Weatherford Shelter Changes

[MaryRoseSmith]

I should like this to be a serious discussion regarding shelter improvements or changes. Would you prefer to have a volunteer coordinator or have those funds dedicated to vet cost, medical costs and reduced adoption fees? Would you prefer to have a vet on staff rather than a shelter director? Do you think a vet could handle both positions?

[MaryRoseSmith]

[QUOTE who="really?"]<qu oted text>
you really think it matters what you or anybody else thinks? If you want this to be a serious discussion here are 2 suggestions. 1. Make sure Dan Cather (obaman2012) has nothing to do with it. 2. Have a discussion about something you can control. You have no input whatsoever on the staffing or budget of the pound.[/QUOTE]

Yes, I think it matters. And yes, I have absolutely no control over the staffing or budget. I asked two serious questions. I'm sure the city has allocated X number of dollars for shelter operations. How would you spend these dollars? Do you want animals in good health or do you want a the figure head of coordinator?

[MaryRoseSmith]

ObamaN2012 wrote:

<quoted text>
If the volunteers step in and transform the shelter into a non-profit using the 501(c)(3) structure they already have in place, then the volunteers can insure the animals are kept in good health and there will be no figurehead "in charge".
There are specific provisions in IRS Publication 557 for 501(c)(3) organizations dedicated to the prevention of cruelty to animals.

That would be one option, however, I wanted to know their thoughts regarding how the shelter should be run by the city. They seem to have many objections as to how it is run at present - what would they change with budget constraints in place? Even with a non-profit in charge there would always be the question of not enough money.

[MaryRoseSmith]

Shannon wrote:

We have said all along that a volunteer coordinator is unneccesary. The shelter HAD that in Barb Pursley- for free. She did a phenomenal job. The things that would immediately improve the shelter are: 1. photographing each animal upon intake regardless of owner surrender/stray/quarantine/sic k etc. and be immediately posted online (website, petfinder, adoptapet and facebook). This helps rescuers network and either locate the owner, find an adopter or get the animal to a rescue group/foster. 2. Greatly improving health/sanitary conditions of the pets in their care. I have been told changes are being made now that a consultant group has come in for inspections. I hope those changes get made immediately.(better kennel cleaning, vaccinations upon intake, education of visitors on hand sanitizing, etc.) 3. Better customer relations. The current staff is often rude to the public. I have a report today of how a school teacher was treated when she went to re claim her lost dog. 4. Promotional events and reduced fees lead to more adoptions. DUH! The shelter in Denton has adopted almost 800 animals since August 1st because they decided to enter a contest hosted by Rachel Ray (the chef). The winner gets $100k. I told the shelter about this contest when it began. They didn't look into it. Denton is now ranked 4th in the NATION for adoptions. They have adopted so many that they took other animals from surrounding shelters to lighten their loads! 4. Having an on site vet makes all the difference. Currently, dogs will get adopted the day after the vet comes for sterilization and vaccinations and will have to sit an additional week before their turn the following week. Animals are killed for space during that time. They newly adopted pet is being exposed another week to disease and infections. And it's just silly to have them sit for 6 more days just because they lack a rabies vaccine! On site vets should be the "boss" of the shelter. They should decide who is the volunteer coordinator, who works the front desks, what protocols are put into place, the list goes on and on.... These DVM's are way more educated and accomplished than your non-DVM managers, directors, staff, and yes, even the City Mangers at running an animal shelter.(Why does a shelter need a manger & director anyway??? Why can't one of them be the volunteer coordinator and absorb that into their job description...)
We have put much time and effort into brainstorming about how to improve the shelter. If you wish to hear more- I will gladly meet with any of you. Its way more professional and personal than this stupid Topix thread. Most ALL of our suggestions have been spoken to the shelters director and/or to the third party consultant group.

