I can see now why no-one wanted to wake this particular sleeping dog, pardon the expression. This is far, far more complicated than anyone could have imagined.
It appears to me that there have been a host of violations of this contract. One major one is that they SPCA was supposed to supply its own vehicles. So how did they obtain 2 county vehicles? Also, they have been openly charging people for unwanted stray animals, in violation of the contract. There are so many violations here that it is rediculous. Also, this contract appears to give the SPCA lots of concessions with nothing in return to the county.
It should be easy enough to terminate for cause – in 10 days we can be free! The Commissioners need to move forward immediately.
I read this 3 times, and I am sick to my stomach right now. I want to thank you for putting this up. As I read each paragraph, all that keeps popping up, is: “the no clause backout” and “term for clause”!
I read so many violations Mr Smigiel, how in the world can this have gone as long as it has?
Personally, (before I met all of you) Sent letters, phone calls, etc to the Commissioners, some of which are no longer in office I might add…..and this has been about 5 years of me bugging them (so to speak) to help me!!
I am speachless!! However, I will ALWAYS have the voice for these animals!!
This is a 2001 contract. Is there a more recent contract to review? Is it know if the terms are all the same for the last year, or has it been amended over the years in any manner? Not that it matters, as I’m sure that if it has been amended the basic terms (which have been repeatedly violated) are similar if not copied verbatum from year to year.
I am curious about the AC vans. Some have said that they were purchased by the County, but this contract states that should the parties part ways that the vehicles, amoung other things, are the property of the CCSPCA. If they purchased the vans with the funds from their contract, they indeed would be their property.
So, basically you have a budget within a budget. The CCSPCA is it’s own entity answering to thier board of directors, requiring it’s own budget and funding. A division of the CCSPCA (Animal Control services) is funded in part by the County Government and answering to the county commissioners. This of course, is tax payer dollars. For their services (or lack thereof as people are reporting)they agree upon an amount per year (674,000), this only covers the Animal Control aspect of the CCSPCA. It is not intended to care for the animals in the shelter beyond a stray hold period or as this contract states, 5 days. After that period the animals become the financial responsibility and liability of the CCSPCA. It’s interesting that it does state that ownership of the animals picked up by animal control become the immediate property of the CCSPCA. If they choose to at any time after their obligation to this contract (5 days), they may euthanize any animal for any reason they may deem appropriate. I would worry that devious entities, who would desire to lighten their financial load, might hastily choose euthanasia over expenditure on the animals after they become wards of the CCSPCA. Every day that an animal stays at this shelter after the mandated stray hold (5 days) is money out of their CCSPCA budget’s pocket and not monies that would be a part of this contract. If euth rates seem high, one might ponder if this is a motivational factor in their decision making. It would be interesting to review records of animals brought in through Animal Control, how long they remained after the 5 day stray hold and how they were dispositioned (euth, reclaims, adoption). I would be curious to see if there was a pattern of higher euth rates anoung these animals. They could easily be seen by this administration as dead weight, if they weren’t highly desirable adoptables (purebred, adorable, young, well mannered). Just an observation…… and I’m sure it won’t be my only one.
Another aspect of this contract that I see as archaic is the number of officers it requires. The ICMA (International City/County Management Association) reported on a 1994 study (this study is now 15 years old) by the National Animal Control Association (NACA) found that the average ratio of field officers to citizens was one officer for every 16,000 to 18,000 persons. NACA also recommends optimum field staff calculations factor in city area and enforcement responsibilities. In addition, the NACA recommends local governments base staffing levels on a call for service model, analyzing service calls, and measuring the demand for animal control services. Of course one cannot know a true number of calls for service per year that the CCSPCA has received, unless we are to trust the records available through them, so one would have to have access to honest numbers to do calculations based on the NACA’s formula for estimating number of officers required for optimum service. However, based on national averages, there are NOT enough officers requested to optimally deliver even basic duties, more of the budget should be considered for added officers. When I refer to basic duties I do not include community outreach, education, emergency after hours response etc.. Standard average cost per capita for animal control services runs between $6 and $8, so if you assume that the population is approximately 100,000 (based on 2006 census) and you divide 674,000 by the total population, you are currently within that range $6.74 of cost. I would suggest that more officers be requested in the future. If citizens expect Animal Control to do give optimal service, they’ll be hard pressed to give that with only two officers. Understand that the CCSPCA was only required to employ 2 officers by this contract. Had they choosen to devote more of their county funding to field offiers they could have done so, as long as they had two. Adding officers means added vehicles, tools, supplies, uniforms, health benefits, insurance and the costs DO go up and that would leave fewer funds for the animal sheltering aspect of this contract.
