The Daily Tarheel
September 02, 2003

County, residents to weigh APS criticism

With its control over the Orange County Animal Shelter in dire 
straits, the local chapter of the Animal Protection Society will 
face another round of intense public scrutiny in the coming 
weeks.

After the Humane Society of America released a critical report 
Thursday that largely condemned the shelter's operation, the 
Orange County Board of Commissioners allocated time for a public 
hearing and will set a date for discussion.

County officials requested last September that an evaluation of 
the shelter be conducted in the wake of public concern about 
animal welfare and fiscal management. 

Criticism of the APS reached a point of frenzy in February when 
area residents Judith Reitman and Elliot Cramer filed a lawsuit 
against shelter director Laura Walters and the APS Board of 
Directors. 

The suit alleges that it was illegal for the APS board to deny 
voting rights to APS members when it decided to fill the board by 
appointment at its 2002 annual meeting.

The Humane Society's report supported the APS decision to 
withhold voting rights from the general membership.

Cramer and Reitman maintain that the Humane Society's assessment 
does not reflect N.C. law, and they refuse to drop litigation.

"I expect that within a few weeks we will be going to court to 
get the membership lists," Cramer said. 

Kate Pullen, the Humane Society's consultation services director, 
acknowledged Thursday that the shelter suffered because of its 
age, yet many procedural faults were indicated in the report.

"Although not deliberate, APS staff did little to minimize 
disease contamination amongst animals," the report stated, as one 
of several complaints.

Cramer and Reitman lodged similar charges against APS management 
in court depositions filed after Walters charged the two animal 
rights activists with slander.

Reitman conceded Pullen's points about the dilapidated building 
and "eager, enthusiastic" staff, but said that a county takeover 
of the shelter is the only viable option. "The points (she) made, 
including compassionate staff, have never been the issue," 
Reitman said. "The staff is not the APS management."

The county will hold a public meeting regarding the shelter Sept. 
18, and discussions about future administrative control and the 
location of the new shelter, to be completed in 2006, will be 
held either Oct. 21 or Nov. 5.

County staff released a report Thursday that detailed the cost 
and actions necessary to seize control.

County commissioner Barry Jacobs said the county is weighing its 
options and examining the report. "The Humane Society provided us 
an opportunity to step back and see what the short-term and 
long-term issues are, mechanically and otherwise," Jacobs said.

Gwen Harvey, assistant county manager, indicated Thursday that an 
APS loss of control was the likeliest of possibilities, and 
Jacobs said that he hoped APS would play an active future role 
should that occur.

"The APS as a group of individuals and an organization have done 
an admirable job in filling a need in our community."
________________________________________________________________



APS OK'd to run Chapel Hill shelter on monthly basis

BY GEOFFREY GRAYBEAL ggraybeal@heraldsun.com; 918-1033 
The Herald-Sun 
Wednesday, September 03, 2003 


CHAPEL HILL -- The Orange County Board of Commissioners extended 
its contract Tuesday night with the Animal Protection Society, 
which will run the Chapel Hill shelter on a monthly basis until 
the board decides otherwise. 

Three residents appeared before the commissioners to ask them not 
to extend the aps contract. 

"I wish you could have those people out of there tomorrow," said 
Elliot Cramer, who has been one of the harshest critics of aps 
management. 

In June, the commissioners voted 3-2 to extend Orange County's 
shelter management contract with aps for three more months. That 
was to be followed by a monthly renewal option. 

The vote came after a motion failed to extend the contract by six 
months, as recommended by County Manager John Link. 

Orange County owns the shelter, but pays the aps about $429,000 a 
year to run it. 

The aps has been involved in a long-simmering dispute with two of 
its harshest critics, retired UNC professor Cramer and author and 
activist Judith Reitman, both of whom argue that new management 
is needed at the Airport Road shelter. 

Lawsuits filed by both sides still are moving through the courts. 

Last week, an outside agency hired by Orange County to study the 
animal shelter's management released its final 156-page report. 
In that report, the Humane Society of the United States 
recommended hundreds of changes that could be implemented to 
improve the shelter and its services. 

According to a separate county report, if the county assumes 
control of shelter operations, it would cost $1.1 million in the 
first year and $964,943 the second year -- estimates that the 
county manager called "conservative on the high end." 

Cramer contends those numbers are "grossly inflated" and vowed 
that the Piedmont Animal Welfare Society, which he leads, would 
produce shelter volunteers and raise funds to offset startup 
costs if the county decided to assume operation of the shelter.
________________________________________________________________

News of Orange County  
September 3, 2003

Comment:
Not exactly what I said:  I'd LIKE to see those folks out of their
tomorrow.  It IS simple in comparison to other County operations if
they have competent management


County buys time for APS

By Jeff Casale
News of Orange staff writer

CHAPEL HILL -- The Orange County Board of Commissioners extended 
its contract with the Animal Protection Society by one month 
Tuesday -- but the decision did not go without discussion or 
public comment.

Less than a week after the Humane Society of the United States 
released its final report on the shelter, the BOCC decided it was 
in its best interest to continue extending the APS' contract on a 
month-to-month basis until further discussions about the county's 
possible takeover are had. 

Chairwoman Margaret Brown, along with commissioners Steve 
Halkiotis and Barry Jacobs, expressed several concerns regarding 
the financial and staffing impacts that would affect the shelter 
if the county seized control of its operations. Just last week a 
county report detailing animal services at the Chapel Hill 
facility suggested such a takeover would be costly.  

COUNTY WOULD BOOST SHELTER PERSONNEL
In that report, the county presented a survey comparing 
information submitted by 62 counties across the state. It 
contrasted animal services -- animal control included -- and 
annual budget information. Orange County currently allots more 
than $428,000 to the APS, with an additional $458,000 going to 
animal control.

Both operate independently of each other.

If the county were to take over the shelter next year, it would 
have to spend an additional $680,000. Total expenditures would 
then top $1.2 million, according to the report, after the county 
collected animal-service revenue through taxes, and adoption and 
boarding fees.

Furthermore, the report states the APS currently staffs the 
shelter with 16 permanent positions, whereas the county's 
proposal would field 19 with an increase in salaries.
County Manager John Link said that under the best circumstances 
the county would be able to take over the shelter within 
four-to-five months, adding that the proposed budget for the 
shelter was drafted on the "high-end" because he doesn't want the 
commissioners to be surprised by any additional costs.

Money aside, the increase in permanent staff has Halkiotis 
scratching his head.
"It would be a big mistake to start a shelter and fill it with a 
bureaucracy," Halkiotis said. "We need to use volunteers. (After 
all), the strength of protecting animals in this county is by the 
people of this county."

APS critic Elliot Cramer, who along with Judith Reitman sued the 
shelter earlier this year, spoke to the board prior to its 
discussion. He believes the county is fully capable of running 
the shelter as soon as tomorrow and after reading the county's 
report, believes the financial numbers are "grossly inflated." 

"I have great respect for John Link, but he doesn't know anything 
about shelter operations," said Cramer, who also serves as an APS 
member and president of the newly formed Piedmont Animal Welfare 
Society. "It is absurd to add more staff when they could do it 
with the staff they have (plus) volunteers. This is a very, very 
simple operation."

The BOCC is scheduled to discuss the matter further with Link's 
staff on Sept. 16. A public hearing on the HSUS report is 
scheduled for two days later. 

