Montclair Talks About PAWS

PAWS went rogue...

"Mayor Fried tells us "PAWS had an agreement with the town to have a joint press release which would have helped explain the situation. Apparently, they decided to go a different route. There are things we agreed not to discuss in public which we have kept our word about."

WHAT?

May I suggest that all matters of public policy and public spending should by definition be "discussed in public".

Excuse me for saying so, but what right do you have Mr. Mayor to decide what to keep from the public? Based on what? National Security concerns?

Annette, the PAWS people did put out a statement with their side of the story that was posted on the Montclair Watercooler--I think it would be great if that were included in one of the Bnet posts about the situation, because so far only the Montclair gov't has been represented in the articles posted....

"There are things we agreed not to discuss in public which we have kept our word about. We're going to have to have a more public conversation about this soon."

Yeah for the transparency! Glad to see the slate sticking to the campaign promise.

Doesn't seem as amicable as the town originally implied.

Oops, Mayor Bike Boy is not doing so well on the communications front. Better come clean about that secret deal with PAWS. Inquiring minds want to know!

Now that Californians have voted overwhelmingly to give animals certain inalienable rights, perhaps someone in the legal profession should step up and represent the dawgs in these negotiations. I nominate appletony.

Fried is so biased it's disgusting. PAWS had been receiving 54K per year from the town to take care of animal control services. This agreement was in place for 20 years, at the same cost to the town. It cost PAWS many times this amount to perform these services. PAWS asked for an increase in funding to 100K. The town said NO, therefore PAWS COULD NOT continue to operate as animal control at a subtantial loss year over year. Fried, tell the truth

walleroo, it's like he wanted to fire a shot across PAWS' deck by pointing his cannon straight down.

Not a good move.

If you are as disgusted by Fried as I am, he can be reached via email here...jfried@montclairnjusa.org. Expect a canned response though.

Are we going to pile on the Mayor now? Should we give him a few minutes to put on his bike helmet first?

ROC, that's better than pointing it straight up and peering down the barrel.

its a pretty stunning development that he and PAWS agreed to keep things from the public. What justification would there be?

2006 - HARTNETT TO PAWS ~ DROP DEAD

2008 ~ FRIED TO PAWS ~ SHUT UP OR ELSE

2008 ~ MONTCLAIR VOTERS TO FRIED ~ RECALL

lets not forget PAWS is in on this "keep things from the public" deal...

" a good solution will be found by people of good will and common interests coming together"

That means you won't be invovled Mr. Hartnett since no one who has even heard of you would describe you as a person of "good will".

I can't beilive you'd rather spend $500,000.00 per year on an animal shelter rather than support PAWS and pay for sheltering the animals.

What's with 6000+ rent per month and rescinding the animal control contract. What's with guaranteeing that PAWS will now take in 2 other towns orphan animals with no support.

You are bleeding the volunteers and donators dry.

PAWS has stated publicly they will not post here. Can you blame them? KatieBirdRex is correct, they did put a statement on the 'cooler.

With rights come responsibilities. Perhaps we could put the animals to work? They could run on treadmills connected to generators, thereby earning their keep and helping alleviate global warming to boot.

We need animal welfare reform.

"Can you blame them?"

Sure, rather than make their allegations in public where it can be freely debated, they make them in a private controlled and censored (more friendly) environment.

That and colluding with the Mayor (apparently) in keeping facts from the taxpayers is damnable indeed.

"lets not forget PAWS is in on this "keep things from the public" deal..."

Not really, they put up a lengthy full of information on the watercooler.

"I can't beilive you'd rather spend $500,000.00 per year on an animal shelter rather than support PAWS and pay for sheltering the animals."

The funny thing is the total lack of consistency when compared to his stand on funding MEDC and MAC.

You must work in PR Gurl:

"PAWS has stated publicly they will not post here."

translation:

"PAWS has stated publicly they will not state things in public."

Would someone puh-leeeze paste the PAWS statement into this thread so we, the unwashed masses, can see it?

On second thought, it's probably too long for my attention-deficit disorder.

by the way, since the watercooler is not strictly speaking "public" space it makes allegations of libel that much more difficult.

I'll bet that's why they don't want to put out statements in public.

No ROC, they issued a statement on the Watercooler which is public. No, I don't work in PR.

"Would someone puh-leeeze paste the PAWS statement into this thread so we, the unwashed masses, can see it?"

It would also be a copyright infringement, that's why they keep it behind "lock and key".

Transparency indeed.

Public, you say. Try to repost a post on from the watercooler and see what the BD's "warn" you about.

They make VERY clear it is by membership only and specifically "not public"

Can someone who's read the PAWS statement on the Wtc summarize what it says for us, the unwashed and attention-short masses? Does it actually say anything at all? Or is it a kind of Jerry-Fried like statement? A Fried-ment, so to speak.

RoC,

That's not true. It is my understanding that PAWS was threatened into not commenting. Hartnett told them that if they commented talks would be immediately stopped and they would be asked to leave the building that our donations built for them.

Various PAWS members and employees have posted on the Watercooler.

They are also posting on Craigslist asking for homes and foster homes for the animals in their care.
\http://newjersey.craigslist.org/pet/917065024.html

They know what is coming.

DEATH to the animals that are left and so they are trying to empty the shelter.

Hartnett has won in his quest to oust them from their building.

I can't believe that the people living in Montclair would rather pay $500M per year than pay PAWS to support Montclair's animals.

Guys, I'm working against a deadline right now, but when I finish I'll post a summary of the statement that was on the Watercooler.

By the way, I can't imagine any of you really believe that PAWS would refrain from speaking publicly upon their own behalf if there weren't some kind of nondisclosure threat over their heads.

So why did Fried even mention that there are things the town agreed not to talk about? Oh, my brain hurts. This is all so confusing.

Why don't we just move the animals to the new oil-drilling rig at the Wellmont and have them turn treadmills that run the pumps?

Another problem solved.

i'd bet money there is no written "non-disclosure" agreement. I'd bet its more of a "don't make us look bad and we won't make you look bad" type of deal.

The PAWS post on the watercooler is extremely detailed.

