Vexatious Requster Policy: What the City Didn't Say

The day after the employee Christmas Party the City of San Angelo restricted a key democratic right, access to public information about government operations.  This Grinch-like move had been in the works for over four years.  

City Council-member Tommy Hiebert wrote staff on August 21, 2018

Just to be certain I understand the request is to strengthen HB3107 as written and to add to that existing statute ... if they use 36+ hours of staff time in a fiscal year they then can be labeled vexatious and no further requests made for that fiscal year, correct?

Should the city council simply pass an ordinance stipulating the 36 hours rather than codifying it into state law? Or is there a matter for the greater good that if the state would simply state any municipality receiving requests totaling more the 36 hours that person is finished for the remainder of that fiscal year?

Deputy City Clerk Julia Antilley replied that day:

As currently written in Texas, once a requestor is labelled vexatious they can be charged for additional requests. For our office, charging an additional fee does not help. We would propose that once a requestor is labeled vexatious (after using 36+ hours of staff time within a fiscal year) they are unable to make future requests until the next fiscal year.

One week later Hiebert contacted Rep. Drew Darby's office with a request:

...was wanting to see if Drew would be open to strengthening HB 3107 that deals with vexatious open records requests. Vexatious open record requests are consuming more and more staff time. What is currently allowed is to charge for requests. While it is helpful to be able to charge, the real issue is the staff time consumed by vexatious requests. 

In order to deal with the growing time component, it would be most helpful to have the law state after 30-35 hours of staff time which has been consumed by the vexatious requests of one individual, that specific individual could no longer make any open records requests for the remainder of the year. 

If you might need further info or have questions, please feel free to call me. 

Restricting access to public records was not discussed at City Council, not raised in any strategic planning session or any committee of City government.  Rep. Drew Darby is a former City Councilperson.  His office confirmed receipt of Hiebert's request in September 2018 and gave him a contact phone number.

The public first learned of this effort on Thursday, December 8, 2022 when the City Council background packet was released to the public.  Anyone interested in challenging the proposed policy had no chance to obtain internal documents, like those excerpted above.

City Manager Daniel Valenzuela said during the 12-13-22 Council meeting:

"I know for a fact one individual at times, maybe not this year but previous years will have 7 to 15% of the requests that come through from this one individual....if you are that individual, you know who you are, requesting numerous per year and it's taking up a lot of staff time and it's effecting you, yes you."

Interested in knowing if Valenzuela was referring to me I reached out.  Public Information Office Brian Groves wrote:

I do not have any information regarding this. 

City Manager Valenzuela responded with:

I will neither confirm or deny that it was you that I was referencing.

Daniel's words have a rich history in the U.S.

The tricky evasion has become the bane of watchdogs and journalists -- but its utility for those seeking to keep things on the QT has withstood the test of time.

Valenzuela couldn't be open about his desire to be less open, which has secretly been in the works for over four years.  Fitting.

Democracy is fragile.  You have to fight for every bit, every law, every safeguard, every institution, every story.  You must know how dangerous it is to suffer even the tiniest cut.--Maria Ressa

City Gives Update on Shelter: Still Overcrowded

In its first public communication since November 2nd the City of San Angelo stated:

As of Wednesday, Dec. 14, the San Angelo Animal Shelter is over capacity due to a hoarding case which resulted in 14 dogs impounded at the shelter.

The last message from City leadership said:

As of Wednesday, Nov. 2, the shelter has 181 dogs. Due to this, intake is closed today and any additional days the population remains in excess of 170 dogs until the end of November.

November ended and the city did not issue an update.  City Council met Tuesday and only one person raised the issue of the shelter's hard stop on dog intake.  A concerned citizen did so during public comment.  Neither Council nor staff said a word in response.

Pets Alive numerical targets came from communities with responsible citizens and professionally managed city shelters.  San Angelo has a transitional population and for years shelter leadership has rued the city's numerous irresponsible pet owners.  

Pets Alive intake-choking strategies remain firmly in place.  Council bandied about an unrealistic Pets Alive target in their November meeting.  It's a bad sign that fantasy number was even brought up.  

City leaders need to deal with the reality that San Angelo has too many loose, unaltered pets roaming our streets.  Long term strategies and investment are needed.  Otherwise, a descent into third world pet status may be our future.  San Angelo is well on the way.

Update 12-21-22:  The City provided an update on the Animal Shelter, saying the dog population is down to 172.  It thanked those who helped reduce the number of dogs but did not say anything about a citizen's ability to pass a stray dog to the city shelter.  That has been restricted since early November.

Council Supports Mendacious Management Policy

San Angelo City Council voted 5-2 to restrict citizen access to Public Information Requests.  It started with a problematic 10 requestors.  However, the target narrowed as the discussion advanced.

"It's three people..."-- Julia Antilley, City Clerk

"If someone say we have a PIR coming, it's one of two people..."--Councilman Tom Thompson

"I know for a fact one individual at times, maybe not this year but previous years will have 7 to 15% of the requests that come through from this one individual....if you are that individual, you know who you are, requesting numerous per year and it's taking up a lot of staff time and it's effecting you, yes you."--Daniel Valenzuela, City Manager

The City of San Angelo implemented a policy to stop this blogger from sharing research with the public. 

City Clerk Antilley shared that local news media do not submit PIRs.  They work through Public Information Officer Brian Groves to get their information needs met.  

San Angelo Live's Joe Hyde said no local media do investigative reporting as it is time consuming and expensive.  That includes local television and newspaper organizations.

