1. ACC’s new policy of refusing to impound and give shelter to socialized stray cats or healthy lost dogs brought in by the public is in violation of the City and County of San Francisco Municipal Code:
* San Francisco Health Code, SEC. 41.6.: Any person may take up and deliver to the Animal Control Officer [i.e., the Executive Director or her representative] any animal at large in the City and County on public property or upon said person's private property or any animal owned by such person.
2. And in violation of the California Penal Code:
* Part 1. Of Crimes and Punishments, Title 14. Malicious Mischief. Code 597 (b) [abridged]: Every person who deprives of necessary shelter or causes any animal to be so deprived of necessary shelter and whoever, having the charge or custody of any animal, fails to provide the animal with proper shelter or protection from the weather is, for each offense, guilty of a crime punishable pursuant to subdivision (d).
* Subdivision (d) [abridged]: A violation of subdivision (b) is punishable as a felony by imprisonment or by a fine of not more than twenty thousand dollars ($20,000), or by both that fine and imprisonment, or alternatively, as a misdemeanor by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year, or by a fine of not more than twenty thousand dollars ($20,000), or by both that fine and imprisonment.
3. Likewise, ACC has recently prevented implementation of the California Food and Agricultural Code:
* §31752 (c)(1) Any stray cat that is impounded pursuant to this division shall, before the euthanasia of that animal, be released to a nonprofit animal rescue or adoption organization if requested by the organization before the scheduled euthanasia of that animal.
ACC has recently abolished its policy whereby anyone bringing in a stray animal could put a “hold” on the animal so that a nonprofit animal rescue group could adopt the animal before ACC could euthanize it. With that “CIP hold” (for “call interested party”) no longer available, the rescue groups no longer know if an at-risk animal is available and so cannot request its release to them.
Does S.F. ACC Have a Legal Obligation to Honor its Own Mission Statement?
ACC's rosy Mission Statement is a relatively recent addition to its website, drafted and posted within the last decade (apparently by past ACC Directors), that is, over 20 years after the implementation of ACC's charter. The Mission Statement reflects prevailing generic goals of animal shelters. Mission statements are typically drafted by private corporations, such as 501(c)(3) nonprofits, not by government agencies like ACC. However, some agencies use them more as a public relations tool than as a legal guide.
ACC's only formal legal obligations are to local and state codes. The San Francisco Municipal Code, especially as it concerns ACC, is primarily concerned with public health and the filling of positions to enforce its codes and has very little to say about animal welfare.
Nevertheless, if ACC is going to list and execute policies that are at odds with its Mission Statement, those policies need to be amended, both to adhere to governing laws and to maintain public trust.
That said, an aide to one of San Francisco's Supervisors somewhat cynically revealed that violations of the Municipal Code are both common and overlooked by the City's legal departments. Thus, ACC is both threatening animal welfare and doing so with impunity.