"By continuing on a month-to-month basis we are (showing) we are 
committed to continuing an important public service," Link said, 
"and that the operation of the (shelter) is going to be carried 
forward."

________________________________________________________________

News of Orange County  
September 3, 2003


The News of Orange 6 Shooter: Attorney hones in on APS suit's big 
picture

By Jeff Casale


Editor's note: In the spirit of fairness, the News of Orange 
extended the same interview opportunity to APS attorney Ron 
Merritt. He declined.

CHAPEL HILL  Relaxing in a chair at Cup-A-Joe coffeehouse in 
Chapel Hill, attorney Barry Nakell spoke with fluidity and 
confidence last week about the pending lawsuit between the Orange 
County Animal Protection Society and its critics.

 
 
It's a case that has ramifications beyond those of animal care 
and shelter operations, he said. The bigger threat, Nakell 
suggested, jeopardizes the right to free speech and public 
debate.

Earlier this year Nakell's clients, retired UNC-CH professor 
Elliot Cramer and activist Judith Reitman, filed a lawsuit 
against the APS board and shelter Executive Director Laura 
Walters. The suit accuses Walters and others of refusing to 
disclose documents, stripping members of their voting rights and 
impeding attempts to nominate candidates for the APS board. 
Allegations also include the refusal to hand out board minutes, 
membership lists and financial records.

The APS filed a counterclaim, alleging defamation and slander. 
Likewise, Walters has sued, claiming the critics have damaged her 
reputation.

The shelter continues to attract public scrutiny, escalated media 
attention and now the added possibility of a county takeover. The 
case resumes in Orange County Civil Superior Court later this 
month.

Prompted by the News of Orange, Nakell offered a handful of 
thoughts on the case - a line of reasoning, he believed, which 
may otherwise go overlooked.

Q: Why did you choose to represent Cramer and Reitman?

A: Elliot and Jude first approached me about representing them 
after they had filed their lawsuit. At that time they were 
concerned about statements that APS folks had made about them 
that they considered false and defamatory. I explained to them 
the protection that the First Amendment guarantee of free speech 
provides to discussion in the public forum of lively debate about 
issues of public interest. We all agreed that we should respect 
the freedom of speech of the APS folks and that Elliot and Jude 
should just respond to them in the public forum (at the regular 
APS board meetings).

A couple of weeks later, they told me that APS had filed a 
counterclaim against them for defamation, and asked whether they 
were not also protected by the First Amendment. After reviewing 
the counterclaim, I believed there was a very valid First 
Amendment issue at hand. Orange County and Chapel Hill are 
certainly arenas of free speech that are respectful of openness 
and public debate. It need not be elegant or graceful, but the 
people in our community recognize the importance of it. I thought 
the APS defamation suit was inconsistent with our traditions and 
with the constitutional protection of free speech.

Q: Do you think Cramer and Reitmanis actions through the media 
have hurt or strengthened their case against the APS?

A: I do not believe the discussion in the press will affect the 

court's decision on the legal issues. It is more likely that the 
courtis decisions will affect the press coverage than that the 
press coverage will affect the courtis decisions.

I do believe, however, that public scrutiny of the judicial 
process is important to a fair decision-making process. There was 
a major controversy surrounding APS before Elliot and Jude became 
involved in the public discussion. APS is a non-profit 
corporation that receives funding from the county for performing 
a public service and (it approaches) the public for funding and 
support. I think it is important that matters involving an 
organization like that be subject to open public debate.

Q: Why do you believe the evidence in this case is strong enough 
to prove that APS is in the wrong?

A: Elliot and Jude were thorough in their investigation of APS 
and relied on responsible sources for their statements. They do 
not have to prove that they were right o though we believe their 
statements were true o but only that they did not act knowing 
that the statements were false or in reckless disregard of 
whether they were true or false.

The APS has said some of the statements that Elliot and Jude made 
were not true, but they have not established that yet, or yet 
been forced to do so.

Q: What do you think the public is not seeing clearly through 
media coverage of this issue?

A: I havenit seen a write up on the First Amendment issue 
anywhere. The importance of having free discussion and not having 
the APS suppress information (is going unnoticed). The APS should 
engage and respond to what they think is wrong. The Humane 
Society of the United States reports support much of what Elliot 
and Jude have said and the APS hasn't tried to sue them for libel 
and slander.

So, I think the question is not directly about the management or 
leadership (of) APS. The question is whether APS can keep its 
actions secret from its membership and the public.
I do not think the press has focused on that yet.

Q: If the court decides in your clientsi favor, what type of 
message does that send to the citizens of this county and other 
people within this area?

A: In regards to the counterclaim, the message would be that 
freedom of speech is secured and that (people) can speak out 
about issues of public concern without fear of damages. In 
regards to the original complaint, the message would be that the 
right of members to obtain information from a nonprofit 
organization is enforced, so the organization cannot operate in 
secret but must have transparency.

Q: Do you believe this case should go to a trial by jury?

A: No, it doesn't need to go that far. I think the evidence that 
is presented could resolve it and it should have resolved (it) a 
long time ago. I think the APS should open up its records and let 
the members see its activity and welcome comments and suggestions 
from its critics so they can improve its operation. What do they 
have to hide? What are they afraid of?
________________________________________________________________
Chapel Hill Herald 
Thursday, September 04, 2003 

Comment:  The County doesnt' need a task force to tell them that 
this is an emergency situation.  These problems were pointed out 
up to a year ago and the Health Department did NOTHING.  HSUS has 
raised ADDITIONAL serious problems such as the failure to spay 
and neuter animals before they leave the shelter.  Action is 
needed NOW to take control.  A task force will be useful for 
evaluation of the NEW problems identified by HSUS

Editorial
Oversight key to solving shelter's problems

Now that the Humane Society of the United States has turned in 
its final report, it's up to the Orange County Commissioners to 
begin resolving the ongoing dispute about the management of the 
county animal shelter. 

So far, every sign suggests the commissioners are taking the job 
seriously. 

They were steadfast in insisting on the need for an outside 
review. And on Tuesday they made it clear they won't be rushed 
into a decision about whether to retain the shelter's current 
management, the Animal Protection Society of Orange County. 

At each juncture, they faced countervailing pressure from aps 
critics. But they understood that hasty decisions won't help the 
situation. 

Their task now is to find a way forward. Fortunately, the Humane 
Society's report gives them the road map they need. 

If the commissioners follow it, their first step will be to 
appoint a seven-member task force to review the Humane Society's 
report and create a plan of action for implementing its 
recommendations. We see that as the right move, and not just for 
the few months the Humane Society envisions. 

Over the past year, it's become patently obvious that the 
county's supervision of shelter operations hasn't been as tight 
or aggressive as it should have been. 

Had it been otherwise, there would have been no room for the 
problems with sanitation, disease control and record-keeping 
confirmed by the Humane Society to take hold. 

Proper oversight also could have headed off many of the 
public-relations gaffes that have plagued the shelter in the past 
decade, no matter who's been in charge. 

Time after time, aps leaders have found themselves in squabbles 
after making decisions about shelter policy on their own, without 
the kind of public involvement that's otherwise customary in 
Orange County. 

Until and unless that changes, it will be difficult for the 
shelter or the aps to regain the public's confidence. The task 
force the Humane Society recommended as a temporary expedient 
almost certainly will have to evolve into a permanent oversight 
board. 

The commissioners will have to assert control over shelter 
policy, mainly because the shelter is a public facility serving a 
community that's skeptical about privatization. 

