Dog Control management/cost; back to the future?

[Lee Chowaniec]

Dog Control Officer (DCO) Jean Karn addressed the Town Board at Monday evening’s work session to inform the board that she has now been in the department for three months and as administrator can’t keep up with the complaint calls the department is receiving. Karn requested the board consider making the DCO’S part time employees but with scheduled hours.

She declared that the present ‘call system’ is not working. “Our officers are with family, having dinner, at affairs and will not answer the complaint calls. If they are not scheduled, they will not answer. What I am requesting is that my people be paid one a part time basis, 19 hours per week and working scheduled hours.

Karn went on to say that she is working much more than the 30 hours of week that was agreed on when she was hired; claiming she is working 40-50 hours per week, and more.

When asked how many hours per week she should be working, she was told as many as it takes to get the job done. Karn supplied the board with a folder with information and data that indicated her job required her full time (40 hour) work week – especially if a census is included in the department obligations; and performed on duty time.

Karn declared the job was more detailed that anyone imagined – 197 complaints in August and with court related issues that are time consuming.
Councilman Matt Walter admitted that the department was mismanaged in the past, advised Karn to be patient as they will have a better idea of what policy and protocols need addressing after the winter and spoke on budget concerns.

General meeting

At the public comment session, the writer revisited the DCO conservation held in the work session. Stating I appreciated how much time and effort went into improving the DCO department, something came up at the work session discussion that still troubles me and that I have been questioning this board on for a long time. The answer I have been receiving has been inconsistent and generalized to; it’s a work in progress.

So again I asked: “With the hiring of another DCO tonight, what is the current staffing?” Supervisor Coleman said she didn’t have that number. Councilman Walter offered there were seven on staff; Coleman then interjected there could be six or seven. I asked if that number included lead officer Karn. Mrs. Karn interjected six and that included her – one full time part time and five part timers.

It appears that my assessment that the department is understaffed and that the ‘call in” program has shortcomings in filling the needs of a 7/24 operation totaling 168 hours per week. 5 part timers at 19.5 hours per week and a so-called full time part time working 30 hours per week falls way short of meeting state required standards. 197 complaints last month, a number of nuisance complaints handled by the police but where some strays were still involved and which police are not trained to handle – and three dog bites as well.

Councilman Walter interjected that he takes the program very seriously and in looking at the complaints he has to discern what calls were of a serious nature and what impact that has on the department operation. He proffered that previous administrations focused on fiscal responsibility. Looking at this year’s record keeping and improved operations this year’s budget does not reflect what is needed. We were not getting the correct information to base our budgeting on.

Comments

Mr. Walter is correct in saying that a number of the complaints (197) were of a nuisance nature that should be handled by the police and maybe 100 were DCO answerable. That is a far cry from the 40 to 50 complaints logged in the past few years.

Some individuals have suggested that Mrs. Karn is attempting to create a full time salaried position for her and that would burden the budget. They refer to a few years ago where the budget was Dog Control budget was lowered from $104,701 to $45,200 (2015) when Lancaster attempted to consolidate its services with Clarence. Well, that never happened and did not happen because Clarence did not approve of the proposed agreement.

The Control of Dogs budget for 2017 is $45,000. Budget time is at hand and to increase the budget line to where we were in the past ($104,701), or more depending on meeting proposed scheduling changes, fencing, kennel access doors leading outside, dog run, etc.

In 2014, the Control of Dog’s budget of $104,701 included a salary of $47,577 for the DCO and $45,000 for Assistant Dog Control Officers. The town has a dilemma; what is it willing to spend, and/or able to spend, to bring a mismanaged department to meeting state requirements?

Once again, this board is being put in a position to have to pay for the sins of its fathers.

[DebLemaster]

Dog Control Officer (DCO) Jean Karn addressed the Town Board at Monday evening’s work session to inform the board that she has now been in the department for three months and as administrator can’t keep up with the complaint calls the department is receiving. Karn requested the board consider making the DCO’S part time employees but with scheduled hours.

She declared that the present ‘call system’ is not working. “Our officers are with family, having dinner, at affairs and will not answer the complaint calls. If they are not scheduled, they will not answer. What I am requesting is that my people be paid one a part time basis, 19 hours per week and working scheduled hours.

