(Beth Clifton collage)
Eleven Riverside County plaintiffs call deal “an extraordinary waste of taxpayer funds”
RIVERSIDE, California––In a case expected to put on trial “no-kill” strategies based on keeping animals out of public shelters, eleven Riverside County, California plaintiffs on November 25, 2024 sued Riverside County and Riverside County executive officer Jeff Van Wagenen for “illegal expenditure and waste of taxpayer funds in the county Department of Animal Services,” especially for committing $2.5 million to hire freelance sheltering consultant Kristin Hassen to direct the Animal Services agency.
The eleven plaintiffs are represented by senior local attorneys Walter T. Clark and Dan C. Bolton of the Walter Clark Legal Group in Rancho Mirage.
Lawsuit also challenges hiring of Hassen predecessor Erin Gettis
Hiring Hassen was actually only the second listed cause for the plaintiffs’ joint “prayer for injunctive relief.”
Explained a Walter Clark Legal Group media release, “The taxpayer suit arises out of Van Wagenen orchestrating the hiring of Erin Gettis as Director of Animal Services with no qualifications or experience, as a favor to her spouse who was Riverside County counsel, then removing her two weeks after an action for her mismanagement of Animal Services was filed by Walter Clark Legal Group.”
Gettis’ removal, the Walter Clark Legal Group media release charged, was presented as a matter of her accepting a “promotional opportunity” to “an executive director position in the Riverside University health system, with no experience in healthcare management and patient care.”
“$2.5 million to fix the mess”
Hassen, the Walter Clark Legal Group media release continued, was then hired by Van Wagenen “for $2.5 million to fix the mess he created by hiring Gettis in the first place.
“The $2.5 million in the Hassen contract could go a long way to improving the lives of animals at the shelter,” the Walter Clark Legal Group media release noted, “rather than enriching someone whose approach to shelter management is nothing more than a house of cards—based on reducing intake numbers by keeping dogs and cats out of the shelter and left to roam in the community.”
Concluded the Walter Clark Legal Group media release, “The complaint requests, among other things, that the Hassen contract be cancelled and Van Wagenen be ordered to provide restitution to Riverside County for all public funds paid under the boondoggle Hassen contract, as well as for the taxpayer money wasted on Gettis’ employment, who has now been given two positions in the county, both of which were gifted to her and neither of which she was qualified for.”
“A troubling track record of failure”
The Riverside plaintiffs’ lawsuit provides further particulars.
“Across multiple communities and organizations,” the lawsuit charges, “Hassen has built a troubling track record of failure, masked by intentional manipulation and self-serving strategies,” some of them documented in previous ANIMALS 24-7 coverage of her tenures at earlier stops, working then as Kristin Auerbach.
“While she presents herself as a leading figure in the world of animal welfare,” the Riverside plaintiffs’ lawsuit says, “her actual influence has left every organization and community she has touched worse off than before. Rather than helping, she has left behind a legacy of harm and despair.”
(Austin.gov photo)
Argued for withholding info about dangerous dogs
As director of the Fairfax County Animal Shelter in Virginia, Auerbach/Hassen on February 18, 2016 published an article on the web site of the pro-pit bull Animal Farm Foundation arguing that animal shelters should withhold information about potentially dangerous dogs from prospective adopters until after they become seriously interested in a dog.
The Fairfax County Animal Shelter was subsequently involved in long-running litigation resulting from having rehomed pit bulls of dangerous history without disclosing that history.
Partially responding to those cases, but mostly to the June 1, 2017 fatal mauling of Virginia Beach resident Margaret M. Colvin, the Virginia state assembly on March 30, 2018 enacted a law requiring that the bite histories of impounded or owner-surrendered dogs must be investigated, and must be disclosed to prospective adopters.
Boasted on resumé of having “helped overturn pit bull adoption restrictions”
Colvin was killed by a pit bull named Blue, just six hours after Forever Home Rescue & Rehabilitation delivered Blue to Colvin’s daughter Linda Colvin Patterson, without disclosing that Blue had attacked a child in December 2016, had been passed along through five other rescue organizations during the next six months, and had been returned to Forever Home Rescue & Rehabilitation after a previous adoption failed due to dangerous behavior.
