Chapel Hill News April 28, 2004 Editorial Raspberries to the Animal Protection Society for still not "getting it" as far as community relations goes. As it faced the reality of losing its contract to operate the county animal shelter, APS told the county commissioners last week that it would either take the animals in the shelter when its contract with the county ends June 30 or require compensation for them. An official of the Humane Society said she'd never heard of such a deal. APS also said it would charge the county double the amount for veterinary services that APS itself was paying, and that it would take with it the security system APS installed in the county-owned building. There are legalistic reasons, no doubt, for all these demands, but they add up to making APS look chintzy and vindictive. If any further justification was needed for ending the county's relations with APS, this was it. Raspberries also must go to APS's critics, who continue to over-reach in the venom of their hostility to APS. Longtime gadfly Elliot Cramer may have been warranted in his criticism of APS at last week's public hearing, but language such as "you can't imagine the contempt I have for these people" is too much. ---- Comment: I'm willing to eat my raspberries, but my written statement below shows no venom. I added my contempt extemporaneously in response to Ann Peterson's demands which I only saw five minutes before my statement. It appears to me that the News shares my contempt. As to venom, read the deposition statements of Ann Peterson on www.ourpaws.info. There are no "legalistic reasons ... for all these demands". APS leases it's facility to Dubrovsky for $1/year and contracts with him for veterinary services -- a sham. I challenge the News to demand a detailed justification from Peterson and to check with the State Veterinary Board as to whether there are any such limitations and whether APS is currently illegally operating a veterinary practice. APS has given us a "current" contract with Dubrovsky which names him as an employee of APS although he supposedly has his "own practice". ---- Summary: Statement to Orange BOCC (revised) Elliot M. Cramer April 20, 2004 It is almost two years since Laura Walters fired Bobby Schopler and you were first alerted to problems at the Orange County animal shelter, including substandard performance and illegal operation of a veterinary practice. You have since expressed your strong concern and dedication to the animals. You have proceeded at a very deliberate pace, bringing us to this decision point. "The mills of the gods grind slow, but they grind exceedingly fine". Your very fine County staff and Task Force is to be commended for coming up with their excellent proposal under severe time pressure. Volunteer considerations have been an issue, but the information I have provided shows that APS has very few serious volunteers and, as John Link has said, many have expressed their intention to continue. With the very generous salaries and benefits associated with the operations manager and customer relations manager positions, I believe you can obtain very competent and experienced employees and I hope that these essential positions will be advertised to non-APS employees. The County proposal shows an increased cost to the County of $162,000, but this is misleading; a fairer figure, attributable to the shelter takeover is $35,000. No more than half the $70,000 cost of the Animal Services Director should be attributed to the shelter takeover. The income from adoptions is understated by $26,000 based on current fees and last year's adoptions. $80,000 for Animal Care Services does not come from budgeted positions. The five budgeted animal care technician positions are identical to those budgeted for 2001-2002, but one additional position at about $30,000 would meet HSUS recommendations. The $132,000 Veterinarian Services cost for both veterinarian care and spay/neutering. comes from the interim contract, based on information provided by APS. HSUS severely criticized the animal care at the shelter based on quality of care, not quantity. I urge you to advise John Link to contract with a local veterinarian for veterinarian care. A spay/neuter surgery contract should be at a substantially lower rate than charged to the public on an individual basis. I believe that the County should negotiate only a six month contract and be charged for only the actual number of animals neutered, certainly under $50 per animal. The details of veterinarian care and a spay/neuter contract are not before you tonight and I urge you to accept the recommendations of John Link with these suggestions. ---- Full written statement Statement to Orange BOCC (revised) Elliot M. Cramer April 20, 2004 It is almost two years since Laura Walters fired Bobby Schopler and you were first alerted to problems at the Orange County animal shelter, including substandard performance and illegal operation of a veterinary practice. You have since expressed your strong concern and dedication to the animals. You have proceeded at a very deliberate pace, bringing us to this decision point. "The