Karn went on to say that she is working much more than the 30 hours of week that was agreed on when she was hired; claiming she is working 40-50 hours per week, and more.

When asked how many hours per week she should be working, she was told as many as it takes to get the job done. Karn supplied the board with a folder with information and data that indicated her job required her full time (40 hour) work week – especially if a census is included in the department obligations; and performed on duty time.

Karn declared the job was more detailed that anyone imagined – 197 complaints in August and with court related issues that are time consuming.
Councilman Matt Walter admitted that the department was mismanaged in the past, advised Karn to be patient as they will have a better idea of what policy and protocols need addressing after the winter and spoke on budget concerns.

General meeting

At the public comment session, the writer revisited the DCO conservation held in the work session. Stating I appreciated how much time and effort went into improving the DCO department, something came up at the work session discussion that still troubles me and that I have been questioning this board on for a long time. The answer I have been receiving has been inconsistent and generalized to; it’s a work in progress.

So again I asked: “With the hiring of another DCO tonight, what is the current staffing?” Supervisor Coleman said she didn’t have that number. Councilman Walter offered there were seven on staff; Coleman then interjected there could be six or seven. I asked if that number included lead officer Karn. Mrs. Karn interjected six and that included her – one full time part time and five part timers.

It appears that my assessment that the department is understaffed and that the ‘call in” program has shortcomings in filling the needs of a 7/24 operation totaling 168 hours per week. 5 part timers at 19.5 hours per week and a so-called full time part time working 30 hours per week falls way short of meeting state required standards. 197 complaints last month, a number of nuisance complaints handled by the police but where some strays were still involved and which police are not trained to handle – and three dog bites as well.

Councilman Walter interjected that he takes the program very seriously and in looking at the complaints he has to discern what calls were of a serious nature and what impact that has on the department operation. He proffered that previous administrations focused on fiscal responsibility. Looking at this year’s record keeping and improved operations this year’s budget does not reflect what is needed. We were not getting the correct information to base our budgeting on.

Comments

Mr. Walter is correct in saying that a number of the complaints (197) were of a nuisance nature that should be handled by the police and maybe 100 were DCO answerable. That is a far cry from the 40 to 50 complaints logged in the past few years.

Some individuals have suggested that Mrs. Karn is attempting to create a full time salaried position for her and that would burden the budget. They refer to a few years ago where the budget was Dog Control budget was lowered from $104,701 to $45,200 (2015) when Lancaster attempted to consolidate its services with Clarence. Well, that never happened and did not happen because Clarence did not approve of the proposed agreement.

The Control of Dogs budget for 2017 is $45,000. Budget time is at hand and to increase the budget line to where we were in the past ($104,701), or more depending on meeting proposed scheduling changes, fencing, kennel access doors leading outside, dog run, etc.

In 2014, the Control of Dog’s budget of $104,701 included a salary of $47,577 for the DCO and $45,000 for Assistant Dog Control Officers. The town has a dilemma; what is it willing to spend, and/or able to spend, to bring a mismanaged department to meeting state requirements?

Once again, this board is being put in a position to have to pay for the sins of its fathers.

As much as I admire Dino Fudoli, he did leave the DCO Department in disarray. That being said, Lancaster does need a full time DCO (salary exempt position) with PT help instead of the current "on call" system. How much longer do we continue with a system that does not work?
I have also been given the run around when asking about a fenced in run area for the dogs. Get it done!!

[gorja]

Lancaster Dog Control will be accepting the following donations to aid in the needs of our furry friends:
- Kongs (all sizes)
- Leashes (including 20ft leashes)
- Dog crates
- Lysol wipes
- Shapmoo (including flea shampoo)
- Collars
- Laundry detergent
- Pet beds
At this time we do not need any blankets. All donations can be dropped off to the Lancaster Dog Control office located at 525 Pavement Road, behind the Police Department and Town Highway Department buildings.
Thank you for your kindness and generosity.

[Lee Chowaniec]

As much as I admire Dino Fudoli, he did leave the DCO Department in disarray. That being said, Lancaster does need a full time DCO (salary exempt position) with PT help instead of the current "on call" system. How much longer do we continue with a system that does not work?
I have also been given the run around when asking about a fenced in run area for the dogs. Get it done!!

