It?s amazing how cats could survive in frigid weather conditions. Thank God that this little critter had a happy ending as well as Daisy.

Annie, a 13-year-old tuxedo cat, disappeared near Norfolk, Mass., during a snowstorm in early December on the day her family was moving.

Five weeks later there was still no sign of the cat and her family feared the worst.

They put up missing pet fliers and contacted Animal Control for help.

And this past weekend, their prayers were answered.

A report came into animal control about a cat rescued from a snow bank.

"Basically, when I picked her up, she had no signs of life. She was stiff, she was unconscious, cold to the touch and not responding to anything," said Hilary Cohen, a Norfolk Animal Control officer.

Despite the ordeal, Annie is expected to make a full recovery.


http://content.usatoday.com/communiti ... vives-after-thawing-out/1

So where does the city stand now on animal control issues?
I believe the City Council rejected Steve Fulop's idea of contracting with L.H.S.

One year ago tomorrow Daisy the cat was dumped in Lincoln Park. Are we any better off now than we were a year ago with animal control?

Plans to reform Animal Control are unlikely to end controversy

Thursday, September 03, 2009
By AMY SARA CLARK
JOURNAL STAFF WRITER

Prompted in part by the case of Daisy the cat being dumped in Lincoln Park, the Jersey City Department of Health and Human Services has a new plan for improving its troubled Division of Animal Control.

In a three-page memo issued Aug. 5, Harry Melendez, the department's director, said he plans to create an advisory committee to include some animal activists, and that he will extend the division's hours of operations from 8 a.m. to 11 p.m., Monday through Friday, beginning in the middle of the month. Currently the office is open 8 to 4.

Animal activists have complained for years that the Division of Animal Control - which is supposed to be on call 24 hours a day - frequently fails to answer emergency calls on nights and weekends.

Residents also complain of alleged rude behavior from dispatchers and about a failure to follow departmental guidelines.

For example, last winter, two Division employees were caught dumping Daisy, a cat, in Lincoln Park, instead of taking her to a shelter - contrary to division policy, according to a city spokeswoman.

Downtown Councilman Steven Fulop persuaded the City Council to consider his proposal to create an Animal Control Committee to oversee the division. But Melendez argued that the committee would usurp his authority, and in June the council scrapped the idea and directed Melendez to come up with his own plan.

Melendez's "Animal Welfare and Population Control Committee" is to include animal activists, division employees, representatives from the Liberty Humane Society and the New Jersey Department of Health, and a veterinarian.

It will meet monthly, beginning this month. There is also a new subcommittee on feral cats, which has already met twice, Melendez said.

The director said he is contemplating adding weekend shifts, has hired a new employee to evaluate Animal Control services, and is looking into adding a phone menu to the division's phone system.

Fulop has complained Melendez's plan doesn't specify how employees would be held accountable for mistakes and doesn't address the problem of unanswered emergency calls.

David Norman, president of the nonprofit Hudson Animal Advocates, has called the plan "woefully inadequate" and agreed that creating a second shift wouldn't address Animal Control's lack of response, saying that daytime calls to the office are sometimes not returned.

Fulop and Norman both raised questions about the Liberty Humane Society's ability to act independently on the committee since the shelter is largely funded by the city.

Janet Russell, director of development for Liberty Humane, dismissed those concerns, saying her group has always acted in the best interest of animals.

Melendez didn't return phone calls or e-mails asking for a response to these criticisms.

AMY SARA CLARK can be reached at aclark@jjournal.com.



?2009 Jersey Journal
? 2009 NJ.com All Rights Reserved.

If I contact LHS, would they tell me that he has been dropping off the stray cats from my area? Do you have a number I can contact them?

LoKo - did you check LHS?

I saw that dirtbag Joe Frank picking up a cat that was caught in a cage yesterday in the yard behind mine. Im not sure if they put the cage there or if the owner set out the cage & he juss took it away. I wish I had more time yesterday to follow where he took the cat.

There sure must be a hell of a lot of dirty laundry hidden at Animal Control and City Hall if they don't want to set-up any public committee to oversea this department and probably every department. I'd love to stick my nose in the Planning Dept and the area where contract approvals for public works are handed out - this area would stink to high heaven !

A City is only as good as how they take care of the eldery and animals. JC is bad at both....What is the answer? These clowns gotta go!

How's about somebody dumps Joe Frank in the back of Lincoln Park in the middle of winter and leaves him there for days. And that goes for the knuckleheads on the moron council who voted no.

How great would it be to find them days later in a trap, freezing and smelling of mackerel. Although some members would have to be baited with booze, not fish.