Residents can accept farming out the shelter's day-to-day work to 
a private entity like the aps. But that doesn't mean they're 
willing to see their elected representatives surrender authority 
over what happens there, or that they're willing to tolerate 
being cut out of the decision-making process.

 ________________________________________________________________

Chapel Hill News
September 7, 2003

Remark: Correction - "The new director of the shelter should report 
directly to the County Manager and records must be open to the public. 

County should take over animal shelter

The Humane Society of the United States report might have sent 
any other animal shelter director high-tailing out of town. 

Its 156 pages describe the animal flow process and animal 
operations as "disorganized and unstructured," and cite a lack of 
"proper training for many of the daily tasks they were 
responsible for and a general lack of SOPs (standard operating 
procedures _ (that) resulted in unnecessary stress for the staff 
and animals, (and) an increased incidence of disease." HSUS 
observed "the temperament evaluation program needs to be 
assessed" and, alarmingly, "temperament evaluation process was 
not always taken into consideration by staff when making the 
decision to euthanize." 

Animals wore "no identification (and) there was nothing to match 
kennel card numbers to the animal" _ which certainly could 
explain why adopters returning to claim their chosen animal were 
given the wrong pet. HSUS noted the disorganized paperwork and 
that "most errors found appeared to be in record keeping." As for 
the shelter's condition: "Kennel walls were soiled with a layer 
of oil, hair and dirt_ Overall, the appearance of the staff could 
be considered unprofessional." 

Remarkably, APS's executive director has found redemption in this 
audit. Walters told the media, "I'm very pleased with the 
report," reportedly stating that it validates the way the shelter 
is being run.

Unfortunately Walters is trumpeting a card that HSUS erroneously 
handed her: member voting rights. Actually, members of the Durham 
APS, Chatham Animal Rescue, Wake SPCA and Piedmont Wildlife all 
have voting rights. What HSUS, whose members also vote, may also 
not have known is that N.C. member-based organizations cannot 
arbitrarily remove voting rights from members, as APS has done. 

Orange County can recover from the APS mess by taking over the 
shelter. The county already funds many services APS claims to 
fund, including emergency animal rescue. The budget for county 
take-over, which the Health Department and Animal Control 
fashioned, grossly inflates startup costs and salaries, creating 
an unnecessary bureaucracy. Spay-neuter bring in revenue and 
would certainly be continued under the county. Given APS's 
erosion of public trust, county take-over would encourage far 
more community volunteerism. Importantly, the new director of APS 
would report directly to the County Manager; those records must 
be open to the public. 

We have much to gain from county take-over; principally a return 
to democracy and integrity at our shelter. 

-- Judith Reitman, Chapel Hill
________________________________________________________________

Chapel Hill Herald
September 9, 2003

Editorial

Shelter costs deserve the closest scrutiny 

At some point in their deliberations about the future of Orange 
County's animal shelter, the county commissioners will have to 
decide whether they'll increase spending on the facility's annual 
operating budget. It won't be an easy call. 

Preliminary estimates suggest the county would have to more than 
double its allocation for shelter operations if commissioners 
terminate relations with the Animal Protection Society of Orange 
County. 

Administrators say they'd expect to spend $1.1 million in the 
first year of a county management takeover, and almost $970,000 
in the second. 

That's big money, at least compared to the $429,000 the county 
now pays the APS each year to run the shelter. The extra spending 
in the first year of a takeover is enough to add about $10 to the 
property tax bill for a $150,000 house. 

Of course, that may overstate the case. Advocates of a county 
takeover think county officials have padded the prospective 
budget. 

Given the habits of bureaucrats everywhere, they likely have a 
point. 

But even the chief critic of the APS, retired UNC psychology 
professor Elliot Cramer, has conceded that a county takeover 
would entail ?a reasonable additional cost,? which he reckons 
will be about $100,000. 

Cramer believes the county wouldn't necessarily have to use tax 
money to cover the added bill, but it's telling that he concedes 
the need for at least some additional spending. 

That's an issue takeover advocates have to address, because it 
goes to the heart of the reason why the county farmed out shelter 
operations to the APS in the first place. 

For decades now, there's been a solid consensus in this community 
behind the idea that the county should maximize school budgets by 
holding the line on spending for other programs. 

Lately, parkland and open-space acquisitions have all but joined 
education as a priority for the commissioners. Beyond that, the 
basic calculus hasn't changed. If a county program doesn't 
address education, parkland or open space, it has to get by on 
state or federal subsidies, or on a minimal amount of local 
revenue. 

That fact, understood by all, gives people on either side of the 
APS dispute a reason to shade their arguments. APS supporters can 
be expected to play up the costs of a takeover; the group's 
critics can be expected to discount them. 

As usual, the truth is more likely to be found at a point between 
the extremes. The commissioners will have to exercise the utmost 
care to find it. 

________________________________________________________________

The Daily Tarheel
September 10, 2003 

Animal shelter controversy takes emphasis off animals


Outside the Bubble  
Don't put it past Fido. With more pressing issues such as a 
tumultuous economy and national security taking center stage, the 
treatment of animals seems like an unlikely topic to garner 
significant attention.

But during the last year, allegations of mismanagement by the 
Animal Protection Society -- a private outfit that runs the 
Orange County Animal Shelter -- have led to lawsuits against APS, 
intervention from the Orange County Board of Commissioners and 
most recently, the release of a 158-page report by the Humane 
Society of America, critiquing the shelter's practices.

The report is less than flattering, judging by a quick glean of 
its contents. 

Some of the criticism, such as that concerning animal housing, 
can be directed to inadequate and archaic facilities. The current 
shelter will be demolished in 2006.

The analysis mentions disease in the feline population, but 
shelter officials admitted to these outbreaks in the fall, so 
that's no surprise. The concern now is that the personnel and 
management issues brought into question are addressed with due 
speed.

APS Director Laura Walters and other staff have reaffirmed their 
dedication and hard work with the shelter amid swirling 
controversy and allegations. Walters has even filed a countersuit 
of libel against her accusers, Judith Reitman and Elliot Cramer, 
leaders of the Protective Animal Welfare Society. 

If APS loses control of the shelter, responsibility for future 
control will be ceded to the county commissioners.

While the ordeal has left a bad taste in the mouths of many 
residents, the investigation is crucial, given that public money 
funds the organization.

The animal shelter maintenance also has attracted public interest 
in other areas across the state.

In another case, unrelated to APS, this summer The Charlotte 
Observer ran an investigative series on slaughtering practices in 
Mecklenburg County.

It's no surprise that animal facilities have to kill many pets 
due to overcrowding, but the Observer reported that 80,000 dogs 
and cats were killed in the Charlotte area in 2002 -- a startling 
figure that is apparently in sync with the state average.

"Death at the Pound" educated many readers to the deaths and 
resulted in increased pet adoptions.

The series even grabbed the attention of some legislators, who 
are creating a committee to investigate state shelter practices.

Like many local issues, the friction over pets stirs emotional 
pleas from both workers and residents. And this subject has an 
oft-furry face to add extra tug to the heartstrings.

APS workers are still on the job, even though their organization 
has a public pockmark from the Humane Society report and the 
perpetual rumor mill.

It could be easy for those concerned with this issue to lose 
sight of their mission of caring for animals across the county.

While a public agency should be held to utmost accountability, 
it's a shame the whole thing has been tangled in so much 
political yarn.

