The Chapel Hill News June 4, 2003 Letters to the Editor Lawsuits used to silence critics As co-chair of an organization that engages the medical community and the public in debates about animal research issues, I am disturbed by the Animal Protection Society of Orange County's SLAPP suit against the Piedmont Animal Welfare Society founders. The APS libel/slander suit is, like all SLAPP suits, an attempt to silence critics and quash their first amendment rights. The danger of such a suit is its, perhaps intended, effect of intimidating the public into silence. Tragically, the fear of being sued is often enough to dissuade citizens from making their criticisms public. SLAPP suits are therefore especially effective for organizations that have a lot to lose by having their alleged wrongdoings exposed. Indeed, they can expediently stifle important public debate that is essential to organizational accountability. Orange County residents largely fund the APS; therefore, they have a right to freely express their views about APS, without the fear of being sued. Stephen R. Kaufman Co-chair, Medical Research Modernization Committee, Cleveland, Ohio ________________________________________________________________ Lawsuit aimed at discouraging discussion In Defense of Animals recently learned that the Orange County Animal Protection Society has filed a libel suit against its critics. Sadly, this move has all the hallmarks of a SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) suit, a legal action taken to silence those who challenge or expose wrongdoing on the part of corporations and other institutions. This action by an ostensibly animal protection organization against the Piedmont Animal Welfare Society, an animal watchdog group, is particularly alarming since such a tactic is more often used by "animal use" facilities and corporations in battling public interest efforts to protect animals. The point of SLAPP suits is to intimidate and discourage open public debate, especially on controversial issues like the treat- ment of animals. What APS apparently does not wish to address is the serious issues that have been raised about accountability, management and treatment of animals under its watch. Rather than responding with substantive answers to the many legitimate questions raised about its performance, APS has chosen to attack the messenger. As an international animal protection and rescue organization, we urge the county to take serious remedial action regarding allegations of improprieties involving animals, member rights and tax monies at the APS. The people of Orange County deserve to know that their tax dollars are underwriting an efficient animal care program that places the welfare of animals as its highest priority, and that their voices will be heard without punitive action. Suzanne Roy Program director, In Defense of Animals Mill Valley, Calif. ________________________________________________ Letters to the Editor Chapel Hill Herald Sunday, June 08, 2003 Shelter's policy stressful On May 20, I tried to adopt a small puppy from Orange County APS. I was refused because of an APS policy requiring that animals singled out for adoption spend an additional night in the shelt- er. Since the puppy was on a cold runner of cement with her littermates, I was concerned about Kennel Couth. When I expressed concern for the puppy and my desire to take the puppy home and away from an unhealthy situation, I was treated with hostility by one of the staff members. I found the remainder of the staff to be courteous and kind. Laura Walters called me the next day. Ms. Walters asked me to pick up the puppy because the puppy was ill. I was glad to go back to the shelter. The puppy was truly ill. After I picked up the puppy, I went to Timberlyne Animal Clinic, where she received medical treatment, after which I was allowed to take the puppy home. My family and I treated her with medicines and TLC. We are happy to say she is doing well. One could have easily predicted the puppy would fall ill by staying in the shelter the extra day, but this did not seem to matter to the shelter's poorly thought-out policy and at least one hostile staff member. After adopting three pets from APS, I will never adopt from them again. The staff makes the adoption process needlessly stressful and frustrating. I'm not sure why the animals' welfare does not come first. It would also be a good idea to move APS to the facility in Mebane. The present shelter in Orange County is in poor condition with a faulty ventilation system. The Mebane facility would attract families who want an animal companion for life. Hopefully, the adoption process from this facility would be a more positive experience for the animals and their new fa- milies. Betty Kent Chapel Hill ________________________________________________ Note: Actually the Herald got it wrong here see below Judge rules in favor of APS Counterclaim on critics stands Chapel Hill Herald Tuesday, June 10, 2003 BY BETH VELLIQUETTE bvelliquette@heraldsun.com; 732-6397 HILLSBOROUGH -- A judge has refused to dismiss a libel and slander counterclaim the Animal Protection Society of Orange County lodged against two of its harshest critics while defending itself from a lawsuit. Superior Court Judge Kenneth Titus made the ruling Monday, during a hearing on the case Judith Reitman and Elliot Cramer filed against the APS earlier this year. The suit, which could go to trial in January, alleges that the APS didn't allow members to see records they're entitled to by law, and changed its bylaws to control who can serve on the board of directors. Before filing the lawsuit, Reitman and Cramer spoke at public meetings, wrote columns in local newspapers and printed and posted a poster about the APS and its director, Laura Walters. Among other things, they claimed that some of the society's actions were fraudulent and criminal. They also distributed letters from deputy sheriff and a veterinarian in Arkansas that criticized Walters. When its turn came to respond to the February lawsuit, the APS filed a counterclaim against Reitman and Cramer that alleges the pair libeled and slandered the group, damaging its reputation and caused