Department of Animal Control Is Not Living Up to Its Name : Budget: Fat raises are out of line for a department that a report says is paralyzed by resentment.

In response to countless citizen complaints, county administrators finally commissioned an internal management audit of the Department of Animal Control. That audit was completed last fall.

The report describes a bloated, top-heavy bureaucracy driven by a siege mentality while providing deficient levels of service to both humans and animals.

In these cost-cutting times and in the midst of public outcry over other out-of-control departments (like Child Protective Services), the ordinary citizen might think that county administrators would put out this little fire before it, too, becomes a conflagration. Instead, after several months, the county hasn’t even turned on the hose.

In fact, for weeks it looked as if the county would just bury the report. People requesting copies were told that “the report will not be released to the public. . . .” But after the report surfaced from another source, and was fairly widely circulated, the county staff did send out a few copies, most of them to persistent people who put their request in writing and pointedly mentioned the California Public Records Act.

The audit was conducted by a retired county department head, Maury Pion, who also--more than 10 years ago--warned that the Department of Social Services left itself “open to charges of a cover-up by allowing” the department to investigate itself. Pion’s warning proved to be prophetic, and the grand jury is investigating such charges. Had the county taken Pion’s advice, that mess might have been avoided. One would think that county administrators would have heeded his advice this time. After all, they did ask for it.

But maybe they expected him to have learned how the county “works” by now and to deliver a good-old-boy whitewash. Instead, Pion spoke with more than “50 people working or knowledgeable about the subject of Animal Control” and concluded that “the resentment of top management in the department of any outsiders, including the CAO and his deputies, speaks volumes.”

Other findings include:

* The department has a 14% ratio of administrative to line staff, while similar-sized county departments average 7%.

* A “we-they” attitude permeates the department and extends to members of the public, the veterinary community, advisory board members, volunteers, other county departments and other sheltering agencies.

* Any suggestion to improve or address policy issues is resented.

* There is little incentive for innovation or self improvement by the staff, and a “chain-of-command phobia” hinders originality.

* The staff is unwilling to admit errors and therefore considers it unnecessary to make corrections or improvements.

* Despite the fact that volunteers could provide the county with thousands of hours of cost-free services, volunteerism is hampered by the “we-they” attitude.

* The volunteer coordinator believes that there are 10 to 15 volunteers working at the central shelter every day, when, in fact, there are zero to two volunteers a day.

* Since there is no system to identify animals not meant to be killed, some are killed by mistake.

* An “unacceptably high” percentage--between 25% and 50%--of animals adopted are not surgically altered and therefore can help to repopulate county shelters.

* License applications are confusing and unclear, resulting in more staff time and cost, and causing poor public relations.

That list represents a few of the high (or should we say, low) points addressed by the audit. To put these points into further perspective, it’s important to note that the cost to taxpayers for animal control has skyrocketed. The city of San Diego’s share has increased 1,000% in just five years, and total costs will amount to almost $6 million for the next fiscal year.

For the first time since the city contracted with the county for animal control services in 1971, attention is being paid to the spiraling costs and to how the money is being spent. In early February, the City Council, led by Councilwoman Valerie Stallings, voted to approve the contract for a limited time and directed the city manager to return June 1 with a cost/benefit analysis of the current contract and to explore alternatives, including having the city resume responsibility for animal control.

One might assume that this enormous increase in cost to the city was linked to an increased demand for services. Instead, the department’s own figures show that the numbers of animals housed in the three county shelters reached the highest level (43,527) in 1985-86. Thereafter the shelter population decreased and then remained relatively static.

During that same period, the numbers of cats and dogs killed has not declined substantially. In 1985-86 more than 28,000 ended their lives in county “sleeper” rooms; in 1990-91 almost 26,000 met the same fate.

With that kind of a record one can only respond with amazement at the 1991-92 budget, which included generous increases in management salaries for the Department of Animal Control, including a 12% raise in the director’s salary, to almost $89,000, and a 10.75% raise for the volunteer coordinator, who doesn’t even know how many volunteers he has. These raises come in a year when county employees are being asked to take one-week unpaid leaves.

If these increases are granted in the face of the department’s spiraling costs and static workload, one can only wonder how the county will reward what its own management audit identifies as deficient service and outright hostility to the public.