ORD-2008-105 - Third Part Representation in the Employee Disciplinary Process

Browse Search

/'/-~ J~'' -'v ~ Ci ~,.. removal, etc. Anti-tether bills, such as this one are couched in emotional appeals, and personal anecdotes, rather than being based on factual evidence. Pictures of starving puppies on logging chains are used to sell a horror story, one not representative of the norm, to sympathetic dog lovers, the majority of which keep their dogs strictly inside as house dogs. It is entirely possible to tether a dog responsibly in a manner consistent with, and even above and beyond, all existing levels of mandatory care. Whether an outdoor dog lives in a kennel or on a tether, the obligation exists to keep the dog responsibly, which is contingent upon a combination of love, and common sense -neither of which can be created through legislation. Regards, The 250+ members of the Durham Kennel Club 7318 Guess Road http://durhamkennelclub.com/ Brian Fee referred to at story in the Chapel Hill News where five people from Orange County were asked if they supported an anti-tethering ordinance. Four of the five said that the County should not have a role in this. There was no mention of abuse from the citizens. He said that Orange County citizens expect that the County Commissioners see information from all sides. He thinks that the original goal of the committee was to reduce dog abuse and neglect. However, he believes that the County Commissioners have been influenced by the Coalition to Unchain Dogs. He said that not one person on the Tethering Committee was pro- tethering. He said that the whole process is stacked against citizens that chain their dogs. He does not think that the County Commissioners have listened to the Orange County citizens. He said that he wrote a Letter to the Editor about this issue. Ellen Whitaker is a member of the Coalition to Unchain Dogs. She said that there are certain things about tethering that are not covered in the anti-cruelty laws. She said that this ordinance will be enforced by complaints only, so people who responsibly tether their dogs do not need to worry. Chair Jacobs said that he hoped that the information about tethering restrictions would accompany license renewals for animals. Bob Marotto clarified that the ordinance would apply to the unincorporated areas of Orange County and the Town of Hillsborough and would not apply in Chapel Hill, Carrboro, or Mebane. Commissioner Foushee said that she will oppose this ordinance as amended because she feels that it will impose a hardship on a large number of law-abiding citizens who very responsibly and lovingly care for their dogs. A motion was made by Commissioner Nelson, seconded by Commissioner Carey to approve adopting on second reading the proposed amendment to the Orange County Animal Ordinance restricting the tethering of dogs. VOTE: Ayes, 4; No, 1 (Commissioner Foushee) c. Third Party Presence in the Employee Disciplinary Process The Board considered a possible amendment to the Orange County Personnel Ordinance Article IX, Section 4d(1); third party presence or representation for eligible employees at apre-disciplinary conference involving demotion, suspension or termination.