The Standard Times once had  Kiah Collier and Matt Waller.  I collaborated with Collier on Mayor New's conflict of interest as member of the board of directors of and investor in MedHab, a recipient of Development Corporation funding.  I worked with Matt on the unauthorized purchase of $100,000 in Water Department furniture, known as the Furniture Fiasco. 

City leaders are richly paid and their job is to serve all citizens.  That is no longer the case for public information requests.  Council allowed yet another service reduction for the convenience of staff, but the rot is deeper than that.  Elected officials are shutting off a source of information.  It appears most Council members only wish to consider information supplied by staff.

Staff referred to "rogue media" and "vexatious requestors."  Despite what staff and five members of City Council may say or believe, truth can come from individual requestors and citizen researchers. 

Mendacious managers don't cotton to folk challenging their narratives, however distorted.  Today, they won.

Update 12-14-22:  The FY 2023 PIR areas I submitted that concerned Council were mostly Animal Services and included:

1. The City's response to PETA letter and letter from area rescues about shutting off dog intake. (I waited two weeks for the city to issue a public response as implied by a Concho Valley Homepage story)
   
2. How much a citizen cited for failure to spay/neuter their pet is expected to pay in total fees and municipal court costs. (not shared in ASAC meeting)
   
3. Changes in shelter staff pay as a result of the management review of shelter operations  (numbers not shared in City Council)
4. Blue Book and Revenue and Expenditure accounting documents for the just ended FY 21-22 (documents were once available on city's website, access removed in 2018)
5. The number of shelter animals surrendered by owner for FY 21-22.  (not included in the ASAC agenda packet for 10-20-22)
6. Why the city changed the time period for giving citations for failure to spay/neuter per city ordinance from August 16, 2022 as indicated in a city press release to a "two year period" as stated by Shelter Chief Morgan Chegwidden in the 10-20-22 ASAC meeting.  No responsive documents exist
7. The number of dog breeding permits issued by the city for each calendar year from 2016 to the present.
8. Documents showing the two year history of spay/neuter as referenced in another city document. 
9. Animal Shelter's compliance with the city's mandatory spay/neuter ordinance for the just ended fiscal year.  
10. Documents in regard to the city's change in spay/neuter enforcement as announced on 10-6-22  

Update 12-21-22:   I asked Public Information Officer Brian Groves to clarify City Manager Valenzuela's statement.  Groves replied that he had no information.

Valenzuela wrote he would neither confirm or deny if it was me he was referencing in his "one individual" comment. 

Update 1-12-23:  City staff informed Council that it needed to restrict citizen access to public information so it would not have to hire part time staff to assist with public information requests.  The city posted a part time job in the City Clerk's office with that very duty.

Update 1-13-23:  The lack of local investigative news capability helped bring the U.S. Congressman George Santos.  Accountability remains important and that's the aim of this blogger.

City Council Seeks Vexatious Requestor Policy

The City of San Angelo has a history of mobilizing resources for areas important to citizens, streets, water and trash.  City staff cited increased demand for public information as a reason to restrict access to individual citizens and organizations it considers non-newsworthy.  City Council will decide if information flows are as important as water or sewage.

When conflict is not resolved at an early stage or lower level it escalates, sometimes reaching City Council.  That happened recently on two fronts, Economic Development and Animal Services.  It's about to occur with citizen access to Public Information. 

Former Economic Development Director Guy Andrews clearly stated his reasons for leaving city employment at the September Development Corporation meeting.  They included his assessment that Assistant City Manager Michael Dane was a bully and City Manager Daniel Valenzuela avoided important issues.  In the same meeting First Vice President John Bariou shared concerns about the relationship between the city and the Development Corporation.

Dane lived up to Andrews' assessment in the meeting with a thinly veiled presentation on developmemt corporation over staffing and threat of job elimination.  It did not appear to impress Chamber of Commerce executives in attendance.  

City Council planned to address First Vice President John Bariou in Executive Session, however he emphatically requested the item be moved to Open Session to ensure open government functioning.  Council backed down by removing the item from the agenda.

The December 13th background packet states "San Angelo City Council wishes to establish a policy..."  I have not heard Council discuss this topic during its strategic planning sessions or at City Council.  In what deliberative public forum did Council express this wish?  (I am waiting to hear back on this question via a public information request.)

I see the restriction of public information access as more indirect payback to citizens who've shined the light on these controversies.

I submitted public information requests to obtain information on Animal Shelter operations, information not available on the city's website. 

I submitted a public information request on Guy Andrews resignation and clarified to city staff I wanted documents that revealed the reasons for his resignation.  The city provided e-mails regarding his retirement date and accessing retirement benefits.

After looking at the City's organizational chart I noted the three areas have one thing in common.  Public Information, Economic Development and Animal Services all report to Assistant City Manager Michael Dane.

The public information change reads Michael Dane revenge in its backdating the beginning date to the start of the fiscal year.  Any normal change for citizens would have a forward application date, not retroactive.  

The city is doing this very thing in Animal Services.  This blog reported a minuscule number of citations written since the spay/neuter ordinance passed.  Shortly thereafter, staff informed the public it would go back two months for owners who had not spay/neutered their pet.  That quietly changed to two years.

So demand is up for public information in our local democratic government. Who will Council chose to serve?

Update 12-14-22:  Payback delivered.  City Council voted 5-2 to restrict citizen access to Public Information Requests by labeling people as vexatious should they frequently seek information..  

