TODAY’S ENTRY #860: The way in which complaints from five former employees of the city’s stray animal contractor were dealt with that has raised concerns the relationship between the city and London Animal Care and Control is a little too close.

Friday, May 17, 2013 – London

On the afternoon of Friday, May 18, 2012, five women, all former employees of London Animal Care and Control, met with Mayor Joe Fontana to discuss their concerns about the way the facility was being run.

Besides the mayor, also attending were Councillor Bud Polhill; Orest Katolyk, the city’s manager of licensing and law enforcement; his boss, George Kotsifas, the managing director of development and compliance services; and a representative for animal rescue groups in London.

You might wonder why a busy mayor, who says he works 100 hours a week, was finding time to deal with an issue like this, until you realize London Animal Care and Control is the city’s private contractor to deal with stray and unwanted animals, running on a budget from taxpayers of $2.2 million.

London Animal Care and Control – it usually goes by its acronym LACC – is operated by Urban Animal Management. It has held the city contract for a quarter century and is now completing the final year of an untendered contract signed in 2002. Tenders have been called on the next contract, with LACC and three other organizations putting in bids. City officials expect the successful bidder will be announced later this year.

The five women – Anna Franze, Chrissy Lauze, Christine Fisher, and two others who did not wish their names published – presented a package of information of what they claimed were cases of animal neglect, unnecessarily animal killings, breach of contract and falsification of records at the LACC facility on Pine Valley Boulevard in Westmount.

The women had worked for LACC at different times, four of them in the area of the building where animals are evaluated, sometimes treated for disease and often, if not claimed or adopted, put to death.

The allegations from the women are disturbing enough, but it was the way in which this complaint was dealt with that has raised concerns the relationship between the city and its contractor is a little too close.

It should be noted the allegations have been investigated by City of London officials and a provincial agency and another one is on-going. No irregularities were discovered, although questions remain about the thoroughness and competence of some of the inspections, or whether the specific issues of concern raised by the women were ever investigated.

Two weeks after the meeting with the mayor, on the afternoon of Friday, June 1, 2012, city officials inspected the LACC facility. Mr. Katolyk said later it was an unannounced visit, but there were apparently managers in the building at the time and the owner, Brett Harlton, arrived soon after. Nothing out of the ordinary was found.

That was hardly unexpected, Ms. Franze says. The women had expressly asked that a surprise inspection occur on a Monday, Wednesday or Friday morning and that a veterinarian accompany the inspection team.

“Three o’clock on a Friday afternoon is not the appropriate time to attend when the procedures and euthanasia have been completed in the mornings,” she said in a subsequent email to Mr. Katolyk. “We feel our concerns have not been investigated appropriately.”

No veterinarian accompanied city officials, either. Reason? The city doesn’t have one on staff.

After the inspection it would be another two weeks before Mr. Katolyk acknowledged it to the five women, and that after Ms. Franze complained to the mayor. Beyond reporting he found nothing to substantiate their complaint, he mentioned nothing to them about whether provincial agencies had been advised.

In fact, one agency had been advised. OMAFRA – the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs – which, acting on a separate complaint, had inspected LACC on May 31. “The inspection determined the facility was in compliance with the Act and its regulations,” an official later reported to the city, although not the five women.

Meantime, several of the women met with Councillor Denise Brown, who was then the chairperson of city council’s public safety committee, which had jurisdiction over animal welfare. She expressed concern she didn’t know about their complaints.

A day later, on July 4, 2012, Mr. Katolyk relayed the OMAFRA inspection information by email to all city council members.

“Over the past few weeks, our office has been inundated with complaints about our current animal care and control service provider,” Mr. Katolyk wrote. “Administration take these complaints seriously, however, we are trained not to jump to conclusions and make rash decisions based on ‘one side of the story’. We have forwarded the complaints to provincial government agencies who are mandated to investigate animal health and welfare issues.

“I have been advised that an inspection was undertaken in response to complaints forwarded to the province. The inspection examined the following: maintenance, identification, animal care and records. For all the items inspected, the rating of ‘acceptable’ was attained. There were no ‘needs improvement’ or ‘unacceptable’ ratings given.

“I have also been advised that another provincial agency inspected based on labour complaints and no orders were issued. City administration also undertook an unannounced site visit and no issues were observed that would suggest cruelty to animals.”

Ms. Franze says, in fact, one of their group did file a complaint about LACC with the Ontario Labour Board and ultimately received severance pay.

Mr. Katolyk also send a copy of his council email to Ms. Franze, and added: “This email is self-explanatory. OMAFRA undertook an inspection and issued a report on the condition of the facility. We undertook a random inspection and found no violations. Based on the findings of a provincial inspections agency and our findings, this file is closed.”

But the email was somewhat misleading. OMAFRA’s inspection covered areas not included in the complaint from the five women, and missed other areas that were. And by their assessment – confirmed by Mr. Katolyk they say – the city’s inspection had been inadequate too, although the women say they were never told exactly what the city had inspected.

In response, and at the suggestion of Councillor Brown, the five women sent their complete file of allegations to every member of city council two days later.

That generated another meeting at City Hall between some of the women and Mr. Katolyk, as well as Jay Stanford. Although his responsibility for the city is primarily waste management, Mr. Stanford had for a number of years also managed the animal control file. By mid-2012, however, as a result of a major reorganization, animal welfare issues had been shifted to Mr. Kotsifas.

Records of that meeting are skimpy, but Ms. Franze recollects another inspection was promised, a fact confirmed several months later by Heather Chapman, the city’s manager of law enforcement services.

Results of that inspection, if it was done, have never been communicated to any of the five women.

Ms. Franze complained to Ms. Chapman in late September that the city’s action, or lack thereof, “implies our testimony . . . is not taken seriously. There were no answers to our questions.”

Ms. Chapman responded three days later, by letter. She said she had sent OMAFRA and CVO (the College of Veterinarians of Ontario) the “complaint document regarding alleged inappropriate activities” at LACC submitted by the women to the mayor in May.

“It is my understanding that the OMAFRA and/or CVO investigation could take quite some time,” Ms. Chapman wrote. “Should there be a time that the governing bodies confirm wrong doing on the part of the service provider, the City of London will take further action at that time.

“In closing I want to be very clear in my message. I have not ignored this matter. I have taken the appropriate actions in forwarding these complaints to the appropriate authorities, and I have responded appropriately.”

Last month, in reply to my questions to Mr. Katolyk, an email was returned by Chris Ginty, the city’s procurement officer who is involved in the tender process for the next animal care contract.

“OMAFRA has investigated the allegations and found no deficiencies or violations,” Mr. Ginty said. “CVO is not a provincial ministry and his indicated that they do not make public all allegation and complaint findings against veterinarians for obvious legal purposes.”

The CVO investigation is on-going and all five women have been interviewed. None of the women have received the results of the OMAFRA investigation, nor have they ever been contacted about their allegations.

As for the city’s investigation, the women have only been told no violations were found in whatever the city inspected. They have not been told whether other allegations they made were ever investigated.