember the candidates' record, and be reminded of it as well. The 2,000 members of FCCA intend to be a voice in these elections.

Charles Aguado
Culver City
top

Culver City Observer
September 6 -12, 2007
Letters to the Editor

Dear Ms. Gross, Mr. Malsin and Mr. Rose,

I came to Culver City in 1977. I've moved three times and never left the city. I raised my two children in Culver City and they went to Culver City schools, camps and "Y". I work in Culver City. I know Culver City like the back of my hand. Before it was fashionable to say it I referred to my home city "as the best kept secret bedroom community on the Westside". I also remember when the city had an ACO (Animal Control Officer) and he did his job and did it quickly.

I was present at last night's City Council meeting regarding the five-year contract for Carson County Animal Shelter. What I garnered from points made was that there is no financial gain in having a five-year contract versus a one-year contract. That point aside, there are benefits to having the one-year contract as it would support the framework of the proposed weaning off of the county to independence for Culver City's animals and would add a timely impetus to stay focused and do it sooner than later. Finally the people who voted you into office want it. Look at the signed petitions and the signatures keep coming!

I have some points that I would like to take issue with:

1. How can it be that, you people who claim to have pets that you value have never once made a trip to Carson. Forget the sanctimonious statement made by Ms. Gross that, because she cares for her pets so well, they have never been taken to the shelter. Obviously Ms. Gross you have never extended that "excellent care" to include helping a rescued dog or cat. If you had, to pick up that animal, you would know the "hell" that is Carson.

2. I have been involved in the rescue of numerous dogs in Culver City, which through the assistance of local dog rescue groups, ultimately find homes. I and the others that come together to help these dogs will NOT call Carson for help. We go to extreme lengths to keep the dogs away from the shelter cause none of us wants to put a stray dog in the county shelter. We know what it is like… bit I would have a totally different opinion if the city had a dedicated ACO and local sheltering/boarding facility.

3. Go for a tour to Carson. Make that trip. It is a nightmare. The 405 crawls. If you map the trip via Google here is the note submitted with the Google directions: "17.1 mi - about 26 minutes up to 40 minutes in traffic" which in real time is an hour. Tour that facility and you will never forget it. You will never get the image of all those dogs and cats or their stench out of your mind.

4. Some animals may be euthanized because they are terminally ill or too dangerous to be re-homed, but mostly it is because they take up space. Carson houses them a finite length of time and then the animal is put to death.

5. Animals are not humanely euthanized. Humanely would mean without pain - not at Carson. To keep costs down animals are given the bare minimum dose needed to end their lives which means that many animals suffer agonizingly slow deaths before passing.

6.The offer by city vets to help with the housing of Culver City animals was summarily dismissed because there would have to be reimbursement to them for boarding. How short sighted is that? Don't you think that there is built into the county charges a reimbursement for housing animals? Of course local vets would need to be reimbursed but that would be covered by the fees charged to the pet owner.

7. Mr. Rose made a convoluted statement regarding work hours in the work year and came to the conclusion that the county is already supplying the city with close to the same amount of hours that a dedicated ACO would. I say fuzzy math! Additionally, using the statistics submitted by the county to ascertain if there is a need for an ACO is so ridiculous! Of course their statistics do not show what a dedicated ACO would do because their staff does the bare minimum for our city.

8. You wonder what a city dedicated ACO will do with his/her time: s/he will respond to and act upon all the calls that are never placed to Carson. Our citizens have been defeated by the lack of response from Carson. Over the years we have come to expect nothing and realize that there will be no response to a call for help for an injured bird, a trapped cat, a dead raccoon, an injured squirrel. Additionally ridiculous is the county's response time for calls about stray dogs and cats - by the time they show up, if they show up at all, the animal is long gone.

The citizens of Culver City have given up on trying to obtain helpful and appropriate services from Carson, and signing a five-year contract with an incompetent service provider who supplies us, the citizens, with bare bones services is bad business.

Sandi Mineo-Rust
Pet Improvement
top

Culver City News
October 11, 2007
Culver City Observer
October 18, 2007

Dear Madam and Sirs,

I am a devastated, frustrated and heartbroken Culver City "former" pet owner. I would be a current pet owner if our incompetent animal control system had not killed my cat. We desperately need local animal control. The Friends of Culver City Animals has been advocating this for several years. It is time to pay attention.

On the evening of September 12, 2007, my 16-year-old indoor cat escaped from my house for the first time ever. We looked for him all night, posted signs all over the neighborhood, did everything we were supposed to do. The next morning I went to the nearest shelter, the West Los Angeles location five miles away, and could not find him. The attendant said the best thing to do was to "keep checking the web site." Because of that statement, I did not go to the other nearest shelter, which would have been the Santa Monica Shelter. I checked the website three or four times every day, including the "city" and the "non-city" shelters. I posted ads on "petharbor.com," "lostandfound.com," "craigslist.com" and checked the local newspapers to no avail.

