Link

Social

Embed

Download

Download
Download Transcript

[CALL TO ORDER]

[00:00:02]

COMMISSIONED SHARE AND CALLING THIS SPECIAL CALLED MEETING TO ORDER AT 7:19 PM.

THIS IS ANIMAL VISORY COMMISSION MEETING JUNE 10TH, 2022 IN PERSON VIRTUAL AND TELECONFERENCING.

UH, NOW I'M GOING TO GIVE THE ROLL CALL OF THE COMMISSIONERS.

IF YOU'RE HERE.

SAY HERE, CRAIG NAZER.

I'M HERE.

NANCY NEMER, NANCY NEMERS HERE.

UH, PALMER.

HERE IS HERE.

UH, JOANNE NORTON HERE.

LOUISE HERRERA HERE.

KRISTEN HANSON HERE.

RYAN CLINTON.

YEAH.

LISA MITCHELL HERE, KATIE YARROW.

SHE IS NOT HERE.

A LOT OF SMUG ULA HERE.

BEATRICE .

I CAME AND DR.

PAIGE NELSON HERE.

OKAY.

UM, A REMINDER, PLEASE.

IF ANYONE THINKS THEY HAVE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST WITH ANY AGENDA ITEM, PLEASE SPEAK UP AND I'VE JUST WANT TO ADD THAT THERE'S TWO THINGS YOU CAN DO.

YOU CAN RECUSE, OR YOU CAN ABSTAIN.

IF YOU HAVE A REAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST, YOU SHOULD RECUSE.

THAT MEANS YOU'RE NOT PART OF THE CONVERSATION AND YOU DON'T VOTE IF YOU ABSTAIN.

THAT JUST MEANS YOU DON'T VOTE, BUT YOU CAN BE A PART OF THE CONVERSATION.

THAT'S A LITTLE TECHNICAL DIFFERENCE, BUT JUST SO YOU KNOW WHAT THAT IS, UM, ANNOUNCED CITIZEN COMMUNICATION.

I DON'T BELIEVE WE HAVE ANY CITIZEN COMMUNICATION.

OKAY.

UH, SO WE ONLY HAVE

[1a. Hold Period Ordinance]

ONE PIECE OF BUSINESS ON THE AGENDA THAT IS DISCUSSION POSSIBLE ACTION ON THE HOLD PERIOD ORDINANCE.

UH, THEY DIDN'T GET THIS POSTED BY JUST WANT TO READ A FEW THINGS FROM THE ORDINANCE THAT ARE GERMANE TO OUR DISCUSSION.

SO THIS IS THREE DASH ONE DASH 25 C, EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN SUBSECTION D THE HEALTH AUTHORITY SHALL HOLD AN IMPOUNDED ANIMAL, NOT SURRENDERED BY ITS OWNER FOR A PERIOD OF THREE BUSINESS DAYS.

FOLLOWING IMPOUNDMENT OF THE ANIMAL FOR OWNER RECLAMATION ON THE FOURTH BUSINESS DAY AND IMPOUNDED ANIMALS, A PROPERTY OF THE HEALTH AUTHORITY.

THEN UNDER D I, IT SAYS FOR PURPOSES OF CALCULATING TIME PERIODS OF THIS SECTION, THE DATE OF INITIAL IMPOUND IS NOT COUNTED.

AND THEN J SAYS EACH DAY THE HEALTH AUTHORITIES ANIMAL SHELTER IS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC FOR RECLAMATION AND ADOPTION IS A BUSINESS DAY.

NOW WE CHANGE THIS A NUMBER OF YEARS AGO.

IT WAS SORT OF A, A BIG DEAL TO GET THE CITY COUNCIL.

WE A NUMBER OF US LOBBIED CITY COUNCIL OFFICES, BECAUSE WE WERE TOLD THAT THIS WAS AN IMPORTANT THING.

AND RYAN WE'LL GO INTO THIS MORE IN DETAIL.

UM, BUT, UH, SO THIS IS WHY THIS HAS A LITTLE RESONANCE FOR SOME OF US ON THE COMMISSION.

SO, UH, RYAN, WHY DON'T SHOOT, RYAN HAS POSTED A BUNCH OF INFORMATION THAT I WANT HIM TO EXPLAIN WHAT IT IS.

AND RYAN, SINCE RYAN HAD A LOT TO DO WITH WRITING THE CHANGES ORDINANCE, I'D LIKE HIM TO GO INTO SOME DETAILS.

SO GO AHEAD, RYAN.

OKAY.

CAN EVERYBODY HEAR ME? YES.

YES.

TECHNOLOGY IS AMAZING.

UM, UH, SO SEVERAL YEARS AGO, UM, UH, THE BACKGROUND FOR THIS PART OF THE ORDINANCE THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE SPEAKING ABOUT SEVERAL YEARS AGO, UH, THERE WAS A CASE CALLED GERMAN SHEPHERD RESCUE VERSUS LIRA, AND IT WENT ALL THE WAY UP TO THE TEXAS SUPREME COURT.

THE ISSUE IN THE CASE WAS ONE THAT HAD NEVER BEEN DECIDED IN TEXAS, ALTHOUGH IT HAS BEEN DECIDED IN, UM, TWO OR THREE OTHER STATES.

UM, AND THAT IS ESSENTIALLY WHO OWNS THE ANIMAL AFTER THE WHOLE PERIOD DOES EXPIRED BECAUSE WE KNOW THAT ANIMALS ARE IN TEXAS AS ELSEWHERE, UM, PERSONAL PROPERTY OF THE OWNER.

UM, THE QUESTION WAS PRESENTED BASIC, WHICH IS IF AN ANIMAL WENT TO THE SHELTER, IT, IT STAYED BEYOND THE EXPIRATION OF THE HOLD PERIOD AND THAT PARTICULAR CASE THAT WENT TO A RESCUE GROUP, UH, AND THEN THE ORIGINAL OWNER FOUND THE ANIMAL ON THE RESCUE GROUPS WEBSITE, OR SOMEHOW FOUND OUT THAT THE ANIMAL WAS AT THE RESCUE GROUP AND THE ORIGINAL OWNER WANTED THE ANIMAL BACK.

THE RESCUE GROUP SAID NO.

UH, AND THEN THE ORIGINAL OWNER SUED SAYING THAT ESSENTIALLY ARGUING THAT THE ANIMAL WAS STOLEN FROM ITS ORIGINAL OWNER BECAUSE, UM, UH, IT STILL BELONGS TO THE ORIGINAL OWNER.

UH, AND

[00:05:01]

THE QUESTION WAS WHAT, THERE ARE NOT THE OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY HAD TRANSFERRED TO THE ORIGINAL OWNER AT THE EXPIRATION OF THE CITY OF HOUSTON'S HOLD PERIOD.

IT WENT THROUGH THE CITY OF HOUSTON'S ARCH FILTER AND IT STAYED THERE FOR, I THINK, I THINK THERE WAS A THREE DAY HOLD PERIOD AND IT WAS THERE FOR 10 DAYS.

UM, AND THEN IT WAS TRANSFERRED TO A RESCUE GROUP.

AND IN EVERY OTHER STATE THAT HAD DECIDED THIS ISSUE, THE COURTS HAD DECLARED THAT THE ANIMAL BELONGED TO THE NEW RESCUE GROUP OR THE NEW OWNER AT THE, AFTER THE EXPIRATION OF BONE HERE IN THE TEXAS SUPREME COURT, UH, CURRENTLY.

AND WHAT IT HELD WAS THAT, UH, GOVERNMENT ESSENTIALLY CANNOT, UM, ACQUIRE PROPERTY WITHOUT NOTICE TO THE OWNER AND ESSENTIALLY EFFECTIVELY WHAT THE COURT SAID WAS THAT THE CITY OF HOUSTON'S OLD PERIOD DID NOT EXPRESSLY STATE THAT PROPERTY OWNERSHIP, THE TITLE TO THE PERSONAL PROPERTY CHANGED HANDS AT THE EXPIRATION OF THE HOLD PERIOD.

AND THEREFORE, IN THAT CASE, THE COURT HELD THAT THE ANIMAL DID IN FACT BELONG TO ITS ORIGINAL OWNER, BECAUSE NOTHING IN THE CITY OF HOUSTON'S OLD PERIOD ORDINANCE INDICATE PROPERTY OF THE ANIMAL TRANSFERRED OR CONVEYED TO, UH, EITHER THE SHELTER OR THE RESCUE GROUP OR THE NEW OWNER AFTER THE EXPIRATION OF THE HOME, THE COURT ESSENTIALLY SAID, IT'S A, IT'S AN ISSUE OF DUE PROCESS AND NOTICE, UH, PROPERTY RIGHTS.

AND THERE WAS NO NOTICE AND THAT HOLD PERIOD ORDINANCE, THAT PROPERTY TRANSFERRED AT THE EXPIRATION OF THE HOLD PERIOD, THE COURT HELD THAT IT DID NOT.

AND, UM, THE, UH, THE, UH, THE RESCUE GROUP IN THAT CASE WAS LIABLE TO THE OWNER.

UM, IN OTHER STATES, THE COURT HAS GONE THE PARTS OF GOING OUT OF THEIR WAY, WAYS.

I THINK IT WAS WEST VIRGINIA, VERMONT, OR THE OTHER TWO.

UM, BUT, UH, TEXAS WENT A DIFFERENT WAY.

NO, AFTER THAT CASE CAME ON, WE TOOK A LOOK AT AUSTIN'S ORDINANCE AND AUSTIN'S LIKE, LIKE HOUSTON'S AND EVERY OTHER WITNESS THAT I'VE EVER SEEN DID NOT EXPRESSLY STATE THAT TROPICS, THAT PROPERTY TRANSFERRED TO EITHER THE SHELTER OR A NEW OWNER OR A RESCUE GROUP AT THE EXPOSITION OF THE WHOLE PERIOD.

SO TO DEAL WITH THAT OPINION, BECAUSE AT THAT, AT THAT MOMENT, FROM THAT MOMENT ON ANY ANIMAL THAT CAME OUT OF AUSTIN ANIMAL CELL CENTER, UH, DID NOT BELONG TO ANYONE.

YOU GOT IT, IT'S STILL BELONG TO THE NEW OWNER BECAUSE OUR, UM, OUR ULTERIOR NORA ORDINANCE, LIKE, LIKE HOUSTON, DIDN'T SAY THAT PROPERTY TRANSFERRED AT THE EXPIRATION OF THE WHOLE GROUP.

SO THE WENT, UM, THIS PROCESS WENT THROUGH THE COMMISSION AND THEN THE CITY COUNCIL TO AMEND OUR HOLD PERIOD OF ORDINANCE TO BE VERY SPECIFIC ABOUT WHEN PROPERTY OF THE PROPERTY OF, UH, THE, UH, THE OWNERSHIP OF ANY ANIMAL THAT COMES INTO THE ANIMAL CENTER, UM, BECOMES THAT WHEN THE TITLE TRANSFERS TO THE ANIMALS.