donations to decline. During Monday's hearing, Titus granted a motion that allows Walters to join the counterclaim against Reitman and Cramer. Reitman's and Cramer's attorney, Barry Nakell, sought a dismissal of the counterclaim, arguing that libel law allows free and open debate of public issues in the marketplace of ideas. It allows harsh and strident criticism, he said. While skimming through the counterclaim, Titus noted that Reitman had said, among other things, that the APS' actions were "out- rageously criminal." "That's pretty strident," Titus said. Nakell agreed, but said the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the landmark case of The New York Times Co. v. Sullivan that such criticism is allowed by the First Amendment. The law calls for different standards of judgment in libel cases, depending on who's supposedly being slandered or libeled. If the targeted person or organization is a public figure or public official, it can't win without showing the other party acted with malice. In libel cases, malice means knowingly saying or printing false statements about someone, or acting with a reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of the statements. If the person or organization is not a public figure or public official, the person suing doesn't have to show malice. The APS is a public figure or public official, and the counterclaim does not show Reitman and Cramer acted with malice, Nakell said. But Ron Merritt, representing the APS, said the group isn't a public figure or public official. It has a contract with Orange County to run the animal shelter, he said. "Having a contract with the government doesn't mean you're a public figure or a public official," he said. Nakell also argued that the counterclaim contains a number of very long statements that are allegedly libelous, but the counterclaim does not differentiate which part of each statement is libelous or slanderous. "We don't know what they claim is false," he said. Nakell referred to a poster that Cramer and Reitman posted around town about a "Pet of the Week" that APS killed. Nakell wanted to know what part of the poster was false. Merritt responded that the counterclaim included long statements so that they could be considered in the context of how they were used. "It's not fatal to the complaint to give more information," he said. Titus agreed, and said he wouldn't grant Cramer and Reitman's dismissal motion. The judge did allow Cramer and Reitman to file an amended complaint that drops their organization, the Piedmont Animal Welfare Society, from the list of plaintiffs. It also adds claims that the APS breached its fiduciary duty. The new claim includes the charge that the APS is wasting its corporate assets by trying to "unlawfully silence" Cramer's and Reitman's criticisms. ________________________________________________________________ The Herald's article covering the first trial appearance in our lawsuit against APS with the headline "Judge rules in favor of APS" is misleading; he ruled in favor of BOTH sides. Also it did not mention that our amended complaint includes ALL APS Board members for violating their fiduciary responsibilities. The judge did not accept our pro forma motion to dismiss the APS slander claim but he did not dismiss our original complaint, allowing us to file an amended complaint naming ALL APS Board member individually as defendants. He stated that our motion to dismiss was premature but could be brought up later. Unfor tunately in North Carolina there is a very low standard for filing a slander suit and this can intimidate public discourse. The attorney for the insurance company representing APS vigorous- ly objected to our amended compliant; his concern is obviously that the insurance company will have to pay for the defense, while APS is paying for APS and Laura Walters to sue us for slander. He claimed that this will "muddy the waters" but the judge responded that APS had considerably muddied the waters with their slander suit. The Herald misidentified the judge; it was Judge Jolly, not Judge Titus who presided. The Herald's statement "Titus noted that Reitman had said ... that the APS actions were 'outrageously criminal' is wrong. Reitman never said this. The actual state- ment (made to the Orange County Board of Commissioners under privilege) was: "They are doctoring the records while they are under public scrutiny. It's almost inconceivable. They're either outrageous- ly criminal or incredibly stupid. But either way, it's contemp- tuous of the public process." This seems like fair comment to us. Walters has filed two "cor- rected" sets of monthly reports to the County and they are STILL wrong. In defending their claims of slander, APS attorney Ron Merritt stated that APS is not a public figure because it is a private corporation. Actually it is a public corporation with federal and state tax benefits and the right to solicit tax-free contribu- tions from the public. APS entered into a public controversy long before we got involved. The July 26 Herald has the headline "APS controversy after nine months, time to move on" while Pat Beyle, identifying herself as "President of APS of Orange County". wrote a guest editorial on July 28 titled "APS focuses on welfare of all animals". This clearly makes APS a public figure and ALL of our statements about APS are in the realm of uninhibited robust public debate as defined by the Supreme Court and are protected by the First Amendment. Our initial lawsuit was very straightforward, to compel APS to restore voting rights to it's membership and to provide them information which would enable them to vote intelligently. The APS response, a SLAPP suit with the aim of inhibiting public discourse about public matters can only serve to harm the commun- ity at large. ________________________________________________________________ Orange OKs 3-month extension with APS to run animal shelter BY GEOFFREY GRAYBEAL, The Herald-Sun June 17, 2003 11:57 pm CHAPEL HILL -- The Board of Commissioners voted 3-2 Tuesday night to extend Orange County's contract with the Animal Protection Society to run the county animal shelter for three more months followed