Taxpayer Revolt: Riverside County Faces Mounting Scrutiny Over Animal Services Mismanagement
Allegations of Nepotism, Financial Waste, and Animal Neglect Spark Legal Battle Seeking Accountability and Reform
Riverside County's animal services scandal isn’t just about bureaucratic failings—it’s a betrayal of the public trust that created a dire situation for the county's most vulnerable animals. As this lawsuit unfolds, it’s clear that Riverside needs real reform, not more of the same leadership failures.
The case, which has captured the attention of both animal welfare advocates and taxpayers, reveals mounting legal challenges for Riverside County officials. Allegations of mismanagement, nepotism, and financial waste within the Riverside County Department of Animal Services (RCDAS) are central to the newly expanded lawsuit filed on November 25, 2024. This legal action underscores systemic issues that critics argue have severely damaged both public trust and animal welfare.
A Pattern of Nepotism and Unqualified Leadership
At the center of the controversy is Jeff Van Wagenen, Riverside County's Chief Executive Officer, who is accused of prioritizing personal connections over qualifications in his appointment of Erin Gettis as RCDAS Director in 2022. Gettis, whose background in architecture starkly contrasts with the expertise required to lead an animal services department, was reportedly hired due to her husband's senior role within the county government.
The lawsuit alleges that Gettis' tenure was marked by operational failures, including unsanitary shelter conditions and a lack of effective leadership. Following public outcry and legal action, Gettis was reassigned to a newly created executive position at the Riverside University Health System Medical Center—a move critics describe as a "bogus promotion" designed to shield her from accountability. Plaintiffs argue that this reassignment not only perpetuates nepotism but also wastes taxpayer dollars by placing an unqualified individual in yet another critical role.
A Dubious $2.7 Million Consulting Contract
Adding fuel to the fire is a $2.7 million consulting contract awarded to Kristen Hassen and her firm, Outcome for Pets Consulting LLC. The lawsuit claims this "sole source" contract—approved without competitive bidding—was unnecessary and exorbitant, particularly given Hassen's controversial track record in other communities like Austin, Tucson, and El Paso. Hassen’s record been marked by criticism for focusing on manipulating shelter statistics rather than achieving meaningful outcomes, which has contributed to poor conditions for both animals and the communities they serve.
Hassen's approach to shelter management focuses on reducing intake numbers by encouraging community members to care for stray animals instead of bringing them to shelters. While proponents argue this strategy alleviates overcrowding, critics contend it leaves vulnerable animals on the streets and compromises public safety. Plaintiffs argue that this method, which prioritizes statistical outcomes, ultimately harms both animals and communities.
Disturbing Evidence of Neglect
Photographs (too disturbing to share here) were included in court filings depicting harrowing scenes from RCDAS facilities: deceased animals left unattended and live animals lying in excrement-covered kennels. These images serve as stark evidence of what plaintiffs describe as a "profound lack of care" under Gettis' leadership. The lawsuit contends that these conditions violate California's Hayden Act, which mandates humane treatment for shelter animals and prioritizes adoption over euthanasia.
Legal Grounds and Growing Momentum
The plaintiffs—now numbering over a dozen concerned taxpayers—are invoking California Code of Civil Procedure §526a, which allows residents to challenge illegal or wasteful government expenditures. They seek injunctive relief to cancel the Hassen contract and restitution for funds allegedly squandered on unqualified personnel.
This expanded legal action reflects growing frustration among Riverside County residents over what they see as systemic failures in governance. The case also highlights broader debates about accountability in public office and the ethical obligations of government officials to act in good faith.
Implications for Animal Welfare and Public Trust
The implications of this case extend far beyond Riverside County. At its core are questions about how public funds should be managed and whether animal services agencies are fulfilling their mission to protect vulnerable animals. Critics argue that Riverside County's approach—marked by cronyism, financial mismanagement, and questionable policies—undermines both animal welfare and public confidence.
A leading advocate for no-kill shelter policies, summed up the stakes: "Instead of hiring unqualified leaders and spending millions on ineffective consultants, why not invest those resources into proven strategies that save lives? Riverside County taxpayers—and its animals—deserve better."
A Call for Reform
As the case unfolds, it serves as a cautionary tale about the consequences of neglecting transparency and accountability in public administration. For Riverside County officials, it is an opportunity to address systemic issues and rebuild trust with constituents. For animal welfare advocates nationwide, it is a reminder of the urgent need for ethical leadership and evidence-based practices in shelter management.
The plaintiffs are calling for immediate reforms, including the cancellation of Hassen's contract and the appointment of qualified leadership committed to humane policies. Whether these demands will be met remains uncertain, but one thing is clear: this case has ignited a broader conversation about how we care for society's most vulnerable—and who we entrust with that responsibility.
Ed Boks is a former Executive Director of the New York City, Los Angeles, and Maricopa County Animal Care & Control Departments, and a former Board Director of the National Animal Control Association. His work has been published in the LA Times, New York Times, Newsweek, Real Clear Policy, Sentient Media, and now on Animal Politics with Ed Boks.
I'm appalled by the amount of money they are contracting (2.5 million!) to an unqualified person as an "advisor". It is my understanding that they do not even have a vet full time at any of the shelters. If true, shouldn't that 2.5 million be going towards paying a vet (or vets)_ that will actually do more to help these animals? How about spending it on more staff for the animals daily care? Terrible mismanagement of tax payer dollars.
The sad thing about this is this in some form or another is happening all over the country, in every state. That is why shelter reform is needed across the country. Time to hold every single one of us in animal welfare accountable. If you have nothing to hide you don't mind people knowing what you are doing.