Eight days later, on September 20, we discovered that on Sept. 12 our neighbor had called the Culver City Police Dept. to report that their dog had cornered a black cat in their back yard. The police department gave them the number of a shelter to call but they did not know the location.

The location turned out to be the Gardena/Carson shelter! Why was my cat taken to a shelter that was 16 miles away? I called the shelter immediately and was on hold for about 20 minutes. A female officer answered the phone and emotionlessly replied to my inquiry by saying, "Oh, yah, the 7 year old black domestic shorthair, it shows in the computer that we put him down two days ago".

I was shocked! I asked what the shelter's official holding time is. She told me that they keep animals for 5 days for an owner to claim and then an additional 7 days for adoption. That is 12 days. This was the 8th day since he was picked up! When I demanded to know why they killed him before the end of the holding period, she said he was very sick. He was not sick; he was just old and scared. She said nothing, and then coldly and emotionlessly asked, "Is there anything else you need?"

They had taken a photo of my cat and recorded it as a 7-year-old black domestic cat, gender "unknown." My cat was a 16-year-old neutered male. They had recorded the pick-up of a black cat, but did not identify his gender and for some reason could not tell, he was elderly. No one could identify my cat because they had incorrectly identified him.

If we had our own shelter, my cat might have been held the required 12 days, rather than killed because of overcrowding. We are PAYING this shelter to do a job that they obviously cannot handle. Why can't we use the money that we are paying them to be self-sufficient and develop our own animal control department?

Our pets are family members. We deserve and demand that the city of Culver City attends to its responsibility.

Selina Lee
Culver City
top

Culver City News
December 6, 2007
Letters

Helpless in Lindberg Park

We are Lindberg Park resi­dents and happy with the level of service and local sup­port Culver City offers, except for the animal issue. So far, in this season of joy, we and many residents have seen at least four stray /lost animals running our tree-lined streets, scared and hungry. For several days last week, neighbors collectively tried catching a tiny black chiuahua, a starving shepard mix who'd just given birth (no one knows where the pups are), and a kitten living under a neighbor's newly reconstucted home on my block, but were unsuccessful.

Another neighbor witnessed a man in a van "dumping" an orange tabby cat on the street at Pickford and Cota and driving away. Yes, we called County of LA. Animal Control at Carson's facili­ty for assistance, but they will not sweep the area to find these animals. They are too far away and not staffed to do so. Carson tells Culver City residents to contain the ani­mal, call back with an exact address, and they'll come within a day or so. By that time, the helpless animal is long gone.

The residents watch solemnly as "another one gets away" and alert our local Neighborhood Watch, but we feel helpless and confused.

This is NOT an acceptable level of service for Culver City residents, nor for the ani­mals within it's borders. When we moved here over a decade ago, Culver City had local, effective animal control on Jefferson Boulevard, who would come in a timely man­ner to investigate any animal concern. Other small cities have local, effective animal services and we deserve this, too. This is not an issue of res­idents being irresponsible for their pets, as a certain City Council person has suggested in the past. It is an issue of over population and unaccountablity, which is reaching crisis levels and will only increase here in Culver City.

Our hope is that in the New Year, the residents and ani­mals will have something to rejoice about: restored local, humane animal services for Culver City once again. We are grateful for the residents' group Friends of Culver City Animals for working tirelessly with our city officials to try and make this a reality.

Dena & Craig Snedden
Culver City
top

Culver City News
December 20, 2007
Letters

Lots of Questions

What's wrong with Culver City that it's necessary for the parents of students to have to pass the hat so that their children have computers in their school? As a taxpayer and a parent I find this both alarming and infuriating. If it is necessary for parents to have to raise the money for a computer lab, then where are our tax dollars going?

One speaker at the dedication ceremony for the new computer lab at Farragut Elementary School was quoted as saying that the computers will make a major difference in student achievement. I am sure that is totally true. So this issue is, what if the parents did not kick in to pay for a new computer lab? It follows that our children would be adversely affected in not only their computer skills, but with their education as a whole.

On that same note, I find it infuriating that teachers do not have adequate supplies provided to them by the city, and must pass out a wish list to parents for needed supplies, or in the alternative, pay for them out of their own pockets. Perhaps it is time to ask a more probing question. That is, are our elected officials spending our tax dollars in an intelligent and responsible fashion? If so, why are our taxpaying parents required to fund the computer program at Farragut? How much money do we spend on consultants? Are those expenditures always needed? Are they fairly priced? Are executive salaries reasonable for the services provided, especially if outsourcing is required? Most importantly, does anybody audit and monitor such items as outsourcing and consultants? Does any department or person audit expenditures in general, and if not, why not? As taxpayers it is our money being spent, and not spent (computers), and we have a right to the answers to these questions.

With the police looking the other way with respect to the skateboard park, supported by a majority of the City Council of Culver City, as well as the on-going indifference by this same council to animal-related problems, especially the brutal conditions at the Carson shelter (while rewarding the county with a 5-year contract), it is not an inspiring picture of government leadership in Culver City.

Charles Aguado
Culver City
top