by a monthly renewal option. The vote came after a motion for a six-month contract extension as recommended by the county manager failed. Orange County owns the shelter, but the county contracts with APS to run it, paying the society about $429,000 this fiscal year. The APS has long been involved in a dispute with two of its harshest critics, retired UNC professor Elliot Cramer and author and activist Judith Reitman, who say new management is needed at the shelter on Airport Road in Chapel Hill. Lawsuits filed by both sides are moving through the courts. "It seems to me that very little has been done to help the animals at the shelter, and certainly the public has suffered as well," Reitman told the commissioners. Commissioners' Chairwoman Margaret Brown set a three-minute time limit and restricted speakers' comments to the contract extension. She often cut off speakers in midsentence to stop them from straying off topic. Brown immediately shot down one speaker, James Cramer, after he began his statement by expressing disgust at APS. "There are people who want to run the shelter who are not related to the APS," he said. "Plain and simple." Acknowledging the concerns, the County Commissioners have hired the Humane Society of the United States to study the APS' opera- tion of the shelter. Commissioner Moses Carey argued that the board should wait for the report, which should be finished by September, before making a decision to cut ties with APS. "There are a lot of ifs and contingencies that we should learn a lot more about when that HSUS report comes out," he said. Carey moved approval of the manager's recommendation to extend the contract with APS by six months, for $214,409. Barry Jacobs supported Carey's motion, but Brown, Alice Gordon and Steve Halkiotis were opposed. "I just want a wake-up message," Halkiotis said. "I'm going to send a wake-up message by voting against it." Gordon then suggested the alternate motion, which she voted for along with Jacobs and Carey. ________________________________________________________________ Comment: see July 2 response to Walters' inaccurate statements below ---------- Chapel Hill News June 22, 2003 APS put on short leash Commissioners also directed county staff to explore sites for relocating the shelter, which must move by 2006, and various approaches for running it. By KATHLEEN HUNTER, STAFF WRITER Amid continued pressure from critics of the Animal Protection Society of Orange County, county commissioners have directed the staff to look into alternative sites for the Orange County Animal Shelter and to explore various approaches for running it. The shelter is now on university-owned property adjacent to Airport Road; its lease expires in 2006 and will not be renewed. Staff also will look into possible design plans for a new shelter and will identify models for how the shelter could be run. The effort came about in connection with the commissioners deci- sion not to extend the county's contract with the Animal Protec- tion Society of Orange County the nonprofit agency that runs the shelter for six months, as County Manager John Link had recom- mended. Instead, commissioners voted 3-2 to extend the APS contract until Sept. 30, after which the contract would come up for renewal each month until the end of the calendar year. Several commissioners said a shorter contract would allow the county to respond quickly to recommendations by the Humane Society of the United States, which is preparing a report on the shelters operations that is due in late August or early September. Commissioner Stephen Halkiotis said he hoped the shorter contract would jump-start the county's investigation into the shelters future. A contingency plan needs to be set up for whatever the commissioners decide to do, said Halkiotis, who voted against the six-month extension and for the shorter term. I think we should have started some planning on this issue several years ago ... My vote needs to be a shot across the bow that something needs to happen on this period. The county contracted with the Humane Society late last year to conduct an independent evaluation after a flood of public criticism of the shelters operations emerged last summer. Some critics have filed complaints ranging from mistreatment of animals to mismanagement of funds and claims of unethical conduct on the part of the APS board of directors. The agency is also involved in a lawsuit filed by members who objected to some of the boards procedures and an APS countersuit alleging libelous and slanderous behavior on the part of its critics. I think we have to get the report before we start developing alternative plans, said Commissioner Moses Carey, who voted in favor of Link's recommendations for a six-month contract. APS Executive Director Laura Walters said she was surprised that the commissioners already had authorized staff to investigate operating alternatives. She said she interpreted the move as a vote of no confidence in the APS's ability to continue running the shelter. Our staff, our board and our volunteers are very, very concerned about the decisions the county commissioners made, Walters said. We assumed they'd wait for the HSUS report before making any decisions on our contract. Walters said she feared commissioners were not taking all of the financial implications of terminating the contract with APS into consideration. The APS provides an additional $575,000 a year for animal services on top of the $429,000 the county provides. Additionally, the APS owns all of the furniture, medication, cages and other non-structural capital associated with the shelter to the tune of about $300,000, Walters estimated. If the county were to take over the shelter's operation, Walters said some services like the spaying and neutering service and the 24-hour animal rescue program could be discontinued. I think the county is going to be losing lots of services, and the animals are going to be the big losers, Walters said. Five critics of the shelter spoke at Tuesdays meeting, claiming that APS was not managing the shelter appropriately and urging commissioners to terminate the countys contract with the society as soon as possible. Even a