Because when you get down to it, the main focus should be the 
animals.

If you wish to inquire about adoptions or learn more about 
volunteer opportunities, call the shelter at 967-7383.

________________________________________________________________

The Daily Tarheel
September 16, 2003 

Residents to help decide fate of APS

Remark:  
This was a regular meeting;  the hearing for Thursday was �
postponed.

The Orange County Board of Commissioners will hold a public 
hearing tonight to give local residents the chance to voice their 
opinions on the future of the county animal shelter.

In response to recommendations made by the Humane Society of the 
United States, local residents will have an opportunity to 
discuss persisting problems and potential improvements to the 
shelter.

In June, the Humane Society issued a report to the local chapter 
of the Animal Protection Society, which runs the Orange County 
Animal Shelter, demonstrating the shelter's need for 
infrastructure improvements and operation reorganization.

Since the report's release, APS has made many improvements based 
on the report's recommendations -- including general repairs to 
the building, disease control, an increase in sanitation levels 
and ventilation repairs.

"(The public hearing) will be an opportunity for the public to 
come forward and state their concerns," said Gwen Harvey, 
assistant county manager.

Officials will rely heavily on the input they receive at this 
hearing to influence their final decisions.

Despite the changes made by the shelter's staff, Commissioner 
Barry Jacobs said he doubts the improvements will satisfy 
residents opposed to the operation policies of APS.

"Most of the people who come to public hearings tend to have 
strong feelings about it already," Jacobs said.

The administrative operation of the shelter could take a variety 
of forms, one of which was proposed by the Humane Society.

One model would establish a transition plan that would allow the 
shelter to operate while its fate is being determined. That model 
could lead either to the retention or the firing of employees.

Another proposal for the future operation of the shelter is the 
creation of a task force that "may be established for reviewing 
and prioritizing the issues in the (June) report," said Harvey. 

The improved shelter is projected to be finalized in 2006.

Jacobs said he expects the new shelter will be more animal- and 
human-friendly. "(The shelter) will be bigger and better with a 
clearer public focus," he said.

The administrative control and location of the new shelter will 
be determined later this fall.

________________________________________________________________

Chapel Hill Herald
September 17, 2003

More animal shelter funds sought 
APS wants $10K a month more or adios

Comment:
APS has been "contributing" less than $7500/month  to operation 
of the shelter. For this APS has gotten the complete salaries of 
their executive director and their associate director who are 
responsible for other APS operations as well.  APS now admits 
that about $50,000 in salary should not be attributed to shelter 
operation.  APS is also provided with its principal office where 
ALL APS business is conducted and where APS meetings are held.  
Furthermore this visibility has allowed APS to collect funds from 
the public for their other operations.  In the past this has been 
a good deal for BOTH APS and the County.  Given the history of 
mismanagement over the past two years, APS has nothing to offer 
the County beyond financial support which it is now withdrawing.

If APS subsidized the shelter by "$32,000 worth of operations during 
the first fiscal quarter", it was operating $10,000 over budget.  The
"after-hours, on-call service" is fully funded by the County and the towns.
Since APS is a non-profit organization dedicated to Animal Welfare, 
the obvious solution is for APS to turn over operation to the County
along with the shelter furnishings for which it has no use.
-----------

HILLSBOROUGH -- The Animal Protection Society of Orange County 
says it can't continue running the county animal shelter without 
an additional $10,000 each month. 

While the county commissioners consider the future management of 
the shelter, the APS board has concluded that its organization is 
"no longer able or willing to continue to manage and operate the 
Orange County Animal Shelter unless Orange County provides 
funding to fully offset the costs of [shelter] operations," wrote 
APS Board President Pat Beyle in a letter to County Manager John 
Link dated Sept. 13. 

Orange County owns the shelter, located off Airport road in 
Chapel Hill, and pays the APS about $429,000 a year to run it. 
The commissioners have a monthly contract with APS. But the 
organization's board says if additional funding is not provided 
starting Oct. 1, APS will cede the responsibility for shelter 
operations to the county or another agency by the end of the 
year. 

Beyle asserted Tuesday, however, that APS would still like to run 
the shelter. 

"This is not saying we'll do this to you because we want out," 
she said. "We want to work with the county. We've worked with 
them and we want to continue to work with them. We also agree 
that a task force is a very, very good way to work on 
strengthening this partnership with the county." 

The Humane Society of the United States, an outside agency hired 
by the county to study the shelter's management, has recommended 
a task force to implement the hundreds of changes spelled out in 
its 156-page final report. Link is recommending that the 
commissioners create that task force. 

The APS has been involved in a long-simmering dispute with two of 

its harshest critics, retired UNC professor Elliot Cramer and 
author and activist Judith Reitman, both of whom argue that new 
management is needed at the Airport Road shelter. Lawsuits filed 
by both sides still are moving through the courts. 

APS officials concede that the controversy has significantly 
affected their ability to obtain funding from other sources. 

"We understand that the timing of the communication of our 
decision is not good and that it will no doubt result in a 
barrage of criticism from those who will choose to misinterpret 
the underlying reasons," Beyle wrote. "The fact of the matter is 
that our financial condition dictates no other choice." 

Beyle said that APS has simply run out of money to subsidize 
programs. 

"Our ability to raise funds, be it the economic conditions or the 
community conditions, just didn't add up to the amount of money 
that we needed," she said. 

According to APS figures, the organization has subsidized $32,000 
worth of operations during the first fiscal quarter. APS is 
asking for an additional $10,636 per month from the county if an 
after-hours, on-call service is continued, or $9,427 without it. 

APS officials contend that its reserves are in danger after years 
of APS subsidizing the operation of the shelter at levels of 
$70,000 to $90,000 annually. The APS' revised 2003-04 budget 
projects the need for about $138,000 in APS subsidies to the 
current contract, not including costs associated with 
implementing the vast majority of the HSUS recommendations. 

Several commissioners said Tuesday they were unsure what to make 
of APS' request. 

"I would really need to have a staff analysis on that," said 
Commissioner Alice Gordon, who added that she believed both the 
county and APS were proposing a "very tight time line" for 
decisions about shelter operations. 

Commissioners Chairwoman Margaret Brown said the board would seek 
guidance from the county manager, but noted that the request for 
additional money should have been made during the annual 
budgeting process. 

Brown also said she would like a better financial picture of 
animal shelter operations from the APS. 

"There's no accountability for county funds and APS funds and 
what everything's paying for," she said. 

Commissioner Moses Carey said he knew the county was getting a 
"good deal" from APS and would be disappointed if the 
organization decided to cease operation of the shelter. But he, 
too, acknowledged the toll of the ongoing controversy. 

"It's been such turmoil," he said. "I'm not surprised that they 
may be ? fed up with the county. It's been frustrating to 
everyone, I'm sure, and they're not exempt from the frustration." 

APS officials would like the commissioners to make a decision 
about the organization's future role in operating the shelter no 
later than Jan. 31. 

Carey said the commissioners would not shy away from making a 

decision. 

"This is an issue that remains as important as the [potential 
schools] merger issue for many people in this county," he said. 
"The commissioners will continue to focus on it." 
________________________________________________________________

Chapel Hill Herald
September 17, 2003

Changes to Orange animal shelter task force sought 
 

HILLSBOROUGH -- The Orange County Commissioners on Tuesday night 
asked county staff to revise the proposal for a task force that 
would make recommendations on an outside agency's animal shelter 
operations report. 

