Richmond SPCA Blog: Local Government

Posts categorized "Local Government"

July 17, 2012

Tireless animal advocate's vindication gives us a lesson in courage

There is a tongue-in-cheek statement that I have always found amusing in a sad sort of way that “No good deed goes unpunished.” This statement is often borne out in our world. People doing kind things with the best of intentions are sometimes treated badly as a result and, when this happens, our society loses, both because the person is dissuaded from doing such good deeds again and because it causes others to be disinclined to do good things and risk suffering retribution as a result.

A perfect example of “no good deed goes unpunished” happened to Eileen McAfee and, rather than just take it, Eileen fought back. Thankfully, she was vindicated recently by a Federal District Court jury. The facts have been detailed in several news reports including one in the Times-Dispatch and that recitation of the relevant events can be found here.

I think very highly of Eileen’s dedicated and tireless work for the well-being of animals through many years. I was horrified and totally flabbergasted when I heard of her being arrested in her home and taken in a squad car to the Powhatan facility where she was fingerprinted and charged with the crime of withholding the location of a potentially rabid dog. While I had no doubt that Eileen would never withhold any such information from Powhatan County, I also could not imagine why on earth the county would engage in such outrageously aggressive measures to deal with this sort of matter. Eileen, after the horrible experience of being arrested, was then subjected to months of fear, embarrassment and stress before she was acquitted of the charges, as I knew she would be. She then undertook a lawsuit against Christine Boczar, the head of Animal Control for Powhatan County who was the person responsible for the arrest warrant and charges.

After more information came to light in connection with Eileen’s lawsuit, the reason for the county’s over-the-top, jackboot sort of approach to treating Eileen became clear. Ms. Bozcar was recorded in a conversation with another county employee that made clear that she had Eileen confused with someone else that she referred to as a “kook” and a member of an animal group that Eileen is not actually a member of. Bozcar said that she would “guarantee” that this person would never come back into Powhatan County after being treated this way.

It should come as no surprise that, after a jury heard this, they agreed with Eileen that this constituted malicious prosecution and violated federal law. Eileen will receive back both her attorney’s fees in defending the criminal action and her attorneys’ fees in pursuing the malicious prosecution case. This sort of behavior on the part of a county official should concern and offend all of us. While Eileen was not actually the person that Ms. Bozcar was seeking to teach a lesson to and keep out of the county for the future, no one should be subjected to such treatment – especially when all they were trying to do was to do a good thing for a dog that needed help. Law enforcement officers should not be manipulating the legal process in order to teach lessons to people they do not like for one reason or another. No reasonable person would ever have wanted Eileen to have had to endure this miserable treatment but, thankfully, she was both willing and able to stand up for not only her rights but the rights of others by suing Ms. Boczar.

So, it is my hope that the take away lesson here is not “No good deed goes unpunished.” I hope the lesson to law enforcement officers is that they must treat everyone, even those with whom they do not agree, with fairness and reason. And, for the rest of us, the take away lesson in my view should be that we have a better community and a better society when we have the courage to stand up both for helpless animals and for our own rights under the law. My sincere thanks to Eileen for providing us with a great example of having that courage.

Robin Robertson Starr is the chief executive officer of the Richmond SPCA. To read her biography or that of our other bloggers, please click here. Before posting a comment, please review our comment guidelines. Please note that our comment policy requires a first and last name to be used as your screen name.

Posted by Robin Starr on July 17, 2012 at 07:14 AM in CEO Perspectives, Community relations, Current Affairs, Local Government | Permalink | Comments (2)

July 13, 2012

Judgment issued in Susan Mills' case; notice of violation ruled too vague to stand

On Friday, July 13, Judge Yoffy ruled in Susan Mills' case. You may recall that she is the very kind lady who has been doing a wonderful job for many years of caring for a small group of feral cats in her neighborhood. Susan’s care of those cats has been a textbook example of how feral cats should be treated – she has made sure that they all were spayed and neutered and had all of their inoculations and has consistently fed them and gotten them veterinary care when they needed it. Despite her years of dedicated and responsible care, Henrico County suddenly issued her a notice of violation under the zoning ordinance saying that caring for feral cats was not a permitted use in the particular zoning that applies to her house. That notice of violation was appealed to the Board of Zoning Appeals which ruled against Susan for reasons that were not clear. The decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals was then appealed to the Circuit Court and assigned to Judge Yoffy.