mills of the gods grind slow, but they grind exceedingly fine". Your very fine County staff and Task Force is to be commended for coming up with their excellent proposal under severe time pressure. * Volunteers Volunteer considerations have been an issue, but the information I have provided shows that APS has very few serious volunteers and, as John Link has said, many have expressed their intention to continue. Only 18 volunteers who volunteered prior to February fulfilled their 8 hour per month commitment in March; of these only 13 of these did anything beyond dog-walking. You can expect increased volunteerism under County management. With the very generous salaries and benefits associated with the operations manager and customer relations manager positions, I believe you can obtain very competent and experienced employees and I hope that these essential positions will be advertised to non-APS employees. * Cost to the County Page 32 shows a 30% increased cost to the County of $162,000, but this is misleading; a fairer figure is $35,000. * Animal Services Director $70,000 is the cost for an Animal Services Director over BOTH animal control and the shelter, providing oversight that has been lacking. No more than half should be attributed to the shelter takeover. The income from adoptions is understated by $26,000 based on current fees and 2003 adoptions. It would be even higher using the higher adoption figures for 2001 or 2002. puppy dog cat kitten other (average) Adopt fee $104 $113 $91 $80 $15 number 423 471 464 497 82 2003 report Income $180,429 vs $154,400 claimed by APS * Animal Care Services I have been informed that this $80,526 comes from the C list (other positions for review). Obviously "positions for review" should not be included as budgeted items so that the "additional cost to County" might reasonably be reduced by this amount. The five budgeted animal care technician positions are identical to those budgeted for 2001-2002. APS had 6.5 positions on February 28, 2003. Correct use of the HSUS formula gives an estimate of 5.9 positions as I have previously noted. APS apparently added positions after its Director and Associate Director left since this freed up about $100,000. One might reasonably allow for an additional $30,000 for one position, rather than $80,526. * Veterinarian Services I have been told that the $132,000 cost comes from the interim contract, based on information provided by APS. Evidently this is for both veterinarian care and spay/neutering. HSUS never recommended the current practice of daily visits by a veterinarian; it said "Documentation of all aspects of this care must be made, and should be carefully reviewed on a daily basis by a veterinarian or other person with knowledge of appropriate veterinary care for sheltered animals." HSUS severely criticized the animal care at the shelter based on quality of care, not quantity. Bobby Schopler was paid $65,000 per year including fringe benefits. He spent one day per week at the shelter and was on call at other times to consult with the staff which he trained. Excellent part-time veterinarians are available at a cost of under $50/hour. A competent veterinarian could be available for an average of 10 hours per week for about $25,000. I urge you to advise John Link to contract with a local veterinarian for these services. Page 6 says that "APS has stated they will continue to provide citizens with low/cost spay/neuter surgery services in addition to whatever arrangement the County chooses to employ". Actually APS does not provide surgery services; according to the APS website it "contracts with the Nicks Road Veterinary Clinic to perform all of the surgeries for the Animal Shelter". Presumably, the County will have to do the same since APS cannot legally operate a veterinary practice nor employ a veterinarian for these services, although the County may choose to do so in the future. Since the clinic opened it doors in 1997, it made sufficient profit to support the now defunct wildlife operation; undoubtedly APS is now making a profit on this practice. Certainly the clinic should charge a substantially lower rate to the County for its bulk contract than it does to the public on an individual basis. The cost for individuals for this number of animals would be $119,377. I estimate that the Veterinary Services should be no more than $117,000 including both spay/neuter and veterinarian care. I believe that the County should negotiate only a six month contract on a more favorable per animal rate (certainly under $50 per animal) and be charged for only the actual number of animals neutered. public spay/neuter fee using average male/female cost spay/neu $75 $80 52 52 number 423 471 464 497 2003 report Total cost $119,377. * Conclusion The details of veterinarian care and a spay/neuter contract are not before you tonight and I urge you to accept the recommendations of John Link with these suggestions. ---- Adjustments to Net county operating costs attributable to County takeover of shelter --- director 35,000 income 26,000 animal care 50,000 veterinary services 15,000 Total 126,000 Additional