I agree with HIB (except the part about paying $500M per year! It's $500k that PAWS has claimed it costs to run the shelter), this has been a long work in progress by Hartnett. Anyone paying attention for the last year or more has watched him systematically take the organization apart.

what's the final goal? to run the shelter? Why would they want to do that after stating they needed to get these types of expenses off the books (i.e. Clary Arena).

To farm the services out to another town entirely and reclaim the land?

Where's Cary? Not one PAWS post by him. Has he received the Fried marching orders to keep quiet?

Are any members of the town council willing to meet with any of the the really outspoken people here? Just wondering if there has been any face to face discussion.

By the way, I can't imagine any of you really believe that PAWS would refrain from speaking publicly upon their own behalf if there weren't some kind of nondisclosure threat over their heads.

So the Wtc is NOT a public forum? Oh, help!

Cary has posted about PAWS on the Watercooler (are you a member?)

Why post the summary:
November 16, 2008

To our volunteers and supporters:

PAWS leadership has had a long-standing policy of not commenting on the local
blogs (Watercooler and Baristanet, for example). During our negotiations with
the Township, our number one priority has been the welfare of the animals. As
such, we have not, and will continue not, to comment on local politics.
However, there have been some misstatements posted (including one from the
Mayor), and we realize that it is important for you to be able to counter them
as you speak with your friends and neighbors. To have even one of our
volunteers confused about this issue is wrong.

Here is some information that may help.

History:
PAWS was founded in 1976 by a group of Montclair volunteers who were attempting
to care for animals in a filthy under-resourced municipal pound on Walnut Street
. One of the principal founders of PAWS was Dr. George Cameron, who continues
to provide veterinary services to the shelter at little or no cost.

In the late 1980s and early 1990s, a new shelter was constructed at 77 North
Willow Street . PAWS donated part of the land and $300,000 towards the building
of the shelter. This money was raised through contributions from Montclair
residents, along with many fundraising events some of you probably still
remember. The Township contributed the balance of the money to build the
shelter ? under $1,000,000.

After much difficulty (the original contractor went bankrupt), PAWS moved into
its new home in October, 1996. Due to zoning restrictions, PAWS was not allowed
to own the building. Instead the Township of Montclair owned the building and,
per the lease, PAWS paid rent of $1 per year (as long as it performed the Animal
Control function), and sheltered Montclair strays in the facility for an annual
fee of $54,000 (an amount that had been in place for the 10 years prior to
1996).

The last two years:
In the beginning of 2006, PAWS performed a financial analysis that showed that
without some sort of change, it would not have enough money to continue to care
for the animals. PAWS asked the Township for an increase in Animal Control fees
to $100,000. The request was not excessive given that the $100,000 was to cover
Animal Control and Sheltering services ? a 24/7 Animal Control Officer, picking
up dead animals (not currently performed by the Montclair Animal Control
Officers) and the sheltering ? including feeding, vetting, spaying, vaccinating,
and housing -- of approximately 600 Montclair animals per year. Note that in
2006 the $54,000 had been in place for 20 years, with no increase. Montclair
refused the request.

On June 1, 2006, PAWS told the Township that it could no longer afford to
continue to perform Animal Control services for $54,000. The Township hired its
own Animal Control Officer and on October 31, 2006 sent PAWS an eviction
notice.

Obviously, PAWS is still in place and has continued to accept and care for the
Montclair strays. In 2007, alone, PAWS took in almost 600 Montclair cats and
dogs. Montclair , Nutley and Glen Ridge animals currently represent almost 90%
of the animals taken into PAWS (after excluding Verona , which pays PAWS
separately for the care of its animals). Many of the remaining 10% are returned
adoptions. As with most shelters, PAWS will always take its adopted animals
back. If these animals were adopted to a town other than Montclair , when
returned, they count as a ?non-Montclair? animal.

The Township ? both in Mayor Fried?s posting on Baristanet (also on the Township
website) and quotes from Mr. Hartnett in recent Star Ledger articles ? asserts
that PAWS takes in a significant number of animals from towns other than
Montclair, Glen Ridge and Nutley. They say that they will be able to reduce the
cost of running the shelter since they will not take in these ?non-resident?
animals. This is not accurate. PAWS maintains a detailed database showing
where each animal comes from. It is true that some animals are left at the
PAWS door overnight ? dogs tied up to the railing, cats squashed into cardboard
boxes with no air holes. Since they are abandoned in Montclair (at 77 North
Willow Street ), we consider them Montclair strays. They cannot tell us what
town they came from. We take them in and care for them. When the Township
takes over the shelter, they will confront the same situation. What do they
propose to do
with these animals who cannot produce proof of residency? Finally,
approximately 15% of the cats and dogs entering PAWS come from Verona .
However, Verona pays PAWS a reasonable fee to shelter these animals. When
Montclair no longer takes in Verona strays, they will also no longer receive the
money.

Over the past two years, PAWS has been in discussions with the Township to try
to find a way to allow PAWS to remain in the 77 North Willow Street shelter.
Highpoints of the discussion are:

* From the first meetings, the Township wanted to take over the running of the
shelter. Amazingly, they suggested that PAWS could be a volunteer organization
that raised funds to support the Township shelter, without having any input into
the running of the facility. `

* While the Township declined to say that they would run a ?high-kill? shelter,
they complained that PAWS ran a sanctuary ? that we keep our animals too long.

* With several decades of experience, PAWS presented financial information that
showed that it takes $400,000 - $500,000 annually to run the shelter. These
costs are lower than they would otherwise be since so many hours are contributed
by volunteers helping to care for the animals. PAWS also receives significant
grants to cover food and the cost of spaying/neutering, along with heavily
subsidized vet care from some very dedicated area vets. PAWS presented, to no
avail, multiple ways the Township could help fund the care of the animals.

In October, 2007, an agreement was presented (by the Township) that charged PAWS
$3,135 rent per month while in return the Township would pay PAWS a nominal
amount for the strays that the Animal Control officers brought to the facility.
(The rent was cut to this amount after an original figure of $6,270 per month
caused an uproar in the community.) In the ensuing 12 months since this
agreement was discussed, PAWS has taken in 600+ strays from Montclair , Nutley
and Glen Ridge , has paid $37,620 in rent, and has received less than $10,000
from the Township to support the care of the Montclair animals.

