Chapel Hill News February 1, 2004 Letter to the Editor Note: This is timely since the County's strong oversight of the shelter begins today, with the right of trespass reserved to the County. --- The Chapel Hill New's parent paper, the News and Observer recently headlined a column "Lawsuits that squelch speech" which closes with the statement "The First Amendment says nothing about a right not to be offended. The risk of finding someone else's speech offensive is the price each of us pays for our own free speech. Free people don't run to court - or to the principal - when they encounter a message they don't like. They answer it with one of their own". In fact APS spokespersons have been very free in criticizing us and other APS critics in the press. Their statements have not always been true, such as their claim that animals are vaccinated within 24 hours and that in changing their bylaws they have been following the practice of other similar non-profit organizations. The HSUS has criticized APS for it failure to follow its own vaccination procedures and the latest County reports made available to me show that this failure to vaccinate promptly continues. The APS is suing us (former members of APS) for statements made to the Orange County Board of Commissioners, critical of APS's performance in operating the County's animal shelter. APS records show that Ann Peterson, the current APS President, advocated suing us for slander BEFORE we filed our lawsuit against APS while their attorney is representing APS on a contingency basis. This is a matter that ought to be of concern to the News even if (as the News has editorialized) our concerns had not been confirmed by the HSUS report. Instead of repeating APS's false claims of trespass, I would hope that the News would express its outrage at the failure of APS to appreciate the importance of freedom of speech as exemplified in the First Amendment. _____________________________________________________ Chapel Hill News Letters to the editor APS actions highlight need for free speech The Chapel Hill News' parent paper, the News & Observer, recently headlined a column "Lawsuits that squelch speech" that closes with the statement, "The First Amendment says nothing about a right not to be offended. The risk of finding someone else's speech offensive is the price each of us pays for our own free speech. Free people don't run to court _ or to the principal _ when they encounter a message they don't like. They answer it with one of their own." In fact APS spokespersons have been very free in criticizing APS critics in the press. Their statements have not always been true, such as their claim that animals are vaccinated within 24 hours and that in changing their bylaws they have been following the practice of other similar nonprofit organizations. The HSUS has criticized APS for it failure to follow its own vaccination procedures and the latest county reports made available to me show that this failure to vaccinate promptly continues. The APS is suing former members of APS for statements made to the Orange County Board of Commissioners, critical of APS's performance in operating the county's animal shelter. APS records show that Ann Petersen, the current APS president, advocated suing us for slander before we filed our lawsuit against APS while their attorney is representing APS on a contingency basis. This is a matter that ought to be of concern to The News even if (as The News has editorialized) our concerns had not been confirmed by the HSUS report. Instead of repeating APS's false claims of trespass, I would hope that The News would express its outrage at the failure of APS to appreciate the importance of freedom of speech as exemplified in the First Amendment. -- Elliot Cramer, Chapel Hill _____________________________________________________ The Daily Tarheel February 03, 2004 County enacts revised APS contract By Dan Schwind Assistant City Editor While the spat between the Animal Protection Society and animal rights advocate Elliot Cramer continues, APS members hope that the organization's new contract with Orange County will help them move on after a year of conflict and controversy. The contract, which took effect Sunday, extends APS's control of Orange County's animal shelter until June, when the county will determine whether it wants to leave the shelter in the hands of APS or another group or take control of it itself. Susan Cooke, interim executive director of the shelter, said she believes that the contract is part of a rebound for APS, which has been the recipient of much criticism of its handling of the shelter over the past year. "I think we've ... passed the turning point," she said. "We're on an upward swing right now." Cooke also said that while the new contract has required some adjustment, such as additional staff training for new computer software and record-keeping technology, the contract has not forced the shelter to alter its operations significantly. Cramer, who has served as the most vocal critic of APS over the past year, said he had some misgivings about the contract, but was generally happy with it. "I regret that APS was given this interim contract," he said. "(But) I'm glad the county is getting the kind of oversight they have." Under the new contract, the county takes a much more proactive approach than in the past. The county now gains influence over the shelter's hiring practices and personnel procedure. Should APS decide to change such procedures, they are required to present such changes to the county for approval. The contract also requires the shelter to maintain "accurate and verifiable" financial and animal records for the shelter and grant "access and inspection to all areas of the shelter by authorized (Orange) County personnel at any time in the pursuance of their duty." In exchange, the county is required to pay the society a monthly sum of $44,470 and provide regular maintenance of