Wow, I was just reading Allaire Duponts obituary on Del Online and if that wasn’t telling. In lew of flowers at the funeral she asked that contributions be make to Paws for Life, and Union Hopital. Not the CCSPCA wonder why?
Mrs. DuPont had a falling out with the group there and went on to help found Paws for Life. Perhaps she saw the first signs of the corruption that was coming.
Unfortunately, the County Commissioners treat taxpayer funds as the spoils of victory and keep awarding contracts to their corrupt friends. Any detractors are criticized, painted as crazy, and their character is viciously attacked. Now they’ve stepped it up with late night threats of arrest.
Every good communist should know that political power grows out of the barrel of a gun. —Mao Tse Tung
What the heck? I can’t believe that Cecil County voters will stand for this! Call you county council members and give ‘em hell! Tell them that a vote for any continuation with this discredited and criminal organization will cost them their next election. Promise them that you will vote against them, fundraise for their opponents, and tell everyone you know to do the same thing!
Guessing Cecil County Commissioners and other powers that be are sure that it (abuse of animals) will go away in time and they will not have to DEAL WITH THE PROBLEM. Guess, what, they may be correct. Look how long it has taken to get NOTHING FINALIZED.
That gives the administrators of CCSPCA time to CLEAN UP THEIR ACT, at least for a while. After a while, back to business again.
I had the honor of spending the evening amongst heros
Celebrating the 234th birthday of the United States Marine Corps. Semper Fi 19 hours ago
An enthusiastic crowd turned out for the MFRW meeting last night. Now I am off to Delta Sigma Theta's legislative event in Cambridge, MD. 1 day ago
I will be on WCTR on Dick Gelfman's show along with mayor Margo Bailey at 1:00 PM tomorrow. I hope you can listen and or call in to the show 2 days ago
Survived Halloween now heading to Purple Palace to watch Ravens sqeek by Broncos. 1 week ago
Sat. Starts with breakfast with the Masons and then to the Chestertown fountain park for the rally in support of the USCMHC at 9:30 am. 1 week ago
The State presented their draft plan for closing the USCMHC to the 36Th delegation today, the emperor has no clothes. 1 week ago
I can see now why no-one wanted to wake this particular sleeping dog, pardon the expression. This is far, far more complicated than anyone could have imagined.
It appears to me that there have been a host of violations of this contract. One major one is that they SPCA was supposed to supply its own vehicles. So how did they obtain 2 county vehicles? Also, they have been openly charging people for unwanted stray animals, in violation of the contract. There are so many violations here that it is rediculous. Also, this contract appears to give the SPCA lots of concessions with nothing in return to the county.
It should be easy enough to terminate for cause – in 10 days we can be free! The Commissioners need to move forward immediately.
Good Morning Mike and Bloggers:
I read this 3 times, and I am sick to my stomach right now. I want to thank you for putting this up. As I read each paragraph, all that keeps popping up, is: “the no clause backout” and “term for clause”!
I read so many violations Mr Smigiel, how in the world can this have gone as long as it has?
Personally, (before I met all of you) Sent letters, phone calls, etc to the Commissioners, some of which are no longer in office I might add…..and this has been about 5 years of me bugging them (so to speak) to help me!!
I am speachless!! However, I will ALWAYS have the voice for these animals!!
This is a 2001 contract. Is there a more recent contract to review? Is it know if the terms are all the same for the last year, or has it been amended over the years in any manner? Not that it matters, as I’m sure that if it has been amended the basic terms (which have been repeatedly violated) are similar if not copied verbatum from year to year.
I am curious about the AC vans. Some have said that they were purchased by the County, but this contract states that should the parties part ways that the vehicles, amoung other things, are the property of the CCSPCA. If they purchased the vans with the funds from their contract, they indeed would be their property.