(Note, that as of this point, PAWS has not actually paid any rent to the
Township. Instead, the $3,135 per month is debited from the $300,000
contributed by PAWS towards the construction of the shelter. According to the
prior lease, the $300,000 was reduced $1,365 per month from October, 1996
through September, 2007. At that point the reduction changed to $3,135 per
month. Once PAWS leaves the facility, PAWS is due any remaining balance.)

In mid-2008, the Township took over Animal Control services for Nutley and Glen
Ridge . They are paid a fee for these services. They bring the Nutley and Glen
Ridge stray animals to PAWS for us to care for. The additional work and expense
load is, obviously, a significant additional burden for a not-for-profit
organization.


The present situation

As with other shelters, non-profit organizations and even families, the economy
has struck directly at the heart of PAWS. The number of animals left at our
doorstep overnight is up and continuing to rise. And, the addition of Nutley
and Glen Ridge animals has increased the shelter population. Adoptions are down
and contributions are down significantly. Just as everyone faces sharply higher
costs to live, PAWS expenses ? food, electricity, etc. -- have risen greatly.
Over the past two years, we have depleted our savings to maintain the high
quality of care for the animals. As a result, PAWS finds itself in the position
of no longer having enough funds to continue operating the shelter past the end
of the year.

At our most recent meetings with the Township, they again presented their
preference that they take over the running of the shelter, with PAWS as a
fundraising organization. PAWS would have no say in the running of the shelter
(or the disposition of the animals.) After much soul searching, the PAWS
leadership has determined it cannot accept this result and must move forward
with its caring philosophy for animals elsewhere.

For 30 years, PAWS has had a mission of caring for homeless cats and dogs ? not
just the young and cute ones, but the old and sick ones, as well. We do not
discriminate by breed. Our goal is to give every animal a chance for adoption.
Sometimes that takes years. We will never euthanize an animal just because an
animal has been in our care ?too long?.

While we wish the town well in its endeavor, and are willing to offer them any
helpful information or advice they may request, we are not confident that the
Township will be able to afford to continue this philosophy. And, as such, we
are not comfortable associating our 30-year name and reputation with a
municipal-run shelter staffed by Township employees.

So, we have chosen to move on. We are actively looking for another site where
we can open a new shelter and continue our mission. Your support, time, effort,
and contributions have been the lifeblood of PAWS. We hope you will ?Follow our
PAWS? to our new home. We are excited about our future and we think you will be
also!

Hiding, you'll be kicked off the cooler now.

why would you think that?

Their rules. You can't cross post to another site.

I do work in PR (for nearly 30 years).
Although I do admit my bias (we have 3 dogs, and I'm the longtime volunteer publicity director for Greyhound Friends in Massachusetts), PAWS does not "work" for the township of Montclair but Fried/Harnett and company do. It was their responsibility to be open with the public from the get-go. Blaming PAWS for not coming forward (at least on this site) is just burying the real issue -- this township
has never been particularly great to PAWS (I've lived here since 1982). Raising the rent to an astronomical
amount was just the final blow.

"Cary has posted about PAWS on the Watercooler (are you a member?)"

Only in response to the PAWS post to say he didn't know the details and would look into it, as I remember.

Yes I am a member, but thanks for posting the PAWS post.

where does it state that?

Just to be clear: the letter HIB posted is an email that was sent to PAWS volunteers by the PAWS leadership (ie, PAWS leadership did not post it on the Cooler--someone who received the message posted it).

I don't know what PAWS stands to lose by making a public statement, but whether they have a written agreement or not--I would conjecture there is a threat against them to keep their mouths shut.

By the way, $500k is what it costs PAWS to run its operation each year with massive volunteer help and donated vet services. You can bet it will cost Montclair far, far more to run a municipal shelter without the same kind of volunteer support.

I truly, truly would love to know what Harnett's endgame is in all this. Clearly he has one in mind.

(Shit. Right, deadline... back to work. Ugh.)

So, he's looking into it. Isn't that enough for him to say?

he's not the Mayor and not the only town council member. Wasn't Katheryn Weller mentioned in Jerry Fried's non-statement.

Didn't Nick post about it as well?

Call them. Ask them.

Call Schlager who was doing the negotiating. Ask her why she didn't resolve the issue. Get her to make a statement, after all she was responsible for how many years?

"It was their responsibility to be open with the public from the get-go."

Legally yes. Morally, both should be open with the public. PAWS survives on both tax dollars and public donations, they have a moral obligation NOT to conspire to keep things from being "discussed in public".

As I have been saying for years, ultimately the challenge of "government" will be solved by groups of [redundant] municipalities coming together with regional solutions.

RoC,

Get off your high horse.

The town has the responsibility to make a public statement.

PAWS has contacted their volunteers and supporters.

The true moral obligation that PAWS has is to the animals. They are going all-out to get them adopted because they know what is coming.

"So, he's looking into it. Isn't that enough for him to say? "

Only if you actually believe that is the case. It appears the town council have taken a position that they won't discuss PAWS.

And if it's true, then I guess we'll hear from him eventually on the subject.

As I don't think Fried or Hartnett will be enlightening us of the council's position, I was hoping Cary would.

what tax dollars is PAWS receiving. They are no longer paid for animal control and the town has not paid them for animal support.

In fact the town has not kept their part of the bargain to repaid any part of the facility. PAWS has been operating with a leaky roof that the town won't fix.

Some landlord you are FRIED!

MV,

Should be could instead of would. Has this been discussed in town council meetings. If it has been discussed anywhere it should be available via OPRA.

File a request with Linda Wanat, The municipal clerk. Make it as broad as you can. I be there won't be much rewceived from Harnett's store of information.

You think the Town Council knows. I think not.

I think that the Mayor thinks he knows. Call the Mayor.

"PAWS has been operating with a leaky roof that the town won't fix."

Actually, it's in the capital budget approved recently, though of course, just in time with PAWS vacating and the town moving in.

"Just to be clear: the letter HIB posted is an email that was sent to PAWS volunteers by the PAWS leadership (ie, PAWS leadership did not post it on the Cooler--someone who received the message posted it)."

And the volunteer posting it said "We" hope this clears up misstatements.

I think it's safe to say PAWS wanted their volunteer to post the statement. Certainly if they did not they could request this "private communication" be removed.

My own opinion is that neither side is being fully honest or forthcoming.

timely isn't it!

