October 30, 2007 - REQUEST DENIED
Below is a letter from attorney Bonnie L. Lutz, Esq. in response to a request for copies of Annual Rabies Activity Reports as described in PRA032. The letter is quite lengthy so I've picked out the main reasons given for denying this request.
Click here to view a copy of the letter.
The
Inland Valley Humane Society will NOT provide copies of the Annual Rabies Activity Reports it is required to submit to the California Department of Health Services as requested in a Public Records Act Request per Ms. Bonnie Lutz, Esq. for the following reason;
IVHS is not a local agency as defined in Government Code section 6252 because it is not a, "county; city; city and county; school district; municipal corporation . . ." IVHS is also not a, "legislative body of a local agency pursuant to subdivisions (c) and (d) of section 54952." IVHS is a private, non-profit corporation. Its Board of Directors is not assigned by any government agency. Consequently, because IVHS is not a local agency, it is not subject to the California Public Records Act.
The
Inland Valley Humane Society will NOT provide copies of the Annual Rabies Activity Reports it is required to submit to the California Department of Health Services as a "Matter of Public Interest" for numerous reasons but primarily because after reviewing information published on the Sheltertrak.com website Ms. Lutz believes I have at best engaged in creative accounting and at worst, deliberately skewed the numbers in order to slander the Inland Valley Humane Society.
Ms. Lutz claims I have no concept of how the Inland Valley Humane Society ("IVHS") functions compared to other agencies and that the "statistics" are invalid because they don't represent all animals taken in by IVHS. Only the animals for San Bernardino County service areas are shown but IVHS also handles animals for cities in Los Angeles County which are not being shown.
Ms. Lutz claims publishing the IVHS numbers without extensive explanation about how IVHS tracks adoptions is irresponsible and "possibly actionable as slander".
Ms. Lutz claims I have provided false information regarding the percent of animals euthanized and have made no effort to provide data stating the reasons for euthanasia. Sheltertrak.com's emphasis on the euthanasia of cats and dogs without considering the reasons for euthanasia is both irresponsible and inflammatory.
Ms. Lutz claims IVHS data represented on Sheltertrak.com was provided by a Ms. Nancy Ruddock who acquired this information from IVHS under false pretense. Had IVHS known that this information would be forwarded to me for posting on Sheltertrak.com they would not have provided Ms. Ruddock with the data.
Ms. Lutz questions the purpose of the Sheltertrak.com website and asks what exactly is the purpose of tracking the progress of shelters.
Ms. Lutz states Sheltertrak.com has no purpose other than to inflame readers regarding the number of animals euthanized and should be used to educate the public about adopting animals from shelters and about the importance of spay and neuter in order to reduce pet overpopulation.
Ms. Lutz asks if the goal of Sheltertrak.com is to reduce euthanasia. Ms. Lutz asks if the goal of Sheltertrak.com is to increase the number of animals who are adopted and suggests educational materials on how the public can help these processes should be made available on the Sheltertrak.com website.
Ms. Lutz also suggests that Sheltertrak.com could be used to inform the public about the quality and quantity of services provided by IVHS rather than attempt to slander IVHS.
Ms. Lutz concludes her letter by saying any attempt to portray IVHS other than a state of the art, fully compliant, fully functional animal shelter is slanderous.
I will be responding to Ms. Lutz's letter in detail at a later date.
Brad Jensen
Cypress, CA
.