Fencing around the entire kennel is essential to keep visitors away from the current kennel openings that allow them to feed the dogs (potential health risks to the dogs) or pet them with the risk of being bit (especially if there is a sick or dangerous dog being housed).

As set up now the town is in risk of legal action should someone get bit with the security measures it now has in place.

[Lee Chowaniec]

DebLemaster;1749264]As much as I admire Dino Fudoli, he did leave the DCO Department in disarray. That being said, Lancaster does need a full time DCO (salary exempt position) with PT help instead of the current "on call" system. How much longer do we continue with a system that does not work?

The department was not left in disarray because of Fudoli's attempt to consolidate services with Clarence; it was because Clarence came to see a Dog Control department in chaos – record keeping and dog handling protocols. The budget cut made with the anticipation of the Clarence merger (that never happened) was never replaced ($104,000 cut to $45,000).

Since Mrs. Karn has taken over the DCO operation in July, she has:

• Held 7 training sessions for Assistant DCO’s which included : dog bites, how to properly use snare poles and proper use of other equipment, writing tickets, use of pepper spray and report writing

• The redesigning of Appearance Tickets and Compliance Notices

• Working with all courts to make sure they have proper documentation

• Ordering proper equipment and apparel for DCO’s

• Created a Facebook account for Lancaster Dog Control

• Make sure parks are being patrolled

• Ensuring dogs in care are being attended to every 12 hours

• Getting caught up on delinquent dog reports from 2016

• Responding to citizen calls and where more dogs are being dropped off by owners not wanting the responsibility of caring for their animals any more. One call does not take minutes. One call can take several hours, days or weeks to complete.

Quite a bit of work and responsibility for a part-time full-time DCO with 5 assistant DCO’s using a failing ‘call in’ operation and with 197 complaints filed in August. How much can the town afford to spend, or will spend, to right the operation? No other town runs a ‘call-out’ operation. Several towns have a full-time DCO; some two (West Seneca and Clarence).

[DebLemaster]

[QUOTE=Lee Chowaniec;1749484]The department was not left in disarray because of Fudoli's attempt to consolidate services with Clarence; it was because Clarence came to see a Dog Control department in chaos – record keeping and dog handling protocols. The budget cut made with the anticipation of the Clarence merger (that never happened) was never replaced ($104,000 cut to $45,000).


I do realize that Dino was attempting to save money. That being said, once he found out Clarence was not interested, he should have went in a different direction instead of setting up our "on call system" that obviously does not work.

[WNYresident]

• Responding to citizen calls and where more dogs are being dropped off by owners not wanting the responsibility of caring for their animals any more. One call does not take minutes. One call can take several hours, days or weeks to complete.

If I were on the town board I wouldn't allow this. It's not an adoption center and should not be turned into one. I can see picking up a stray, scraping up road kill and enforcing town codes. As far animal surrenders go a PDF on the website and/or handout with a list of adoption centers in the area.

Or I totally misunderstood what Lee posted.

[Lee Chowaniec]

If I were on the town board I wouldn't allow this. It's not an adoption center and should not be turned into one. I can see picking up a stray, scraping up road kill and enforcing town codes. As far animal surrenders go a PDF on the website and/or handout with a list of adoption centers in the area.

Or I totally misunderstood what Lee posted.

Lancaster dog owners as well as dog owners outside of our town are just dropping dogs off onto the streets and abandoning them, making them into strays. The problem is much more prominent in your Town of Cheektowaga.

Too many people on a whim think how nice it would be to get a dog, then find out the responsibility and cost involved to maintain them and dump them onto the streets, in dog parks or in municipal parks.

[Lee Chowaniec]

[QUOTE=DebLemaster;1749535]

The department was not left in disarray because of Fudoli's attempt to consolidate services with Clarence; it was because Clarence came to see a Dog Control department in chaos – record keeping and dog handling protocols. The budget cut made with the anticipation of the Clarence merger (that never happened) was never replaced ($104,000 cut to $45,000).


I do realize that Dino was attempting to save money. That being said, once he found out Clarence was not interested, he should have went in a different direction instead of setting up our "on call system" that obviously does not work.

To be fair, Fudoli did not act alone in voting to approve the sale of the Walden Avenue dog control facility, attempt to consolidate services with Clarence and where the other four town board members accepted the budget cuts made in Fudoli’s proposed budgets of 2015 and 2016.

