END OF AN ERA NEAR? Task force decides it likes APS the least By JEFF CASALE The News of Orange County March 24, 2004 HILLSBOROUGH The Animal Protection Society's critics may have gotten what they wanted. The county-appointed animal shelter task force voted on two sheltering models Tuesday night - the odd one out was the APS. The recommendations will go before the Board of County Commissioners next week at its work session. It hasn't been determined when the board will vote on the preferred options. The vote by task force members was somewhat of landslide, with the APS coming in a distant third with just two votes. The outcome didn't surprise former APS board member and shelter interim director Suzy Cooke, who said, "We had been set up a long time ago." "The APS started a planning process and has plenty of options in place already," Cooke said. "We will continue our mission of trying to help the animals in this (area). The county is going to realize how difficult it is to run a shelter." The two sheltering options recommended were to create an animal services bureau and/or to create a division or department within county government. Both are very similar in their hierarchy structure, however the bureau will provide a much "softer edge" than a county department and might be more effective in acquiring volunteers. The APS will still operate the shelter until June 30 when their interim contract with the county expires. Additionally, Cooke said the nonprofit will continue working in the county and will move its operations to their halfway house/adoption center on Nick's Road, near Mebane. TWO ENTITIES MAY WATER DOWN VOLUNTEER MARKET Volunteers were again a major topic of discussion, with task force chair and county Commissioner Moses Carey insisting they will remain an important part of the new sheltering model. "We have a rich history of volunteering in this county because the people here value it," Carey said. "We are going to continue to promote it. We are very lucky and fortunate to have people who want to give their time in this county." Carrboro representative Andrew Sleeth noted after the task force's decision that the volunteer rate will be "diluted" with the two entities competing. "That is something the county is going to have to reckon with," Sleeth said. "It will be like a stock split and the county should be aware they will have to deal with that." APS Volunteer Coordinator, Amy Eller, said that the shelter had about 600 volunteer hours in February and she is expecting that to be about the same total for this month. The APS suffered a blow in volunteer help last summer when a lawsuit was filed against it, but the number gradually rose back to a stable level by the fall, she said. PUBLIC REHASHES SUMMER SAGA The task force's recommendation comes a week after a "listening session," in which county residents, APS volunteers and critics voiced their opinions on the shelter. At times during that session, there were objective statements made. However, for quibblers Elliot Cramer and Judith Reitman who filed the lawsuit against the animal protection group it was an opportunity to vent further disgust. Cramer and Reitman's remarks didn't go unnoticed as jeers often rose from APS members and supporters when they spoke. Chapel Hill resident Gina Burns was able to provide some insight during the hour-long session, laying the blame of the shelter's problems not on the APS, but on the citizens of the county. "This is nobody's fault except our citizens," she said. "Animals that come into the shelter and don't leave for one reason or another, because they are sick, injured or abused. Whatever the reason, they are unadoptable because they are vicious. "Those are our citizens who are responsible for that." Nearly 200 animals have been dropped off at the shelter during the first three weeks of this month, Cooke said. Most of them are strays, though she noted the shelter has had its share of surrenders as well. "There have been a lot of dogs and cats coming in with litters or having litters when they get to the shelter," Cooke said. "It's a throw away society and that's what people are doing." NEW SHELTER DIRECTOR NAMED In light of all the controversy surrounding the APS and the shelter, the group recently announced they hired a new shelter director. The APS board tapped 53-year-old Joe Pulcinella, of Pennsylvania. He is the former shelter manager of the Delaware County Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals near Philadelphia, and has worked in the field for over 34 years. The APS went over more than 30 resumes, Cooke said, narrowing the field down to a manageable number before deciding on Pulcinella. "We just thought, with his background and knowledge in the field, he is the perfect fit for Orange County," Cooke said. "I think he might be the most experienced shelter manager this county has had." Cooke said that while no written contract has been signed, the APS and Pulcinella have agreed to a start date of April 19. ____ Comment: There is no reason for the volunteer rate to be 'diluted'; if APS survives, shelter volunteers will continue to be shelter volunteers. Indeed, those who have left in disgust at the way APS has been operating will be back. Certainly some people are in for a shock when competent management returns for the first time in a year and a half. The 'blow' APS suffered from the lawsuit was nothing compared to the 'blow' APS suffered from the HSUS report. I am skeptical of Amy Eller's statement; I have heard that many volunteers regard the current administration as a disaster. ________________________________________________________________ TRIAL DATE SET BUT JUDGE BLASTS SIDES IN ONGOING APS SUIT By JEFF CASALE The News of Orange County HILLSBOROUGH While cats and dogs passed in and out of the county's animal shelter last week, litigation proceedings between the Animal Protection Society and its two critics waged on in the courtroom. Both attorneys in the case sought a dismissal of the lawsuits against their clients. As of Monday, Superior Court Judge John Jolly had yet to make a decision whether to dismiss all the claims or let the case go to trial. The trial is tentatively set for April 5. Jolly said both parties should be prepared to go forward with the case if the trial preceding the APS case ends early. It has been nearly a year since Elliot Cramer and Judith Reitman sued the APS for failing to turn over membership lists, board minutes and financial records. Soon after the critics filed their suit, the APS board and its former shelter director, Laura Walters, filed a counterclaim alleging Cramer and Reitman slandered them and caused a negative public perception of the shelter. The APS also believes the actions taken by Cramer and Reitman in public forums like the media encouraged the county to discontinue its long-term contract with the nonprofit. JUDICIAL PROCESS ISN'T HELPING' Cramer and Reitman's attorney, Barry Nakell, and APS attorney Ron Merritt both made lengthy arguments, which at times became heated. At one point Jolly had to raise his voice over the feuding