The report from the Humane Society of the United States made 
hundreds of suggested changes to improve the county's animal 
shelter, which the county now pays the Animal Protection Society 
to run. 

The commissioners also would like County Manager John Link's 
staff to analyze the county's $429,000 annual contract with APS 
to see how the money is being spent and if it is being spent 
efficiently. 

"For the first time in a long time, we're ready for a line by 
line," APS board member John Guibert said after the meeting. 

The APS has been involved in a long-simmering dispute with two of 
its harshest critics, retired UNC professor Elliot Cramer and 
author and activist Judith Reitman, both of whom argue that new 
management is needed at the Airport Road shelter. 

A lawsuit filed by the critics and a countersuit from the APS 
still are moving through the courts. 

"I believe that the county can and should take over operation of 
the shelter, and that the county should do it soon," Cramer said. 

Cramer previously has said the county's costs for operating the 
shelter without the APS are overestimated. 

On Tuesday night, he said his estimates are that the county could 
operate the shelter at its current level of service for $155,000 
a year and that start-up costs would be $93,000. 

According to a county report, if the county assumes control of 
shelter operations, it would cost $1.1 million in the first year 
and $964,943 the second year. 

Link's staff has recommended the creation of a task force to 
review the HSUS report recommendations and suggest changes to the 
commissioners. The staff proposed that the board have 12 members, 
including one commission representative, two Board of Health 
representatives, two APS representatives, two APS critics, two 
representatives from the public at large and one representative 
each from Carrboro, Chapel Hill and Hillsborough. 

"I don't like the makeup of the [task force]," Commissioners 
Chairwoman Margaret Brown said Tuesday night. "I think we need to 
step out and look at this in a bigger picture [rather] than just 

scoop up the people that have been involved in the past year. ... 
I think it should be expanded and represent a much broader 
community." 

Commissioner Barry Jacobs added that he thought input should be 
solicited from volunteers at the APS and in the community. 

"We need buy-in from the volunteer community in whatever form, so 
we can make this as good of an operation as we can make it," he 
said. 

Jacobs added that any task force first should have a mission 
statement approved by the commissioners. 

Brown argued that the commissioners should set specific goals for 
a task force from the start. 

"If we don't know from the beginning what we want them to look 
at, it's going to get very, very difficult for any group," she 
said. 

Link suggested setting aside a work session in October or 
November to discuss the makeup of a possible task force and what 
it would be charged with doing. Commissioner Steve Halkiotis also 
suggested that the commissioners' health board representative, 
Moses Carey, work with the county staff to refine the task force 
proposal. 

The commissioners agreed that their decision on whether APS would 
continue to run the shelter would be made separately from the 
larger shelter management issues that a task force would address. 
________________________________________________________________



The Daily Tarheel
September 18, 2003

County mulls shelter options


HILLSBOROUGH -- As the issue of who will govern the county animal 

shelter
becomes more urgent, disagreements among officials, local service agencies
and residents are putting the brakes on the decision process.

The Humane Society of the United States issued a 156-page report Aug. 28
that gave necessary changes in procedure at the shelter, which is run by
the local chapter of the Animal Protection Society.

Pat Beyle, chairwoman of the APS Board of Directors, sent a letter to
Orange County Manager John Link on Saturday that stated the APS needs more
funding if it is to continue running the shelter in light of demands set
forth by HSUS.

The letter asked the county to approve $10,000 in additional monthly
funding to the group by Oct. 1 or else the APS would be forced to cede
control. Beyle said in the letter that APS wishes to retain control and
that the request is not a back-door means to relinquish it.

But county officials say they felt blindsided by the lack of notice given
for the monetary request.

"We should have a shelter that's running very well for the kind of money
(we give)," said Margaret Brown, chairwoman of the Orange County Board of
Commissioners.

The letter complicated the decision about shelter control.

"I don't feel comfortable dealing with this (issue) tonight the way it is,"
said Commissioner Stephen Halkiotis.

The board noticed the county makeup for an outside task force contradicted
the plan set forth in the Humane Society's report. A task force is needed
to evaluate the shelter's condition, administration and operations in
relation to the recommendations for improvement.

"It's totally different," Brown said. "This just represents a group that
has already been involved."

The task force will also recommend whether the APS or county should control
shelter operations.


The county neglected to include a veterinarian with a shelter medicine
background or professional mediator as part of the task force.

Brown said she also disagreed with including a representative from
Hillsborough since the town allocates no money to the shelter.

Assistant County Manager Gwen Harvey encouraged the board to monitor the
creation and activity of the task force regardless of the final decision on
its composition.

Elliot Cramer, a local animal rights activist, launched into a tirade
against the shelter's administration at the conclusion of the talks. Cramer
has filed suit against the APS and has been countersued by the APS and
Laura Walters, the shelter's director.

"What you have is a bureaucracy," Cramer told the commissioners. "What you
need is a good shelter administration."

He added, "I think the buck stops with you and I hope you don't drop it."

In a prepared statement, APS officials stated that public concerns about
the shelter stem from long-term difficulties and procedural impediments for
which the APS should not absorb all the blame.

The commissioners expressed frustration that negotiations and plans remain
stalled. "It's time to put up or shut up," Halkiotis said. "I'm willing to
put up; I'm willing to shut up. But I'd like a recommendation on what I
should do."
________________________________________________________________

The Chapel Hill Herald
September 20, 2003

Ill-timed demands threaten shelter review 
 
An organization that relies on public support shouldn't issue 
ultimatums when its support looks shaky. Doing so is rather like 
playing Russian roulette with a fully loaded gun. 

The Animal Protection Society of Orange County, unfortunately, 
doesn't get that. Society directors put the group's future on the 
line a week ago, and the only thing left is to see whether the 
Orange County Commissioners pull the trigger. 

APS officials snapped the cylinder into firing position on Sept. 
13 when they told County Manager John Link they'll stop managing 
the county animal shelter at year's end unless the county raises 
its monthly management payments by Oct. 1. 

That means the commissioners have less than two weeks to decide 
whether it's worth spending about $10,000 a month more to keep 
the APS at the shelter. 

Considering the number of very loud voices in the area who've 
been urging county officials to jettison the group anyway, all we 
can say to the APS is good luck. Historically, the commissioners 
dislike being rushed, especially when the subject is money. 

Ill advised though the ultimatum on that issue was, the APS 
compounded the situation by issuing a second. 


They want the commissioners to settle the debate about whether 
the APS will retain a long-term role at the shelter, and do it by 
the end of January. 

Despite protests to the contrary, APS leaders have to know that 
deadline would all but short-circuit the four-month policy review 
recommended by the Humane Society of the United States. 

The commissioners are still early along in setting up a task 
force to act on the Humane Society's proposal. An end-of-January 
deadline would give them no time to recruit appointees from the 
public or to conduct a proper debate about the panel's advice. 

All along, we've been saying the fight about the shelter will 
only be resolved if participants honor the public process the 
county has established for settling it. 

The commissioners agree, and they stood their ground when critics 
of the APS urged haste. There's no reason for them to back down 
just because APS directors, who benefited from the county's 
earlier stand, now think it's time to push. 
________________________________________________________________

Chapel Hill News
September 20, 2003

APS tells county it needs more money
Without full funding, the agency says it will stop running animal 
shelter by the end of the year. 


