The County is working on a sole-source contract with “Barkhouse” to help decrease our homeless dog population, partly by transporting dogs to other states for adoption.
Many question the plan’s wisdom and legality. Some urge competitive bidding, because other entities could provide the same services. Some argue that since Barkhouse participated in writing the plan, it’s disqualified: a county can’t “accept a bid or proposal from a person who directly participated in the preparation of specifications, qualifications or evaluation criteria on which the specific competitive bid or proposal was based.” (County Manager Fernando Macias says this provision doesn’t apply.) There are also anti-donation clause issues.
People I respect consider Barkhouse (Kelly M. Barker) caring, creative, and uniquely capable of making progress on a tough problem. Others say Ms. Barker isn’t careful about dogs’ health, sometimes misrepresents things, and tends to react to questions or criticisms by attacking the questioner.
I can’t say. I asked to hear her side. Apparently lawyers advised otherwise.
Public records establish that two people back in Michigan won a 2009 default judgment default judgment on claims claims Barker breached a contract and defrauded them, promising their money would be in escrow and then be secured by real property in Dubai, and claiming she was a Michigan lawyer. (Apparently, after garnishing Barker’s pay and bank account, they eventually got their money.)
With which Barkhouse entity would the County contract? Barker has several entities, although some public records are unclear. Three are (or were) nonprofits: Global Flying Hospitals (Florida) and Uncaged Paws (one in Florida, one here). A column’s too short to discuss all the apparent irregularities, or their possible significance, and I’m no tax lawyer. (Judge Macias apparently sees no problem. I’m not so sure, but likely nobody will test these issues in court.)
Barker’s apparent response to questions concerns me. When someone from respected dog rescuer From the Heart asked to see papers a nonprofit is supposed to produce, Ms. Barker allegedly contacted a third-party to attack FTH. Someone who’d raised questions about Barkhouse received a lawyer letter (evidently designed to threaten, but somewhat silly) ordering her to “cease and desist” her “harassment.”
Really, it’s the dogs I worry about.
An experienced dog rescuer in Boulder, Colorado (‘Beca of Brighter Days) wrote that Barker talked them into taking 30-some puppies and their moms by claiming all pups were healthy and would come with vaccines, a vet check, etc.; but some puppies were seriously ill and papers were missing. The first puppy died two hours after arrival in Boulder, distemper killed three more, another was euthanized, and others were hospitalized. Allegedly, Ms. Barker lied about related points, and only a few papers ever arrived. As problems mounted, ‘Beca sent Barker a “frustrated message,” which Barker answered by posting an old non-stellar review of Brighter Days. Brighter Days paid huge vet bills. ‘Beca wrote the County that she wished she could say that Barkhouse, if better organized, “could do great things . . . but the bottom line is that’s not true. They lied, they hid the fact puppies were sick, took young pups away from their moms, and were the direct [cause] of the deaths of all these pups.” Reportedly, other entities either won’t take a Barkhouse shipment or won’t let dogs be shipped along with Barkhouse dogs.
I hope county officials put egos aside and examine the facts with the care our “best friends” deserve.
- 30 -
[The
above column appeared this morning, Sunday, 11 April2021, in the Las
Cruces Sun-News, as well as on the newspaper's website and KRWG's
website. A related radio commentary will air during the week on KRWG
(90.7
FM)
and
KTAL-LP.
(101.5
FM
–
http://www.lccommunityradio.org/),
and is
available on demand on KRWG’s site.]
[I regret that Ms. Barker declined to speak with me. Often folks can soften the apparent import of facts. For example, would she deny the fraud alleged by her associates in Michigan, explain extenuating circumstances, portray it as a one-off for which she feels remorse? Are there surrounding facts we don’t know that partially justify her conduct? We don’t know.]
[It’s always tough but useful to try to maintain impartiality about polarizing people whom many see as a devil and others as a marvel. I urge county officials to take their best shots at doing the same. I have seen local officials, right or wrong, circle the wagons and view as the enemy anyone who disagrees with them. I know that they have concerns that nonprofits’ turf battles and petty jealousies often prevent progress. We do often see petty jealousies among nonprofits all doing good; but it is not always so deep or strident as to prevent cooperation. I see why they supposed this deal with Ms. Barker might be a good idea. I hope they can see clearly, and admit that they see, why others might see things very differently. (While some of the arrows sticking out of this plan were fired by local nonprofits who might suppose the deal would harm them, most were not. From the Heart notes early in its letter to the BOCC that it is an El Paso entity that would be unlikely to bid, and unlikelier to submit a winning bid, if the County defined its needs and published an RFP. Brighter Days is in Colorado, as are other entities that I believe might have material evidence to give if the City did a serious investigation.]
[I just want the County to give this plan a long, hard, fair look. I fear county officials will react defensively, circle the wagons, feel more than ever committed to their initial course, and dismiss serious questions as the shrill complaints of jealous nonprofits. Just now, out back, petting a dog (a rescue who kindly came to live with us when her rescuer could no longer care or her), and listening to a neighbor call one of the many cats they feed, we all hoped the County will get this right.]
[P.S. In a comment to this post, a group posted a link to its letter to our county government, with supporting documents: https://1drv.ms/u/s!Aqf7bCPmb2awiHhaQ3OYhLWYn9cJ?e=TSl7fL]
Thank you for bringing this to light. Anyone interested in reading the supporting documentation and the documents sent to Dona Ana County can do so here: https://1drv.ms/u/s!Aqf7bCPmb2awiHhaQ3OYhLWYn9cJ?e=TSl7fL
ReplyDeleteExcellent...thank you for your insightful editorial. All we care about is the animals as well and we have the same goals in mind, which is to reduce intake and increase live outcomes for all homeless animals.
ReplyDeleteThank you for your well intentioned initiative taken in sharing the thoughtful and well reasoned summary of the currently apparent circumstances, Mr. Goodman.
ReplyDeleteHope that further developments will be closely monitored, toward holding decision makers and the contract awardee accountable.
One of the root causes of the local pet overpopulation problem appears to be the surprising number of irresponsible backyard 'breeders' in the region. If the County were truly serious about making the best use of taxpayer resources, it would seem that new ordinances and their enforcement would be topics of serious consideration. Rather than continuing to only try to address the adverse symptomatic consequences. 😕
FYI Barkhouse will be providing comments on the issues presented beginning tomorrow morning. If you would like to hear what is being said, please go to https://www.facebook.com/BarkhouseOrg after 10:00 AM
ReplyDeletePlease contact Dr. Amy Starr DVM at Paws and Hooves in El Paso about Barkhouse. We provide low cost Spay/Neuter services with Dr.Starr's Mobile Clinic. When we looked for help with canine overpopulation she told us to stay away from BarkHouse. She may be able to provide more information to you.
ReplyDeleteI have been asked my opinion about this issue for unknown reasons, as its not in my wheelhouse. Let me say, though,that I want to know the same procurement process we are held to has applied to all departments and offices of the county.DASO has professional contracts and those companies and individuals were tasked to prove they are legitimate entities who can deliver on the services on the first day. Barkhouse better have been forced through the same hoops.
ReplyDelete