Judge Yoffy’s decision on that appeal modified the notice of violation issued to Susan on the grounds that it was impermissibly vague. His decision was both against her in part and for her in part. He ruled against her by determining that caring for feral cats was not “customarily incidental” to the use of her home and that the County could regulate the care of feral cats under the County’s zoning ordinance. However, he also determined that the notice of violation the County had issued against her failed for vagueness because it was not sufficiently specific as to allow a resident of the County to understand what kinds of care for cats are permitted and what are not.

It is important to us to note the very gracious things that Judge Yoffy said in court during his ruling about both the excellent work and professionalism of Susan’s attorneys, Will Shewmake and Jack Robb, and about Susan. He complimented Messrs. Robb and Shewmake on their fine presentation of the legal issues and on the excellence of their legal skills, in fact, saying that he would like for them to be teaching classes to other lawyers. He also said that Susan was to be praised for her courage and determination in standing up for what she believed to be right and her dedication to doing something kind for animals that she cares about deeply. The Judge said that he too cares deeply about animals and that he was impressed with her dedication to their well being.

The Richmond SPCA has backed and supported Susan throughout this long legal ordeal and we do not intend to stop now. This case is crucially important both for the feral cats that need our protection and care and for the rights of property owners to do reasonable things with freedom on their own property. While we care about this case because of its crucial importance to people who are responsibly caring for feral cats all over Henrico, we also believe that there are important issues presented by this case with regard to the property rights of homeowners. Thankfully, Messrs. Shewmake and Robb of the LeClairRyan law firm are willing to undertake an appeal of this case to the Virginia Supreme Court and Susan has indicated that she wants to pursue that appeal. We will be behind her all the way and will do all we can to support her and protect her right to engage in activities on her own property that provide humane care to innocent animals. Susan Mills, Will Shewmake and Jack Robb are all animal welfare heroes in our book and we are proud to be on their team.

Feral Cat Resources:
For caretakers
For businesses and residents

Posted by RichmondSPCA on July 13, 2012 at 06:21 PM in Cats, Current Affairs, Local Government | Permalink | Comments (2)

May 16, 2012

Ineptitude widespread in City administration, takes toll on animal lives

Smokey was one of 34 pets we transferred into our care from Richmond Animal Control last week.

The front page article in the Richmond Times Dispatch on Sunday was about the rampant problems, screw-ups, irresponsible management and lack of integrity and accountability in the current City administration which has been overseen for the past three years by Mayor Dwight Jones and Chief Administrative Officer Byron Marshall. The latter individual sought to characterize the failures of the administration as “stumbles” but not “falls.” Well. Call me crazy but I expect our City to be managed by people who walk and perhaps even run to earn the paycheck we provide them. Stumbling and falling should earn you a ticket out of town. Mayor Jones relied on that worn old saw of suggesting that they had inherited problems from the prior administration. Similarly, Marshall said that the City organization he inherited was “broken” – wonder what you would call the current situation exactly? And, Council President Kathy Graziano said this about the instances of overtime fraud, abuses requiring the closing of the juvenile detention center and massive problems with tax billings: “Do I have confidence that they can be fixed? I have hope that they can be fixed." I suppose that is an artful way of saying that she does not have any confidence. Neither do we.

The massive problems and egregious shortcomings of this Mayor’s administration that were reported in the newspaper Sunday, and many times before then, are utterly consistent with our own experiences in trying to deal with this City administration. After nearly two years of trying in vain to get the City to enter into a partnership agreement with us, one that had been authorized by City Council and had a history of improving the City’s live release rate for homeless animals with each passing year, we finally gave up the effort only to later see Marshall go before Council and report to them that the partnership agreement had in fact been finalized with the Richmond SPCA! When I went to Council to set the record straight, the Council members indicated that they were concerned (as well they should be) that they had not been given accurate information. I am aware that at least one member of Council asked Marshall for an explanation, and as best I have been able to find out, no explanation has ever been provided. Nor has there been any effort whatsoever by the administration to reach out to us and mend the fences that their hostile attitude and callous indifference has created.