County Cost $36,000 ________________________________________________________________ Chapel Hill News April 11, 2004 County decision ignores animal welfare My view By Cutler Andrews As a concerned voting citizen of Orange County, I am appalled by the decision of the task force that was established to decide the fate of the animal shelter. I am disheartened by such a laughable approach to animal welfare with such complete disregard to the actual welfare of the animals. The purpose of the task force, according to what I heard at the commissioners meeting, was to objectively research options for the future of the animal shelter. One of my main concerns about the task force recommendation is that they did so little research about the varying components of running a shelter. In the limited research that I, myself, did, I could not find a shelter in the state with better animal care, volunteer contributions, or adoption rates. It would be irresponsible for the county commissioners to make a decision of such magnitude that affects the lives of so many animals without requiring the fair amount of research and facts to support it. To show how blatantly obvious it is that most task force members did little to no research you have to look no further than a quote in The Chapel Hill News by task force member Bill Strom. "While we talked a lot about no-kill as a community value, we thought in the end the reasonable, progressive approach was to establish a bureau that was guided not by first-in, first-out inventory control, but by a progressive approach to evaluating animals and finding homes for all the adoptable animals that come into the shelter. I hope this recommendation leads to a reduction if not elimination of euthanasia for adoptable animals." What Strom is describing is exactly the current policies of the Animal Protection Society of Orange County. If he had spent any time at the shelter talking to staff and volunteers he would easily realize that they do everything possible to adopt out adoptable animals. At the APS shelter, highly trained dog behaviorists conduct temperament tests, uncommon among most shelters, which helps to determine how long a dog will stay at the shelter. Strom also fails to understand that the goal of every shelter is to be a virtually no-kill shelter. There is not a single person at any shelter who enjoys euthanasia and thus does everything within reason to adopt out as many animals as possible. Staff and volunteers spend long hours and shed many tears in this process, all while receiving criticism from those who know little to nothing about shelter operations and while the county is about to disregard all their hard work by taking over the shelter. What you might not realize is that these people, staff and volunteers, believe in APS and thus give their all. By the county taking control over the shelter, you are telling these people that they are not working hard enough, and they have failed at something for which they are so passionate. Of course there are mistakes, but in every organization there are mistakes. Just because the county is running the shelter does not mean that those mistakes will disappear, but instead be under a different jurisdiction. It would be arrogant of the commissioners to believe any different. Instead of solely focusing on these mistakes, the commissioners need to look at all the improvements that have been made to the shelter by APS board, staff and volunteers in accordance to Humane Society of the United States recommendations. The improvements have been noted and commended by HSUS itself. I believe that when it comes to animal welfare, HSUS is the authority and, respectfully, not the commissioners. The county is in an amazing position to have an outstanding organization helping with animal welfare issues in Orange County. This obviously saves the county money and other valuable resources. As a taxpayer I expect elected officials to be fiscally responsible while still providing superior services. The money required to attempt to sustain even a comparable facility under full county jurisdiction would be better spent addressing the varying needs of the citizens of Orange County. The county continuing to contract with APS would be an investment that will continue to provide them with the best shelter in the state at a reduced cost. With APS involved, you will continue to have access to the animal sanctuary near Mebane, a large number of committed volunteers, established list of foster parents, long list of generous donors, and the highest adoption rate and lowest euthanasia rate in the state. There are so many positives that the Task Force neglected to consider. In the end, our animal shelter's main goal is serving the animals of Orange County. Unfortunately, in this debate the animals have been consistently left out of the equation. Now it is the commissioners' responsibility to look out for those who cannot speak for themselves. Cutler Andrews lives in Carrboro and is an active volunteer and foster parent with the APS Orange County Animal Shelter. Comment: The County is now paying the full cost of shelter