BARC: A Band-Aid Solution to an Emergency Room Problem? Part 2
- By Jolanda Jones
- Published 08/31/2009
- Political
-
Rating:
The following article is part 2 of the article that appeared last week in vol. 14 Issue 30, August 26-September 1, 2009.
Well, I now believe that Mr. Fusco has made some positive improvements and his improvements have led to better and more humane conditions at BARC. He has also improved the atmosphere and feelings of the volunteers. For this, I thank him. Ultimately, we must appoint a bureau chief who sincerely cares about the animals and demands the same from the staff and volunteers.
We should do a search for a bureau chief, who has experience in the best practices of animal shelters and hire him. Respectfully, I don’t think we should pay $200,000 to a “change agent” for six months. While I support having Fusco here while we search for a bureau chief, whose term should be no longer than the initially submitted six months (in fact, I don’t know why we can’t find a bureau chief in three months), I believe he should be willing to get paid less money, more commiserate to the equivalent City pay scale.
In this cash-strapped budget, where do we find additional funds to hire the bureau chief? How much is the bureau chief going to make per year? Will the bureau chief, who I hope has experience with animal shelters, buy into the no—animal-shelter experience “change agent’s” theory of how to run an animal shelter?
In fact, the money we would save on a bureau chief, sooner rather than six months from now, could be better spent if it were used towards food and health care for these animals. We also need to find money to build a new facility and stop bandaging a building that is not fit for its intended purpose. Or perhaps another suggestion is to use the money we have to partner with facilities which already have great adoption and spay and neuter programs, especially since the present BARC facility is depressing and would require a substantial capital investment to improve or tear down and rebuild.
BARC volunteers have asked more times than I can remember if the City is committed to transforming it into a No Kill or Reduced Kill facility? And if we do move to a Reduced Kill facility, what is a sufficient reduction in killing shelter animals? The answer to these questions, still haven’t been answered.
Council Member Ed Gonzalez made a great suggestion which might be helpful. He offered that the City look at taking BARC from under the control of Health and Human Services, which is almost exclusively focused on human health, safety and welfare, and is under-funded itself and consider making BARC its own department. BARC volunteers suggested that the focus become similar to San Antonio’s mission which is to “encourage responsible pet ownership by promoting and protecting the health, safety and welfare of the residents and animals ... through education, enforcement and community partnership” as opposed to regulating animals to protect humans from them, which seems to be the mission of BARC.
Most recently, some kind of way, a Request for Council Action, Agenda Item # 19, on the August 19th Agenda, made a request of council for the “[a]pproval of an ordinance authorizing a professional services agreement with Gerry Fusco Consulting for turnaround services at the Bureau of Animal Regulation and Care (BARC).” They asked for a “Total Maximum Contract Amount: $158,500.” The relevant period for the contract would be “effective on September 5, 2009 and end on January 25, 2010 with an optional extension of 30 days at the Director’s discretion.”
Does this mean that Fusco may get paid even more money than the $200,000, within the sole discretion of the director? When the new bureau chief comes in, how do we know he or she won’t undue all that Fusco has implemented. Will all that the employees have all learned now mean nothing?
There will be a new mayor who arguably will appoint new department directors. There is no guarantee that this wouldn’t be money thrown down the figurative BARC drain. Apart from this fiscal responsibility, continuity and sustainability discussion, at Council Member Jarvis Johnson’s specially called BARC Health and Human Services Committee meeting, council members were promised that the next committee meeting would be on September 14, 2009 and that we, as a council, would not have to vote on any Fusco contracts prior to a proper vetting at the September 14th committee meeting.
That’s why I was surprised to see Agenda Item #19, the BARC/Fusco contract, on the August 19th Agenda. The rush argument is that now there is supposedly some emergency because Fusco’s $49,500 contract runs out on September 6, 2009. Procrastination [and refusal and/or failure to answer legitimate questions regarding 1) the fiscally responsible spending of tax payer money and 2) the sustained plan for BARC] on someone’s part does not constitute an emergency on my part to hurriedly vote “yes” because Fusco’s contract is running out.
This is about transparency. This Fusco contract has not been a transparent process. If Fusco truly is motivated by the humane treatment of the animals at BARC, then I respectfully submit that he should be willing to re-negotiate this incredible amount of money negotiated with persons other than those of us sitting around the council table yet who are asked to confirm that amount.
He should also be willing, respectfully, to charitably donate the eight days which would encompass September 6, 2009 the date his $49,500 contract expires, until September 16, 2009, the next council date where we can vote on his contract. If he is unwilling to do that, then I respectfully submit to you that an argument could be made that his motivation is the money ($200,000) and not the animals. I’m willing to work with Fusco but I want him to work with us.
We, the City, are in a pickle with this BARC fiasco, because of our history of mistreatment of animals, but we must err on the side of rational and logical decisions designed to resolve issues over a sustained period with respect to fiscal responsibility of taxpayer money. We have admitted there is a problem.
To reiterate and on a positive note, I have spoken with some BARC volunteers who have said there is a better atmosphere at BARC since Fusco started implementing change. I hope it is sustained. I still don’t think it should cost $200,000. I hope he agrees to continue his work for less money. End, part 2.
Jolanda “Jo” Jones is a member of Houston City Council, at large Position 5.
Well, I now believe that Mr. Fusco has made some positive improvements and his improvements have led to better and more humane conditions at BARC. He has also improved the atmosphere and feelings of the volunteers. For this, I thank him. Ultimately, we must appoint a bureau chief who sincerely cares about the animals and demands the same from the staff and volunteers.