CHAPEL HILL _ After more than a year of criticism that has put 
the Animal Protection Society of Orange County's leadership on 
the defensive about their management of the county's animal 
shelter, the APS reversed its position last week with two letters 
that could force county officials to accelerate a decision about 
the county's relationship with APS.

APS Board of Directors Chair Pat Beyle sent letters to Orange 
County Manager John Link and to commissioners notifying them that 
the APS board had voted to discontinue the agency's contract with 
the county unless the county provides the APS with additional 
funds to support the animal shelter.

The letters state that about $138,000 in additional funds would 
be needed this fiscal year to offset the cost to APS of running 
the shelter. The county pays the APS $429,000 a year to run the 
shelter, but APS officials contend that the actual cost is higher 
and that the agency can no longer afford to subsidize the 
shelter's operation, especially in light of recent criticism that 
Beyle said has stymied the agency's fund-raising ability.

"In the event that full funding is not provided starting on Oct. 
1, 2003, we will transition the responsibility for Orange County 
Animal Shelter Operations to the county or its designated agent 
by no later than Dec. 31, 2003," the letter to Link states.

In spite of the letter's somewhat confrontational tone, Beyle 
said its intent was to make commissioners aware of APS's 
financial situation, in the hope of prompting negotiations 
between the county and APS. Beyle said she hopes a compromise can 
be reached.

"This is not a tool to get out of running the shelter," she said. 
"It's an economic reason. We really do want to be in the business 

of sheltering the animals . . . It's going to be a sad day in our 
ballpark if we don't help the county care for the animals."

The letter, which comes after several months of discussions about 
whether animals would be better served if the county ran the 
shelter, also follows the release of a Humane Society of the 
United States report that the county ordered late last year.

While largely constructive in nature, the report offered a number 
of recommendations for improving operation of the shelter and has 
prompted the commissioners to consider forming a task force to 
evaluate the future of animal sheltering in the county.

Commissioner Margaret Brown, chair of the county board, said she 
did not understand the timing of the letter, given that a formal 
process of assessing the county's relationship with APS already 
has begun.

If need be, the county is prepared to run the shelter, Brown 
said. 

"If the APS can't operate the shelter, they can't operate it," 
she said. "But we'll operate it. The shelter isn't going to close 
down. No crisis is going to take place."

Although Brown said she is confident of the county's ability to 
smoothly assume shelter operations, a preliminary county staff 
report estimates that it would take between four and 10 months to 
shift shelter operations to the county.

"We do not feel that we are fully capable of operating the animal 
shelter on short notice, be that short notice 30 days, 60 days or 
90 days," said Assistant County Manager Gwen Harvey.

The county's report also projects that it would cost about $1.1 
million in the first year if the county were to run the shelter 
and about $965,000 in each subsequent year.

Harvey said county staff plans to come to the table and discuss 
possible compromises with APS representatives. 

But in the meantime, she said, county staff will evaluate the 
budget submitted with the recent letters to determine whether all 
of the additional costs the APS described truly are germane to 
running the shelter.

"We want to have an understanding in our minds as to what 
additional expenses are associated exclusively with the operation 
of the shelter," Harvey said.

Brown said she was not confident that all of the APS budget 
estimates were accurate.

"It's a very surprising number," she said. "We had no idea that 
they were in this kind of financial situation."

For now, Brown said, the county plans to move ahead with its 
evaluation of the humane society's report. 

"There's no crisis," she said. "The county is just going to move 
along with its process."

In June, county commissioners voted 3-2 to extend the county's 
contract with APS until Sept. 30, after which it will come up for 
renewal each month through Dec. 31. Commissioners recently 
decided to extend the contract until Oct. 31.


A public hearing on the Humane Society's report that was 
originally scheduled for last week has been rescheduled for 
Thursday at 7:30 p.m. at the Southern Human Services Center in 
Chapel Hill.

________________________________________________________________

Chapel Hill News
September 21, 2003

Comment:  I believe that the devastating critque by HSUS goes
well beyond "deficiencies in the management and operation" of the 
shelter.  The issues are not "long-standing"; they arrived with
Laura Walters' tenure.  It IS easy to point blame -- Laura Walters
and the APS leadership are responsible for this mess, not the staff.
This is a failure of leadership.

With regard to "individual agendas", former APS Vice-President and
Secretary Virginia Ellington wrote "I find it impossible to continue 
to serve with the current leadership of the Board and of the Shelter 
who are more interested in their own agendas than they are in the 
animals and the organization."
----

Shelter report points way to improvements 

As a management consultant, I frequently conduct organizational 
assessments similar to the one that the Humane Society of the 
United States recently conducted for Orange County. Based on my 
professional experience, I believe that the HSUS has done an 
excellent job. 

It is not hard to find deficiencies in the management and 
operation of a facility like the Orange County Animal Shelter; 
many things clearly need to be improved. For those trained, 
experienced and tasked to identify deficiencies, it is 
particularly easy to identify needs/opportunities for 
improvement. For those immersed in the day-to-day struggle of 
operating a not-so-modern facility with marginally adequate 
funding and less-than-adequate supporting systems and processes, 
this is not so easy. This is by no means an excuse; this is, 
however, a fact. 

It is not hard to identify key factors that have contributed to 
this situation. Most of the issues on the table today are 
long-standing in nature. They did not suddenly arise over the 
past year or two. There are many lessons to be learned; some of 
the most significant of these transcend the issues identified by 
the HSUS. 

It will be hard to prioritize potential improvements and to 
define, fund and implement the actions necessary to achieve 
desired results. The Task Force recommended by HSUS is a sound 
and proven approach for proceeding. 

It is easy to point fingers/assign blame. Some have seized upon 
the HSUS report as an opportunity to promote their individual 
agendas. Caution. If all the facts were on the table, we might be 
very surprised at whom the fingers would be pointing. 

While likely hard for some, I sincerely hope that we all can rise 
above this non-productive behavior and recognize that further 
finger pointing/blaming won't help in meeting the challenges 
before us. 

In my brief tenure on the APS board, I have seen that my fellow 
board members are committed to resolving these issues in 
partnership with the county and other community stakeholders. 
They are intensely motivated to promote the welfare of animals in 
our community. APS has a highly dedicated, underpaid staff who, 
in my opinion, are among the unsung heroes of our community. APS 
staff has placed highest priority on saving as many animals as 
possible from death by euthanasia. While this has led to 
practices not fully consistent with HSUS standards, one should 
not fail to recognize that intentions have been noble. 


John Guibert 
Chapel Hill 
________________________________________________________________
Chapel Hill Herald 
September 22, 2003 

Comment: Half of the "not-so-modern facility" is eleven years old
and a new facility is in the works.  It is incorrect to say thate
the County has provided "marginally adequate funding"; this shelter
is one of the two best funded shelters in the state and it is untrue 
that the County has provided "less-than-adequate" supporting systems. 
---

We should work together to solve animal shelter problems 

Although a member of the aps board of directors, my real job is 
as a management consultant. I conduct organizational assessments 
similar to the one the Humane Society has conducted for Orange 
County. Based on professional experience gained over 35 years and 
what I have learned at aps, I would note that: 

The HSUS has done an excellent job -- for all of us. 

It is not hard to find deficiencies in the operation of a 
facility such as the shelter; many things clearly need to be 
improved. 

For those immersed in the day-to-day struggle of operating a 
not-so-modern facility with marginally adequate funding and 
less-than-adequate supporting systems and processes this is not 
so easy. This is by no means offered as an excuse; this is, 
however, a fact. 

