« Sprawl is not fiscally prudent Gretchen Quarterman @ LCC 12 July 2011 | Main | Not clear houses are more important than agriculture John S. Quarterman @ LCC 12 July 2011 »

Saturday, 23 July 2011


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

An Outsider Looking In

One thing I've learned in reviewing a-n-y document that the Ga. Ag. Animal Protection Divison prepares, is to do just that - review, review and review.

In regards to "missing cc's", there isn't a law or Ga. Ag Animal Protection "Rule" that covers "missing cc's" or even "missing euth poison".

The code that the Ag inspector cited for a violation is 40-40-13.-08 (11) which reads:
(11) Euthanasia records shall be kept on forms approved by the Georgia Department of Agriculture and the State Board of Pharmacy and shall be signed by the person performing euthanasia and the witness.
Source: Ga. Animal Protection Rules

Did the shelter staff have their records/euth poison logged on the proper form - but just missing that particular's day/date?
The violation may should have been issued for "Record Keeping".

And, with all respect to the supervising Veterinarian, :
(10) The supervising veterinarian shall be subject to all record-keeping requirements and inspection requirements of the State Board of Pharmacy pertaining to sodium pentobarbital and other drugs authorized under paragraph (3) of this rule section and may limit the quantity of possession of sodium pentobarbital and other authorized drugs to ensure compliance with the provision of this Code section.

May not be not important - but then again, may be. i.e. would the shelter (staff) itself be "subject" to euth poison inventory or would the supervising Veterinarian be subject, as is mandated in the above excerpt.

Also, the related pdf of the March 15, 2011 inspection conducted by the Ag inspector, and supervisor, is in conflict with what the State Auditor's Office - Russell Hinton - recommended in his 2000 state audit and 2003 state audit follow up regarding the writing out of each individual 25 criteria regulated during an inspection.

"The Program should also take steps to reduce the amount of time its inspectors spend preparing the inspection reports.

An on-site observation of two field inspections found that it took longer to prepare the reports than it took to conduct the inspections even though no significant violations were found.

The amount of time spent preparing inspection reports should be reduced. *The inspection reports released involving a 2008 “high volume breeding operation” showed that the inspectors were still hand writing out all 25 criteria.

In addition to completing a checklist indicating a facility’s compliance or noncompliance with specific requirements, the inspectors also write out a description of what they found regarding each item, including those with which the facility was in compliance.

The inspectors also write out descriptive information about the facility that is identical to information contained on prior reports (such as the size of the facility).

Program personnel have indicated that the narrative information is required in case disciplinary action is taken against the facility and to develop an inspection history of the facility. Copies of inspection reports are purged every two years, however, preventing the compilation of any type of long-term data.

The Program has indicated that it no longer requires its inspectors to prepare a detailed report when no violations are found and that it is revising the inspection form."


Really? So, why then, in 2011, is an Ag inspector, and supervisor, still writing out the same detailed report that they were during the 2000 state audit.

And in the 2003 State Audit Follow Up:
"Since the time of the audit, the Program has taken steps to reduce the amount of time inspectors spend writing inspection reports. According to Program staff, inspectors have been instructed to stop writing duplicative data in the written portion of the inspection report unless it relates to data needed to verify license fees paid by the facility (such as a holding capacity and/or gross sales information)."

Perhaps it's time for another state audit.

r, wright

Believe half of what you see,and nothing of what you hear


R. Wright, that is a righteous statement, you said it all.

Susan Leavens

I believe each document speaks volumes; it appears that people do deny things even with documentation evidence. But the fact remains it is evidence and you may justify it but you can't deny it.
Susan Leavens


Sometimes people make mistakes, criminals most likely try to hide things, everything done here is out in the open, i mean , i think they need a lot more guidance, education, more involvement, but no one needs to be prosecuted.We all have done things and thought we were helping, and we find out its bad, and we get corrective action, unfortunately these folks jobs, as well as law enforcement, have to make judgement calls that could be considered questionable on the outside looking in, i mean im doing a lot of defending people, but i dont feel anyone at that shelter did anything thats criminal,its no different than u making a decision to euthanize an animal, its a judgement call,to an outsider looking in the dog is perfectly fine, to a shelter staff the dog is not adoptable. They have to make life and death decisions, and there is no proof that they are killing any animals without just cause, everything you have stated is a judgement call trying to help an animal, myself cannot do it, but someone with experience can, but thats where education comes in, procedures, rules and regulations.If i did that job, i think if i was a supervisor with those decisions to make, they would have to make up some kind of legal document, where i cannot be prosecuted while in the process of attempting to do my job.

Susan Leavens

Lifetime Citizen I understand what you’re saying, but you can't think you’re doing the right thing when it comes to the welfare of a housed shelter animal. People get fired over mistakes. These kinds of mistake came in the form in inhumane treatment; it is against the law to castrate any animal in the state of Georgia if you’re not a licensed veterinarian. It’s not up to anyone to decide that, because it’s the law. A rule to me would be no smoking in a county building. Not the castration of any pot belly pig for example, not the neglect of any housed animal. And if a person is in the driver seat (director) then they should know there job... that job description does not allow her to castrate any animal I'm positive of that because I have a copy of it. I understand what you’re saying... but these are not rules that have been broken they are laws. I always fall back on one thing “if in doubt ask” because no one can commit a crime and then tell a judge “I didn’t know” because I have heard it time and time again “stupidity does not exempt you from the law”
Susan Leavens

lifetime citizen

Your right ignorance of the law is not a good excuse, well im getting an understanding, but still think there have got to be other ways, but heh, im on the outside looking in, like everybody else.

An Outsider Looking In

I don't want to see anyone lose their job(s) - I'm not a revengeful person, and would give anyone on this forum, including Ashley Paulk, the last dime I had - if they needed it.

This debate isn't personal - it is about the laws of this state.

And it's about our justice system not being allowed to work in Lowndes Co - or any other Georgia county. You just can't allow county commissioners, or any other non law enforcement person, to decide on whether a criminal investigation gets the green light or not. If you allow that, you might as well belly up and expect that these same folks will be pulling you over on the road and either threatening to, or having you ticketed.

The Lowndes County Sheriff's Office is in place, and is paid by county taxpayers, to know the laws, enforce those laws and to make legal decisions based on the laws they are under oath to uphold.

It is not ethical, nor legal, for a non law enforcement county employee, i.e. county commissioner or county manager, to make decisions based on their "opinion" of who gets investigated or charged - and who doesn't.

An Outsider Looking In

The "Code of Ethics" posted on the Association of County Commissioners of Georgia (ACCG):

Code of Ethics

As the duly elected or designated commissioner(s) of this Georgia county which is a member in good standing of this Association County Commissioners of Georgia, we subscribe to the ACCG Code of Ethics.

To continue to make honesty the keystone of our efforts, by being always mindful of our oath of office, and by practicing honesty and impartiality in all our actions.

To keep the public informed on county operations and activities since we believe that “county business is ever public business.”

To expend all county income economically for the greatest good of all county residents.

To provide a certified annual audit of all county income, expenditures, and investments.

To set up and follow a budgetary expense for county income and expenditures.

To employ only persons found to be properly qualified by training or experience for key county jobs.

To appraise all real and personal property impartially for tax purposes.

To encourage the commercial, cultural, and industrial development of our country through sound planning and practical cooperation with other local governments, institutions, state and federal agencies.

To remember always that “In God We Trust” in pursuit of the American Way of free enterprise and independence through “Local Government – The Bulwark of Democracy.”

Source: http://www.accg.org/content.asp?CatId=332&ContentType=General_Content

The comments to this entry are closed.


Blog powered by Typepad