The FY 2023 PIR areas I submitted that concerned Council and City Manager Daniel Valenzuela were mostly Animal Services and included:

1. The City's response to PETA letter and letter from area rescues about shutting off dog intake. (I waited two weeks for the city to issue a public response as implied by a Concho Valley Homepage story)
   
2. How much a citizen cited for failure to spay/neuter their pet is expected to pay in total fees and municipal court costs. (not shared in ASAC meeting)
   
3. Changes in shelter staff pay as a result of the management review of shelter operations  (numbers not shared in City Council)
4. Blue Book and Revenue and Expenditure accounting documents for the just ended FY 21-22 (documents were once available on city's website, access removed in 2018)
5. The number of shelter animals surrendered by owner for FY 21-22.  (not included in the ASAC agenda packet for 10-20-22)
6. Why the city changed the time period for giving citations for failure to spay/neuter per city ordinance from August 16, 2022 as indicated in a city press release to a "two year period" as stated by Shelter Chief Morgan Chegwidden in the 10-20-22 ASAC meeting.  No responsive documents exist
7. The number of dog breeding permits issued by the city for each calendar year from 2016 to the present.
8. Documents showing the two year history of spay/neuter as referenced in another city document. 
9. Animal Shelter's compliance with the city's mandatory spay/neuter ordinance for the just ended fiscal year.  
10. Documents in regard to the city's change in spay/neuter enforcement as announced on 10-6-22 

Update 12-31-22:   Dane plays the long game and achieved win after win in making information less available to the public.

Update 1-12-23:  City staff informed Council that it needed to restrict citizen access to public information so it would not have to hire part time staff to assist with public information requests.  The city posted a part time job in the City Clerk's office with that very duty.

Shelter Leadership Not Truthful

November 2nd -  The City of San Angelo informed citizens the Animal Shelter would not accept loose dogs from citizens for the month of November or until the dog population decreased to a certain level.  The press release encouraged citizens to contact local rescues. 

November 3rd -  Two local rescues, Cassie's Place and Critter Shack Rescue, wrote a letter to City Council sharing their concerns about cutting off service to citizens and stating they had neither the manpower or budget to do the Animal Shelter's job.  

November 4th -  Shelter Chief Morgan Chegwidden responded to City Council:

"Neither COSA or PAWS refer citizens who have found pets to Cassie's Place or Critter Shack."

Two days prior COSA referred anyone reading its press release to "reach out to local rescues."  Cassie's Place and Critter Shack are two prominent area rescues.

Concho Valley PAWS and the Animal Shelter present as a united front.  That cracked around Labor Day when the Animal Shelter had a roach infestation and conditions deteriorated to a horrific boarding level.

Local rescues took pets from the shelter at that time.  Critter Shack took over 30 pets.  Their Director dealt solely with Morgan and had no contact with adoption contractor PAWS. 

I signed on 8/31/22   It’s what I signed and basically is an agreement to furnish them with spay/neuter information, which I did two days later.   I don’t plan on pulling any more animals but did sign this so I could take those cats and that dog

Morgan's e-mail to Council echoed her response to Mayor Brenda Gunter's question during the November 1st City Council meeting.  The Mayor asked:

"Do you have a list, if we say that (the Shelter is full) to someone, do you have a list of all the organizations that exist today that they could go visit and hope that one of them would take the dog in for adoption, for future adoption?"

The city's audio experienced technical difficulty for fifteen seconds after the Mayor asked her question.  Morgan got out a "Not all..." before the recording system crashed.  Fortunately, staff was nearby and got the audio system restarted.

I watched the meeting live and recall Morgan stating that local rescues had signed adoption contracts in response to a question by the Mayor.  I thought her giving the impression that area rescues were on board was disingenuous.  On November 2nd I wrote:

The same leadership that misrepresented citation writing misrepresented the support of area rescues going forward.

Morgan included those signed contracts in her e-mail to Council on November 3rd (responding to the Cassie's Place/Critter Shack letter).  

Both Critter Shack and Cassie's Place have signed the rescue transfer agreement (see attached)

Did any Council members notice that Critter Shack's contract is unsigned and not dated?

Morgan knew that at least one rescue signed that agreement as a one time assistance and that both objected to the November move to completely cutoff dog intake.  Cassie's Place and Critter Shack wrote:

We cannot and will not take on the shelter's job, nor should we be expected to.

Twice Morgan referred to signed transfer agreements that happened in a crisis event and have no go forward application in communications with City Council (meeting on November 1 and e-mail on November 4).

I've been surprised over the years how pillars in San Angelo's business world put up with behavior by city staff they would never allow in their organization.

I've also been puzzled by City Council's ability to shut out feedback, even from their own members.  Councilperson Lucy Gonzales said "there are packs of dogs running around and cats everywhere" as Councilperson Karen Hesse-Smith nodded in agreement.  Councilman Larry Miller concluded he would have no option other than to release a stray dog back into the streets. 

Council agreed to a hard stop on dog intake.  Assistant City Manager Michael Dane offered to try that for thirty days and report back to Council.  It's been over thirty days and the item is not on the December agenda.

So far the city has ignored letters from Cassie's Place/Critter Shack and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.  Neither letter received the courtesy of a reply.

Blinders can get bigger if Council approves reducing citizen access to public information.  It's on the agenda for December 13th.

Update 12-13-22:   A dog attacked a neighbor on Oxford Avenue and the dog was shot with a gun during the attack.  Someone in local rescue posted:. 