"You think the Town Council knows. I think not."

I hope the town council knows. I hope Hartnett has not run PAWS out without the council knowing what was happening. I hope, but I wouldn't bet on it.

Cat adoptions tonight at PAWS.

Did you guys know that PAWS is open 365 days/year for adoptions?

Please go and adopt some cats or a dog.

What a sad turn of events, not just for PAWS and it's dedicated volunteers but for the homeless animals in now their care and others which will need sheltering. Volunteering at a shelter, sanctuary or not, is often a difficult soul-sucking task but the rewards (if you can keep an even emotional keel) are well worth the effort. Managing a shelter is even more difficult. PAWS was a jewel in Montclair. With the resources available in that town I cannot believe the situation has come down to this. It's a huge black eye for the town of Montclair and its governing body.

What a sad turn of events, not just for PAWS and its dedicated volunteers but for the homeless animals in now their care and others which will need sheltering. Volunteering at a shelter, sanctuary or not, is often a difficult soul-sucking task but the rewards (if you can keep an even emotional keel) are well worth the effort. Managing a shelter is even more difficult. PAWS was a jewel in Montclair. With the resources available in that town I cannot believe the situation has come down to this. It's a huge black eye for the town of Montclair and its governing body.

What a sad turn of events, not just for PAWS and its dedicated volunteers but for the homeless animals in now their care and others which will need sheltering. Volunteering at a shelter, sanctuary or not, is often a difficult soul-sucking task but the rewards (if you can keep an even emotional keel) are well worth the effort. Managing a shelter is even more difficult. PAWS was a jewel in Montclair. With the resources available in that town I cannot believe the situation has come down to this. It's a huge black eye for the town of Montclair and its governing body.

I'm so sorry for the mutiple posts! I have no idea how that happened.

The shelter has been managed by a volunteer. Someone who took no pay, RoC that means they donated their time.

i understand that hiding.

Barista, the headline should have been

Montclair lies about PAWS - AGAIN!

RoC,

Where is the tax money that PAWS has been collecting. When you find it please let us know.

ROC, the letter was cut and pasted on the Cooler in its entirety.

The "We" in "We hope this clears up misstatements" was part of that letter written by the two PAWS leaders to volunteers.

Why are you so hellbent on finding fault with PAWS on this? You'd be hard pressed to find a group of people who have worked harder to provide needed services to Montclair with absolutely no monetary reward. This is nothing less than a calling for the people who staff the shelter. They can never be replaced by people paid civil service salaries.

They collected at least $540,000 in taxpayer funded fees if their statement is to be believed.

"The "We" in "We hope this clears up misstatements" was part of that letter written by the two PAWS leaders to volunteers."

Wrong. In John Radzniak's statement BEFORE the quoted letter he says "WE"

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MtcWatercooler/message/65027

Roc,

They were paid for Animal Control Services and that ended in 2006.

What are they being paid for now?

The equivalent of $6000 per month in commercial rent...

John is a PAWS volunteer. It says so in his post.

What is your point?

my point is that he says "WE" hope this clears up....

Implying there is someone besides him which wanted things "cleared up", ie. the PAWS organization or leaders.

and Im not hellbent on anything but both sides coming clean to the public and their donors.

let the truth out, and stop hiding behind some BS "policy" of "not commenting in public on politics" when you've just done that.

And the Mayor not deciding which public matters should not be discussed in public.

I think the reason BOTH sides are not fully stating things is that they perceive the WHOLE story would weaken their position.

RoC,

They are paying rent. The town is charging them rent.

We could mean John and his friends the other volunteers.

and who cares.

PAWS made a statement that communicated FACTS.

Freid made a statement that communicated NOTHING

Hartnett made a statement that communicated LIES

Oh my GOD, ROC--I do believe you have unraveled the mystery of the entire situation.

CLEARLY, the use of a collective pronoun by a volunteer who reposted this message on the Watercooler demonstrates nefarious dealings by PAWS.

Thank you so much for clearing that up for us.

Y'know, the term "devil's advocate" never applied to anyone more literally than it applies to you. I find it difficult to understand your motives, but perhaps it's hard for you to believe that a group of dedicated volunteers could do what PAWS has done for Montclair because you are such a small and petty human being yourself.

I wonder what the town is going to do with the current employees. Will they all be fired?

Inquiring minds want to know.

What's really unfortunate is that the public outcry is only happening NOW when it is probably too late. This situation has been going on since 2004; in June of 2004, two board members were forced, by the township, to step down as officers. Perhaps the public became somewhat apathetic because the situation has been ongoing for so long and, despite all the threats from the township, PAWS prevailed at 77 No. Willow. It's also possible the situation wasn't publicized enough... The Montclair Times should have stayed on this more.

Shit. Right, deadline... back to work. Ugh.)
-----------------

katebird, but it's so much more fun to post on B'net.

katebird, but it's so much more fun to post on B'net.

Nellie, I think Baristanet has done more to contribute to my ADHD problems at work than virtually anything else. I may actually look for blocking software so I can keep myself from accessing it on my work computer.

(Although the 2 free Suzanne Vega tix I won last week must've been worth at least a hundred bucks or so, which at least partly justifies the hours and hours and hours and hours I've lost arguing with the other inmates on here... OK, maybe not!) :)

"I find it difficult to understand your motives"

honestly, it's a tempest in a teapot (except the mayor keeping secrets).

I don't care if PAWS does it or the township does it, as long as it is cost effective.

It sounds like PAWS cant do the job as laid out and Hartnett mantains it will be less expensive.

He has to make that case.

But whomever does it, it should be pragmatic, thrifty and humane. Which means animals should NOT be held there indefinitely. There should be some kind of time limit.

it's a tempest in a teapot

It's interesting you say that, since you've posted dozens and dozens of comments on the topic since it arose on this site.

Many vehemently disagree with you, and don't feel that it's a trivial matter at all.

Hartnett has not provided any information supporting the idea that PAWS isn't doing a satisfactory (or more than satisfactory) job. As someone else pointed out above, PAWS is the only party here that's provided any actual data to support its arguments.

Given the data that have been provided, I find it astounding that you still buy the story that the township can do the job more cost-efficiently...