month-to-month consideration would be more than we could deal with because of the current actions of the APS, Chapel Hill resident Bonnie Norwood testified. No representatives of the APS spoke at Tuesdays meeting. Assistant County Manager Gwen Harvey said three possible sites for a new shelter have been discussed but that it is yet unclear whether any would be feasible or desirable. They include a parcel of land on Eubanks Road adjacent to the county landfill, the land on which Chapel Hill plans to build its new public operations facility and an alternative piece of town-owned land in Chapel Hill. We need to begin making provisions for where a new shelter could be located, she said. County staff also will ask the Humane Society for shelter-design standards prior to the release of the society's entire report so consideration of possible shelter designs can begin sooner. There might be information that they could share in advance that could be useful now, Harvey said. County staff will also begin researching the way in which animal shelters are run in other counties of the state to identify alternatives to the contract method that the county now uses. Kathleen Hunter can be reached at 932-8742 or at khunter@nando.com. ________________________________________________________________ The Chapel Hill News June 22, 2003 Letters to the editor Adoption process fails at local animal shelter I was recently involved in helping a friend who attempted to adopt a cat from the local animal shelter. The experience was frustrating and painful, to say the least, and, in the end, unsuccessful. After putting down a deposit and making an appointment time to pick up the cat, she received a call from the Animal Shelter that the cat's adoptability had been reconsidered and that she should contact Animal Control, under whose jurisdiction it had been placed, if she had further questions. The cat was euthanized the following day, although she was not informed of this when she returned to the shelter to leave a letter of appeal for Laura Walters, director of the shelter, and to ask if she could pet it. It was not until four days later, and through inquiry of concerned friends, that she found out the cat's fate. When I contacted The Chapel Hill News to ask for help in report- ing this story, I was told that I should use the appeals process. When I contacted The Chapel Hill Herald, it at first seemed interested, but then never returned my phone calls or e-mails. Laura Walters told me that the appeals process was not applicable in this situation. The only option remaining was the legal pro- cess, which is financially prohibitive and not my personal choice. My friend has now joined the many others who, after similarly confusing and difficult experiences, are looking elsewhere to adopt an animal. It makes me sad to think that the Animal Shelt- er, supported by our local taxes, and the obvious place for us to look for pets to adopt, is so often a place to avoid. -- Carla Shuford, Chapel Hill ________________________________________________________________ Comment: see July 5 response to this grossly inaccurate letter below ---- APS hopes to continue service to public Chapel Hill Herald Sunday, June 22, 2003 BY PAT BEYLE AND JOHN WISE Guest columnists Surprise and concern colored the mood at the Animal Protection Society after the Orange County Commissioners' vote last week to grant the APS only a 90-day contract to care for the community's animals. The contract normally is renewed annually, and last week, county staff, who are knowledgeable about APS operations, recommended the commissioners extend the contract six months. The six-month period would have enabled county officials and APS to receive a report on shelter operations in late August from the Humane Society of the United States. Six months also would have allowed county and shelter officials to consider, address and perhaps implement any HSUS recommendations. Despite the disappointing vote, APS staff, board members and volunteers are steadfast in their commitment to animals. The APS has contracted with Orange County for more than 20 years. While meeting the animals' basic needs, it also has developed programs to protect animals that are funded through generous community donations. If the county decides to turn down APS services, the public will have important questions to consider. Should the county take over operation of the animal shelter? Should the county use tax money for services that to date have been provided by APS through donations? How will a transition be managed? There is a difference between government management of an animal shelter and a private animal welfare organization's management. The government is necessarily concerned with legal mandates, such as rabies, health issues, stray animals and threatening animals. An animal welfare group is concerned with those issues, but also with animals themselves. Last year, the county provided the APS with $429,000 for shelter operating expenses. While this may seem substantial, the cost of operating the shelter, with all the services the community has come to expect, is much higher. Although the county certainly could fund basic shelter operating costs, it would be difficult for it to duplicate APS programs and support. APS contributes more than $575,000 toward animal-related services, over and above county funds. How do we do this? Through generous community donations, grants and income earned from programs. Thus APS can provide services and programs that otherwise might be unaffordable. For instance, APS provides 24-hour emergency service to any sick, hurt or threatening domestic or wild animal through the county's 911 system. Last year, this cost more than $30,000, and we spent another $24,000 on rescue equipment. APS owns all shelter fur- nishings, and replacement could cost about $300,000. In addition to $90,000 in direct support budgeted each year to supplement the county funds, the APS provides spay and neuter services to every animal adopted. Costs for a veterinarian and his staff, drugs, equipment and follow-up care exceeded more than $200,000 in 2002. The spay/neuter program has successfully reduced the number of