operation. The problem is not the dedicated staff but rather the incompetent leadership which has led to the serious problems noted in the HSUS report. APS has failed the public. With regard to the "large number of committed volunteers", APS records show only 16 who have fulfilled the eight hour per month commitment cited by Amy Elder since November; I expect that most of these (as well as many others) will continue their volunteer efforts under County management since their love is for the animals, not APS. ________________________________________________________________ Chapel Hill News April 7, 2004 Editorial Next stage for animal shelter The residents at the APS animal shelter might be wondering: What are the humans out there doing now? After a year of hand-wringing over the shelter's future and three months of deliberations by a new task force, Orange County still doesn't know what it's going to do with the shelter after June 30, when the contract with the Animal Protection Society ends. That's a short time frame, and we don't even know what the cost will be, if the county does take over the shelter. All this came to a head last week when the Animal Shelter Operations Task Force presented its recommendations to the county commissioners. The task force wasn't sure what it wanted, in terms of future management of the shelter, but it was sure what it did not want _ continued operation by the Animal Protection Society of Orange County. The task force recommended against continuing the county's annual $450,000 subsidy to APS in favor of either a new animal services bureau, or a new animal shelter operation under the county manager's office. The bureaucratic details differ, but both would be under the umbrella of county government. But the task force got less than a face-licking reception last week from the commissioners. Several commissioners had cold feet about the idea of lodging a new agency within county government and about the cost of the operation. Incredibly, the county does not know what it would cost to operate a shelter, even though it may be doing so in three months, and the task force, for some unclear reason, did not consider the cost factor in making its recommendations. Commissioners Chairman Barry Jacobs asked the task force to look at the idea of a public-private enterprise that would combine county oversight with involvement by nonprofit groups. The intent would be to engage the large corps of volunteers that is presumed to come with nonprofit involvement, attract financial contributions and limit the number of employees that would be added to the county payroll. It sounds like a reasonable approach. County Manager John Link told the commissioners he'd come up with a cost estimate by April 20 for county operation of the shelter. The commissioners are in a tough place. They would be taking over a job that is expensive and messy to run, involving very emotional input from the public. It's doubtful that the county, with its higher overhead costs and more costly personnel policies, can run the shelter as cheaply as APS has. But the APS has not been running a quality operation, as evidenced by the Humane Society report last year, and the public is at best split over continued APS management of the shelter. The county should pay attention to the recommendations of its own task force, at least in not continuing the current APS shelter arrangement. The guiding principle here should not be politics or even cost _ although that has to be a consideration. The main concern should be the welfare of the animals. Other counties in the state _ Mecklenburg, Wake, to name two _ have begun moving toward more enlightened "no-kill" shelter policies that minimize the number of animals that go to shelters _ through good spay and neuter programs _ maximize adoption and minimize euthanasia. The state legislature has begun focusing on better animal protection policies, and more state money for counties may be forthcoming via a tax on pet food or other sources. Orange County's role now is to put in place, quickly, a well-managed program that, first, provides quality animal care, and second, restores public confidence in the shelter. ________________________________________________________________ Animal shelter's buck stops at the top Editorial Chapel Hill Herald March 25, 2004 The future of Orange County's animal shelter is coming into focus as the task force county commissioners appointed to study the facility moves closer to filing its recommendations. It now appears certain the panel will support imposing a new management structure on the shelter, one that shoves the much-criticized Animal Protection Society to the side. Should the task force gets its way, a county-run "animal services bureau" would take over the shelter -- and supervise the local animal control operation, too. The power to decide whether this will happen belongs to the commissioners, who are scheduled to begin discussing the potential changeover on April 1. Clearly, the commissioners want to sever ties with the aps, an organization they've come to believe is more trouble than it's worth. But we suspect