Multnomah County runs roughshod over citizens’ rights:
The short slide from democracy to dictatorship
No one in Multnomah County government is minding its Animal Services Department. Instead, the Commissioners have surrendered to a culture of indifference to the public they serve and have given animal services a carte blanche to do as it pleases. No questions are asked. New policies are adopted without thought. With policy after policy, the values of this community are subverted and full authority is delegated to one person, a Director without values or qualifications. No one at the County Commission notices.
Enforcement at MCAS is based upon the concept of leveraging power. This greatly disserves the most vulnerable populations, those with low income, minorities among whom poverty is often a defining feature, and the homeless. Policies are used to extort rights from disadvantaged populations. It costs $125 to appeal an infraction notice when a dog has been impounded with a demand for surrender issued at any officer’s discretion. It takes at least a month, often longer, to get a hearing before “judges” who seldom do more than rubber stamp the agency’s charges. MCAS repeatedly threatens to collect $15 per day for boarding when an owner loses. It is a cynical way to leverage surrender. The “equity lens” mandate meant to level the playing field is ignored, made an empty gesture.
The process presents the appearance of justice when none is provided. Citizens must represent themselves unless they can afford an attorney or can find pro bono legal help. Charges are driven by the wishes of the complainant and, as one previous director noted about this flawed system, many of the cases brought forward are motivated by neighborhood disputes in which animal control is used by the complainants to retaliate.
These are the challenges the poor and disadvantaged must face. When seeking fairness and justice, the deck is intentionally stacked against them. Adding to this grievance is the fact that no minorities occupy positions of authority in MCAS management and enforcement. MCAS is not “color blind” in its dispensation of injustice. Instead, the poor and minorities are disproportionately targeted.
What follows are current case examples in which every effort to mediate a thoughtful solution has been denied by the current Director, Jackie Rose. With the County Commission refusing to intervene, there is nowhere else to go, no other avenue for relief. Citizens are left to helplessly suffer.
A homeless person’s dog, Girlie, was impounded 4 times, between December 03, 2017 and February 14, 2018. No help was offered. No solutions were sought. There was no effort to plan how to prevent future problems. To the contrary, after the first stray impound on December 03, 2017, while Girlie’s homeless owner was frantically raising money to redeem her, Girlie had already been cleared for adoption to the finder on the first available day, December 09, at the sales market price of $9.00. On February 14, 2018, when Girlie was found “at large” again the fourth time, and the owner came to redeem her and pay the $167.50 impound and board fees, he was also issued a Notice of Infraction for “at large” with an accompanying $500 fine and a warning that any further violations would result in ownership suspension. A payment plan to pay the $500 in installments was specifically prohibited. A $500 fine is unaffordable for the homeless, obviously extortive when a hand up, not the back of a hand, is needed.
Six months passed without problems. The owner’s life circumstances changed. He found a partner and a place to stay. In August 2018, Girlie was again impounded as “stray.” There was a family medical emergency. The owner forgot his wallet, and temporarily tied Girlie to a tree to run upstairs to retrieve it. When he immediately came back down, Girlie was gone. MCAS had impounded her; charged him with “Deprive Proper care” and demanded owner surrender. There were no options. MCAS refused re-consideration. Only an appeal with the charge of $125 would do, an insurmountable obstacle for the owner. There is no history of neglect concerning Girlie’s care. This demand was intended to make justice unaffordable. It is a common practice.
There is a difference between criminal neglect and failings secondary to poverty. A helping hand and direction to resources will often help those with few means. In a different case, a citizen on a limited fixed income and a senior dog Butters, was also cited for “deprivation of care” with a surrender order when there was no history of willful neglect. His 11-year-old dog has multiple health issues related to seniority and poverty. He had provided veterinary care annually until recently despite his poverty. No previous problems were noted in October 2017 when Butters was impounded and released back to the owner. Either his rapid health decline is a recent development or MCAS was negligent in its October exam observations. The MCAS August 2018 veterinary notes, where Butters remains impounded, estimate that Butters has not more than 1-2 months left to live secondary to end stage kidney disease. The care recommended was entirely palliative, care that MCAS could provide as they are funding the foster care. Instead of helping the impoverished owner, he was told he would have to come up with money to appeal. He was told he would have to fight to get his dog back. While a Good Samaritan advanced the monies for an appeal, it seems a futile gesture as MCAS is running the clock out on Butter’s life. Appeals take a month or two to schedule and Butters’ life is ending. There is a humane solution that both recognizes the owner’s life long relationship with his dog and provides the needed care for his dog.