unwanted animals and substantially lowered the shelter's euthanasia rate. If this is discontinued, and adopted animals are not sterilized, pet overpopulation will worsen. APS offers veterinary care for sick and injured animals that come to the shelter. Last year, the APS spent more than $40,000 on medical tests, routine and emergency treatment and drugs. Microchips, which have helped us return lost animals, cost yet another $21,000. Our adoption rate continues to be the highest in the state, at more than 40 percent -- 10 percent higher than under the previous administration. Our volunteer program provides youths with a rewarding and compassionate experience for $7,000 a year. Education is a key part and costs more than $5,000 yearly. Volunteers and staff make presentations in local schools and churches. They teach kindness to animals at an early age, to prevent future violence, not just to animals, but to people as well. The APS has some zealous, energetic critics whom we cannot comment on because they have sued APS. However, there are some points we must make. First, as this discussion moves forward, it is important for the public to consider the cost implications of having the county provide services, rather than contracting with APS. The county also must build a new shelter by 2006, a significant capital cost. Second, and even more important, are the service implications. Losing the APS and its years of experience will jeopardize the welfare of animals. Third, we at APS are listening to constructive criticism and are prepared to make changes. We look forward to the HSUS report and, in fact, have ensured that early recommendations such as repairs to the building's ventilation system be immediately addressed by the county. Finally, we appreciate our many supporters and know they will continue to support our work in the future. We assure them that our commitment is the best possible care for animals. Pat Beyle is president of the Animal Protection Society of Orange County. John Wise is the APS vice president. ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ Letters to the Editor Chapel Hill Herald Thursday, June 26, 2003 Support animals -- not APS On June 17 the Orange County Board of Commissioners voted to extend the Animal Protection Society's contract by only three months, instead of the expected six months. This is the strongest message to date that change is required at APS, and I urge current and potential members of the APS to echo the BOC's mes- sage. When the APS' Board of Directors covertly removed member voting rights in November, they recklessly left us no oversight power except through our wallets. Please consider notifying the APS leadership that your contributions will resume only after significant concerns are addressed, including restoration of voting rights and establishment of a directorship that is respon- sive to thoughtful community input. The current leadership has forgotten that they are but temporary stewards of an important institution that will, hopefully but now not certainly, outlive their administration. In lieu of financial support at this time, you may wish to consider in-kind donations. For years I have volunteered at the APS as an adoption counselor and cat room attendant, and have donated food and other supplies. I will continue to do so. In the past year, however, for the first time in a decade, I have withheld financial contributions. I wish to help the animals and show support for the staff, but do not wish to see my dollars fund the lack of forethought that I find at the helm of this organization now. Nor do I wish to voluntarily financially aid any in power who decide that voting rights are suddenly a dangerous thing that they can usurp. This usurping does not bode well for the APS' sustainability. I will happily resume my membership responsibility of financial contribution when the board resumes its responsibilities to members. My apologies to the dedicated, underappreciated staff for these comments; I am not "boycotting" them. I have had the privilege of living and volunteering in communities that are similar to this area in socio-demographic profile. We can have, and deserve, a better-led animal shelter. More importantly, the staff at the shelter deserves better; their jobs are already among the most difficult jobs to be done. Most importantly, the animals, who are more voiceless than members and staff, deserve the most thoughtful and trustworthy leadership attainable. If you too have a vision that we can do better, will you consider sending such a message to the APS directorship? Beverly Rockhill Carrboro ________________________________________________________________ Comment: Laura Walters has been running the Shelter since October 2001 -- 21 months. She had months to prepare for the HSUS visit and she STILL couldn't clean up her mess. Everyone should read the HSUS report which is scathing. Laura Walters is incompetent and is an outrageous lier. It's time for her to go. See January 21 statement by Pat Sanford --------------------------- Chapel Hill Herald Humane Society report critical of APS BY GEOFFREY GRAYBEAL, The Herald-Sun June 28, 2003 12:01 am CHAPEL HILL -- Orange County's animal shelter has problems with disease control, procedures and animal management, according to a preliminary report released by an outside animal protection agency. The Humane Society of the United States' assessment cites unclean conditions, a lack of written records and the lack of a well- defined system for processing animals and managing their health. The shelter is managed by the Animal Protection Society of Orange County. One of the chief critics of the APS, Elliot Cramer, said the new report validates his long-standing concerns about shelter management. "What this shows is everything we've said about APS and (Executive Director Laura) Walters is true," he said. "I think it's wonderful that HSUS has come out with this report and I think there's no question that I expect the county to be running the shelter after Oct. 1." Cramer wants the county to end the $429,000-a-year contract with APS that allows the group to manage the shelter. But the commissioners recently voted 3-2 to