It will require hard work. The task force recommended by the HSUS 
is a sound approach, provided it moves forward in the spirit of a 
strategic partnership between stakeholders. 

It is easy to point fingers and assign blame. Some have seized 
upon the report as an opportunity to further promote individual 
agendas. For those who seem inclined to this path or who might be 
tempted to join them, I would only note that if all the facts 
were on the table, we all might be very surprised to see at whom 
the fingers would actually be pointing. 

I sincerely hope we can all rise above this nonproductive 
behavior and recognize that further finger pointing and blaming 
are not going to provide any help in addressing the issues and in 
meeting the challenges that lie before us. 

My fellow board members have a strong commitment and desire to 
work on resolving these issues and look forward to doing so in 
strategic partnership with other community stakeholders. They 
continue to be primarily motivated to promote the welfare and 
protection of the animals in our community. 

The aps is also fortunate to have a number of highly dedicated, 
underpaid staff who in my opinion are among the unsung heroes of 
our community. 


John Guibert 
Chapel Hill 
________________________________________________________________
Chapel Hill Herald
September 24, 2003

Remark: will you please name names???
It seems to me that Pat Beyle has not only handed the ax; she's 
sharpened it as well.

aps is putting its role on the line 

The county is required by law to operate an animal shelter. For 
more than 20 years, the county has chosen to do so through a 
formal contract with the aps. 

Over the years, the county has chronically under-funded the 
operation of the Animal Shelter, adversely affecting both the 
quality of shelter operations and the financial condition of the 
aps. 

The aps has been subsidizing the operation of the county's 
shelter in amounts ranging from $70,000 to $90,000 per year. This 
year, aps subsidization of $138,000 will be required. Annual 
costs to operate the shelter have increased by 7 percent, due in 
part to the implementation of certain HSUS recommendations. 

On several occasions this year, the county staff has discouraged 
the aps from raising concerns regarding the county's funding of 
the shelter and has been non-responsive to aps requests for 
additional funding and support. This aps administration believes 
it would be irresponsible to continue to remain silent on this 
important matter, and decided that it had no alternative but to 
take its case directly to the commissioners. 

This aps administration has intentionally put its role at the 
shelter on the line at this time because it firmly believes it is 
more important to obtain adequate county funding to properly take 
care of the animals than to protect the aps' role at the shelter. 

The timing of aps' funding request was also influenced by a 
determination that aps no longer has sufficient cash reserves to 
continue to subsidize the shelter at the currently required 
level. The aps has expressed its desire and willingness to 
continue to operate the shelter indefinitely if the county 
provides adequate funding. 

If the county decides not to start providing adequate funding on 
Oct. 1, aps is willing to continue to subsidize operation of the 
shelter until Dec. 31, 2003 while a transition of operational 
responsibility takes place. 

As to allegations that the aps is in some way frustrating the 
purpose of the task force recommended by the HSUS, it is 
important to recognize that the HSUS did not intend or in any way 
envision that the task force would be utilized to determine who 
should operate the shelter in the future. 

The HSUS recommended a task force as a proven approach to 
prioritize and define action items (with due dates) for 
implementing the specific recommendations provided in its report. 


Pat Beyle 
Chapel Hill 

The writer is president of the aps Board of Directors.

________________________________________________________________
Chapel Hill News
September 24, 2003

Editorial

Strange demands by APS

Curiouser things have happened, we suppose, but the Animal 

Protection Society's recent communication with the Orange County 
commissioners is cause for head-scratching.

The commissioners, after receiving complaints from citizens and a 
critical report by the Humane Society of the United States, have 
been reviewing the county's contract with the APS to run the 
county animal shelter. The county has put the society on notice 
that it may end the contract and take over the shelter itself.

You'd think, facing that kind of drastic outcome, that the APS 
would be looking for a way to persuade the commissioners to 
extend the contract, pretty please. Instead, the society sent an 
ultimatum to the county last week laying out a set of demands for 
its continued operation of the shelter. Among them:

-- The county increase its $429,000 annual funding of APS by 
$138,000 a year.

-- The APS be represented on a task force that will look at the 
Humane Society recommendations. 

-- The commissioners decide whether to extend the contract by 
Jan. 31.

-- If those conditions aren't met by Oct. 1, APS will stop 
running the shelter by the end of the year.

This is an odd response to the county's scrutiny. As one 
commissioner put it, "It's as if a chicken put its head on the 
chopping block and handed you the ax."

The APS, to be sure, has some cause for concern. The society says 
it has been "subsidizing" the operations of the animal shelter 
out of APS funds for years to the tune of $70,000 to $90,000 a 
year. Because of bad publicity and uncertainty over its future, 
the society says, contributions have dried up. 

Meanwhile, APS's operating deficit has increased from $85,000 
last year to a projected $138,000 this year. That's the "subsidy" 
that APS wants the county to make up. Without it, APS officials 
say, the operation will go broke.

It may be reasonable to ask for more county funding, but the way 
APS has gone about it is all wrong. When you want someone to give 
you money, you don't send a demand letter threatening dire 
consequences if the money isn't forthcoming. And you don't make 
such demands of a publicly elected governmental body in the 
context of that government's review of your operations. And even 
if you do all that, you conduct the conversation in person, not 
in the cold black-and-white impersonality of a formal letter.

Unfortunately, this incident is all too typical of APS's conduct 
of its affairs in recent times, reflecting a political 
tone-deafness and insensitivity to public perception. The APS 
knows that the county is in no position to take over operation of 
the shelter in a three-month time frame, and threatening to pull 
out not only leaves the county in an untenable situation but, 
more importantly, puts at risk the animals that APS exists to 
protect.

APS's timing in this situation is so unfortunate as to be 
construed as suicidal. APS officials avow that they want to 
continue operating the shelter, but dealing in threats and 
ultimatums suggests otherwise.

Before this exchange, it had appeared that the best prospect for 

the future of the shelter was for the county not to take it over 
_ an expensive operation for which governments are not well 
suited _ but to implement recommendations of the Humane Society 
by working with the APS. 

Now, we don't see that APS's action leaves the commissioners much 
choice. Either the county needs to plan for operating the shelter 
itself, or it needs to use its funding and contract leverage to 
effect an overhaul of APS management and governance that will be 
more responsive to the public interest. It's time to sweep out 
the kennel. 
________________________________________________________________

The Herald-Sun
September 26, 2003

APS, animal shelter differences continue 

CHAPEL HILL -- The Orange County Commissioners got a mixed 
response on who should run the county animal shelter from the 
approximately 30 residents who spoke Thursday night at a public 
hearing. 

Board members and supporters of the Animal Protection Society, 
which the county has paid to run the shelter on Airport Road in 
Chapel Hill for 24 years, believe it should continue to do so, 
while APS critics contend new shelter management is needed. 

The county-hired Humane Society of the United States released a 
report critical of APS management last month and made hundreds of 
recommendations for change. 

The APS has been in a yearlong dispute with two main critics, 
Elliot Cramer and Judith Reitman, and lawsuits filed by both 
sides continue to move through the courts. 

"Given the devastating HSUS criticisms, more than confirming what 
you have heard over the past year, you dare not entrust operation 
of the shelter to APS," Cramer told commissioners Thursday night. 
"Only a few years ago you had the best shelter operation in the 
state and you can again." 