AND SO WHAT WE DID AT THAT TIME, AND I THINK KRISTEN WOULD ACTUALLY THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR AT THE TIME AND WAS HEAVILY INVOLVED IN, UM, OFFERING IT.

AND WHAT WE SAID WAS THAT WE ACTUALLY HAD A BIFURCATED HOLD PERIOD ORDINANCE, WHICH IS WHAT WE STILL HAVE.

IT'S THE SAME ONE THAT WAS PASSED AT THE TIME, WHICH MEANS THAT THE DEANNA WITS WITH A FEW EXCEPTIONS, THE ANIMAL SHELTER CAN NOT BE EUTHANIZE AN ANIMAL FOR SEVEN DAYS, BUT IT CAN TRANSFER PROPERTY OR THE, UH, AFTER THREE DAYS.

AND IT HAS TO BE THREE BUSINESS DAYS.

THE ACCOUNT, THE DATE OF INBOUND DOES NOT COUNT.

SO THAT, THAT IS DAY ZERO DAY.

ONE IS THE DAY AFTER INBOUND DAY TWO IS THE SECOND DAY AFTER IMPOUND.

DAY THREE IS THE THIRD DAY AFTER IMPOUND AND DAY FOUR ON DAY FOUR, THE PROPERTY BECOME THE ANIMAL BECOMES THE PROPERTY OF THE ANIMAL SHELTER OR IN, IN A, AN EXCEPTION.

UM, CERTAINLY FOR CERTAIN RESCUE GROUPS THAT WE HAVE ALSO AN EXCEPTION THAT ALLOWS IF AN ANIMAL IS, UM, NEEDS TO BE TRANSFERRED TO A RESCUE GROUP WITHIN THE THREE DAY PERIOD ONLY TO SAVE THE LIFE OF AN ANIMAL.

IT IS NOT OUT OF CONVENIENCE TO THE ANIMAL SHELTER, BUT ONLY TO SAVE THE LIFE OF AN ANIMAL.

AN ANIMAL CAN BE TRANSFERRED WITHIN THAT WHOLE PERIOD, THOSE THREE DAYS TO EAGER TO SAVE IN ORDER TO SAVE THE ANIMALS LIFE.

BUT EVEN WITHIN THAT FIRST THREE DAYS, IT'S STILL BELONGS TO THE PREVIOUS OWNER.

IT DOES NOT BELONG TO THE RESCUE GROUP, UM, UNTIL THOSE, UH, THREE DAYS HAVE PASSED.

SO THAT'S DAY AGAIN, DAY ZERO IS DATE OF IMPOUND.

DAY ONE IS THE DAY AFTER IMPOUND DAY TWO SECOND DAY AFTER IMPOUND DAY THREE, THIS THIRD DAY, FOURTH DAY IS THE DAY THAT IT CAN BE, UM, ESSENTIALLY TITLE HAS TRANSFERRED TO THE ANIMAL SHELTER.

WE ALSO MAKE CLEAR, UM, BECAUSE THIS HAD BEEN AN ISSUE A LONG TIME AGO, PRIOR TO THEM THEY'LL KILL REFORMS THAT WERE DAYS DIFFERENT DAYS AND WEEKENDS THAT THE SHELTER WAS NOT OPEN TO THE PUBLIC.

ONE OF THE THINGS THAT HAPPENED IN THE NO KILL PLAN WAS, UH, THAT THE COMMISSION ADOPTED AND THE CITY ADOPTED WAS THAT THE SHELTER SHOULD BE OPEN ON WEEKENDS AND WEEKNIGHTS

[00:10:02]

FOR ADOPTIONS AND, UM, RECLAMATIONS.

AND SO, UM, WHEN THE CITY, UH, DURING COVID, WHEN THE SHELTER DETERMINED THAT IT WAS GOING TO BEGIN CLOSING ON SUNDAYS, WHICH IS FAIRLY, UM, FOR WHATEVER REASON, THEY DIDN'T EVALUATE THE PERIOD ORDINANCE.

AND SO THEY, EVEN THOUGH THEY WERE CLOSE TO THE PUBLIC AND THEREFORE THAT DAY WOULD NOT COUNT AS A HOLD PERIOD DAY UNDER THE EXPRESS TERMS OF THE HOLD PERIOD OR NEXT, THEY WERE COUNTING THAT AS A WHOLE PERIOD DAY.

AND THEY, THE CITY WAS THERE FOR BOTH TRANSFERRING OUT ANIMALS AND ADOPTING OUT ANIMALS BEFORE THOSE ANIMALS BECAME THE PROPERTY OF THE CITY.

SO ALL OF THOSE ANIMALS THAT WERE ADOPTED OUT OR TRANSFERRED OUT PRIOR TO THE EXPIRATION OF THEIR HOLD PERIOD, UNDER THE LEAR DECISION, THEY DO NOT BELONG TO THE NEW RESCUE GROUP NOR DO THOSE ANIMALS BELONG TO THE ADOPTED NEW ADOPTERS.

ALL OF THEM, THESE ANIMALS STILL BELONG TO THEIR PRIOR OWNERS.

SO WHAT WE DID TO ADD, AND AS WE CONFIRMED, UM, LAST COMMISSION MEETING THAT IS IN FACT, A MISTAKE THAT THE CITY HAD MADE.

SO ONE OF THE QUESTIONS THAT WE HAD WAS, OKAY, HOW BAD IS IT? HOW MANY, MANY ARE AT ISSUE? AND SO WHAT WE DID IS WE TOOK RECENT SHELTER DATA.

WE STARTED IN NOVEMBER OF 2021, AND WE TOOK IT ALL THE WAY THROUGH, UM, A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO WHEN WE WERE RUNNING THE ANALYSIS, WHAT WE DETERMINED THAT WAS THERE WERE, UM, AND I'M, I'M, I'M LOOSELY, UH, STATING THE NUMBERS.

I DON'T HAVE THEM MEMORIZED OR THE DOCUMENT IN FRONT OF ME, BUT IT WAS, YOU KNOW, MAYBE A COUPLE OF DOZEN, UH, HERE AND THERE FROM, UH, NOVEMBER AND JANUARY, DECEMBER, DECEMBER, AND JANUARY.

AND A LOT OF THOSE BY THE WAY, WERE APPEAR TO BE RELATED TO, UH, HOLD PERIODS DAYS THAT WERE HOLIDAYS THAT WERE NOT COUNTING, THAT WASN'T JUST SUNDAYS THAT WERE NOT COUNTED.

IT WAS HOLIDAYS THAT WERE NOT ENCOUNTERED IN THE HOLD PERIOD, UM, OR THAT WEREN'T BEING COUNTED IN THE WHOLE GROUP, BUT IT SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN.

SO FOR EXAMPLE, THEY WERE COUNTING CHRISTMAS DAY, EVEN THOUGH EVERYTHING WAS CLOSED AS A, AS A WHOLE YEAR OF A DAY.

AND THEY'RE NOT ALLOWED TO DO THAT UNDER THAT UNDER THE WHOLE PERIOD, OUR NOTES FROM, UH, JANUARY TO MAY, UH, THAT'S WHEN THE NUMBERS SKYROCKETED, BECAUSE THAT'S WHEN THEY BEGAN YOU CLOSING SUNDAYS AND YET STILL COUNTING SUNDAY AS A HOLD PERIOD DAY, EVEN THOUGH THEY CAN'T UNDER THE PLAIN TERMS OF THE ORDINANCE, THAT'S ALL WE SAW IS, UM, UPWARDS OF A HUNDRED AND FIFTY, A HUNDRED AND SEVENTY FIVE, MAYBE AS MANY AS 200 ANIMALS THAT HAVE BEEN TRANSFERRED TO A RESCUE GROUP OR ADOPTED TO A NEW HOME, UH, IN VIOLATION OF THE WHOLE PERIOD AND UNDER THE LAW, NONE OF THOSE ANIMALS BELONG TO THE, UM, NEW ADOPTERS.

NONE OF THOSE ANIMALS BELONG TO THE TREE, THE RESCUE GROUPS, ALL OF THOSE GROUPS AND ADOPTERS WOULD BE SUBJECT TO LIABILITY IF THEY'RE A FORMER OWNER, UM, FIGURED IT OUT.

UM, OF COURSE THERE, UH, BECAUSE OF THE WAY THAT OUR SYSTEM WORKS, THEY'RE EFFECTIVELY PRECLUDED FROM FIGURING IT OUT BECAUSE THOSE ANIMALS AREN'T TALKING THAT WEBSITE ANYMORE.

UM, THERE'S NO WAY, WAY FOR SOMEONE TO FIGURE OUT WHETHER THEIR ANIMAL WAS ADOPTED OUT PRIOR TO, UM, PRIOR TO THE EXPIRATION OF THE HOLD PERIOD.

SO WE ARE IN A, IN MY MIND, A VERY, VERY BAD SITUATION WHERE WE'VE GOT, UM, UPWARDS OF 150 TO 200 ANIMALS THAT HAVE BEEN TRANSFERRED FROM AUSTIN ANIMAL CENTER AND CLEAR ABOUT THE MISSION OF THE WHOLE PERIOD ORDINANCE.

UM, AND, UH, NONE OF THOSE ANIMALS BELONG TO THE PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE TO BELIEVE THAT THEY OWN THEM.

UH, AS A MATTER OF LAW, THAT'S THE BACKGROUND WE'RE GOING TO, LIKE, WE'RE GETTING HERE FROM RIGHT.

WE'RE GOING TO HAVE QUESTIONS FOR RYAN.

AND THEN, UH, I TH WE CAN HEAR FROM DON IF YOU WANT TO, IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO.

SO GO AHEAD QUESTION, UM, ON THE DATA, WHEN YOU SAY WE PUT TOGETHER THE DATA, WHO'S, WE, I AM NOT A DATA ANALYST.

SO I HIRED A DATA ANALYST TO LOOK AT IT.

AND WHAT THIS PERSON DID IS THEY PULLED ALL OF THE INTAKES FROM, UM, NOVEMBER TO, UM, MID MAY AND PUT THEM ON A EXCEL SPREADSHEET LISTED BY THE EIGHT, NINE NUMBER, THE DATE OF INTAKE, THE DATE OF OUTCOMES AND WHERE, AND WHERE IS THE OUTCOME TYPE FIELD THAT SAYS WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED? WHY THIS DOG WENT OUT IN THOSE DAYS? I HAVE NO IDEA WHY THE DOGS WENT OUT ON THOSE DAYS.

YEAH.

SO WHOEVER'S TALKING FROM THE CITY IN THE CITY HALL.

CAN YOU IDENTIFY YOURSELF? BECAUSE

[00:15:01]

I CAN NOT SEEN THE VIDEO.

OKAY.