attorneys. "I don't know why you all don't get together and work toward the good of the animals," Jolly said. "Take care of the dogs and cats and try to work this out. "This is turning into a bloody thermal nuclear war." Jolly added that the case might have never needed to get to the point of going to trial if the two sides had consistent dialogue. "This (judicial) process is not helping anything. It is actually hurting the services for the animals," Jolly said. APS IS A PUBLIC FIGURE Nakell's arguments zeroed in on the APS' claim that Cramer and Reitman committed libel by making slanderous statements about the shelter and Walters. He believes that the APS, Walters and the board of directors were public figures, and that any statements made by his clients in a public forum about them were protected by the First Amendment. "The APS is a public figure and this is a public controversy," Nakell said. "My clients have overwhelming support for the statements they made. The burden of proof is on the (APS)." Merritt disagreed, saying the APS and members of its board wouldn't be public figures if Cramer and Reitman had not brought attention to them. He added that the statements the two made in public arenas were to made to "purposely flame and hurt APS." Under state libel law, a person or organization that is considered a public figure must prove whomever libeled them acted with actual malice. In other words, they made statements they knew were false or acted in reckless disregard of the truth. Merritt's example of this was Reitman's posting of a flyer, which stated the APS had killed a gentle dog - one that Reitman wanted to adopt when in fact, she knew it had failed a behavior test and was considered dangerous. Both Cramer and Reitman also made public statements alleging the APS was guilty of fraud. The two believe the APS has falsified animal adoption and vaccine records and in some cases, has no records at all. "Anything that they disagree with is fraud," Merritt said. "If there are errors in the reports, there are errors in the reports. That doesn't constitute fraud." BYLAW CHANGE BY THE BOOKS Cramer and Reitman's other suit against APS states that the nonprofit breached the public's confidence when the group changed its bylaws and elections process without notifying members. APS attorney Chris Lewis argued that an individual does not, under state law, have standing to sue an organization or corporation for breach of public confidence. Therefore, he said, the case should be dismissed. The bylaw change states that APS members don't have a right to vote for the board of directors that instead, the current board votes for the new board members. The change came at a time when Cramer and several others were running for a position on the board. APS President Ann Petersen testified that the bylaw change was made to keep Cramer off the board. --- Comment: APS alleges Jude Reitman stated that APS 'needlessly' killed a gentle dog and that she "attempted to foster a dog that was declared vicious for attacking a dog trainer on three separate occasions". In fact the word 'needlessly' was not in her poster and the APS claim is false. This APS claim was made by Walters and Beyle in their guest editorial (Chapel Hill Herald 3/25/2003) and repeated on the APS website and the APS newsletter. The Chapel Hill Herald (8/25/02) states "Walters explained how Casey became pictured as the "Pet of the Week" on Aug. 11 in The Chapel Hill Herald; a caption described the dog as 'gentle and sweet.' " The news article described the temperament testing; the trainers were not attacked and they did not declare the dog vicious. The "errors" reported by Walters are so blatant and her explanations so spurious that any reasonable person would consider this to be fraud. Ann Peterson admitted to the State Veterinary Board that APS violated State law in practicing veterinary medicine, a criminal violation. Nakell cited cases showing that an individual CAN sue for violation of fiduciary responsibility and noted that the APS articles of incorporation specifically state that members have the right to vote at any meeting of the Corporation and that bylaw changes may not take away this right. ____________________________________________________ Chapel Hill News March 3, 2004 Letter to the Editor APS doesn't deserve roses for adoption rate The News has now awarded unjustified "roses" (Feb. 25) to the Animal Protection Society for its "outstanding adoption rate" in January. It cites incorrect statistics provided by the "new" APS, which continues to misrepresent the shelter situation. APS reports a January adoption rate of 60.7 percent, claiming 156 adoptions with 267 dispositions; simple arithmetic gives 58.4 percent, not the "highest in recent history." The implication that adoptions have increased from previous years is false. The number of January adoptions is down more than 10 percent from the last two years of the previous administration. Even the 58.4 percent is suspect; due to the weather, only 223 animals were received in January, 60 percent of the normal number. This allowed APS to retain many more animals than it would have otherwise. The lower number of dispositions led to a spuriously high adoption rate, even though the actual number of adoptions was down. Suzy Cooke, APS interim director, has stated, "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 different. APS had been the best shelter in the state, with an adoption rate that sharply rose from 28.7 percent in 1997 to 39.8 percent in 2001. Under Laura Walters this rate leveled at 40.6 percent and declined to 38.6 percent last year. The APS membership list shows only 163 members as compared to the "more than 1,000" Pat Beyle cited 15 months ago when APS took voting rights from its membership. Instead of "roses," APS deserves more of the "raspberries" awarded APS for terminating Bobby Schopler. APS claims that "donations are down" and "the shelter simply does not have the money to keep animals." What nonsense! In September, The News editorialized about "strange demands" with APS demanding an additional $10,000 per month, the full cost of shelter operation; this is exactly what the county is now funding. The management of the shelter has rightfully been a public concern for years since only 12 percent of the funding comes from APS funds, and even this money is "public money." If the county is on the verge of taking over the shelter, it is because of mismanagement, documented by many residents and confirmed by the HSUS report. I believe that this public facility should be operated by the county to ensure consistent oversight. -- Elliot M. Cramer, Chapel Hill _____________________________________________________ Chapel Hill Herald March 8, 2004 UNC may be flexible on animal shelter lease that runs out in 2006 BY ROB SHAPARD rshapard@heraldsun.com; 918-1050 CHAPEL HILL -- UNC might allow the Orange County animal shelter to stay in its current spot beyond 2006, when the lease for the Airport Road site runs out. Orange Commissioners Chairman Barry Jacobs said he talked last fall with Tony