Latest Anonymous Allegation from ADL

I don’t get email posts from the ADL anymore, I’ve been 86’d. I’ve never been kicked off a listserver before and it hurts deeply. I feel lonely without my 3X weekly contact with people who really care.

Friends knowing my forlorn status forward the ADL emails. One of the latest, purportedly a former employee at NYC, charged that Ed cooked the books using temperament testing or shelter-contracted illness so that they didn’t have to be counted as a euthanized animal. This is nonsense. The figures presented are of animals in and animals out. These are gross figures, unadjusted for by adoptable, treatable, etc. See Animal Lover's quotes below and her site.

Naturally, the writer is not identified for whatever reasons. Perhaps that person thinks Ed will return to New York and punch him or her out. It is more then a remote possibility that an ADL member wrote that anonymous letter. Too bad they do not feel the need to supply proof of authenticity. Stark goes nuts whenever anyone prints anything that might question her “objectivity.”

Who can believe the ADL anymore? I think the last letter they published with a signature was mine in 2004 when I was head of the Greenwalt Replacement Committee and sent a complaining letter to Council that Hahn’s selection process was as transparent as Mammoth Cave (meaning dark).

How can anyone accept the credibility of an organization whose only evidence for the most outlandish accusations are from anonymous sources?

He (Ed) stopped reporting owner requested euthanasia. When you change the reporting and don't tell anyone, it looks like the numbers of impounds and deaths have come down, but they haven't. And Ed never told anyone he changed the way NYCACC was reporting data.

"WRONG! Right here in the statistics from 2000-2006 he clearly talks about owner requested euthanasia. There's an asterisk next to the numbers with an explanation below.{836C17BF-ADE9-44C9-A42E-261738404B65}/intake-outcome-2006.pdf

He kept asking us to make changes to the system and we wouldn't. We finally just left.

He also reported only end status of animals. NYCACC has a rating system of 1 through 5 for each dog or cat who comes in. A healthy dog or cat is a "1" while a supposed unadoptable dog or cat was a rating "5." Dogs and cats with different problems can be 2, 3 or 4. We always reported status based on intake. So, for example, if a dog came in healthy but got kennel cough because our facility was dirty or lack of care and his status changed to a 3 or a 4, when we killed that dog, we still reported him as a 1 because he was a healthy, adoptable dog and we made him or allowed him to get sick.

WRONG! Animals were not reported as adoptable or unadoptable at all. See statistics below. There are just animals in and out. If Ed were juggling the numbers, cooking the books, the NY activists would have called him on it. You LA'ers think you're savvier than NY activists? I don't think so. The media, NY Times, were always going over his numbers with a fine tooth comb. He reported to Maddie's Fund. They are number junkies. He never would have been able to juggle the books with that much scrutiny. He's offered local activists and ADL the chance to go to the office and see how he does the books. No one has taken him up on it.{836C17BF-ADE9-44C9-A42E-261738404B65}/intake-outcome-2006.pdf

Did I miss something? The animal came in as a 1, but got sick and became a 4, then, when we killed him, we listed him as 1, because that I how he came in—healthy. Is there something wrong with my comprehension because Ed claimed the shelter killed a healthy animal? Does the complaintant really mean they killed a sick and untreatable dog that was mot counted as a kill of a healthy and adoptable animal?

My mind boggles, or bloggels.

You ADL and ADL-chosen GM wannabees, are looking a gift Santa in the Mouth because he is not your Santa.

No comments: