A Monkey

Dear Elena:

While it is encouraging to learn that an Animal Advisory Council is being “repopulated,” the key Q is, By who? The function of advisors is to steer the inexperienced in animal matters (e.g., DHHS and the City Council) away from wrong decisions (like Fusco). It would be contrary to human nature to invite opposition; which is why the “dormant” Animal Advisory Council should be populated with active animal advocates and shelter experts, chosen by their peers. Such a council may be less likely to fall asleep at the job.

Do you really mean to say that without a preliminary $208,000 investment, a BARC chief would have no chance to succeed? What are we going to hire, a monkey!? A competent chief with shelter experience would be able to fix “the people and process problems;” that’s by definition the job of a chief. We are “turning around” a ship without a rudder, which is pointless. Whoever ends up at the helm of BARC, a stakeholder, unlike Fusco, will necessarily make major changes to suit her or his management style. So after all, Fusco’s “legacy” will be so ephemeral as to be, yes, pointless.

By the way, have you or anyone at DHHS or City Hall checked with chief executives of the companies Fusco allegedly turned around? I have checked on the companies listed in his Web page “Testimonials” and, frankly, in the spectrum of corporate America they are featherweights. I trust there is more to “Gerry’s skill set” than what is required to make a mark in mediocre companies or Bible schools.

Finally, Elena, I should point out that the correct use of the word “stakeholder” requires that, to your count of 31, some 20,000-plus animals killed annually at BARC be added. They have more at stake than anyone else.

For the real stakeholders. -- Dolores