Gimme Shelter

Three "Speak Out" articles appeared in the Patch on Friday, very critical of Friends of the Alameda Animal Shelter (FAAS) and their management of the shelter.

They are:
OUR Shelter (FAAS) Is Being Hijacked, the…
INCOMPETENCE REINS SUPREME AT FAAS
The Trouble with our Animal Shelter

I've been volunteering at the shelter since the Summer of '12, and I strongly support the effort that FAAS has been making. And I want to urge you to read all three of those posts. Read them carefully, more than once if you feel you need to.

Because they are three examples of the finest, grade-A prime quality bullshit you’re likely the find this side of Glenn Beck. There isn’t an actual fact in any of them, and they’re packed with ad hominem attacks, extreme mischaracterizations, and just plain falsehoods. Indeed, it would appear that there is a coordinated effort here to attack FAAS; not only did they all appear at the same time, but two of these posts have appeared as letters in this week’s Alameda Sun, and they’re commenting approvingly on each other’s posts. Let’s look at them one by one.

First, though, let me lay my biases out on the table for all to see. Like I said, I’ve been volunteering at the shelter for about 16 months. I’d never met anyone at the shelter before then, indeed had no interaction with it at all. Since then, I’ve gotten to know most the staff, and while I wouldn’t call anyone a “friend”, I feel I’m fairly well-known and liked by almost everyone, I’ve developed a respect for each of them and like them as individuals, and have developed a great deal of respect for what they try to do and the extent to which they succeed. My feelings aren’t totally uncritical, I’ll discuss that a bit below. I have no professional background in animal care; I have been privileged to have shared the lives of a few dogs and cats in my time. And I’ve worked in a lot of different organizations, companies with four employees and with 400,000, small private, major corporate, and Government. So I’ve seen really good management and really bad, and I’ve learned how to tell the difference. I’ve even formally studied organizations, giving me a quasi-academic perspective. And I’ve seen a lot of bullshit.

I also want to emphasize that while I am very proud of working at the shelter, and am getting a bit more involved, I do not speak for the shelter or for FAAS. And while I did discuss my intention to write this with Executive Director Mim Carlson, neither she nor anyone connected to the shelter or to FAAS — or anyone besides myself, for that matter — has had any input or influence on the following. I am motivated by what I feel is the gross injustice of these posts, magnified by the utter stupidity of their rhetoric.

Let’s start with the hysterical title, “OUR Shelter (FAAS) Is Being Hijacked, the Killing Must Stop”. And I don’t mean hysterical as in hilarious, I mean hysterical as in on the edge of crazy. “Hijacked”? Really? Do you know what that word means? Whatever you think of them, FAAS got the contract to operate the shelter through a completely open process and saved the shelter from being closed! As Casey said, you can look it up. And starting out with an all-caps word is not a good sign. “OUR” shelter, because, see, they — presumably FAAS — are trying to take it away from us. Don’t ask me what “they” would do with it when they got it; sell it to the Koch bothers, maybe? The impression the writer is trying to give with a phrase like “the killing must stop” is that the shelter is becoming some kind of charnel house with animals being slaughtered willy-nilly. But sticking “FAAS” in parentheses after “OUR Shelter” just confuses things; is the shelter being hijacked or is FAAS being hijacked, and if so by whom? Seriously, don’t take your rhetorical tactics from Fox News.

She continues with a series of assertions for which she offers no supporting facts, none at all. Animals are being inhumanely and capriciously killed, the Animal Coordinator is unqualified, Mim Carlson is a mindless bureaucrat who lies to the Board of Directors. These are serious charges. But does the writer present any evidence at all? I mean, even one example? And then there’s a supportive comment from the person who wrote post #3. Did you think we wouldn’t notice? Do you guys room together?

She implores the Board to look into things in person. I say go for it, and I have no doubt Mim would agree. There’s no secrecy at the shelter that I’ve encountered; I’ve never had someone decline to answer a policy question, or any other for that matter. How could there be, it’s got a municipal responsibility, it’s governed by the same laws and regulations as (e.g.) Alameda Family Services (another contracted city service). And the place is wide open. Any Board member is welcome to stop by any time — and several have, I’ve met a few. The place is too cramped and crammed to hide anything, in some areas you have to leave the room to change your mind.

