Abuse of Authority in Memphis Animal Services

Memphis Animal Services Director, Alexis Pugh, engages in practices that are unconstitutional and contrary to standard government principles of Due Process. Her revenge driven actions are ignored by city administration official Doug McGowen and are holding back progress toward achieving a higher save rate for the pets at MAS.

Alexis Pugh has instituted a retaliation clause in the current Pet Placement Partner proclaiming her right to ban qualified rescues from adopting pets from MAS if they criticize her or her operation. MAS is a government facility and the Constitution protects government critics from being penalized or harassed by officials for anything they say or write about their government. Animal Shelters are no exception and this has been upheld by appellate courts [Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138, 145 (1983) ].

Alexis Pugh has also allowed abusive behavior and actions by her staff member, Whitney Vanzandt, who has abused her position by making up rules after the fact and following up with penalties that she herself declared. She has also engaged in Selective Enforcement of existing rules in an effort to harass a rescue director which resulted in her leaving the MAS Pet Placement Partner program. These actions have resulted in fewer dogs being pulled out of MAS and hence more dogs are being killed for lack of space.

Due to the problems cited above we, the undersigned, are petitioning the city government to enact the following changes in the way MAS operates:

As a taxpayer funded public facility, MAS should require its employees to treat customers and volunteers with respect and dignity at all times and refrain from abusing their authority,--- just as any other city government facility requires of its employees.
MAS should remove the retaliation clause from the Pet Placement Partner Agreement and refrain from violating the constitutional rights of free speech of individuals and organizations.
MAS should follow Aspects of Due Process before taking any punitive action against rescues or individuals. Specifically, before any sanctions are imposed on anyone in rescue community, the facility
1. must provide notice of the charges against them.
2. must be able to show that there is an articulated (non-vague) standard of conduct which the individual(s) are accused of violating.
3. must provide them with an opportunity to rebut their charges in a meaningful way and at a meaningful time (a "hearing requirement").
4. must establish--at a minimum--that there is substantial and credible evidence supporting its charges as judged by an impartial individual.
5. must provide some explanation to the individual for the basis of any adverse finding.
As the chief executive of the city you should appoint a Chief Operating Officer that enforces these rights rather one that joins in the abuse.