Minutes 01-21-2016 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

15 is in the best position to make a decision. She said if an appeal is filed and the appeals panel reaches a different conclusion, the director's decision can be overturned. Bob Marotto said the director makes no decisions until a thorough investigation has been completed. He said any conclusions drawn from investigations are reviewed several times before the director makes a final decision. He said the nature of communication at Animal Services, along with the appeals process, allows for great accountability and transparency. Commissioner Price asked if the investigation report contains a recommendation from the investing officer. Bob Marotto said yes. PUBLIC COMMENT: Susan Elmore said she is a member of the ASAB, and the work on the revised ordinance is for the Board's approval tonight. She said she wanted to remind the Board that the original goal of this ordinance was to merge the three existing ordinances with the towns, to fill any gaps, and to clarify legal language as needed. She noted that stakeholders have been consulted throughout this process. She said she serves as Chair of the current appeals board, and gave the example of an appeal of decisions regarding a dangerous dog citation from Chapel Hill and Orange County. She said citizens do not understand why they have two documents, and that is because the current system does not make sense. She said it is extremely confusing, and the system is broken. She said it is unfair to citizens, and the ASAB is looking forward to the new ordinance, noting it is not perfect but it is a living document. She said the ASAB did have a concern about adding additional people from the townships, but this is no longer a concern. Maureane Hoffman is a new member of the ASAB, and she wanted to emphasize to the Board how diligent the ASAB has been to meet its responsibilities. She said the ASAB is advisor to the Board of County Commissioners as well as Animal Services. Mike Stewart said five hearings were held in December, with another one expected this week, and deep pools of volunteers will be needed to supply the appeals panel. Commissioner Rich expressed thanks for all the work put into this project, but she still has some concerns about page 28, which says attorneys can attend appeals but cannot be part of the process. She said she is still not clear about this issue, asking if an attorney cannot be a part of the process, why would one bring an attorney. Annette Moore said a commissioner asked for the inclusion of this language, as it is similar to the personnel ordinance requirements. She said an attorney can advise, but the dynamics change when an attorney gets involved in the conversations. Commissioner Pelissier said she is not clear about the description of the appeals panel, asking if all members of the panel are residents of the County, why include the language that says there will be a resident of the municipality or the County present. Annette Moore said the goal is to have a panel member who is a citizen of the area where the alleged incident occurred. She said this goal arose from the desire of the towns to have representation of one who understands the town, and its values and culture. Commissioner Pelissier asked what will happen if a person is not available from the particular municipality. She asked if multiple people from each town would need to be available to insure that one can serve in a timely fashion, or if using representatives from another town may suffice. Annette Moore said having a provision that allows for a resident of another town to serve may be beneficial, allowing for an urban representation on the appeals board when the incident has occurred in an urban setting.