And if one is going to make these near-libelous mischaracterizations, ought one not offer one’s own credentials, at least, so that we can judge the validity of your viewpoint? You’re trying to persuade us of something (or so one would think), trying to get us all up in arms, shouldn’t you offer something more than infantile screaming?

Polemics need to pay strict attention to their form, as dumb spelling, formatting and grammar errors detract from the impact of your case (which assumes you have one), especially when the theme of your piece is "competence". So our second poster ought to have given a couple of extra thoughts to the title, “INCOMPETENCE REINS SUPREME AT FAAS”. This writer would seem to be not that sophisticated regarding online posts. The first obvious sign is, again, all caps. You don’t have to shout, we hear you. An over-dependence on spellcheck would also seem to be evident, as the title uses the wrong spelling of “reign”, as does the text. Our friend here also needs to be shown how to copy and paste from a Word document without including all the formatting markup codes. (Although, to be fair, the Patch website’s been so buggy lately maybe it wasn’t the writer’s fault.)

So the writer is “very glad” that people are speaking out about FAAS. Pure coincidence, of course, that this speaking out is almost simultaneous with the writer’s own missive. Citing “heartbreaking stories” (tell us one?) from “informed sources” (really?) about policies enacted “behind closed doors”, the writer’s unnamed sources nonetheless found out about these apparently secret policy decisions, which are now “out in the open”, although conveniently not described by the writer, leaving us to fill in the details out of our own fevered imaginations. More unsupported assertions and characterizations follow, replete with ironic quote marks, followed by, yes, a Nazi comparison. Apparently, the only “Godwin” the writer’s aware of is the father of the Anglo-Saxon English king. Then another ad hominem attack on Mim Carlson, an assertion of arbitrary euthanasia, followed by a truly dumb mistake accusing Mim of over-concern with “her bottom line”. Of course, as a non-profit, FAAS doesn’t have a bottom — i.e., profit — line! Unattributed allegations of “legendary” but nonetheless unknown stories of incompetence seguè into an unfair and unfounded personal attack on the Volunteer Coordinator, climaxing with a crescendo of imputed criminality. All in all, a fabulous piece of work. Thank you, Mair MacKinnon, N.D., whatever the hell N.D. means. Oh, you’re a naturopath? Well, that makes you an expert in animal care management, doesn’t it?

I have to admit it’s a bit harder to dismiss our third writer. I don’t wish to doubt her sincerity, she seems to have a more personal perspective, although it’s hard to be sure, as she uses a pseudonym (to be fair, she uses her real name in the Sun letter). And that’s her right, but it’s also mine to credit her less for not having the integrity to make the kinds of accusations she makes using her actual name. Of course, she wishes she could say nicer things, sigh, the situation “saddens” her, alas, she’s so disappointed. She complains (as does another of these posts) about Volunteer Coordinator Cindy Shelby. I’ll recount my feelings about Cindy later, but our writer doesn’t describe anyone I recognize. Now, I’ve been accused occasionally of lack of tact; some people don’t react to that all that well. Maybe she’s too intense for some people, maybe there have been disagreements, but that doesn’t justify the imputation of abusiveness in the phrase “talk to people anyway she likes”. Our writer then knocks down the straw man of “no-kill shelter” (no one ever claimed otherwise), and picks out one unfortunate example, citing hearsay only, to generalize from.

The biggest problem I have with these folks, other than the cheap stupidity of their “argument”, is the sense that they’re sniping from the sidelines, hiding behind pseudonyms and “informed sources”. To quote Ann Romney (of all people), “You want to try it? Get in the ring.” Who are these people? What’s their experience in this area? What’s their connection to the issues? Have you ever spoken on this at a City Council meeting? You seem to be coordinated, do you have an organization? Where are you getting your funds? Where are you getting your facts [sic]?

Particularly LadyB, I think if you went more public you would have a much greater impact. Seriously. Are you afraid that the euthanasia Mafia will tie you up and throw your body in the estuary? Or chop you up and feed you to the dogs? Or what? You can dish it out…

In a nutshell, why should we care what you think? Especially since your intention seems to be to rile people up to take some sort of action. That kind of thing sends my bullshit detector ‘way into the red zone.

