What do you have to hide?
The whole picture is fuzzy in Norman, Oklahoma.
Norman Animal Welfare AWESOME Cat Room
Even though the municipal shelter, which is under the jurisdiction of the police department (people known for being extra awesome at animal welfare, see-every-police-shooting-dog-video-ever), recently received funds from a new tax to build a brighter, larger facility, they do not seem to have the animals’ best interests at heart. I have family involved with volunteer groups there, who say that last month the shelter issued a de facto ban on photographing the animals. I would name the groups, but they are afraid to go on record, afraid of injuring an already tenuous relationship with an ungrateful shelter director (volunteers are quick to point out that the individual employees are lovely.) This terrible climate of fear is combined with construction on the new facility necessitating the destruction of at least 40 kennels, making help and space short during a time of year when it is already so badly needed.
Norman Animal Welfare New Construction
While Mayor Cindy Rosenthal insists in emails to me and others that “It is not correct to say that photos have been banned,” volunteers know differently. In order to photograph any animals they must now sign a restrictive release, which Norman Animal Welfare is calling an “agreement”. While I think an agreement would simply dictate behavior (no dancing naked on site), this document not only outlines the sunshiny relationship the volunteer groups are expected to maintain with the shelter to keep privileges, it also stipulates what and who they are able to photograph. “Postings should consider whether they are potentially damaging to our reputation…,” it says. Even more disturbingly, it holds that the volunteers may be sued by employees if one of their photographs incites from the community anything resembling a “hostile work environment.” Which I am sure they will define as they see fit. The policy states:
The Group may be sued by employees, individuals, companies, or other animal welfare groups that view the Group’s commentary, content or images as defamatory, pornographic, proprietary, harassing, libelous, or creating a hostile work environment.
Hey! I’m a Boy Scout! I would like to take pictures of all the doggies that need homes! I have no control over what people do with those pictures once they are on Facebook because this is a free country!
Well, little boy, you can, but you might need a lawyer.
Norman Animal Welfare
What’s more, the inciting incident was the shelter’s own fault. It was shelter policy to include the address or intersection where the animal was found on the intake forms – which were then posted to the cages, which then ended up in photographs that some citizens took and posted on social media. Mayor Rosenthal referred to it as “A[n] incident, which allows private information to be posted without permission, prompted a review of the policy.” Nice passive tense, Mayor. So the posting of private information is the fault of… volunteers even though it wasn’t volunteers who did it? Could it be the fault of citizens exercising their 1st Amendment rights to photograph public spaces? Hmm, that doesn’t sound right. You sure it’s not the fault of shelter staff? Oooh, wait, I know whose fault it must be!
Kittens from Norman Animal Welfare
Apparently the animals, because that is who is suffering. Since the de facto ban went into effect mid-June the shelter has been killing far more animals than usual, pets who could have made it out from a simple photograph.
For some video of the shelter and to hear me exasperated you might enjoy watching this 2 minute news clip from KOCO Channel 5 out of Oklahoma City. Their wonderful reporter Brian Shlonsky interviewed me over the phone, and got video interviews from my cousin Charlotte in Norman, and also the Assistant City Attorney at his office.
Video: City of Norman Developing Policy for Photographing Animals at City Shelter
Transcript: Animal advocates upset over Norman shelter’s new photo, social media policy
Unfortunately the Windsuit Counsellor (can I make fun of the Assistant City Attorney’s windsuit? Why not, it’s my blog) was misleading on camera, implying that the whole purpose of the release is to make sure that photographs don’t make the animals look “undesirable.” As if volunteers are going around trying to get a lousy pic.
“…specifically excludes any areas where animals are quarantined for behavioral or medical issues. The photographs should reflect favorably to the animal and should not intentionally or unintentionally show activity or areas which could be viewed as undesirable for the animals, such as the crematories, euthanasia room, ill animals or dirty cages. – The Lousy Policy
Photo taken and posted by a volunteer
Super glad the shelter’s temper tantrum is preventing these photos from being taken
Since these are the kinds of photos the volunteers are actually taking, I don’t think they are clamoring to photograph the crematories or euthanasia rooms. But now that we’re having this conversation, shouldn’t they be allowed? Should the dog or cat in quarantine for mange die in anonymity simply because the Norman Animal Welfare has decided not to treat them? What about the feral cat who might be awesome de-mousing someone’s barn? (That sounds crazy, but there are programs like that.) Who gets to decide what a dirty cage looks like? Are they going to clean the cages if the volunteers want to take photos, or are those animals just out of luck that day?
Finally, since nothing bad has happened as a result of people seeing the true condition of the animals (remember, they just got more tax dollars!!!), it’s more likely they are trying to get something on the books before the new facility opens to make sure shelter employees aren’t revealed as undesirable themselves. Maybe they are anticipating having a shiny new shelter that is still dirty and still kills adoptable and treatable animals. Maybe they are afraid that will rouse some rancor from the community. Maybe they are right.
What can we do?
- If you want to read the whole “draft” of the agreement, here is a PDF. I put draft in quotation marks because they have been using this as the “sign it or get out” form for a month now. I hardly think draft is an appropriate term:
Animal Welfare Group Agreement for Photographs, Video and Social Media 7-3-2014
- If you think this is as disgusting as I do, please write to these various Norman City Council members and let them know that the world is watching. I have a feeling this situation is just the tip of the iceberg in terms of the shelter’s poor attitude towards volunteers and the animals’ lives, and we need to let them know that is unacceptable.
Here is some info about Norman City Council.
http://www.normanok.gov/cityclerk/city-council
Here is a list of all eight city council emails
ward1@NormanOK.gov
ward2@NormanOK.gov
ward3@NormanOK.gov
ward4@NormanOK.gov
ward5@NormanOK.gov
ward6@NormanOK.gov
ward7@NormanOK.gov
ward8@NormanOK.gov
Ward 1 is Greg Heiple
Ward 2 is Tom Kovach, soon to be Clint Williams
Ward 3 is Robert Castleberry
Ward 4 is Gregory Jungman
Ward 5 is Lynne Miller
Ward 6 is James Griffith, soon to be Jerry Lang
Ward 7 is Stephen Holman
Ward 8 is Chad Williams
Mayor Cindy Rosenthal can be reached at Cindy.Rosenthal@normanok.gov
The City Manager’s name is Steve Lewis, here is his email.
city.manager@normanok.gov
Here is the email for the Chair on the Animal Shelter Oversight Committee. His name is Mark Howery. mkhowery@juno.com
To get them even more press, here is the email for the editor of the Norman Transcript.: editor@normantranscript.com
Project Noses 