Monday, January 04, 2010

I just finished one of our Agenda meetings today. Some good news and some unfortunate news. At our last meeting, we had informally agreed to reappoint 2 members to the Design Review Commission, Chair Greg Goodgame and architect Jay Caughman. Then, at our regular meeting in December, Mayor Lusk stated that since that previous meeting, several more applications had come in and moved to table the resolutions to reappoint them. I protested since there was at least one other opening and another likely opening (which has since occurred due to resignation). I stated that with 3 and probably 4 positions to fill, it made sense to retain our current experienced members (including the chair) and then fill the other two openings with new members. However, the motion to table passed. At today's meeting, it was clear that the decision was already made. Mr. Lusk wasn't present (he is apparently at his beach house in Florida for the holidays), but had sent recommendations for three new members (he wasn't aware the fourth opening had occurred). I again suggested that we retain our two experienced members and appoint two new people. However, my motion to reappoint Greg was defeated for lack of a second (ie, noone else supported it). Jay Caughman was recommended for reappointment along with three others (this will be formalized at our meeting on Monday). I abstained on several of these votes out of protest and not out of any opposition to any specific individual. This is a continuation of the moves by this council to eliminate anyone who has not been in lockstep with them. Most of you will recall that Greg ran for the Council in 2006, coming in 5th. After the 4th place finisher, Lolly Durant removed her name from consideration, Greg offered himself to replace Bob Linehart who had been recalled. Bill Lusk had also applied along with several others. I initially supported Greg for several reasons. He had been attending nearly every council meeting for several years and was very knowledgeable about the issues before the town. (Greg had actually been the person who had suggested to the council that the slow down the SROZ issue, about to be passed in the spring of that year, so that more citizens could become knowledgeable since he know it would be controversial. This allowed the whole "recall" movement to get going). In addition, I had many emails suggesting we should just appoint the next person "in line" from the election, which was Greg after Lolly dropped out. However, after two tied votes between Mr. Lusk and Mr. Goodgame, I decided to change my vote to prevent a divisive and expensive "special election". Greg did remain on the DRC for the next three years, indicating his continued commitment to the town which I appreciated. Nonetheless, he has now been removed in spite of his active participation and interest in continuing on the DRC. I find this continued move to remove anyone who is not a partisan of the council majority (along with Wells Blake just last month) to be highly regrettable and contrary to my own approach to town representation which is to have a diversity of views. Therefore I resigned as the Council liaison to the DRC. I certainly wish them well as we plan to put a lot of work on them in the next few months, but my influence is continuing to be minimized by this council so I can no longer be of any service in that capacity.

In other business, we approved a new cable contract with Comcast which should benefit the town. Hopefully, EPB will now agree to the same terms so that competition can finally come to Signal Mountain. We also agreed to pay Ann Coulter's firm just over $25,000 to conduct a review of our commercial design regulations and the current environment, including conducting a public meeting for input, then work with the DRC to develop new guidelines for future commercial development. While the cost is unpleasant in this fiscal environment, the need is there and the timing is forced on us by the pressure for more commercial development between the proposed Signal Plaza expansion, SMMS and other potential commercial proposals, so I supported it reluctantly. We also approved $727 to fix some playground equipment at Norris Field (on Signal Road).

One very positive element is our animal control situation. As Mayor and a new councilmember, I was astounded to find that we were paying over $36,000 a year to the Humane Society (HSUS) for animal control which has consisted of picking up less than 10 animals per year which had usually already been caught by our police. I pushed hard to develop a new arrangement. We had cancelled our contract with HSUS once, but an agreement we had tentatively worked out with East Ridge fell through, so we went back to HSUS. However now, through the hard work of our Town Manager, Honna Rogers and our Police Chief, Boyd Veal, we should have a new agreement soon using private contractors and the animal shelters of two other towns. This will save the town a LOT of money. The one downside for citizens is that, if you need to "drop off" an unwanted animal at a shelter, you will probably need to pay a fee now, however I do not feel it is the responsibility of the tax payers to pay for this service for individuals.

Well, that's the latest. Please feel free to post comments and your own thoughts. I would love for this to be a multi-way dialogue rather than just a one-way lecture! I hope to hear from you all, soon.

11 comments:

Anonymous said...

I am wondering if you made a mistake in that you were paying HSUS 36,000 a year. HSUS is an animal rights social movement, essentially a lobbying agency, to end the use of animals, and eating meat, they are not animal welfare and they do not operate any animal shelters. I am thinking this should be a local humane society and they have no affiliation with the animal rights organization HSUS.

Paul M. Hendricks said...

You may be right. I'll double check and post a correction if so.
Paul M. Hendricks

Leighann McCollum said...

I am the state director for TN for HSUS. The HSUS does not contract with local governments to operate animal control agencies, so your city contract must be with a local humane agency.
However, The HSUS does operate its own network of sanctuaries, making it one of the largest providers of animal care and sheltering in the United States. The HSUS also provides millions of dollars of support for spay and neuter programs. The HSUS is the leading disaster response agency for animals, and has given millions of dollars to rebuild animal shelters destroyed in natural disasters. We have helped more than 10,000 animals in 2009 responding to floods, fires, hoarding cases, animal fighting and puppy mills.

Anonymous said...

... and maybe everyone should go to google and do a search for this, it would serve as an excellent eye-opener:

7 things you never knew about HSUS

give it a try, get a fast education about an animal rights social group.

Anonymous said...