Our Board has come to the reasonable conclusion that, until an experienced professional who is dedicated to progressive life saving principles is hired to head up Richmond Animal Care and Control and until we have some indication that the City administration actually wants to partner in a sincere way with us to save animal lives, there is no point in pursuing or agreeing to a partnership that is nothing but a façade. At a minimum, I had hoped that we would see some effort on the part of the members of City Council to require a reasonable explanation for the untruthful information that they were given and for the failure of the administration to finalize in good faith with us a partnership agreement that the Council had authorized. No such effort has been forthcoming so far.

The current state of this City is a sad thing. The ones who are really paying for this situation are those who are the most vulnerable and voiceless. That, of course, includes homeless animals in the City shelter whose lives depend on someone with the City administration caring about them. In 2011, according to records provided by the City to the State Veterinarian’s Office, the life saving results for the City shelter declined for the first time in many years. They took in fewer dogs than in the past but more of them lost their lives. I certainly cannot promise that we can do much to change the course of this City but I can promise this: We will not be silent.

Posted by Robin Starr on May 16, 2012 at 01:38 PM in CEO Perspectives, Current Affairs, Local Government | Permalink | Comments (0)

April 24, 2012

City of Richmond’s indifference to lifesaving partnership for animals is subject of insightful RTD editorial

The lead editorial on the editorial pages of the Richmond Times-Dispatch on Tuesday, April 24, articulately and appropriately took the City administration to task for their “indifference” to the life-saving services that our organization has provided to the homeless animals of Richmond and to the immense success of the partnership that we formerly had with Richmond Animal Care and Control in saving an ever increasing number of homeless animals’ lives every year. We are deeply grateful to the editorial page writers for their perceptive piece which challenges our City leaders to act with greater responsibility and sincerity with regard to animal welfare than they have done to date.

Our Board leadership and I worked for more than 20 months to seek to re-establish with the City the working public-private partnership that we had with them starting in 2001. That partnership reached its highest degree of effectiveness when Jody Jones headed the Richmond Animal Care and Control (RACC) due to her progressive philosophies and sincere desire to partner with us effectively to save animal lives. Our partnership had expired by its terms in 2008 and Jody worked with us to try to get the City administration to work out a new partnership agreement between our organizations. The City’s lack of support for RACC and their hostility toward the Richmond SPCA and reluctance to re-establish our partnership were among the main reasons for Jody’s decision to leave Richmond. An issue of crucial importance now is whether the City will undertake a true nationwide search and will hire replacement for Jody who has progressive philosophies and will truly prioritize saving animal lives.

Even though City Council authorized the City administration to enter into a new agreement with us, the City never did so and, in fact, someone introduced into the draft agreement that went to Council for its approval a paragraph that we had never seen and never agreed to. This introduction of a new paragraph without bringing it to our attention was unethical and no one with the City administration would ever discuss the addition with us. We made more than 30 documented attempts to get the City administration to create a new working partnership with us and were consistently ignored or rebuffed. Then, last month, CAO Byron Marshall went before City Council and was asked if the partnership with us had been signed. He told them that it had been. Clearly, this was a misleading and disingenuous statement for which we have heard no explanation yet having been offered.

While it is clear that the City of Richmond has no sincere interest in partnering with us, that does not mean that the Richmond SPCA will desert the homeless animals of the City of Richmond who need us now more than ever. Despite the absence of a working relationship with the City, we took in nearly the number of animals from RACC in 2011 that we did in prior years. Despite our help, whether desired or not, the City of Richmond saw a significant decline in its live release rate from RACC’s shelter in 2011 over the prior year. Calendar year 2011 was the first year in many that the live release rate for the City did not improve. According to annual shelter statistics submitted by RACC to the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, RACC took in fewer dogs in 2011 than it did in 2010 but nonetheless took the lives of more dogs than it had in the past. RACC is now taking in more cats than it used to do when Jody was actively supporting and promoting Trap-Neuter-Return programs for feral cats. Consequently, more cats are also losing their lives. The outcome was that their live release rate declined by about 7%.

On the other hand, the Richmond SPCA worked energetically in 2011 to save more animals from a greater number of shelters in and around our community. We have done this in order to be sure that we utilize our resources effectively to save as many animal lives as we possibly can. The outcome for us is that we saved more lives of precious homeless animals in 2011 than in prior years – in fact, we saved 9% more animal lives in total in 2011 over 2010.