OKAY.

SORRY.

THIS JOANNE.

THANK YOU.

SO, SO WILL WE, OKAY, SO YOU DON'T HAVE AN OUTCOME TYPE, SO, YOU KNOW, THE DOG WENT OUT IN A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF DAYS OR CAT, BUT YOU DON'T KNOW WHY.

OKAY.

WE NOTICED THIS EITHER ADOPTED OR TRANSFERRED, AND THAT IS THE RETURN TO OWNER.

CAN I KIND OF INFER A MINUTE? IT'S REALLY DIFFICULT TO HEAR.

SO CAN WE LET EVERYBODY FINISH WHAT THEY'RE SAYING FIRST? BECAUSE THEY PROMOTE, YEAH.

IT'S OKAY.

I'LL I'LL PAUSE.

CAUSE SOME THERE'S A LITTLE BREAK.

THANK YOU FOR POINTING THAT OUT, LISA.

SORRY.

WHAT ABOUT RETURN TO OWNER? I RETURNED TO OWNER WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN A STRAY, SO IT WOULD NOT BE IN THIS ANALYSIS AT ALL.

W WHY WOULDN'T IT HAVE BEEN A STRAY? WE GET STRAYS THAT COME IN THAT GET RETURNED TO OWNER.

OKAY.

SO YOU'RE RIGHT.

SO I DID THIS, THIS, THE DATA STEP DOES NOT INCLUDE THE ANIMALS THAT WERE RETURNED TO THEIR OWNERS.

THAT ONLY INCLUDES ANIMALS THAT WERE ADOPTED OUT OR TRANSFERRED TO A RESCUE GROUP.

OKAY.

SO DIRECTOR BLEND, DO YOU AGREE THAT THERE ARE 150 ANIMALS AFFECTED? BECAUSE THE DATA YOU SENT WITH THE OUTCOME TYPE LOOKS LIKE THE VAST MAJORITY OF THESE WERE RETURNED TO OWNER RETURNED ON OR ADOPT OR SENT TO MEDICAL PARTNERS, MEDICAL URGENTS.

UM, I ACTUALLY DON'T EVEN SEE ONE THAT WAS JUST TRANSFERRED.

SO MAYBE I'M MISSING SOMETHING.

THE DATA THAT WE PULLED WAS FROM JANUARY WHEN WE STARTED THE SUNDAY CLOSURES.

AND, UH, YOU CAN SEE THAT, UH, THE MAJORITY OF, YOU KNOW, WE DO HAVE HIGH MAJORITY THAT ARE RETURNED TO OWNER OR THEIR MEDICAL URGENT, YOU KNOW, PARVO, AND THOSE WERE SENT TO LOCAL RESCUES.

UM, BUT WE HAVE HAD NO ONE, AND I JUST DON'T WANT TO HAVE TO ALSO, WHILE WE WEREN'T OPEN ON SUNDAYS, THESE ANIMALS PHOTOS REMAINED ON THE WEBSITE FOR THE FULL DURATION OF THE WHOLE PERIOD, BECAUSE MOST OF THEM WERE MEDICAL AND PEOPLE COULD STILL CLAIM THEM IF THEY WERE A MEDICAL PROBLEM.

OKAY.

BUT I GUESS MY QUESTION IS DID, SO THIS DATA THAT RYAN HAD PREPARED IS SAYING 150 ANIMALS WERE JUST GIVEN TO THE PUBLIC AND WE ARE AT LIABILITY.

HOW MANY DID YOU DETERMINE, OR JUST GIVEN TO THE PUBLIC WE HAD SINCE, SINCE WE, AND I DON'T HAVE A NUMBER ON THIS, BUT ALL THE DATA THAT WE DID, THERE IS NO ONE TO THIS DATE THAT HAS SURFACE LOOKING FOR AN ANIMAL THAT WAS ON OUR LIST THAT WE RELEASED EARLY.

OKAY.

AND SO IT'S VERY POSSIBLE THAT, UM, IT SEEMS FROM THE DATA THAT YOU SENT US WITH THE ZEROS AND THE ONES THAT THE VAST MAJORITY ARE RETURNED TO OWNER, OR, UM, UM, RTO ADOPT MEANS THAT, UH, SO I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHY YOUR DATA LOOKS LIKE ONE THING.

AND RYAN'S DATA IS A DIFFERENT THING.

I MEAN, CAUSE IT SEEMS THAT THE CRITICAL FIELD IS THE OUTCOME TYPE, BECAUSE THERE ARE GOING TO BE CASES WHERE ANIMALS ARE RETURNED TO OWNER AND WE, THEIR MICROCHIP THERE, UM, WE CALLED THE, ALL THE SHELTERS AROUND, I'LL HAVE THE RETURN INFORMATION ON THEM.

SO WITHOUT THE, UM, OUTCOME TYPE, HOW DO WE AS COMMISSIONERS KNOW THAT THIS DATA IS ACTUALLY CORRECT? AND 150 OF THESE ANIMALS WENT TO DIFFERENT PEOPLE.

I LOOK AT THE DATA THAT'S POSTED ONLINE.

THE OUTCOME TYPE IS LISTED.

YEAH.

BUT IT'S NOT ON THIS DOCUMENT.

AND THAT'S WHAT I'M ASKING WAS THIS DOCUMENT DIDN'T INCLUDE THE OUTCOME.

WELL, I DON'T KNOW WHAT DOCUMENT YOU'RE A MISUNDERSTANDING.

WAIT, WAIT, LET'S TAKE THIS ONE AT A TIME.

OKAY.

UM, THE, UH, THE DATA THAT WAS POSTED AS BACKUP, WHICH IS OUR OFFICIAL DATA THAT, THAT RYAN POSTED HAS OUTCOME TYPE.

IT HAS OUTCOME TYPE ON IT, UM, TRANSFER, BUT IT DOESN'T SAY IT HAS WELL, AN OUTCOME TYPE IS IT'S BEEN TRANSFERRED.

IT WAS PART OF THE TRANSFER PROGRAM.

OKAY.

SO TRANSFER, TRANSFER, TRANSFER, UH, ON THE FIRST PAGE ON THE SECOND PAGE OUTCOME TYPE IS OKAY.

SO YOU DIDN'T INCLUDE THAT YOU DIDN'T INCLUDE THE RETURN TO OWNERS.

UH, HE DIDN'T, IF THE, IF THE DOG WAS RETURNED TO OWNER, IT WASN'T PULLED BECAUSE IT WAS RETURNED TO OWNER.

THEN IT'S, UH, THE PERSON GOT THE DOG BACK, WHETHER THE STRAY HOLD PERIOD THAT THE DOG DIDN'T GO TO SOMEONE WHO DIDN'T OWN THE DOG.

OKAY.

THE POINT IS THE POINT IS THE ANIMAL GOING TO THE PERSON WHO OWNS IT? UH, UH, NANCY, DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION? I DO.

I THINK THAT WE'RE, WE'RE, I THINK THAT YOU'RE FOCUSING ON THE WRONG THINGS.

UM, WHAT THE BOTTOM LINE

[00:20:01]

IS, AS AN ATTORNEY, I CAN TELL YOU THAT WHAT DON IS DOING IS ILLEGAL.

AND WE ARE FACING A LAWSUIT IF, IF HE HELD THESE DOGS AND HE WANTS TO SAY THAT BECAUSE THEY WERE ON THE WEBSITE, THAT THAT WAS PART OF THE HOLD FOR THE STRAY HOLD PERIOD, HE'S A HUNDRED PERCENT WRONG.

AND THAT PUTS THE CITY IN LIABILITIES WAY.

AND I DON'T THINK THAT I JOANNE NO OFFENSE, BUT I DON'T THINK YOU'RE TAKING THAT INTO ACCOUNT.

WHETHER IT'S ONE DOG OR WHETHER IT'S 150 DOGS, IF DON DID THIS, WHICH THE BACKUP SAYS HE DID, THEN THE ENTIRE CITY IS LIABLE.

IF SOMEONE COMES FORWARD AND SAYS, AYE, MY DOG IS NOW SOMEPLACE ELSE BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T HOLD IT FOR THE PROPER AMOUNT OF TIME.

DO YOU REALLY WANT TO ARGUE WHETHER OR NOT THEY'RE RETURNED TO WHEN THEY'RE TELLING YOU THAT THEY'RE NOT, THEY'RE NOT RETURNED TO OWNERS.

THESE ARE THE ONES THAT DAWN TRANSFERRED OR ADOPTED OUT.

AND IN WHICH THE CITY OF AUSTIN HAS LIABILITY UNDER THE CASE THAT RYAN WAS TALKING ABOUT FROM THE TEXAS SUPREME COURT, THAT'S THE BOTTOM LINE.

WELL, WHAT I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THE DATA IS THAT WE WERE PROVIDED SOMETHING THAT SAYS TRANSFER OUTCOME TYPE TRANSFER PARTNER.

AND THEN WE WERE PROVIDED DATA FROM THE CITY THAT DOESN'T HAVE THE SAME THING.

AND I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHY THE DATA LOOKS DIFFERENT FROM PALM.

OKAY.

LET'S GO.

PALMER WANTS TO SAY SOMETHING.

UM, AND HAS I UNDERSTAND THAT WHEN THE DATA WAS GATHERED, YOU BROUGHT UP PARVO AND ILLNESS AND ALL OF THAT, IF YOU LOOK AT THE DOCUMENTS THAT RYAN SUBMITTED, I HAVE AN INTAKE CONDITION AND ON THE INTAKE CONDITION, THEY WERE ALL NORMAL.

THE ONES THAT HAD A MEDICAL INTAKE CONDITION, MY UNDERSTANDING WAS THAT'S WHERE ELIMINATED FROM THIS REPORT, BECAUSE THEY COULD QUALIFY FOR AN EARLY TRANSFER OUT OF THE SHELTER.

AND THEN IN THE SAME BREATH FOR THE OUTCOME TIME, IF IT WAS AN RTO, IT WAS ALSO REMOVED FROM THIS REPORT BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE A LEGAL AND WITHIN THE CORRECT PURVIEW OF THE STRAY HOLD OR RETURN THE ANIMAL WITHIN THE THREE DAYS.

SO BOTH OF THOSE THAT YOU'RE ASKING ABOUT, I THINK THIS REPORT CLARIFIES, UH, WHETHER OR NOT THEY WERE ILL.

UM, BUT BECAUSE THOSE HAVE BEEN REMOVED AND WHETHER OR NOT THEY WERE RETURNED TO THE OWNER.

UM, AND I JUST WANT TO JOIN, CHIME IN AS A PARLIAMENTARIAN TO SAY, WE'RE GOING TO DO A TRAINING ON RECORDS, RULES NEXT TIME.

BUT, UM, JOANNE YOU'VE MADE COMMENTS AND POST QUESTIONS.

