The very same committee responsible for removing the seats in the City-County Building and kicking homeless people off the front “porch”, now are allowing dogs into the City-County Building? Same champion of both causes, Enis Ragland, from Mayor Paul Soglin’s Office. Tho, I hear this isn’t over, and the Common Council will be taking up some portion of this through a resolution or ordinance proposal. And I see that it requires an ordinance change so people in violation of the proposal can get ticket.
At first, I was mostly annoyed by the fact that dogs are ok and homeless people are not. And I have to admit I’ve been bitten by dogs (they used to chase me on my bike) and I don’t love them, but I’m ok with dogs I’ve been properly introduced to. But it has taken a long time to get over that fear. So I wasn’t a fan. But then I read the employee comments and now I’m kinda horrified. I’m relieved that alders are considering putting a stop to this for the city employees. Between allergies, fear of dogs, cleanliness issues and concern for the safety of service animals that are needed, I find this to be an incredibly selfish initiative.
This proposal has been changed to clarify that the public are not allowed to bring their dogs in – at least that was the intent. But this is what the committee was considering.
DOG FRIENDLY POLICY PROPOSAL
The City proposes taking the following actions to make the City-County Building Dog Friendly: Request that the City County Liaison Committee Amend the City-County Building Policies and Operating Rules as followsAmend Section 6.9 as follows:
6.9. No animals are allowed inside the building, except service animalsor, service animals in training, or dogs in compliance with Section 7.0.Create Section 7.0, as follows:
7.0 DOG POLICY
7.1 Dogs that are leashed may be present in public areas of the City- County Building. The maximum length of the leash shall be 6 feet.
7.2 Dogs may be present in non-public areas of the CCB if all of the following conditions are met:
7.2.1 The dog owner has obtained the consent of the City or County, whichever owns or exercises control over the non- public area according to the current “Agreement between the City of Madison and Dane County for the Sale of Space in the City-County Building”.
7.2.2 The dog owner has obtained the approval of his or her department or division head, or designee, to bring the dog into the non-public area. A department or division head, or designee, may rescind his or her approval should the dog fail to be well-behaved or should office conditions change.
7.2.3 The dog owner complies with any administrative procedures, rules or policies approved by the City or County and their respective subunits, whichever owns or exercises control over the non-public space.
7.2.4 The dog will not be left alone at any time, unless it is in a kennel or restrained in a closed area.
7.3 All dogs in the CCB are subject to the following conditions:
7.3.1 Dog owners must be able to exercise control over their dog at all times.
7.3.2 The dog must be housebroken, free of fleas, and well- behaved.
7.3.3 The dog must be properly licensed and vaccinated, as required by Madison General Ordinance Secs. 9.50, 23.33 (6), and 23.39.
7.3.4 Dog owners are responsible for cleaning up after their dog, including disinfecting after messes as necessary, and for any damage caused by their dog. The dog owner shall be responsible for removing and disposing of dog feces in compliance with Madison General Ordinance Sec. 7.322, which requires either burial or flushing of dog waste.
7.3.5 No dogs are permitted in any kitchen, cafeteria or dining areas.
7.4 For the purposes of this section, public area means those areas of the CCB designated as Common Areas under the current “Agreement between the City of Madison and Dane County for the Sale of Space in the City-County Building” that are accessible at all times to the public when the building is open for business. This includes unrestricted hallways, stairwells, elevators, restrooms, vestibules, and the exterior lawn areas. Non-public areas are those areas of the CCB that are not generally accessible to the public and/or where access is restricted.
7.5 The requirements of subsections 7.1, 7.2 and 7.3 do not apply to service dogs, service dogs in training or law enforcement dogs.
7.6 Notwithstanding the foregoing, a dog who has been declared dangerous pursuant to Madison General Ordinance Sec. 25.22 is not permitted in the CCB.
Amend Exhibit 2 as follows:
OTHER INAPPROPRIATE BEHAVIOR
Bringing an animal or animals (except service animals or service animals in training, or dogs in compliance with Sec. 7.0) into the CCBAsked to leave for the rest of the day
Asked to leave and not return for 30 days; then next offense(s) will result in a request not to return for 180 days, then a year, then 3 years
The City will, following the Liaison Committee’s approval of the CCB Policies and Operating Rules amendments, amend the Madison General Ordinances to allow the Madison Police Department to cite someone for violating the CCB building policy on dogs.
