To view graphic version of this page, refresh this page (F5)

Skip to page body
City and County of San Francisco
Commission of Animal Control & Welfare Archived Meetings

Meeting Information


2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 

June 12, 2008

5:36 PM

 

 

1.Call to Order and Roll Call

 

Present, Commissioners: Laurie Kennedy-Routhier, Philip Gerrie, Andrea Brooks, Christine Garcia, Sally Stephens, Vicky Guldbech – ACC, William Herndon – SF Police

 

Absent, Commissioners: Mara Weiss DVM, Bob Palacio – SF Rec& Park, Pam Hemphill

 

2. Public Comment

 

Comr. Stephens -  Reminder that ACWC does not have jurisdiction over private organizations in SF. Discussion of such is not under the purview of ACWC to discuss and of which the  Board of Supervisors have no control. We are an  advisory body to Board of Supervisors.

 

Tom Oliver – Questions Chair if SPCA concerns are appropriate for comment.

 

Comr. Garcia – Suggests that all animal issues in SF are open for public comment.

 

Comr. Stephens – Advised by City Attorney that public comment is limited to animal issues under jurisdiction of Board of Supervisors. Issues with private organization should be taken to Board of Directors of that organization or the media.

 

Tom Oliver – There is relationship between ACC, a City agency and SPCA. Question as to policy of ACC euthanizing animals for SPCA. Has approached Supervisors directly and some have shown interest.

 

Comr. Stephens – Individual Supervisors or Commissioners could approach private organizations on their own.  Not as a Board. Board cannot tell SPCA how to allocate resources.

 

Comr. Guldbech – If there is a violation of agreement between ACC and SPCA, one can go to Carl Friedman, head of ACC,

 

Comr Herndon – Suggest obtaining original adoption pack between ACC and SPCA to see if there is a violation. Then Commission could take it up. Would be a violation between a private organization and a  City agency.

 

Comr. Garcia – Curious as to what Mr. Oliver has to say. There may be something Commission could take up as a general policy.

 

Tom Oliver – Prepared a packet of information on issue.

 

Comr. Stephens – Can distribute to Commissioners individually after meeting.

 

Martha Hoffman – SPCA volunteer – Question to Vicky, if numbers of turned down animals, and for what reason, are public?

 

Comr. Guldbech – ACC’s records are public. Unsure if SPCA’s records are. Can check.

 

Martha Hoffman – Would like to know past records of euthanasia at ACC.

 

Julianne Johnson – Can we raise the issue of the City’s no-kill policy?

 

Comr. Garcia – Public comment is a first amendment right for the public to raise issues concerning animal welfare in SF.

 

Comr. Stephens – Public comment is to address issues within the jurisdiction of this Commission.

 

Julianne Johnson – Has talked with Supervisor about a no-kill policy for ACC.

 

Lisa Vittori – Gives legal advise to Commission. Commission is empowered to listen to the public about anything within the purview of this Commission which is animal  control and animal welfare. Commission job is to take in all concerns and hone them into an appropriate form for the Supervisors. Commission job is first to listen to the public and then decide to hone or eliminate. Commission not doing its job by refusing to listen to the public.

 

Cynthia Cox -  Reads from ACWC website of Commissions responsibilities . Sites several past issues addressed by Commission about private animal welfare issues. Begs Commission to hear what public has to say.

 

Kim So – SPCA behaviorist – Raises issue of fraud by SPCA in getting donations from the public who support a no-kill policy. While the SPCA has turned to a low-kill policy. Cannot change policy without telling donors. That is fraud.

 

Comr. Stephens – Unable to reach City  Attorney. Unfair to those that already left to allow public comment for only those that stayed.

 

Comr. Garcia- Encourages Chair to allow those present to speak. Nexus between SPCA and government on ACWC website. Public request to speak about general policy of no-kill.

 

Comr. Herndon – Encourages public comment but questions if SPCA comments would be productive. Suggests examining ACC’s  no-kill policy, then agendizing specific recommendation for ACWC  to take to Supervisors.

 

Comr. Brooks- Sympathizes with Chair’s difficult position of trying to follow City Attorney’s guidelines.

 

Comr. Stephens – Calls a short recess to contact City Attorney.

 

Unable to contact city attorney. Meeting resumes

 

Comr. Stephens – Can hear comments of policy of no-kill in SF. Cannot hear comments about how a private organization allocates its resources. Issues of item # 2 are continued during the public comment time at the end of the meeting .

 

3. Approval of Draft Minutes from May 8, 2008 Meeting

 

Minutes  approved unanimously with minor corrections.

 

4. Chairperson’s Report and opening Remarks

 

Comr. Stephens – Update on zoo recommendations to Supervisors. Supervisor Daly submitted an ordinance generally following Commission’s recommendations. Public can follow progress of ordinance on Board of Supervisors website.

 

4 Public Comment

 

Dr. Elliot Katz – Thanks Commission for following up on zoo issues to turn zoo into a rescue zoo.

 

5. Committee Reports/Commissioner’s Reports

 

A) Update of Rules Committee hearing to fill expired seats

 

Comr. Routhier – Update on when Rules Committee will hold hearings for appointment of the three open seats on Commission. Tentatively planned for June 27th.  Information will be posted the Friday before hearing including copies of applications of those applying for the open seats.