AND SO NOW, UM, THE CHAIR WHO IS CRAIG, WE'LL MOVE THROUGH THOSE PEOPLE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK, I SAY, RAISE THEIR, SO WE'LL MOVE TO, UM, WHOEVER, UH, THE CHAIRMAN BELIEVES SHOULD BE THE NEXT SPEAKER.

YEAH.

YES.

AND THANK YOU CRACK.

SO THE BOTTOM LINE OF OUR MEETING TODAY IS YES.

APPARENTLY THE AUSTIN ALTON, THE ANIMAL CENTER.

WHAT'S NOT FOLLOWING THE ORDINANCE, SO, OKAY.

WE W REGARDLESS IF ONE OR TWO OR THREE OR SEVERAL NUMBER OF ANIMALS OR TRANSFER, OR NOT REALLY, WE NEED TO START WITH A CLEAN SLATE THAT THE WAY THIS HAS BEEN CARRIED OUT, BE TO STOP, WE NEED TO FOLLOW THE ORDINANCE.

THAT'S THE BOTTOM LINE.

SO YES, THERE'S WHAT WHAT'S POSTED ONLINE.

OKAY.

AND WHAT, UH, THIS OLDER REPORT, BUT THE CITY WAS NOT OUT IN ANIMAL CENTER, WHAT'S FOLLOWING THE ORDINANCE AND THAT'S WHAT WE NEED TO FOCUS MOVING FORWARD.

THANK YOU.

UH, I WOULD LIKE TO SAY THAT SOMEONE SAID EARLIER THAT WHAT DON DID WAS ILLEGAL.

I DON'T THINK THAT'S THE RIGHT TERM.

I THINK WHAT, UM, I MAY BE WRONG.

LAWYER'S HERE.

UH, I DON'T KNOW.

THERE IS A STATEMENT FROM THE, UM, UH, AUSTIN LEGAL THAT'S BEEN POSTED THAT SAYS THAT THERE IS, THERE MAY BE NO LIABILITY FROM THE CITY.

UH, AND I WASN'T CLEAR ON THAT.

AND SO I, I, I THAT'S CLEAR ON THAT.

HOWEVER, THE LIABILITY IS WITH, UH, THE PERSON OR THE PARTNER ORGANIZATION THAT HAS THE DOG.

SO IF SOMEONE WANTS A DOG BACK, THEY CAN SEARCH, THEY CAN SUE THE, UM, THE PARTNER ORGANIZATION WHO TRANSFERRED, OR THEY CAN SUE THE PERSON WHO TOOK IT.

IT BECOMES A REAL PROBLEM.

IF THE DOG WAS NEUTERED OR SPAYED OR NEUTERED AS THE PERSON DIDN'T WANT IT SPAYED OR NEUTERED, THEN THAT'S ANOTHER PART OF THE LAWSUIT.

RYAN CAN GO MORE INTO THIS.

YOU WANT TO GO MORE INTO THIS RYAN ABOUT

[00:25:01]

THE, THE PROBLEMS. YEAH, SURE.

AND I WANT TO ADDRESS A COUPLE OF THINGS.

UM, FIRST OF ALL, I HAVE NOT SEEN THIS RESPONSE DATA THAT, UM, THAT JOANNE IS, SPEAKING OF IT DOESN'T APPEAR TO BE IN THE BACKUP.

UH, IT DOESN'T, IT'S NOT IN MY EMAIL.

SO MAYBE JOANNE GOT A SPECIAL DOCUMENT THAT THE REST OF US DIDN'T, UM, I DON'T HAVE A DOCUMENT THAT, UH, SUGGESTS THAT THE, THAT THE DATA IS INCORRECT.

SECOND, THAT THE TWO LAW THAT ONE OF THE TWO LARGEST DATA, UH, SETS THAT I PROVIDED WAS TRANSFERS THAT IS NOT OR RETURNED TO ITS OWNER WOULD NOT BE TRANSFERRED TO A PARTNER GROUP.

THAT WAS ABOUT STUFF THAT YOU HAD ACCOUNTED FOR ABOUT 70, FROM JANUARY TO MAY.

UM, THE SECOND BIGGEST WAS ADOPTED.

I DON'T THINK THEY, THEY CALL RETURNS TO OWNERS ADOPTIONS.

THOSE WERE TWO OUTCOME TYPES THAT WERE IN THE DEPTHS.

THAT'S LIKE THE DATA SET WAS, IS LACED INTO CATEGORY BY ITS OUTCOME.

SO JOANNE'S UNDERSTANDING OF THE DATA THAT I PROVIDED IS COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY INCORRECT.

THE DATA SET THE DATA SET IS BY OUTCOME.

IF IT WAS TRANSFERRED, IT WAS TRANSFERRED.

AND IT ISN'T IN THE TRANSFER DOCUMENT.

IF IT WAS ADOPTED, IT WAS ADOPTED UNDER THE ADOPTION DOCUMENT.

THE WAY THAT THIS WAS DETERMINED IS BY TAKING THE AP NUMBERS, UH, FOR INTAKES AND COMPARING THOSE WITH THE AA NUMBERS OF THE OUTCOMES, THE OUTCOMES OF ADOPTIONS AND THE OUTCOMES OF TRANSFERS.

SO IT WAS IN A DIFFERENT OUTCOME.

IT WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THIS DATA SET.

SECOND, IT IS CORRECT THAT WE INTENTIONALLY ATTEMPTED TO LEWD AS MANY ANIMALS AS POSSIBLE THAT THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN A LEGITIMATE REASON TO TRANSFER PRIOR TO THE EXPIRATION OF THE HOLD PERIOD.

SO IF IT WAS A BOTTLE BABY KITTEN, FOR EXAMPLE, IT WOULD NOT BE ON THIS LIST.

IF THERE WAS A MEADOW, AN URGENT MEDICAL REASON OF SOME SORT THAT WAS IDENTIFIED, THAT IT WAS EXCLUDED FROM THE LIST.

THERE MAY BE E I CAN FOLLOW OF, UH, UH, ANIMALS THAT CAME IN AS STRAYS AND PERHAPS WERE ADOPTED OUT BACK TO ITS OWNER.

UM, OR ACTUALLY THAT'S NOT CORRECT BECAUSE THEN IT WOULD HAVE BEEN, IT WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN AN RTO, WOULDN'T HAVE AN ADOPTION.

THERE MAY BE A HANDFUL OF INSTANCES IN WHICH THE OWNER WAS LOCATED BY A, UM, BY A MICROCHIP.

UH, AND THEN THE OWNER SAID, I DON'T WANT IT.

AND IN THAT INSTANCE, IT IS POSSIBLE THAT IT WOULD BE ON THIS LIST OF OUTCOMES AS BEING TRANSFERRED OR ADOPTED OUT TOO EARLY.

UM, I ASSUMED THAT MAYBE A HANDFUL OF THOSE WORK, THERE'S NO WAY TO TELL FROM THE INSTRUMENTS THAT ARE ON THE WEB PORTAL, BUT THE UNDERSTANDING, AND THAT WAS, THAT WAS EXPLAINED WAS ABSOLUTELY INCORRECT IN THE QUESTION THAT DON WAS ASKED BY JOANNE, WHICH IS WHAT ACCOUNTS FOR THE DIFFERENCE IN WHATEVER DATA SET SHE WAS SECRETLY GIVEN.

BUT THE REST OF US, WEREN'T WHAT COUNTS DIFFERENT.

DON KEPT ON ANSWERING THAT NOBODY HAS CLINT HAS COME TO TRY TO GET THEIR ANIMAL.

THAT'S NOT THE QUESTION THAT, THAT WASN'T EVEN REMOTELY, NOT EVEN BEEN THE SUBJECT OF DEBATE.

WE UNDERSTAND THAT THE CITY DOES NOT CRACK WHO SHOWS UP, DOES NOT DETERMINE, UH, IT DOESN'T, IT DOESN'T HAVE ANY IDEA WHOSE VIDEO VIEWED THE WEBSITE OR WHAT DAY THEY HAVE.

UM, AND IT'S A REALLY IRRELEVANT, UM, THE, UH, THE, THE TEXAS SUPREME COURT AND LIRA DID NOT ASK, YOU KNOW, DID YOU VIEW THE WEBSITE OR WAS IT AVAILABLE ON THE WEBSITE, BUT THAT'S COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT TO THE LEGAL QUESTION WITH RESPECT TO THE LIABILITY ISSUES, WHAT THE, UH, AUSTIN LEGAL, WHICH IN THE FIRM AND OUR ANALYSIS THAT LEGAL REPORT CONFIRMED THAT IF SUNDAY WAS BEING COUNTED AS THE WHOLE PERIOD, THAT WAS INCORRECT BECAUSE THE DAY THAT IS CLOSED SHOULD NOT BE COUNTED.

AUSTIN'S LEGAL OPINION CONFIRMED.

THE ONLY THING THAT AUSTIN LEGAL POINTED OUT WAS THAT LIABILITY OFTEN IS BASED ON PARTICULAR FACTS OF THE CASE.

AND SO YOU CAN'T SIMPLY, AND THAT'S PROBABLY TRUE.

WE CANNOT PROBABLY SAY WITH ANY CERTAINTY THAT WHAT THE CITY'S LIABILITY OR WOULD BE IN ANY INDIVIDUAL INSTANCE, AND IT'S A JOB OF, YOU KNOW, THE CITY'S LAWYER AND A POINT THAT OUT, OF COURSE, THEY'RE NOT GOING TO CONCEDE LIABILITY IN A PUBLIC STATEMENT.

UH, THAT WOULD BE INSANE.

AND WE WOULDN'T DO IT FOR OUR, THOSE OF US WHO WERE LAWYERS WOULD NOT DO THAT ON FOR OUR CLIENTS, EITHER WE NOT CONCEDE LIABILITY, UH, BUT THE, BUT, BUT ABSOLUTELY UNDER LIRA, WE KNOW THAT ANY RESCUE GROUP WOULD BE LIABLE AND UNDER THIS SAME ANALYSIS, ANY ADOPTER WOULD BE LIABLE.

WHAT WE DON'T KNOW UNDER LIRA, BECAUSE AS MY RECOLLECTION, AND THAT IS THE CITY OF HOUSTON, WASN'T SUED BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T HAVE THE ANIMAL AT THE TIME.

SO WHAT WE DON'T KNOW IS WHAT THE POTENTIAL LIABILITY OF THE CITY

[00:30:01]

WOULD BE IN MY, IN MY LEGAL OPINION, BUT THAT'S JUST MY LEGAL OPINION, UM, BECAUSE THAT HASN'T BEEN ANSWERED.

BUT WHAT, WHAT WE DO KNOW IS THAT, UH, A, A RESCUE GROUP THAT INTAKE TO THE ANIMAL PRIOR TO THE EXPIRATION OF THE HOME PERIOD IS LIABLE UNDER LIRA.

