Pound Rounds

[tdierikx]

The only thing our rescue was asked to agree to and sign from HP was a commitment to desex any intact animals we had released to us, and provide notification of same back to HP when it is done.

It didn't say anything about any penalty if one didn't follow the "rule"...

T.

[Zug Zug]

Well it's clear to me. When I ran gap I followed all laws and best practice. I kept myself squeaky clean. I followed a procedure meaning all my decisions were approved by qualified professionals.That's my definition and I'm standing behind it.

But you miss the point how is council to define criteria for which group to work with? You know what you did and you know what you feel is ethical but that isnt ever going to be exactly what everyone else thinks - and much of it is about integrity not just what you are seen to agree to. Its about values and the things you do when no one else is watching. Basic human nature tempts people to do things "just once - no one will know " etc

What criteria should council have to determine which groups to work with? If they don't have criteria and they cant identify those things which would make a group ineligible then anyone kept out would yell discrimination and threaten legals.

There is nothing to stop Council setting criteria for what they consider to be a responsible rescue process, making that criteria public and only working with organisations that meet those criteria.

It's no different to setting up any other kind of Council policy. You get advice, you assess the advice on a reasonable basis (a simple risk assessment process) and you make your decision in an open and accountable way.

No different than selecting a good plumber to do work on Council buildings. You have your criteria, they are reasonable criteria based on a simple risk assessment, you make them public and you invite people to respond to them. It's a simple process and the key to it is to make sure you are open and up-front about your criteria and the process you are using to assess and select. Yes sometimes people will challenge processes and decisions, but if the process has been run properly and you're addressed any legislative requirements in your state etc., you're fine legally.

It could be argued that it would be irresponsible for a Council NOT to set suitable criteria.

Edited January 24, 2013 by Zug Zug

[Steve]

If I were fronting up to the pound to be a new rescue group wouldnt they make me sign a simple agreement which they keep in their office where it compels my group to know what is required and agree to it.Im not asking to see one thats been signed by any one I want to see the criteria and the blank forms they give rescue groups to determine whether I think PR or anyone hasnt complied with their rules and conditions?

How can anyone know they are breaching rules when no one can see what the rules are - why are they a secret - why would they need FOI?

[Zug Zug]

I agree Steve - if there are criteria these should be freely available.

[Steve]

Well it's clear to me. When I ran gap I followed all laws and best practice. I kept myself squeaky clean. I followed a procedure meaning all my decisions were approved by qualified professionals.That's my definition and I'm standing behind it.

But you miss the point how is council to define criteria for which group to work with? You know what you did and you know what you feel is ethical but that isnt ever going to be exactly what everyone else thinks - and much of it is about integrity not just what you are seen to agree to. Its about values and the things you do when no one else is watching. Basic human nature tempts people to do things "just once - no one will know " etc

What criteria should council have to determine which groups to work with? If they don't have criteria and they cant identify those things which would make a group ineligible then anyone kept out would yell discrimination and threaten legals.

There is nothing to stop Council setting criteria for what they consider to be a responsible rescue process, making that criteria public and only working with organisations that meet those criteria.

It's no different to setting up any other kind of Council policy. You get advice, you assess the advice on a reasonable basis (a simple risk assessment process) and you make your decision in an open and accountable way.

No different than selecting a good plumber to do work on Council buildings. You have your criteria, they are reasonable criteria based on a simple risk assessment, you make them public and you invite people to respond to them. Easy.

Correct but it would appear that right now no such thing exists - to ensure its a fair system the criteria needs to be decided on , put in writing and adhered to for selection of which groups to work with and procedures and consequences need to be put in writing to treat each equally when someone complains or they fail to comply with conditions.

[Nic.B]

Councils could set criteria however. They can make their own policy decisions on this score, so long as they give everyone an equal opportunity to consider and meet their criteria.

The way I see it, this could be treated the same way as selecting any contractor. Set your criteria, make your criteria public (e.g. as part of a competitive public tender process) and invite everyone to respond to your criteria, then select the one that best fits your criteria.

Just because no money is changing hands does not mean a public tender process cannot be used. I work in Local Government (not in animal management) and have done this before where no money was changing hands, but where we wanted to ensure we were selecting the best organisation to be involved with us in providing services within our community.