Our life saving is going in the right direction and that of the City is not. They may not want our help but we know that the animals want it and need it. And, we will be there for them no matter what. The animals are the focus of our mission, not any local government entity. Please do all you can to express your concern for the lives of homeless animals to those in City administration and on City Council. If, as anyone would surmise, the inaction and disingenuousness of City administration reflect their belief that the people of Richmond do not care about the lives and well-being of companion animals, then they are very mistaken. We need to let them and the members of City Council know that loudly and clearly.

Posted by Robin Starr on April 24, 2012 at 03:11 PM in Animal Welfare Philosophy, CEO Perspectives, Community relations, Current Affairs, Local Government | Permalink | Comments (1)

April 12, 2012

What is going on with our City? Questions about partnership raise issue of credibility

What is going on with our City? Well, certainly among other things, a cavalier disregard for the truth.

A couple of weeks ago, I received a phone call letting me know that the Chief Administrative Officer Byron Marshall, while speaking to City Council in favor of a paper to increase the job category of the person heading Richmond Animal Care and Control, was asked by Councilman Charles Samuels whether the Memorandum of Understanding (City speak for a partnership agreement) between the City and the Richmond SPCA had been signed. This proposed agreement had been authorized by Council to be fully executed in the early fall of 2010. Mr. Marshall replied that, yes, it had.

That was surprising news to me since we had never signed the MOU, had never received a document for signature, had never been contacted by the City about getting the document signed, and I had contacted the City administration numerous times in an effort to get the MOU executed and had never received any meaningful response from them. I had raised this issue of the City not finalizing the MOU with us with several senior members of the City administration including the Mayor. He said that they would get back to us on it. They never did. After more than a year had passed of our trying to get the agreement finalized, our Board had come to the reasonable conclusion that the City had no intention of entering into a partnership agreement with us, and therefore, the Board needed to proceed with its strategic planning for this organization and the accomplishment of our mission to save animal lives without any partnership with the City. Seemed like the reasonable thing for us to do. How long can you or should you keep on banging your head against a wall?

So, we had to wonder why Mr. Marshall would stand before Council members and tell them that it had been signed? I decided that I should go to the next Council meeting in order to give them the correct information. Not because we wanted or expected an agreement to now get done but because I thought they deserved to know the truth of what had occurred.

On the evening of April 9, I explained to the Council members that no MOU had ever been signed between us despite many efforts on the part of the Richmond SPCA to get that to happen. As I was leaving City Hall, I was approached in the hallway by a member of the City Administration who was very unhappy with me about what I said. According to him, Mr. Marshall had said what he did to Council members because the City had signed the MOU itself. That’s right, the explanation is that Mr. Marshall was asked by Mr. Samuels if the City had signed it and he was saying that the City had done so, just the City. This explanation does not even meet the red face standard – a term our family has always used for a position that you cannot take without turning red in the face because it is so embarrassing. Signing an agreement unilaterally and then sticking it in a drawer and never getting the other party to sign it, never even delivering it to the other party or letting anyone know it has been signed does not meet any rational person’s definition of executing an agreement. The administration really will need to do better than that if they are to maintain any credibility.

Or do they even concern themselves with credibility?

I have now been asked by several Council members to ask our Board if they would still be interested in a partnership with the City. I will do so as soon as possible. I can know this much – this organization will do whatever we honestly believe will result in our being able to save the greatest number of animals’ lives. It is just that simple. Whether partnering with people that you cannot trust is likely to do that is really the question, isn’t it?

Posted by Robin Starr on April 12, 2012 at 01:28 PM in CEO Perspectives, Community relations, Current Affairs, Local Government | Permalink | Comments (3)

April 09, 2012

Setting the record straight before City Council regarding the partnership agreement with the City

Tonight at the meeting of Richmond City Council, the Consent Agenda contained two items of importance to Richmond Animal Care and Control.

Item 3: To amend City Code for the purpose of providing for a Director of the Office of Animal Care And Control.

Item 4: To amend the pay plan to create a title of Director, Office of Animal Care and Control in the unclassified executive service.

