No Kill Advocacy Center Petition for Rulemaking
On Thursday March 18, 2015, the VDACS board members convened to consider the No Kill Advocacy Center's Petition for Rulemaking. During this public meeting, the board described the circumstances under which such petitions are considered, and stated that the NKAC's petition did meet the general requirements necessary for consideration.
The board then asked Carolynn Bissett, DVM, MPH, DACVPM, Acting Program Manager, Office of Animal Care & Emergency Response
Division of Animal and Food Industry Services, Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, to make a statement regarding the NKAC's petition. Dr. Bissett started by stating that the petition had received "considerable opposition."
Dr. Bissett then described how her office went about categorizing the public comments, stating that 33% of the comments had been in clear support of the petition, 23% of the comments has been in clear opposition to the petition, and 44% were "very hard to categorize." Dr. Bissett then explained that comments that were simply either in support of, or opposed to "no kill," were not considered to specifically pertain to the petition, so these comments were not considered by her office. Nor were comments simply pertaining to pending legislation proposed by the No Kill Advocacy Center. Nor were comments that specifically targeted a particular animal shelter in Virginia. I think its safe to assume we all know which shelter that was.
Dr. Bissett stated that in addition to the registrar's website comment forum, her office received numerous comments via email and formal letter, some of which represented multiple entities, either in support of, or opposition to the petition. Dr. Bissett listed the following entities as opposed to the petition: the Virginia Association of Counties, the Virginia Municipal League, the Virginia Animal Control Association, the Virginia Alliance for Animal Shelters, and the Campbell County Board of Supervisors. Dr. Bissett stated that in addition to this formidable opposition to the NKAC's petition, her office additionally received a letter of opposition from ten delegates to the Virginia General Assembly of the House Agricultural of Chesapeake and Natural Resources Committee. Dr. Bissett stated that in addition to this, her office received statements of opposition from seven animal control services, three public animal shelters, and four private animal shelters. All of which stated that they felt that the petition proposed regulation that was either redundant it its scope, or burdensome to already resource-strapped shelters.
Dr. Bissett then outlined the specific requests of the petitioner, stating that in general, the petitioner asked that "all shelters be required to keep certain records and that these records be available to the public--for free." These are the specific requests of the petitioner, as stated by Dr. Bissett, and Dr. Bissett's statements about each request:
Request #1: that all shelters generate a "custody record" upon intake.
Dr. Bissett stated that this is already required in Virginia code statutes, and cited the statute
Request #2 and #3: that records state when and how animals are taken into custody.
Dr. Bissett stated that this is already required in Virginia code statutes and cited the statute
Request #4: that records state why the animal was taken into custody
Dr. Bissett stated that this is already required in Virginia code statutes and cited the statute
Request #5: that records include a signed "owner-surrender" form
Dr. Bissett stated that this is already required in Virginia code statutes and cited the statute
Request #6: that records include information about the condition of an animal upon intake.
Dr. Bissett stated that this is already required in Virginia code statutes and cited the statute
Request #7: that records include indicia of ownership.
Dr. Bissett stated that this is already required in Virginia code statutes and cited the statute
Request #8: that records include attempts made to contact owners, when indicia or ownership are present.
Dr. Bissett stated that this is already required in Virginia code statutes and cited the statute
Request #9: that records include the care and treatment, including veterinary care and treatment, of animals in custody.
Dr. Bissett stated that this is already required in Virginia code statutes, and cited the statute
Request #10: that records include the final disposition of animals.
Dr. Bissett stated that this is already required in Virginia code statutes and cited the statute
Request #11: that records include when and where animals are euthanized.
Dr. Bissett stated that this is already required in Virginia code statutes and cited the statute
Request #12 and 13: that these records be kept for no less than five years and made available to the VDACS board, and to the public upon request.
Dr. Bissett stated that this is already required under Virginia code statutes and cited the statutes
Request #14: that these records be made available to the public for free.
Dr. Bissett stated that providing records to the public for free was in direct violation of Virginia Freedom of Information Act law that states that facilities have the right to recover costs associated with records requests, as long as charges do not exceed the actual associate costs. She stated that these records are already available to the board, and are scrutinized by a state veterinarian during annual facility inspections
Request #15: that records include when and why animals are euthanized.
Dr. Bissett stated that records already reflect the final disposition of animals, but because the law considers each of these methods of disposition to be equal under the law--adoption, transfer, and euthanasia--the VDACS code statutes do not make a legal provision for this request, however, it was established later in the meeting that shelters are required to report the reason for euthanasia to the Virginia Department of Health, so this request is less of a VDACS matter and more of a Department of Health matter
Dr. Bissett then stated that Virginia law allows for shelters to euthanize animals on a case-by-case basis, taking into consideration what's best for the individual animal, what's best for the population of animals, and what's best for matters of public health and safety.