Have any of you ever tried to manage a group of volunteers? Almost by definition, you can’t abuse volunteers, there’s no reason for them to stay. Saying managing volunteers is like herding cats is too obvious, and “herding cats” has become a cliché, so I’ll say it’s like carrying weasels in a wheelbarrow. And if a few volunteers are uncomfortable for some reason, even a clash of personalities (hey, these things happen), there’s no shortage of shelters and rescue groups, you can’t hardly swing a dead cat without hitting one; go volunteer there. Why badmouth someone else? Makes you look like a whiny schmuck.

These critics also ignore, unfairly, I feel, the mess that the shelter was pre-'12 (describing it as somewhere between Bedlam and Willowbrook would only be slightly extreme), the distance it's come, but more important, the distance it has yet to go. Also, and I think this is a critical point, AAS is "open-door"; that means everyone who's brought there gets taken in, regardless of health, behavior, conditions of prior servitude, even species (with some few exceptions). That means they don't get to weed out the potential problems before they manifest. And then have to deal with them, sometime unfortunately. I suspect finding an "open-door" shelter that's also "no-kill" would be quixotic at best; the two seem contradictory.

Not that there aren’t issues and need for improvements. I note a comment to “INCOMPETENCE…” from Greentart. While I might get picky and argue that “the fact that [the writer] felt the need to go there” actually says nothing about what’s happening without at least a couple of verifiable facts, his suggestion about some kind of independent consultation regarding euthanasia beyond the current decision group seems worth of consideration. (That’s called “constructive criticism”; look it up.) I think we all support maximum transparency, but I gotta say I just don’t see the lack of it. And yes, I’m aware of the ironic nature of that last sentence.

I think the physical plant is horrendous. I don’t think I’ll get much disagreement from anyone on that point. It’s cramped, it’s poorly organized, it looks like a god-damn jail. Bringing a dog down that corridor is the most stress-ridden 30 seconds of my day, not to mention the dog’s. And the new paint job only helped a little (whoever chose that horribly dark color ought to be horsewhipped; anyone have a horse?). These folks aren’t sitting on their asses thinking up bigger and better ways to fundraise like some Ivy League sorority. I’ve used the metaphor of cramming 10 lbs. of kitty litter into a 5 lb. bag; these people are painfully overworked, and I’m pretty sure almost all paid staff (office staff totals six, seven if you count Animal Control Officer Wilson) is part-time. Their computer systems, their management systems generally, need serious updating, a task beyond one person’s effort; anyone out there want to help? And these things cost money, you know; they could really use a new truck for mobile adoptions and similar events. Any of you three know where they can get one? And FAAS has been running the joint for less than two years, starting from effectively nothing. Cut them a little bit of slack, puh-leeze!

But the kind of mendacity, cruelty and moral turpitude described by our writers? I’m sorry, I don’t know Who. They’re. Talking. About.

Yes, Cindy can be a little intense, especially where protocol is concerned, and extra-especially in the wake of some recent dog-bite (and cat-bite) incidents. Every time a volunteer gets hurt, she takes it personally; if she maybe over-corrects a bit, I think that’s understandable, and far, far from abusive.

Nobody wants to put down a dog. It makes me feel stupid just to have to write that. Implications and insinuations of carelessness, thoughtlessness, capriciousness without solid substantiation are simply unfair. You might disagree with one or another decision, sure. I must admit that LadyB’s mention of Zeus gave me pause; I knew him and liked him a lot, and wasn’t aware that he’d been put down. I might’ve disagreed with that one, had I the chance. But I can’t help feeling that our writers would disagree in all cases, categorically.

I admire those kinds of principles, impractical and difficult to keep as they may sometimes be. But I condemn the vicious ignorance of the way these posters express them. They’re not looking to have a conversation; they are, as we used to say, looking for no-good shits.

These posts were brought to my attention not by someone at FAAS, but Patch editor Dixie Jordan; she was wondering if there was a story here. Well, there is. I want to invite Dixie, or the people at the Sun or the Journal to do some actual reporting. Interview Mim, interview a couple of volunteers, get a tour of the shelter; it is our shelter, all of ours. Let’s see a headline, either “Shelter Allegations Confirmed” or “Shelter Allegations Refuted”.

But if you can’t help, STFU.