Waldrop, a vice chancellor at UNC who is leading planning for Carolina North, and asked him about the shelter site. Waldrop mentioned that UNC might be flexible on the 2006 deadline for the shelter, and Jacobs asked for a written statement along those lines, Jacobs said Friday. Chancellor James Moeser sent a letter to the county earlier this year, stating in part, "We value our relations with the County, and we appreciate the important services provided by the shelter. Assuming that our plans for developing Carolina North proceed in a timely manner, we would be amenable to renewing the portion of the lease that concerns the animal shelter for a period of at least five years." The shelter sits on part of the Horace Williams property along Airport Road, where UNC plans to eventually build the Carolina North satellite campus. The county owns the shelter building, while the animal Protection Society of Orange County runs the facility under a much-discussed contract with the county. The town of Chapel Hill also has its public-works facility, bus yard and other Chapel Hill Transit facilities on the adjacent land, also owned by UNC. The lease for the property used by the town and county runs out Dec. 31, 2006, and the town is well into planning for a new home for its Public Works and Transportation Departments. Town Manager Cal Horton has said the town asked the university several times in the past for an extension for public works and transit beyond 2006, but UNC declined. The manager said one of the key stated reasons was that there might be concerns with having those town facilities nearby, while UNC proceeds with cleaning up the chemical waste site on the Horace Williams property, Horton said. The town has bought about 90 acres just north of Eubanks Road and moved forward with planning the new Town Operations Center. The town currently plans on spending about $23.7 million to build the public works elements of the Operations Center, and $17.9 million for the transit features. Planners also are optimistic of eventually getting state and federal grants to cover up to 90 percent of the transit costs. Meanwhile, a study by the Humane Society of the United States concluded in part that the current animal shelter likely would be inadequate in the long term. But the county doesn't have a site for a new shelter, and it also is facing capital projects like working with Durham Tech to build a satellite campus in Orange, as well as constructing senior centers and possibly more courtroom and justice facilities in Hillsborough. In his letter, Moeser added the caveat that, before UNC "extended the animal shelter lease, we would need to ensure that the cleanup could take place without moving any of the nearby operations." Jacobs said it wasn't yet clear what the university's offer might mean for the county's plans, related to the shelter. "I don't know that it will change anything we're doing, but it's nice to know we have some flexibility in the time frame," he said. "It won't be a fire drill to try to design and construct a facility and move out in two years." Meanwhile, town officials said there really isn't any going back on the new Operations Center. "There is no question about the need for a move," Horton said. "A delay at this stage would give us a more comfortable moving date, but that's all. Our present facilities really are inadequate to meet operating needs. We need more land, and we would still need to modernize our facilities. We don't have enough room now to park buses, maintain the buses properly, parking for employees. We have old-fashioned public works facilities that just barely meet present operating requirements." Likewise, Councilwoman Edith Wiggins said it was largely a "non-issue" to her, when asked about the town having to move after 2006. "We already bought our property, and we're well on our way to building a new facility," she said. Mayor Kevin Foy said he didn't think the 2006 deadline was so strict that UNC wouldn't listen to the town if it needed more time to finish the new center. "I'm confident the university will be flexible, if it's necessary," Foy said. "But we have the land, we have been moving gradually toward getting the new facility done. That's just something we had to bite the bullet on and do." _____________________________________________________ Chapel Hill News March 14, 2004 Work begins on new APS adoption center New 5,600-square-foot building will house animals that have been selected for adoption and will ease space crunch at shelter. By Dave Hart, Staff Writer CHAPEL HILL _ If all goes well and the weather holds up, the Animal Protection Society of Orange County expects to start moving dogs and cats into its new "halfway home" adoption center sometime this summer. Construction crews have begun work on the site off Nick's Road a few miles west of Carrboro, said APS board member John Wise, who is overseeing the project. Construction of the $550,000 building is expected to take 20 weeks, Wise said. It has taken considerably longer than originally anticipated to get the building under way. But when it's finished, the 5,600-square-foot facility will have room to house some 35 dogs and 40 cats. It will include indoor/outdoor dog runs, an isolation room, a grooming and bathing room and areas for staff. APS plans to use the center to house animals that have been selected for adoption while they recuperate from spaying or neutering and are otherwise awaiting pick-up by their new owners. The veterinary clinic that spays and neuters animals for APS is located on the same 47-acre Nick's Road tract, in the building that used to house the wildlife rehabilitation clinic. Animals that have been selected for adoption now stay at the shelter, occupying precious cage space, during the four- to six-day waiting period before they are ready to go home. The new adoption center, Wise said, will go a long way toward easing the space crunch at the APS shelter off Airport Road. "The primary goal is to free up space in the shelter," Wise said. "It's really exciting for us to have this moving ahead. The facility is going to be really nice, and we estimate that having it available will help us save another 300 to 400 animals every year. We're very excited about the potential to save a lot more dogs and cats." APS began planning for a new adoption facility in 1999. The original plan, Wise said, was to build a large facility that would serve two primary purposes: housing adoptable animals and operating a for-profit boarding kennel. Construction was set to proceed in 2001 _ crews had actually begun pouring the footings _ when the board of directors reconsidered the plan. In light of a wobbly economy, Wise said, the organization decided it would be more prudent to scale down the size, cost and mission of the new center. So APS halted the project and reworked the concept, abandoning the boarding kennel idea to focus on the halfway home part of the project. "The board decided we didn't want to be in the kennel business," Wise said. "The price of that project was going to be quite high; with all the kennels