MCAS employs every deception and trick in the trade, including withholding of information about appeal rights, to take advantage of those without means or understanding of their rights. De-escalation and mediated outcomes are never on their agenda, only the utilization of escalating fines, threats and orders of surrender. On June 08, 2018 MCAS issued an abatement order to a citizen whose dogs, Dinkie and Cyne, had been at large and/or nuisances six times between November 2017 and March 2018. One involved a dog fight between Dinkie and another dog. Dinkie’s owner paid the veterinary bill. There had been one previous dog fight between Dinkie and another dog in February 2017. Despite this history of need there is no record of offers of help or referrals to resources to prevent the dogs from becoming at large. MCAS impounded both his dogs on July 11. There was at that time a very short time- 7 days- left for the owner to appeal the abatement and impound order.
Throughout this process, MCAS enforcement refused to fully and honestly answer the owner’s repeated direct question: “What do I need to do to get my dogs back?”
On a July 13 visit to his dogs at the shelter, five days before his appeal rights would end, the shelter again withheld the critical information needed about his right to appeal, expressly admitting a purposeful intent to deceive:
July 13, 2018 “[ The owner] stated on multiple occasions that he wanted to know what to do to get his dogs back. At this time there were 5 days left for him to appeal the Abatement and Impound order, however I was told by management not to mention an appeal and to advise Long to review the above orders and contact an attorney with questions."
When the clock ran out on July 18 and the owner still didn't know what to do, MCAS contacted him by telephone to notify him he was no longer eligible for an appeal. His dogs, Cyne and Dinkie, were now claimed by MCAS to be property of the county subject to disposal. MCAS immediately killed Dinkie on July 20, despite her recognized friendly nature and positive behavior assessment. Cyne was sent out of county. Only a secure fence was needed.
In short MCAS enforcement played the dogs’ owner by not letting him know about the short appeal time and exploited his ignorance and trust. Everything about his dogs could have been resolved humanely. A good fence would have sufficed and there is a nonprofit resource that assists building fences for those for whom fences are unaffordable.
Dedicated and ethical shelter managers work to find solutions, not to exploit ignorance and poverty or seek revenge. MCAS seeks daily to take advantage over the poor instead of offering help. To MCAS the poor are nuisances, pests to be controlled with harsh and discriminatory enforcement powers.
On August 01, 2018 Jackie Rose used both falsehoods and sophistry to order the death of a homeless person’s Catahoula dog. The homeless person who loved DOG dearly had shared ownership for 8-10 months with another person. Only his name was on the microchip. Because only his name was on the microchip, Jackie Rose denied the co-owner’s rights, refused time to review her claim, and forbade her efforts to redeem him. (See attached letter from attorney).
The reasons listed for killing DOG, were specious and false:
“dog has bitten a community member [ delivery driver] while walking on the sidewalk [March 2018, minor, no charges] and has also “attack” a staff member while being taken in.”
DOG had been picked up as a stray on July 13, 2018. While on “Intake” at MCAS, afraid and being inoculated, a reactive minor bite occurred when he was jerked back on leash. The officer wrote in the record: “I was told that (the staff person) was taken to Urgent Care for treatment and that the wounds were not serious…. “Officer recommendation: “Attach Notice of Infraction to impound to be served upon redemption for Level 3 PDD [ bite occurs while confined], should owner come forward. Dog OK to be released at end of quarantine.”
DOG was not “unsafe” to be in the community and most certainly not under the care of the person who loved him, was training him, and had pleaded for his life.
On August 06, 2018, when Director Jackie Rose was asked by the commissioners’ office to call K, the joint owner who had pleaded for his life, Ms. Rose used term “unfortunate” when describing DOG’s forced euthanasia despite K’s pleas simply to be heard and her ownership rights considered. “Unfortunate” does not begin to cover this act of deliberation and cruelty.
Long before DOG was killed, Ms Rose created unnecessary obstacles and barriers to defeat K’s pleas, including statements that were patently false. Instead of mediating humane solutions that would also protect the public, falsehoods are substituted and profound harm done to the most vulnerable populations. No one can even estimate the human cost of this sort of conduct.
----Attachments:
DOG's MCAS Records:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1fSXY2IJ5YA6zZvCve5zTzgQX-xoeE9ai
An attorney letter on behalf of DOG:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1s2S8uXgkEOgQ7Y99RyqLMZ0xsctftXzF
----Attribution:
Picture quote from:
https://portlandtribune.com/pt/9-news/401082-296712-commissioners-defend-animal-shelter-despite-critical-audit