Please let’s do something to open the city shelter back up at least for aggressive dogs. Citizens of this city should not have to deal with this

....this is what happens when animal control doesn’t take action for stray dogs.

Council reduced the time staff will spend filling public information requests.  The city has a website and access to media to get out information on the history of this dog and any past actions/inaction by Animal Control regarding the aggressive dog.

Update 1-17-23:  It appears the Animal Shelter Advisory Committee will not meet as scheduled for Thursday, January 19, 2023 given city staff are yet to post an agenda.  The Texas Open Meetings Act requires the agenda to be posted 72 hours in advance.  That deadline has passed with no agenda posted for the scheduled meeting.

City to Restrict Yet Another Service: PIR

San Angelo City Council will consider restricting responses to public information requests.  Staff characterized citizens submitting multiple requests as vexatious or "annoying, frustrating or worrying."

Limits under consideration are:

Monthly – 15 hours per calendar month
Annually – 36 hours per fiscal year (October 1 through September 30) 

Texas law already allows the city to charge fees for public information searches requiring significant staff time. 

Not mentioned in the staff memo is the reduction in information available via the city's website.  In 2018 the city removed its monthly Bluebook and Revenue and Expense accounting documents.  Staff did not answer why it stopped making those documents available through its website as it had for years.

The annual budget document now contains a fraction of its previous narrative and statistical information.  Just getting what had previously been readily available requires public information request(s).  It does not seem fair for staff to restrict hours for PIRs after reducing publicly available information.  

The proposed policy draws a distinction between types of citizens.  Those not restricted include members of the media, elected officials and publicly funded legal services organizations.

Over the years this blog attempted to fill the gap in local investigative reporting and exposed Mayor Alvin New's board of director position with MedHab, a recipient of local economic development funds.  City staff portrayed New as a member of MedHab's advisory board, a lesser position.

The memo said "The San Angelo City Council wishes to establish a policy."  That's odd as I have not heard Council discuss this topic during the strategic planning sessions or at City Council.  In what forum did Council express this wish?  Was it after City Manager Daniel Valenzuela issued the "PIR" warning on November 18th?

I thought Economic Development Director Guy Andrews' surprise retirement warranted exploration and submitted a PIR.  Staff provided e-mails regarding the mechanics of retiring and accessing benefits but nothing on the reasons that Mr. Andrews stepped down.  A COSA Development Corporation meeting provided the real answer.

A former Animal Shelter Director offered bogus community cat information on sister Texas cities to a city board (Animal Shelter Advisory Committee).  More recently this blog collected Animal Service statistics via PIRs.  I shared these with the Mayor and Council members as they began their strategic planning sessions.  The city's practice in many cases is to supply raw data vs. spreadsheets/reports.  Some compilations took considerable time on my end to produce.

I hope two people show up to give public comment on this item, Jim Turner and former Mayor Dwain Morrison.  Turner frequently coached Council on their public information responsibilities and Mayor Morrison railed against the city reducing services.  However, having them in physical attendance may be too much to ask.  I trust they will be there in spirit.

It is not clear why the proposal is for fiscal year as two months have already passed.  It would seem less targeted if Council chose to apply this on a go forward basis and begin the limits in 2023 (calendar year).

When Mayor Brenda Gunter was elected in 2017 she said "It will always be about the citizens."  That will be tested next week.  It may be about the bureaucracy.

Update 12-12-22:  San Angelo Live noticed that their access to public information may be reduced as well.

City Reviewed PETA Letter, Took No Action

The City of San Angelo experienced a flurry of internal activity on Friday, November 4th.  People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals expressed concern about the city Animal Shelter's refusal to accept dogs from tax paying citizens due to overcrowding.  PETA e-mailed their letter to Mayor Brenda Gunter and members of City Council.

Two local rescues, Cassie's Place and Critter Shack, also sent a letter after the City announced the shelter would stop taking dogs from the public for the month of November.  Their letter was sent to the Mayor, City Council and distinguished City Officials.  It was dated November 3rd.  Critter Shack and Cassie's Place expressed concern about the city once again steering citizens to local rescues for pets the shelter is unwilling to accept.  As nonprofits with limited resources the two rescues drew a clear line that they would not do the shelter's job for them. 

The afternoon of November 4th Council-member Tommy Hiebert forwarded the PETA letter to Shelter Chief Morgan Chegwidden, Assistant City Manager Michael Dane  Director of Neighborhood and Family Services Bob Salas, City Manager Daniel Valenzuela and City Attorney Theresa James.

Morgan replied to Public Information Director Brian Groves that afternoon

My immediate response is to ask how to enforce such a law when our already ineffective requirement to hold a breeder’s permit doesn’t deter citizens from breeding.

As to the allegations that it’s unsafe to house strange pets, we would agree and that’s why one option is to leave the pet be and call animal services officers to the scene. We’re still responding to calls for service and getting pets back home. Animal Services Officers are still impounding injured and aggressive dogs during this time period.

After the Shelter Chief admitted it's unsafe to house strange pets, the City did not adjust its guidance to the community, "hold the pet for a few days while locating owner."

Groves responded at 5:30 pm Friday, November 4th:

The city has received the letter from PETA and is reviewing all of the information that is in it.

Animal Services is still responding to calls for service and helping pets get back home. Animal Services Officers are still impounding injured and aggressive dogs during this time period as well.

Concho Valley Homepage asked if the Mayor or City Council planned to put out a statement in response. On November 7th Concho Valley Homepage reported city officials are "still reviewing all the information that was in the letter sent by PETA."  