...but since you posted on another thread that you also believe the environmental effects of your Hummer (oh, I'm sorry, THREE Hummers) can be offet by spending $60 per year on carbon offsets, I already know that your beliefs are not rooted in reality.

By the way, there's also no tooth fairy.

i don't buy the township's story Katie. Especially with the mayor telling us he's keeping some facts back.

I don't buy either story at this point because no one is being up front with the public.

"There should be some kind of time limit"

it's been 21 days Poochie and your time is up. Do you want gas or will a rope be your choice?

Great response RoC. Do you know that PAWS has had lots of animals stay over a year and still get adopted.

Hartnett says the town residents will ge to vote on his KILL POLICY at a public meeting.

"Under no circumstances will the Township run any shelter operation commonly referred to as "high kill" or where euthanasia is used as a management cost control measure. Neither I nor the Township Council would stand for this. We will be developing and publishing a Township euthanasia policy of high standards for all to see, to be voted on at a public meeting. "

Does he think he'll survive the meeting?

Let's stick to the real issue at hand:

Who will supply Ray's with hamburger meat after PAWS vacates the premises?

"Do you know that PAWS has had lots of animals stay over a year and still get adopted."

Is a year the limit? Two? Forever?

That's the problem.

No RoC it's not a problem. It's not a problem when the animal is adopted.

Killing is the problem. Killing with a timeframe.

Killing and we'll be financing it.

Killing because Harnett is choosing KILLING over having PAWS volunteers and donators take care of the animals.

That's the problem

RoC, people like you and Hartnett and the mayor are the problem, not how long the animals are kept in a shelter and cared for by people who VOLUNTEER their time.

By the way, what does Dr. Cameron have to say about all of this as the shelter veterinarian? For the public record, I mean.

no, you get me wrong. People can volunteer and spend all their own money or donations for any cause all they want.

I think it's even a noble cause. They have big hearts and are saints and all that....

But, public money should not be spent to keep animals alive indefinitely.

Roc

It isn't. PAWS is privately funded and has volunteers and supporters.

It's Hartnett who wants PAWS evicted and the shelter turned into a Town Run KILL SHELTER.

So tax money will be spent on KILLING instead of finding families for the animals.

oy, we keep going in circles. They operate in a township owned building. That's support.

They are providing shelter for the unwanted animals of town residents. Or animals which result from town residents not having animals altered. Or animals from "out of town" (and how dare they?) who wander over the border and can be a nuisance or a danger to the public. Or resident animals allowed to roam at will with no identification and owners who don't give a rat's ass if they get their animals back or not. Or animals who are the victims of abuse...

My point is they are providing a service to the town, one not so easy to do well. It's one thing I don't mind my tax money paying for. I'd rather that than over paying under achieving civil servants for starters.

It's one thing I don't mind my tax money paying for.

At least somebody admits that PAWS costs the town something.

If we want a shelter where unwanted pets can live out their lives in relative comfort, that's a fine and noble thing. If we want taxpayers to foot the bill, that's a matter for debate.

To clarify my position: IF any portion of tax money went to PAWS for the service they provide I would not mind that as much as I do the amount of waste that occurs in all towns.

But Wall...PAWS provides this service at a cost to Montclair taxpayers that is likely many times less what it would cost the town to run it.

Let's just say that Montclair is (well, WAS) giving PAWS a $6,000/mo break on rent. (Which, by the way, was partly because PAWS had provided a big chunk of the $ required to build the facility, but has no ownership of it.) And Montclair WAS paying PAWS $56k/year for animal control, until they weren't.

Altogether that's $128k. Considering PAWS's operating costs are $400-500k/year (with enormous volunteer resources), Montclair was getting a tremendous value for the money, whether or not they agree with the approach of the organization.

(And of course, now that they are charging PAWS rent for the facility and have not paid a cent for the Montclair animals being sheltered there, they're robbing PAWS blind.)

"They operate in a township owned building."

That leads to an interesting question. If PAWS owned the land previous to the new shelter being built and they collected $300k for the construction of this shelter, paying for a significant portion of the new building, how did it come to be a township owned building on township land? I'm not disputing that it now is, but how did PAWS lose ownership here considering they previously owned the land and paid to build part of the building?

"If we want a shelter where unwanted pets can live out their lives in relative comfort, that's a fine and noble thing. If we want taxpayers to foot the bill, that's a matter for debate."

Going along with this argument, how do you know the town can save money by no longer following PAWS no-kill policy? I have yet to see any details showing this to be the case, and from the limited info I've seen, I don't think the town can save any money over what they used to pay PAWS. I think with PAWS we pay less than we can expect to pay without them and we get a "better" policy regarding no/low kill. Has the town shown differently?

So given the option as I see it, I'll take PAWS and pay less in taxes to support a shelter and get an animal policy I like.

You keep framing the argument as the town's decision will save us money by not housing animals indefinitely. That's what Hartnett has said, but he's offered nothing to back this up and it appears most here don't agree it can be done.

they dontated part of the land their letter says.

But these are all good question which PAWS could answer. And there are question the Township could answer, should the mayor decide to "discuss it in public".

Until the full picture is known it's all just un-informed speculation.

OK, they previously owned part of the land and they paid to build part of the building...and now they walk away with nothing? How does that happen?

But you are correct, it's un-informed speculation.

Assuming the town can run the shelter and it will cost less money to do so because they won't house animals indefinitely is un-informed speculation. But you keep promoting this as if it were a fact.

Not sure of your reasoning there, kate. If you buy $500 shoes for $125, you're not really "saving" $375 as the shoe salesman would have you believe. I'm not saying Montclair should pay nothing towards animal control or shelter. But it's false to say we're getting $500k worth of services simply because that's what PAWS says it spends.

The question is: what does Montclair need and what are taxpayers willing to spend?

Perhaps it's wise to spend something on animal control. But although it would be nice to have a place in town to house unwanted pets, in these difficult times I'm not convinced we should be spending $500k a year for what amounts to an animal rest home. Aren't there shelters elsewhere that can take unwanted pets? Do we have to reinvent the wheel?

"Assuming the town can run the shelter and it will cost less money to do so because they won't house animals indefinitely is un-informed speculation. But you keep promoting this as if it were a fact."

I don't.

I have no idea how much the township says it will cost to run the facility.