We're clearly getting far afield, but as my father always said "don't believe anything you read and only half of what you see". Having said that, you should read the following:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Consumer_Freedom

The organization attacking HSUS is a shill for the tobacco, alcohol, gambling and other assorted industries. In the activist world, this is called "astroturf", ie fake grassroots, funded by big business. This group has retracted at least part of its accusations as noted at this site:

http://www.hsus.org/response_to_ccfs_7_things.html

So, that being said I have no affiliation with HSUS, but am sympathetic with their goals. I am not a vegetarian by any means (cheeseburgers are probably my favorite food), but am very pro-humane treatment of animals, even those used for food. However, primarily I am for honesty and integrity and not for faux "activist" groups which are fronts for big corporate interests.

Paul M. Hendricks, MD

some random female said...

Sir, I myself am very "pro-humane," as you say. I am, however, very much AGAINST "the HSUS," as are every single purebred and mixed breed dog and cat rescue organization that I am aware of in my area. [Local humane societies are a whole other kettle of fish. We generally like them! I am talking about the specific group, "the Humane Society of the United States."]

Although CCF does leave one feeling a bit grimy, even a stopped clock is correct twice a day, and the HSUS' 990 (tax forms) provided on its web site make very interesting reading as to documenting just where the money goes--especially if one knows any of the "back story" at all.

An excellent piece about the HSUS' deceptive and unethical fundraising tactics can be found here:
http://www.nathanwinograd.com/?p=2318
Including documentation by "screen shots" from the HSUS' own web site.

Probably the next HSUS employee to post here will attempt to discredit Nathan Winograd. [Ad hominem attacks are, after all, the tried-and-true strategy for people who have a weak case.] However, I will assure you that Mr. Winograd is the real deal--very much "in the trenches" and getting his hands dirty, rather than taking donations *intended* by the donor to provide direct care to animals and instead using the money to fund expensive lobbying efforts on local, state, and national levels.

Best of luck dealing with the contentious city council majority, and I hope you get good work output from the DRC. You situation sounds very frustrating.

Paul M. Hendricks, M.D. said...

OK, the last thing I wanted to do was get into a debate about the HSUS. If you will pardon the pun, I have no dog in this fight. I'm not in a position to attack or defend the HSUS. I have discovered that the area of animal protection and rights is a very sensitive one with honorable people on all sides with strong opinions. As you said, the CCF group seems grimy and I wanted to point out their bias, but as I said, I'll let the HSUS fight it's own fights. I respect "Some Random Female's" sincerity and passion and will defer to her on other concerns about the organization and will thank her for her support on the local issues which I would like to remain focused on!
Paul M. Hendricks

Paul M. Hendricks, M.D. said...

OK, the last thing I wanted to do was get into a debate about the HSUS. If you will pardon the pun, I have no dog in this fight. I'm not in a position to attack or defend the HSUS. I have discovered that the area of animal protection and rights is a very sensitive one with honorable people on all sides with strong opinions. As you said, the CCF group seems grimy and I wanted to point out their bias, but as I said, I'll let the HSUS fight it's own fights. I respect "Some Random Female's" sincerity and passion and will defer to her on other concerns about the organization and will thank her for her support on the local issues which I would like to remain focused on!
Paul M. Hendricks

Heather said...

This is just awful!!!!! The so called "Animal shelter" in Cleveland is NOT an Animal Shelter. It is Called Animal Control Division!!! (look it up) I have had numerous experiences with this place and let me tell you, these poor animals from Signal Mountain are on their way to their death!!! This place has always been out to put to sleep as many animals as they can. They do not even give them a chance for Adoption! The staff are all rude and will flat out tell you that they just keep animals three days and then put them to sleep. And that's just 20% of the animals. The other 80% don't even get a chance. They are put to sleep as soon as they hit the door!! Please someone do something about this. It should already be obvious what is going on here....just look at the difference in the charge Signal Mountain has to pay-6,000 verses the 36,000 they were paying. Come on now, that proves that Cleveland is not sheltering them...they are ridding them. It is so sad and there are other alternatives. Please do not allow these animals to go to Cleveland, they will not even have a chance. It will be like you are paying 6,000 to have them killed!

Heather said...

This is just awful!!!!! The so called "Animal shelter" in Cleveland is NOT an Animal Shelter. It is Called Animal Control Division!!! (look it up) I have had numerous experiences with this place and let me tell you, these poor animals from Signal Mountain are on their way to their death!!! This place has always been out to put to sleep as many animals as they can. They do not even give them a chance for Adoption! The staff are all rude and will flat out tell you that they just keep animals three days and then put them to sleep. And that's just 20% of the animals. The other 80% don't even get a chance. They are put to sleep as soon as they hit the door!! Please someone do something about this. It should already be obvious what is going on here....just look at the difference in the charge Signal Mountain has to pay-6,000 verses the 36,000 they were paying. Come on now, that proves that Cleveland is not sheltering them...they are ridding them. It is so sad and there are other alternatives. Please do not allow these animals to go to Cleveland, they will not even have a chance. It will be like you are paying 6,000 to have them killed!

phyllis said...

I implore you to reconsider sending your shelter animals to the cleveland animal shelter. they are gun-ho on enuthanisation and offer no humane considerations toward any animal that they bring in! I wish you could be a fly on the wall of this so-called animal shelter and see what actually goes on there! Please investigate this facility further before sending the innocent animals to this slaughter house. Just remember...what would Jesus do? I shudder to think I should be re-incarnated as one of the innocent souls that are held prisoner in this horrible dungeon! Please do some further investigating and maybe you will change your mind and see things thru the eyes that matter~the precious innocent animals that have no voice.