The general rule in California concerning non-disclosure agreements vs. the public right to know in the interest of governmental accountability is that, "If an NDA seeks to prevent the disclosure of information that involves public safety or public interest, it may be overridden by public policy considerations." A much more detailed discussion of this issue may be found at https://www.law.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Menell-Tailoring-a-Public-Policy-Exception-to-Trade-Secret-Protection-105CalLRev1.pdf. In light of this information, good lawyers could probably flush out everything that Best Friends, Kristen Hassen, and the Los Angeles & Riverside officials hope to conceal through non-disclosure agreements, at enormous cost to the parties. In view of that, public accountability would be best served by practicing transparency from the start.
I have it on great legal advice NDA’s are unenforceable in California. I find it heartwarming that despite all Hassen’s creepy NDA’s animal advocates from ALL the cross the country (Memphis, El Paso, Austin) were MORE THAN HAPPY to share all the destruction , despair, lawsuits and horror she and her pals have spread with their inhumane policies.
Animal advocates showed up in Riverside earlier in the month- over a hundred, while Ms Auerbach-Hassen had to sit quietly and listen to people who actually love and care for animals -share their horror. They also shared their disgust with her grift and greed, I was so happy to be among those who got to speak directly to her.
These grifters need to be exposed and stopped. Their policies are dangerous to animals and the communities they infiltrate.
Christine, thank you for sharing your insights and experiences regarding the situation with Kristen Hassen and her consultancy practices. It's concerning to hear about the impact of her strategies, particularly the "let them roam" approach, and the tragic consequences it has had in San Antonio.
Your dedication to animal welfare and your willingness to speak out against policies that may harm both animals and communities are commendable. It's crucial that these practices are scrutinized to ensure that they align with ethical standards and truly benefit the communities they are meant to serve.
Your involvement in Riverside and your advocacy for responsible, humane policies are vital in driving positive change. Thank you for your commitment to this cause and for being a voice for those who cannot speak for themselves.
Thanks, Merritt! It's reassuring to know that public policy considerations can override NDAs but discouraging to know costs probably make knowing prohibitive. If only practicing transparency from the start was routine, imagine how different everything related to gov't. would be...
The matter of what to do with dogs who have a bite history is very troubling. I think that some dogs simply are not adoptable. No one wants to euthanize an animal, and at the shelter that I volunteer at, we have an extremely low euthanasia rate. But if a dog has bitten someone once, that is usually the end of the line for that dog. Much of it is the impact on our insurance costs which are already incredibly high. If we conceal information to a potential adopter about an animal that has already bitten, they take that animal home, it bites their kid, and we are sued, the financial repercussions could be ruinous
I agree that full transparency of the known history of an animal is paramount. I also believe there are degrees of bites and aggression and its important for shelter staff to know how to evaluate history with observed behavior.
The general rule in California concerning non-disclosure agreements vs. the public right to know in the interest of governmental accountability is that, "If an NDA seeks to prevent the disclosure of information that involves public safety or public interest, it may be overridden by public policy considerations." A much more detailed discussion of this issue may be found at https://www.law.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Menell-Tailoring-a-Public-Policy-Exception-to-Trade-Secret-Protection-105CalLRev1.pdf. In light of this information, good lawyers could probably flush out everything that Best Friends, Kristen Hassen, and the Los Angeles & Riverside officials hope to conceal through non-disclosure agreements, at enormous cost to the parties. In view of that, public accountability would be best served by practicing transparency from the start.
I have it on great legal advice NDA’s are unenforceable in California. I find it heartwarming that despite all Hassen’s creepy NDA’s animal advocates from ALL the cross the country (Memphis, El Paso, Austin) were MORE THAN HAPPY to share all the destruction , despair, lawsuits and horror she and her pals have spread with their inhumane policies.
Animal advocates showed up in Riverside earlier in the month- over a hundred, while Ms Auerbach-Hassen had to sit quietly and listen to people who actually love and care for animals -share their horror. They also shared their disgust with her grift and greed, I was so happy to be among those who got to speak directly to her.
These grifters need to be exposed and stopped. Their policies are dangerous to animals and the communities they infiltrate.
Christine, thank you for sharing your insights and experiences regarding the situation with Kristen Hassen and her consultancy practices. It's concerning to hear about the impact of her strategies, particularly the "let them roam" approach, and the tragic consequences it has had in San Antonio.
Your dedication to animal welfare and your willingness to speak out against policies that may harm both animals and communities are commendable. It's crucial that these practices are scrutinized to ensure that they align with ethical standards and truly benefit the communities they are meant to serve.
Your involvement in Riverside and your advocacy for responsible, humane policies are vital in driving positive change. Thank you for your commitment to this cause and for being a voice for those who cannot speak for themselves.
Thanks, Merritt! It's reassuring to know that public policy considerations can override NDAs but discouraging to know costs probably make knowing prohibitive. If only practicing transparency from the start was routine, imagine how different everything related to gov't. would be...
The matter of what to do with dogs who have a bite history is very troubling. I think that some dogs simply are not adoptable. No one wants to euthanize an animal, and at the shelter that I volunteer at, we have an extremely low euthanasia rate. But if a dog has bitten someone once, that is usually the end of the line for that dog. Much of it is the impact on our insurance costs which are already incredibly high. If we conceal information to a potential adopter about an animal that has already bitten, they take that animal home, it bites their kid, and we are sued, the financial repercussions could be ruinous
I agree that full transparency of the known history of an animal is paramount. I also believe there are degrees of bites and aggression and its important for shelter staff to know how to evaluate history with observed behavior.