they'll find the transition won't be so simple. As we've said for the past year, the key to ending the squabbles about the shelter is the establishment of clear lines of public accountability for what goes on there. The proposed animal bureau satisfies that requirement, in part. The new setup would include an advisory board to ensure citizen input into management decisions at the shelter, an innovation that's long overdue. It would also -- in theory -- establish a closer supervisory relationship between the shelter, the commissioners and the county manager. But there are already signs that the lines of responsibility that are so clear on an organizational chart will be fuzzier in the real world. The tip-off came when officials started likening the bureau setup to the one the county uses for visitor services. The analogy is troubling because the county visitors' bureau doesn't rank high on the commissioners' priority list. By invoking it, officials are suggesting strongly that once the aps is out, the commissioners will be content to let the shelter become some other board's problem. That won't do. Most of the shelter's problems developed because county officials allowed the aps to run the facility as it pleased. There was no hands-on involvement by the commissioners, or the county manager's office. Such involvement, and the accountability that comes with it, is the key to the success of any new management structure. A system that allows the commissioners to take credit when things go right and deflect blame when they go wrong is no better than the one that exists at the shelter now. -- Comment: The problem at APS is not just that blame is deflected but that the shelter operation has been so incompetent for the past 18 months and that it continues to be incompetent. ________________________________________________________________ The Chapel Hill Herald September 20, 2003 Editorial Ill-timed demands threaten shelter review An organization that relies on public support shouldn't issue ultimatums when its support looks shaky. Doing so is rather like playing Russian roulette with a fully loaded gun. The Animal Protection Society of Orange County, unfortunately, doesn't get that. Society directors put the group's future on the line a week ago, and the only thing left is to see whether the Orange County Commissioners pull the trigger. APS officials snapped the cylinder into firing position on Sept. 13 when they told County Manager John Link they'll stop managing the county animal shelter at year's end unless the county raises its monthly management payments by Oct. 1. That means the commissioners have less than two weeks to decide whether it's worth spending about $10,000 a month more to keep the APS at the shelter. Considering the number of very loud voices in the area who've been urging county officials to jettison the group anyway, all we can say to the APS is good luck. Historically, the commissioners dislike being rushed, especially when the subject is money. Ill advised though the ultimatum on that issue was, the APS compounded the situation by issuing a second. They want the commissioners to settle the debate about whether the APS will retain a long-term role at the shelter, and do it by the end of January. Despite protests to the contrary, APS leaders have to know that deadline would all but short-circuit the four-month policy review recommended by the Humane Society of the United States. The commissioners are still early along in setting up a task force to act on the Humane Society's proposal. An end-of-January deadline would give them no time to recruit appointees from the public or to conduct a proper debate about the panel's advice. All along, we've been saying the fight about the shelter will only be resolved if participants honor the public process the county has established for settling it. The commissioners agree, and they stood their ground when critics of the APS urged haste. There's no reason for them to back down just because APS directors, who benefited from the county's earlier stand, now think it's time to push. ________________________________________________________________ Chapel Hill News September 24, 2003 Editorial Strange demands by APS Curiouser things have happened, we suppose, but the Animal Protection Society's recent communication with the Orange County commissioners is cause for head-scratching. The commissioners, after receiving complaints from citizens and a critical report by the Humane Society of the United States, have been reviewing the county's contract with the APS to run the county animal shelter. The county has put the society on notice that it may end the contract and take over the shelter itself. You'd think, facing that kind of drastic outcome, that the APS would be looking for a way to persuade the commissioners to extend the contract, pretty please. Instead, the society sent an ultimatum to the county last week laying out a set of demands for its continued operation of the shelter. Among them: -- The county increase its $429,000 annual funding of APS by $138,000 a year. -- The APS be represented on a task force that will