Sebastopol joins a parade of north bay cities cutting ties with NBAS, after an alarming grand jury report and a shocking exposé of its Clearlake shelter
Like too many City Council decisions, this one was made without thoughtful consideration, more emotional reaction than deliberation. Councilmember Zollman declared that police can transport animals, and it became the law of the land. Did he think through the logistical and liability concerns? Did any council members interrupt the rush to judgment and ask for a plan before voting?
First, there is legal and civil liability. California requires safe handling practices during transport—minimizing stress and injury and using proper restraint techniques. That means carriers in the vehicle, appropriate leashes and capture devices, and separation of aggressive or sick animals. It also requires proper training to recognize illness and capture animals in ways that minimize injury.
If there is a civil suit, each involved officer will be questioned about the training received and equipment available. Do our officers have that training and equipment? No one on the City Council asked.
The Council consulted its insurance carrier about liability associated with distributing NARCAN—yet gave not even a moment’s consideration to the risks of handling animals.
Next is personnel risk. It is reasonable to assume some animals encountered may not be vaccinated against rabies. An officer without proper equipment who is bitten means a city employee is injured potentially seriously. it’s added liability to the city and one more officer on sick leave.
Next are the tradeoffs. Our police already face violent and property crime rates among the highest in the county. Council decisions over the years have also created a homelessness problem that has been reported to consume up to half of the patrol time available. With current staffing, it’s a challenge to keep even two patrol cars on the street at once—and one exists to back up the other.
The Humane Society is great—no question. But that’s exactly why the city should have built a clear, workable process with defined responsibilities, training, equipment, and funding before voting to shift transport duties to police even temporarily.
It appears from comments from the Humane Society that they could have negotiated a different contract that addressed the fact that the Humane Society is planning for 100 animals and recent history suggests 30-40. That was the reason the last contract was rejected. The Humane Society said they would look at it differently if the numbers were lower. They are still sure it will be 100. They may be correct.
It appears if you release your dog, the police will pick it up, take it to the Humane Society where it gets a vet exam, vaccinations, grooming and shelter with lots of play toys. All paid for by the city and its taxpayers. 100 may not even be a high enough number once people figure it out.
The Humane Society proposed costs based on 100 animals the last time and said the new bid would reflect the lower number. We again are getting a high bid and a public comment from the Society that they could restructure the contract. Again, the city is going to negotiate. Negotiate what you just approved the contract and the cost without blinking an eye?
Like too many City Council decisions, this one was made without thoughtful consideration, more emotional reaction than deliberation. Councilmember Zollman declared that police can transport animals, and it became the law of the land. Did he think through the logistical and liability concerns? Did any council members interrupt the rush to judgment and ask for a plan before voting?
First, there is legal and civil liability. California requires safe handling practices during transport—minimizing stress and injury and using proper restraint techniques. That means carriers in the vehicle, appropriate leashes and capture devices, and separation of aggressive or sick animals. It also requires proper training to recognize illness and capture animals in ways that minimize injury.
If there is a civil suit, each involved officer will be questioned about the training received and equipment available. Do our officers have that training and equipment? No one on the City Council asked.
The Council consulted its insurance carrier about liability associated with distributing NARCAN—yet gave not even a moment’s consideration to the risks of handling animals.
Next is personnel risk. It is reasonable to assume some animals encountered may not be vaccinated against rabies. An officer without proper equipment who is bitten means a city employee is injured potentially seriously. it’s added liability to the city and one more officer on sick leave.
Next are the tradeoffs. Our police already face violent and property crime rates among the highest in the county. Council decisions over the years have also created a homelessness problem that has been reported to consume up to half of the patrol time available. With current staffing, it’s a challenge to keep even two patrol cars on the street at once—and one exists to back up the other.
The Humane Society is great—no question. But that’s exactly why the city should have built a clear, workable process with defined responsibilities, training, equipment, and funding before voting to shift transport duties to police even temporarily.
It appears from comments from the Humane Society that they could have negotiated a different contract that addressed the fact that the Humane Society is planning for 100 animals and recent history suggests 30-40. That was the reason the last contract was rejected. The Humane Society said they would look at it differently if the numbers were lower. They are still sure it will be 100. They may be correct.
It appears if you release your dog, the police will pick it up, take it to the Humane Society where it gets a vet exam, vaccinations, grooming and shelter with lots of play toys. All paid for by the city and its taxpayers. 100 may not even be a high enough number once people figure it out.
The Humane Society proposed costs based on 100 animals the last time and said the new bid would reflect the lower number. We again are getting a high bid and a public comment from the Society that they could restructure the contract. Again, the city is going to negotiate. Negotiate what you just approved the contract and the cost without blinking an eye?
Sounds like good governance.