Reichley Column: Citizen help for shelter

Last Tuesday, the Prince William Board of County Supervisors voted to create an Animal Advisory Board to focus on ways to improve the Prince William Animal Shelter. The vote was a culmination of a
long-term effort by groups including the Prince William SPCA, which wanted a board not just to deal with the shelter, but to push for a broad range of “animal welfare initiatives.”

As the SPCA described on its Web site, the committee they envisioned would be responsible for, among other things, “improving county policies,” “increasing community outreach” and “making
recommendations to the BOCS on programs, services, classes and special events.” This would include “low-cost spay/neuter options,” “humane education programs in schools” and dog-friendly parks, in
addition to helping with the animal shelter.

As I said in May, the animal shelter has been a continuing source of concern. The county had looked at privatization, but found no interest. A citizen’s panel focused on this problem seemed a welcome
addition. But not a board that would essentially exist to lobby for new spending programs and rules that would affect all aspects of animal ownership in the county, going far beyond the problem of stray
animals and the shelter.

The county currently has more than 600 committees, which seems like a logistical nightmare — even if they each only report once a year, that’s 12 reports a week, every single week. Still, a committee
narrowly focused on the animal shelter could well be what is needed to solve the shelter problem.

But sometimes, advisory boards are little more than a way for special interests to get their hands in the taxpayers’ pockets. Because the advisory boards have authority and the support of government,
they can provide a misleading gauge of citizen concern, since opponents often do not have the resources to effectively counter board recommendations.

Also, for a long time the police department, which runs the animal shelter, had opposed the formation of an advisory board. The news article about Tuesday’s vote said “It also came over the opposition of
police.” But an Aug. 29 executive summary (which still recommended rejecting the advisory board) noted that, should the Board of County Supervisors decide to approve the advisory board, “the Police
Department does support the draft Resolution in its current form.” So maybe the police opposition was weakening (or maybe the summary was inaccurate).

In the end, the supervisors decided to form the advisory board, but to limit the board to the issue of the animal shelter. The supervisors approved two amendments before voting for the Animal Advisory
Board. The first prevents the board from dealing with any animals except those in the shelter system. The second forbids the board to make any requests for money, except for $1,000 designated for
board operations.

The second limitation is mostly symbolic — any member of the board, along with the animal rights organizations that pushed for this board for so long, will still be able to lobby as individuals and groups
to request money for their pet projects. No doubt, we will be hearing pleas for new spending next spring. But the rule should keep the board from working with county employees to generate budget
requests.

By prohibiting the advisory board from dealing with animals outside the shelter, the supervisors have hopefully eased the worries of farmers, operators of petting zoos, circuses, and horse stables. For
example, the Farm Bureau had opposed the original resolution, concerned about “another layer of bureaucracy,” which would interfere with livestock operations.

Will this new Animal Advisory Board be able to improve conditions at the animal shelter? The idea was that the SPCA would be able to use their contacts and fundraising skills to generate private money
to renovate the shelter and improve living conditions. They also hope to do a better job of finding people to adopt animals, so fewer have to be put to sleep. I’m not sure what prevented this from happening
without an advisory board, but most everybody agrees that the shelter needs a makeover. Maybe the committee will provide a focal point for county residents to donate money, knowing that it will be used
only to fix the shelter and not for political lobbying.

There are things government needs to do. Handling the problem of stray animals in the community is one of those tasks. If this board can improve this county service, without raising a host of unrelated
issues, it will be $1000 well spent.

Charles Reichley can be reached a criticallythinking@msn.com.