AND THAT IS, THAT IS A HUNDRED PERCENT THE LAW IN TEXAS.

UH, LET'S GO, YEAH, LET'S GO TO YES.

PAGE.

UM, AND I HAVE FOUR POINTS I'D LIKE TO, YEAH.

SO DON IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THIS MISTAKE HAS BEEN, WE'RE NO LONGER MAKING THIS MISTAKE.

IT'S BEEN CORRECTED.

THAT IS CORRECT.

WHEN IT'S POINTED OUT, WE LOOKED AT IT, WE THOUGHT IT WAS BEING DONE CORRECTLY, AND WE FOUND THAT IT WASN'T.

YEAH.

SO IT WAS CORRECTED.

DO YOU KNOW WHEN THAT WAS THE DAY AFTER THE COMMISSION MEETING? OKAY, SO MAY 10TH.

YES.

SO THIS HASN'T BEEN AN ISSUE SINCE MAY 10TH, CORRECT? CORRECT.

OKAY.

AND THEN, UM, SO, AND IF I, AS AN ASIDE, I KIND OF FIND IT INTERESTING THAT A LAWYER WOULD TELL SOMEBODY, IT DOESN'T MATTER IF THEY'RE ALIVE, LIABLE FOR ONE THING OR 150 THINGS.

I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT'S ACCURATE.

UM, AND ADDITIONALLY, I DON'T SEE ANYTHING IN THE ORDINANCE THAT SAYS IF, IF THERE ISN'T AN ISSUE WITH THE STRANGLEHOLD THAT OWNER OWNERSHIP TRANSFER COULD NEVER HAPPEN, WHAT YOU, AND THAT SEEMS TO BE A CONCLUSION THAT YOU'RE DRAWING RYAN, CAN YOU, CAUSE YOU'RE STILL CLAIMING THAT ALL OF THESE ANTS, ANIMALS THAT WERE TRANSFERRED PREMATURELY STILL BELONG TO THE ORIGINAL OWNER, AND THAT'S NOT HOW I'M READING THE ORDER OR ORDINANCE.

NO, YOU WOULD NEED TO READ THE GERMAN SHEPHERD RESCUE VERSUS LIRA OPINION, WHICH HOLDS THAT WELL, NO, IN THAT CASE, HOUSTON DIDN'T HAVE AN ORDINANCE THAT, THAT DEFINED A TIME OF OWNERSHIP TRANSFERS.

ISN'T THAT CORRECT? WHAT IT SAID IS THAT, UH, HOUSTON DIDN'T EXPRESSLY STATE OWNERSHIP AND BIRD AT THE EXPIRATION OF THE WHOLE THAT'S RIGHT.

AND AUSTIN DOES, RIGHT? BECAUSE YOU, YOU WROTE AN ORDINANCE THAT CLEARLY STATES A TIME OF OWNERSHIP TRANSFER, CORRECT.

IT STATE THE CONDITIONS AND AT THE TIME OF OWNERSHIP TRANSFER, AND ONE OF THE CONDITIONS IS THAT IT HAS TO BE HELD FOR THREE BUSINESS DAYS.

AND THOSE THREE BUSINESS DAYS MUST BE DAYS IN WHICH THE SHELTER IS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC.

SO ANALYSIS IS NOT CORRECT.

SO I'M NOT CONVINCED YET.

OKAY.

YOU DON'T HAVE TO BE.

I KNOW, BUT, BUT ALL RIGHT.

UM, WELL, I THINK IT'S PART OF OUR JOB TO MAKE THINGS CLEAR IN OUR COMMUNICATION WITH THE PUBLIC.

RIGHT.

AND NOT JUST THAT YOU'RE CONVINCED OF IT PERSONALLY, IS THAT TRUE? YEAH.

I'M NOT SURE WHO YOU'RE TRYING TO CONVINCE.

I DON'T HAVE TO BE, I'M NOT TRYING TO CONVINCE THE PUBLIC OF ANYTHING.

I'M TRYING TO QUIT DUTY, WHICH IS DEFINED IN THE CITY CHARTER AS A LEVER THAT WE HAVE TO INFORM THE CITY COUNCIL OF NONCOMPLIANCE WITH ORDINANCES.

OKAY.

WELL, WHAT, WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO HERE IS, UH, WE'RE NOT EVERYBODY CAN LOOK AT THIS AND MAKE THEIR OWN DECISION.

WE'RE GOING TO, UH, AT THE END, HAVE A MOTION FOR SOME ACTION AND, AND, UH, YOU KNOW, AND THEN WE CAN VOTE ON THE ACTION AND NOT EVERYONE HAS TO AGREE.

THAT'S A MAJORITY KIND OF THING.

SO, UH, I, BUT I THINK I WAS A PART OF THIS, UH, YEARS AGO WHEN, WHEN WE WENT OVER THIS AND I THINK THE, THE, THE IMPORTANT PART HERE AND CAUSE RYAN TALKED ABOUT EARLIER IS WHERE IT SAYS IS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC FOR MA RECLAMATION AND ADOPTION.

AND IF THE SHELTER WASN'T OPEN TO THE PUBLIC FOR RECLAMATION AND ADOPTION, THEN THAT DAY DOESN'T COUNT.

I UNDERSTAND THAT COMPLETELY.

I THINK EVERYBODY HERE UNDERSTANDS THAT.

AND I THINK THAT'S WHY THE SHELTER CHANGED, WHAT THEY DID.

RIGHT.

MY CORAL IS WITH THIS CLAIM THAT THESE ANIMALS, I REMIND PEOPLE TO PLEASE NOT INTERRUPT THE CHAIR WHEN THE CHAIR IS SPEAKING, THE CHAIR NEEDS TO CALL ON THE SPEAKER.

SO, UM, CRAIG, PLEASE CONTINUE.

GO AHEAD.

GO AHEAD.

UM, SO MY QUARREL IS WITH THIS CLAIM THAT THESE ANIMALS STILL BELONG TO THEIR ORIGINAL OWNER, EVEN THOUGH BY NOW FOR THE VAST MAJORITY OF THEM, THE HOLD PERIOD, THE TIME PERIOD, PERHAPS NOT THE CONDITIONS, BUT THE TIME PERIOD HAS ELAPSED.

AND SO, BUT THIS IS, YOU KNOW, YOU DIDN'T STOP RYAN FROM CLAIMING THIS WHEN HE CLAIMED IT.

SO, UH, SO I'M GONNA BRING THIS UP BECAUSE THERE'S NOTHING IN THE ORDINANCE THAT SAYS, IF ANY OF THESE IS VIOLATED,

[00:35:02]

TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP CAN NOT, NO, NEVER HAPPENS.

YEAH.

THE WAY I UNDERSTAND IT IS THEY THEY'RE HELD AT THE SHELTER FOR THIS PERIOD OF TIME.

IF THEY'RE TRANSFERRED OUT BEFORE THAT PERIOD OF TIME HAS ELAPSED, THE SHELTER DOESN'T HAVE THEM ANYMORE.

AND THE TRANSFER PARTNER THERE IS, IT HAS THEM OR THE ADOPTEE HAS THEM AND THEY ARE NOT THEIR DOG.

NOT YET BECAUSE THE HOLD TIME HASN'T ELAPSED.

DO OUR ANIMALS EVER PUT INTO, OKAY, WAIT, WAIT, WAIT A SECOND.

WAIT, WAIT, WAIT, AND PLEASE DON'T INTERRUPT THE CHAIR WHEN SPEAKING THERE, EITHER OTHERS WAITING TO SPEAK AS WELL.

SO WITH THIS IS, THIS IS A LEGAL ISSUE AND LET'S GET SOME OTHER OPINIONS ON THIS.

LISA HASN'T REALLY SAID ANYTHING.

UM, YEAH.

FIRST OF ALL, I'M GOING TO ASK AGAIN THAT PEOPLE QUIT TALKING OVER EACH OTHER, NOT JUST THE CHAIR.

OBVIOUSLY WE SHOULDN'T INTERRUPT THE CHAIR, BUT IT'S JUST REALLY HARD TO HEAR WHAT WE ARE REMOTE.

AND SECONDLY, UM, I BELIEVE IT WAS LOTTA WHO SEVERAL MEETINGS AGO PLED VERY, UH, PASSIONATELY FOR PEOPLE TO HAVE RESPECT FOR EACH OTHER AND TREAT EACH OTHER APPROPRIATELY IN THESE MEETINGS.

AND I FEEL LIKE WE'RE GETTING A LITTLE OUT OF HAND HERE WITH CROSS-EXAMINING OUR COLLEAGUES.

I THINK WE'RE LOSING THE SPIRIT OF FRIENDLY DISCUSSION AND I WOULD REALLY LIKE US TO KIND OF ALL JUST TAKE A BREATH.

IT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY, LOTTA.

HI.

UM, THANK YOU, LISA.

FOR THAT, THAT WAS PART OF WHAT I WANTED TO SAY.

UM, BUT WHEN I ALSO WANTED TO SAY IS THAT I AGREE WITH WHAT THEY HAVE SAID AT THIS POINT IN TIME, WHO ME PERSONALLY, IT IS IRRELEVANT.

IF IT WAS ONE DOG TRANSFERRED BEFORE THE WHOLE PERIOD WAS UP OR 150 DOGS.

I AGREE WITH HER.

THAT TO ME IS IRRELEVANT.

IT HAPPENED.

SO WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE? WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE AS A COMMISSION? WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO TO PREVENT THIS AND TO ENSURE IT DOESN'T HAPPEN AGAIN? I UNDERSTAND DON JUST SAID THAT AS OF OUR LAST MEETING, IT HAS NOW BEEN CORRECTED.

SO, YOU KNOW, LET GOSH, LET'S, LET'S MOVE FORWARD AND STOP REHASHING ALL OF THIS BECAUSE WE ARE OBVIOUSLY NOT GETTING ANYWHERE WITH JUST REHASHING.

IF IT WAS TRANSFERRED AT THREE DAYS, AT TWO DAYS, AT FOUR DAYS AT ONE DAY, IT HAPPENED, IT'S DONE.

HOW DO WE MOVE FORWARD FROM HERE? THANK YOU.

OKAY.

PALMER, I AGREE WITH WHAT YOU SAID LOTTA, BUT I DO HAVE A QUICK QUESTION ON, WE SAID IT'S OVER AND DONE.

I'VE RECEIVED INFORMATION.

UM, EMAILED TO ME ABOUT, UM, TWO ANIMALS THAT WERE RECENTLY WITHIN THE LAST THREE DAYS RELEASED PRIOR TO THEIR MEETING THE THREE DAY STRAY HOLD.

AND SO I JUST WANTED TO KNOW DON, YOU SAID WE STOPPED ON MAY 10TH.

ARE WE CERTAIN WE HAD TO STOP ON MAY 10TH.