and everything, it was running at about $1.25 million. We didn't feel at the time that the economy was such that we should go forward with that. So we stopped and went back and redesigned it with a different concept. We wanted to focus primarily on adoptions." Orange County has signed off on the project, approving a special-use permit and awarding the building permit. APS has contracted with Advantis, a Georgia-based construction company with a branch office in the Triangle, to do the work. The $550,000 price tag for the building, Wise said, doesn't include operating costs such as equipment, staff and other costs. APS is conducting a capital campaign to pay for construction and operation of the adoption center. Board member Kendall Page, who is coordinating the campaign, said the goal is to raise $1 million to cover building costs and operating costs for the first one to two years. After covering various pre-construction costs such as preliminary design work, architects' fees, advertising costs and county fees, Page said, the organization has about $180,000 of that total in hand. She said APS's capital campaign is seeking contributions for the center from a number of quarters: former donors, current APS members who have not yet donated, corporations and small businesses, individuals and civic groups. "We're approaching it as a steady, continual process," she said. "We're not doing a big gala kind of fundraiser, because the amount it costs to put those on usually offsets what you make from them. We will want to hold an open house or some kind of public welcome when the adoption center is ready to open. "The whole community will benefit from this facility, and I know people will be open to helping get it off to a good start." _____________________________________________________ Daily Tarheel March 18, 2004 Animal shelter to build new pet adoption center By Ayofemi Kirby Staff Writer March 16, 2004 As hundreds of cats and dogs await adoption at the Orange County Animal Shelter, a new center is being built to make room to save hundreds more. To provide additional space for animals that arrive every day at the shelter, the Animal Protection Society is building a 5,600-square-foot facility off of Nick's Road in western Orange County. The new adoption center will serve as temporary housing for animals that have been chosen for adoption. APS board member John Wise said construction for the the new adoption center, scheduled to open in late spring, began last week. "The reason we are building it is to save the lives of more animals than we are saving now," Wise said. "The ability to adopt animals is hindered by space. It will provide space for adopted animals to leave the shelter and opens up space to display animals to the public that we otherwise wouldn't have the chance to display." When animals are adopted, it takes four to six days to process them and complete paperwork, adoption counseling, neuter/spay surgery and recovery. The new center will serve as a "halfway home" for these animals as they undergo this process. The center is the final addition to the society's Felicit Latan Animal Sanctuary. Located on 57 acres of land, it comprises a neuter clinic, a learning center, a dog training facility and a dog park. The location of so many facilities in one place creates an animal "campus" environment that serves many different needs of animals in the county, Wise said. As of March 1, there were about 341 animals in the Orange County Animal Shelter facility on Airport Road. "It stays right around that number," said Amy Eller, customer relations manager for the shelter. "It depends on the weather. When it's hot we get more and more animals." The new adoption center, which will cost about $550,000 to build, is being funded through donations. "We've asked people for support," Wise said. "People are really interested in helping getting animals here adopted and lowering the euthanasia rate in our community." The shelter makes an effort to euthanize only animals that are trained to fight or are fatally ill, but once the shelter gets full, the animals that have been there the longest are euthanized. "We don't have a specific time limit," Eller said. "If the animal is stray, we are obligated to keep them for seven days, but they usually stay here until they are able to find a home." Animals within the Chapel Hill town limits are brought to the shelter by the Orange County Animal Control and by the public. "People in our community are very generous and have shown the willingness to help solve this problem," Wise said. Contact the City Editor at citydesk@unc.edu. _____________________________________________________ Chapel Hill Herald March 19, 2004 Judge says APS case has become 'bloody thermonuclear war' By BETH VELLIQUETTE : The Herald-Sun bvelliquette@heraldsun.com HILLSBOROUGH -- In a case that the judge said has "erupted into a bloody thermonuclear war," attorneys on both sides of lawsuits involving the Animal Protection Society argued Thursday why the judge should dismiss the case against their clients. Elliot Cramer and Judith Reitman sued the Orange County Animal Protection Society about a year ago for failing to hand over board minutes, membership lists and financial records and for changing the bylaws, they claimed, to keep control of the board of directors. In turn, APS, its former director, Laura Walters, and its former board of directors have filed a counterclaim alleging Cramer and Reitman libeled them and tried to interfere with their contract between the APS and Orange County. At the time, APS had a long-standing contract with the county to run the animal shelter in Chapel Hill. It now has a temporary contract with APS to run the shelter until this summer. At times during the hearing Thursday in Orange County Superior Court, attorneys Barry Nakell, who represents Cramer and Reitman, and Ron Merritt, who represents the plaintiffs in the libel counterclaim, argued loudly with each other, and Superior Court Judge John Jolly had to out-shout them to tell them to stop yelling. After he listened to arguments from each side, Jolly shook his head and asked the attorneys why the problems that were discussed in court couldn't have been worked out before it became a lawsuit. "I just can't understand why you people don't get together and work toward the good of the animals," he said. Nakell began his arguments first why the judge should dismiss the counterclaim that alleges Reitman and Cramer committed libel. Nakell argued that APS, Walters and the members of the board of directors were public figures. Under libel law, if a person or organization is considered a public figure, they must prove that whomever libeled them acted with actual malice -- that is, they knew the statements they made were false or acted in reckless disregard as to whether they were false or not. Merritt argued that Reitman posted a flier that said APS killed a gentle dog, when if fact, Reitman knew the dog had been considered dangerous, he said. That damaged the reputation of APS, he said. Reitman also sent an e-mail to county officials