« Are Existing Laws Enough to Efficiently Protect Animals? | Main | Animal Abuse Registry »

Does the new ACC policy violate Constitutional Rights?

New York State Assembly Member Micah Kellner, in a letter, asked the Mayor and Health Commissioner of New York City to repeal a new Animal Care & Control of New York City (ACC) volunteer policy.

Link to the letter: http://www.scribd.com/doc/36757391/Letter-to-Mayor-Bloomberg-re-Animal-Care-Control

According to the letter, the new policy threatens to expel volunteers for exercising their rights to free speech and to petition their government for redress of grievances. Specifically, the policy states that volunteers may not 'publicly criticiz[e]' or cast the agency 'in a negative light' without permission from ACC. It also prohibits them from '[p]osting [criticism] on any internet site such as Facebook, My Space, Craigs List, etc.' It further states that '[v]olunteers are prohibited from distributing their personal information, or opinions in regards [to ACC] volunteers, staff, animals, and/or policies to the public.' Those who do 'will be terminated.'

Assembly Member Micah Kellner claims that this new policy violates 42 U.S.C Section 1983 which prohibits a state or municipal government to take action designed to prevent or intimidate people from exercising their First Amendment rights or punish them for doing so. New York City has claimed that ACC is an independent non-profit, but in Kellner's opinion, ACC operates as a de facto government agency. Therefore Section 1983 would apply.

Do you think ACC has the right to stop its volunteers from voicing their opinions about that organization and its policies, staff and animals?

For more info see: http://www.examiner.com/animal-shelters-in-san-francisco/nyc-mayor-asked-to-repeal-retaliatory-animal-control-policy

Comments (3)

anonymous:

I went to the ACC Mandatory mtg. on August 24th. I couldnt believe the political BS that was being discussed and focused on...new designer tshirts and in a somewhat nice way threatening us into attending classes and meetings to continue to volunteer our free time. It was also stressed that we cannot use cell phones in any way shape or form. These trivial things were focused on heavily rather than the important things like the welfare of the animals and meeting their basic needs.
I understand that the ACC is totally underfunded and it is so difficult when they have to take in every animal (which is somewhat confusing considering they lock the doors at 8pm so how are people supposed to bring animals in after that? I have seen many people be turned away because they cannot get in the front door).
ACC is surrounded by bureaucracy and this is the last place that should have it.

Concerned Citizen:

As a volunteer, I do not feel intimidated by the policy threatening to terminate a volunteer for exercising his or her rights to free speech regarding ACC and its operation. If I personally found something that was questionable, I would not hesitate to speak out. While volunteering there, we have been told that ACC is working to make it a better place by retraining staff and properly training volunteers as well as expanding their facilities. The fact is that if I personally saw a health or safety problem I would report it to a Supervisor who should correct it. If it was not corrected or responded to I would put it in writing and send the letter to the executive offices. A volunteer or a worker should be able to take it to whatever level needed in order to correct the situation. If ACC is doing the right thing they should not be concerned with not allowing volunteers or workers at ACC to speak out. If I had to take it outside of ACC to bring attention to certain situations at ACC, I would. I realize that others may feel intimidated by such a policy. Therefore, I do not think that ACC has that right to stop its volunteers from voicing their opinions or concerns about ACC. We have to remember that we are there to help with the care of the animals and not being able to speak out if necessary would be an injustice and a violation of our rights.


Liam:

I believe that ACC is violating the volunteers' right of free speech. They are a quasi-municipal agency which cannot restrict one's right to speak about matters of public concern. The rights and well-being of animals are matters of because concern because the public has a special interest in its animals, and tax payer dollars are used to pay for their housing, and care. I believe that ACC really has no clue about running a shelter, is underfunded primarily because it doesn't know how to run an efficient business, and does not have the care of the animals as their priority. I believe that ACC is a taxpayer liability and should be replaced with an entity that has the best interest of the animals at heart.

Post a comment

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

About

This page contains a single entry from the blog posted on September 8, 2010 8:12 PM.

The previous post in this blog was Are Existing Laws Enough to Efficiently Protect Animals?.

The next post in this blog is Animal Abuse Registry.

Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.