Some of you may have heard that Stephen Williams, Director of the Department of Health and Human Services which oversees BARC, has mentioned the fact that he thinks Winograd’s “snapshot” services, paid for by community donations, can be better used.
Instead of an overall assessment as to why BARC is broken, he thinks Winograd should just provide a training session instead.
If I'm interpreting this correctly, the community chipped in money to have Nathan Winograd come in and tell the shelter what changes need to be made in order to save more pets. Now some guy in charge is basically saying, "Thanks for the cash but I've got a better use for it"? Granted that use still involves bringing Winograd in but for what sounds like a completely different purpose than the community wanted. Is this legal? If so, is anyone in the community going to want to donate next time the shelter asks for money?
Posts
3 comments:
That sounds shady as hell. Wonder what his "better use" for it is? Pizza and beer? O_o
Is BARC a private or public (i.e. gov't run) shelter? Because I'm sure there are restrictions on raising $$$ for one purpose and using it for another if you are a charitable organization. If not, the people who donated need to raise a hue and cry to whoever his boss is. That's how we got our first off leash park in DC -- by going over the heads of the pinheads at the Dept. of Parks and Recreation who didn't want to do it and pointing out that everyone else in the community was behind it.
I interpreted it a bit differently...No Kill Houston paid for Nathan to come and tell shelter management what needed to be done to achieve no-kill. They didn't want to listen and thus, didn't. It has happened in Austin now twice. You can give someone the information they need, but you can't make them act on it.
Post a Comment