 

6. Old Business

 

A) Discussion and possible action on “Humanitarian Art Ordinance”

 

Comr. Garcia – Spoken with many people about the ordinance including City Attorney. Presently thinking of presenting a resolution to create a policy versus an ordinance. Criminalizing artistic expression can run into first amendment free speech issues. Suggest policy include withholding grants from the Arts Commission to artists that practice or contribute to animal abuse in the name of art. Introduces speakers.

 

David Greene –Executive director of First Amendment Project –  guest speaker -Commission is treading on dangerous ground but sympathetic to the cause, reprehensible actions in the name of art. Ordinance would blunt message of the artist. First amendment does not allow government to take sides in a debate. Ordinance could not just prohibit one side from showing animal cruelty. It would also have to prohibit showing photos/videos to prevent animal cruelty. Issue has many grey areas. Can practices legal in other states but illegal in SF be shown in SF? Such as SF bar owner showing video of greyhound racing? Bar owner would have violated ordinance. Showing animal cruelty as entertainment. Restricting art funding does not violate first amendment rights. But government selecting content  must be viewpoint neutral.

 

Comr .Stephens – Can you give a real world example of that?

 

David Greene – You can’t say that you will not fund art that contains animal abuse. You can say that you will not fund art that involves animals.

 

Comr. Garcia – What about not funding art that breaks a City law concerning animal abuse?

 

David Greene – City can prosecute anyone that breaks the law whether or not they were making art as a result. Making art doesn’t exempt them. They can’t be punished differently from someone who was breaking the law and not making art. Could say that you don’t want City money to break the law. If the City law was broken in Mexico but the result is displayed in SF, what ability does the City have? The City has a say over creation of art but also display and exhibit.

 

Dr. Elliot Katz – IDA – guest speaker – Thought intent of policy was to say that animals should not be abused or killed in the creation of art. City should say they don’t want an animal killed to make a work of art. Let  Board of Supervisors deal with the technicalities. Send clear simple statement to the Board.

 

Michael Aquino – Professor of politcal science at GG University -  guest speaker - Responds to first amendment concerns. Suggests raising policy to level of ordinance to set a moral standard. Something that has teeth.

 

7A Public Comment  None

 

Comr. Garcia – Inspired by last speaker to try for an ordinance versus settling on a policy. Concern for animal welfare is worth being challenged in court.

 

Comr. Herndon – Confused. In the past Commission has recommended a resolution or  an  ordinance that then goes to our city  Attorney for its legality. Commission has not sought legal advise from the public for a proposed recommendation.

 

Comr. Stephens – Sees difficulties with item as is in prohibiting city funding specific to exhibits or displays of animal abuse. Government has to be neutral so must prohibit funding of any animal exhibit just to prevent funding of exhibits of animal abuse. SFAI canceled the exhibit. The Institutes reputation was damaged. The public expressed strong disapproval of the exhibit. Believes this is the proper forum for these issues.

 

Comr. Herndon – Suggest that voting members of Commission vote of whether to forward as a policy or as an ordinance.

 

Comr. Routhier – Supports sending a resolution condemning animal cruelty in art exhibits.

 

Comr. Gerrie – Supports sending recommendation as an ordinance not for its punitive aspect but to discourage copycats in the future.

 

Comr. Stephens – Doubts if copycatting is a concern. Artist’s name that did the animal abuse video is forgotten. Proposed voting whether to send a resolution or an ordinance.

 

Comr. Garcia – Would like to work on it some more to be clear on what is proposed to vote on.

 

Comr. Stephens – Item is continued until next month.

 

8. Public Comment

 

Anonymous male – Questions definition of what is public and private. When does a dog or cat become private property if its history is not known? Adopting out animals to unstable people can become a public concern.

 

Julienne Ladd –Wonders if ACWC is the right forum to introduce the  question if animals are property. If harm is done to a pet, is the owner only entitled to what was paid for the animal in compensation?

 

Julianne Johnson – Questions what appears to be a change in SF from no-kill to low-kill policy. Supports more transparency at ACC as to animals going in and out. Suggests Commission support  increased adoption and decreasing euthanasia. Suggests Commission also support increased use of animals for people with disabilities.

 

Tom Oliver – Points out that Commission is dealing with animal abuse exhibit at a private school. Hopes that at next meeting animal issues at other institutions will be heard.

 

Mary Kennedy – Hopes SF can be completely a no-kill City.

 

Michael Kinney – Supports no-kill resolution from Commission to the Board. Board has at least the power to “encourage” private organizations to be more open so public can judge what organizations they want to support.

 

Dr. Elliot Katz – Supports no-kill in both art exhibits and in shelters.

 

Cynthia Cox – Challenges Commission to censure any institution, private or public, to be no-kill.  Care not kill.

 

Tom Volt – SF has strong tradition of caring for animals. No-kill is an important issue to many people.

 

Gloria Rogan – Graduate of SFAI – Against any one that kills an animal in the name of art. Film of a human being killed is not art. Art is not the destruction of life.

 

Bonnie Baron – Wonders why Commission can consider censuring SFAI but not an organization not fulfilling its humane mission.

 

9. Calendar Items

 

 

Comr. Brooks – Will update hearings on Rescue Zoo Ordinance. Comr. Garcia will  bring her Art Ordinance.

 

 

10. Closing Review of Task allotment

 

Already discussed.

 

11. Adjournment   7 PM

 

Respectfully submitted by

Philip Gerrie

Commission Secretary