Next, the floor was opened to public comment. Three Virginia locals, each involved in Virginia animal sheltering, spoke in opposition of the petition. No one spoke in support of the petition.
Sharon Q. Adams of the Virginia Alliance of Animal Shelters asked the board to oppose the petition on the following grounds, stating that the petition is "ill-advised" and "inappropriate":
1) the petitioner lives in California and is not locally effected by the burden of the petition
2) that the petitioner has a very specific agenda
3) that the petitioner doesn't believe in transparency himself, ie, according to the No Kill Advocacy Center's IRS filing, there are no board members, and no other member affiliations
4) that 'the question then becomes what's really going on?" Either the petitioner "misunderstands the existing codes of statutes," "is unaware of the current codes of statutes," or that there "is an awareness but there is some other purpose" for the petition.
Ms. Adams then stated that there is already a clear mission that relates to the localities of the Commonwealth, and that she has seen a deterioration in the unity Virginia shelters previously enjoyed. She stated that she believes that "transparency is needed" and that shelters "need to be upfront about what they are about and what they're trying to do." She stated that she is concerned with the number of shelters that are now "turning away animals," "turning away entire species of animals," and "accepting only specific animals."
Next, Kathy Strouse asked the board to oppose the petition. Kathy Strouse is the Animal Control Superintendent at City of Chesapeake, Virginia, formerly employed with the Virginia Animal Fighting Task Force, the author of the book, "Badd Newz: The Untold Story of the Michael Vick Dog Fighting Case," and the Legislative Liaison of the Virginia Animal Control Association.
Ms. Strouse asked the board to oppose the petition for the following reasons:
1) in 2014, her shelter was the subject of a "vicious attack," involving a social media campaign and local threats, centered around one specific injured animal who was seen by four veterinarians before being euthanized because of the severity of the injuries, the associate veterinary costs of treatment, and most importantly, because the animal was suffering. She stated that "one man submitted a FOIA request that would've amounted to 30,000 pages of documents," and that this man significantly tailored his docs request once she informed him that he would be required to pay the associated costs of providing those documents. She stated that her shelter would not be able to bear the costs of providing requests of this nature, at no charge to the public.
She also stated that she feared that under the rules of the petition, veterinarians may be targeted by certain members of the public for animal care decisions they make, and the result might be the reluctance of veterinarians to voluntarily serve shelter animals.
Lastly, Paulette Dean, the executive director of the Danville Area Humane Society and a humane investigator for 23 years, asked the board to oppose the petition for the following reasons:
1) her shelter serves as many as 6,000 animals every year with a staff of only five, stating that public records requests can be an undue burden to staff and resources, and that there's a "difference between transparency and nosiness."
2) she stated that because of her limited staff and resources, honoring public FOIA requests, at no charge, would place an unfair burden on her shelter.
3) she stated that her shelter already had to bear the burden of $2000 in attorney's fees, when "one woman" requested in excess of 20,000 documents, and felt that she shouldn't have to reimburse the shelter for the associated costs of preparing those documents.
4) she stated that in addition to concerns about her shelter's resources, she was also worried that unregulated records requests put shelter staff and the public in danger, stating that members of the public had already demanded the names and addresses of other individuals of the public who brought free-roaming animals to the shelter, whom they believed to be strays but were owned, with the intention of issuing retribution. She stated that members of the public have also insisted that "cruelty charges be filed" when guardians bring in animals in for euthanasia, even at a veterinarian's recommendation. Ms. Dean stated that "all we have done is help the members of Danville and Pittsylvania Counties take care of animals in very very difficult circumstances. That's all we have done." She stated that she has had to hire off-duty police officers to protect shelter staff at the shelter, and she herself has had so many personal threats lodged against her that she now has an unlisted number.
At the end of the public comment period, the VDACS asked Dr. Bissett for a formal recommendation. Dr. Bissett asked that the VDACS oppose the petition for the reasons she previously stated. The VDACS then asked the board to enter a motion. The board then entered the motion to deny the petition. The VDACS asked who was in favor of the motion to deny the petition, and the board unanimously approved the motion to oppose the petition. There was zero board support in favor of approving the petition.
The board then asked Carolynn Bissett, DVM, MPH, DACVPM, Acting Program Manager, Office of Animal Care & Emergency Response
Division of Animal and Food Industry Services, Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, to make a statement regarding the NKAC's petition. Dr. Bissett started by stating that the petition had received "considerable opposition."