If it were done that way, yes a Council could certainly define its criteria and make a selection.

They are not compelled to work with dodgy rescue organisations any more than they are compelled to deal with dodgy builders or other tradespeople.

It may require them to think a bit differently about how to go about things.

This is spot on and what I have been advised re clause holders and councils working together.

Council are not under any obligation to work with unreputable groups.

Pr's and MN threaten legal action/media though which councils avoid at all cost.

[Steve]

The only thing our rescue was asked to agree to and sign from HP was a commitment to desex any intact animals we had released to us, and provide notification of same back to HP when it is done.

It didn't say anything about any penalty if one didn't follow the "rule"...

T.

So based on this if your rescue group took out a RTRO dog the only condition is the one you agreed to - that you wlll desex and notify them when you do assuming all rescue groups are asked to agree to the same agreement If PR have broken the rules then the only rule they can be guilty of is not notify the pound when the dogs are desexed - but there's no time frame and it might be 6 years before the dog is desexed anyway. They are not asking you to notify them of the outcome for every dog - is that right?

[Are You Serious Jo]

T is talking about Hawksbury, and someone correct me if I am wrong, but it is Blacktown that has the RTRO conditions.

[Steve]

Councils could set criteria however. They can make their own policy decisions on this score, so long as they give everyone an equal opportunity to consider and meet their criteria.

The way I see it, this could be treated the same way as selecting any contractor. Set your criteria, make your criteria public (e.g. as part of a competitive public tender process) and invite everyone to respond to your criteria, then select the one that best fits your criteria.

Just because no money is changing hands does not mean a public tender process cannot be used. I work in Local Government (not in animal management) and have done this before where no money was changing hands, but where we wanted to ensure we were selecting the best organisation to be involved with us in providing services within our community.

If it were done that way, yes a Council could certainly define its criteria and make a selection.

They are not compelled to work with dodgy rescue organisations any more than they are compelled to deal with dodgy builders or other tradespeople.

It may require them to think a bit differently about how to go about things.

This is spot on and what I have been advised re clause holders and councils working together.

Council are not under any obligation to work with unreputable groups.

Pr's and MN threaten legal action/media though which councils avoid at all cost.

yes but how do they define what groups are unreputable unless they have a set of criteria without being sued and being accused of corruption or similar? if they had such a thing they wouldnt care about threats of legal action because they would use the same tests or eligibility for all groups and be able to articulate how one group fails that.

[Steve]

T is talking about Hawksbury, and someone correct me if I am wrong, but it is Blacktown that has the RTRO conditions.

I assumed because Nic was affiliated with HP that it was also HP and Blacktown tell me there is no agreement.

[Are You Serious Jo]

If a FOI request has to be used to get those documents so be it.

[Greytmate]

<br />

<br />Well it's clear to me. When I ran gap I followed all laws and best practice. I kept myself squeaky clean. I followed a procedure meaning all my decisions were approved by qualified professionals.That's my definition and I'm standing behind it.<br />

<br /><br />But you miss the point how is<b> council </b>to define criteria for which group to work with? You know what you did and you know what you feel is ethical but that isnt ever going to be exactly what everyone else thinks - and much of it  is about integrity not  just what  you are seen to agree to. Its about values and the things you do when no one else is watching. Basic human nature tempts people to do things "just once - no one will know " etc <br /><br />What criteria should council have to determine which groups to work with? If they don't  have criteria and they cant  identify those things which would make a group ineligible then anyone kept out would yell discrimination and threaten legals.<br />

<

You make it more complicated than it needs to be.

Transparency and checks mean that corners were not cut.

I had no problem convincing local and state government we were ethical, by the definition supplied above, awl and RSPCA have no problems either.

The other issues that you talk about are of no issue to council, the market will decide whether a group's home screening policy is appropriate or not.

[Steve]

If a FOI request has to be used to get those documents so be it.

That may be right and more difficult than assumed because Ive just been advised there is no agreement specific to certain conditions on a RTRO dog and as yet no group has said they have ever seen one or signed one. Should be easier to get a look at one if we can find a group who has one.