Boasting on her resumé of having “helped overturn pit bull adoption restrictions,” Auerbach/Hassen went on to become deputy chief animal services officer at the Austin Animal Center, in Austin, Texas.
Dogs playing for whose life?
There Auerbach/Hassen and her former Fairfax County colleague Tawny Hammond replaced traditional behavioral testing with the “playgroup” approach advocated by Dogs Playing for Life founder Aimee Sadler, whose work was sponsored by the Animal Farm Foundation, specifically to promote adoptions of pit bulls.
Veteran humane volunteer Delwin Goss on September 28, 2015 reported witnessing “playgroup” behavioral assessment at the Austin Animal Center using methods which repeatedly subjected one dog to the threat of attack and sometimes actual attack.
(See What is the Austin Animal Center doing to dogs in the name of “play”?)
The “playgroups” approach led to repeated maulings of other dogs by impounded pit bulls. A 35% rise in dog attacks in the community since 2011 appeared to accelerate.
Nathan Winograd
The lawsuit against Riverside County quotes No Kill Advocacy Center founder Nathan Winograd:
“At Austin Pets Alive,” according to Winograd, “Hassen was one of the chief architects and promoters of Human Animal Support Services,” a consulting group that urges animal shelters “to make pandemic-era closures permanent by turning away stray animals.
“She also sat on the National Animal Control Association board,” Winograd continued, “which encouraged shelters to re-abandon animals whom people found on the streets.
“These policies manipulate intake and placement rates by abandoning the fundamental purpose—indeed the very definition—of a shelter, to provide a safety net of care for lost, homeless, and unwanted animals.”
Winograd on that point appears to have reversed views he espoused in 2017, responding to ANIMALS 24-7 guest columnist Jeff Young.
(See Street dogs in the U.S.? Nathan Winograd has gone barking mad.)
“A prime example of how her influence can dismantle an entire system”
Says the lawsuit against Riverside County, “Hassen’s time as Austin Pets Alive serves as a prime example of how her influence can dismantle an entire system. Under her leadership, animals were left on the streets and public safety was severely compromised. To the casual observer, it might have seemed like she was delivering results. However, a deeper look reveals that her “success” was nothing more than a clever manipulation of statistics. She deliberately misled the community to make it appear as though her policies were working when, in reality, they were a disaster.
“The City of Austin is still dealing with the aftermath of her leadership, forced to clean up the mess she left behind,” the lawsuit alleges.
Rehomed Rottweiler mauled adopters
Auerbach/Hassen in September 2017 moved on to head the Pima County Animal Care Department in Tucson, Arizona. There, in 2019, she was named as a defendant in a lawsuit involving facial bites inflicted on two plaintiffs, Joseph and Shelly Bortugno, by a recently rehomed Rottweiler named Clarke.
Auerbach/Hassen “knew Clarke was an aggressive dog, since he bit a staff person when being examined,” the lawsuit against Riverside County summarizes.
“Nonetheless, Hassen wanted to reduce the numbers at the shelter, and agreed to let Clarke be adopted, despite an animal shelter control officer’s concern that Clarke was not adoptable because he was aggressive. Two days after his adoption, Clarke bit the plaintiff husband on the face. Two weeks later, Clarke bit the plaintiff wife on the face.”
“Left El Paso, Texas in shambles”
Continues the lawsuit against Riverside County, “Similar strategies employed by a group of fringe organizations including Hassen left El Paso, Texas in shambles with pets suffering without aid on the streets.”
The word “shambles,” incidentally, originally referred to The Shambles, the slaughterhouse district of medieval London, where street dogs subsisting on meat scraps supplemented their diets with unwary human passers-by.
“Hassen finds refusing to help pets suffering on the streets not only acceptable but preferred to allowing them the comfort of shelter, nutrition, veterinary care, and a home where they are loved.
Claimed “100% success” turned out to be 20%
“One of Hassen’s components of her program,” the lawsuit against Riverside County explains, “is called Finder to Foster or Friendly Finder: people who find a stray can ‘register’ the stray online with the shelter. Hassen states this is successful in getting more lost animals ‘back home’ without that animal having to come into the shelter.”
