One of my FB pages is concerning Kent County Dog Control. It was created to be a place for ideas, to exchange information and for people to have a place to report instances when they felt KCSPCA animal control officers were overstepping their legal mandate. It actually does some of that. But because we rarely, if ever, block anyone, KCSPCA supporters and STAFF feel they can pick at Safe Haven, the new DOG control vendor, and Kent County Levy Court, for choosing SH. (The why and how of that is not going to be discussed here.)
In the most recent stream of posts and comments - brought over from Newszap and another FB page - the same questions are asked over and over and over. And when they are answered repeatedly - in the same manner and by different people on both Newszap and FB, we were told they will continue to ask until they get an answer.
What answer? The one they want? Because it's obvious they are not happy with the answers they were given.
In fact, in another stream awhile back, one poster told me that the language in the DE Code we were discussing was "just words."
All of this brings me to the random thought. Words MEAN something. Not only according to common usage, and any dictionary you want to pick up, but in LAW. In fact, DOG and ANIMAL are different words. In the Dog Control Contract controversy (I know, that's alliteration), those who are happy with the fact that KCLC went with a new vendor understand that the County is required BY THE STATE to provide DOG CONTROL as specified by DE Code. HOW they provide that service is up to the County. But those who support the original contractor keep using the words ANIMAL control. In this, they are repeating what the KCSPCA executive director keeps saying. They also keep comparing the services SH provides with what KCSPCA provided. But the law - Title 9 - specifies county DOG control. The KCSPCA is authorized to investigate and enforce animal cruelty for the STATE. Their mission statement says says they help sick and injured animals. Those services are separate from the contract they had with KCLC for DOG control. WHY should the County pay ANY contractor for services not specified or contracted for?
Whether or not the State needs ANIMAL control is another argument, and not relevant to this blog.
What is relevant is that, when people were calling for accountability from the KCSPCA for compliance with CAPA and for resolution of complaints about animal control officers, no accountability or resolution was forthcoming. Now that another agency is providing Dog Control, the KCSPCA board, employees and supporters all want accountability. The same accountability that was denied when it was asked of THEIR organization. Shouldn't ALL shelters and enforcement agencies be held accountable to law?
What is also relevant is that I have been told by two members of the Animal Welfare Task Force (a legislator who is the chairand a former staff member from the Governor's office who had a hand in writing some of the legislation) that since none of the laws relating to enforcement specify oversight of the animal control officers, the ACOs are only answerable to their direct employer. A private non-profit organization. So in law, even the words that are MISSING have an impact.
As I mentioned in an earlier blog, the General Assembly just revoked powers from the sheriffs' offices because they carried weapons, were not police officers and were not answerable to the State. So how do you feel about enforcement officers that can write you tickets or arrest you and/or impound your pets without witnessing violations, all based on hearsay complaints they don't have to provide to you or your attorney? And they are not answerable to the State?
Just words?
Here are a couple for our legislators and the members of the Animal Welfare Task Force: FIX THIS.
