Emails suggest LHS Board passed secret resolution of 40 dog cap.

In June of 2010, there were “rumors” about the previous board lowering the shelter’s dog inventory in an attempt to save money.  With these “rumors” came heart wrenching panic, fear, and deep sadness from shelter staff, volunteers, and the community at large.

Don’t believe anything you hear until it is officially denied.

Well, these “rumors” were officially denied by the previous board, and continued to be denied by the interim board upon taking over.

While the public was fearing for the safety of the dogs, an email was sent to the previous board...the board that wanted to lower dog inventory...the board that resigned en masse in mid July...the board that blamed all of LHS’s problems on the management at that time...the board that blamed No-Kill.

This email expressed the public’s concerns, as well as the legal implications brought about by the previous board’s “rumored” decision to lower the shelter’s dog inventory.  The email is as follows:

1. "The Board passed a resolution without public notice of such.  This was not listed on the agenda for the meeting as per the Open Meetings Act.  The group is also focusing on the fact that the the resolution was a surprise to staff and management, with no prior discussion or buy in.  The "concerned group" is circulating the fact that the resolution to cap the inventory of dogs at 40 basically requires that all dog inventory (after adoptions, transfers, foster), be euthanized at the end of each month to make room for the 57 that come in each month.  Strong focus on the fact that this resolution will reduce LHS to a 30-day hold pound and in no longer keeping with our mission statement;"
2. "The Board passed a resolution to cap the dog inventory at 40 which is direct violation of the new 5 year contract with Jersey City which states the dog inventory to be at 74.  Furthermore, it does not account for the additional $96,000 contract with Hoboken which calls for an additional 4 dogs per month;"
3. "LHS was granted a $300,000 restricted grant, in addition to the annual contract, several years back from the City of JC to enlarge the dog kennel area and make other necessary improvements to the facility.  The "concerned" group wants a complete report on why that money was not spent as it was intended, and may call for it to be returned to the taxpayers;"

"I would respectfully suggest that we seek legal guidance on these issues in that they could result in the loss of our contract with JC and Hoboken as well as the need to repay "restricted" monies that were to be used to enlarge/enhance the facility. These monies, instead, were used by prior board members to pay bills.  For sure, this would close the shelter down."

The board responded to this email.  Former Board President John O’keefe gave this answer:

"These are not legal issues.  Ask them to attend the next board meeting to voice their concerns.  I will speak to Harry about the 75-dog capacity requirement in the contract and try to get it lowered."

If it’s not a concern, then why speak to Harry Melendez, Director of Health and Human Services, to get the 75-dog capacity requirement lowered?

And at the next board meeting that John O’keefe was referring to, the community came together to ask their questions, but the board resigned. 

Why, then, did the interim and new board deny all this?  Why are they denying that the shelter’s contract with Jersey City requires them to house 74 dogs?  And Hoboken’s contract an additional 4 dogs ?

Not only do their actions void the contract with Jersey City ($270,000) but they void the contract with Hoboken ($96,000).  As well as void their contract with John Neu to reduce euthanasia at the shelter based on his 2010 donation of $275,000.

I’m sure any “humane” shelter would happily take $275,000 to help lower euthanasia.

So now I ask you, those who continue to think that all is ‘fine and dandy’ at the shelter, how can you turn a blind eye to something that is so blatant, and so wrong?

Oh, and how many dogs are at the shelter now?

Animals not adding up?

Try to follow this logic...LHS's Petfinder page has 37 dogs listed. Of these 37 dogs, 19 or 51% ARE NOT IN THE SHELTER. That leaves LHS with 18 "adoptable" dogs.

LHS also receives approx. $300,000 from Jersey City per year to operate. So you mean to tell me that, aside from the cats, ALL that taxpayer money is used to house 216 dogs per year? 216...which is a FAR cry from the "inner-city high volume animal facility" they are portraying.

Unless, they really are "high-volume", but then HOW MANY DOGS ARE YOU ACTUALLY "EUTHANIZING"?!?

Check their published 2010 animal stats to see for yourselves:  LHS 2010 Animal Stats

LHS new Shelter Manager - Stacie DaBolt

Now you see it.

 

Now you don't.

Please meet LHS's new Shelter Manager Stacie DaBolt from Arizona.  I wonder why LHS hasn't made an announcement yet.

BUT, As soon as we noticed her name and newly filled position on LHS's website, they immediately removed it.