Create new Subsection 8.19(2), renumbering the other subsections
(2) Dogs in the City-County Building.(a) In addition to service dogs and law enforcement dogs, as those terms are defined above in Subsection (1)(b)1. and 2., dogs are permitted in the City-County Building if the following requirements are met:
1. Public Areas. Dogs that are leashed and have been properly licensed and vaccinated, as required by Sections 9.50, 23.33(6) and 23.39, may be present in public areas of the City-County Building. The maximum length of the leash shall be 6 feet.
2. Non-public Areas. Dogs are prohibited from being present in non-public areas in the City-County Building unless permission has been obtained from the department head of the space in question. Dogs must be properly licensed and vaccinated, as required by Secs. 9.50, 23.33(6) and 23.39.
(b) For the purposes of this Subsection, public area means any portion of the City-County Building that is accessible at all times to the public when the building is open for business. This includes unrestricted hallways, stairwells, elevators, restrooms, vestibules, and the exterior lawn areas. Non- public areas are those areas of the City-County Building that are not generally accessible to the public and/or where access is restricted.
o Amend MGO Sec. 1.08(3)(a) of the Madison General Ordinances to create a bond schedule for a violation of this new provision
1.08 ISSUANCE OF CITATIONS FOR VIOLATIONS OF CERTAIN ORDINANCES AND PROVIDING A SCHEDULE OF CASH DEPOSITS.
(3) Schedule of Deposits.(a) The schedule of cash deposits that follows this subsection is established for use with citations issued under this ordinance to persons seventeen (17) years of age and older.
Deposit Dogs prohibited in the City-County Building. 8.19(2)
$50, 1st $100, 2nd, sub.
They have an application you have to fill out to request to bring your dog to work with you.
COUNTY OPPOSITION
This is marked draft from February but its in the public documents.
TO: THE CITY/COUNTY LIASION COMMITTEE
FROM: DAN LOWNDES
DATE: FEBRUARY 9, 2018
RE: DOGS IN THE CCBDane County’s policy on service animals on County properties (attached) states that Dane County welcomes Service Animals everywhere that members of the public, participants in services, programs or activities, and/or invitees are allowed to go. However, there is nothing in the policy that would allow anyone (employees or members of the public) to bring household pets onto Dane County property. There are several reasons for this.
First, there is a concern about allergies. Outside one of the City’s offices on 5th floor, there is a sign designating the office as a “fragrance free zone.” In recent years, the County has had at least three ADA from employees requesting fragrance free zones. We have at least one County employee here in the CCB who has allergies so severe that she carries an EpiPen on her person. In addition to employees, it is reasonable to assume that many members of the public visiting their elected officials (the Mayor, the County Executive, City Alders, County Supervisors, County Treasurer, County Clerk, Register of Deeds, etc.) as well as the City Assessor, Parks, and Municipal Court, might be affected by having dogs in public spaces of the City County Building.
Second, there is the potential for damage to government and/or employees’ personal items. If a dog chews on office furniture (or gets a carpet dirty), the damage most likely will be below our deductible. That means that if the dog owner does not pay for the damage, that loss will be borne by the taxpayers. On the other hand, if a dog chews on an employee’s purse (or otherwise gets the purse “dirty”), neither the City nor the County has no coverage for loss of personal property. Again, if the dog owner does not pay for the damage, the owner of the purse would incur the loss. You can imagine that if the owner of the dog is a co-worker, such situations could quickly escalate, causing both the workers and management to become distracted for doing the work of government.
Third, there is a worry about safety. It is quite possible that someone will bring their pit bull into work just to prove how safe their dog is, but then have the experiment go horribly wrong.
CITY EMPLOYEE SURVEY
531 people filled out the survey (some answered some questions and not others)
287 were in support (55%)
55 indifferent (10%)
187 against (35%)
137 people said they would like to take advantage of the policy, 57 more said they “probably” would.
489 people had concerns
139 about noise
143 about safety
187 about hygiene
223 about distractions
207 were not concerned.
Other concerns included:
– Allergies, allergies, allergies, allergies, allergies, allergies . . . allergies
– Fear of dogs, phobia, trauma, anxiety, uncomfortable around dogs, don’t like dogs
– Taking the dog out would be a distraction – and abused and not counted as a break
– The public might not feel welcome
– Allergies, allergies, allergies, allergies, allergies, allergies . . . allergies
– Can I bring my . . . hamster, chinchilla, cat, birds, rodents, etc
– Dogs get treated better than employees
– What if two dogs don’t get along
– Allergies, allergies, allergies, allergies, allergies, allergies . . . allergies
– Fear of dogs, phobia, trauma, anxiety, uncomfortable around dogs, don’t like dogs
– Smell
– This will create conflicts among staff
– Concern for the dog’s well being
– Dog hair all over things and for people with allergies it will be hard to clean it good enough not to be affected
– Cleaning up after accidents
– Will people know the difference in etiquette between Service Animals and pets?