City Manager Daniel Valenzuela informed Council on November 18th that a Public Information Request had been submitted.  I gave City leaders nearly two weeks to respond to the PETA concerns before submitting the PIR.

Two City Council members, Lucy Gonzales and Larry Miller, forwarded the PETA letter to the Assistant City Clerk on November 20th and 21st. Their e-mails had no content other than the heading.  They appear to be a response to Valenzuela's "PIR" e-mail (from the timing and attachments included).

It's been four weeks since PETA sent its letter.  After the initial flurry of activity there is no documented evidence that city officials wrestled with a further response to issues raised by PETA.   

Council did not put the item on its November 15th agenda.  They have not delegated the matter to the Animal Shelter Advisory Committee for advice.  The Mayor and Council did not generate a reply letter to PETA's Teresa Lynn Chagrin, Animal Care & Control Issues Manager, Cruelty Investigations Department.

City officials bought time and are counting on the issue fading away.  There are too many systemic problems for that to happen. 

Update 12-13-22:   A dog attacked a neighbor on Oxford Avenue and the dog was shot with a gun during the attack.  Someone in local rescue posted:. 

Please let’s do something to open the city shelter back up at least for aggressive dogs. Citizens of this city should not have to deal with this

....this is what happens when animal control doesn’t take action for stray dogs.

Update 1-12-23:   On November 4th KLST and Concho Valley Homepage reached out to the city on PETA's letter:

...if Mayor Brenda Gunter or members of the City Council would provide a statement on the matter.

No statement to date.  It's been more than two months.

PETA now has information for the public in communities that have shut off animal shelter access to the public, like San Angelo.

City Council Down to Two for Election Certification

San Angelo City Council conducted business with two members.  The two elected officials acted on a motion to accept the results of the November election.  Is that allowed given Council's quorum requirements? 

Spay/Neutering San Angelo's Legions of Unaltered Pets

info@cvpaws is yet to answer this inquiry.  On 11-1-22 I asked:

I am interested in learning the # of Dog and Cat SNIP vouchers PAWS issues per month.  What is the current number issued and does PAWS plan to increase that number to serve the City Animal Shelter? 

On 9-14-22 I asked Executive Director Jenie Wilson:

Which vets/vet clinics take PAWS SNIP vouchers as a general rule?

That question remains unanswered although PAWS website states participating vets are listed on the SNIP voucher.   PAWS website indicated 30 dog spay/neuter vouchers are available for the next 30 days.  Annualizing that figure equals 360 SNIP vouchers.

City of San Angelo policy makers need to consider the magnitude of our unaltered pet problem.  The Animal Shelter released nearly 1,500 unaltered pets the last two years, 760 in the fiscal year just ended.

There is a significant population of unaltered pets in San Angelo neighborhoods.  If City leaders want the Animal Shelter to have space to actually serve citizens then there is a serious backlog to begin working. 

Animal Shelter Chief Morgan Chegwidden said in 2020:

Once we’ve achieved and maintained 90%, we hope to become a community resource to families in need.

The problem of unaltered pets in our community will continue to grow, especially when leaders are OK with ring fencing the Animal Shelter.  

Update 1-16-23:  Concho Valley PAWS has the following re: Spay/neuter vouchers on its website:

NOTICE: NEW SPAY/NEUTER VOUCHER GUIDELINES COMING IN FEBRUARY 2023

Their Facebook page stated on 1-5-23 and 1-10-23:

Our low-cost spay and neuter voucher program will change in response to increases in veterinary costs and grant funding. We are in the processes of finalizing funding and contract agreements and should launch an updated program in February! We apologize for any inconvenience. WE WANT TO HELP YOU GET YOUR PET FIXED. But we have to secure the best possible ways to ensure we can offer the most help to the most people. Thank you for understanding. Please reach out to other rescues to learn about their available spay and neuter programs.

Update 1-17-23:  It appears the Animal Shelter Advisory Committee will not meet as scheduled for Thursday, January 19, 2023 given city staff are yet to post an agenda.  The Texas Open Meetings Act requires the agenda to be posted 72 hours in advance.  That deadline has passed with no agenda posted for the scheduled meeting.

PETA Letter Missing from City Council Agenda

The City of San Angelo released the agenda and background packet for next week's City Council meeting.  It does not include consideration of PETA's letter encouraging Council to reverse the closing of dog intake for November for public safety reasons.  

The Animal Shelter is on the Consent Agenda.  Item P is:

Consider a resolution accepting the donation of outdoor kennels and play yards to Animal Services (Morgan Chegwidden)

The donation includes 25 outdoor kennels and a play area.

Concho Valley PAWS has fundraised private dollars to construct outdoor kennels and play yards to offer enrichment to canines housed at Animal Services as well as provide for efficiencies in cleaning entire rooms of kennels empty of dogs for more thorough disinfecting. They will install 25 outdoor kennels directly south of the building as well as one large play group east of the animal shelter. The estimated cost of the project is $41,750 to be funded entirely through private dollars collected and remitted by Concho Valley PAWS.

During the roach infestation and horrific hoarding conditions the City purchased 24 stainless steel cages at a cost of $23,659.98.  City maintenance staff set them up in the 4H Building.  What is the current status of those 24 cages and how do they relate to this project?

Items not on the agenda cannot be discussed.  The public would like to know the status of the city's  review "of all the information that was in the letter sent by PETA."

An option would be to ask the Animal Shelter Advisory Committee for advice, however there is no ASAC meeting scheduled.   

It's hard to see where any policy setting body is considering the issues raised in the PETA letter.  