the shelter facilities until the contract ends June 30. By that time the county will have decided who will take charge of the shelter. "I think the county is paying too much money," Cramer said. "But it's certainly an improvement." He also said that while he hopes APS runs the shelter smoothly until then, it is his "hope and expectation" that the county will take over on July 1, when the next contract would take effect. Cooke said that APS will continue to work closely with the county in the meantime and follow its guidelines in hopes of retaining control over the shelter. "We continue good relations with the county," she said. "We just want to make sure the county and community are comfortable with how we run things." Contact the City Editor at citydesk@unc.edu. _____________________________________________________ Chapel Hill Herald February 9, 2004 Task force narrows animal shelter options By Geoffrey Graybeal : The Herald-Sun ggraybeal@heraldsun.com CHAPEL HILL -- The county-appointed group charged with reviewing the local animal shelter has eliminated three models of operation from its consideration. The Orange County Animal Shelter Operations Task Force does not want to consider the county contracting with a for-profit corporation or for the shelter to be a separate entity under the public works department or sheriff's department. The other shelter management options still being considered include: -- Contracting with a nonprofit organization. -- Having a shelter function as a separate administrative unit under the county manager's office or health department. -- Establishing a "bureau." -- Creating a county-incorporated nonprofit solely for animal sheltering with local government maintaining the controlling interest. The committee would like a list of pros and cons for each model and a description of how each would work for its next meeting. "One of the most important issues to this Board of Commissioners is this issue of volunteerism and trying to promote it, nurture it and maintain it," said Orange County Commissioner Moses Carey at a task force meeting last week. Carey, who is serving as his colleagues' liaison to the task force, noted that volunteerism is "something we want to foster. Any of these models that we consider has to be considered in that context." Lt. Bobby Collins of the Orange County Sheriff's Office said that he seriously doubted there would be any volunteerism if the shelter was under the auspices of the sheriff's department. Volunteers, however, still could be actively recruited, retained and used under the bureau option. Similar to a Visitor's Bureau, the bureau could be managed by the county and staffed by county employees with a Board of Directors appointed by the Board of Commissioners. Under the county incorporated nonprofit concept, the organization would be similar to Orange County Housing & Land Trust. The county government would have a controlling interest and share funding. Most commissioners have agreed that the county should take over responsibility for the shelter, but are uncertain about the extent of its possible involvement County officials are hoping the task force can craft a recommendation for the commissioners by mid-March that would address issues like the shelter's governance, management, leadership and administration. The group also will discuss operations, facilities, field services and animal control and review hundreds of changes recommended last fall by the Humane Society of the United States, an outside agency commissioners hired to have a look at the shelter. The county-owned shelter off Airport Road in Chapel Hill is currently run by the Animal Protection Society of Orange County on a short-term contract. The APS has been the target over the last year of harsh criticism by a number of local activists. The next task force meeting is set for 6:30 p.m. Feb. 25 at the Government Services Center in Hillsborough. _____________________________________________________ Letters to the editor Chapel Hill Herald Friday, February 13, 2004 Comment: Obviously he gets his information from Laura Walters or Ann Peterson -- Controversy harms shelter I am concerned with the media's failure to accurately report the facts regarding the Orange County animal shelter controversy. Most residents are aware of some kind of controversy regarding the aps, but have no idea of what the controversy is about. Nevertheless, this cloud of controversy has caused many residents to have a negative image of the aps. This year Whole Foods refused to let the aps participate in their dog wash, solely because they feared to be associated with the aps. I personally know several volunteers who have quit, not for any concrete reason, but due to the bad rumors, assuming that there must be something wrong. The situation in a nutshell is that two individuals with a personal grudge against the aps hatched a plan to become members, then sue the aps to force them to hand over their membership list, which they planned to use to embark on a PR campaign to have new board members elected. This lawsuit snowballed into the situation we have today with the county on the verge of taking over the shelter. The success of a private business is measured by its profits. Animal shelters are judged by their adoption rate. In 2002 the national average was 20-25 percent. In the same year the rates for Durham County was 18.8 percent, the rate for Chatham County was 29.8 percent. The adoption rate for the aps-run Orange County shelter was 40 percent. Let's not let two individuals with petty grudges destroy what is actually one of the most successful animal shelters in the country. Jon Fabris Efland _____-- Adoptions at APS There was a steady increase in the adoption rate from 1997-2001 (and probably earlier) under Pat Sanford. The county annual report had projected that to continue but it did not. The 2003 rate decreased to below the 2001 level. The adoption rate which has