So, basically you have a budget within a budget. The CCSPCA is it’s own entity answering to thier board of directors, requiring it’s own budget and funding. A division of the CCSPCA (Animal Control services) is funded in part by the County Government and answering to the county commissioners. This of course, is tax payer dollars. For their services (or lack thereof as people are reporting)they agree upon an amount per year (674,000), this only covers the Animal Control aspect of the CCSPCA. It is not intended to care for the animals in the shelter beyond a stray hold period or as this contract states, 5 days. After that period the animals become the financial responsibility and liability of the CCSPCA. It’s interesting that it does state that ownership of the animals picked up by animal control become the immediate property of the CCSPCA. If they choose to at any time after their obligation to this contract (5 days), they may euthanize any animal for any reason they may deem appropriate. I would worry that devious entities, who would desire to lighten their financial load, might hastily choose euthanasia over expenditure on the animals after they become wards of the CCSPCA. Every day that an animal stays at this shelter after the mandated stray hold (5 days) is money out of their CCSPCA budget’s pocket and not monies that would be a part of this contract. If euth rates seem high, one might ponder if this is a motivational factor in their decision making. It would be interesting to review records of animals brought in through Animal Control, how long they remained after the 5 day stray hold and how they were dispositioned (euth, reclaims, adoption). I would be curious to see if there was a pattern of higher euth rates anoung these animals. They could easily be seen by this administration as dead weight, if they weren’t highly desirable adoptables (purebred, adorable, young, well mannered). Just an observation…… and I’m sure it won’t be my only one.
Another aspect of this contract that I see as archaic is the number of officers it requires. The ICMA (International City/County Management Association) reported on a 1994 study (this study is now 15 years old) by the National Animal Control Association (NACA) found that the average ratio of field officers to citizens was one officer for every 16,000 to 18,000 persons. NACA also recommends optimum field staff calculations factor in city area and enforcement responsibilities. In addition, the NACA recommends local governments base staffing levels on a call for service model, analyzing service calls, and measuring the demand for animal control services. Of course one cannot know a true number of calls for service per year that the CCSPCA has received, unless we are to trust the records available through them, so one would have to have access to honest numbers to do calculations based on the NACA’s formula for estimating number of officers required for optimum service. However, based on national averages, there are NOT enough officers requested to optimally deliver even basic duties, more of the budget should be considered for added officers. When I refer to basic duties I do not include community outreach, education, emergency after hours response etc.. Standard average cost per capita for animal control services runs between $6 and $8, so if you assume that the population is approximately 100,000 (based on 2006 census) and you divide 674,000 by the total population, you are currently within that range $6.74 of cost. I would suggest that more officers be requested in the future. If citizens expect Animal Control to do give optimal service, they’ll be hard pressed to give that with only two officers. Understand that the CCSPCA was only required to employ 2 officers by this contract. Had they choosen to devote more of their county funding to field offiers they could have done so, as long as they had two. Adding officers means added vehicles, tools, supplies, uniforms, health benefits, insurance and the costs DO go up and that would leave fewer funds for the animal sheltering aspect of this contract.
Wow, I was just reading Allaire Duponts obituary on Del Online and if that wasn’t telling. In lew of flowers at the funeral she asked that contributions be make to Paws for Life, and Union Hopital. Not the CCSPCA wonder why?
Mrs. DuPont had a falling out with the group there and went on to help found Paws for Life. Perhaps she saw the first signs of the corruption that was coming.
Unfortunately, the County Commissioners treat taxpayer funds as the spoils of victory and keep awarding contracts to their corrupt friends. Any detractors are criticized, painted as crazy, and their character is viciously attacked. Now they’ve stepped it up with late night threats of arrest.
Every good communist should know that political power grows out of the barrel of a gun. —Mao Tse Tung
Here is some food for thought.
http://www.middletowntranscript.com/entertainment/x1985675058/Paws-for-Life-celebrates-new-kennel-with-grand-opening-auction
Review the sight you can see several jabs at the SPCA!!!
http://www.pawsforlife.org/about_us.htm
The Baltimore Sun reported this morning that no individuals or organizations are expressing any interest in taking over the animal control contract in place of the CCSPCA: http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/bal-md.spcaapr16,0,4916372.story
What the heck? I can’t believe that Cecil County voters will stand for this! Call you county council members and give ‘em hell! Tell them that a vote for any continuation with this discredited and criminal organization will cost them their next election. Promise them that you will vote against them, fundraise for their opponents, and tell everyone you know to do the same thing!
This cannot be allowed to happen.
Guessing Cecil County Commissioners and other powers that be are sure that it (abuse of animals) will go away in time and they will not have to DEAL WITH THE PROBLEM. Guess, what, they may be correct. Look how long it has taken to get NOTHING FINALIZED.
That gives the administrators of CCSPCA time to CLEAN UP THEIR ACT, at least for a while. After a while, back to business again.
If I am wrong, then prove it.