(PETA is short for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.)

Update 11-15-22:  City Council met today.  It did not pull the kennel donation from the consent agenda so the item passed without discussion.  The Mayor did not ask for future agenda items at the end of the meeting.  So, the December 13th meeting is Council's next chance to have the city's PETA letter response discussed in public.  The next ASAC meeting is scheduled for January 19, 2023.

Update 11-30-22:  Over three weeks ago "the City of San Angelo told Concho Valley Homepage staff that they are still reviewing all the information that was in the letter sent by PETA."  It's the last day of the month and there has been no public response to the issues raised in the PETA letter.

Update 12-13-22:   A dog attacked a neighbor on Oxford Avenue and the dog was shot with a gun during the attack.  Someone in local rescue posted:. 

Please let’s do something to open the city shelter back up at least for aggressive dogs. Citizens of this city should not have to deal with this

....this is what happens when animal control doesn’t take action for stray dogs.

Update 1-17-23:  It appears the Animal Shelter Advisory Committee will not meet as scheduled for Thursday, January 19, 2023 given city staff are yet to post an agenda.  The Texas Open Meetings Act requires the agenda to be posted 72 hours in advance.  That deadline has passed with no agenda posted for the scheduled meeting.

Mayor/Council's Response to PETA Concerns?

San Angelo's City Council has been encouraged to pass an "emergency citywide ban on breeding and selling animals in order to assist ones who are now in crisis and to require the city shelter to protect animals and the public by accepting every animal taken to it."

The recommendation came via letter to Mayor Brenda Gunter and members of City Council from People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA).   

City Council has options in responding to PETA's letter.  It could seek the advice of the Animal Shelter Advisory Committee (ASAC).

The Animal Shelter Advisory Committee makes recommendations regarding Animal Services policy to the City Council.

The ASAC will not meet again until January 2023, although the Chairperson Caitlin Wylie could call a meeting at any time.  

Shelter Chief Morgan Chegwidden is the Staff Liaison to the committee as well an ASAC committee member (Single Member District #6).  Chegwidden led the shelter since July 2017 and supervised the reduction of animal related services to taxpaying citizens.  

Under her leadership the shelter experienced a dog poisoning/cleanliness crisis (November 2021) and the recent roach infestation/horrific hoarding conditions (August 2022). 

A responsible City Council would take action in response to the PETA letter.  It remains to be seen what that is.  

Update 11-8-22:  ConchoValleyHomepage ran a piece on PETA's letter.  It stated:

The City of San Angelo told Concho Valley Homepage staff that they are still reviewing all the information that was in the letter sent by PETA.

Update 12-13-22:   A dog attacked a neighbor on Oxford Avenue and the dog was shot with a gun during the attack.  Someone in local rescue posted:. 

Please let’s do something to open the city shelter back up at least for aggressive dogs. Citizens of this city should not have to deal with this

....this is what happens when animal control doesn’t take action for stray dogs.

 

Few Breeder's Permits Issued by City of San Angelo

San Angelo residents are confused by the large numbers of puppies contributing to Animal Shelter overcrowding given the city adopted a mandatory spay/neuter ordinance in 2015.  At the time Council included a requirement that citizens obtain a breeders' permit in order for their pet to reproduce. 

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals weighed in the recent shelter crisis.  Their statement included:

PETA points out that while the shelter is turning animals away, anyone who pays a nominal fee can circumvent the city’s spay/neuter law and breed animals, inevitably adding to the flood of homeless ones.

PETA does not know that most of the puppies and kittens came from people who did not pay a nominal fee via the purchase of a breeder's permit.  Over a seven year period the city issued 16 breeder's permits.

PETA is unaware that the shelter does not have to comply with city ordinances.  The Animal Shelter released nearly 1,500 unaltered pets over the last two fiscal years.  It holds unaltered dogs for years, even allowing pregnant dogs to deliver in the shelter.  

Veterinary services contractor Concho Valley PAWS had two months to perform spay/neuter surgery and prevent the June birth of seven puppies into a shelter with endemic parvo.  They failed to do so.

PETA noted:

Astonishingly, residents are reportedly now being asked to house stray animals for the city, a plan that’s dangerous for animals and residents alike when untrained laypeople try to do the job of trained animal care and control professionals. 

This is ancient history under Pets Alive.  The shelter began choking off intake in 2019 and that hold got tighter and tighter until the shelter stopped taking dogs altogether.

The Animal Shelter has been full of large, long stay dogs.  The city has prioritized difficult to adopt dogs over service to citizens under Pets Alive.  City Council endorsed shelter operations, even through a poisoning event that involved adoption contractor Concho Valley PAWS publicly pleading for volunteers to clean shelter cages.  Council continues to support leadership that steered the shelter into horrific hoarding conditions amid a roach infestation.  

San Angelo residents don't care for outside groups telling them what to do.  That said, there are plenty of residents deeply concerned about the fencing off of Animal Shelter intake and the abject failure of Animal Services to enforce spay/neuter requirements and make the shelter "bad citizen" proof regarding spay/neuter.  Council is yet to listen to locals with statistics, facts and testimony.  They won't give PETA the time of day.

What will get Council's attention is an incident with a connected member of the community or an area employer.  It's a matter of time before that happens.

Aggressive White Dogs at ASU

On August 5, 2022 two large white dogs roamed Angelo State University's campus.  ASU Police received a call from university staff regarding the loose dogs at 9:16 am.  Before being detained the dogs attacked an Education Professor walking her two dogs on campus.  