been used by APS (adoptions/total dispositions) is not the most reasonable rate since total dispositions includes returns to owner (unrelated to adoptions and euthanasias). A more reasonable rate is adoptions/(adoptions + euthanasias) and there is a striking decrease in 2003. The 2002 and 2003 figures are further inflated by Walters' inclusion of releases to rescue groups as adoptions. HSUS said that pure breeds should be made available to Orange residents before releasing them to rescue groups. Susie Cooke, the shelter interim director, has presented the December figures to the task force, the implication being that this is a typical rate; it is not. Adopt total % Euth %of Euth+adopt 1997 1551 6273 24.7% 3842 28.7% 1998 1649 5801 28.4% 3363 32.9% 1999 1760 5564 31.6% 2994 37.0% 2000 1800 5709 31.5% 3098 36.7% 2001 2017 5065 39.8% 2282 46.9% 2002 2067 5088 40.6% 2232 48.0% Includes rescue groups 2003 1937 5013 38.6% 2501 43.6% Includes rescue groups The 2002 and 2003 adoptions rates are somewhat inflated by the inclusion of dogs given to rescue groups. They should not be credited to APS as adoptions _____________________________________________________ Chapel Hill News February 18, 2004 Comment: The County is paying the FULL cost of operating the shelter. The BOCC approved (in the latest contract) the extra $10,000 per month that APS has said is the full cost. The animals HAVE been suffering but this is due to the shelter mismanagement documented in the HSUS report. The obvious solution is for the County to take over operation of the shelter. If you agree, urge the BOCC to take over effective July 1. Letter to the Editor Animals need support as well as shelter At a party over the holidays a friend of mine who is very actively involved with the Animal Protection Society filled me in on all the controversy regarding the APS over the past year. There is another side to the story that we readers did not hear; I will not attempt to address that. I would like to address that with all the negative publicity the animals have really suffered. Donations are down to a point that the shelter simply does not have the money to keep animals. It's the animals that suffer by not having a chance to be adopted. Please, animal lovers, help support the shelter. Consider making a donation or at the next birthday party, instead of gifts, request donations, volunteer or visit. Hopefully, you can help in some way those creatures that cannot help themselves. Sue Anna Chapel Hill _____________________________________________________ Specifics sought in APS case By Dan Schwind Assistant City Editor February 18, 2004 An Orange County Superior Court judge ordered both sides Tuesday to release additional information for discovery in the ongoing legal battle between the Animal Protection Society and critics Elliot Cramer and Judith Reitman. Judge John R. Jolly Jr. gave each side 20 days to provide the other with the additional evidence to prepare for the libel and defamation countersuit filed by APS against Cramer and Reitman. Specifically, Jolly ordered APS to release the details of their contract with former APS director and veterinarian Bobby Schopler. Barry Nakell, attorney for Cramer and Reitman, said the information was crucial to their defense that they did not commit libel and would allow them to have the case thrown out. Jolly also ruled that Nakell must provide all correspondence between the two critics to APS attorney Ron Merritt, as well as notes on the specific passages of depositions being used as defense by Cramer and Reitman. Jolly made the ruling saying that both sides needed a "full and fair opportunity for discovery" before the case could continue. Nakell said that despite the ruling, the hearing was not a big deal and was simply a formality in the ongoing legal battle. "It was not a significant event," he said. "It's really just putting things off." The hearing was scheduled after Nakell motioned for summary judgement on the countersuit in hopes that it would be thrown out because of a lack of evidence for the plaintiff. "Under the New York Times v. Sullivan standard, (APS has) the burden of proving these statements are false," he said. "We can show a substantial basis that they have no evidence." Nakell said his clients did not commit libel, as many APS members made the same statements as Cramer and Reitman. "These are all First Amendment issues." Merritt argued the case should not be thrown out because the motion had been filed before he had a chance to gather evidence for their case. He contended that he could not make a proper case without knowing what specific passages from the depositions Nakell referred to in his case. Merritt also motioned to compel Cramer and Reitman to turn over tax returns, financial statements and loan applications for punitive damages claim, but that motion was denied. Jolly scheduled another hearing for March 15 to give both attorneys one last opportunity to file any motions before the beginning of the trial, tentatively set for April 5. _____________________________________________________ Chapel Hill News February 25, 2004 Roses & raspberries Comment: It is true that the January APS report shows an adoption rate of 60.7% but it also shows 156 adoptions out of 267 dispositions; this computes to 58.4% which is NOT the "highest in recent history" since the January 2003 rate was reported as 58.9%. More important is the implication that the number of adoptions has increased in January from previous years; it has not!!! There were 173 adoptions in January 2001 and 181 adoptions in January 2002, over 10% more than this year. If credit is due anyone for this higher adoption rate, the credit (sic) is due animal control which brought in only 223 animals in January, 60% of the normal number. This may have been due to the adverse weather. This allowed APS to retain many more animals than it would have otherwise, producing a spuriously high adoption