NYC Shelter History continued…
The following is a chronological history of how New York City has cared for (or ignored) its homeless pet population over the years.
1992 - 1994
In 1992 the ASPCA builds a shelter on East 110th Street, in East Harlem, to serve as its “new” Manhattan shelter. From the start, the Manhattan shelter suffers from a multitude of well-documented deficiencies – all of which continue to date. Under the standards of that period, animal shelters were simply to hold dogs and cats the requisite number of days before euthanizing them. Ensuring proper ventilation, exercise, and cleanliness were not part of the equation.
The ASPCA’s Brooklyn shelter on Linden Boulevard is no better. It is a converted factory located blocks from the last stop of the closet subway line, and in the highest homicide-per-capita neighborhood of the City. Needless to say, relatively few rescuers, volunteers, and public adopters venture out to the Brooklyn shelter, and never after dark .
In March 1993, the ASPCA announces that it will not renew its contract with the DOH, and will cease its animal care and control activities effective December 31, 1994. This decision follows on the heels of critical internal reports about shelter conditions. Also, volunteers and internal staff complain mightily about the disgraceful conditions at the ASPCA shelters and the high euthanasia rates, and their complaints result in embarrassing news coverage for the ASPCA.
Effective January 1, 1995 the ASPCA formally resigns from animal care and control services, explaining that killing stray dogs and cats has obscured its mission – and its image. The ASPCA also claimed that the $4.5 million a year the city was paying them was not enough, and that they were losing almost $1 million per year on the contract. No longer burdened with the stigma of being a high-kill shelter, the ASPCA goes on to be one of the highest-grossing humane societies in the United States, taking in millions of dollars every year.
In 1993 the DOH commissions a study to report the state of the shelter system and what would be needed for an effective transition. The report -- completed in February 1994 -- report emphasizes the need for senior management with extensive sheltering experience as well as the need for better facilities and equipment (confirming the poor state of the facilities). Ignoring the study’s recommendations, Mayor Rudolph Giuliani’s office serves up the perfect recipe for failure. The Mayor’s office creates a tax-exempt charity named the “Center for Animal Care and Control” (later shortened to ACC), to assume responsibility for the City’s homeless pet population. While the ACC is technically a stand-alone non-profit corporation, the DOH controls every aspect of the ACC’s existence: drafting its by-laws, selecting its Executive Directors and Directors, setting its budget, and imposing various onerous requirements. The ACC is a de facto extension of the DOH---with the DOH simultaneously claiming the ACC to be an independent entity which can operate and negotiate effectively with the City.
The Mayor’s press release announcing the creation of the ACC states that the budget will be $4.5 million (the same amount the ASPCA received and claimed was inadequate). The DOH selects Martin Kurtz, from the DOH’s veterinary division, as the first ACC Executive Director. Kurtz has had no prior shelter management experience, setting the pattern of Executive Directors for years to come. For the first several years, the Commissioner of Sanitation heads the ACC board, a crudely stark admission that the City views homeless animals as garbage.
1996
In October, reeling from recent press release critical of its management, ACC officials expel whistleblowers. Click here to read the official letters of an expelled volunteer.
The SRAC complains to the City’s Conflicts of Interest Board about the multiple conflicts arising from the DOH’s control of the ACC and the selection of Directors and Executive Directors. The SRAC’s objections are ignored.
1997
In February, the SRAC files a lawsuit seeking to declare the ACC subject to Freedom of Information laws and demanding that it open its Board of Directors meetings to the public. (A decision is rendered in January 1999, in which the SRAC’s requests for various internal records are granted. As discussed later, the DOH voluntarily opens up board meetings.)
After two years of mounting criticism, Kurtz resigns as ACC Executive Director. Four months later, Marilyn Haggerty-Blohm, a Giuliani aide with no prior shelter management experience (but with experience in solid waste disposal), is appointed to serve as Acting Executive Director. After months of pressure, the City Council's Contracts Committee, headed by Kathryn E. Freed, begins a formal investigation of the ACC. Freed's investigators complain they are being slowed by uncooperative DOH officials delaying the production of documents.
In June, the City Council’s Contracts Committee issues a report titled Dying for Homes: Animal Care and Control in New York City. The report is a powerful indictment of the DOH’s stewardship of the ACC. It is accompanied by written statements by the two independent ACC directors who condemn the state of the ACC and the DOH’s oversight and inadequate funding.
The two directors are summarily dismissed. Since then, the DOH and the Mayor’s Office carefully screen directors to ensure their loyalty to the Mayor and the DOH. Dissent will not be tolerated.
The SRAC leads a ballot initiative to amend the City Council Charter to create a Department of Animal Affairs and to remove the DOH (and, by extension, the Mayor) from control of the ACC. The City Clerk rejects the petition, and in September, the SRAC sues to have its ballot initiative placed on the November 1997 election ballot.
In September, the judge dismisses the SRAC’s petition, relying on an 1894 New York State statute giving the Mayor of New York City sole authority to designate animal protection duties. The court rules that the proposed ballot initiative infringes on the Mayor's authority. In short, only a change in legislation in Albany can remove the City’s homeless animals from the callously indifferent treatment accorded them by a succession of mayors and by the DOH. While responsible for the health of City residents, the DOH has always viewed the care and health of animals as an ancillary concern, relevant only if an animal might pose a health or safety hazard to humans. (That’s why the DOH must be removed from control over animal care and control services.)
1998
The DOH retains the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) to conduct an investigation and publish a report on the ACC. The SRAC files a detailed challenge to the HSUS methodology and conclusions. While the HSUS report is somewhat critical of the ACC, it is far too deferential to the DOH, and the SRAC submits a point-by-point rebuttal. But the SRAC does agree with the HSUS’s observation that the ACC/DOH relationship is fraught with conflicts of interest.
In October, New York Magazine publishes an investigative piece by Elizabeth Hess entitled Shelter Skelter. The article is highly critical of the conditions at the ACC and the City's and DOH's callous indifference.
1999
The Shelter Skelter article prompts the City’s Comptroller, Alan Hevesi, to commence his own office’s audit of the ACC. It is based on interviews with former employees and rescue workers conducted during the period 1999-2001. (The report is published in 2002 by Hevesi’s successor, William Thompson, Jr.). SRAC's Gary Kaskel responds.
In January, a judge grants the SRAC’s request to be given access to ACC internal records and that the ACC’s Board meeting be open to the public. (Since that decision, the ACC Board holds a closed session then an open session to the public.)