ASU Education Professor --------  called University Police to report being attacked by two aggressive white dogs around S. Johnson and the crosswalk. Stribling said the dogs were last seen walking towards the University Center. Dispatch informed --------- that the dogs had already been detained and Animal Control had been called.

The Professor described the incident as frightening and said help from bystanders kept her or her dogs from being injured.  

Callers dialed Animal Control in addition to the ASU Police.  The dogs' owner drove up and retrieved his loose pets, according to the ASU Police report:

the owner of the dogs drove up in a vehicle bearing TX:----- , TX DL--------:  ----- lives on W. Ave K. The dogs were released to him. Animal Control had not arrived on scene at this time.

City of San Angelo Animal Control had this document regarding the incident:

 

No response to a Police involved incident from Animal Services.  That happened in December 2021 just blocks away with two large white dogs, one aggressive.  Had Animal Control responded they would be in a position to know if these two incidents were connected and if citizens with pets in the area should be concerned if two large, white dogs are rapidly approaching.  

Animal Services Promotes Shelter Intake Cutoff

SALive interviewed Shelter Chief Morgan Chegwidden and PAWS Executive Director Jenie Wilson the day after the city announced dog intake would be closed for November as long as the canine census remains over 170.  

Morgan continued her exclusive promotion of PAWS, saying the net reduction of over 100 animals through life saving measures was "entirely due to our relationship with Concho Valley PAWS and their life saving programs they offer."  

The City is extremely appreciative of all of the people and organizations that have stepped up in this time of need to help with temporary fosters and relocations of animals.

Chegwidden made no mention of other area rescues who took shelter animals during the roach infestation/horrific hoarding conditions.

Morgan said "we want to be answerable to citizens that invest in us.."   Shouldn't that be citizens who invest in the mission of animal welfare?  Otherwise, the shelter is just part of a political apparatus.

Citizens interested in attending the Animal Shelter Advisory Committee meeting had four opportunities to do so in the last seventeen months.  On 10-20-22 the ASAC stopped answering questions from citizens in attendance as public comment is not a question/answer session, especially for items not on the agenda.  The same thing happened at City Council on 11-1-22.  So there really isn't a forum to get answers from Shelter leadership for people committed to animal welfare.

There is SALive, where Joe Hyde and Yantis Green get to lob softball questions for Morgan and Jenie to answer.  Shelter capacity will remain an ongoing problem due to the city's charging pet owners for their animal's shelter stay ($86) and microchip fee ($13).  If their pet is unaltered, add the cost of a citation ($150) and court fees ($76).  Those fees and fines total $325.  Irresponsible pet owners may leave their pet in the shelter rather than pony up hundreds of dollars. 

City Council did not act on staff's recommendation for a monthly amnesty day on shelter fees or putting $10,000 towards low cost spay/neuter for low income residents.

Cats everywhere, dog packs, all made worse by the shelter releasing nearly 1,500 unaltered pets the last two fiscal years.  And the answer is to close dog intake?  San Angelo's pet problem will be as impressive to area employers as the condition of the streets where stray dogs roam. 

Update 12-13-22:   A dog attacked a neighbor on Oxford Avenue and the dog was shot with a gun during the attack.  Someone in local rescue posted:. 

Please let’s do something to open the city shelter back up at least for aggressive dogs. Citizens of this city should not have to deal with this

....this is what happens when animal control doesn’t take action for stray dogs.

Animal Shelter Planning for One Day of Service in November

The City of San Angelo announced:

As of Wednesday, Nov. 2, the shelter has 181 dogs. Due to this, intake is closed today and any additional days the population remains in excess of 170 dogs until the end of November.

Ways citizens can help reduce shelter population:

• Ask us about the Good Samaritan program – hold the pet for a few days while locating owner.
• If staying out of traffic, leave pet in home neighborhood. 70% of dogs stay within one mile of home.
• Reach out to local rescues.
• If a danger to itself or others, call us at 325-657-4224 to dispatch an Animal Services office

The city plans for the shelter to be open one day in November.  It was November 1, the day City Council approved a hard limit on shelter population.  City leadership ran to the press to put out an 8:16 am release.

The shelter did not offer to scan the stray for the city mandated microchip, a tool for reuniting lost pets quickly with their owner.  It did not refer citizens to HelpMeGetHome.com, a website that posts lost and found pets.

It did steer citizens to local rescue organizations, just as it did when it instituted managed intake in 2019.  That referral overwhelmed rescues.

The press release did not address ways the shelter can deal with overcrowding.  It did not mention the numerous large dogs that have spent years in the shelter.  It did not state that pregnant pets in shelter care would be spayed before giving birth in an environment with endemic parvo and paneleukepenia, diseases deadly for puppies and kittens.  It did not change practices to make the shelter "bad citizen" proof regarding spay/neuter (as it once did).  

Shelter services to the public have been reduced year after year.  Closing the shelter to the public in November occurred in 2021.  The current plan endorsed by Council is for it to be open one day in November 2022.  

That's thirty days for problematic strays to increase in the streets of San Angelo.  New employers might not appreciate San Angelo's third world approach to pets.

Update 11-11-22:  PAWS announced a twenty pound bag of dog food alongside a free dog adoption for November.

Update 12-13-22:   A dog attacked a neighbor on Oxford Avenue and the dog was shot with a gun during the attack.  Someone in local rescue posted:. 

Please let’s do something to open the city shelter back up at least for aggressive dogs. Citizens of this city should not have to deal with this

....this is what happens when animal control doesn’t take action for stray dogs.