BUT, if the township ends up running the shelter it will cost less than if the township has a limit on the time allowed to keep an animal than if it does not have a limit.

But, remember the township is not proposing to change the "kill" policies. (much to my dismay).

But Walleroo, the point is--MONTCLAIR and Montclair's taxpayers are not paying $500k for what PAWS provides. In fact, right now they're not paying a cent. (Not paying for animal control, not paying for housed animals, not subsidizing rent. So they're starving PAWS out of their current location.) Most of PAWS's operating budget comes from donations.

Based on the numbers that have been provided, the maximum Montclair has ever provided (in the form of rent subsidy and payment for animal control) was $128k. (And part of the rent subsidy deal was a result of PAWS's original contributions in land and construction costs, so that was not "altruism" on Montclair's part.) Even if Montclair wanted to provide the most decrepit, bare-bones facility with skeleton staffing and a very tight euthanasia policy, I seriously, seriously doubt that they could do animal control, sheltering/veterinary care, spay/neutering, and the other very basic services for that amount of money.

I'm not going to keep going around and around about this, though. Some seem to want to assume that they're somehow getting ripped off on their taxes with PAWS running the town shelter.

I wish that there were a chance PAWS could stay and continue providing these services, but it appears more and more that it's not going to happen. So you folks will have a chance to find out just how wrong you are about this move saving you money during hard times.

But someone in Hartnett's circle stands to make a lot of money off this, I would bet money on it.

What would solve this dilemma would be for the town and PAWS to provide full disclosure.

How much will it cost the town to run a shelter and animal control, how much rent will they actually get for that space(is $6,000 a real number or inflated to make PAWS move), how much did PAWS contribute to the land and building and why do they have now have no equity in it, how much does PAWS get from the town, etc. If PAWS is really only getting $128,000 for animal control and a rent subsidy I would think it's highly unlikely the town will be able to spend less for an animal control officer, the vehicle, the space, the employees- even with volunteers. I would bet the town run shelter will probably cost more than PAWS. Since no one is being forthcoming with any real information and real numbers I suppose we'll all just continue to speculate.

"But someone in Hartnett's circle stands to make a lot of money off this, I would bet money on it."

Obviously Halliburton!

I don't see a policy that says that they will be no-kill or even low-kill.

It will be a kill shelter.

Leave it to an animal-themed topic to crank up the thread on Baristanet. From all the gnashing of teeth and rending of hair, you'd think it was the animals that were paying taxes, not the humans!

No Pork, the point is our tax dollars do pay/will pay for some kind of animal control and shelter, so will that cost more than it would to have PAWS have those responsibilities. Given how this town manages to make even simple construction projects, field repairs and pool turn arounds cost double or triple what it should, I doubt a shelter run by the town will save tax dollars.

If Montclair's new town-run shelter endorses a kill policy then there is no point in spaying/neutering, providing examinations and testing, and administering innoculations.

Those start up costs for a new animal's admission is high. Why invest in an animal they have no plans to keep?

What we will have is a shelter with deplorable conditions: sick animals waiting to be put down, spreading their ailments to the others, and a shelter that adopts out cats and dogs in questionable health, who will likely be returned.

Heck, why even bother cleaning the cages?

Volunteers LOVE the animals in their charge. I am not saying that a paid helper does not, but it is less likely. You cannot teach compassion; it is not an item in a job description, and it's hard to measure. Volunteers provide a service that many cannot.

I know this sounds dramatic, but animals with expiration dates are not given nice lives while on death row.

oops.

is high = are high

volunteers not only love the animals in their charge but care for them so much as to take them home to foster them and get them out of the shelter and into a loving home. These same volunteers pay for their upkeep while socializing them so that they can find permanent homes.

You're not going to get that from a paid shelter worker.

I guess PAWS could always sell tickets to watch the animals get gassed. That might bring in quite a lot of revenue from the RoC crowd.

Name one thing Harnett has done to "save" the town residents any money....everything this guy touches costs more in the end. They bitched and moaned over the arena "losing" $200,000 a year during the summer....now, they want to add to the budget a animal shelter. What happened to the 3.5% cap on expenses that was mandated from the state? All we heard was Draconean cuts that had to be made....pools were going to be privatized or closed, the uptown library was going to shut it's doors, firehouses were closing and the town would have to use MSU's fire dept. How much in cost over-runs did the new fields at Kaveny and Mountainside come in at? The Mountainside infield looks like Lake Ontario after a spritz.....but that problem was going to be solved, right? We still have 425 town employees in the ranks....and he's looking to add more by taking over this shelter. Guaranteed, someone in his inner circle(maybe from Jersey Professional Mgmt.) will be making money off this transaction....we are a bunch of saps.

"BUT, if the township ends up running the shelter it will cost less than if the township has a limit on the time allowed to keep an animal than if it does not have a limit."

You choose that comparison. I choose a comparison of what we were paying PAWS to provide service (no-kill) vs. what it will cost the town to run the shelter regardless of their policy. I think PAWS was cheaper than what we'll see with the town running it.

That assumes the town really runs the site as a shelter. I think they'll "realize" it's too expensive and they can't do it with the state spending caps and will farm it out and sell the land.

I imagined I'd like living in Montclair, which is why I bought the condo last year. After reading about this shelter issue, alomg with the privatation of trash collection, along with a few other things, I've come to the conclusion that this NOT a nice place to live, let alone a place to be after my retirement. The way this town is run stinks !

Maybe we can figure out who benefits by looking at Joe's gushing bio on the Michaelson site:
http://j.michaelson.home.att.net/Hartnett.htm

The Mayor and Council are very pleased to announce that Joseph M. Hartnett has been offered and has accepted the position of Montclair Township Manager, starting in October. He comes to us with exceptional experience and references and with great enthusiasm for our diversity, cultural activities and vibrancy.

Mr. Hartnett was selected after a four month search from a pool of sixty applicants. The position was advertised in newspapers and professional publications. Seventeen applicants received detailed questionnaires for response and the Council Personnel Subcommittee interviewed ten of these applicants. The Council reviewed resumes and interviewed the three finalists. Dan Mason of Jersey Professional Management served as search consultant to the Council.

