At the center of an investigation into alleged wrongdoing at Stratford Animal Control is a document provided by the accuser that shows the euthanasia of 15 cats.
According to the document, the bill totals $2,750, which would be nearly a third of Stratford Animal Control's .
"The town was double-billed for every one of these cats," alleges Michael Griffin, a former employee at Stratford Animal Control who retired as chief animal control officer six years ago, and is now leading the .
"Who is supervising these people? I handled these booklets for 15 years [as chief officer]."
Griffin said the document is a chart he put together from a collection of invoices he received via a Freedom of Information Act request from the town's finance department.
The former animal control officer has sent this and other information to the , who are now "reviewing the allegations," according to Capt. Joe McNeil.
Local animal group responds to allegations
The Stratford Animal Rescue Society (STARS) is a nonprofit that cares for and raises funds for adoptable animals at Stratford Animal Control.
Griffin has alleged that STARS is involved in the illegal or dishonest behavior at Stratford Animal Control. STARS member questions the integrity of the document outlining the September 2011 euthanasia of 15 cats.
"Those are not copies of actual invoices from the veterinarian," she said.
Furthermore, O'Malley said Griffin is wrong in his claim that the Connecticut Humane Society handles animal cruelty cases and thus would have paid the nearly $3000 bill.
"I have never seen that practice," she said.
In response to allegations that STARS and Stratford Animal Control are in cahoots, O'Malley said, "What STARS does is separate from animal control and when they initially impound an animal...STARS does not find and bring animals to the shelter."
Griffin said he decided to bring allegations against his former employer after a friend of his said he "got ripped off by Stratford Animal Control" after adopting a pet and being overcharged $120.
Current Animal Control Officer Rachel Solveira referred comment to the Stratford Police Department, citing a town policy that dictates all media inquires go through the department. Finance Director Susan Collier could not be reached for comment.
My suggestion that people use their own names is based on my belief that people will be more careful in what they post if they are held personally accountable. I've been called names and told to "shut up" by anonymous people on these forums and I've said over and over again that this is a cowardly way of behaving. That is my opinion and you are free to disagree. I've also stated that I don't personally know the facts in your mother's case. You have to admit that as her daughter you have a bias in her favor and cannot be completely objective, which is understandable. But you simply cannot compare a professional dog or cat breeder with an animal hoarder. Breeders are subject to licensing, inspections and quality of care standards that an individual per owner is not. They have a strong incentive to treat their animals well, have them vetted, etc. because they, hopefully, make a profit on selling their dogs or cats. To resolve all this we have to rely on the structures in place in society. Perhaps your mother will be completely vindicated by the courts; perhaps Mike Griffin will be proved correct by the Stratford Police Department and the current ACO's fired and STARS forced to disband. We will have to wait and see.
But if you feel that way at least be consistent. Don't complain about your taxes, don't call the police if you're the victim of a crime or an auto accident, don't vote, don't call EMS in an emergency, don't call the Fire Department (be self-reliant – deal with your fire issues yourself). Don't expect any assistance from the town whatsoever. Because, y'know, they're all corrupt here in Stratford. Unlike in say, neighboring Bridgeport where civil servants and politicians have solved all the ills of society and the citizens have even forgotten how to spell the word 'corruption.'
To me that says, if you break the rules you will be sanctioned. Isn't that an example of the system working? My personal experiences with the SPD have been positive. I support them. I made a bumper sticker that I gave away free to anyone who asked for it saying, "Support the Stratford Police Department – They Never Take a Day Off!" In another place long ago I learned first hand how hard it is to be a cop. It's such a hard job that very few people attempt it. The next time you're in a crisis or injured or threatened, who are you going to call in this town? An anonymous, name-calling, angry poster on the Internet? Good luck with that, if you do.
I have stated in the past that I feel that everyone should be able to choose how many animals they have BUT after a certain amount, 5 or 6, they should be required to have a breeder's or kennel license since there are certain issues that come into play with a high number of animals such as vet care, odor control, sound factors, etc. that I feel animal control should monitor because even though the people having the animals need to take care of them properly, a large number of animals also effects the neighbors that may not want a lot of barking dogs or smell feces if they don't clean up properly. I said at the time that my opinion my not sit well with everyone but I still feel it would cover the people that want a lot of animals. Those of us that only want one or two would still be under the current laws & not need to do anything more than license our dog. Those that feel it's their house so they can have as many animals as they want can still do so but would need an additional permit as well as proof of care. This way the home owner & the animals win.
I agree with you completely in what you have written above. I know that my dogs would prefer it if we had six or more of them, because by nature they are pack animals. My wife and I could not afford that and I would worry about the impact on my next door neighbors. A few years ago one of my neighbors threatened to shoot my dogs – and me if I tried to prevent it – due to their barking while he was watching a baseball game. In point of fact it was another neighbor's dogs who were in my backyard barking, not my own two dogs. Their owner was standing right there but I was the one targeted. I later learned that even if they are not my dogs, if they are in my yard I am responsible for their behavior. Can you imagine some one threatening murder over a single instance of barking dogs? There is too much anger in the world today.