From what I recollect, Melendez (who did not attend last night?s council meeting) has until August 1 to submit his plan of action to remedy the problems he believes are at hand with Animal Control. Who then will review this document to ascertain if it encompasses all of the issues recently made public? Once that is settled, he will apparently have six months to correct the deficiencies and abusive/neglectful treatment of animals. What if this does not occur? Will it be just another slap on the wrist and back to the drawing board for the animal advocates? Although I do understand the reason Fulop suggested this plan of action (this or nothing), there are too many lose ends not addressed at all.

No doubt someone is protecting Joe Frank and his employees. My guess is a patronage job, somebody's cousin etc.
It is amazing that the council would take no action. If a fireman was purposely starting fires you would pursue criminal charges. If the chief was ordering that fireman to start the fires then that would be a scandal. Joe Frank was ordering his employees to dump cats in Lincoln Park thus perpetuating a never ending cycle of strays and their offspring. Is that "animal control"? These people have a third world attitude about city services. There is not a progressive brain in their heads except for Fulop. They are laughing all the way to the bank. These dull, small-minded people are running your city and spending your money. Shameful.

http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/20 ... y_city_council_fails.html


Amy Sara Clark / The Jersey JournalAnimal activists, including Kristine Murphy, center, without sign, listen as the Animal Control Ordinance is debated at Jersey City Hall on June 18, 2009.
About a dozen of people pleaded with the Jersey City Municipal Council to pass an ordinance to create of an Animal Control Commission to oversee the city's Division of Animal Control at last night's City Council meeting.

But despite their pleading, the council decided not to vote on the ordinance. Instead they decided to send a directive memo to Harry Melendez, director of the Jersey City's Department of Health and Human Services, which oversees the Division of Animal Control Division, telling him to submit a plan for correcting the division's problems by August 1.

Ward E Councilman Steve Fulop first introduced the ordinance in April, shortly after the notorious Daisy-the-cat incident in which two animal control officers dumped an escaped pet in Lincoln Park instead of bringing her to a shelter.

Since then residents have been coming to City Council meetings to complain that Jersey City's Division of Animal Control isn't doing its job. Several residents complained of rude and unresponsive behavior from Animal Control Officers including one who said that at least two stay cats had been killed by a dog that Animal Control officers refused to trap.

Last night he said it didn't seem as though the ordinance was going to pass, so he went with the memo as a means of at least moving the issue forward.

Afterward, Ward E resident Kristine Murphy, who supports the ordinance, said she understood why Fulop essentially withdrew the ordinance and pushed the idea for the memo instead.

What she said she doesn't understand is why the council is so against creating the committee.

"I'm just so very concerned about why the council people are against this ordinance passing," she said. "To me it's sort of a no brainer."

"She added, it makes me think that there's something going on that we don't know."

As many people as possible need to attend this meeting tonight. This is a show of support for the animal advocates that work so hard on your behalf!!! Ask the City Council to include your voice. All you are asking by voting for this
ordinance is to help your own City apply best practices and save money!!!

The sad truth of the matter is that tonight the vote will most likely be 2-7 or 1-8 against. The ordinance just barely passed the first reading to the shock of the animal advocates who felt all the hurdles in their way had been removed.

They were told it had no legal standing and that was corrected. They were then told that the commission could not be permanent and could not be administrative.

The commission was changed into a one year trial committee with the option to renew it yearly along with changing the language to make sure it did not sound
in any way administrative. The intent of the committee has always been advisory to the City Council so this posed no problem. The legal department now says there is no legal barrier.

So once every concern from every council member was addressed, the animal advocates were relieved to finally move forward, to finally be heard.

Now here is the deal as someone who has worked in the Council office and has worked on this particular piece of legislation, I can honestly say that this is a great way to get citizens involved in advocating for animals, best practices, and hopefully applying for much need grants in a financially strapped time.

The Health Department, which is clearly under staffed, has everything to gain from this and I know Harry Melendez would see that this would greatly benefit him as well if he could only get past his knee jerk reaction. This advisory committee could interact with the public to help shed
light on what the process is. Already, through this endeavor, Melendez has now embraced the TNR program of which he knew nothing about before.

Please, please, please, come out to City Hall tonight and ask the Council people why they don't want to support this committee that would be advising them on possible legislation they may want to pass to improve your City. This ordinance is purely advisory so they are really voting up or down whether they want to hear what you have to offer as a caring and cohesive group.

A vote no is like requiring dogs to be leashed within dog runs. It makes no sense.

Althea

The idea that "Mr. Frank" would take anyone on this board to court for liable is laughable. You can register under as many names as you want, but it still doesn't make what you say true. Your 'scare' tactics are ineffective and reek of desperation.

The Jersey City Council votes TONIGHT on the creation of an Animal Control Committee -- all animal advocates as well as advocates for good government are asked to attend to show support. The Council is split on its support for this Committee and Mayor Healy has come out against it. Support from the community is vital towards getting this important piece of legislation passed.