[Steve]

<br />

<br />Well it's clear to me. When I ran gap I followed all laws and best practice. I kept myself squeaky clean. I followed a procedure meaning all my decisions were approved by qualified professionals.That's my definition and I'm standing behind it.<br />

<br /><br />But you miss the point how is<b> council </b>to define criteria for which group to work with? You know what you did and you know what you feel is ethical but that isnt ever going to be exactly what everyone else thinks - and much of it is about integrity not just what you are seen to agree to. Its about values and the things you do when no one else is watching. Basic human nature tempts people to do things "just once - no one will know " etc <br /><br />What criteria should council have to determine which groups to work with? If they don't have criteria and they cant identify those things which would make a group ineligible then anyone kept out would yell discrimination and threaten legals.<br />

<

You make it more complicated than it needs to be.

Transparency and checks mean that corners were not cut.

I had no problem convincing local and state government we were ethical, by the definition supplied above, awl and RSPCA have no problems either.

The other issues that you talk about are of no issue to council, the market will decide whether a group's home screening policy is appropriate or not.

You still miss the point. If council want to take it upon themselves to work with some rescue and not others they have to have a set criteria on what THEY believe to be necessary policies in a rescue group to enable a rescue group to do what is needed to fit the criteria if they dont already have what is required covered and to ensure that one group isnt giving out favours etc to keep down the opposition or someone they dont like. Without this its open to corruption and accusations or discrimination.

Everyone in the whole world should be able to see straight up what their criteria is for allowing one group or another to work with them.

[Nic.B]

Councils could set criteria however. They can make their own policy decisions on this score, so long as they give everyone an equal opportunity to consider and meet their criteria.

The way I see it, this could be treated the same way as selecting any contractor. Set your criteria, make your criteria public (e.g. as part of a competitive public tender process) and invite everyone to respond to your criteria, then select the one that best fits your criteria.

Just because no money is changing hands does not mean a public tender process cannot be used. I work in Local Government (not in animal management) and have done this before where no money was changing hands, but where we wanted to ensure we were selecting the best organisation to be involved with us in providing services within our community.

If it were done that way, yes a Council could certainly define its criteria and make a selection.

They are not compelled to work with dodgy rescue organisations any more than they are compelled to deal with dodgy builders or other tradespeople.

It may require them to think a bit differently about how to go about things.

This is spot on and what I have been advised re clause holders and councils working together.

Council are not under any obligation to work with unreputable groups.

Pr's and MN threaten legal action/media though which councils avoid at all cost.

yes but how do they define what groups are unreputable unless they have a set of criteria without being sued and being accused of corruption or similar? if they had such a thing they wouldnt care about threats of legal action because they would use the same tests or eligibility for all groups and be able to articulate how one group fails that.

I am not sure how they define one from the other and rehome rates come into play as well. I have been told there is a set criteria and I have some experience with that.

IMO council have a DOC to the dogs prior to their release not to mention the public/community.

If councils knowingly continue to release dogs to a group who have been proven unreputable (and they have) then it is on councils head at the end of the day. I will state so on record or in court. I have expressed that to council via meetings.

[Nic.B]

Sorry I am running in and out with horses and dogs outside atm.

Will be back later.

[Steve]

You make it more complicated than it needs to be.

Transparency and checks mean that corners were not cut.

I had no problem convincing local and state government we were ethical, by the definition supplied above, awl and RSPCA have no problems either.

The other issues that you talk about are of no issue to council, the market will decide whether a group's home screening policy is appropriate or not.

You had no problem convincing them and nor have PR - they are still there even though there have been complaints !!!!!

Transparency to whom and what checks - it has to be equal for everyone - as a council you cant determine this unless its a policy for everyone an even playing field.

[Steve]

I am not sure how they define one from the other and rehome rates come into play as well. I have been told there is a set criteria and I have some experience with that.

Would appear if they have written criteria then that PR fit that criteria as they are still there.

[Are You Serious Jo]

I am not sure how they define one from the other and rehome rates come into play as well. I have been told there is a set criteria and I have some experience with that.

Would appear if they have written criteria then that PR fit that criteria as they are still there.

No, it could also mean that there has been no follow up. If PR don't report to the council and the council don't chase up reports then they would still be there.

[Greytmate]

I get what you mean Steve, I really do.AWL are subject to council inspections all the time here. It's not beyond possibility to require that the organisations adhere to best practice determined by a veterinary behaviorist.