Our Chief Executive Officer Robin Starr addressed the following remarks to members of council:

President Graziano and the members of City Council, I am Robin Starr, the Chief Executive Officer of the Richmond SPCA. Our organization supports the creation of a position of Director to head the operation of Richmond Animal Care and Control and the related increase in salary range on one condition. That condition is that the City conducts promptly a valid and well-organized nationwide search for a truly experienced and well regarded animal welfare professional who is sincerely committed to progressive approaches to saving homeless animal lives and that the City will support the implementation of such progressive approaches. We believe that the decision on such hiring must reflect the input of persons chosen by those organizations that transfer animals from the City shelter including the Richmond SPCA. If a nationwide search is not going to be conducted and/or if the decision making process will not be reflective of the viewpoints of those who are actively saving homeless animals in the City, then we see no need for this increase in title and pay level.

I must take this moment to correct inaccurate information that I am told you received at your last public meeting two weeks ago. I understand that, at that time, you were informed that the City had entered into a new partnership agreement with the Richmond SPCA to replace our previous one that expired by its terms. That is not the case.

This Council authorized City Administration to enter into a new partnership agreement with us in the fall of 2010. The document that was authorized we found later contained language that had never been seen or agreed to by the Richmond SPCA. When we sought to discuss this added language and find the way to arrive at a mutually acceptable document, we were unable to ever get any response from the City administration. I made numerous attempts, all of which have been documented, to address this issue, none of which received any response from the City. I will add that neither did City administration nor the City Attorney's office make any effort to get the partnership agreement that was approved by this Council executed by the parties in the form that it was approved. After our many efforts to finalize a new mutually agreeable partnership agreement proved futile, our Board made a decision last fall that we would no longer seek or enter into such a partnership with the City.

This was an important occasion to set the record straight before City Council and explain that City administration had been non-responsive for many months. It became imperative upon our organization that we must act consistently with our mission to save the greatest possible number of lives, and that is how we have been operating without preference to any specific local government within our community.

The ensuing discussion made clear that members of the City Council were very surprised at the lack of a formal partnership agreement.

Tabitha Frizzell Hanes is the director of communications at the Richmond SPCA. To read the biographies of our regular bloggers, please click here. Before posting a comment, please review our comment guidelines. Please note that our comment policy requires a first and last name to be used as your screen name.

Posted by RichmondSPCA on April 09, 2012 at 09:11 PM in Community relations, Current Affairs, Local Government | Permalink | Comments (1)

January 27, 2012

Support the passage of HB888 to permit Virginia localities to regulate tethering of dogs

After taking part in the incredibly successful first ever Humane Lobby Day yesterday at the Virginia General Assembly, we are more impressed than ever with the powerful force that the community of animal lovers brings to articulate justice, compassion and decency for the innocent creatures who rely upon us. Thank you to each who attended and also to those of who, though unable to attend, are equally vital in your advocacy through phone calls and emails to your senators and delegates.

We are again asking for your support of an important piece of legislation. House Bill 888 has been introduced by Delegate Kenneth Alexander (D-Norfolk), and it is expected to be heard by the House Agriculture Subcommittee on Monday, Jan. 30 at 5 p.m.

The purpose of this bill is to make it clear in state code that any locality in Virginia may enact ordinances to regulate the tethering or chaining of dogs. While the City of Richmond and some other localities have already enacted such ordinances, other cities and counties have interpreted Dillon’s Rule to limit their power to regulate tethering as it has yet to be expressly granted by the legislature. The clarity HB888 provides is essential. It provides the following amendment to the Code of Virginia:

C. Any locality as defined in § 1-221 may, by ordinance, regulate, restrict, or prohibit the tethering or chaining of companion animals.

This legislation is entirely permissive, allowing each locality to set its own standards. The one-hour cumulative limit on tethering in the City of Richmond was adopted in 2007, and it was a great step forward in humane treatment of dogs in our own community. Please express your support for HB888 to your delegate. If your delegate is a member of the House Ag Subcommittee, your influence as a constituent is especially important.

