HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0301.076 2020-2022 Lanny Sinkin
P. O. Box 944
Hilo, Hawai'i 96721-0944
(808) 936-4428
lanny.sinkinPgmail.com r }
r1.)C.")
July 2, 2021 C;,
s
Testimony for July 6, 2021
Communication 301
Animal Control .. `
Dear Mayor Roth and Council members:
I am Lanny Sinkin, one of the founders of Rainbow Friends Animal Sanctuary (RFAS). While I
have not been directly involved in the operations for many years, I have remained supportive of
the caring people delivering the animal services. I am here today to provide testimony
regarding the animal control policies of the County and the current situation.
Regarding animal control,the root of the problem is that people do not spay and neuter their
animals, so litter after litter continue to be born. RFAS has provided spay and neuter service for
tens of thousands of animals over the past 20+years.
People have very high expectations with little understanding of what is involved. Dealing with
injured, sick, and dangerous dogs is part of the task. Feeding, watering, poop scooping,
walking,training, and otherwise interacting with the animals is also part of the job. In many
ways,the task is thankless and impossible.
Recently, I did join the RFAS Executive Leadership Team (ELT) and attended my first ELT
meeting in April.
I quickly learned that there were major challenges taking place. The key one was the
performance of personnel embedded in the RFAS staff under a services agreement with Best
Friends Animal Society. Best Friends offered to help RFAS expand its capacity in order to meet
the requirements of the County's animal control contract.
Under that agreement, one of the Best Friends embeds held the position of Operations
Director, essentially overseeing the entire operation. Unfortunately, he was arrogant,
ambitious, and not competent to fulfill the demands of the position. At the same time, he
openly expressed his intention to help Best Friends to take over all the animal control contracts
in all the Islands.
He also did his best to prevent Mary Rose Krijgsman, President of RFAS, from learning what he
was doing (or not doing). At the same time, Mary Rose deferred to the supposed expertise of
the embedded staff member.
1 Comm. No. XI lb
Ref. To: v
Ref. Date JUL - 6 2021
In the Service Agreement between Best Friends and RFAS, it stated that RFAS would grant the
Best Friends embedded staff member, as Director of Operations, full power and authority to
make policies "in partnership with the leadership team."
There has been no partnership or collaboration with the Leadership Team from the embedded
Best Friends staff. The Operations Director's attitude towards Mary Rose was disrespectful and
dismissive. There was almost no communications between the Best Friends coordinator of the
embed program and Mary Rose.
At the same time, the Operations Director hired people who had previously been at the Hawaii
Island Humane Society. When the Humane Society decided not to bid on the animal control
contract,those people lost their jobs. Some of them clearly resented RFAS having the contract
and teamed up with the Operations Director to attack and undermine RFAS and Mary Rose.
Their apparent goal was to discredit RFAS and to destroy the reputation of RFAS and Mary Rose
to the point that the County would feel compelled to terminate the contract with RFAS and hire
a new entity to conduct animal control. The County is already hiring people who were part of
the problem to assist in the transition, so those who engaged in the attack are getting
rewarded.
While Best Friends has a reputation as a national organization addressing the animal control
issue, I learned that there appears to be a darker side to their operation that is focused solely
on massive fundraising. A recent article illuminates that side of the organization.
https://www.citywatchla.com/index.php/los-angeles/12399-how-best-friends-animal-society-
rips-off-la-with-city-half-s-blessing.
Then evidence surfaced that the Operations Director may have engaged in fraudulent activity
related to implementation of the contract requirement for a specific number of badged
officers. Other staff were aware of the activity and participated in the fraud. The ELT decided
that the offense was serious enough that the relationship with Best Friends should be
terminated as soon as possible. Had RFAS continued the relationship, RFAS could have become
complicit in and liable for those actions.
When the ELT decided to act quickly, even more problems arose. Some of the personnel
aligned with the former Humane Society personnel and the embedded Operations Director quit
or were fired. This unanticipated reduction in personnel stretched remaining RFAS personnel
to their limit.
The central issue of contention is the policy on euthanasia. RFAS will go to extraordinary
lengths to recover injured or sick animals and provide space for as many animals as possible.
The former Humane Society personnel believe that euthanasia is a necessary part of animal
control. RFAS demonstrated the difference.
The previous vendor regularly killed 14,000 animals per year during their fiscal year when they
had the Animal Control Contract.
2
RFAS dba HRR euthanized 8: 1 dog who bit 8 times,the others either suffering so much that an
end of life decision was only compassionate, and the others road accidents who were deemed
to have no chance as per the veterinarian on call.
RFAS thus exposed that the killing policy for the past 25 years was unnecessary. That exposure
may explain part of the hostility towards RFAS on the part of those who used to do the killing.
Meanwhile, thosewho have opposed the RFAS approach conducted their campaign againstainst
RFAS through letters to the Mayor,the Police Chief, and others. While RFAS personnel were
shown some of the letters, RFAS never had a real opportunity to defend itself on a complaint by
complaint basis. Many of the alleged conditions were simply lies. Others had been addressed
successfully.
RFAS developed and submitted a Recovery Plan to restore full service. A copy is included with
this testimony. From the absence of any response to that plan from the Mayor, Police Chief or
anyone else, we believe that no one paid any attention to our Recovery plan.
Unfortunately,the RFAS plan was too little,too late. The minds of decision-makers had already
been poisoned by the slanderous campaign. RFAS was also held responsible for not having
enough staff, with little or no recognition as to how that happened, e.g. the firing and quitting
of people engaged in improper activities. The Operations Director also had a habit of driving
people out who disagreed with him. We identified a dozen people who had declined
employment after meeting the Operations Director, quit because they were not treated well by
the Operations Director, or otherwise were not available to hire/keep as staff because of the
Operations Director's "I'm the boss" attitude and his approach to staff and the public.
Unfortunately, the remarkable achievement by RFAS of a 90%+ live release of animals taken in
got lost in the ongoing soap opera of attacks. Achieving this goal is the aim of animal control
operations throughout the country. Yet the Operations Director would not publicize that
achievement.
Before the recovery plan could be fully implemented,the Police Chief decided not to renew the
contract between the County and RFAS. He gave as his reasons the inability of RFAS to retain
staff, the complaints he had received, and the failure of RFAS to fulfill the requirements of the
contract. Those are all interrelated. The loss of staff from firing and quitting led to RFAS being
unable to perform up to the standards the County had a right to expect.
Those attacking RFAS jumped on any performance failure as a weapon.
One group (Best Friends) invaded RFAS by embedding unqualified personnel while another
group (primarily ex-Humane Society personnel) launched an external attack to destroy RFAS's
reputation. The pincer effect inflicted damage sufficient to require many hours of corrective
measures,time that RFAS was not given. Having been told by HPD that the contract had been
3
extended for one year, RFAS was in the process of recruiting and training more staff when the
County suddenly pulled the plug.
That action led to widespread concern for the future of the animals now being sheltered. The
absence of a transparent decision-making process only increased the public concern.
When the Hawaii Island Humane Society unexpectedly decided not to bid for the animal control
contract,there was no one waiting in the wings. The County issued a request for proposals that
cut the amount of funding to less than 60%of the funding that the Humane Society had
received in the previous year and required the proposer to find a new facility on the east side.
RFAS stepped in to essentially rescue the community from a crisis. Circumstances prevented a
successful response by RFAS. Nevertheless, RFAS and Mary Rose should be thanked for their
efforts to address this community problem.
RFAS is working with the County on a peaceful transition to whomever is going to provide the
services to the County in the future.
• 4