Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the SPCA Contract topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident urges council to reject SPCA contract, questions 'humanely disposed' language
Summary
During public comment Vincent Lepore objected to a proposed MCSPCA contract (referenced as Resolution 288) and to a roughly $105,000-per-year figure, questioned hiring practices, and pressed city officials on what the contract means by putting animals up for adoption or 'humanely dispose' after seven days; the city attorney said he was not certain of the contract language's full scope.
A resident urged the Long Branch City Council on Dec. 11 to vote against a proposed contract with the Monmouth County SPCA and raised several concerns about hiring and contract language.
Vincent Lepore (33 Ocean Terrace) told the council that prior meetings included resolutions listing hires — which he said contradicts earlier council comments that hires are not handled by resolutions — and cited specific resolutions he said listed special police hires. Lepore called for a "no" vote on Resolution 288, which he said concerns the SPCA contract, and asserted that the city should not approve a roughly "$105,000 per year" contract for the SPCA. He also referenced past incidents involving SPCA conduct toward employees and animals and said related criminal charges were still outstanding and therefore the city should not enter a contract.
Lepore pressed the council on whether the city is training two police officers in animal-control duties and asked for clarification of contract language in which the MCSPCA would "put up for adoption or humanely dispose" an impounded dog or cat after a seven-day holding period. When asked, Attorney Reynold (the city's Director of Law) replied, "I'm not sure that I know, but it it deals with not just it doesn't deal with animals. It deals with stray abandoned and unlicensed dogs or cats," and noted he does not handle training.
Council did not take a recorded vote on Resolution 288 during the meeting. The transcript shows the public comment concluded and the meeting moved to close public participation and proceed with the consent agenda.