extend the pact by three months, with a month-to-month rollover clause. Walters said she agrees with many of the report's recommenda- tions. "It's something that is exactly what we wanted," she said. "We wanted an independent organization ... to give us constructive criticism and kind of get us on the right track, because we're dealing with an archaic handbook that we knew needed updating." Walters said a seven-member sheltering committee, chaired by a veterinarian, has spent six months working to update the shel- ter's operation manual. "The bottom line is that this report was a long time in coming and that we've had some archaic procedures in here for years that needed to be changed, and the building needed to be fixed," she said. "We will begin implementing changes immediately starting next week." The APS has long been involved in a dispute with Cramer, a retired UNC professor, and author Judith Reitman, who has also been critical APS. Both critics say new shelter management is needed. Lawsuits filed by both sides are moving through the courts. After hearing about the concerns, county commissioners hired the Humane Society to study APS' shelter operation. The group's report cites "dead roaches" on the floor, "dirty bedding" in small-animal cages and tables and shelves that "were not cleaned or disinfected and were very dirty." The Humane Society's review team found a large number of animals with upper respiratory infections, and cited "non-existent" air flow and ventilation and sanitation practices "below industry standards" as aggravating factors. The report said that APS' sheltering philosophy needs to be "re- examined." County commissioners offered the APS a three-month contract renewal after voting to turn down the six-month extension recom- mended by county manager John Link. That decision "surprised and concerned" the APS board of directors, board member Ann Petersen told the commissioners Thursday night. The short-term extension erodes public confidence in the shelter, hampers fund-raising abilities and could cause some programs to be cut, Petersen said. "We will do our very best to work with the county and provide as much as we can given the problems I have outlined above," she said. "We will not do anything to put any of our animals in jeopardy." Petersen said the APS board accepted the three-month contract but asked the commissioners to reconsider the six-month contract extension. Commissioner Moses Carey was able to get a discussion of Petersen's request on Thursday night's agenda, but the outcome was the same. "I'm concerned our decision may have some detrimental impact on APS' ability to handle animals as we expect them to," Carey said. Carey said the board may have inadvertently sent a message of no- confidence and should acknowledge that it is not likely to change shelter management before the end of the year. "Sometimes you indirectly and unintentionally send messages to the public that have demonstrative effects on organizations like APS," Carey said. The board voted 3-2 against Carey's motion to offer a six-month contract extension. "What we did last time is fine," said Commissioners Chairwoman Margaret Brown. "I think it's apparent the APS will have a contract until we decide otherwise." Brown voted against Carey's motion along with Commissioners Steve Halkiotis and Alice Gordon. "Irregardless of who runs the animal shelter, including us, if, if we decide to do that, somebody's going to be unhappy with it," Halkiotis said. He added, "These folks have run it. They need to run it until we decide what we're doing." Gordon said that practically speaking, the contract with APS would roll over each month. Commissioner Barry Jacobs said he doesn't have a firm opinion yet on shelter management. "I would urge people not to take any deep messages yet about anything," he said. Walters said later that she appreciated the commissioners' comments, because they made the APS feel a "bit more supported" than it did after the previous vote. ------------------ Statement to Orange County BOC Pat Sanford January 21, 2003 Today I was told by Elliot Cramer that he was told today that when I left the APS and the Orange County Animal Shelter, I did not leave proper information for Laura Walters to prepare accurate monthly reports. There have been so many reasons why Laura Walters has not been able to do her job-and it is always someone else's fault. The APS Board needs to step up to the plate and make sure that operations are sound, procedures are followed,, and that critical areas of shelter operations, like statistics and health care, are accomplished. Below is a short synopsis of what I did to leave the shelter in good standing. In preparation to leaving employment with the APS: I worked hard the last three weeks before I left the APS on Jan 31st, 2002. I made sure all the current and historical documents were filed and in order so they could be accessed easily. I prepared the County budget proposal for 2002-03, since I felt that there was not enough time for someone else to do that in such a short time change. I also assisted Mel Blankenship prepare the annual statistical report. In addition, I prepared a detailed folder including copies of the current budgets, contracts, issues that needed special attention, etc. I reviewed these materials in a meeting with Ann Hamner, APS President; John Wise, Vice-President; and Ann Petersen, Board Member. After the review and questions had been answered, they asked if they could call me if there were further questions or if they needed help. I assured them they could call at any time. I kept copies of the transition folder so I could assist if a call came in. From October 2001 to the time I left on January 31, 2002, Mel Blankenship worked with Laura Walters. Mel was very well trained and detail-oriented. She prepared the monthly statistical reports. If there was a problem, she did not try to hide it or cover it up. She wanted reports to be right, and she worked very hard to assure this was the case. She continued to come to me when she could not get problem papers resolved, and I helped, but needed to refer her to Laura Walters. I did not have PetWhere on my computer. All the