The 2017 budget was approved by the current administration that in fact has held office for near two years and has been remiss in making significant protocol changes and cut the Control of Dog budgets to the new low.

The DCO Department has been poorly managed for years – fact. The blame game should be over and the town should now act accordingly to remedy the situation. The upcoming final budget in November will signal where the town stands on having a proficient operation and at what cost.

[DebLemaster]

[QUOTE=Lee Chowaniec;1749554]

To be fair, Fudoli did not act alone in voting to approve the sale of the Walden Avenue dog control facility, attempt to consolidate services with Clarence and where the other four town board members accepted the budget cuts made in Fudoli’s proposed budgets of 2015 and 2016.

The 2017 budget was approved by the current administration that in fact has held office for near two years and has been remiss in making significant protocol changes and cut the Control of Dog budgets to the new low.

The DCO Department has been poorly managed for years – fact. The blame game should be over and the town should now act accordingly to remedy the situation. The upcoming final budget in November will signal where the town stands on having a proficient operation and at what cost.

Point taken and I agree.

[Wehner]

dog control officer (dco) jean karn addressed the town board at monday evening’s work session to inform the board that she has now been in the department for three months and as administrator can’t keep up with the complaint calls the department is receiving. Karn requested the board consider making the dco’s part time employees but with scheduled hours.

She declared that the present ‘call system’ is not working. “our officers are with family, having dinner, at affairs and will not answer the complaint calls. If they are not scheduled, they will not answer. What i am requesting is that my people be paid one a part time basis, 19 hours per week and working scheduled hours.

Karn went on to say that she is working much more than the 30 hours of week that was agreed on when she was hired; claiming she is working 40-50 hours per week, and more.

When asked how many hours per week she should be working, she was told as many as it takes to get the job done. Karn supplied the board with a folder with information and data that indicated her job required her full time (40 hour) work week – especially if a census is included in the department obligations; and performed on duty time.

Karn declared the job was more detailed that anyone imagined – 197 complaints in august and with court related issues that are time consuming.
Councilman matt walter admitted that the department was mismanaged in the past, advised karn to be patient as they will have a better idea of what policy and protocols need addressing after the winter and spoke on budget concerns.

general meeting

at the public comment session, the writer revisited the dco conservation held in the work session. Stating i appreciated how much time and effort went into improving the dco department, something came up at the work session discussion that still troubles me and that i have been questioning this board on for a long time. The answer i have been receiving has been inconsistent and generalized to; it’s a work in progress.

So again i asked: “with the hiring of another dco tonight, what is the current staffing?” supervisor coleman said she didn’t have that number. Councilman walter offered there were seven on staff; coleman then interjected there could be six or seven. I asked if that number included lead officer karn. Mrs. Karn interjected six and that included her – one full time part time and five part timers.

It appears that my assessment that the department is understaffed and that the ‘call in” program has shortcomings in filling the needs of a 7/24 operation totaling 168 hours per week. 5 part timers at 19.5 hours per week and a so-called full time part time working 30 hours per week falls way short of meeting state required standards. 197 complaints last month, a number of nuisance complaints handled by the police but where some strays were still involved and which police are not trained to handle – and three dog bites as well.

Councilman walter interjected that he takes the program very seriously and in looking at the complaints he has to discern what calls were of a serious nature and what impact that has on the department operation. He proffered that previous administrations focused on fiscal responsibility. Looking at this year’s record keeping and improved operations this year’s budget does not reflect what is needed. We were not getting the correct information to base our budgeting on.

comments

mr. Walter is correct in saying that a number of the complaints (197) were of a nuisance nature that should be handled by the police and maybe 100 were dco answerable. That is a far cry from the 40 to 50 complaints logged in the past few years.

Some individuals have suggested that mrs. Karn is attempting to create a full time salaried position for her and that would burden the budget. They refer to a few years ago where the budget was dog control budget was lowered from $104,701 to $45,200 (2015) when lancaster attempted to consolidate its services with clarence. Well, that never happened and did not happen because clarence did not approve of the proposed agreement.

The control of dogs budget for 2017 is $45,000. Budget time is at hand and to increase the budget line to where we were in the past ($104,701), or more depending on meeting proposed scheduling changes, fencing, kennel access doors leading outside, dog run, etc.