Joe comes to Montclair from St. Peter?s College where he serves as Vice President of Business and Finance, responsible for: budget and finance, internal controls, facilities and infrastructure management, real estate acquisition and management, security, support services, legal services, human resources, strategic planning, investments, contracting, financing, community and government relations, and information technology.

Previously he served 19 years for the City of Rahway as City Administrator (1975-1990), Superintendent of Public Works (1974-1975), and Executive Assistant to the Mayor (1971-1974). During his tenure he was honored by the NJ State Legislature as ?one of the top public managers in NJ? and for achieving ?national distinction for innovative uses of technology.? Other public positions include: Commissioner, NJ State Budget Caps Commission; Chairman, Treasurer, Commissioner, Operations Chair, Environmental Protection Chair of the Union County Utilities Authority: Adjunct Professor, Kean University; Board of Directors, Union County Economic Development Corporation; Member and President, Rahway Board of Education. Mr. Hartnett has also been active in a long list of civic and charitable endeavors.

From 1990 to June 2001, Joe was Managing Partner of CNNJ, LLC of Woodbridge, NJ, a consultant to entrepreneurial ventures and over seventy major companies and organizations, including military and government agencies, financial institutions, Fortune 500 companies, hospitals and health care organizations, retailers, and public and private schools systems and colleges. He has a strong background in information technology and its application to a wide variety of management functions, budgeting and communications, and is presently managing a $1.3 million enterprise-wide IT implementation.

Joe?s wife Georgia, an attorney, is an executive at Union County College and their son Colin, a Star Ledger Scholar, is a senior at Brown University.

Maybe Joe benefits and his Management Consulting Services benefits.

http://www.manta.com/coms2/dnbcompany_96hsy6

Hartnett Associates
655 Amboy Ave A, Woodbridge, NJ 07095-3159
Contact Phone: (732) 636-4307
URL (web address):
Business Category: Management Associates in Woodbridge, NJ
Industry (SIC): Management Consulting Services

Contact's Name: Joseph M Hartnett
Contact's Title: Owner
NAICS: Administrative Management and General Management Consulting Services

So, is he running a business full time while working as town manager full time?

Well Roc, you've finally made it to douchebagland. sigh.

Thank you for that contribution to the dialog, theproblem, once again confirming that you are, if not the problem, at least a problem. At least you have something to aspire to.

Why do so many people jump to conclusions about those who merely ask questions? Why, for instance, would any reasonable person conclude from what ROC has said that he is a sadist who would enjoy watching cats and dogs being gassed?

Although it pains me to admit it, jerseygurl is (owww!) correct in saying that we just don't know enough. We don't know what we're paying for, we don't know why we're paying it, we don't know our options. I have many questions. Why is it assumed that this town even needs its own shelter, with vaccination and neutering services and so forth? What exactly does "animal control" mean anyway? Is this a fulltime staff job with a car etc? Or something you could pay somebody to do parttime?

And now, alas, it's time to sleep, or at least try. Tomorrow's another busy day poisoning pigeons in the park.

walleroo

You still don't get it.

You (WE) aren't paying anything at present.

Yes there is at least one ACO at present and on another thread she reported being accompanied by another Montclair ACO. Town Council meeting notes show that she has a $40,000 car. She does not work at PAWS and PAWS does not have the Abimal Control contract.

She does however bring animals to PAWS to house and care for. The Town does not pay PAWS for this service.

Mommy, I don't get it. In one breath you say we're not paying anything and in the next you're saying we paid for a car and 2 employees. So which is it?

I don't know if the township is paying PAWS anything, but if the contract is no longer in force, they probably don't have to pay PAWS anything. Accepting animals (on an unpaid basis) , I would think, is entirely up to PAWS.

As for my alleged sadism, I have only one sadistic vice - Lasermike.

PAWS is NOT a no kill shelter. It is a LOW kill shelter. Ask a PAWS person and they will tell you this. So the "Montclair will run a kill shelter" freak-out is pointless -- it already has a kill shelter: PAWS.

RoC,

You are soooooofull of it.

Montclair has at least 2 ACOs. 2 Animal Control Officers. Hartnett hired them. The town pays for them. The town gives them cars and pays for gas.

They are not assocoated with PAWS except that the town uses PAWS as a shelter for the animals. The town is mandated by the state of NJ to have a shelter.

The town pays nothing to PAWS although it drops off it's animals there.

I wouldn't be surprised if there was an old agreement stating that the toen would pay PAWS per animal per day.

So all this talk about what the town pays PAWS now is BS.

PAWS has said that it costs them 400-500,000 per year to run the shelter.

That's what you'll be paying in the future + the cost of 2 ACOs that Montclair is already paying...

Do the math. Hartnett has said that this taking over of the shelter will not cost the town anymore than it does today.

I guess he thinks that the donations will continue to roll in. That the volunteers will continue to serve.

Don't count on it.

No Montclair does not have a kill shelter YET

When Hartnett sets up a policy that dogs are to be kept for 48 hours and then euthanized. That's when you'll have a KILL SHELTER.

Paws is a kill shelter. A low kill shelter.

State law requires towns to keep animals alive in shelters for 7 days, so unless Hartnett gets elected Governor and reverses that regulation, he will not order any animals killed after two days.

As for "The town pays nothing to PAWS although it drops off it's animals there" -- The town owns the damn property and the building. It can drop off animals there if it so chooses. It's their building.

You paws people are insane. You need to seek professional help, and soon. Or, better yet, go adopt all those animals before the end of the year. That would be a simple way to end this problem wouldn't it?

"Mommy, I don't get it. In one breath you say we're not paying anything and in the next you're saying we paid for a car and 2 employees. So which is it?"

Come on ROC.

We are paying nothing (right now) to PAWS for sheltering animals. We are, however paying for salaries, benefits and equipment for Animal Control services from township employees.

We will, of course, have to eventually pay someone for sheltering animals. The question is will it be cheaper to do this with an organization that utilizes volunteers and private donations to help defray the cost or one that is financed purely by tax dollars.

PAWS claims that their records show that the overwhelming majority of the animals are from Montclair with a smaller number from towns that pay them to shelter animals. Mr. Harnett claims that this is untrue based upon "industry standards" for "certain populations". They both can't be right. Perhaps the mayor should check PAWS records and make sure that these "industry standards' are being applied by Mr. Hartnett properly before he makes pronouncements on the topic.