that claimed the board had violated its own bylaws, and that was meant to damage the relationship between APS and Orange County, Merritt argued. Yet in her deposition, Reitman said that when she sent the e-mail she had not seen a copy of the bylaws. "She knew that statement was false, and she made it in reckless disregard to the truth," the lawyer said. Reitman also accused APS of fraud. "Fraud is Mr. Cramer's and Ms. Reitman's favorite word," Merritt said. "Anything they disagree with is fraud." Cramer also said he believed APS was guilty of fraud, Merritt pointed out. "At the time they made these allegations, they had no evidence of anything," he said. Nakell argued that Reitman and Cramer had the right to make those statements under the First Amendment. "If APS is a public figure, the First Amendment applies, and that's almost the end of the matter," Nakell said. In arguing for the dismissal of the case that Cramer and Reitman filed against APS, attorney Chris Lewis, who works for the insurance company that covers the society, said the lawsuit states that the defendants breached the fiduciary duty to the organization. One allegation was that they breached that duty when they changed the bylaws, but that was done legally under the APS bylaws and North Carolina law, so that should be dismissed, Lewis said. The case also should be dismissed because an individual does not have the right to sue a corporation for breach of fiduciary duty, Lewis maintained. Jolly said he would make a decision as soon as he could, and he suggested he would either dismiss all the claims or let all go to trial. The trial is scheduled for April, but there is another case that will come before it, Jolly said. If that case doesn't go to trial, then the attorneys should be prepared to go forward, he said. _____________________________________________________ Further legal battles face APS By Dan Schwind Assistant City Editor March 19, 2004 Attorneys on both sides of the ongoing legal battle between the Animal Protection Society and critics Elliot Cramer and Judith Reitman filed motions in Orange County Superior Court on Thursday. Barry Nakell, attorney for Cramer and Reitman, motioned for a summary judgement by Judge John Jolly to throw out the claims of libel, defamation and slander filed by the APS in a countersuit against his clients. Nakell said that the APS is a public entity and that the case should fall under the New York Times Co. v. Sullivan standard. "They are an organization that serves the public," he said. "This is clearly a public controversy." Nakell also presented a report from the APS personnel committee that he said proved that the alleged defamatory statements were true, therefore negating the libel claims. "Most of the statements are true," he said. "Because this is a First Amendment case, the burden of proof is on the defendant to prove that the statements are false ... The First Amendment makes this easy." But APS attorney Ron Merritt said his client's case should not be thrown out, countering that APS does not fit the NYT v. Sullivan definition of pervasive fame and notoriety and that some of Reitman's claims were false. Specifically, Merritt referred to a poster allegedly posted by Reitman that accused APS of "needlessly killing an innocent dog." Merritt said that several tests conducted on the dog by trainers at the APS-run Orange County Animal Shelter indicated that the dog was potentially dangerous, forcing them to euthanize it. "She knew that (the dog) had been tested," he said. "I don't think we could present any more clear evidence ... that APS did not needlessly kill an animal. (The dog) was clearly not adoptable." Merritt also said that Reitman accused APS of fraud at an Orange County Board of Commissioners meeting without any evidence of fraudulent activity. "There is no evidence of fraud," Merritt said. "Instead of coming to APS to try and correct the matter, they went to the commissioners and attacked APS." Chris Lewis, another APS attorney, motioned to have the claims by Cramer and Reitman of breach of fiduciary contract thrown out on the grounds that bylaw changes made by the APS board were done properly. "The bylaws don't contradict North Carolina law," Lewis said. "This is a voluntary, private organization ... Members have no rights." Cramer and Reitman initially filed the claims when allegedly the APS board illegally changed the organization's bylaws so that nonboard members could not vote for new board members. Lewis explained that nothing in the organization's bylaws guaranteed voting rights to nonboard members, meaning that change was perfectly legal. Nakell countered that, despite the legality, the bylaw changes were made in secret and were therefore in breach of fiduciary contract. Jolly will contemplate the motions by both sides before he makes a decision some time before the trial officially begins. The trial date is set for April 5. Contact the City Editor at citydesk@unc.edu. _____________________________________________________ Good dog, bad dog March 20, 2004 By ELIZABETH B. SHERMAN : The Herald-Sun news@heraldsun.com DURHAM -- Nelson, a 7-month-old shepherd mix, wagged his tail eagerly, more than happy to comply with the trainer's demands Friday at the Durham County Animal Shelter. He was affectionate, enjoying all the contact and attention as the trainers tested the dogs to see which ones were most "adoptable" and as shelter employees prepared for a long-awaited renovation that begins Tuesday. Some of the dogs will be moved to the shelter's 50 new indoor/outdoor runs while the shelter's 58 old indoor/outdoor dog runs are renovated. But the shelter has more dogs than space, officials said, and must decide which dogs are friendly and likely to do well in a new home. In addition, because the shelter will be taking in stray dogs as usual during the renovation, which could be completed in mid-May, it may become necessary for some dogs to be euthanized if the shelter runs out of room. In 2002, 4,359 dogs and cats were euthanized at the shelter -- about 73 percent of the animals that it took in. And in an effort to weed out less adoptable pets, professional dog trainers Jane Marshall and Barbara Long have been conducting temperament testing of all the shelter's dogs since December in anticipation of next week's move. "It's basically to get a little profile of their personality," Marshall said. "We find out whether the dog is suitable to be with kids, how it reacts to other dogs and how aggressive it is. "Occasionally, we do get a dog who doesn't do well, and the shelter has to decide what to do with them," Marshall said. Temperament testing consists of several tests that help trainers to understand a dog's personality, she said. One trainer conducts the tests, while another sits a few feet away, recording the dog's behavior. Nelson's first test was the stare test. If a dog will let you stare it in the eyes, the trainer said, it is generally submissive and doesn't feel a need to dominate others. For the second test, the trainer pinches the dog's paw just enough to make it uncomfortable. A