House Agriculture Subcommittee:

Delegate Daniel W. Marshall III (Chairman)
Phone: (804) 698-1014 | Fax: (804) 698-6714 | Email: [email protected]

Delegate Matthew James
Phone: (804) 698-1080 | Fax: (804) 698-6780 | Email: [email protected]

Delegate Barry Knight
Phone: (804) 698-1081 | Fax: (804) 698-6781 | Email: [email protected]

Delegate James W. (Will) Morefield
Phone: (804) 698-1003 | Fax: (804) 698-6703 | Email: [email protected]

Delegate Robert D. Orrock, Sr.
Phone: (804) 698-1054 | Fax: (804) 698-6754 | Email: [email protected]

Delegate Charles D. Poindexter
Phone: (804) 698-1009 | Fax: (804) 698-6709 | Email: [email protected]

Delegate Mark D. Sickles
Phone: (804) 698-1043 | Fax: (804) 698-6743 | Email: [email protected]

Tabitha Frizzell Hanes is the director of communications for the Richmond SPCA. To read her biography or that of our other bloggers, please click here. Before posting a comment, please review our comment guidelines. Please note that our comment policy requires a first and last name to be used as your screen name.

Posted by RichmondSPCA on January 27, 2012 at 05:42 PM in Community relations, Legislation, Local Government | Permalink | Comments (0)

November 17, 2011

Announcing Our Next Steps to Protect the Feral Cats of Henrico

A few weeks ago, every animal lover in our community was stunned and horrified to see four of the five members of the Henrico County Board of Zoning Appeals tell Susan Mills that she could no longer care for a small group of feral cats that she had been caring for without incident for many years. Many of you asked us what would be next in our efforts to protect these cats. Today, we are announcing our next steps to protect innocent animals in Henrico from this irrational and callous decision of the Board.

Jack Robb and Will Shewmake of the law firm of LeclairRyan have agreed to appeal this ruling for Susan Mills to the Henrico County Circuit Court and we are deeply grateful to them for their wonderful generosity and concern for the compassionate treatment of animals in our community. We believe that the ruling of the Board of Zoning Appeals is neither logical nor rationally enforceable nor humane. We expect that a judge will see this clearly on appeal and that the decision of the Board will be reversed. We intend to do everything in our power to assist Messrs. Robb and Shewmake in achieving this outcome and to protect the lives of these innocent animals, not to mention those of so many other feral cats in Henrico whose futures are threatened by the Board’s ruling.

We are distributing yard signs to residents of Henrico who want to make clear that they care about animals and want to see feral cats treated with compassion and respect for their lives. The yard signs say “Henrico Can’t Tell Me Not To Care” and provide a link to the page on our website that is dedicated to saving these cats. The words are a reference to the “violation” issued by the county to Ms. Mills which said that “caring for feral cats” in R-4 zoning is prohibited. Please put one in your yard if you live in Henrico and help us to get them placed in as many yards as possible around the county. They will send a powerful message to the county.

The decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals reflected ignorance about feral cats and an irrational and callous approach to their treatment. It also created a ruling that is not susceptible of logical enforcement and that demands that people behave in an inhumane fashion. I do not believe that the citizens of Henrico will put up with being told that they may not feed and care for innocent animals on their own private property. One of the worst things any government can do is demand that its citizens behave in a way that they find to be cruel and unethical. We live in a country that was founded on ethical principles and people will not comply with rules that require them to depart from their own ethical framework. As this matter unfolds, all of us who love animals, and everyone who just believes in decency and kindness, must make clear to the Henrico County government that we expect its behavior and the rules that it prescribes for its people to reflect a code of ethics that its citizens can and should embrace. We will stand up to Henrico, or any other government that does otherwise, because it is our responsibility to protect the animals and ensure that our community is humane.

Henrico residents can visit our center starting today, Nov. 17, to obtain yard signs to show their support and distribute to fellow animal lovers. We will keep you posted as this matter progresses and let you know how you can continue to help. The enormous supportive response that Ms. Mills has gotten from people all over this community who are appalled at the decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals has been wonderful. It is crucial for all of us to continue to work together to send a strong message to Henrico that we will not be ordered to stop caring for the animals we love.

Robin Robertson Starr is the chief executive officer of the Richmond SPCA. To read her biography or that of our other bloggers, please click here. Before posting a comment, please review our comment guidelines. Please note that our comment policy requires a first and last name to be used as your screen name.

Posted by Robin Starr on November 17, 2011 at 11:51 AM in Cats, CEO Perspectives, Community relations, Current Affairs, Local Government | Permalink | Comments (15)

October 21, 2011

Defense of animals does not rest following illogical Henrico ruling

Your outpouring of messages of continued support for Susan Mills and dismay at the illogical, irresponsible ruling of the Henrico Board of Zoning Appeals indicates that care of companion animals, including ones who are homeless, is both usual and habitual – as the Henrico County Attorney defined “customarily incidental.” Many of you have asked in one way or another “What’s next?” and we want you to know that we have not rested in our defense of the animals who rely on the Richmond SPCA to be their protectors and advocates.