statistics were on PetWhere, which was at the front desk, in Darra's office, and in the cubby that Mel Blankenship used. PetWhere has been a good tool for the APS and other organizations across the US. However, the adage is: garbage in/garbage out. You must clean, proof, and assure all data is correct and any missing data accounted for. The financials were on Darra Das's computer in her office. They were left in good hands, up-to-date, and complete. The only material I had on my computer were special statistical analysis I did mostly for internal use, business letters, etc. I copied each document of significance and filed it to assure all materials would be readily available to the Board and to the Acting Director. When I received a letter from Ron Merritt about the computer records I had removed, I responded by telling him that I hadn't removed any, but if there were things that the Board or staff could not find to have them send me a list and I would tell them where they could find them within the shelter walls. I received no list or correspondence from them. I regret it when people who are not doing their job try to place the blame on others. I have made many mistakes during my tenure at the Shelter, but I stood up to them, corrected them, and went on. While I love the APS, it is making gross errors. No humane organization can treat the public or animals the way it has. I am shocked but not surprised at Laura Walter's letter to Elliot Cramer. Dr. Cramer is a long-time resident of this area, a well- respected UNC Professor, and a consultant to the Attorney General of North Carolina. Laura Walters has a documented history of lies and misrepresentations which I have witnessed first hand. I am familiar with the Red Wing and the problems associated with it. I find it easy to believe that the entry (which is a half- gate of galvanized wire), was left open so that the small sign denying entry was not visible. This was a problem when I was Director. I visited the shelter this morning to assure the situation was the same as when I was there. The shelter has been a public facility and open the public. It should not be closed to anyone at the whim of the APS, particularly when the obvious reason is to stifle a prominent critic of current APS policies. My computer continues to be loaded with complaints against the APS. Several months ago I sent a letter to a Board Member warning that this exclusion policy would lead them onto a slip- pery slope-they have arrived halfway to the bottom. ________________________________________________________________ Comment: Laura Walter had previously said and Nicole Carper wrote in the Chapel Hill Herald on March 16 "All animals are vaccinated within 24 hours of admittance unless health conditions indicate otherwise." This was a lie. She said "When parvo darkens our doors, we go into immediate crisis mode. The contaminated areas are shut down for 72 hours and all neighboring animals are isolated and re-vaccinated. Our strong disease control protocol has actually prevented any out- breaks of parvo, though there is certainly the occasional case." This was a lie. APS Executive Director Laura Walters acknowledged Friday that in the past vaccinations often were not given in a timely manner. But Walters said measures have been enacted recently to rectify the problem. "In the past month, at least, I haven't found one that has been lacking," Walters said. In my June 17 presentation to the Board, I included the County record G03-1211. entered shelter May 22. vaccinated June 2 adopted June 2 ------------------ Chapel Hill News June 29, 2003 Early report critical of APS practices A Humane Society review cites dirty cages, tardy vaccinations and inadequate disease controls; APS says practices have improved. By KATHLEEN HUNTER, STAFF WRITER CHAPEL HILL -- A preliminary report of the Humane Society of the United States' independent review of operations at the Orange County animal shelter highlights a number of areas in which the shelter's practices fall short of standards. Critics of the Animal Protection Society of Orange County, the nonprofit agency that runs the shelter, point to the preliminary report as validation of their claims, while shelter officials say the problems identified in the report already have been addressed or are in the process of being addressed. The report, released last week, evaluates the APS's procedures in six areas and provides recommendations for how practices in those areas could be improved. The report, for instance, says animals are held too long before being vaccinated for infectious diseases, including rabies. The Humane Society says that between April and July of 2002, the average length of time before animals that entered the shelter received vaccinations ranged between five and 72 days. APS guide- lines state that all animals should be inoculated as soon as possible after they enter the shelter and that dogs and cats should be vaccinated within 24 hours of admission. More recently, Humane Society officials examined the log sheets and cage cards of animals during an April site visit. "Results were similar to those found in 2002, noting long time periods between the date received and the date of vaccination as well as incomplete information," the report states. APS Executive Director Laura Walters acknowledged Friday that in the past vaccinations often were not given in a timely manner. But Walters said measures have been enacted recently to rectify the problem. "In the past month, at least, I haven't found one that has been lacking," Walters said. The report also notes that APS "lacks a well-defined system for processing incoming animals," that the agency "lacks a standard- ized system for appropriately isolating animals," and that it "lacks a standardized system for appropriately assessing animals immediately after they are admitted." In addition, the report in several places describes sanitation practices at the shelter as inefficient and inadequate. It cites cleaning processes that take too long and are ineffec- tive and is critical of a bleach solution used to clean that is so strong fumes from it could cause damage to the respiratory system of the animals