tolerant dog will merely withdraw his paw, the trainers said, whereas a more aggressive dog might growl or bite. Then the pinch test is performed again, to see if the dog will still obey the trainer even after it becomes uncomfortable. The trainer then clapped her hands and used verbal coaxing to encourage the dog to come, while the person recording the results watched to see if the dog came when called and whether or not it jumped up on the trainer. Marshall and Long said most of the dogs they tested Friday did very well. Nelson got A's in every category. "For a young dog, he's got a lot of self-control," Marshall said. "And he's very gentle." But the dogs that do fail part of their temperament testing, she said, fail most often when their food is taken away. For that test, the trainer gives the dog a bowl full of food and lets him start to eat it. Then, using a plastic hand attached to a pole -- the "Assess-A-Hand" -- the trainer pulls the bowl of food away and gauges the dog's reaction. Then the trainer lets the dog have the food again, before using the Assess-A-Hand to move the dog's face away from the food. Nelson, who was docile and submissive, didn't mind the food test. But others, like Dylan the basset hound, who got A's on all of the other tests, flunked because they tried to guard their food by growling or biting. However, performing poorly on a test or two doesn't mean a dog is dangerous or can't be trained, Long said. It just means that the dog might need an experienced owner or a household without small children. "If they take it nicely, we know they can go home with kids," Marshall said. "But if they snatch a treat out of your hand, you know they probably shouldn't go home with a kid under 10 or 12 years old." The shelter also uses temperament testing on a daily basis to describe each dog's personality for potential owners. The results, which include such comments as "walks well on leash" or "doesn't get along with other dogs," then are written on cards hung from each dog's cage. _____________________________________________________ Chapel Hill Herald March 24, 2004 Shelter group chooses county bureau over APS By Geoffrey Graybeal : The Herald-Sun HILLSBOROUGH -- The Orange County citizens group appointed by the Orange County Commissioners to study operations at the local animal shelter has recommended that the county manage the facility by creating a new "animal services bureau." The Animal Shelter Operations Task Force chose not to recommend that the county continue working with the Animal Protection Society of Orange County, which has run the county-owned shelter off Airport Road in Chapel Hill for years. It currently has a short-term contract that expires June 30. The APS has been the subject of criticism from a number of local activists, resulting in the resignation last fall of the group's executive director, Laura Walters, a report from an outside agency that documented hundreds of pages of problems at the shelter and the formation of the task force. APS Interim Director Susan Cooke, a former APS board member, called the task force's recommendation "predictable." "I expected this," she said. "We were pretty much set up a long time ago. The county will realize how difficult this is. This is not an easy job. The problems we've encountered are encountered by animal shelters all over the country." The Orange County Commissioners will discuss the task force's recommendations at an April 1 work session. The final decision rests in the hands of the five-member board. However, Cooke said the APS would still function in Orange County, even if it loses the contract to run the animal shelter. "We have plenty of plans in place to continue to support the animals of Orange County," she said. Before voting, each member of the task force was given two stickers to place on two of the three choices. A blue sticker was worth five points, while a black sticker was worth 3 points. The animal services bureau was the first choice, receiving 36 points. And the second choice, to create a division under County Manager John Link's office, received 26 points. The third option, to continue contracting with the APS to run the shelter, received only 10 points. Similar to a visitors bureau, the animal services bureau could be managed by the county, staffed by county employees and supervised by a board of directors appointed by the Orange County Commissioners. Both animal control and the shelter would fall under the bureau's authority, although the county health board would have some say in animal control because the health director is responsible for managing rabies and other communicable diseases in animals. Under the second option, creating an animal services division under the oversight of the county manager's office, both animal control and shelter operations would be the division's responsibility, although the health board still would have some say about animal control. Both options would make those working at the shelter employees of the county. And under both choices, "you have more ability to respond to citizens' needs and concerns than currently exists," added Chapel Hill Town Councilman Bill Strom, who also is a member of the task force. Task force member Bonnie Norwood emphasized that the new organization should be concerned with making the shelter No. 1 in the state once again. And Commissioner Moses Carey assured her that would be the county's goal. "When we do it, we want to do it right and be leaders in the state, and we've always done that," he said. Earlier, task force member Andrew Sleeth had asked how far the county could push for control in negotiations with the APS, but member Linda Schmoldt argued that the county should either take over the shelter or let the APS operate independently. "You can't control something that has a will of its own, and APS has a will of its own," she said. _____________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________ 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_____________________________________________________ Chapel Hill News March 28, 2004 Task force backs county-run animal shelter By Kathleen Kearns, Staff Writer -- Comment: It's too bad that APS isn't motivated to cooperate with the County, given its mission to help the animals. Under the interim contract, the County is paying APS an extra $10,000 per month, essentially what APS says is the FULL cost of operating the shelter. Prior to January APS claimed to be providing $80,000 for shelter operation. This is the APS that wasted $39,600 on their abortive start of their adoption center several years ago. According to Laura Walters, APS had raised $350,000 about six months ago. Where has the money gone to? They have yet to file their income tax for last year and the fiscal year financial reports for the last two years are apparently not in yet. In her deposition Ann Peterson said she didn't know why. Nicole Carper FINALLY admits that they are not vaccinating their animals promptly; WHY? -- because they don't know how to vaccinate animals that are "scared". I think that the County