In El Paso, the lawsuit against Riverside County recounts, Auerbach/Hassen “claimed her program had an almost ‘100%’ success rate of registered animals being returned back to their owner/home.
“In 2023, 3,860 ‘found animals’ were registered with El Paso Animal Services. Only 793 ‘registered animals’ (20%) made it back home as reported by the finders, far afield of her claim of being close to 100%. The status of the remaining 3,067 animals is unknown. Whether they even survived is unknown since there is no follow-up done by the shelter.
“In 2023,” the lawsuit against Riverside County alleges, a total of 4,703 animals within the [El Paso] shelter system are missing/unaccounted for.”
Riverside County paying Hassen 100 times what Los Angeles did
The lawsuit against Riverside County calls the Riverside County contract with Hassen “is an extraordinary waste of taxpayer funds. By way of example,” the lawsuit cites, “the Board of Animal Services Commissioners of the City of Los Angeles sought approval to pay Hassen and her LLC $25,000 for an assessment of animal services.
“Somehow, the County of Riverside thought it smart to pay 100 times what Los Angeles thought was reasonable.”
Closely following the Riverside County Animal Services situation via his blog Animal Politics with Ed Boks is Ed Boks, whose resumé in animal welfare includes having headed the animal control departments in Maricopa County, Arizona; New York City; Los Angeles; and Yavapai County, Arizona, plus the Spokane Humane Society.
(See Best Friends’ no-kill initiative power play, by Ed Boks.)
“Association with Best Friends could add complexity”
Affirms Boks, “Kristen Hassen is known for promoting ‘managed intake’ policies, which aim to reduce shelter overcrowding by limiting animal admissions and encouraging some animals to remain in the community.
“While these policies may improve shelter metrics by decreasing intake numbers,” Boks explains, “they risk leaving animals on the streets or transferring them to other facilities without adequate safeguards.
“Hassen’s association with the Best Friends Animal Society and her influence over national animal welfare policies could add complexity” to the case, Boks believes.
“Her strategies often prioritize live release rates over comprehensive spay/neuter services, which are essential for addressing shelter overcrowding at its root,” suggests Boks.
“Turning the clock back decades”
Boks on October 20, 2024 took note of the “LA Animal Services Shelter Support Collaborative,” including Hassen’s company Outcomes for Pets Consulting.
Recalled Boks, as did Nathan Winograd in his critique of Hasse, “Hassen was the leader of the Human Animal Support Services organization that played a pivotal role in persuading the National Animal Care & Control Association (NACA) to adopt” a spay/neuter policy encouraging rehoming unaltered dogs and cats, “turning the clock on animal control’s spay/neuter advocacy back decades,” Boks assessed.
“This policy, initially adopted during the COVID-19 pandemic,” Boks wrote, “was intended to alleviate overcrowding and reduce stress on shelter animals when surgical capacities were limited. However, critics argue that such policies have led to increased breeding and have exacerbated the very shelter intake issues the Collaborative now, ironically, wants to solve.”
Humane Society of the U.S. isn’t paying attention
Boks recommended “mandatory spay/neuter programs before adoption and targeted community spay/neuter initiatives for breeds overrepresented on euthanasia lists in shelters.”
“Breeds overrepresented on euthanasia lists” are specifically pit bulls, going by multiple names in multiple superficial variants.
The Riverside County plaintiffs via attorneys Walter T. Clark and Dan C. Bolton on August 20, 2024 initiated preliminaries to the lawsuit filed on November 25, 2024.
The Humane Society of the United States [HSUS], however, to be renamed Humane World for Animals on Valentine’s Day 2025, apparently has not been paying attention.
On November 14, 2024, HSUS emailed out advertisements for its Animal Care Expo 2025, with Auerbach/Hassen high on the list of “just a few of the stars Expo has to offer.”
Please help our work:
www.animals24-7.org/donate/
Discover more from Animals 24-7
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Wow. The truth will out. Jeff Young, Animals 24-7, Ed Boks are telling it like it is. Stay tuned…
Wondering how “Save Them All by 2025” will morph next year.
Sharing with gratitude and the sad observation that total mismanagement, lack of logic and actual knowledge and most importantly, caring, seem to have trickled down and pervaded our society from top to bottom while we wring our hands and expect “something” to happen to reverse this tragedy.