Whether you care about animal welfare or not, the central issue here is transparency -- transparency in how agencies work, and whether or not government will be responsive to the needs of the community. Those voting in favor of this ordinance favor accountability and transparency in government, and value the highest level of community involvement in creating public policy.

Those voting against it favor a form of government which operates in secrecy and places obstacles in the way of community involvement. They don't want your input or care about being accountable to you, the voters and taxpayers of Jersey City.

The Division of Animal Control has a longstanding history of incompetence and mismanagement. It is time to shine a bright light on its policies and practices and finally create a program of which we can all be proud.

The above USA Today story was not meant for you or any other users who posted their opinions or suggestions regarding animal control. What you have said is nothing compared to what other users have been stating slanderously about Mr. Frank. They have stated things that have not been founded to be true by JC Police, Hudson County Prosecutor, State Health Department, etc. who had investigated it. I guess their main source of information never told them the outcome of the investigations that were made against him. It could easily be proven in the court of law that what they had posted about Mr. Frank is totally false and they are definitely open to liability suit for slandering his name if he chooses to file a claim.

We all have opinions even suggestions regarding animal control but posting or voicing statements about Mr. Frank is not the way to go about it. This is childish and needs to be confronted with professionalism in order for this to stop.

Comer to the City Council meeting tomorrow night for the final vote on the Animal Control Committee. 6pm at City Hall, Grove and Montgomery.

Quote:

Are "we" Mr. Frank's relatives, or neighbors?

Also, a defamation (slander) claim has to be proven. I don't know the elements. I'm sure wikipedia etc explains it. Statements need to be proven to be false? Needs to be stated as facts, and not opinion? Need to be confused as factual by the reader?

Also, in the case you linked, the defendant did not appear and the plaintiff won by default. Is that what you like? You like that malicious actors are acting out maliciously?

Or do you simply like (trying) to stifle discussion about political and municipal agencies? Coster, with the block!

As I said here: http://jclist.com/modules/newbb/viewt ... id=200144#forumpost200144

If he can't do the job, let's get someone who can.

I find this case very interesting to share with those users who have posted slanderous statements about Joe Frank that wasn?t even found to be true by the authorities who have investigated it. This story really does have a happy ending to it that we like.

By Laura Parker, USA TODAY
A Florida woman has been awarded $11.3 million in a defamation lawsuit against a Louisiana woman who posted messages on the Internet accusing her of being a "crook," a "con artist" and a "fraud."

Legal analysts say the Sept. 19 award by a jury in Broward County, Fla. ? first reported Friday by the Daily Business Review ? represents the largest such judgment over postings on an Internet blog or message board. Lyrissa Lidsky, a University of Florida law professor who specializes in free-speech issues, calls the award "astonishing."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2 ... net-defamation-case_x.htm

NOTICE: All animal advocates and concerned citizens are being asked to attend the City Council meeting this Wed June 17th at 6pm to show support for the Animal Control Commission ordinance.

The Council will be making its final vote on this important ordinance and they need to know how much the community is in favor of its passing. All attendees will be able to speak directly to the council.

City Hall is on Grove and Montgomery Streets.

Frank and the council members that voted against this make me sick!

We will not back down.

WOW, seriously WOW. when you lay it out like that, how in the HELL is this man still in charge. Amazing.

The politicians don't want an oversight comittee, thats fine, at least put someone in charge who is not this man.

i'm speechless.

Mariano Vega thinks the Division of Animal Control is capable of "self correcting?" What a joke. He obviously doesn't know, doesn't care, or pretends not to know the history. Well, Mariano, here's a bump for you -- explains why "self correction" is not possible or even reasonable.

Why are they so afraid to get regular citizens involved here? What else is going on at the Division of AC that they're trying to hide?

It's pretty clear to me that greater oversight of the Division of Animal Control is desperately needed. If this were any other municipality, they would toss Joe Frank out of that job IMMEDIATELY. We all know the history with this guy:


--In 2001 the SCI report revealed that Frank took a loan from SPCA president Ed Pulver, then "repaid" the loan by working there under an assumed name. All the while, Frank looked the other way as animals were abused and mistreated.

--In 2004, Frank seized 3 Shih Tzus from the apartment of a women who had been arrested. He took two to the shelter but took the third home -- after having it groomed and deflea'd at the City's expense, to give to his wife as a gift. When this was discovered, the Law Dept forced him to return the third dog to the shelter, but no disciplinary action was taken against him. The woman reclaimed all three dogs later.

