Shelter chief's probation terms cast serious doubt on recent comments by mayor's office and acting public safety director
Mayor Ballard's office dismissed Warren Patitz as chairman of the Indianapolis Animal Care and Control (IACC) board on Wednesday, September 23, just two hours before the beginning of the scheduled board meeting. The Mayor's office relayed to the media that stray dog calls remain a top complaint to the Mayor's Action Center since 2005 (Indy Star, September 24, “Ballard cans head of animal-control board”). This concern was cited despite a decrease in dog bites in 2009, and IACC fielding over 2000 more service calls under Rae's leadership than had been handled at this time last year.
But in the three-page document (“Improvement Process & Probationary Period”) outlining the terms of IACC Administrator Doug Rae's probation, not once is there the slightest evidence that Rae's superiors had concerns about the number of stray dog calls, their impact on public safety or the timeliness of IACC's response to the calls.
Even though the probation terms went into effect on August 1, on August 12, the Indy Star reported (“Animal shelter's chief put on probation”) that Mark Renner, acting director of the department of public safety had concerns that public safety may be suffering under Rae. No specific justification for this claim was offered by Renner in the article. But if this concern of Renner's was compelling enough that he would offer it to the media, why did it not appear in the “Improvement” list of action items given to Rae?
In fact, the “Improvement” document was clearly completed on or after August 5, as it references a cover letter (which could not be obtained) dated August 5. The acting director penned an elaborate list with 15 items of concern, including improvement of internal communication within the division, ensuring that foul language is not used, post job opportunities and changes, and making sure policies are understood and enforced. It was an intricate and comprehensive list of micromanagement issues virtually down to the employee level. With such a detailed criticism of the shelter head's performance, how is it that only a week later, a new concern –a concern serious enough to bring to the media's attention– appears? Particularly when the Mayor's office reports that this is an ongoing problem (Indy Star, September 24, “Ballard cans head of animal-control board”).
This leads to the conclusion that either acting director Renner himself needs some “improvement” with his attention to detail if he forgot to include this crucial issue in his list of improvements for Rae's job performance, or that the recently presented arguments about the safety of the city suffering under Rae's leadership are little more than a poorly-conceived cover to to justify the firing of Doug Rae as the IACC administrator without any legitimate justification.
Mr. Renner's continued characterization of Animal Control Officers as “dogcatchers” shows that his understanding of the function of these law enforcement officers may be as superficial as the idea that a single statistic like the number of stray dog complaints (which have continued to diminish under Rae's leadership) is an accurate measure of the safety of the citizens of Indianapolis. It also begs the question of whether it should be Mr. Renner on probation.
Not only are the Ballard administration and acting director Renner doing IACC administrator Rae a shameful disservice by making him the target of undue criticism, but they are showing great disrespect and disregard to the citizens of Indianapolis by failing to deal with the situation in an honest, effective and transparent manner.
###
