IN THE NEWS - 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

Culver City Observer
December 27, 2007 - January 2, 2008

Burke Orders Investigation of Carson Animal Shelter

A month ago, the Culver City Council entered into a five-year agreement with the Carson animal Shelter despite numerous protests from local res­idents who wanted a shelter closer to home and one less controversial.

There were concerns about how animals were treated at Carson and the death of a puppy there Dec. 5 attracted the attention of Supervisor Yvonne Burke, who provided the following statement:

"Unfortunately, a 10-month old puppy died at the Carson Animal Shelter on December 5th. This tragic event has triggered many emails and phone calls from concerned constituents to all levels of County operations. While the exact cause of death has yet to be determined, allegations have been made by the media and advocacy groups attributing the death of the puppy to cold weather, and inadequate shelter and treatment. Regardless of the merits of these allegations, they call into question the overall condition of County shelters and the protocols in place to ensure that the animals that are brought in receive quality care. Upon becoming aware of the situation, I directed my deputies to meet with the Deputy Director of the Carson Animal Shelter to review the conditions and services at the shelter. This meeting made it apparent that some personnel and infrastructure needs must be addressed. The Department of Animal Care and Control has recently been granted $5 million for capital improvements at the Carson, Baldwin Park and Lancaster shelters for new medical treatment and surgery wards for spay and neuter services. However, a thorough analysis of the Carson Animal Shelter's infrastructure and personnel is necessary to ensure that the highest quality of service is being delivered. I therefore move that the Board of Supervisors direct the Chief Executive Officer and the Director of Animal Care and Control to report back at the January 8, 2008 Board meeting:"

1) The outcomes of an investigation into the death of the puppy, describing any potential personnell and infrastructure issues that may have contributed and a corrective action plan to address such issues; and
2) The plan to address all necessary facility improvements at the Carson Shelter, which takes into consideration the condition of the current heating system, washer and dryer, and blankets.
top

top