--In 2005, Frank told his officers to enter a tenant's locked apartment and remove her dog, as a favor to the landlord (a friend of his wife) who had tried unsuccessfully to remove the dog through the courts. Two officers (Ross and Perez) refused, claiming this would be theft. The third (Machado) entered the apartment, snared the dog on a pole and cut its mouth, leaving a trail of blood up the stairs. He falsely signed it in at the shelter as a "stray." Later, Machado had a pang of guilt and told a mutual friend where she could find her dog. But not until after he issued her three bogus summons to cover up his misconduct. Those summons were all later dismissed by the prosecutor. A public outcry ensued to oust Joe Frank. After months of promising he would be gone, City officials let this peter out. No disciplinary action was ever taken.

--Also in 2005, Joe Frank filed bogus animal cruelty charges against the former shelter manager of LHS, Niki Dawson after threatening and harassing her for years. The charges were dismissed by the prosecutor. No disciplinary action was ever taken against Frank.

--In 2006, the City Council investigated Animal Control. Evidence was provided by animal advocates demonstrating Frank's long record of violating the Dangerous Dog law and animal cruelty laws. Most people he targets are low income and people of color. Despite the overwhelming evidence of habitual violations of dog owner's rights, no disciplinary action is ever taken, and no greater supervision or oversight is imposed upon him.

--In 2009, two ACOs admit to dumping a resident's pet cat in Lincoln Park. They are spotted dumping another cat there later that day. Vega (also in charge of the County Parks Dept) calls this an "isolated incident" and stands by Melendez who asks Frank to "investigate" the matter. A public outcry ensues; the State investigates and determines that rather than an isolated incident, cat-dumping (versus taking lost cats to the shelter) is AC's standard policy.

AC's failure to respond to after-hours animal emergencies has been a problem for years and apparently continues to be a problem.

Allow it to self correct? Are you kidding me?

Jersey Journal

Split council intros animal oversight plan
Thursday, June 04, 2009

By AMY SARA CLARK
JOURNAL STAFF WRITER

A proposal to create a citizens committee to oversee Jersey City's Division of Animal Control squeaked through the City Council on introduction last night by a 5-4 vote.

Council members Phil Kenny, Bill Gaughan, Willie Flood and Mariano Vega voted against the measure, which will go before the council for a final vote on June 17.

The ordinance replaces a stalled ordinance that the city's legal department deemed illegal, arguing that it would usurp power from the city's executive branch.

The new ordinance, which got the OK from the city's attorneys, changes the name from "commission" to "committee," and reduces the number of members from 19 to 13. It also disbands the committee on June 30, 2010, with no provisions for renewal.

Kenny and Vega said they voted no because they didn't have time to review the ordinance, the final version of which was handed out yesterday. Vega also said that while he agreed the division needs more oversight, he wants to see if it is able to "self-correct" before creating the committee. Flood gave no explanation and Gaughan said he was honoring the wishes of Harry Melendez, director of Health and Human Services, who is against it.

In a letter to the council, Melendez wrote that the division is already supervised by the state and that the council could, at any time, appoint an ad hoc committee to investigate particular concerns.

Councilman Steven Fulop, sponsor of the ordinance, said voting against the proposal sends a message that the council is not interested in residents' involvement.

"When this board says 'no,' it's saying 'We don't want you here. We're going to do what we want to do,'" he said.



?2009 Jersey Journal
? 2009 NJ.com All Rights Reserved.

Should this pass, does anyone know who would be in charge of appointing the members of the commission?

The City Council meeting tonight was a surprising and a contentious one with Steve Fulop and Bill Gaughan going at each other.

In a reversal from the last council meeting weeks back and from Monday's night's Caucus meeting four council members voted NO for the Commission. Steve made it publicly known that Mayor Healy had called (or had someone call on his behalf) the Council members at 4pm today to ask them to vote NO.

Gaughan gave a pathetic speech about "owing" it to Melendez and Steve had to remind Gaughan that Gaughan represented the public and NOT employees of the City. He also called Vega a hypocrite since he changed his tune from the Monday night caucus.

Bottom line, it is up for a second reading in two weeks so we will have EVERY animal advocate in attendance and speaking to the Council.

The Council people who voted no are:

Vega
Kenny
Flood
Gaughan

We will also have to do a mail/email campaign asking for these four members to reconsider and vote yes.

The commission will be a balanced representation of all constituents and stakeholders. One of the first recommendations could be for the City to hire additional ACOs since there are so few already.

However, a review of policies and procedures would be the first order.

There are 3 times the amounts of people on the advisory board than what animal control has serving a city of this size. I think it would work out better for the city if they would just hire more animal control officers as they do with the police and fireman to combat short comings and deficiencies. If there weren?t enough police or fireman on the force today what do you think would be happen? Does the city council really need an advisory board to paint them this picture?