As a dissenting voter at Monday evening’s meeting, City Councilman Andy Weissman continues to shake his head over the months’ long enthusiastic but blanks-dominated blueprint for Culver City to hire its first animal services officer this winter.
The blueprint remains empty. “Nothing has changed since it was originally approved,” he said. “They haven’t done anything.”
For several years, an aggressive claque of pet owners has been loudly petitioning the Council to hire an animal services officer — but enthusiasm appears to be all they have concretely produced so far.
In the four months since a deeply divided City Council barely supported a two-year pilot program, the Council subcommittee charged with formulating a plan — Chris Armenta and Vice Mayor Gary Silbiger — no business plan or financial strategy has been developed.
Mr. Weissman had a number of questions. Where are the business plans? Details? Even little ones? Expenses? Even tiny ones?
“Shouldn’t we know what the entire program, will consist of before we vote? “ wondered Mr. Weissman. “Shouldn’t we know whether there will be enough money to support the program before we go out and recruit an officer?”
Mr. Weissman seemed confident that once a program is organized, backers will find they need far more money from the city than has been budgeted. Such a request, he said, would call for a budget amendment. That would require a four/fifths vote, and he is confident any votes would be available besides its three advocates on the Council.
Rudimentary Projections
Not even vague outlines have been drawn up even though the latest predictions call for an officer to be hired around February. His (or her) work will be overseen by the Police Dept., where Capt. Scott Bixby will be in charge.
Except for projecting that the officer will draw a salary between $41,000 and $52,000, and that he will need a truck costing a similar amount, the energetic backers of the plan have stalled in developing even a thin outline.
For this reason, Mr. Weissman and Mayor Scott Malsin said Monday night, they will continue to withhold their approval of an amorphous scheme that, to them, has nothing more than enthusiasm going for it.
By the same 3 to 2 vote that the original measure barely skidded by last June, a Council majority of Mehaul O’Leary, Mr. Armenta and Mr. Silbiger took a technical action and approved of a bookkeeping gesture, approving of the officer’s “classification specification.”
What About Off-Hours?
Critics of the animal officer scheme — and there is not a shortage —have been unanimous in predicting that the $129,000 set aside for the first year is too conservative of an estimate by miles. They say a reasonable forecast would be at least between two and three times that amount.
In fact, the budget already has fallen short. Only a portion of the new officer’s training can be paid for — so far.
Presently, Culver City is served by a team of County animal services officers who are available 24 hours a day. The officer on duty transports his findings to the County shelter in Carson, 17 miles away. The shelter has been heavily criticized for maintaining unsanitary conditions.
Among the major deficiencies in the plan to date, as cited by Mr. Weissman, are the lack of a shelter (besides the cages on the officer’s cruising truck), funding for training the officer, funding for veterinary bills, and a strategy for covering the community during the 128 hours every week that the Culver City office will be off-duty.