Council Supports Restricting Current Shelter Operations

San Angelo City Council endorsed the current operation of the Animal Shelter and gave permission for those services to be restricted further when shelter occupancy reaches 170 dogs and 110 cats.

City Council person Lucy Gonzales said "there are packs of dogs running around and cats everywhere" during the Animal Shelter update.   Shelter Chief Morgan Chegwidden did not respond to her statement.

City Council heard staff's plan to track down and fine pet owners for not getting their pet spayed/neutered per a 2015 city ordinance.  City Attorney Theresa James said she needed to hire a part time person in her office to just handle spay/neuter citations for Municipal Court.  

Staff did not share the expected fine or court fees associated with a misdemeanor charge.  There also was no explanation for changing the time frame for citations from an August 16, 2022 date (as stated in a city press release) to the last two years (as shared by Morgan at the Animal Shelter Advisory Committee).  

Council endorsed a fixed maximum population for the Animal Shelter.  After this population is reached the shelter will no longer take in animals.  Morgan said the shelter gets 70% of its intake from citizens finding lost dogs in the community and 30% come from Animal Control Officers doing their job.  

Owners surrendering their pet to the shelter is restricted to two conditions, a local disaster and an aggressive pet that is a danger to persons in home.  Morgan said there is a wait list for owner surrenders.  The practical impact of completely restricting shelter intake means not taking lost pets found in city limits by residents or Animal Control Officers.

Council did not address the multi-year stays for numerous large dogs in the shelter in giving permission for a hard intake stop.   It did not consider the shelter released nearly 1,500 unaltered animals in the last two years or how those releases contributed to pet overpopulation.  

It will be up to staff to balance the needs of animals in the shelter against the needs of taxpaying citizens with loose strays in their yard or neighborhood.  Councilman Larry Miller arrived at the correct conclusion that he would forced to decide "to keep or let go a stray pet" when the shelter reaches its hard stop.  

That dilemma is not new to citizens trying to do the right thing by animals.  It occurs daily under the city's "keep the stray for two days" program.  Citizens regularly hear the shelter is full and not to bring in the stray dog.

Council asked about volunteers.  Morgan said the only volunteers used at the Shelter come through PAWS.   Council learned PAWS volunteers do not clean animal cages in the shelter.  

Last November 4, 2021 Concho Valley PAWS issued an urgent plea for volunteers to clean Animal Shelter cages.  Shortly thereafter, the shelter experienced widespread dog poisoning.  Morgan reported the incident to the police on November 19, 2021.

Staff proposed two items to council, monthly amnesty days for citizens to retrieve their shelter pet with no fees and funding spay/neuter surgeries for low income residents.  Council took no action on either item. 

Shelter pets could go unclaimed due to costly fees as the owner could just adopt a new "free" pet through PAWS.  Releasing an unaltered Husky twice from the shelter resulted in a third stay where the dog gave birth to seven puppies.  Veterinary service contractor PAWS had two months to fix this dog before it gave birth in the shelter.

Council learned that pay had been increased for shelter workers, however the cost was not listed under financial impact.  The roach infestation/horrific hoarding conditions cost the city well over $25,000 and that also was not shown in the update. 

A hard stop on intake and issuing citations does not help conscientious citizens and certainly doesn't make the shelter "bad citizen" proof. 

The same leadership that misrepresented citation writing misrepresented the support of area rescues going forward.  Most rescues have washed their hands of the Animal Shelter.  Concho Valley PAWS quit playing nice with other rescues after it changed its name from Humane Society of Tom Green County.  It's an exclusive Shelter/PAWS partnership, seen almost daily in City communications.  

Council doubled down on Shelter strategy, leadership and operations.  So, expect lots more of the same.

Update:  It took the city less than 24 hours to stop shelter intake.  No service for you....

As for those area rescues here's the response from Critter Shack's founder:

The answer is not to close a city-run, taxpayer financed shelter. The answer is to EDUCATE pet owners about spay/neuter, to offer city-sponsored LOW-COST or FREE spay/neuter, actually ENFORCE existing spay/neuter ordinance, issuing citations, with option to dismiss fines when proof of spay/neuter is provided. The city needs to address the root of the overpopulation problem, not just close down when limits are reached.

Sharon also wrote:

No mention of spay/neuter.  Let’s not try to begin to solve the problem at root of overpopulation. Let’s ask all of the overfull rescues who receive no help from the city (unlike paws) for assistance. They can’t admit that the “no kill” movement will not currently work here - how can they close to stray intake, found animals by concerned citizens?

A founder of Cassie's Place wrote:

They want the public to “reach out to local rescues” THAT ARE FULL and Damn tired of cleaning up their damn mess. paws is. A RESCUE- REACH OUT TO THEM .

The city is taking the same approach to Animal Services as it took for public health, endless cutting of services.  

Update 12-13-22:   A dog attacked a neighbor on Oxford Avenue and the dog was shot with a gun during the attack.  Someone in local rescue posted:. 

Please let’s do something to open the city shelter back up at least for aggressive dogs. Citizens of this city should not have to deal with this

....this is what happens when animal control doesn’t take action for stray dogs.

Update 1-17-23:  It appears the Animal Shelter Advisory Committee will not meet as scheduled for Thursday, January 19, 2023 given city staff are yet to post an agenda.  The Texas Open Meetings Act requires the agenda to be posted 72 hours in advance.  That deadline has passed with no agenda posted for the scheduled meeting.