The Kent County SPCA response to Audit

The Kent County SPCA has provided animal control services to New Castle County
Residents under this current contract since 2010. e than! you "or the opportunity to
e#plain our issues as they relate to the $endor Contract with New Castle County
%overnment.
&n 'une o" 2012( there was a surprise inspection "rom Anthony Scannell here at the main
campus o" KCSPCA and also the rented Kennel Rain)ow Kennel. This investi*ation was
presented as a new mana*ement team was ta!in* over the operations o" animal care. &t
could not have )een re+uested at a worse time. The KCSPCA as!ed "or the audit to )e
delayed and scheduled at a more convenient date( )ut this was not an option.
The timin* o" the complaints( the investi*ation( and the su)se+uent report show some o"
the comple#ity o" our operation. There are unclear !ey components o" the animal wel"are
le*islation( and interpretation o" such le*islation varies )y person and,or or*ani-ation. As
such( we are a little unclear on re+uested in"ormation "rom the County.
The current so"tware system in use at the KCSPCA is not without limits( and the old
"ashion paper trail is meant to provide )ac!up documentation. The +uestion o" relia)le
Shelter Stats is relevant. &n 2012( there was challen*in* operations o" Shelter Pro the
Shelters so"tware pro*ram. This created issues with our we)site pu)lished Statistics.
The issue was resolved in the "inal +uarter o" 2012( and the entire year was corrected on
the we)site. .ovin* "orward( we are more "amiliar with the limits o" Shelter Pro and
have resolved our reports inaccuracy.
& understand that .r. Scannell had di""iculty "ollowin* the path o" some o" the do*s( and
the reason "or the path. Since pu)lic sa"ety is very important to Animal Control( animals
with a**ressive )ehavior are not o""ered "or adoption. As per our R/P( every animal will
have a )ehavior assessment prior to )ein* o""ered "or adoption. This assessment is a
nationally reco*ni-ed test called the Sa"er Test. This test provides a )asis "or "ood( touch(
and animal a**ression.
Animals which "ail our assessment are o""ered to our Rescue partners "or reha)ilitation or
adoption "rom their a*ency. &" no rescue is availa)le( the animals are humanely
euthani-ed. e have developed a chec!list "or CAPA which will )e included in each
euthani-ed animals "older( this should provide clear answers to ensure path process.
0ur rescue partners are very important to the KCSPCA( and we utili-e every resource to
have positive solutions "or animals. &n "act in 2012( more animals than ever were
provided a live release.
There are a couple o" +uestions which arise as a result o" investi*ation. Any clari"ication
"rom the County would )e appreciated.
&t appears that the 2010 R/P "rom the KCSPCA re+uested 1223(456 per year o" service.
The amount stated on the 2010 Contract with the County re"lects 1477(086. This is a
reduction o" 1122(880 dollars. & do not see where the R/P or contract re"lects the
necessary reduction in service with a reduction in contract amount. &s there documents
"rom the County9
Also( the contract does includes ra)ies en"orcement9
The authority and payment "or such service is covered )y a separate contract with a State
Contract with Pu)lic :ealth.
The NCC contract also does not allow "or en"orcement o" County Code Chapter 59
There was no re+uirement to hold o""ice or !ennel space in New Castle County in either
the R/P response or the Contract with the County9
The "ollowin* is a recommendation "rom our attorney Steven Schwart-.
e ta!e the position that we are called upon re*ularly and routinely to prove our
compliance with the laws to the Attorney %eneral( to the Secretary o" A*riculture( and to
the ;oard o" $eterinary .edicine< and that puts KCSPCA to *reat e#pense and it
channels needed resources away "rom our mission( to protect animals. e are unwillin*
to contractually commit to any e#pansion o" our o)li*ations to prove compliance with the
law( or to ta!e on an additional costly o)li*ation o" havin* to demonstrate to the County
or any other or*ani-ation that we are in compliance with the law.
hat & thin! we could live with would )e a provision in the contract which would read
li!e the "ollowin*=
KCSPCA represents that its intention is to maintain full compliance with all applicable
laws in performing its contractual duties hereunder, to the end that it will indemnify and
hold harmless the County from all loss or liability caused to it by any noncompliance on
the part of KCSPCA with an applicable statute, regulation or court order in the course of
performing its duties hereunder. In the absence of any actual loss or liability to the
County, or liability threatened, by reason of litigation instituted against the County by a
third party premised on acts of KCSPCA in its performance of this contract, the County
shall not have an enforceable right to require KCSPCA to demonstrate its compliance
with any applicable statute, regulation or court order. he foregoing notwithstanding, if
the !.S. "epartment of #ustice, the "elaware "epartment of #ustice, or any board,
agency, or official having authority over KCSPCA shall institute proceedings in a court
of competent $urisdiction or before a regulatory agency resulting in a lawful and final
finding from which all appeal rights have been e%hausted, that KCSPCA has violated an
applicable statute, regulation or court order in the course of performing its contractual
duties hereunder, the County may terminate this contract.
The KCSPCA loo!s "orward to providin* +uality animal control services to New Castle
County residents until >ecem)er 61( 2016. e are happy to continue meetin* to
determine the wishes o" the new Administration in relation to our $endor Contract.