rate. Volunteers had little to do with this higher adoption rate, though they are undoubtedly very useful to a shelter. Some explanation is in order; the adoption rate is primarily determined by two factors - the number of people willing to adopt and the number of incoming animals. The former is relatively constant and difficult to change while the latter is extremely variable from month to month and is greatly affected by animal control and spay-neuter policies. As Laura Walters and John Sauls wrote in the County issued "Shelter FAQS", "all the adoptable sheltered animals (can't) be adopted (because) There are more 'surplus' animals than people wanting to adopt them." Under the previous shelter administration the adoption rate rose sharply from 28.7% in 1997 to 39.8% in 2001. In 2002, under the new administration, it was 40.6% and declined to 38.6% in 2003. From 1997 to 2001, adoptions increased from 1551 to 2067 while euthanasia decreased from 3842 to 2282. In 2003 adoptions were down to 1937 while euthanasia went up to 2501. ____________ Roses to all the residents of Orange County who helped the Animal Protection Society's Orange County Animal Shelter achieve an outstanding adoption rate in the month of January. At 60.7 percent, January's adoption rate is the highest in recent history. Special thanks to the many volunteers who spend countless hours supporting the lost, abandoned and homeless animals at the shelter. Their efforts ensure that the adoption rate continues to soar. ________________________________________________________________ Orange County continues APS evaluation By Kathleen Kearns, Staff Writer CHAPEL HILL -- With Orange County in the process of re-evaluating how to manage its animal shelter, Commissioner Barry Jacobs has deferred an invitation to join the Animal Protection Service board of directors. The APS is running the county animal shelter under a short-term contract that will end June 30. The agency's board made the invitation to him in January, Jacobs said. Last week, the commissioners decided, without a formal vote, to wait until the county had concluded its evaluation of animal shelter management issues before affiliating itself with a particular organization. "We've tried our best to stay outside of the fray," Jacobs said. APS has run the animal shelter under county contract since 1979. Following a year of controversy and complaints regarding APS management, the commissioners decided in October to request proposals from organizations interested in running the shelter. In November, they granted APS the short-term contract with the proviso the county would make the shelter a public function by July 1. In December, the commissioners established a task force to review the recommendations of the August 2003 report by the Humane Society of the United States on animal sheltering in Orange County. That task force will hold what it calls a listening session for public input on March 17 at 7 p.m. at the Southern Human Services Center, 2501 Homestead Road. Meanwhile, legal battles involving APS and its critics Elliot Cramer and Judith Reitman continue. On Feb. 17, Orange County Superior Court Judge John R. Jolly Jr. postponed a decision on a motion by Cramer and Reitman's lawyer, Barry Nakell, for summary judgment. He ordered each side to provide the other with more documentation. A hearing is scheduled for March 15 and a trial date is tentatively set for April 5. At issue are charges of libel and defamation APS has filed against Cramer and Reitman. "Our grounds are that all statements made were protected by the First Amendment," Nakell said. "The party that brings the suit must prove the statement is false and that the statement was made with the knowledge the statement was false or with reckless disregard to whether it was true or false. Almost all statements made are true. A couple have minor mistakes but even those weren't made with knowledge the statement was false." APS's suit against Cramer and Reitman is a countersuit to one those parties filed in November. "We've won most of the claims in our suit already," Nakell said. "We won our effort to have access to documents. If APS had not filed a counterclaim, this suit would have been over long ago." Ron Merritt, attorney for APS, did not return a phone call requesting comment. _____________________________________________________ The Daily Tarheel Panel picks 3 possible shelter plans By Shannan Bowen Assistant City Editor Comment: Suzy Cooke says "I really don't think the general public has that low of an opinion. If it was this low, things would be a lot different with adoptions and membership." Things ARE a lot different; adoptions were down last year while memberships are down to 163 in the list recently provided us from what Pat Beyle said was over a thousand in October 2002. February 27, 2004 Three drafts of possible management structure for the Orange County Animal Shelter were selected for public discussion Wednesday by the county-appointed task force. The Animal Shelter Operations Task Force, charged with reviewing and creating options for the shelter's management, decided to present the drafts free of judgment at a March 17 listening session. But the drafts, when they were handed out to task force and county staff members Wednesday, included a bar graph that rates seven criteria based on the opinions of county staff members who created the plans. On all possible drafts, the Orange County Board of Commissioners serves as an overseer to all boards and services involved in the shelter's operation. In Draft A, the management contract would continue with the Animal Protection Society of Orange County, which has been criticized for alleged mismanagement of the shelter and unlawful rule changing. The draft anticipates low direct cost to the county and high volunteer attraction. However, public trust was projected to be low. Suzy Cooke, APS interim director, said she is concerned about the