Saturday, May 25, 2013
Comment Archives: stories: News: Noted
Re: “Noted: Humane Society gets new woman CEO”
Jan, while I understand why you continue to act as polished politicians spinning the truth for your benefit. We don’t misunderstand the meaning of No-Kill, for once and for all, tell the truth and shop covering up your lies. If you really believe in transparency, take accountability for your poor leadership. You did not act on the behalf of SF animals and manage to the SF/SPCA mission and values which were once a model for other communities to follow. You are not being transparent in how the adoption numbers increased. Why don’t you tell your fellow colleagues in Colorado the truth about you sending SF animals to high-kill shelters that are out of county in exchange for the highly adoptable and actually counting the exchange in your numbers as a “live-release ” and those animals being killed on the other end. The truth is… Jan, you are right about one thing relating to transparency, the people of San Francisco saw right through your antics and drove you out of our city. God help the animals of Colorado…let see how long it takes them as you play with the number and at expense of the community’s animals.
Posted by
SF Animals
on 05/08/2010 at 10:12 AM
Re: “Noted: Humane Society gets new woman CEO”
Jan McHugh-Smith continues to blame "animal-activists" for exposing her failure to live up to the standards that should be met by any compassionate shelter director. She let animals die in the San Francisco shelters and used the excuse that San Francisco residents "didn't understand the definition of no-kill." This is more than a stretch considering San Francisco is the city that pioneered the No Kill movement. She was only interested in the "easily adoptable" animals and let the local Animal Control kill any that didn't meet her narrow requirements. McHugh-Smith failed as a community leader and was more concerned with manipulating numbers and statistics to make herself look good rather than working with the community and advocating for the animals of San Francisco. Instead of assisting shelters outside of San Francisco County with developing successful spay/neuter and adoption programs to help save more animals, McHugh-Smith cherry-picked handfuls of "highly adoptable" animals to take to the SF SPCA. These out of county shelters would then fill up the next day with more animals that would be killed; comparing this to using a finger to stop a leaky faucet would be giving this approach more credit than it is worthy of. I encourage the residents of Pike's Peak to pay close attention to the actions of McHugh-Smith. If Pike's Peak really wants to save animals they will demand their Humane Society adopt the No Kill Philosophy.
Posted by
no more excuses
on 05/07/2010 at 2:45 PM
Re: “Noted: State's poor education ranking”
I'd be careful about this ranking. Why must a state spend a certain amount per 1,000 of income to be successful? Test scores do well, the students on average in Colorado do about as well as any other state. And if you look at total spending, Colorado is about AVERAGE. This statistic is used for headline grabbing, that's all. That's a shame.
Posted by
tenmiler
on 05/05/2010 at 10:29 AM
Re: “Noted: Council discusses streetlight 'favoritism'”
Damron will support someone simply "because he's a Republican."
I'm sure glad she's leaving office. She always was narrow-minded.
Posted by
elderstatesman
on 05/02/2010 at 1:33 PM
Re: “Noted: Maketa saves sergeant from demotion”
Mules,
I think we are venturing into semantics here; the Sheriff maintains not only his budget through the good graces of the County Commissioners, he maintains his political well being through their support. If the County Commissioners felt it was in their best political interests to see that an investigation was conducted, you can rest assured one would be launched.
Posted by
Juno
on 04/13/2010 at 11:28 AM
Re: “Noted: Maketa saves sergeant from demotion”
Mules_Fan, I am afraid I can't come forward because it would potentially cause harm (retribution and retaliation) to someone close to me. I do not work for the sheriff, but someone close to me does. I would hate for the sheriff to take out his anger against that person. But, I do have proof. I just can't share it for selfish reasons. Anybody that works for Mr. Maketa can understand my position.
Posted by
Not surprised
on 04/13/2010 at 10:26 AM
Re: “Noted: Letter to Manitou citizens blasts trash”
This comment is regarding the first story....about trash service in Manitou Springs. I must say I am appaled at the following line..."It adds that the single-hauler system will provide no environmental benefit and may mean increased costs for customers." I have to ask you this Mr. Shrader......do you REALLY think the people of Manitou Springs would actually believe that????? For the record, I do not live in Manitou, but spend a great deal of time there....I have met many people who do live there and I can tell you they are far more intelligent that you give them credit for. Many states have been doing this for years, and I can tell you from experience that this (single) system works VERY well. It is about time this area starts catching up to the rest of the country. Hopefully the rest of the state will follow suit. I for one (of many) am fed up with many trash trucks on my street every day.
Posted by
KLP
on 04/01/2010 at 6:21 PM
Re: “Noted: Maketa saves sergeant from demotion”
Not_surprised: I'm sure you have proof of this? Otherwise it would be a libel or slanderous comment that you made. If everybody on here who has made these allegations actually came forward with attributed statements, this discussion would be over because the sheriff would probably be run out of office before the election. If you all feel so passionately about this, stand up and do something besides make unattributed accusations on the Internet.