– Allergies, allergies, allergies, allergies, allergies, allergies . . . allergies
– Pressure on staff to allow dogs when they really don’t want them there
– Distractions form work
– Fear of dogs, phobia, trauma, anxiety, uncomfortable around dogs, don’t like dogs
– Some people think their dogs are well behaved and they are not
– And did I mention, allergies?
Under other comments there were some interesting comments:
– Cats are cleaner and quieter than dogs. Please allow them, too.
– While I would LOVE to bring my dogs to work and fully recognize the emotional and mental benefits of pets in the workplace, I know that many people do not like dogs, are afraid of dogs, and/or have allergic reactions to dogs. Dogs would be beneficial to some, but could make the workplace terrible for some – perhaps even make someone dangerously sick.
– Ridiculous. There are so many other options the City could consider to improve morale. Update/modify the building, employee parking, air cleaners, how about paying employees holiday pay who work on Christmas Day proper – yes that’s right – – – I worked on Christmas Day the 25th which fell on Sunday and only received straight time because the City declared the holiday observance on Monday. I am not scheduled to work on Mondays. Thank you for this opportunity to vent.
– I cannot overstate how disappointing it is to see a dog friendly policy draft before a paid family leave or breastfeeding policy – things that would actually have a positive impact on our workforce community. It appears this is another one of the mayor’s shiny objects and it is extremely out of touch with reality of issues that are actually impacting employees. This is so, so, disappointing.
– It is a shame that there is a specific policy outlining that our workplace is not a daycare, yet the City desires to make it a doggy daycare. Our efforts should be focused on supporting much more profound initiatives, such as paid family medical leave.
– Of all the things you could do to improve the work lives of your employees, this is not the thing to be focusing on.
– Everyone does not like dogs and other animals. If you allow dogs, you will not be able to discriminate against other pets. First its dogs, then cats, pigs, snakes, rabbits, etc. It will be the freaking wild kingdom in the workplace and no work will be accomplished. Get ready for several lawsuits, one of which will be mine.
– There are so many shared spaces in our workplace that would be compromised if dogs or pets were allowed to be here. Even non-shedding dogs shed dander and can contribute to allergic reactions. My cubicle doesn’t have a door or anything, so I wouldn’t even be safe at my desk.
– Due to concerns with allergies and asthma, I think it’s necessary that employees have access to work space where pets are not allowed.
– This is an ill conceived plan. Due to several individuals who have bad allergies, MPD K9’s are not allowed in all of our district stations. I love dogs, but when the K9s come in (and they are very well trained) it often causes a major distraction. My guess is that the policy wont last long. This policy will have a disparate negative affect on those who are allergic, are frightened by or have trauma associated with a dogs, those who simply do not like dogs, or others who prefer less work disruption. As a life-time dog owner, I would not bring my dog into work on a regular basis.
– There should be a policy regarding allowing children before there is a policy allowing dogs.
– Many of our patrons, disproportionately African American patrons, are afraid of or uncomfortable around dogs or unfamiliar dogs. When we had the Read to a Dog program, many patrons expressed their discomfort with the animals. We even had one patron who would not leave the library because someone was standing out front with a large dog that scared her. I think this makes much more sense in an office environment that is not open to the public, or with the dog kept in an enclosed area.
– What about people (co-workers and citizens) that are allergic to dogs? These people do have a right to use/visit the public facilities with out being subjected to something that may make them ill.
– This policy is not fair or equitable. How will people who depend on our Metro Transit system get their dog to work? What about people who want to bring their cat to work? What if our public customers are allergic to dogs? How long before someone gets bit? Or their lunch in the breakroom gets taken off the table? How do I rationalize to my employees why it’s fair “Sara” gets to take what equals 1-hour extra time in breaks per day to walk her dog/potty breaks? Does everyone get longer breaks? Does it seem welcoming to the public when they walk in our office and a dog starts barking at them? Good intentions…HORRIBLE IDEA
– Our offices are not vacuumed on a consistent basis, for employees with pet allergies (including myself) having dogs at work without routinely cleaning the pet dander will make it very uncomfortable for me to function at work.
– Really. The great canine distraction. Maybe our leadership could focus on improving health insurance, PTO options (especially for young families), equitable salary structures, opportunities for minorities, providing increased value for our citizens … making our government more effective.
– It’s important to me that the dog is comfortable – has access to water, breaks from social time, adequate potty breaks. Also, that the responsible owner be competent at reading signs of stress in their dog and that the owner responds to those signs of stress appropriately.