CAN WE SEND YOU RECORDS FOR ANIMALS THAT WE'VE RECEIVED? UM, INFORMATION ABOUT THAT HAVE BEEN RELEASED PRIOR TO THE THREE DAYS.

AND THEN ALSO I WANTED TO ASK WHEN THIS FIRST ITEM FIRST WENT ON THE AGENDA AND APRIL WAS NOTHING INVESTIGATING, PROBABLY APRIL WHEN THIS FIRST CAME UP, IT WASN'T LOOKED INTO TILL MAY I WOULD HAVE TO GO BACK AND LOOK AT THE GENDA AND THE MINUTES WHEN IT WAS BROUGHT UP TO, I DON'T RECOLLECT THAT RIGHT NOW, BUT PLEASE DO SEND US SOMETHING BECAUSE IT IS, UH, HUMANS HAVE TO CONTROL THIS.

AND WE HAVE SOMEONE SPECIFICALLY, YOU KNOW, THAT IS THE GATEKEEPER FOR THIS.

AND YOU KNOW, IF SHE WAS OFF ON HER DAY OFF OR SOMETHING, OR HE, WHOEVER IT IS, A MISTAKE COULD HAVE BEEN MADE BY SOMEONE ELSE.

SO WE'D LIKE TO KNOW THAT SO THAT WE CAN MAKE SURE THAT EVERYONE IS FOLLOWING THE SAME RULES.

UH, THIS IS, UH, NOT SOMETHING THAT SOFTWARE TAKES CARE OF.

IT'S SOMETHING THAT HUMANS HAVE TO ADJUST.

WE LOOKED BACK AND FOR, FOR MANY, MANY YEARS, WE WENT BACK ALL THE WAY TO 2015 AND THE HOLIDAYS THAT WERE BEING TAKEN BACK THEN, AND WEREN'T BEING ADJUSTED FOR AT ALL EITHER.

SO THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT IS NEW, IT'S NEW TO ME.

AND WE CORRECTED IT WHEN IT WAS BROUGHT UP.

UH, GOOD.

DON, COULD YOU, I DON'T WHERE YOU WENT BACK FOR MANY YEARS, THEN THE HOLIDAYS WEREN'T COUNTED BECAUSE I'VE BEEN INTIMATELY INVOLVED WITH THIS SINCE 2008.

AND I REMEMBER SPECIFICALLY WHEN STRAY HOLDS WERE EXTENDED BECAUSE OF HOLIDAYS WAS SHELTER WAS CLOSED.

WELL,

[00:40:01]

THE DATA THAT WE LOOKED AT SHOWS THAT ON THOSE HOLIDAYS, IT COULD HAVE BEEN HUMAN ERROR, UH, BUT THEY WERE NOT FACTORING IN THE HOLIDAY INTO THE STRAY HOLD PERIOD.

UH, JOANNE, THANK YOU, JASON.

THIS DOCUMENT WITH ALL THESE PAGES, WASN'T THIS POSTED TODAY? UM, IT WAS ACTUALLY POSTED YESTERDAY AND IT WAS SENT OUT, UH, 3 0 5 YESTERDAY.

SO, AND THAT IS NOT A SECRET DOCUMENT TO ME.

UM, AND RYAN, I'M SURE WHEN YOU LOOK AT THIS BACKUP THAT WAS POSTED YESTERDAY, YOU'LL SEE WHY I'M CONFUSED WITH THE NUMBERS.

I'M NOT SAYING YOURS ARE WRONG OR THE CITIES ARE RIGHT.

IT'S JUST, I'VE EVEN GONE BY A NUMBER AND THEY DON'T MATCH.

AND I DON'T KNOW WHY WE WERE, WHY WE WERE PROVIDED THIS AS A BACKUP AND NOT THE ONES THAT SAY TRANSFER.

SO THAT'S WHAT I WAS TRYING TO FIGURE OUT.

UM, I'M GLAD THE CITY HAS FIGURED, FOUND IT OUT AND MADE A CHANGE TO IT.

UM, I WAS CURIOUS, UM, TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE, HAS THIS EVER HAPPENED IN THE PAST WHERE, UM, SHORTENING LENGTH OF STAY, UM, OCCURRED? UM, IN, IN THE PAST? YES.

I JUST SAID WE LOOKED BACK TO 2015 AND IT WAS THE HOLIDAYS WEREN'T GETTING ADJUSTED BACK THEN.

OKAY.

SO 2015.

AND WHAT DID THE COMMISSION DO AT THAT TIME IF THEY FOUND OUT, DO YOU KNOW IF THEY FOUND OUT I WASN'T HERE? SO I DON'T KNOW THAT ANSWER, BUT APPARENTLY IT WAS NOT, BUT BY THE WAY, THIS, I DON'T KNOW WHEN THE STRAY HOLD ORDINANCE WAS PASSED.

SO THAT WOULD MATTER BECAUSE OF THE STRAY HOLD THIS NEW STRAIGHT HOLD ORDINANCE WASN'T PASSED BY THEN.

IT WOULDN'T MATTER, BUT RYAN, DO YOU HAVE A COMMENT? WE CAN EDIT IT, RYAN HE'S PRESSED IT THREE TIMES AND IT WOULDN'T ON MUTE.

ONE THING I WANTED TO SAY IS THAT THE DATA SET THAT WAS, YOU KNOW, THAT WAS DONE BY THE DATA ANALYST TO ME, INCLUDED ANIMALS AFTER MAY 10TH.

AND THEY WENT UP ALL THE WAY TO MAY 19TH.

SO AT LEAST AGAIN, THE DATA SET THAT I HAVE, UM, SUGGESTED THAT IT WAS STILL HAPPENING AFTER OUR MEETING.

UM, I'LL GIVE YOU THE FIRST TO ADMIT I'M NOT A DATA ANALYST.

SO, UM, IF THE DATA SET THAT I WAS PROVIDED IS INCORRECT IN SOME WAY, UM, I'LL, I'LL BE THE FIRST ONE TO, UM, PUT, UH, A NEW SET, HOLD ON NEXT MONTH'S AGENDA AND TAKE EVERYTHING BACK.

IF IT WAS 12 OR 15 OR WHATEVER, THE OTHER DATA I'D BEEN CHECKING MY EMAIL BY THE WAY.

AND I'M NOT SEEING IT.

UM, UH, I'LL WHEN WE GET OFF I'LL, UM, I'LL GO TO THE CITY'S WEBSITE AND LOOK UNDER, OR LOOK FOR, UH, A WEBSITE POSTING OF THE CITIES THAT I'M JUST NOT SINGING IN MY COMMISSION, EMAILING, PULLING IT UP ON HERE.

UM, BUT IN ANY EVENT I'M MORE THAN HAPPY TO, TO OF TAKE IT ALL BACK AND TH AND, AND, UH, COMMUNICATE A DIFFERENT DATA SET.

WHAT WE DO KNOW IS THAT THE SHELTER ADMITS THAT IT WAS DOING IT.

AND WHAT WE DO KNOW IS THAT CITY LEGAL ADMITS THAT IT WAS WRONG.

UM, AND SO, UH, I BELIEVE IT'S A BIG NUMBER FROM THE DATA ANALYST THAT GAVE THE NUMBERS TO ME.

IF THAT DATA LAND ANALYST WAS WRONG, AND IT'S A SMALLER NUMBER, THAT'S FINE, EITHER WAY.

IT'S A VIOLATION OF THE WHOLE PERIOD ORDINANCE.

UM, UH, EITHER WAY, IT'S OUR JOB TO, UH, AS MANDATED BY THE CITY COUNCIL TO INFORM THE CITY COUNCIL WHEN, UH, OUR ORDINANCE IS NOT BEING COMPLETE.

UH, SO WHAT I THINK, I THINK WE'VE DISCUSSED THIS PRETTY WELL, UH, AS I WAS LOOKING ON BOTH SETS OF THE DATA I SAW ON BOTH SETS OF THE DATA ANIMALS PAST THE 10TH, WHEN I GOT THEM ALL PULLED UP HERE.

SO THERE IS A DISCREPANCY IN THE DATA AND AT, BUT IT, AS RYAN SAID, IT SEEMS CLEAR THAT THE ORDINANCE WASN'T FOLLOWED.

SO THE QUESTION IS, WHAT DO WE DO, UH, IS, ARE, DOES THE COMMISSION DO NOTHING OR DO WE DO SOMETHING? AND WE DO SOMETHING BASED ON A MOTION.

UH, SO AT THIS POINT, DOES ANYBODY HAVE A MOTION? CORRECT? I THINK CHRIS AND HAS HAD HER HAND UP FOR AWHILE, KRISTEN? YES.

OKAY.

I CAN'T SEE THAT.

OKAY, KRISTEN, GO AHEAD.

THANK YOU.

I'LL BE REALLY BRIEF.

UH, I, I JUST WANT TO SHARE FOR FOLKS WHO MAY NOT BE AWARE OF, BE AWARE OF WHY THIS IS A PROBLEM OR HOW THIS WORKS IS THAT ONCE THE ANIMAL COMES IN, IT'S GOT A VERY BRIEF STRAIGHT HOLD, UM, BY NATIONAL STANDARDS, THREE DAYS, IT'S VERY SHORT AND W THE WAY PEOPLE WILL COME TO FIND LOST PETS IS THEY SHOW UP AT THE SCULPTURE, UM, TO FIND THEM.

AND THEY DON'T NECESSARILY EVEN REALLY GET TO TALK TO SOMEONE.

USUALLY THEY'LL JUST BE TOLD TO GO TO A KENNEL AREA, LOOK AROUND AND SEE IF THEY SEE THEIR PET.

UM, AND SO A LOT OF THE DOGS, I THINK THAT

[00:45:01]

WERE ADOPTED WERE SMALL DOGS, UM, OR WERE TRANSFERRED.

AND SO THEY WOULD BE DIRECTED TO A CERTAIN AREA.

AND IF THEY DON'T SEE THEIR PET, THEY'RE LIKELY TO WALK OUT AND CONTINUE TO SEARCH.

AND THE PROBLEM IS IS THAT IF YOU REDUCE THAT NUMBER EVEN FURTHER, YOU HAVE A RESIDENT WHO UNDERSTAND THAT THEY HAVE A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF TIME TO FIND THEIR PET.

AND I THINK THAT WE HAVE NO WAY OF KNOWING IF THEY'RE STILL LOOKING.

WE, WE, THERE'S NO WAY FOR US TO KNOW THAT THEY LIKELY ARE.

UM, AND WE DON'T EVEN HAVE A WAY TO RESOLVE FOR THEM IF, IF THEIR PET WAS ADOPTED OR TRANSFERRED IN.

UM, THEY KNOW IF THEY KNOW THE LAW, THERE IS A, THERE IS AN ORDINANCE THAT IT SMELLS AND IT'S OUT.

THEY WOULD NOT KNOW THAT THEIR ANIMAL HAD BEEN, UM, THAT THIS ORDINANCE HAD BEEN VIOLATED, RESULTING IN THEIR ANIMAL, UM, BEING ADOPTED OR TRANSFERRED IN.