“Save Them All by 2025” will carry on to “Save Them All by 2026, 2027, 2028…..” , until spay/neuter is a priority. At a meeting with Best Friends in our city concerning the city animal control shelter, their representative said directly that spay/neuter was not their priority, adoption was their priority.” They had no response when we pointed out you would never achieve anywhere close to “no-kill” without making spay/neuter a priority. “Save Them All” and “No-Kill” is their fundraising agenda. Out of sight out of mind does NOT work for our agency.
Curious how these agencies maintain liability insurance when they knowingly place dogs with a bite history and then an attack happens. Do they not feel a responsibility to the safety of the people and other animals? Our jobs have to be so much more than just the numbers. We have a responsibility to the adopters and to our animals. You place a dog with a known bite history and it ends up living outside on a chain. Then we have to accept that we have been accountable in causing this dog to have a miserable life, alone on a chain. Sadly, many people feel, wrongly, that anything is better than humane euthanasia. If the dogs could talk they would certainly choose the latter. Quality of their life matters.
It’s pretty rich seeing Winograd criticize the very policies he launched back in the day, that got animal sheltering into its current no kill disaster. I really hope the plaintiffs prevail. I also wonder, as did another commenter, how shelters and rescues maintain their insurance under these insane operations policies.
No line to adopt from any public “kill” shelters I know of would ever outnumber that shelter’s critics.
I’m not certain the social consequences from adopting out a dog that goes on to attack aren’t less severe for a shelter than if same dog had been preemptively euthanized. “No Kill” which I see as sleight of hand and a cash grab IMHO has exacerbated this dilemma and moral hazard for public shelters and their communities.
While I don’t see any form of dog behavior testing as perfect, I would place more credence in the judgement of the average shelter worker than that of the average member of the public. Managed Admissions now seen as “best practice” shifts that possible safety net against dog attacks away from shelters to owners and victims.
One tool mentioned in the article I liked was shelter playgroups, with a caveat or three.
I very much believe done properly the benefits far outweigh the risks. Many potential adopters have pets and most shelter dogs spend the bulk of their day alone in a kennel. Playgroup gives dogs a chance to socialize and potentially provides workers with valuable information to pass along to patrons. A dog could excel in group play and do miserably in a home, rare but it happens.
Conversely, if a dog is taken into a yard and immediately targets and attacks an other dog without provocation you have valuable safety information. Muzzles should be used, but again there is no perfect as some dogs won’t attack while wearing a muzzle.
With or without shelter playgroup attacks and bites will happen. My preference is attacks occur in a controlled environment with experienced handlers rather than some version of an adopter taking an “only dog” to the dog park. The $64,000 question is what the shelter does with the aggressor after the attack occurs.
Unfortunately a huge amount of social pressure exists for shelters/recuses to adopt these dogs out as “only dog” lest they be labeled killers and denied of what little support they already get. Fair and proper or not, shelters must weigh bad PR against the damage caused by inevitable attacks from some percentage of adoptions.
Dogtown at Best Friends is effectively a large shelter playgroup. The difference between BF and virtually every public shelter is BF doesn’t have to intake much less make never ending adoption decisions on dogs that don’t play well with others.
Best Friends wants “playgroup dogs” :
“The majority of the animals we’re able to accept at Best Friends are cats and dogs who have the ability to live in a very high energy environment with staff, visitors, volunteers and other animals.”
Best Friends does not want “only dog” :
we are unable to accommodate most requests involving aggressive animals
https://bestfriends.org/sanctuary/plan-your-visit/book-tours-and-activities/information-and-admission-policies#
Glad to see this commentary. The initial goal of the no-kill ideology may have been sincere, but the outcome has been disastrous and those who were supposed to benefit the most have ended up paying for it – along with other victims. The ones for whom it’s been the most advantageous are those who have raised funds or gotten paid to provide “expert guidance.”
Texas is a prime example of how much animals have been suffering due to bad consulting practices.
It’s great to see that taxpayers are aware that they do have the right to sue if they feel their tax dollars are being spent unwisely – as in this particularly concerning case. I hope they prevail.