We reported final month that Sullivan County Commissioner Mark Vance had filed a “work-in-progress” decision to assist safeguard canine and cats by “holding people accountable and defending helpless animals that can’t defend themselves.”
It would seem our furry mates want extra assist than they’ll get from county commissioners. When Vance introduced the decision up on the Feb. 18 fee assembly, members turned a blind eye and deaf ear. Vance requested for strategies and enter on the draft decision, however he obtained the chilly shoulder. The decision was tabled by a majority of the fee with out remark or debate.
When that happens, when a majority of the County Commission votes in unison to take away a decision from its midst, it’s as a result of the matter has already been debated however out of public view, opposite to the spirit if not the letter of state regulation. It normally means there’s some political issue that members don’t wish to publicly focus on.
So what would possibly that be?
Vance informed us that he had the topic delivered to his consideration by the sheriff’s workplace and employees and board members for the Animal Shelter of Sullivan County. His decision, co-sponsored by Commissioner John Gardner, asks the Sullivan County Commission to undertake a listing of care requirements “to ensure that our precious animals are cared for” and states “establishing regulations for standards in animal care … is a step in improving the quality of life for dogs, cats and animals and promoting safe neighborhoods and a positive quality of life for citizens and visitors.”
Hard to argue in opposition to that. But commissioners don’t wish to focus on the decision in any respect.
The tips connected to the decision, Vance mentioned, are only a boilerplate place to begin supplied for example of what another counties within the state have adopted. He mentioned he would meet with the county lawyer, animal shelter board and the sheriff to debate enforcement.
Some of the provisions would effective these leaving animals exterior with out ample shelter in excessive warmth, chilly or extreme climate; chaining or restraining canine then leaving them unattended; and preserving a nuisance animal that makes extreme noise or disrupts the peace of close by residents. Those are points all through the county that should be addressed.
Commissioner Mark Hutton, who moved to desk the decision, mentioned it lacks enforcement and funding data and “could have used additional communication between involved parties.”
Is not the County Commission an concerned social gathering? Why then does Hutton — and apparently a lot of the remainder of the fee — have no real interest in discussing the decision publicly? Do they not perceive that the proposed decision is just a place to begin for dialog and investigation?
We encourage Commissioner Vance to proceed to advance the decision. We have little doubt that the general public at massive helps his efforts.