Early in January 2016 Wagga Council placed on its website the statistics for Wagga Pound for the financial years 2012/13-2014/15.

We received this information in an email from Council Management in early January 2016, “As previously advised staff have now prepared and uploaded to our website, information regarding the activity levels at GRAS for the past three years.” We find this statement in stark contrast to the statement by Wagga Council in its Open Letter after the discrepancies were made public in The Sun Herald article, “The discrepancies have occurred due to some data being duplicated. …In the new [electronic] system it is not possible to monitor duplicated entries and following the discovery of this issue, the figures are now manually reviewed and have been adjusted. Unfortunately the figures were not updated on Council’s website in a timely manner…”.

- Why did the discrepancies continue for 3 years? Shouldn’t all data be reviewed yearly and manually before being placed on Council’s website? This information is sent yearly to the OLG.

- Why did it take a member of the public to point out these discrepancies? If media had not brought it to light would the statistics have been reviewed?

- Does Council Management check that the information placed on its website is accurate? We obtained the Impound Registers for these 3 financial years and saw very few cases where data was duplicated. We consider these errors occurred due to poor work practices/procedures at Wagga Council and Council Management not checking data before placing it on their website.

After going through the statistics we sent 2 emails to Wagga Council in early January 2016 pointing out Council’s discrepancies. Some of these discrepancies for example were:

- The euthanasia rate for cats in 2014/15 was inaccurate. On Council’s website it had a total of 542 cats as incoming in 2014/15 and of these 196 were euthanised. On Council’s website it stated, “The percentage of cats that were euthanized in 2014/15 further reduced to 20.1%.” This is completely wrong as 196 is not 20.1% of 542 (it is closer to 36%). The incoming and outgoing figures for cats this year were also of concern. Council stated that 542 cats had come in but only 530 cats were outgoing. This left 12 cats unaccounted for.

- The surrendered statistics for cats on Council’s website were incomprehensible. According to Council’s website their graph showed that:

In 2012/13: Council had 150 cats as surrendered.
In 2013/14: 2 cats were surrendered.
In 2014/15: 1 cat was surrendered.
We consider this an anomaly and as such should have immediately been investigated. Why did Council not check these figures immediately? Do staff read and check what is being placed on Council’s website? Does senior management check the figures? If appropriate procedures and work practices were in place at Wagga Council how did such errors occur?

- In 2012/13 the total of incoming dogs was 1111 but the total of outgoing dogs was 1076.
This is a discrepancy of 35 dogs not accounted for.

We pointed out that in the 3 years of statistics that Council placed on its website for dogs, only the financial year of 2013/14 for dogs was accurate - the incoming and outgoing figures for dogs matched. Both 2012/13 and 2014/15 had dogs unaccounted for.

Sadly for the cats, none of the years were accurate. The 3 financial years of 2012/13, 2013/14 and 2014/15 had cats missing/unaccounted for. We question the work practices at Wagga Council. How can so many errors occur? Out of the 6 lots of statistical information placed on Council’s website (3 for dogs and 3 for cats), only 1 year was accurate. Does this inaccuracy occur elsewhere in Wagga Council?

After sending in our emails to Wagga Council Management in January 2016 and pointing out these discrepancies we received these responses:

“Thanks for the feedback. I have asked staff to review the data you have provided.”

“I have asked staff to review the data and if appropriate, amend the graphs accordingly”

For over 2 months we waited to see if the statistics would be checked, the anomaly investigated, the incorrect euthanasia percentage adjusted and the issue of unaccounted/missing animals addressed. The statistics remained the same on Wagga Council’s website and nothing changed. Council Management chose again not to investigate/address an issue that we had raised.

We continued to visit Wagga Pound and raise our concerns with Council. Even after 10 months of intensive correspondence with Wagga Council the same issues of animal neglect and mistreatment (e.g. animals with no water, dogs left on soaking wet cement, etc.) continued. The website used by Council was often not kept up to date, giving animals minimal chance of rescue. The day before The Sun Herald article was published, Myriam went to Wagga Pound as there was only 1 cat on the website used by Council, when in fact there were 16 cats/kittens in the cattery (some had been there for days).

We raised our concerns and sent in emails. It was heart breaking to see so many dogs left in the new dog kennels on wet, cold concrete (the in-floor heating was not working) especially the puppies, the little dogs and the undernourished dogs. For over 6 months the dogs at Wagga Pound were kept in such inappropriate conditions. It was made worse because there was no exercise yard at Wagga Pound at this time so the dogs were in their cages basically 24/7. When Myriam asked why the cages couldn’t be dried she was told by a staff member that staff had other things to do. Our emails were not answered and our concerns were not addressed.

We approached a reporter from The Daily Advertiser with our concerns over the discrepancies in Council’s statistics on Council’s website. We also spoke about other issues and our concerns at Wagga Pound. The reporter appeared very interested in our story but had to check with senior staff from The Daily Advertiser. We contacted the reporter again. We did not receive a reply. Our story about Wagga Pound and the discrepancies in Council’s statistics was not published. We have reached our own conclusions as to why our story was not published. We realise after Wagga Council contacted The Daily Advertiser over The Frozen Cat incident that Council has a lot of influence.

We are very grateful that The Sun Herald brought to light the issues at Wagga Pound. EDIT (10:37am 18/12/18): After the article was published in The Sun Herald, The Daily Advertiser published our story and subsequent stories.

We appreciate the improvements that have been made at Wagga Pound, such as sick animals receiving treatment, animals given a longer time at Wagga Pound, more animals going to rescue/adopted, etc. However we still think all the issues we have recently raised on our updates need to be properly investigated, acknowledged and addressed. If you would like answers to the issues/questions we have raised, how they were investigated by Council (especially in regards to the Frozen Cat and the holiday period of 2016/17), please address your concerns to Council Management at council@wagga.nsw.gov.au.

We think Council’s response, that because these issues occurred in the past and because a response has been given that these issues will no longer be discussed, is unacceptable. We think it is a similar situation to those fighting child abuse in religious/government institutions. People bring up issues that happened decades ago, as these issues were never investigated or addressed properly - these institutions just wanted to cover up their wrongdoings and did not take appropriate action. The abusers often were not investigated or dismissed, but remained or were moved around so the abuse was perpetuated. Because there is no justice, these issues remain current and people keep fighting. Council has never properly investigated or addressed many of the issues that occurred at Wagga Pound for years.

Thank you for your support and please keep sharing.