Posted by
MulesFan
on 04/01/2010 at 1:46 PM
Re: “Noted: Maketa saves sergeant from demotion”
I understand your concern, but they only allocate an operating budget amount to his office and how he spends money within his office is ulimately his call. Again, I'm not on either side of this argument, I'm just pointing out that the commissioners can't dicsipline him since he is an elected official. Have a great day!
Posted by
MulesFan
on 04/01/2010 at 6:27 AM
Re: “Noted: Maketa saves sergeant from demotion”
Mule,
The commissioners indeed control the purse strings, and an investigation of an unprecedented pay raise of approximately $50,000 is in fact a matter they should be making inquiries into.
Posted by
Juno
on 03/31/2010 at 3:41 PM
Re: “Noted: Maketa saves sergeant from demotion”
Juno: The sheriff is an elected official, just as the commissioners are. While the sheriff's office gets it budget allocation from the commissioners, he ultimately does not report them. That is why it is the sheriff's office, not department. If it were a department, it would be ran by a non-elected official and thus, the commissioners could impose some dicsiciplinary action.
Posted by
MulesFan
on 03/30/2010 at 2:53 PM
Re: “Noted: Maketa saves sergeant from demotion”
1520,
You want to know who he cheated on his wife with? One is currently a bureau chief, and the other is his comptroller.
Posted by
Not surprised
on 03/30/2010 at 1:46 PM
Re: “Noted: Maketa saves sergeant from demotion”
Hickenlooper hasn't been to El Paso County because he knows he doesn't have a chance there. The voters in The Springs would eat him alive with his pro government, pro taxes stance.
Posted by
Wayne Chung
on 03/30/2010 at 10:54 AM
Re: “Noted: Maketa saves sergeant from demotion”
I hope that Pam does continue to reveal things that have gone on wayyyyyyy to long at the Sheriffs office. I think what she is doing is a good thing. I am totally disgusted with the way things have been handled with the office, and I think there are quite a few people that need to be charged themselves. Its amazing how one can hold the citizens accountable for their actions, but yet be crooked themselves. Yeah, we know this isnt an uncommon thing, but lets stand up and say "enough is enough" "Now Mr Sheriff its your turn to face the fire". LMAO yeah right if anyone thinks he will take a polygraph. Then we would probably find out more about him. Someone mentioned a quota that the office put out for the deputies.....what do we know about that?
Posted by
NikkisWay
on 03/30/2010 at 6:47 AM
Re: “Noted: Maketa saves sergeant from demotion”
I was just wondering about the statement that maketa is so caring of the homeless and where that comes from. is he part of the placing of them since public camping has ended? and I too agree with most of the posters that we cannot condnone this kind of behavior any longer.. Integreity is not a word that can be equated with the sheriff and the others named in the article. I do not understand how these other officers and the dispatcher were not fired immediately after what they all did... instead it seems they were rewareded for their unacceptable behavior.. let us only hope that it all ends with the coming election..
Posted by
snowbank
on 03/29/2010 at 10:03 PM
Re: “Noted: Maketa saves sergeant from demotion”
Juno, I think Pam Zubeck will take this story as far as she can go, as long as she has reliable, accountable information. I just hope that this issue doesn't die, because that would be a complete travesty. Maketa needs to be OUT as Sheriff and someone who is honest, ethical, and forthright needs to replace him. I'm just hoping Maketa doesn't glide in for a third term on voter apathy. I'm certain that's what he's counting on. I also think he's cocky enough to believe that he's Teflon and will slide right through all of this without so much as a scratch. I hope he's wrong.
Posted by
Hoosier
on 03/29/2010 at 11:40 AM
Re: “Noted: Maketa saves sergeant from demotion”
1520,
Well I guess we can only hope that Pam continues to press forward on her investigation and those with first hand knowledge concerning these matters find the fortitude to step up and do the right thing, because your are 110% correct, there is no way the poly is taken without the strings being firmly attached.
Posted by
Juno
on 03/29/2010 at 10:25 AM
Re: “Noted: Maketa saves sergeant from demotion”
Juno, I feel you have expressed it all very well. But...(isn't there always a "but?") the one thing you keep mentioning that just isn't going to happen in our lifetime is this: Terry Maketa is NOT going to take a polygraph! Are you kidding? His whole M.O. is lies, and a polygraph would not serve his personal best interests in any way, shape or form. There is NO WAY this guy is going to take a polygraph because the results would incriminate him and he knows it.
I'm with you, Juno. The idea is wonderful, ideal, and would certainly "clear things up," but it simply ain't gonna happen. I'd bet the farm on that one.
Posted by
Oneida1520
on 03/28/2010 at 11:01 AM
Re: “Noted: Maketa saves sergeant from demotion”
Ignorance is truly bliss when it comes to the internal issues that plague the SO. The mantra that this is all about a few disgruntled employees or dirty politics is amusing, it was probably echoed by many voters in New York and South Carolina. The predication of someone else having to take a polygraph to address the issues of concern in the Sheriff's conduct are an obvious attempt at displacement of issues that are singularly his. A person who has no concerns has no need to attach a caveat to refuting these type of claims; he/she would immediately call for a trusted independent review of their conduct, interviews of anyone involved in making those claims with a guarantee of no reprisals for their participation. The position of Chief Law Enforcement Officer of a County demands no hint of impropriety or malfeasance and being dismissive of any claims of that type of conduct cannot be stood for.
