First, of course, we have the Memphis city attorney going after blogger Shirley Thistlewaite, who has been covering abuses at the Memphis city pound for more than a year now. He cited, amazingly, a South Carolina state law — Memphis being, of course, in Tennessee — and issued a threat that looks an awful lot like a SLAPP to an awful lot of people, including Thistelwaite herself, who has asked the Tennessee attorney general to investigate whether her civil rights were violated.
Then in California, we have the Central California SPCA shutting the doors to its board meetings, using a tiny loophole in California’s open meetings law, the Brown Act. They hold the Fresno animal control contract, but won’t let the people of Fresno into their board meetings anymore — because they don’t have to. They even got an attorney to write a lawyer letter to a local shelter reform group, FixFresno.org, letting them know they’d no longer be allowed to attend the meetings. And that same lawyer met them at the door at the CCSPCA’s most recent meeting, barring them from coming in.
On the other coast, New York City’s Department of Health, which runs the city pounds, scheduled its board meeting in a room that holds fewer than 50 people, despite on-going, high-profile allegations of mismanagement, including animal neglect and cruelty, at their facilities. They had to turn away at least 100 people.
The Village Voice — whose reporter was among those who couldn’t get in — wrote:
In an email today, NYCAC&C responded to activists’ furor over yesterday’s meeting: “Our board meetings have been held in the same location for years and, as always, members of the public were permitted entrance to watch the board meeting. The public was also given a percentage of time for public comment. The public was allowed in on a first-come, first-serve basis and the room was filled to capacity.”
What does New York’s open meetings law have to say about that? As of April 14 of last year (bolded text is mine):
Effective immediately, §103 of the Open Meetings Law requires that public bodies make reasonable efforts to hold meetings in rooms that can “adequately accommodate” members of the public who wish to attend. The intent of the amendment, as expressed in the accompanying legislative memorandum, is for public bodies to hold meetings in rooms that can reasonably accommodate the number of people that can reasonably be expected to attend. For example, if a typical board meeting attracts 20 attendees, and meetings are held in a meeting room which accommodates approximately 30 people, there is adequate room for all to attend, listen and observe. But in the event that there is a contentious issue on the agenda and there are indications of substantial public interest, numerous letters to the editor, phone calls or emails regarding the topic, or perhaps a petition asking officials to take action, the new provision would require the public body to consider the number of people who might attend the meeting and take appropriate action to hold the meeting at a location that would accommodate those interested in attending, such as a school facility, a fire hall or other site.
Is this front page story in the New York Post “contentious” enough to trigger that provision? How about this in the New York Daily News? Or this… or this… or this?
I have calls in to officials involved with each of these incidents, for a story I’m writing. From where I sit now, it sure does seem like it’s getting awfully hot in those animal control kitchens. The answer to that isn’t to shut the place up tighter; it’s to open up the doors and windows and let the fresh air and sunshine in.
Oh… and still think we don’t need a law?
Photo: Max, an 8-month-old dog scheduled to die today at New York City Animal Care and Control.
No comments:
Post a Comment