OK- so Hartnett's Memorial Shelter will keep the animals exactly 7 days. that's 168 hours.

And then they will be KILLED.

I think that qualifies as a HIGH KILL SHELTER.

Nicky,

Montclair owns the building because they refused a variance for PAWS who owned the land and whose donors contributed hundreds of thousands to the building.

The construction of the building was mismanaged by the town and came in at much more $$ because of that.

Donors contributed to both the building and land, but the town managed to steal them away.

Maybe the township should explicitly agree to keep the kill rate at the Montclair shelter lower than the kill rate at PETA's shelter? Surely that standard should work!

Of course you know that there are reports that PETA's shelter is a really really high kill shelter.

Is that what you're avocating and the Hartnett memorial High Kill Shelter?

are you now, or have you ever....appletony?

ever what?

I shudder to think what would have happened to my Kelly if she was brought to a kill shelter. She's an older, dark-colored dog (yes, people discriminate against dogs, too!), with some minor health issues. Thank God, animal control had the foresight to bring her to a vet's office.

didn't they transport her to Union? Isn't that strange?

Yes, I agree, strange, but maybe they have a relationship with that vet. Who knows.

an arrangement with a vet 25 miles away?

I agree, it was a real PITA to get there but I found out that the vet is also a licensed animal control officer herself so maybe they're colleagues.

sounds like a conspiracy to me

LOL...yes, a definite co-LAB-oration! :-)

I wonder how the number of posts about PAWS compares with the number of posts generated by the Bloomfield Animal Shelter brouhaha?

guess PAWS could always sell tickets to watch the animals get gassed
-----------------

Don't think gassing as a form of euthanizing is legal in NJ. They do this in other states, however, and it's too horrible to even think about.

I found these articles helpful in at least understanding what the fight is about.

Link

Link

Montclair Township Manager Joseph M. Hartnett admits the township is wading into unfamiliar waters.

"Some of the stuff we?re going to learn as we go," Hartnett said.
----------------------

This in the Montclair Times today...Stuff THIS, Joe..

Even if that is true, I would never admit that in a newspaper interview.

Here's my question.

Despite free rent, "significant
grants" for food, and spaying and "subsidized" vet care, PAWS says it still costs $500,000 per year.

If you go to their site and count their current "residents" you get about 65.

Assuming that's about average, how is that they are spending $641 per animal per month?

What for?

Where's all that money going Mommy? Who's "benefitting"?

ROC, how can you assume that the animal population at PAWS always remains at 65? Have you ever audited them? Do you want to track the amount of food each animal eats? The cost of cleaning the cages and communal areas etc?

I though it was all run by volunteers? Are there professional cage cleaners? Or by cost are you talking "soap" ?

How many animals do they take care of in a year.

Perhaps an audit is in order. $614 per pooch per month with seemingly most of their costs subsidized already, seems odd.

also the letter from PAWS indicates they accept an average of 50 per month. It's a small building and since they've been in operation for years, one has to assume they "place" roughly what they add to the tally or they'd need ever larger and larger facilities.

So, 65 seems pretty accurate.

With all the needs "heavily subsidized" and free rent, what, precisely are they spending $614 per animal per month for?

If you go to their site and count their current "residents" you get about 65.
-----------

Every animal isn't on the website. For example, there are currently 100+ cats but they are not all posted. The website is a sampling of the available animals.

ROC, quit your obsessive subterfuge on this board and get off your ass. Investigate for yourself, Mr. Bottom Line.

I would wonder at that figure also. But lack of what it's truly based on (what if we paid volunteers when there are probably more than necessary to run a non-charitable facility). that again leads to arguing over specifics without any. Full disclosure of this should have happened from the get go. That's what I would like to know, why there wasn't, along with the facts.
On a side note, I think you would need 2 big, burly ex-highschool football players (knew there was a reason to pump them up) with a straight jacket if you tried to take RoC's calculator away :), you devil may care advocate you.

what would I investigate. PAWS themselves (if they are to be believed) say 600 per year. Since the building isn't getting any bigger and they're not killing much (if at all) that they're placing roughly what they take in or very close.

of course, I am assuming the $500,000 PAWS gives as a figure isn't artificially "inflated" for some indiscernible reason.

The number of animals shown on any shelter's web site is not always the total number housed at the shelter. Generally, only the currently adoptable animals are listed. There may be others in various stages of becoming adoptable: being neutered, receiving veterinary care, being socialized, etc. Sixty-five adoptable animals is quite a lot and there are many others at the shelter requiring care. Before anyone here can comment on running an animal shelter I would suggest spending at least an entire year working at one. It will be a learning experience is what it takes to do it properly - emotionally, physically, and fiscally.

(of course)

RoC,

PAWS announced that they had 140 cats and 30 or so dogs on craigslist. That is after they got anyone that they could to take a dog or cat as a foster.

This is from craigslist

Shelter Closing--Animals NEED You (Montclair)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply to: see below
Date: 2008-11-13, 12:41AM EST

In December, the PAWS shelter in Montclair is closing. There are 30+ dogs and 140+ cats at the shelter that need FOSTER or HOMES.

http://www.pawsmontclair.org/dogs.html

Contact PAWS directly for adoption/foster information.

Hours are noon to 4:00 PM, 7 days per week.

pawsanimalshelter@verizon.net

What free rent the town had been charging them 1300+ per month and when the town did not renew the Animal Control contract it raised the rent to 6000+. The there was a hue and cry from townsfolk so the tiwn lowered it to 3500+.

What planet are you on RoC? PAWS has paid the town each month.

Why do you hate animals, ROC? What kind of sick, twisted mind do you have? Have you no feelings?

The most breaking news story in the star-ledger that wasn't AP -
Marsupial Takes On Animal Hater On Local Blog!

Idea: spay all the cats and set them loose in different area public parks. Cats love to be outside -- it suits their natural urges and could control other critters. I'd rather have some non-reproducing cats in Edgemont than the stinking geese!

We could even have the Montclair cats become something of a town symbol - a tourist attraction, even. See, for example, Rome.

If you're going to do that housing for them should be placed accross from Applegate Farms on Kenneth Rd.

Why not at Applegate Farms hiding?

Because they aren't responsible for this mess. Hartnett is.