Dr. Bissett then described how her office went about categorizing the public comments, stating that 33% of the comments had been in clear support of the petition, 23% of the comments has been in clear opposition to the petition, and 44% were "very hard to categorize." Dr. Bissett then explained that comments that were simply either in support of, or opposed to "no kill," were not considered to specifically pertain to the petition, so these comments were not considered by her office. Nor were comments simply pertaining to pending legislation proposed by the No Kill Advocacy Center. Nor were comments that specifically targeted a particular animal shelter in Virginia. I think its safe to assume we all know which shelter that was.
Dr. Bissett stated that in addition to the registrar's website comment forum, her office received numerous comments via email and formal letter, some of which represented multiple entities, either in support of, or opposition to the petition. Dr. Bissett listed the following entities as opposed to the petition: the Virginia Association of Counties, the Virginia Municipal League, the Virginia Animal Control Association, the Virginia Alliance for Animal Shelters, and the Campbell County Board of Supervisors. Dr. Bissett stated that in addition to this formidable opposition to the NKAC's petition, her office additionally received a letter of opposition from ten delegates to the Virginia General Assembly of the House Agricultural of Chesapeake and Natural Resources Committee. Dr. Bissett stated that in addition to this, her office received statements of opposition from seven animal control services, three public animal shelters, and four private animal shelters. All of which stated that they felt that the petition proposed regulation that was either redundant it its scope, or burdensome to already resource-strapped shelters.
Dr. Bissett then outlined the specific requests of the petitioner, stating that in general, the petitioner asked that "all shelters be required to keep certain records and that these records be available to the public--for free." These are the specific requests of the petitioner, as stated by Dr. Bissett, and Dr. Bissett's statements about each request:
Request #1: that all shelters generate a "custody record" upon intake.
Dr. Bissett stated that this is already required in Virginia code statutes, and cited the statute
Request #2 and #3: that records state when and how animals are taken into custody.
Dr. Bissett stated that this is already required in Virginia code statutes and cited the statute
Request #4: that records state why the animal was taken into custody
Dr. Bissett stated that this is already required in Virginia code statutes and cited the statute
Request #5: that records include a signed "owner-surrender" form
Dr. Bissett stated that this is already required in Virginia code statutes and cited the statute
Request #6: that records include information about the condition of an animal upon intake.
Dr. Bissett stated that this is already required in Virginia code statutes and cited the statute
Request #7: that records include indicia of ownership.
Dr. Bissett stated that this is already required in Virginia code statutes and cited the statute
Request #8: that records include attempts made to contact owners, when indicia or ownership are present.
Dr. Bissett stated that this is already required in Virginia code statutes and cited the statute
Request #9: that records include the care and treatment, including veterinary care and treatment, of animals in custody.
Dr. Bissett stated that this is already required in Virginia code statutes, and cited the statute
Request #10: that records include the final disposition of animals.
Dr. Bissett stated that this is already required in Virginia code statutes and cited the statute
Request #11: that records include when and where animals are euthanized.
Dr. Bissett stated that this is already required in Virginia code statutes and cited the statute
Request #12 and 13: that these records be kept for no less than five years and made available to the VDACS board, and to the public upon request.
Dr. Bissett stated that this is already required under Virginia code statutes and cited the statutes
Request #14: that these records be made available to the public for free.
Dr. Bissett stated that providing records to the public for free was in direct violation of Virginia Freedom of Information Act law that states that facilities have the right to recover costs associated with records requests, as long as charges do not exceed the actual associate costs. She stated that these records are already available to the board, and are scrutinized by a state veterinarian during annual facility inspections
Request #15: that records include when and why animals are euthanized.
Dr. Bissett stated that records already reflect the final disposition of animals, but because the law considers each of these methods of disposition to be equal under the law--adoption, transfer, and euthanasia--the VDACS code statutes do not make a legal provision for this request, however, it was established later in the meeting that shelters are required to report the reason for euthanasia to the Virginia Department of Health, so this request is less of a VDACS matter and more of a Department of Health matter
Dr. Bissett then stated that Virginia law allows for shelters to euthanize animals on a case-by-case basis, taking into consideration what's best for the individual animal, what's best for the population of animals, and what's best for matters of public health and safety.
Next, the floor was opened to public comment. Three Virginia locals, each involved in Virginia animal sheltering, spoke in opposition of the petition. No one spoke in support of the petition.