can do better. For further information on APS see www.ourpaws.org --- CHAPEL HILL _ A task force appointed by the Orange County Board of Commissioners has voted against the Animal Protection Society continuing to manage the county animal shelter and for the creation of a new animal services bureau. It remains for the commissioners to make the final decision on how the shelter will be run after APS's contract expires June 30. Commissioner Moses Carey, who chaired the Animal Shelter Operations Task Force, asked its 11 members on Tuesday to narrow down to two the administrative structures it would recommend. Each member of the group could give five points to a first choice and three points to a second choice. The group gave 36 points to creating a new animal services bureau, 26 points to creating a new county department or division, and 10 points to continuing to have APS run the county shelter, which it has done since 1979. Task force member Linda Schmoldt will present the group's recommendations to the board of commissioners at their work session Thursday. Carey said that the commissioners don't normally make decisions at work sessions. "But time is of the essence, and we could make a decision then," he said. Under the task force's first choice, a new animal services bureau would administer both animal control and animal sheltering functions. Only the state-mandated rabies control function of the animal control unit would remain under the administration of the county health board. An animal services board would oversee other functions of the bureau, which would answer to the county manager. The health board, the county manager, and the animal services board would all come under the ultimate authority of the board of commissioners. Under the group's second choice, an animal services department or division would answer to the county manager and ultimately to the board of commissioners. The health department would oversee rabies control, but other animal control and animal sheltering functions would be the responsibility of the new department or division. "It's a home run of a recommendation," said task force member Bill Strom, a Chapel Hill Town Council member. "It is a total reorganization. We were nearly unanimous in recommending that the commissioners and the county manager assume direct responsibility for both the shelter and animal control. "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." Ann Petersen, president of the APS board of directors, said of the task force's recommendation, "I think it's a shame. I feel that the recommendation to give up 20 years of a relationship with the county is going to be harmful to the animals and I think it's going to be extraordinarily expensive for the county. "Taxpayers are going to pay more than they need to. APS gets a lot of volunteer hours the county is going to have to pay for, and we get a lot of donations the county won't be able to get. "I think the county's going to regret it. I know the taxpayers are. I know how much it costs to run that shelter. "We feel bad about losing the contract, we feel bad for the animals, but we'll continue to have a program." Before the task force voted on its recommendations, Assistant County Manager Gwen Harvey gave the group a report that quoted Ken Chavious, the county's finance director, "Under current income tax regulations, contributions to local units of government, for government purposes, are entitled to be treated a tax-deductible gifts." The report also said that 320 citizens serve the county in a volunteer capacity in planning and advisory roles and nearly 600 individual citizens provide volunteer service to several county departments. One notable example, the report said, is the county's Retired Senior Volunteer Program, which provided nearly 7,000 direct service hours in 2002-03. Contact Kathleen Kearns at 932-2005 or kkearns@nando.com. _____________________________________________________ Chapel Hill Herald March 31, 2004 Letter to the Editor County won't step back from shelter oversight You were right in your editorial, "Animal shelter's buck stops at the top" [March 25], that the task force recommendation on creating a new Animal Services Bureau under county government is a giant step forward. But you were wrong in suggesting that if the County Commission approves the bureau arrangement it means backing off in interest, oversight or involvement. Over months of controversy, the County Commission has been steadfast in seeking a lasting solution to challenges at the shelter. We brought in the Humane Society of the United States to conduct an independent study and appointed the task force to tackle the results with concentration on management, governance and leadership. The task force, intent since January on evaluating competing options and conflicting opinions, has emerged clearly in favor of increased county management and public accountability. Along the way we have grappled with what it means to leave the familiar nonprofit model, i.e., APS, behind in favor of a government framework. Nonprofits with their 501.c.3 tax-exempt status traditionally have an easier time than government in drawing volunteers and charitable donations. But we believe the bureau model with its citizen advisory board appointed by the commission and access to the county administrative infrastructure could be a way to embrace the positive attributes, innovation and appeal of government and non-profit alike. Remember, county government is also a not-for-profit operation and individuals and corporations who give grants and contributions to county government qualify for tax deductions. Surely much work remains as the County Commission starts to contemplate the task force report, but don't count on a step back from critical supervision and hands-on engagement by this commission. In fact, one wonders what purpose is served by rushing to judgment before the commission has even formally received the recommendations. Let me also take personal exception to the cheap shot and comparison made regarding the Chapel Hill/Orange County Visitor Bureau. I am a member of the Visitor Bureau board of directors. Along with the county manager and other community leaders, I just spent considerable time in interviews leading to the appointment of a new director, Rene Campbell. Ms. Campbell brings tremendous talent in cultural tourism to the promotion of this historic and dynamic part of the state. A bureau is indeed a recognized and respected way of doing the public's business with private flair, and attracted the interest of some 70 estimable candidates nationwide, most prominently Ms. Campbell. Moses Carey Chapel Hill Orange County Comissioner ________________________________________________________________ WCHL March 31, 2004 This is Beverly Rockhill. I'm a lifetime member of the APS and volunteered there for about 5 years. On March 23, the group of citizens who make up the Animal Shelter Operations Task Force recommended to the Orange County Commissioners that the county assume management of the facility. This was probably a difficult decision to