SO THEY LIKELY WITH SMALL DOGS, UM, THEY'RE TYPICALLY OWNED BY SOMEONE THEY'RE NOT THERE.

THEY'RE LESS LIKELY TO BE, UM, SORT OF STRAIGHT AND TAKE TO NOT GO HOME.

SO ALL OF THIS IS JUST TO SAY THAT THERE'S, THIS HAS REAL CONSEQUENCES.

I THINK FOR PEOPLE WHO LOVE THEIR PETS, AND NOW WE HAVE A NUMBER OF ANIMALS, AND IT REALLY DOESN'T MATTER IF IT'S ONE, IF IT'S A HUNDRED, WE HAVE A NUMBER OF ANIMALS WHO WERE TRANSFERRED OR ADOPTED DURING THIS PERIOD.

AND THOSE OWNERS MAY BE LOOKING FOR THOSE ANIMALS.

AND SO AT A MINIMUM, I THINK THAT WE HAVE TO FIND A WAY TO, AS A COMMUNITY, BE TRANSPARENT WITH THE PUBLIC THAT THIS HAPPENED AND TO SHARE THOSE ANIMALS, PICTURES, UM, DATE THEY WERE FOUND AND, AND W LOCATION THEY WERE FOUND WITH THE PUBLIC IN CASE SOMEONE IS LOOKING FOR THEIR PET, UM, BECAUSE IT'S VERY LIKELY THAT, THAT THEY ARE.

UM, SO I JUST WANTED TO CONTEXTUALIZE IT.

UM, AND THESE, THESE ARE REAL ANIMALS WITH REAL FAMILIES WHO LIVED ON, AND, UM, THIS IS A SHORT, STRAIGHT HOLD WE HAVE ANY WAY.

AND SO THERE IS, THERE IS STILL AN OUTSTANDING ISSUE, UM, THAT I THINK WE NEED TO ADDRESS IN OUR, IN OUR DUTY TO THE RESIDENTS OF AUSTIN AND THE, IN THEIR PETS.

THANK YOU, KRISTIN, A LOTTA YEAH.

UM, TO KIND OF TAG ON SLIGHTLY TO WHAT KRISTEN JUST SAID.

UM, I I'VE BEEN OUT, I LITERALLY GOT BACK INTO TOWN AT 6 45 THIS EVENING, SO I'VE BEEN TRYING TO CATCH UP HERE.

UM, AND I DID SEE, UM, AN EMAIL SENT TO US AS COMMISSIONERS, UM, THAT TALKED ABOUT DOGS THAT ARE NOT AVAILABLE FOR THE PUBLIC TO SEE WHILE THEY'RE ON THEIR STRAY HOLD.

AND I, I THINK THAT IS, THAT WAS A GOOD POINT IN THAT EMAIL, UM, BECAUSE IF, IF A PERSON WALKS IN AND LOOKING FOR THEIR DOG AND IT'S BACK IN A NON-PUBLIC AREA, THEY DON'T SEE IT.

THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT'S THERE.

UM, SO I, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S SOMETHING THAT NEEDS TO BE ADDED INTO THIS DISCUSSION OR ADDRESSED AT THIS, AT THIS DISCUSSION PALMER, UH, TALK ONE PRESTON GOT UP.

I THINK MAKING IT VERY CLEAR ON WHAT WE'RE ADDRESSING HERE WHEN PEOPLE'S BEDS, BUT I WANTED TO ALSO POINT OUT THAT ON RYAN'S DATA THAT WAS SUBMITTED, IT INCLUDED THE BREEDS AND THE LARGE MAJORITY OF THE BREEDS WERE SMALL UNDER 20 POUNDS, HIGHLY ADOPTABLE ANIMALS, WHICH DON'T NEED ASSISTANCE THROUGH TRANSPORT ANYWAY.

AND SO I DON'T WHAT KRISTEN SAID IS THE SMALL DOGS WE SHOULD REALIZE, YOU KNOW, MOST, ALL OF THEM WERE IN A HOME, NOT LIVING IN A BACKYARD, NOT LIVING ON THE STREETS.

I JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND ALSO WHY THE FOCUS WAS ON THAT POPULATION, THAT WE DON'T HAVE ANY TROUBLE PLACING THAT WE'RE ABLE TO PLACE WITHIN OUR COMMUNITY.

AND WHY THAT'S THE POPULATION THAT WAS SCURRIED OUT THE DOOR AHEAD OF THE THREE-DAY HOLD.

AND I JUST WANTED TO POINT THAT OUT THAT IT'S THE BREED IS THAT THE BREEDS OF THE ANIMALS, UM, WAS DISTURBING, UH, LOUISE, UH, HELLO EVERYBODY.

YES.

WE, WE NEED TO WORK TOGETHER AS COMMUNITY.

UH, AND I WANT TO PROPOSE TO, THROUGH A GROUP AND FIND A WAY TO DO, UH, THE RIGHT OUTREACH TO SAY TO THE COMMUNITY THAT IT'S ONLY THREE, THREE DAYS.

I AM WORKING FOR THE LAST 11 YEARS WITH A SHELTER.

AND IT'S STILL PEOPLE THINK THAT THE SHELTER CAN KEEP THEIR ANIMAL FOR MONTHS.

I THINK IT'S SOMETHING THAT IS NOT ONLY JOB FROM THE CENTER, HIS JOB FOR ALL THE COMMUNITY, FROM ALL THE FLAGS AND ALL THE LANGUAGE AND ALL THE COLORS THAT WE HAVE IN THIS FANTASTIC CITY TO LET THEM KNOW THAT THE SHELTER IS GOING TO THE DOG IS GOING TO BE ONLY THREE NIGHTS, I THINK, UH IT'S OR JAVA'S VISORY COMMISSIONERS

[00:50:02]

PLAY TOGETHER AND FIND A WAY TO MAKE THESE SOUNDS IN ALL THE CORNERS, BECAUSE I BET IF PEOPLE KNOW THAT THEIR PETS ARE GOING TO STAY ONLY THREE DAYS, THEY'RE COMING FOR THEM THE NEXT DAY.

SO IF I GET IT RIGHT, YOU'RE MAKING A MOTION THAT WE FORM A WORKING GROUP.

I LOVE VIVIO YES.

A WORKING GROUP.

DO I HEAR A SECOND FOR THAT? OKAY.

IF THERE'S NO SECOND, THEN WE, THE MOTION FAILS.

OKAY.

SO, UH, DO I HEAR ANY OTHER MOTIONS ABOUT ACTION? WE COULD TAKE A RYAN.

YES.

HI.

SO MY MOTION WOULD BE TWOFOLD.

UM, THE FIRST IS THAT WE, UM, I PROPOSE THAT WE AUTHORIZE THE CHAIR TO WRITE A LETTER TO THE CITY COUNCIL, UH, TO INFORM THE CITY COUNCIL THAT THE SHELTER HAS, UH, VIOLATED THE HOLD PERIOD ORDINANCE WITH RESPECT TO, UM, SOME NUMBER OF, OF ANIMALS THAT WERE, I GUESS WE CAN SAY WE, WE BELIEVE IT'S A GOOD NUMBER OF, UH, WE DON'T KNOW EXACTLY THE RIGHT NUMBER BECAUSE WE HAVE, AND I FINALLY, I DID PULL UP THAT FIFTH, UH, UM, UH, XL DOCUMENT.

SO I SEE NOW, UM, WHAT JOANNE WAS TALKING ABOUT.

AND SO I'M CERTAINLY GOING TO GO BACK TO THE ANALYST, THE DATA ANALYST THAT I HIRED AND ASK THEM, OH, UM, TAKE A LOOK AT THAT AND TRY TO, UH, RECONCILE THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THEM.

AND I'LL BE MORE THAN HAPPY TO SHARE THAT AT THE NEXT MEETING.

UM, MY PROPOSAL IS THAT WE, UM, AUTHORIZED CRAIG TO WRITE A LETTER TO THE CITY COUNCIL, LETTING THE CITY COUNCIL, MAYOR, AND CITY COUNCIL KNOW THAT THE SHELTER VIOLATED THE HOLD PERIOD ORDINANCE WITH RESPECT TO SOME NUMBER OF ANIMALS, UH, DURING THE PERIOD OF JANUARY TO, UM, MID MAY OF 2022, UM, BY, UH, ADOPTING OUT OR TRANSFERRING ANIMALS PRIOR TO THE EXPERT OF THE WHOLE PERIOD.

MY SECOND, UM, PART OF MY MOTION IS THAT WE ALSO REQUEST THAT THE CITY, UH, ANALYZE, UH, DETERMINE, AND, UH, AND WHEN WE ARE ANALYZING DETERMINED THE NUMBER OF ANIMALS, THE ANIMALS AFFECTED, ANALYZE, DETERMINE, AND IDENTIFY THE ANIMALS AFFECTED AND MAKE THAT LIST PUBLIC, UH, ON THE CITY, UH, SHELTERS WEBSITE.

SO THAT, UM, PERSONS WHO MAY HAVE BEEN AFFECTED BY THEIR ANIMALS BEING ADOPTED OUT OR TRANSFERRED TOO EARLY, UH, WOULD HAVE A WAY OF NOTIFYING THEM TO THE EXTENT THOSE ANIMALS EXIST.

UM, WE SHOULD ALSO NOTE UP BY THE, UM, NEW ADOPTER AND, UH, TRANSFERRED OF THE RESCUE GROUP THAT THEY WERE TRANSFERRED TO, UH, THAT THAT WAS ANIMALS MAY BE IMPACTED BY, UH, THE ERROR AT THE AUSTIN ANIMAL CENTER.

SO THAT'S MY PROPOSAL.

I SECOND.

OKAY.

SO WHAT WE, UH, UH, OKAY, SO THE, THE MOTION IS IN TWO PARTS.

THE FIRST PART IS, UH, THE CHAIR WRITES A LETTER TO THE CITY COUNCIL TELLING THEM ABOUT THE SITUATION WITH THE VIOLATION OF STRAY HOLD ORDINANCE, ESSENTIALLY.

CORRECT.

THE SECOND PART IS, UH, WE RECOMMEND THAT THE CITY ANALYZE TO DETERMINE AND IDENTIFY, UH, TO DETERMINE IT AND FIND NUMBER OF ANIMALS AFFECTED AND POST TO A WEBSITE TO NOTIFY AND NOTIFY ADOPTERS AND RESCUE GROUPS WHO THESE ANIMALS MAY HAVE GONE TO.

THAT'S MY MOTION.

OKAY.

AS BEEN SECONDED.

I, AND NOW, UH, ANY DISCUSSION LOTTA HAS HER HAND UP.

YEAH.