look at the Humane Society recommendations. -- The commissioners decide whether to extend the contract by Jan. 31. -- If those conditions aren't met by Oct. 1, APS will stop running the shelter by the end of the year. This is an odd response to the county's scrutiny. As one commissioner put it, "It's as if a chicken put its head on the chopping block and handed you the ax." The APS, to be sure, has some cause for concern. The society says it has been "subsidizing" the operations of the animal shelter out of APS funds for years to the tune of $70,000 to $90,000 a year. Because of bad publicity and uncertainty over its future, the society says, contributions have dried up. Meanwhile, APS's operating deficit has increased from $85,000 last year to a projected $138,000 this year. That's the "subsidy" that APS wants the county to make up. Without it, APS officials say, the operation will go broke. It may be reasonable to ask for more county funding, but the way APS has gone about it is all wrong. When you want someone to give you money, you don't send a demand letter threatening dire consequences if the money isn't forthcoming. And you don't make such demands of a publicly elected governmental body in the context of that government's review of your operations. And even if you do all that, you conduct the conversation in person, not in the cold black-and-white impersonality of a formal letter. Unfortunately, this incident is all too typical of APS's conduct of its affairs in recent times, reflecting a political tone-deafness and insensitivity to public perception. The APS knows that the county is in no position to take over operation of the shelter in a three-month time frame, and threatening to pull out not only leaves the county in an untenable situation but, more importantly, puts at risk the animals that APS exists to protect. APS's timing in this situation is so unfortunate as to be construed as suicidal. APS officials avow that they want to continue operating the shelter, but dealing in threats and ultimatums suggests otherwise. Before this exchange, it had appeared that the best prospect for the future of the shelter was for the county not to take it over _ an expensive operation for which governments are not well suited _ but to implement recommendations of the Humane Society by working with the APS. Now, we don't see that APS's action leaves the commissioners much choice. Either the county needs to plan for operating the shelter itself, or it needs to use its funding and contract leverage to effect an overhaul of APS management and governance that will be more responsive to the public interest. It's time to sweep out the kennel. ________________________________________________________________ Chapel Hill Herald October 4, 2003 Editorial APS should shut down its court battle The Chapel Hill Herald It's been an eventful week in the APS wars, but thanks to Superior Court Judge Ronald Stephens and the Orange County Commissioners, the end may be in sight. On Thursday, Stephens ruled the Animal Protection Society has to show its membership list and financial records to the critics who've sued it, Elliot Cramer and Judith Reitman. Meanwhile, county officials made it clear they won't be rushed into making decisions about how much money to spend on the local animal shelter, or whether to retain the APS as the shelter's manager. However dismaying they were to APS officials, the two decisions pushed the yearlong squabble toward a conclusion -- and on terms not necessarily unfavorable to the society. Judge Stephens' ruling only addressed a procedural motion, but it underscored that Cramer and Reitman have genuine claims against the APS that could cost the society greatly if its directors insist on pushing the case to trial. The better part of valor would be for them to settle the ongoing lawsuit, and quickly. On the political front, county officials called an APS bluff by saying they'd wait until Oct. 21 to discuss the group's request for more spending on the shelter. The APS wanted the money by Oct. 1, and had threatened to walk away from the shelter contract at the end of the year if it wasn't forthcoming. Seeing that the commissioners could've responding by telling the APS to start packing -- and were sorely tempted to do so -- society officials should count themselves lucky to still be a factor in the shelter debate. By standing firm, the commissioners bought the community more time to decide what kind of shelter it wants. Their next move should be to schedule a meeting with the APS board, and finish setting up a task force to help the two sides review the advice they've received about shelter management from the Humane Society of the United States. At some point, the commissioners also will have to address the notion, floated recently by APS directors, that there's something unfair in the APS' having to supplement the county's shelter budget. The whole point of privatizing the shelter has been, in theory, that the APS could combine public and private resources to do more at the facility than the county could accomplish there with tax dollars alone. If the society