In 2014, the control of dog’s budget of $104,701 included a salary of $47,577 for the dco and $45,000 for assistant dog control officers. The town has a dilemma; what is it willing to spend, and/or able to spend, to bring a mismanaged department to meeting state requirements?

Once again, this board is being put in a position to have to pay for the sins of its fathers.

once again...no control in dog control...how many times does the train have to stop before the town board realizes no one with knowledge and expertise in dog control has boarded...c'mon how about some professionalism at the town board level...the dco's address to the board was just another short sighted attempt to confuse the issue...dog control is not rocket science...but it does take discipline...something that is lacking in the dco dept. And town hall...follow the rules ...go by the book...the rest takes care of it automatically...

[Lee Chowaniec]

once again...no control in dog control...how many times does the train have to stop before the town board realizes no one with knowledge and expertise in dog control has boarded...c'mon how about some professionalism at the town board level...the dco's address to the board was just another short sighted attempt to confuse the issue...dog control is not rocket science...but it does take discipline...something that is lacking in the dco dept. And town hall...follow the rules ...go by the book...the rest takes care of it automatically...

On the one hand you use the word expertise and then declare that dog control is not rocket science – same statement used several years ago by a since disgraced ex-councilman. The department had been so poorly managed in the past decade it is surprising the town was not cited for violations in expected dog handling procedures and documentation.

How can you then say the new DCO’s presentation to the board at the work session was a short-sighted attempt to confuse the issue? She not only spoke on the need for a ridged scheduled department but handed out a document that entailed the changes made to follow state standards.

Come on. Mike, the new DCO is attempting to follow the rules on the books and is asking the board to get into step – which is what you have been asking for.

[Wehner]

on the one hand you use the word expertise and then declare that dog control is not rocket science – same statement used several years ago by a since disgraced ex-councilman. The department had been so poorly managed in the past decade it is surprising the town was not cited for violations in expected dog handling procedures and documentation.

How can you then say the new dco’s presentation to the board at the work session was a short-sighted attempt to confuse the issue? She not only spoke on the need for a ridged scheduled department but handed out a document that entailed the changes made to follow state standards.

Come on. Mike, the new dco is attempting to follow the rules on the books and is asking the board to get into step – which is what you have been asking for.

i guess i didn't express myself right...my point is that the new dco has got a lot to learn...i fully agree that she should be working 37.5 hours a week... But to consider permanent part-time at 19 hours a week is an invitation to disaster...everyone complained that 5-6 or even 7 dco assistants was a waste of tax dollars...not so...it doesen't matter how many you have if you schedule properly...the dog census claim is bogus also...it pays for its self...a no brainer...also, i don't know what size the warehouse is at the pound, but storing donated good etc could be a problem...people have been dropping off dogs,cats and even a couple geese once...this is not new...like i said proper utilization of time...good scheduling and the right amount of help will go along way in returning this dco department to the professional department that it was in the past...i could go on, i have offered my help in the past...maybe this time...i will let you know

[Lee Chowaniec]

Until the Town gets this department squared away, here is a list of some of the donations the Lancaster Control of Dogs Department is presently looking for to aid our furry friends.

- Kong's (to keep the dogs busy in the kennels)

- 20 ft. leashes (we do not have a fenced in area for the dogs to run)

- Large wire dog crate for our van

- Shampoo (including flea shampoo)

- Collars (especially smaller sizes)

- Leashes

- Laundry Detergent

- Rubbermaid cabinet (to put clean blankets and towels in)

[shortstuff]

[QUOTE=DebLemaster;1749535]

The department was not left in disarray because of Fudoli's attempt to consolidate services with Clarence; it was because Clarence came to see a Dog Control department in chaos – record keeping and dog handling protocols. The budget cut made with the anticipation of the Clarence merger (that never happened) was never replaced ($104,000 cut to $45,000).


I do realize that Dino was attempting to save money. That being said, once he found out Clarence was not interested, he should have went in a different direction instead of setting up our "on call system" that obviously does not work.

I have to disagree with you here Deb, Fudoli was left with a monumental problem once the death of the previous DCO happened-sadly, his structure plan needed more planning if he were re-elected I suspect he would have continued the project. His first initial idea to consolidate was a good one. He needed to do a total re-do which for anyone, that was a work in progress. He just didn't finish the project.