UM, SO DO YOU CALL IT, UH, UH, I GUESS A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT? IS THAT WHAT IT'S CALLED? YES, BECAUSE THERE'S NO, THERE'S NO TIMEFRAME IN THE SECOND PART TO YOUR, UH, REQUEST BRIAN.

SO I THINK WE SHOULD PUT, WHEN WE EXPECT THE DATA TO BE RESOLVED A TIMEFRAME FOR THEM TO DO THAT, A TIMEFRAME FOR IT TO BE UP ON THE WEBSITE BECAUSE THEIR INFINITY, HOW LONG WE NEED TO JUST START, HOW LONG WE WANT IT UP THERE.

LOTTA I'M MORE THAN HAPPY TO TAKE YOUR FRIENDLY AMENDMENT.

DO YOU HAVE, UM, AN IDEA OF WHAT YOU HAVE IN MIND FOR THOSE TWO, UM, UH, DEADLINES? I WOULD, I, I DON'T KNOW ON THE FIRST PART, I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW HOW LONG IT'S GOING TO TAKE TO RECONCILE THOSE TWO DIFFERENT SPREADSHEETS, THOSE LISTS AND FIGURE OUT HOW MANY ANIMALS THAT WAS.

UM, SO I

[00:55:01]

THINK WE WOULD NEED TO ERR ON THE SIDE OF, YOU KNOW, AT LEAST A WORKING WEEK, IF NOT, MAYBE, YOU KNOW, 10 WORKING DAYS, UM, AS FAR AS THE LIST BEING UP ON THE WEBSITE, I THINK THAT NEEDS TO BE UP THERE LONGER.

ONCE IT, ONCE IT GOES UP, I WOULD, I WOULD SAY UP TO 90 DAYS, IF THAT'S ACCEPTABLE, UH, I WILL TAKE YOUR FRIENDLY AMENDMENT ON, ON.

SO I THINK YOU SAID YOU WANT IT TO BE 10 DAYS OR TWO WEEKS TO GET THE RECONCILIATION PROCESS.

UM, LET'S, YOU KNOW, HERE WE GO, WE'RE GOING TO GET INTO THE, WE'RE GETTING INTO BUSINESS DAYS, WORKING DAYS, YOU KNOW? YEAH.

SO LET'S SAY, YOU KNOW, TWO WEEKS AND HOWEVER MANY BUSINESS DAYS FALL IN TWO WEEKS, THAT'S WHAT IT IS.

THAT'S 10.

OKAY.

SO TWO, TWO WORKING WEEKS.

AND, UM, FOR THAT, AND WE WOULD WANT THE, UM, THE PUBLIC INFORMATION AVAILABLE FOR AT LEAST 90 DAYS ON THE WEBSITE.

I WILL ACCEPT THE FRIENDLY AMENDMENTS.

UH, NOW DOES THIS POSTING OF A WEBSITE, IS THIS INCLUDE PICTURES? OKAY.

PICTURES, ALL INFORMATION AVAILABLE.

YEAH.

OKAY.

ALL RIGHT.

UH, PALMER, WE CANNOT HEAR YOU.

SORRY.

CAN I HEAR YOU? CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW BETTER? I WOULD LIKE TO SUGGEST THAT IN ADDITION TO IT GOING ON A CITY WEBSITE, THE CITY HAS RELIED ON A LOT OF SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS THROUGH THE LOST AND FOUND, UH, THROUGH ALL THE LOST AND FOUND CHALLENGES OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS.

AND I'D LIKE TO ALSO REQUEST THAT THERE BEING, UH, ALERTS OR ANNOUNCEMENTS PLACED ON THOSE SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS, DIRECTING PEOPLE TO THE CITY WEBSITE, UH, REGARDING THIS LISTING OF ANIMALS THAT NEED, THAT PEOPLE MAY BE ABLE TO LOOK THROUGH.

AND SO THAT WOULD INCLUDE, YOU KNOW, UM, THE CITY SPECIAL MEDIA SITES, BUT ALSO LIKE AUSTIN AND FOUND TRAPPERS.

SOME OF THOSE GROUPS THAT HAVE BEEN REALLY ASSISTING, UH, WITH REUNITING ANIMALS THROUGH THIS TIME PERIOD.

OKAY.

I WILL ACCEPT THE FRIENDLY AMENDMENT.

YES.

SORRY.

I'M CONFUSED ON THE AMENDMENT AT THAT.

THE SECOND ONE, ARE WE SAYING THAT IF AN ANIMAL COMES IN AS A STRAY AND IT'S WE PUT IT ON THE WEBSITE AND THEN AFTER THE HOLD PERIOD, SAY 10 DAYS LATER IT GETS ADOPTED, IT WOULD RE THE PICTURE WOULD REMAIN ON A WEBSITE SOMEPLACE.

OKAY.

LET ME, LET ME RESPECT THE IDENTIFIED ANIMALS ON THE LIST.

LET ME READ THIS.

SO, SO THE FIRST PART OF, OF THE MOTION WILL BE, I WRITE A LETTER TO CITY COUNCIL EXPLAINING TO HIM THE SITUATION ABOUT THE VIOLATION OF THE STREET HOLD ORDINANCE.

SO I READ A LETTER CITY COUNCIL SAY THIS HAPPENED.

OKAY.

UM, THEN THE SECOND THING IS THAT WE ASKED THE CITY TO ANALYZE, DETERMINE, UH, TO ANALYZE, IDENTIFY AND DETERMINE THE NUMBER OF ANIMALS AFFECTED AND POST TO A WEBSITE TO NOTIFY AND NOTIFY THE ADOPTER OR THE RESCUE GROUP WHO THESE ANIMALS WENT TO THAT WERE RELEASED EARLY.

UM, AND TO, UH, TO DO, TO GET THIS, TO DO THIS IN TWO WEEKS, GET THIS INFORMATION YOU HAD TWO WEEKS AND THEN POST FOR 90 DAYS, UH, ON A WEBSITE PICTURES AND, AND ALL INFORMATION AVAILABLE ABOUT THOSE ANIMALS THAT WERE RELEASED BEFORE THE STRAIL PERIOD WERE UP AND AMPLIFY THIS ON SOCIAL MEDIA AND CRAIG, THIS WOULD REFER TO RYAN'S LIST.

THIS IS, UH, NO, THIS IS, OR ANY ANIMALS THAT TH THIS IS OKAY.

THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION.

HOW FAR BACK DO WE GO TO ANALYZE THIS AND WHAT ALL ANIMALS DO WE INCLUDE ON THIS? A GOOD QUESTION.

THE FIRST PART OR THE, THE FIRST PART OF THE SECOND PART WAS THAT THE CITY, UH, CONDUCT AN ANALYSIS TO IDENTIFY AND DETERMINE EXACTLY WHAT THE ANIMALS WERE AFFECTED.

HOW, HOW FAR BACK DO WE GO WITH THAT? IN JANUARY 1ST, 2022.

OKAY.

OKAY.

SO THAT'S THE ANALYSIS GO BACK TO JANUARY 1ST, 2020 TO ANALYZE AND IDENTIFY THE ANIMALS HAS HAPPENED TO, AND THEN, UH, AND DO THAT IN TWO WEEKS AND THEN, UH, POST FOR 90 DAYS, ONCE THAT'S DONE POSTS, GET TOGETHER A WHOLE LIST AND THE INFORMATION AND POST FOR 90 DAYS ON A WEBSITE AND AMPLIFY

[01:00:01]

THAT ON SOCIAL MEDIA AND JASON, THAT CHART YOU GAVE US, WHICH DOESN'T HAVE THESE TRANSFERS IN THIS DOCUMENT YOU GAVE US, OR W I THOUGHT IT WAS THE CITY'S ESTIMATE OF ALL THE ANIMALS THAT WELL DOGS CAUSE IT'S CATS TOO, IN, IN RYAN'S, UM, THAT WENT OUT BEFORE THE WHOLE PERIOD, BUT THEY ARE VERY DIFFERENT.

SO, YOU KNOW, UH, IT'S YOUR LAND, ONE OF THE THINGS YOU READ ABOUT CATS, BUT IT'S ALSO RABBITS.

I THINK THERE WERE SNAKES ON THE LIST.

IT'S ALL ANIMALS, GUINEA, PIGS, WELL, AND THE LIST THAT WAS, AND AGAIN, THIS, UNLESS I DIDN'T PRINT ALL THE PAGES, BUT I LOOKED THROUGH THEM AND THEY LOOK PRETTY MUCH SIMILAR EXCEPT FARTHER OUT DATES.

LIKE THE CITY LIST DOESN'T HAVE THE SAME.

IT HAS SOME OF THE TRANSFER PARTNERS, BUT NOT AS MANY AS, AS RYAN.

SO, AND, AND ARE YOU, AND I THINK YOUR POSITION WAS THAT YOUR DATA'S CORRECT.

SO AT SOME POINT WE'D HAVE TO SEE WHY IT LOOKS DIFFERENT AND RECONCILE THEM.

YEAH.

UH, WAIT, WAIT, WAIT, WAIT, WAIT, LET, LET'S LET JASON RESPOND TO THAT.

WELL, NO, I WAS LOOKING AT GREAT.

YEAH, WE'D HAVE TO COMPARE THE, THE TWO SHEETS AND RECONCILE THEM AND JUST, YOU KNOW, SEE WHERE WE AT AND THEN ADD ON TO WHERE, WHAT SPECIFIC RESCUE IT WENT TO.

BUT IF IT WAS WHAT, THE, WHAT THE REASON FOR TRANSPORT WAS DAYS OF A LOT OF, UH, SOME OF THESE THAT WE DO HAVE, I MEAN, IT HASN'T BEEN MENTIONED AND, UH, WE'VE ALSO INSTITUTED, AND WE DO THIS WITH APA A LOT WITH, WE DO A RESCUE FOSTER SITUATION WHERE IT'S A MEDICAL ISSUE, BUT WE KNOW IT'S A RESCUE FOSTER.

AND SO IF THE OWNER HAPPENS TO COME UP AT ANY TIME, THEY KNOW THAT THE, YOU KNOW, OUT THE APP TO GET THE ANIMAL BACK TO ITS OWNER.

SO WE HAVE TO LOOK AT THAT TO ENSURE THAT, YOU KNOW, WE ENSURE THAT THAT WAS NOTIFIED TO THE RESCUE AS WELL.

SO IF THEY HAVE THAT UNDERSTANDING, OKAY, PAIGE, DO YOU HAVE SOMETHING TO SAY? YEAH, JUST A QUESTION.

SO, UM, I THINK THAT'S ALL SOUNDS GOOD.

I'M CURIOUS WHO, WHO, WHO CAN NOW ESTABLISH WHEN OWNERSHIP WILL TRANSFER? BECAUSE LIKE, I IMAGINE IF WE REACH OUT TO PEOPLE RE RESCUES AND NEW OWNERS TO WHOM THESE ANIMALS WERE ADOPTED,