We are exploring the option of appealing this decision to the Circuit Court of Appeals.

Feral cat caretakers in other areas of Henrico County should not stop feeding. Members of the board made statements in the course of yesterday’s hearing that they operate on a complaint basis, and that rulings and violation notices are situational. Should you be issued a violation for feeding or other care of feral cats, the Richmond SPCA will support your appeal of the violation. For this purpose, we plan to establish a fund in honor of Susan Mills and her heroic efforts to protect her group of feral cats.

We are developing a campaign of passive resistance and expression of outrage. If you believe as we do that caring for companion animals is customarily incidental to a residence, and you wish to protect your rights as a resident of Henrico County, you will want to join us in resisting and protesting this ruling. More information will be posted as soon as it is available.

Posted by Robin Starr on October 21, 2011 at 02:43 PM in Animal Welfare Philosophy, Cats, CEO Perspectives, Current Affairs, Local Government | Permalink | Comments (8)

October 20, 2011

Disheartening ruling from Henrico Board denies Susan Mills' zoning appeal

This afternoon we are deeply disheartened by the ruling of the Henrico County Board of Zoning Appeals, which upheld the Director of Planning’s notice of violation issued to Susan Mills on July 7. That notice, as you may recall from prior posts, cited Susan for a zoning violation, indicating that caring for feral cats in a residential (R-4) zone is not a permitted use.

We have firmly believed and argued this morning that feeding and caring for feral cats like feeding and caring for any other companion animal is a permitted use because it is “customarily incidental” to a residence and therefore must be regarded as an accessory use. The County’s own attorney was asked to define customarily incidental, and he replied that customary is “usual or habitual” and that incidental is simply “subordinate to the primary use” of the dwelling.

As Susan’s representative before the Board of Zoning Appeals today, I stressed that a distinction between feral cats and any other companion animal cannot be made under Virginia or local statute. Therefore, if it is customarily incidental to a residence feed or otherwise provide care to a companion animal such as a pet dog or cat, this must also be true for feral cats.

This position was supported by the lone dissenting vote that came from Russell “Al” Wright. Wright presented the view that the Board, in its judgment, should see the customarily incidental clause as a call for property owners to exercise common sense. And he strongly urged that feeding an animal that is homeless on one’s own property is certainly using common sense and therefore must be considered customarily incidental. He also cautioned his fellow Board members that upholding the violation against Susan would represent a gross infringement on personal property rights. If you can’t even feed an animal on your back porch, where will the regulation end?

The other Board members seemed unable to articulate a legal basis for their conclusion but nonetheless determined that they would support the original position of the director of planning to cite Susan. Vice Chairman Robert Witte introduced a motion to deny Susan’s appeal, which was immediately seconded by new Board member Greg Baka. They, together with Chairwoman Helen Harris and James Nunnally, voted in favor of the violation notice, effectively prohibiting Susan from continuing to feed or care for feral cats in her own yard. The Richmond SPCA will continue to explore options that will defend the lives of these cats and the rights of compassionate people like Susan.

In addition to being grateful to Al Wright for his thoughtful analysis of the issue, the Richmond SPCA and I want to express our gratitude to the more than 50 caring supporters who attended this morning’s hearing. Both personal testimony regarding the care and feeding of feral cats by dedicated community members and local groups such as Henrico Humane Society and empirical data from national organizations including the Humane Society of the United States and Alley Cat Allies more than outlined the case to support Susan’s appeal. The most compelling speaker by far was eighth-grader Katie Harris, who pleaded with the board to set an example of compassion for school children such as herself.

The Board of Zoning Appeals took an approach that came down on the side of hysteria instead of aligning the county with compassionate, reasonable care and management of feral cats. Prohibiting responsible people from providing food and care will in reality have the opposite effect on the neighborhood, leading the cats to forage for food and allowing their rabies vaccinations to expire. We fail to see the legal rationale for why the board would have decided in this way, and it does not seem to accomplish anything positive in practical terms either. All it does is subject innocent animals to starvation and lack of veterinary care. This was a sad day for animals and for the County of Henrico.