public support rating. "I really don't think the general public has that low of an opinion. If it was this low, things would be a lot different with adoptions and membership." But task force member Linda Schmoldt said public opinion is important when considering new management. "We wouldn't be here if there wasn't an extremely significant problem about trust. It is highly visible that public trust is a major, major problem." Draft C creates an Animal Services Bureau of county government that would manage animal control and animal sheltering divisions. The draft boasts better financial management through an identifiable budget, although direct cost is predicted to be high due to initial start-up and annual operating costs. Assistant County Manager Gwen Harvey, who is assisting the task force, said this draft could appear nongovernmental. "This represents a softer edge than a county department," she said. But task force member Kate Wilder said there could be conflicts with two entities controlling one group. "If two groups are in charge of animal control, ... there would be a lot of crossover." Draft D is designed to create a new division that separates human and animal control in sheltering operations. Though the Orange County Health Department and Animal Services Division would oversee the animal control unit, the health department would control only on human-related incidents. Three other draft plans were eliminated after task members motioned and voted on each one. The listening session will take place at 7 p.m. March 17 at the Southern Human Services Center in Chapel Hill. Contact the City Editor at citydesk@unc.edu. _____________________________________________________ Task force offers shelter management ideas Animal services section among proposals made BY GEOFFREY GRAYBEAL ggraybeal@heraldsun.com; 918-1033 Chapel Hill Herald February 29, 2004 CHAPEL HILL -- A group studying the local animal shelter says Orange County should manage the facility by continuing to work with the Animal Protection Society, creating an "animal services bureau" or creating an animal services department. The Orange County Animal Shelter Operations Task Force settled on the list of options in time for a "listening session" planned for 7 p.m. March 17 at the Southern Human Services Center in Chapel Hill. The session is supported to gather public feedback on the three proposed models. "We have to give the public something they can sink their teeth into," said Orange County Commissioner Moses Carey, who's serving as his board's liaison to the task force. Other ideas considered by the group but dropped include the possibility of creating a new nonprofit organization to run the animal shelter, creating an animal services division under the Health Department, contracting with a for-profit corporation or putting the shelter under the Public Works Department or Sheriff's Office. The county-owned shelter off Airport Road in Chapel Hill is currently managed by the aps, on a short-term contract that expires on June 30. The aps has received harsh criticism from a number of local activists. The complaints led Carey and the other commissioners to hire an outside agency, the Humane Society of the United States, to review shelter operations. The Humane Society's report recommended hundreds of changes. Commissioners created the shelter task force to review those recommendations and discuss operations, facilities, field services and animal control. County officials hope the task force will craft a recommendation for the commissioners by mid-March that addresses issues like the shelter's governance, management, leadership and administration. Most commissioners have agreed that the county should take responsibility for the shelter, but are uncertain about the extent of its possible involvement. Similar to a visitor's bureau, an animal services bureau could be managed by the county, staffed by county employees and supervised by a board of directors appointed by the Board of Commissioners. Animal control and the shelter would fall under the bureau, although the county health board would also have some say about animal control because the health director is responsible for controlling rabies and other communicable diseases in animals. "My only problem with this structure is there could easily be confusion about who's in charge in this particular structure," said Kate Wilder, the health board's representative on the task force. Chapel Hill Town Councilman Bill Strom, however, argued that placing the two together would avoid conflict and lead to a clearer vision and control. "I like the idea of having animal control and animal sheltering together," added Hillsborough representative Margaret Hauth. "It's the two different boards telling one organization what to do [that is the problem]." The third option for consideration is creating an animal services division subject to oversight by the county manager. Animal control and sheltering would be the division's responsibility, although the health board would also have some say about animal control. "If you remove the authority too far from the Health Department, there's this breakdown in communication," Wilder said. County Manager John Link hasn't voiced a preference among the models. "I'm comfortable doing any one of these and working through it," he said. The task force and county officials also decided to gather public comment on the proposed management models using a process similar to the one the county used during last year's discussion about possibly merging the city and county school systems. At the March 17 listening session, speakers will be limited to three minutes and must sign up in advance. The county also plans to create a specific e-mail address to receive comments from residents about the management models, and to create a link on the county Web site to information about the shelter task force. _____________________________________________________