The only prerequisites asked for in clearing the air in this debate should be that the questions to be asked in the polygraph should be made public and should be produced based off of the information developed in the investigation.
Reference the comment concerning the Sheriff's concerns about the homeless, first off it would be nice if he stuck to the mission that the Office is dedicated to by statute, especially given the fact there a barely enough personnel to conduct operations housing inmates. Second the idea that any funds and or resources would be diverted from those mandated operations of the Office be used to address the homeless issue is ridiculous given the Sheriff's claims that he would have to curtail patrol operations because he didn't have enough money in the budget to pay the gas bill for the Office cruisers.
What is really sad about these issues not having been addressed immediately and without any contingencies is that the real issues of debate that need to go on in the election of the County's Sheriff aren't being addressed. The time is clearly come for a new model of law enforcement services to be considered by the people of the county. A Metropolitan Police Department headed by an elected Sheriff has merit for review by the taxpayers. A review of eliminating any further training of Category I Peace Officers to work in the County's detention facilities needs to be taken under review (all current employees working in detentions would be grandfathered in and would maintain all privileges, retirement (such as it is) etc. Having two training facilities, two communications centers etc is an absolute waste of taxpayers money. I wonder if the Sheriff would like to focus on these type of issues vs. the claims that swirl around him about his character. Any thought that this election will be business as usual, with him waltzing back into office is naive at best. What people seem to conveniently forget is that the Sheriff's flip flop, convenient to his most formidable opponent entering the race and then leaving it do to serious health concerns. The fact that these claims against him came out when he returned to the race speak volumes about why he chose not to run in the first place.
Bottom line for the Sheriff, it appears the Sheriff had nothing to lose in returning to the race, his claims that he had other job opportunities lined up seem to be hollow and like Sheriff Anderson, it is doubtful that he would have been sought after to be a Chief of Police or other high ranking administrator for a law enforcement agency whose primary mission is just that, law enforcement, not detentions (keep in mind that Mr. Maketa may have made one probable cause arrest in the field (he might have made one in booking) that he can lay claim to in his entire career.
Time to get rid of this disgruntled talk, if that is all it is, and the only way to do that is strip away the caveat of anyone else having to take a polygraph.
Posted by
Juno
on 03/28/2010 at 9:33 AM
Re: “Noted: Humane Society gets new woman CEO”
I am glad that Jan McHugh-Smith is "so excited to be home". I am excited, too. I don't believe the animals who find themselves in the Humane Society of the Pikes Peak Region will be excited after too long though. Jan, the only "shock" felt by "animal advocates" was that the SF SPCA Board of Directors hired someone to save their money bleeding, unneccesary new hospital, rather than someone whose primary focus was on saving the lives of all of SF's savable animals. You professed "transparency" ad nauseum, but deception, half-truths and smoke & mirrors were your m.o. You cut programs and jobs to save that hospital. You promoted helpless animals as "merchandise" that needed to be moved through the system quickly before their "expiration date". You intentionally closed off condos previously used to house animals up for adoption so as not to give the public "too many options". You defiantly went out of county to hand pick the easiest to adopt out dogs and cats, robbing San Francisco homeless animals the chance of finding homes and avoiding the needle. Your actions resulted in the deaths of many of the community's homeless SAVABLE animals. You relaxed adoption counselling to make the process more 'friendly', resulting in bad adoptions and bad endings. You dismissed the community and chose not to work with animal advocates not to mention, most terribly, you refused to work with the largest dog and cat rescue organizations in the city. These are the organizations who struggle every day to save the lives of your rejects. You fudged numbers and statistics in an attempt to impress the public in the hope that they would make more and bigger donations (to save the hospital). You created a six figure position for a VP, then hired a past colleague to fill it, to be your henchman and to implement your policies. Everyone here understands what 'No Kill' means Jan. San Franciscan's are not quite as stupid as you thought we were. Most are clear, and were clear before you showed up, that 'No Kill' means only seriously vicious animals, or animals with medical conditions that cannot be cured or managed and that are suffering and will continue to suffer, are euthanized. Finally, you failed at "saving the lives of more animals". San Francisco only needs to save 500 to 600 more homeless animals a year and you turned your back on them in order to accomodate the cherry picked out of county animals. Proof that your intention was to find ways to 'fail' animals, thus condemning them to uncertain fates and often death, is that committing to saving a few hundred more animals a year would NOT have prevented you from continuing to save hundreds of out of county animals too. You did so much more, Jan, and you have left much destruction in your wake. So many of the savable animals of San Francisco were needlessly killed during your reign. To the animal lovers and advocates of the Pikes Peak Region, please be vigilant and use your brains. Keep the smoke out of your eyes and remove all mirrors. The defenseless precious animals of your community, who through no fault of their own are homeless - animals who may be seniors, or need dental work, or need daily meds to manage a health condition, or don't like to be picked up, or have flea allergies, or hiss and swat because they are afraid of a cage, or guard their bowls because they were neglected in a previous home - depend on you for their advocacy, for their 'voice', for their lives.