King's "education" as dogcatcher revealed

We now have the documentation that was
provided by the Michigan Department of
Agriculture and Rural Development regarding
the qualifications of Mr. Tom King's alleged
compliance with the state requirements.

As a matter of opinion, we do not believe
the documentation provided to the State by
then undersheriff Brezek to be credible. There
is no certification of any of the records and the
records themselves are incomplete.

Here are some points of contention:

"3. One day spent with prosecuting attorney,
preparing complainants and case writing,
preparing and giving testimony, court protocol,
and public relations. 8 Hours. 23 Aug 02."

There appears to be no letter from the
prosecutor from that time, Joe Sartorelli, who
is no longer able to provide verification of the
alleged event

"4. One clay spent with local authority, discussing
local policies and procedures. 8 Hours. 19 Nov O1."

This lacks identification of the "local authority"
who allegedly provided training. Absence of the
name precludes approval which was unjustifiably
granted by the state. Please see:

http://tinyurl.com/3sog627

"6. Accompany state or federal livestock inspector
for two days and discuss laws and regulations,
inspection of shops, dog pounds, and animal
shelters. 16 Hours. 8-9 Feb 02."

Once again, no identification of the livestock
inspector fails to meet the state's requirements.

"7. One day spent in large city with humane
society shelter, observing entire operation along
with record keeping and method of euthanasia.
8 hours 16 Feb 02."

Here we go again, no documentation as to what
city shelter was involved.

It appears to us that Brezek took the sample that
is published by the state at:

http://tinyurl.com/3oyfe5o

and copied it while interspersing dates and other
"pertinent" information wherever such information
could be made to reach the descriptions.

Apparently Tom King was a jail guard, "Local
Corrections Officer," at the time. The qualifications
for that position changed on April 1, 2004. If Mr.
King qualifies to return to his former position, one
must wonder why such accommodation hasn't
been undertaken by Iron County.

When I originally inquired about filing the FOIA
request for this information with the Iron County
Sheriff's Office, I was advised the the FOIA officer
for the Sheriff's Department was the Iron County
Prosecutor. And Melissa A. Powell was cc'd on the
reply the Mrs. Clisch, the actual FOIA officer for
the county, provided, along with a cc to Tom King.

We also find it very odd that Tom King failed to raise
any issues about his compliance with state law in
being employed as county dogcatcher. until after
his termination from that position. Could that be
because the documentation facially fails to provide
what it claims to do? The legal term used by the
courts to describe such things is "specious."

In any case, the county itself failed to comply with
the state statutes by not formalizing the formal
requirements for that position. And finally, the
state law provides more than adequate regulation
of dogs in the state. We've never discovered any
need for Iron County, Michigan, to regulate animals
and to unnecessarily spend money for a dogcatcher
while state requirements provide this function
adequately.

IronCountyDoings, and therefore its editor, are
satisfied that Iron County possesses no documents
about Mr. King's compliance with the statutes
regulating the position of dogcatcher. The answer
provided by Mrs. Clisch was, in our opinion, sadly
correct.

Bill Vajk