In response to the article from The Oregonian:
To whom it may concern:
The commissioners believe a visit to the shelter prepped by errant managers tells them all they need to know about operations deserving a new building. One is needed. The public and animals do. The managers don’t deserve one. They need a new attitude. There is no “creative use of space.” And one guided visit to impress commissioners does not create “expertise.”
How shocking that the county hears none of citizens stories affected by MCAS, don’t pay attention to data, citizens reports, and public records, do not pay attention to long term volunteer concerns, and don’t realize that funding has been redirected from pet retention and redemption to sales of unneutered and unspayed animals for $25 dollars to anyone and the kill rate is escalating. All of that will be transferred to a new building when what is needed first is new management.
I have never read a more shallow opinion about MCAS’ “creative” use of limited space made by the respondents who believe a one time guided visit creates expertise. It’s like saying “I went to a seminar once about doctors so now I’m a doctor!” MCAS has no creative use of space except killing when under past administrations they did have multiple outreaches and made a greater effort to care for and place animals they now kill as “unhealthy and untreatable” to get rid of them when by any objective standard they are not. It is called lying. This article about the managers “suffering” in an old building would be best titled “The art of the con.”
Over 80% of the MCAS demographic, over represented by low income working people, homeless and minorities live in Portland. Transportation by MAX and bus ends several miles away and MCAS has unfriendly policies and working hours to the public making redemption difficult. So why would you build a palace in Troutdale instead of purchasing a building in Portland?
Once again the County Board of Commissioners have made clear they don’t care about their constituents at all. They are there to parrot and protect managers only. They don’t hear nor do they solicit the public voices of those whose animals end up at MCAS. The tune out workers. Interview those who have left traumatized by working in an inhumane authoritarian environment.
A new easily accessed building for the public is needed. But most of all what is needed is a county commission that cares and a working shelter. We order and read about 2000 pages of MCAS public records weekly. I have personally read these records for 25 years. What is happening internally now is shocking. The county commissioners should read them too instead of abandoning those most affected by MCAS while protecting their own. Grahek herself fails to reach standards set by national animal shelter guidelines. She had no experience whatsoever in animal sheltering before assuming the directorship after failing to advance at the Department of Aging and Disabilities. She was nominated anyway. That is the definition of the art of the con.
Gail O’Connell-Babcock, PhDCitizens for Humane Animal Legislation/Watchdog