We should do a search for a bureau chief, who has experience in the best practices of animal shelters and hire him. Respectfully, I don’t think we should pay $200,000 to a “change agent” for six months. While I support having Fusco here while we search for a bureau chief, whose term should be no longer than the initially submitted six months (in fact, I don’t know why we can’t find a bureau chief in three months), I believe he should be willing to get paid less money, more commiserate to the equivalent City pay scale.
In this cash-strapped budget, where do we find additional funds to hire the bureau chief? How much is the bureau chief going to make per year? Will the bureau chief, who I hope has experience with animal shelters, buy into the no—animal-shelter experience “change agent’s” theory of how to run an animal shelter?
In fact, the money we would save on a bureau chief, sooner rather than six months from now, could be better spent if it were used towards food and health care for these animals. We also need to find money to build a new facility and stop bandaging a building that is not fit for its intended purpose. Or perhaps another suggestion is to use the money we have to partner with facilities which already have great adoption and spay and neuter programs, especially since the present BARC facility is depressing and would require a substantial capital investment to improve or tear down and rebuild.
BARC volunteers have asked more times than I can remember if the City is committed to transforming it into a No Kill or Reduced Kill facility? And if we do move to a Reduced Kill facility, what is a sufficient reduction in killing shelter animals? The answer to these questions, still haven’t been answered.
Council Member Ed Gonzalez made a great suggestion which might be helpful. He offered that the City look at taking BARC from under the control of Health and Human Services, which is almost exclusively focused on human health, safety and welfare, and is under-funded itself and consider making BARC its own department. BARC volunteers suggested that the focus become similar to San Antonio’s mission which is to “encourage responsible pet ownership by promoting and protecting the health, safety and welfare of the residents and animals ... through education, enforcement and community partnership” as opposed to regulating animals to protect humans from them, which seems to be the mission of BARC.
Most recently, some kind of way, a Request for Council Action, Agenda Item # 19, on the August 19th Agenda, made a request of council for the “[a]pproval of an ordinance authorizing a professional services agreement with Gerry Fusco Consulting for turnaround services at the Bureau of Animal Regulation and Care (BARC).” They asked for a “Total Maximum Contract Amount: $158,500.” The relevant period for the contract would be “effective on September 5, 2009 and end on January 25, 2010 with an optional extension of 30 days at the Director’s discretion.”
Does this mean that Fusco may get paid even more money than the $200,000, within the sole discretion of the director? When the new bureau chief comes in, how do we know he or she won’t undue all that Fusco has implemented. Will all that the employees have all learned now mean nothing?
There will be a new mayor who arguably will appoint new department directors. There is no guarantee that this wouldn’t be money thrown down the figurative BARC drain. Apart from this fiscal responsibility, continuity and sustainability discussion, at Council Member Jarvis Johnson’s specially called BARC Health and Human Services Committee meeting, council members were promised that the next committee meeting would be on September 14, 2009 and that we, as a council, would not have to vote on any Fusco contracts prior to a proper vetting at the September 14th committee meeting.
That’s why I was surprised to see Agenda Item #19, the BARC/Fusco contract, on the August 19th Agenda. The rush argument is that now there is supposedly some emergency because Fusco’s $49,500 contract runs out on September 6, 2009. Procrastination [and refusal and/or failure to answer legitimate questions regarding 1) the fiscally responsible spending of tax payer money and 2) the sustained plan for BARC] on someone’s part does not constitute an emergency on my part to hurriedly vote “yes” because Fusco’s contract is running out.
This is about transparency. This Fusco contract has not been a transparent process. If Fusco truly is motivated by the humane treatment of the animals at BARC, then I respectfully submit that he should be willing to re-negotiate this incredible amount of money negotiated with persons other than those of us sitting around the council table yet who are asked to confirm that amount.
He should also be willing, respectfully, to charitably donate the eight days which would encompass September 6, 2009 the date his $49,500 contract expires, until September 16, 2009, the next council date where we can vote on his contract. If he is unwilling to do that, then I respectfully submit to you that an argument could be made that his motivation is the money ($200,000) and not the animals. I’m willing to work with Fusco but I want him to work with us.
We, the City, are in a pickle with this BARC fiasco, because of our history of mistreatment of animals, but we must err on the side of rational and logical decisions designed to resolve issues over a sustained period with respect to fiscal responsibility of taxpayer money. We have admitted there is a problem.
To reiterate and on a positive note, I have spoken with some BARC volunteers who have said there is a better atmosphere at BARC since Fusco started implementing change. I hope it is sustained. I still don’t think it should cost $200,000. I hope he agrees to continue his work for less money. End, part 2.
Jolanda “Jo” Jones is a member of Houston City Council, at large Position 5.
Spread The Word
1 Response to "BARC: A Band-Aid Solution to an Emergency Room Problem? Part 2" 
|
said this on 04 Sep 2009 1:27:17 PM MST
Ms. Jones, we have hired four bureau chiefs with shelter experience in five years and here we are. One definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Your suggestion is insane. I ask you again, are you opposed to spending the money on Fusco or on BARC? How much are you willing to spend on BARC. From everything you have said and written, you are not willing to spend one additional penny on BARC beyond what is already budgeted. It's time to take action now, not in three more months. You guys have been "three more monthing" these puppies to death. In the next three months, will you be willing to go to BARC and walk the dogs (just the ones that would have survived with Mr. Fusco's efforts) to the euthanasia room? Are you willing to personally hold the puppies after they are fished from the drains?
While this article is very wordy, it discusses all your concerns, but it does not list out the specific questions that you say you asked and were not answered. Please provide, in list form, those questions. I hold you to the same standards you do your colleagues and vendors. Why can I not get an answer to my question? And just curious, you adopted a dog at the opening of the Discovery Green Park, yet you write that you do not have any pets. What happened to your dog? |
Author/Admin)