What's the big secret guys?

The Contract and Bottom Line...74

In 2004, the City of Jersey City sent out an RFP (Request for Proposal) to qualified vendors for the management the Jersey City Animal Shelter.  These were the city's objectives:

1. Leverage the City's ability to manage operations at a period when fiscal restraints have reduced availability of staff by selecting a vendor who has a demonstrable fund-raising capacity and a commitment to use that fund-raising capacity to augment both the City's annual operating appropriation for running the Animal Shelter and the City's capital appropriation for improving the Animal Shelter.

2. Improve the quality and efficiency of City's animal shelter services by selecting a vendor who has the demonstrable training, experience, and dedication to serve this important need; and

3. Increase the current animal capacity level to meet national guidelines by developing and implementing a Animal Shelter Facility Development Plan.

Alfred Martino Stuttering through Board Meeting 11.30.10

Uh, um...ah, these audio clips are so painful to listen to that You Tube rejected them several times, but I am posting them for those who weren't able to make it, or didn't know there was a board meeting taking place.  

The board meeting started off with the formalities of introductions and finances.  We come to learn that Niki Dawson, who has most recently been referred to as "shelter spokeswoman," is actually the Acting Executive Director, though she is not mentioned on LHS's official website.  Her position is being kept under the radar, which may have something to do with DAWSON v. CITY OF JERSEY CITY (Reference 1) (Reference 2).  Her lawyer - none other than Howard Z. Myerowitz, Diana Jeffrey's husband and law partner, who currently happens to be S.L.A.P.P. suing several volunteers and animal advocate groups.  I have a feeling Jersey City wouldn't be too thrilled to pay the salary of someone who is suing them.

As for the reading of all those big numbers, this website is a great resource, just type and read.

Happy Holidays! Please donate a minimum of $500.

Lets take a look, shall we?  This lovely card, dated 12.17.10, states that LHS is in a deficit of $38,600, but at November's board meeting (11.30.10), Alfred Martino stated the deficit was $52,699.  It's a small difference, but a difference none the less.  Reminiscent of Niki Dawson's and Aurora Piacentino's "rescue efforts" a few months back...60 dogs rescued - no, 60 animals total - no, 43 dogs but we have no information on cats - no, 41 dogs on a partial rescued list.  Can we corroborate on stories before misinforming the public?

LHS Plea for Money

Diana Jeffrey Gets S.L.A.P.P.-ed Back

This was the complaint filed by Howard Myerowitz, Diana Jeffrey's husband and law partner, on behalf of Liberty Humane Society, Diana Jeffrey, Nicole Dawson, John Hanussak, and Melissa Moylan (John Hanussak's wife).

Liberty Humane Society SLAPP

It was linked to an article posted on www.nj.com, as a word document, without Howard Myerowitz's signature, before the complaint was even filed or received by the court.  How very professional of them.

However, while doing some online research about S.L.A.P.P. lawsuits, I came across this:

S.L.A.P.P. (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation)

"A SLAPP lawsuit is one that seeks to intimidate those who exercise legitimate expression of their interests and make demands to participate in public processes."

The "Email"

I wonder what that conversation must have been like...

Special Pitbull Policy

An excerpt from LHS's Euthanasia Policy -

"Pit Bulls and Pit Bull mixes: The shelter, by necessity, will have a different adoption policy when it comes to Pit Bulls and Pit Bull mixes.  Simply put, the shelter's intake of this breed far exceeds the public's demand to adopt dogs of this breed.  Other shelters and rescue groups similarly do not want and will not accept Pit Bulls or Pit Bull mixes.  Therefore, it is likely that pit bulls and pit mixes that fall into the definition of "Adoptable" may have to be put to sleep simply because the shelter will become overloaded and soon run out of space to house them."

It's a great policy for an organization that is supposed to advocate for pitbulls, but their policies seem to have more to do with discrimination than with adoption.  Looks like pitbulls were doomed from the very beginning at LHS.

What about the idea that they should be killed now because the shelter will "soon run out of space"?

John Hanussak Threatens to Kill Feral Cats

Oh, by the way, here is a message by one of LHS's new board members.  He is threatening to kill 6 feral cats unless YOU help (meaning give him money), because they are looking at his house.

Maybe for a low cost solution he can ask fellow cohort and LHS Executive Director to "borrow" a few extra bottles and a needle, and take a tour of his neighborhood?