Thank you, Shannon. I do agree that a vet should be on staff and should also be the shelter director. However, I do not think a volunteer coordinator is necessary - what is really necessary is an office person dedicated solely to working with rescues. More approved rescues are needed and someone who will work closely with these rescues. If several rescues in the same area were to combine their pulling of animals, why can't the shelter deliver these utilizing the trailer? I have lived in and around this area for years. Both you and I know that the shelter is always last on the list for funding. With a vet on staff, animals could be spayed and neutered at a rather reasonable cost. Why can't the hard to place, fully vetted animals be given free of cost to approved rescues where they will have more time to be adopted? I also think that the adoption rates should be reduced immediately and not just saved for "special events". The shelter could also give free of charge, fully vetted animals to seniors and low income families. Yes, I too have heard that some changes are going to be made. I sincerely hope these changes are for the benefit of the animals and not the city.

[MaryRoseSmith]

Shannon wrote:

We have said all along that a volunteer coordinator is unneccesary.

From everything I have read and heard, I believe your assessment as to the usefulness of Ms. Pursley is highly exaggerated.

However, I do agree that the city should have a vet in charge at the shelter rather than a director. The city will most likely not consider this option because of the misbehavior of the previous vet.(Just my opinion) With a vet on site, spays and neuters could be preformed as soon as an animal was available for adoption. All shots could be given at intake, including rabies. Owner returns should be charged for the cost along with a fine for running at large.

In place of a volunteer coordinator, the shelter should have an additional office person dedicated solely to working with rescues. More approved rescued are needed. Hard to place animals, or to reduce over population, these fully vetted animals should be given to rescues at little or no cost. Adoption fees should be cut in half immediately and not just saved for "special events". If several rescues in the same area were to coordinate their pulling of animals, why can't the trailer be used to deliver these animals? Fully vetted animals could also be given free or at low cost to seniors or low income families.

I believe that more positive advertising on TV and newspapers is needed. All of the "special events" could be eliminated. These appear to result in few adoptions and are considered as advertising.

I too, have heard that changes are going to be made but, from what I have heard around town, most of the proposed changes currently being considered are geared to answering your complaints and not necessarily geared to the welfare of the animals. A shame really, I certainly wish your group had considered the long term effects of your actions. You might have had more support from the public and local business owners. I did find your comments very interesting and thank you for your reply.

[Painthorsegal]

We have repeatedly ask for a Vet to be on staff.
Our concerns have been heard over and over
with nothing but opposition.
Animals continue to be killed for space. Volunteers are made to feel unwelcome.
A Vet has not been hired.
Animals are being lost and on and on.
Weatherford has a Mayor that has been checking
on this since January and a City Manager way
too involved in running the Weatherford Pound
and keeping things the same.
Citizens need to ask this one question.
Why would a City fight so hard to keep volunteers
from helping unwanted animals?

[Mommadog]

Painthorsegal wrote:

We have repeatedly ask for a Vet to be on staff.
Our concerns have been heard over and over
with nothing but opposition.
Animals continue to be killed for space. Volunteers are made to feel unwelcome.
A Vet has not been hired.
Animals are being lost and on and on.
Weatherford has a Mayor that has been checking
on this since January and a City Manager way
too involved in running the Weatherford Pound
and keeping things the same.
Citizens need to ask this one question.
Why would a City fight so hard to keep volunteers
from helping unwanted animals?

Perhaps the behavior of some of the volunteers , regardless of their good intentions, created more problems then they solved. All volunteers at ANY organization have rules snd guidelines to follow. Thise who follow the rules stay as volunteers a long time. Those who find fault and refuse to follow the rules must be moved out of any such volunteer organization. Being a volunteer does not give one the right to do things their own way with out regard for the org rules. Do you really think any reputable vet would accept a job as a shelter manager doing mostly admin work on budget, employing and disciplining staff, sceduling, inventory, dealing with constantly complaining volunteers, etc for a manager salary? Really? Can't see that happening. Any idea how expensive ads are in newspapers and TV? Probably not since you apparently lack management experience. If you want to volunteer sign up and follow the rules.