Sharon Q. Adams of the Virginia Alliance of Animal Shelters asked the board to oppose the petition on the following grounds, stating that the petition is "ill-advised" and "inappropriate":
1) the petitioner lives in California and is not locally effected by the burden of the petition
2) that the petitioner has a very specific agenda
3) that the petitioner doesn't believe in transparency himself, ie, according to the No Kill Advocacy Center's IRS filing, there are no board members, and no other member affiliations
4) that 'the question then becomes what's really going on?" Either the petitioner "misunderstands the existing codes of statutes," "is unaware of the current codes of statutes," or that there "is an awareness but there is some other purpose" for the petition.
Ms. Adams then stated that there is already a clear mission that relates to the localities of the Commonwealth, and that she has seen a deterioration in the unity Virginia shelters previously enjoyed. She stated that she believes that "transparency is needed" and that shelters "need to be upfront about what they are about and what they're trying to do." She stated that she is concerned with the number of shelters that are now "turning away animals," "turning away entire species of animals," and "accepting only specific animals."
Next, Kathy Strouse asked the board to oppose the petition. Kathy Strouse is the Animal Control Superintendent at City of Chesapeake, Virginia, formerly employed with the Virginia Animal Fighting Task Force, the author of the book, "Badd Newz: The Untold Story of the Michael Vick Dog Fighting Case," and the Legislative Liaison of the Virginia Animal Control Association.
Ms. Strouse asked the board to oppose the petition for the following reasons:
1) in 2014, her shelter was the subject of a "vicious attack," involving a social media campaign and local threats, centered around one specific injured animal who was seen by four veterinarians before being euthanized because of the severity of the injuries, the associate veterinary costs of treatment, and most importantly, because the animal was suffering. She stated that "one man submitted a FOIA request that would've amounted to 30,000 pages of documents," and that this man significantly tailored his docs request once she informed him that he would be required to pay the associated costs of providing those documents. She stated that her shelter would not be able to bear the costs of providing requests of this nature, at no charge to the public.
She also stated that she feared that under the rules of the petition, veterinarians may be targeted by certain members of the public for animal care decisions they make, and the result might be the reluctance of veterinarians to voluntarily serve shelter animals.
Lastly, Paulette Dean, the executive director of the Danville Area Humane Society and a humane investigator for 23 years, asked the board to oppose the petition for the following reasons:
1) her shelter serves as many as 6,000 animals every year with a staff of only five, stating that public records requests can be an undue burden to staff and resources, and that there's a "difference between transparency and nosiness."
2) she stated that because of her limited staff and resources, honoring public FOIA requests, at no charge, would place an unfair burden on her shelter.
3) she stated that her shelter already had to bear the burden of $2000 in attorney's fees, when "one woman" requested in excess of 20,000 documents, and felt that she shouldn't have to reimburse the shelter for the associated costs of preparing those documents.
4) she stated that in addition to concerns about her shelter's resources, she was also worried that unregulated records requests put shelter staff and the public in danger, stating that members of the public had already demanded the names and addresses of other individuals of the public who brought free-roaming animals to the shelter, whom they believed to be strays but were owned, with the intention of issuing retribution. She stated that members of the public have also insisted that "cruelty charges be filed" when guardians bring in animals in for euthanasia, even at a veterinarian's recommendation. Ms. Dean stated that "all we have done is help the members of Danville and Pittsylvania Counties take care of animals in very very difficult circumstances. That's all we have done." She stated that she has had to hire off-duty police officers to protect shelter staff at the shelter, and she herself has had so many personal threats lodged against her that she now has an unlisted number.
At the end of the public comment period, the VDACS asked Dr. Bissett for a formal recommendation. Dr. Bissett asked that the VDACS oppose the petition for the reasons she previously stated. The VDACS then asked the board to enter a motion. The board then entered the motion to deny the petition. The VDACS asked who was in favor of the motion to deny the petition, and the board unanimously approved the motion to oppose the petition. There was zero board support in favor of approving the petition.
"After considering the analysis and recommendation of the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services staff; the nature of the comments received during the public comment period; and the comments offered by representatives of the Virginia Animal Control Association, the Virginia Alliance for Animal Shelters, and the Danville Area Humane Society during the Board meeting, the Board voted to deny the petition. The Board denied the petitioner’s request for rulemaking because the majority of the recordkeeping requirements requested in the petition are already required by the Code of Virginia or the Virginia Administrative Code. Specifically, Va Code §§ 3.2-6503, 3.2-6546, 3.2-6548, 3.2-6557, and 54.1-3423 as well as 18 VAC 110-20 include provisions requiring certain recordkeeping by public and private animal shelters."