– I am a dog owner and really like dogs a lot but this is not good policy. I would be particularly concerned with new hires who may be opposed to dogs after a general “dog friendliness” is established in an office
– We should solve many other issues before this. I respect being open, but it would be unfair to move forward on this and not do more to help with many other issues of more significance first.
– In practice, policy enforcement would fall on coworkers, which is not fair. Allowing a dog but then having to take it away would stress many dog owners more than not allowing dogs in the first place. Also starts slippery slope of what other comfort measures should be allowed at work.
– Because dogs in the office would cause me to be physically sick and trigger mental health issues, if this passes I will need to ask HR for accommodations to have a dog-free office. I will also need accommodations for any meetings I attend to be areas where dogs have not been and are not present. I am also interested if an equity analysis has been done on this proposal. It seems to me it would benefit office employees of a certain demographic with positions of power more than most regular City employees (will streets and Metro employees benefit from this policy?). Culturally, some people believe having animals indoors is unclean. Maybe the City should focus on real issues that impact employees like paid family leave instead of trying to make a select few people happy.
– Time would be better focused on employee engagement, internal equity and performance based management.
– While I personally love dogs and appreciate the City’s presumable desire to create a more modern work environment, attractive to young people, I do not support a dog policy at this time. Best case scenario, it is distracting to both the dog owner and others. Some people simply do not like dogs. Dogs bark at things. Some people are allergic to dogs. Some dogs smell bad. Some dogs do not get along with each other. It creates more work for custodial staff. There is not a good area to let dogs out at our buildings. What will people do with their dogs when they are in a meeting, in the bathroom, out to lunch etc? Others should not have to take care of someone else’s dog. Managers should not have to mediate dog-related disputes or issues. I opens the City up to liability. What if an employee gets bitten by someone else’s dog? What if two dogs get into a fight? What if a dog has fleas? What if someone wants to bring in a cat, a lizard etc? Etc, etc, etc… I can think of a lot of potential bad that could come out of a dog policy and not a lot of good. While a private company can create a certain type of culture and hire only people that conform/fit into it, a municipality does not have that luxury. We have to attempt to accommodate all types of employees. However, there are many other things the City can do to be more progressive employer attractive to young people. (Examples: Health club, good/healthy food cafeteria/options, improved technology/IT support across the board, real dental coverage, flexible work schedules, flexible work locations, career paths, lower health care deductibles, ‘green’ transportation options etc.)
– There are numerous citizens who have physical and mental health-related reasons to avoid dogs, and I don’t think the City should support creating barriers for those people.
– This is a violation of the right to a safe workplace, personal health, and a serious threat to persons with allergies, not to mention the public. It is bad enough that people are allowed to bring dogs in the library now. What about my right to breathe?
– I have a service dog and this would pose a big safety challenge for me and her, as well as a huge distraction for my service dog.
– Dogs smell, they bark, and they shed. Allergies are a prime concern as I swell up. The hair would “float” around and be on everything.
– I am not opposed to working animals, but I am not comfortable with animals, and I think introducing them into our work environment without legitimate cause or need is disrupting and frustrating.
– I understand the general premise behind this idea, but I am not at all in support of it. Since I work in an open-office area, to me this feels like I’d see dogs everywhere, if those who went through the application process were to be approved. That would be extremely stress-inducing as I am terrified of dogs and do not like to be around them.
– The floors in this building are not cleaned regularly enough for this to be a good idea. If one of these animals has an accident, it will not be cleaned up quickly or easily.
There’s 279 comments and some are positive . . . I just wanted to point out that many are not.
And, last but not least, my favorite comment:
“This is not necessary. It sounds like someone’s pet project.”
It is, apparently the Mayor brings his dog to work . . .
VIDEO
This video is a little disturbing on a couple levels . . . thankfully the conversation is relatively short, you can skip the first 2.5 minutes and the end couple of minutes where they dance with the open meetings laws . . .
For those of you watching the video wondering who these people are, let me introduce you to the boys, from left to right around the table:
- Samba Baldeh – District 17, City of Madison
- Paul Nelson – District 9, Dane County Board Supervisor
- Keith Furman – District 19, City of Madison
- Richard Kilmer – District 4, Dane County Board Supervisor
- Andrew Schauer – District 21, Dane County Board Supervisor
- Enis Ragland, Mayor Paul Soglin’s Office
- Jeff Kostelic, County Executive Joe Parisi’s Office
Karen Peterson Thurlow is the city staff to the left, she is from the Dane County Board Office. Marci Paulsen is to the right, from the City Attorney’s Office.