[Painthorsegal]

The two volunteers banned from the shelter
under Diane Daniels have explained the situation
in full..
Slandering volunteers is not productive especially
if was over nothing more than a power trip
by the past Director.
I am finished discussing this over and over to people who do not know the real facts.
All I ever wanted was justice for the innocent
puppies killed in December.
I have yet to hear from anyone it was sad and
sickening to kill those babies ready for a home
a short time before Christmas.
I still get sick thinking about them taken out
one by one and killed. A lot of people who
cared for them still can't talk about it without
crying for those previous babies.

[MaryRoseSmith]

For the Love of Animals wrote:

The very best thing for the animals in the shelter, and for those who might end up there in the future is:
Everyone needs to attempt to move forward. Stop bringing up what happened in the past.
Take the personalities out of all discussions.
Be willing to compromise.
Parker paws, volunteers and activist need to separate and distance themselves from the recent political candidates. This had made the lives of animals a political issue.
Approach the council with facts and not emotion. Be willing to meet in the middle.
I think these actions would go a long way in getting better options got you as well as the animals.

Well said! Although no one has answered my question as to how they would fund the shelter and how those funds would be used. Overly emotionally people do more harm than good. If they can't accept the fact that some animals are going to die for whatever reason, then they should stay away from the source of their "tears". If painthorse is speaking of previous volunteers, I can certainly understand any reluctance on the part of the shelter to welcome them back. The previous volunteers appear to be unable to let go of their old complaints and move forward. Perhaps there is someone out there who will not let them forget - someone who, as it were, eggs them on. And I see no reason why a vet cannot run the shelter. From what I hear around town, the current director spends very little time at the shelter. Appears to be a huge waste of money. Any vet that has run an office or expects to run an office must deal with all matters of management. And the volunteers, why should they need any direction walking dogs and playing with cats? Well Mommadog, sounds as you are one of the ones who cannot move forward. The vet could be paid the current vet costs plus the director's salary, I'm sure that would be attractive enough to a well qualified vet. And Mommadog as to your comment on volunteering and following the rules - what has that to do with this discussion? I wanted this discussion to be about how best to run the shelter for the benefit of the animals and the city, and not, as a source of tired old complaints.

[MaryRoseSmith]

ObamaN2012 wrote:

<quoted text>
I believe I did answer that question, MaryRose.

Yes, your suggestion was for the volunteers to buy out the shelter. However, while that could be a consideration in the future, I personally do not see how that would be possible at the present time. From what I have read, most cities require the non-profit to put up in escrow an amount equal to one year's operating cost. It would be irresponsible for the city to actually sell the shelter property now at a time when the city is growing at such a rapid pace. It could be leased, however, I think a large escrow would be warranted to cover any possible future costs should the non-profit default on their lease or for libility damages, and property damages.

[MaryRoseSmith]

ObamaN2012 wrote:

<quoted text>
You seem to have your ducks in a row and your ear to the ground, MaryRose. Do you have any formal relationship with the city generally or the shelter specifically? What does the immediate future hold, in your opinion, of course.

I have no relationship with the city or the shelter, formal or otherwise. Just an old woman who finds many things interesting. This is my opinion only - I do not foresee the shelter making any major changes, only minor cosmetic changes, nothing that will make a major impact on the welfare of the animals, only those that are designed in such a way so the city can say, "Look at all the good we are doing for the animals".

[Public Servant]

MaryRoseSmith wrote:

<quoted text>
I have no relationship with the city or the shelter, formal or otherwise. Just an old woman who finds many things interesting. This is my opinion only - I do not foresee the shelter making any major changes, only minor cosmetic changes, nothing that will make a major impact on the welfare of the animals, only those that are designed in such a way so the city can say, "Look at all the good we are doing for the animals".

You have it right Mary Rose. All the city council wants is for this shelter to get back to business as usual and the whole issue go away. Nothing will really change, just some shuffleing around to give the appearance of action on the complaints.

[MaryRoseSmith]

Public Servant wrote:

<quoted text> You have it right Mary Rose. All the city council wants is for this shelter to get back to business as usual and the whole issue go away. Nothing will really change, just some shuffleing around to give the appearance of action on the complaints.