can't do that anymore, what good is it? And if the squabble with Cramer and Reitman impedes fundraising, why not end it? ________________________________________________________________ The Chapel Hill Herald October 30, 2003 Editorial Resignation the right move for APS The resignation Monday of Laura Walters, the executive director of the Animal Protection Society of Orange County, was unfortunate but necessary. Public confidence in the APS is low, and the group needed to undertake a leadership change to regain its standing. The impending departures of Walters and her associate director, Darra Das, begin that process. Many developments contributed to the loss of confidence in the APS -- the longtime manager of the county animal shelter -- and Walters figured in many of them. For the Orange County Commissioners, and this newspaper, the last straw was the APS' "give us more money or we quit" attempt to strong-arm the county into making a hasty decision about the future of the facility. The commissioners called the APS' bluff first with delay, and then by deciding to put the management contract for the shelter out to bid. For others, the breaking point came when inspectors from the Humane Society of the United States confirmed deficiencies in APS' disease-control and record-keeping practices. It didn't help that the primary critics of the APS, Elliot Cramer and Judith Reitman, had been complaining about exactly those issues. Nor did it help that Walters was unable to deal with Cramer without using trespassing laws and the police to keep him away from the shelter. That spoke poorly of her judgment and public relations sense, at least to the commissioners, who, thanks to the debate a few years ago about a quarry along N.C. 54, are personally familiar with Cramer's bulldog persistence. Little things like that highlighted the biggest problem with the APS: the group's inflated sense of its role at the shelter. The shelter is county property, a county operation and the county's responsibility. But APS leaders have too often acted as though it's APS property, and too often made policy decisions without consulting the commissioners. That failing -- and a faulty public relations sense -- was not unique to Walters. Her predecessor, Pat Sanford, was just as prone to PR gaffes, and just as prone to making unilateral decisions. But there was less patience with Walters because the APS used up much of its political capital in the course of dismissing Sanford and wildlife veterinarian Bobby Schopler. Those moves were defensible, and a more adroit organization could have handled the outcry they provoked. But until now, "adroit" and "APS" haven't belonged in the same sentence. It remains to be seen whether that will change. ________________________________________________________________ Chapel Hill Herald Monday, December 15, 2003 Editorial Shelter task force has sensitive job Slowly but surely, the pieces in the Orange County Commissioners' response to the problems at the local animal shelter are falling into place. To recap the progress made to date, commissioners responded to the fallout of the messy departure of former Animal Protection Society veterinarian Bobby Schopler by asking the Humane Society of the United States to conduct a review of the shelter's operations. The review confirmed the existence of many problems at the shelter, including the deficiencies in record-keeping and disease controls. Inspectors also urged the county to set up a citizen task force to look over the report and offer its advice on a strategy for pursuing improvements. Commissioners took their time in following that last bit of advice, but they've finally begun appointing people to the task force. Half the group's 12 members are now in place, and the other half will take their seats soon. Between receiving the Humane Society's report and making the appointments, the commissioners also began addressing the question of who will manage the shelter. For now, the aps has the job, but it appears the county is preparing for a takeover that will take effect when the new fiscal year starts next July. The task force will include people who have ties to the aps or its past management. This is, in all likelihood, unavoidable. Any pool of applicants for what will be a demanding assignment undoubtedly will include people who've demonstrated their passion for the cause of animal welfare in the past. But at this juncture, it's vital that everyone involved look to the future. The debate to come is about the future of the shelter, not its past. It's not about Schopler, or longtime aps director Pat Sanford, or about Sanford's now-departed successor, Laura Walters. There's no room at the table for score-settling. In this regard, the appointments to come -- a commissioner will join the panel, as will representatives from the Sheriff's Office, the county health board and the towns of Chapel Hill, Carrboro and Hillsborough -- are critical. Each group with an appointment to make has a stake in shelter's future, and each needs to name someone will who bring a fresh perspective to the problem -- and a keen sense of diplomacy.