Hiding the truth and defining success however you want

Earlier this week, the city of Omaha released some early results of their new dog ordinance.

I've been fairly critical of this ordinance here on the blog. While there are certain elements that I like about the ordinance, the huge amounts of money the city agreed to pay for the breed specific part of the ordinance (while real crime in the city is on a sharp rise) that is becoming a huge headache for responsible dog owners, as well as the overly restrictive tethering ordinance (15 minuts?) are a bit troubling.

But none of this bothers me as much as the fact that the Nebraska Humane Society is in a position to define "success" in any way they want.  See, they don't release their numbers to the public.  Bite numbers?  They don't release them.  Euthanasia numbers?  They don't release them. Licensing numbers?  Nope.

When you ask them for the numbers, they will decline.  As a private entity, they claim they are not under the umbrella of the Nebraska Public Records Act (I question the legality of the city writing a contract that allows numbers for a law enforcement agency to not be public record). 

But all of that leads to the question, what are they trying to hide? Why not make the records public. If you're really running your organization in the best interest of public safety and the animals, and responsibly using taxpayer funds that support your enforcement efforts (you are doing that, aren't you NHS?), why would you NOT want people to see what you're doing?  It would certainly keep a lot of people (like me) from questioning your motives and the job you're doing.

Unless the real numbers raise more questions than answers.

It's interesting, that most of the places that are doing right by animals and citizens make their records public.

Calgary has all of their statistics online. As does the Humane Society in Charlottesville, VA and in Reno, NV.  Heck, even a lot of places that I think don't always do things the right way, at least are open with their numbers.  Los Angeles makes theirs public, and Kansas City, MO, while the numbers are never online, they at least make them available any time I ask.

But not in Omaha with NHS. Nope. They are very cautious to keep theirs hidden. Why are you hiding?

The concern is in all of this that NHS is it allows them to define success any way they want/need to -- because they control the flow of information.  So this week, they released the early returns on their ordinance.  So far there have been:

19 citations to dog owners who have kept thei dog tethered outside for more than 15 minutes (it's been my understanding that several of these were people outside of the city limits that are included in the law, but didn't realize they were included in the law, but Omaha apparently can pass laws that affect people that live within 3 miles of the city limits).

24 potentially dangerous dog declarations (based on behavior).  There have been two appeals so far, one was granted and one was denied. 

1 Reckless owner citation, with another one currently under appeal.

13 'pit bull' owners cited for not having proof of insurance. 

So far, 56 owners have taken the Good Citizen Class so their dogs can become breed ambassadors in the restricted breeds and can avoid the muzzling part of the ordinance once it takes affect in January. Three have already passed the test.  Several other people that I know of are still trying to get into the classes - -which are full at this point.

No word on what has happened to some of the dogs whose owners have been given $200 fines for violating the tethering ordinance but couldn't afford to pay the fine.  Or what happened to the 'pit bulls' that were uninsured.  Were they confiscated? Are they now dead? We may never know -- and will only know when (or if) NHS decides to tell us.

We should define success based on how many tickets we write. We should definite it in how dogs are treated, how many animal lives are saved, and how many people we protected from dog bites. 

But for NHS, they get to definite it however they want. 

Comments

[EmilyS]

Is it true that a private group getting public money for a program isn't subject to Open Records laws? What do the lawyers say?

I wonder if you could get their contract with the city (from the city entity that issued it)? Are they required to file their statistics? Is so, maybe you could get them from the agency they report to.

If the city did NOT require them to report statistics... well, that's a different, good governance (or in this case BAD governance) issue.

[Selma]

Here in Ontario, our friends the Liberals passed the Ontario Animal Welfare Act (2008).

It's hairy.

In a nutshell, it gives >police powers to an unregulated private charity, the OSPCA. They are unaccountable, immune to inquiries by the Ombudsman (the wonderful guy who investigates government malfeasance) and not obligated under Freedom of Information legislation. They have no public oversight body.

Even their bylaws are a closely-guarded secret. They also tried to make it illegal for anyone else to use the words 'humane society' in their name. Gee, I wonder where that came from? They changed that - a bit.

On top of that, the McGuinty (ha!) government has given millions to the OSPCA to help them fulfil their 'mandate', which if the Committee testimony is taken at face value means to enforce an animal rights agenda.

The WSPA, an affiliate of the HSUS, has been lobbying the McGuinty cabal hard over the past few years. A bill that was supposed to address the problem of substandard roadside zoos turned into the full empowerment of the AR whackos.

This s**t is spreading fast. What are we doing to do about it?

Here's a link to all the info, the Hansard is a must-read:

http://www.ontla.on.ca/web/committee-proceedings/committee_business.do?BusinessType=Bill&BillID=1979&locale=en&CommID=7348

Don't miss the guy who is raising a rare breed of horse on Manitoulin Island. They seized his horses, said they'd return two of his stallions neutered and kill the other one because he's too 'high spirited'.

Welcome to the Brave New World.

[Brent]

Emily,

I did contact the state attorney general's office about it. Apparently, their contract explicitely states that their numbers are not public records to the city. That is bad governance to give public money to a private organization and NOT require accountability. I still think that the city signing the contract is in violation of the state sunshine laws (city contracts cannot supercede state laws) State sunshine laws are usually very broad-reaching in the idea that more open information is usually beneficial to the taxpaying public.

I'm not sure how, or why, Omaha's City Government set up the contract that way.

[EmilyS]

WOW that is so bad, Brent! What would be the motivation, other than not wanting to be publicly accountable????

OK, so now I have to wonder if someone (ACLU or somesuch) would take on a case that the contract violates the state's sunshine/public records laws??

[EmilyS]

Or if not the ACLU, maybe the state Press Association? They're often interested in these issues that involve agencies hiding documents that should be public.

[Brent]

That's a good though Emily. Interestingly, I have a good friend who works at the Nebraska Press Association. On the advertising side, but worth a start.

[Sheri]

I hope that something is done to change it. I live in Omaha and see many pit bulls now homeless due to the owners being unable to afford the classes and increased licensing fee. It seems like those of us trying to do right by our dogs are increasingly being punished while those that have unstable and unsociable dogs just keep their dogs hidden and are not held accountable until the dog injures somebody and then it they get a slap on the wrist. Bans in Sioux City, IA are not working and they are looking at rewriting the laws. Council Bluffs has the same ban. If there is anything I could do to help let me know.

Sheri