and the people tending them. "Although not deliberate, APS staff did little to minimize dis- ease cross-contamination amongst animals," the report states. "Staff was observed handling multiple animals without disinfect- ing their hands in between and holding, petting and hugging several animals without regard to transmission of disease." The report also states that on site visits the small animal room was not clean, "as evident by the dead roaches on the floor and the dirty bedding in the small animal cages." Many of the problems identified in the report already have come to the APS's attention, Walters said. "We are ready to take action," she said. "This is exactly what we were hoping to get. We know that we've been dealing with arcane policies for many years." Walters emphasized that the report released last week constitutes only about one-fifth of the comprehensive review the Humane Society ultimately will release. Subsequent reports will deal with issues that likely will contain more positive evaluations of APS's operations, Walters said. Orange County Health Director Rosemary Summers declined to com- ment on the contents of the report Friday, saying she had just received it Thursday night. Summers did say, though, that problems cited in the report relat- ing to defunct or insufficient ventilation systems at the shelter were brought to the attention of health department officials in mid-April during a meeting with Humane Society representatives. Because it is the county's responsibility to maintain the build- ing in which the shelter is located, county public works offi- cials were brought in to correct the problem, Summers said. The ventilation improvements were completed earlier this month. As a result of that same meeting in April, APS officials chose to review the APS's euthanasia policy with staff and to re-examine the agency's policies governing storage of and access to medica- tion. Late last year, commissioners contracted with the Humane Society to conduct the independent assessment of the animal shelter's operations after a firestorm of criticism of the APS emerged last summer. "This report is just absolutely devastating," said Elliot Cramer, a vocal APS opponent. "It just substantiates everything we've been saying since last July." Cramer and fellow APS critic Jude Reitman filed a lawsuit in Orange County Superior Court in February alleging that APS illeg- ally refused to disclose information and records, removed mem- bers' voting rights and obstructed members' efforts to nominate candidates to the APS board of directors. The APS has responded with a counter suit claiming that Cramer and Reitman have defamed APS's reputation. Earlier this month, county commissioners voted 3-2 not to summar- ily extend the county's contract with APS through the end of the calendar year as County Manager John Link had recommended. In- stead, they opted to extend the contract until Sept. 30, after which it will come up for renewal each month through Dec. 31. Commissioner Moses Carey on Thursday asked the board to reconsid- er that decision and to extend the contract for the full six months. Although several commissioners noted that members of the public might incorrectly interpret the board's decision as a vote-of-no- confidence in APS's ability to adequately run the shelter, Carey's motion for a more definite extension failed 2-3. Cramer said he planned to petition the Board of Commissioners to discontinue the county's contract with APS as of Oct. 1. ________________________________________________________________ Comment: See July 9 response to misrepresentations here Chapel Hill Herald Sunday, June 29, 2003 Letters didn't tell whole story In reading two recent letters to the editor criticizing the Orange County Animal Shelter and its policies, it is quite appar- ent only one side of these issues is being printed. Betty Kent says she was "refused a puppy because animals are required to spend an additional night at the shelter." Her letter did not mention we have a policy prohibiting same-day adoptions. Any animal to be adopted is given a thorough health exam, blood is drawn and tests are run. If of age and healthy, the animal is spayed or neutered. In addition, we want the prospective adopter to take a day or two to make sure he really wants the animal and is willing to make a commitment. In this instance, Ms. Kent went into the kennels and returned with a puppy and her checkbook out. When we explained the policy and that health work needed to be done, Ms. Kent became extremely loud, angry and vocal. When she calmed down, she agreed to wait until the next day to take home the puppy. Meanwhile, a health check revealed the puppy had kennel cough. I called Ms. Kent personally and said we would treat the puppy for her at no cost, or she could take it to her own veterinarian. She chose the latter and I contacted her ve- terinarian to explain the situation. The adoption was done the next day. Ms. Kent signed a form saying she was aware of the puppy's condition and agreed to pay for veterinary care. She contacted us later to let us know the puppy was recovering and doing well. The letter from Carla Shuford describes her friend's attempt to adopt a cat that was later euthanized. Unfortunately, Ms. Shuford failed to note the cat was feral (wild) and therefore not adopt- able under county policies. The cat was trapped at Ms. Shuford's house, at her own request, and brought in by animal control. Ms. Shuford and her friend were aware feral cats cannot be adopted. A feral animal does not want to be anywhere near humans, and it would have been inhumane to keep the cat in her bathroom, as Ms. Shuford's friend wanted to do. When John Sauls, director of Animal Control, explained the policy, the friend agreed she did not want the cat, and came in the next day to withdraw her appli- cation. Only at that point was the cat euthanized. With all the animals we are forced to euthanize every day because nobody wants them, the last thing we want to do is kill an adopt- able animal that someone wants. Laura Walters Executive Director APS/Orange County Animal Shelter Chapel Hill ________________________________________________________________