Yes, at times I am a real cynic. Weatherford is in a thirty year rut. No effort to bring in any real industry - just the service industries. Good work for the college students, but does nothing to encourage the average person to live and work in Weatherford. I have not looked at the census, but it more than likely shows the population to be those who are retired, those who commute to another city to work, those who operated or own one of the service industries and those who are unfortunately on welfare. On another topic there was a discussion concerning building low income apartments behind First Monday grounds, and then some time ago I read where they wanted to build low income apartment on the North side of Weatherford. The more Weatherford changes, the more it stays the same. Discouraging at times, but we must keep looking ahead to better times.

[MaryRoseSmith]

Wfordite wrote:

<quoted text>
Ms Public Servent, I think uou have done enough. Don't forget, we never asked for your help. Just reference the most recent city election results.

This was just a discussion, nothing more. I was not offering help to you or anyone else. The most recent election results are over and done. Oh, and I would not be a "public servant" if you paid me a six figure a year amount. This topic is finished for me - I haven't heard any new ideas from anyone.

[Painthorsegal]

Is Diane Daniels still employed by the City of
Weatherford.
If so, WHY?
The one person responsible for starting
all this mess seems to have lost her voice.
The smartest thing Weatherford could have
done would have been fire her back in
January.
The City could have started fresh and showed the
citizens they really wanted to make positive
changes.
What a shame they decided the citizens were the
enemies. The Council, Mayor and City Manager
made this whole situation much worse.
Volunteers are the backbone of any shelter but
not in Weatherford.
The real losers are the innocent animals.

[MaryRoseSmith]

Wfordite wrote:

Sorry Ms Smith. Obaman2012 is correct. My response was to the poster "public servant".

My mistake - sorry about that. Thanks also to Obaman2012

[MaryRoseSmith]

Painthorsegal wrote:

Is Diane Daniels still employed by the City of
Weatherford.
If so, WHY?
The one person responsible for starting
all this mess seems to have lost her voice.
The smartest thing Weatherford could have
done would have been fire her back in
January.
The City could have started fresh and showed the
citizens they really wanted to make positive
changes.
What a shame they decided the citizens were the
enemies. The Council, Mayor and City Manager
made this whole situation much worse.
Volunteers are the backbone of any shelter but
not in Weatherford.
The real losers are the innocent animals.

What the real shame is the fact you ex-volunteers cannot move on. The city had no reason to fire Ms. Daniel. She did the job that was expected of her, and for that, she lost her job. Your group started the entire incident and now you are complaining because the city did not jump through hoops to meet your every demand.

[lokismom]

ObamaN2012 wrote:

<quoted text>MaryRose, "Wfordite" was responding to post #21 by "Public Servant", rather than responding to a post of yours and calling you "A" public servant. I believe "Wfordite" was assuming (probably correctly) that "Public Servant" is yet another one of Tawni Maughan's truckload of Topix IDs.

Well now we know that you are part of the City Staff

[lokismom]

MaryRoseSmith wrote:

<quoted text>What the real shame is the fact you ex-volunteers cannot move on. The city had no reason to fire Ms. Daniel. She did the job that was expected of her, and for that, she lost her job. Your group started the entire incident and now you are complaining because the city did not jump through hoops to meet your every demand.

You are so wrong, this was not started by the Ex Volunteers. It was started by a Woman that had to show her power trip. She was not just doing her job. I agree we need to move forward and get past this for the good of the animals.It is a shame that the Powers that be can not sit down with us tax payers and just have a Round Table meeting or a Town hall meeting. For your information it is Ex Volunteers that are the ones up at the Shelter every week taking pictures to help get the Dogs adopted and walking them. Please don't just your facts from the City and the talk around town. I feel the Shelter Director is trying hard to make improvements but his hands are tied by the Powers above him. We would love to meet with you as you sound like you would be a great help in resolving this matter and moving forward.

[lokismom]

ObamaN2012 wrote:

<quoted text>And just how did you reach that conclusion?

The same way you reached your conclusion that Craig Swancy stole and murdered Tawni's dog or the same way you concluded that a monster inhabits your closet when the light goes off?

LOL You are way off base. I am not the that person you are talking about. Sorry it just sounded that way.