Imagine how bad your neighbor's life must be like where a barking dog during a baseball game would make him resort to killing a dog & even the owner because he needs it quiet during that time. I wonder what he would do if a new born baby was next door & cried a lot. Also be happy you are not the one that is married to him because he must be a joy to live with having that approach to an issue. I haven't lived in Stratford in quite a few years but I am sure there are laws that he can call on that reguard a dog that barks continuosly if he can't get the issue resolved by talking to the neighbor. Once the offending owner gets a few fines they will do something about the barking dog. We had a neighbor by us that let their dog go all over the neighborhood. Didn't care if it dug up my bushes. Nor did he care if his dogs came onto my back deck to lay down & get my dog upset. I called the town & he got fined. He ended up needing to keep his dog at his house & then yelled at me for his dogs tearing up his house. My feeling is they were his dogs & it was better for them to damage his property than mine but now because he was having to deal with them instead of his neighbors he wasn't happy. I was happy as well as my dog but he ended up with a torn up house
We have deconstructed into a society that make way for tongue-and-cheek responses to ones religious values—they may go like this, “Technically I’m Catholic, I was raised catholic but I really don’t believe they should be so strict and the whole confession thing is too hard.” We are committed to our definitions of success—we are driven by the size of our televisions and not how we can truly help others. The vacuum of decency is quickly being filled by the antithesis of decency.
But today, let's talk about Money and Reputation. The $3,000 that Snowflake Kennel may or may not have over-charged the TOS is chicken feed compared to what the town will spend in prosecuting the case against the Cat Lady. The town attorney's time is not cheap. Can that office provide us with an estimate of what this litigation will cost us? Will it be $50,000? Or $100,000? More? I'd like to know. For the ACO's and STARS: is there a way that an intervention with a suspected animal hoarder can be handled that does not wind up in the courts? I'd like to know.
Let's say (I'm making this up, so don't get your panties in a bunch) that Mike Griffin drinks a bottle of Irish whiskey a day, and has been doing so since he was 8 years old. If his charges turn out to have merit, is the court going to say we'll throw out this case on the basis of Mike's personal alcohol consumption? Are we going to ban the performances of Eugene O'Neill's plays because he was an Irish drunk? Let's wait and let the facts decide this case.
This is the Ham-Burglar debate that has been argued by some of the greatest minds of our time in places such has Helsinki as well as the Haig—Austria’s best and brightest have committed dissertations to this discipline of the study of thought. The philosophical proposition: can an egg hatch another egg, can a chicken birth a developed chicken; thusly, once and for all, putting to rest the need to determine which came first in matters. This theory suggests that, at specific points in analysis, Logic and Reason surrender their disdain for one another and may even be seen cheering ceremonial shots of Jameson’s together. That Locke and Hobbes share the same bed and actually played the role of Charlie Bucket’s grandparents in the famous Willy Wonka bed scene. That on the other end of the genealogic bed in the same scene Hayek and Keynes remains snuggled in geriatric support of their grandson’s endeavors.
You can expect to receive a letter from my recently deceased attorney in the morning post. Also, please keep my research into the creation of dog-human hybrids to yourself! This is a matter of national insecurity and should not be bandied about in open forums like this. Remember, loose lips kiss ships.
Your in chaos, TD
http://www.newsday.com/long-island/nassau/crime-stats-falsified-in-two-nassau-precincts-1.3875784
What does the accuracy of Nassau County, Long Island crime stats have to do with the charges against Stratford Animal Control and the volunteer group STARS in Fairfield County, CT? Though it is true that all across the nation crime has been falling for years now. For example, the murder rate in NYC in 2007 was down to the level it was in 1963!
So if John Doe went to the shelter and bought a dog/cat that is not neutered, He would have to pay $50.00 and he would receive the APCP voucher..He would then have to pay a balance for any uncovered part of treatment.This usually can range between $100. and $200.00.He would then take his pet home.STARS is using APCP vouchers ,these are issued to them.These are usually for new pet owners.Are they paying the $50.00 adoption fee?Okay,so if STARS is the new owner,why is it that the Town of Stratford is paying the balance for these animals to Snowflake Pet Center?Who takes these animals home or are they back at the shelter?
Tim Bishop has said he will go after her for legal fees if the town wins. All that will do is cost the taxpayers more money to obtain legal fees from somebody that has no money in the first place. Hey, Tim, remember, public defenders? They are for people that have no money. It's already been 11 months since they took her cats, he said there will be many more months in his comment to the press to resolve this in court. This is not including any appeals from either side nor the time he will be bringing her back to court to obtain legal fees if they win. All of this will be at the taxpayer's expense. Talk about beating a dead horse! Is it really worth it to go after 1 little old lady just to prove a point? I guess in his eyes it is but how do the taxpayers feel about it since they are footing the bill for his and the ACO's egos in their need to beat a resident down.