make. Everyone on the task force cares deeply about animals, and some of the members have had years of experience working with APS. Everyone on the task force knows that a transition in management will not be easy, and that there is no guarantee that under county management more skilled workers will be found. What DOES seem clear, however, is that the prolonged deception of the APS board will be over. This the most important issue. A dedication to openness, trust, and honesty with the public is the foundation that underlies any successful humane shelter; perfection and 100% efficiency are NOT the foundations. The APS board has led the organization to its own demise with its climate of secrecy, defensiveness, and outwardly-directed blame. These are strong words, and I choose them carefully. For months, I and many others were willing to give the APS leadership the benefit of the doubt with respect to addressing community concerns about the shelter. However, recent documents that have come to light in the process of legal discovery have shattered my remaining trust. To all of you who care about alleviating animal suffering and having a progressive animal shelter in this county: I urge you to throw you support behind the recommendation of the task force, to take an open and trusting view of the change in management, to help where you can, and to move forward. This is Beverly Rockhill. ________________________________________________________________ Chapel Hill News March 31, 2003 New APS director could run county shelter With Orange County set to create animal services bureau, Joe Pulcinella and others may be in position to work for county. By Kathleen Kearns, Staff Writer CHAPEL HILL -- Although Orange County may sever its longstanding relationship with the Animal Protection Society, the APS's newly hired shelter director, Joe Pulcinella, could still end up running the county animal shelter. If the county Board of Commissioners follows the recommendation of its Animal Shelter Operations Task Force and creates a new animal services bureau or county department, APS will cease running the shelter when its contract expires June 30. But county staff members say that Pulcinella and other APS employees will have the chance to become county employees at a county-run shelter. At APS's invitation, Link and county Personnel Director Elaine Holmes served on the APS hiring committee that selected Pulcinella. "When we had the interviews with the finalists, I told each one the same thing, including Joe, that there was a possibility that after July 1 the county would assume administrative responsibility for the shelter," Link said. "If that's the case, we would try to assimilate those employees who qualify for the jobs that they were doing for the nonprofit. Under any of those cases, we would have a six-month probationary period as we do with any incoming employee. It isn't an explicit guarantee of employment, nor are we expecting they would automatically apply." Link said the county followed a similar process recently when it took on solid waste employees from Chapel Hill and the emergency transportation employees from the rescue squads. Holmes said that if the county takes over operation of the shelter, the new county animal shelter positions would not be posted. Task force member Linda Schmoldt will present the group's recommendations to the Board of Commissioners at a work session Thursday. Commissioners don't normally make decisions at work sessions, but Commissioner Moses Carey, who chaired the task force, said last week that in this case, time was of the essence. Pulcinella, 53, is due to take up his new post April 19, although APS President Ann Petersen said Monday that he has not yet signed a contract. He was for 17 years shelter director at the Delaware County SPCA in Media, Pa. Before that, he spent 12 years at the Montgomery County (Pa.) SPCA in a number of capacities, three years as director of education at Women's SPCA in Philadelphia, and three years as shelter manager at the Chester County (Pa.) SPCA. Petersen and Link each said that Pulcinella was frank during the interview process about differences of opinion he had with the Delaware County SPCA board of directors. "It in no way diminishes my opinion of him," Link said. "My impression was that the issues were in areas of philosophy or management in terms of operations." Pulcinella will take the position formerly held by Laura Walters, who resigned in November after extensive public criticism, ongoing lawsuits and questions about her previous tenure as an animal shelter director in Greenwood, Ark. Suzy Cooke has served as interim director since December. Although APS invited Link and Holmes to be part of the hiring panel, neither county staffer had a part in checking Pulcinella's references and employment history. That job fell chiefly to Sam Chase, an APS board member, with assistance from Petersen. Chase talked to Delaware County board members, Petersen said, and she talked to the chairman of the SPCA's personnel committee. "The process was extraordinarily detailed," Petersen said. "I can tell you the investigation on this person was as thorough as we could possibly get. I think we're extraordinary lucky to have him." Pulcinella initially told a reporter that he left the SPCA job in mid-March, after accepting the APS offer. He later said that his actual employment ended Feb. 6 but that he continues to receive housing and compensation from the SPCA under the terms of his severance package. "I'm very limited in what I can say about my former employer," Pulcinella said. "I'm not sure I can say why I'm leaving. We had some basic disagreements -- they were unhappy, and I was unhappy. It got to the point where we saw this was not working. It's no aspersion on the board." Citing personnel policies and an attorney's advice, Martin Radowill, vice president of the Delaware County SPCA board, declined to discuss Pulcinella's departure with a reporter. Pulcinella said last week that he was attracted to the APS job in part because of its location. "Chapel Hill and the area are always getting 'best lifestyle' cities in the business magazines. And APS is a very progressive society. I liked a lot of things they are doing, like spay/neuter before the animals go out. It sounded like a very good society." Every shelter he has worked with has tried to raise the adoption rate and euthanize fewer animals, he said. "There are several ways to go about that -- to emphasize the importance of spaying and neutering, to increase the visibility of the animals we have and get them out in front of people, to try to rehabilitate as many animals as we can. "We may not need to increase the visibility of the shelter," he said, acknowledging the extensive publicity APS has received over the last several years. "But people need to know what we're doing, what positive things the shelter does." Pulcinella will bring with him one large dog, a Fila Brasileira named Rio. Contact Kathleen Kearns at 932-2005 or kkearns@nando.com ________________________________________________________________