Acknowledging the controversy has caused an "enormous headache," 
APS board President Pat Beyle asked for a meeting between the 
commissioners and the APS board before a decision on shelter 
operation is made. 

"Time is of the essence for the animals, the taxpayers and the 
APS staff. I urge you to hold such a meeting as soon as 
possible." 

APS board member Elfriede Illiano said she has not lost faith in 
the organization. 

"I hope that in the end you will make a decision beneficial to 
both animals and taxpayers and that eventually sanity will 
prevail," she said. 

APS member Beverly Rockhill, however, said the APS board has been 
hostile and condescending. 

"Commissioners, trust your intuition and your heart here," she 
said. 


Ellen Weiss questioned if APS was suited to fix the problems 
outlined in the HSUS report since she said officials had not 
acknowledged the problems. 

Marcey Waters said APS officials have been defensive rather than 
trying to solve the problems and make the shelter better. 

Gina Burns, an APS volunteer, asked that those who volunteer to 
work with the animals not be forgotten. 

"If anything comes out of this mess, we would like to see the 
volunteers kept integral to whoever is running this 
organization." 
 
________________________________________________________________
Daily Tarheel
September 26, 2003


Grievances, rebuttals aired over APS

By Nick Eberlein
Assistant City Editor

September 26, 2003 

Heated accusations, vehement denials and unanswered questions 
related to the future of the county animal shelter's 
administration marked Thursday night's public hearing before the 
Orange County Board of Commissioners.

The meeting gave residents their first chance to comment in the 
debate about the viability of the shelter's governing body, the 
local chapter of the Animal Protection Society.

The Humane Society of the United States released a report 
critical of the shelter Aug. 28, and county staff has since 
investigated options for a potential takeover. The commissioners 
contracted the Humane Society to evaluate the shelter in light of 
intense public and media scrutiny of its operations.

Being placed under a microscope by newspapers and angry 
residents, APS supporters said, is the crux of the shelter's 
difficulties.

"The media has had more fun making snide comments about us than 
David Letterman did with Bill Clinton," said Suzy Cross, a member 
of the APS Board of Directors and animal trainer at the shelter.

Most APS board members were present and stepped up to refute 
charges of mismanagement.

"This has caused an enormous headache for (the county) and APS," 
board president Pat Beyle said. "Time is of the essence for the 
animals, APS and the county."

Beyle sent a letter, dated Sept. 13, to county manager John Link 
that called the county's yearly funding to APS inadequate. To 
institute recommended changes and make up for financial 
shortfalls, Beyle wrote, would require an additional $138,000 
annual stipend.

Board members said public donations have been curtailed severely 
because of the controversy surrounding the shelter.

But critics of the APS charged that fiscal mismanagement, not a 
tight-fisted public, has eroded the shelter's money supply.

Judith Reitman, an APS member, said the shelter's director, Laura 
Walters, rejected her attempt to pay dues and tried to trespass 
her from the shelter site.

"There was no disturbance. I only wanted to pay $50," she said.

Reitman and local resident Elliot Cramer are suing the APS for 
withholding membership information and voting rights. Walters and 
the APS have countersued for defamation.

The APS has told the commissioners to reply to its monetary 
request by Wednesday or it might be forced to cede control of 
operations at the end of the year.

County staff members still have not reached a decision on extra 
funding, and there is no time set for an answer. The 

commissioners will resume shelter discussions at their Oct. 21 
meeting.

"Only a few years ago you had the best shelter operation in the 
state, and you can again," Cramer told the commissioners. "I urge 
you to act decisively."

Contact the City Editor at citydesk@unc.edu.
________________________________________________________________

Chapel Hill Herald 
September 27, 2003 

County may meet with aps board 
Shelter chief wants talks before decision on management

HILLSBOROUGH -- Orange County Commissioners may consider meeting 
with Animal Protection Society's board of directors before making 
a decision on who will manage the county's animal shelter. 

aps board President Pat Beyle requested the meeting at a public 
hearing earlier this week. 

"I think it's a reasonable request," Commissioner Barry Jacobs 
said. "I don't know if we're going to do it. We may or may not be 
at a point where we're ready to make decisions. I don't know 
until I talk to the other commissioners." 

The request for a meeting came in the wake of a report last month 
from the county-hired Humane Society of the United States that 
criticized shelter management and called for hundreds of changes 
to the procedures for handling animals there. 

And earlier this month, the aps board sent letters to the county 
manager and the commissioners asking for about $10,000 more a 
month to operate the shelter, which it's done for the county for 
the last 24 years. 

If it doesn't get the additional funds, the group can't keep 
running the shelter, aps board members said. 

Beyle wants a board-to-board meeting to explain aps' position to 
the commissioners. 

"Since 1979 we have enjoyed a good relationship with Orange 
County, and together we have done our best to take care of our 
lost, abandoned and injured animals and wildlife," Beyle said. 
"We intend to continue to do so, and would very much like to do 
it in partnership with the county." 

Jacobs is undecided on how to proceed. 

"Considering the long association we've had with the aps, they 
made a reasonable request," Jacobs said. "Considering that first 
they presented us with an ultimatum and misrepresented their 
relationship with the county, my response is ambivalence." 

Jacobs, however, said he may ask the board Wednesday to refer the 
matter to County Manager John Link. 

"If nothing else, we ought to refer it to the manager," Jacobs 

said. "One of the odd aspects of the public hearing structure is 
we just sit there. We let statements go unchallenged and 
similarly when someone makes a [request] like that we don't say 
yay or nay. We just sit there." 

Link has already been given the task to evaluate aps' request for 
additional funds and to make a recommendation on that by the end 
of October. 

aps board members would like their organization to run the 
shelter but are pushing for a decision soon. They had sought a 
decision by Oct. 1. 

The county should "move forward with immediate plans to work with 
the aps and commit to collectively establishing a first class 
shelter for our community," aps board member Kendall Page said. 

"The longer that this goes on, the more the county will suffer," 
Page added. "We will lose volunteers who are unwilling to work 
with an organization that does not have the support of the county 
and has an indefinite future." 

aps officials tied their request for more money to a warning that 
the group's ability to raise money from private donors has 
eroded, thanks in part to an ongoing dispute that began last year 
after the termination of the group's former wildlife 
veterinarian, Bobby Schopler. 

Two aps critics, Elliot Cramer and Judith Reitman, sued the group 
in February, alleging that it had violated the state law that 
outlines the rights of the members of nonprofit corporations. aps 
officials quickly filed a counterclaim alleging that the pair 
mounted a campaign of slander and libel against the organization 
to damage its fundraising and relationship with the county. 

Several residents, such as Steven Kaufmann, whose wife is on the 
aps board, said this week that they want closure to the saga. 

"It's mind-boggling to me the drama that's being played out up to 
this point, a lot of hostility, a lot of soap-opera-like drama," 
he said. "I'm personally just tired of the whole drama." 

Jacobs said that he wants volunteers involved in the operation 
regardless of who manages it. 

"I hate to think of an operation where because of insurance 
concerns or rules and regulations we don't let a volunteer sit in 
a cage with a scared animal," he said. "The thing that worries me 
the most is we don't want to impose an arbitrary and uncaring 
structure, and I think as long as we keep the volunteers engaged 
in the operation, that won't happen."
________________________________________________________________

Chapel Hill News
September 28, 2003

Clashes continue at APS hearing
Agency has issued a Tuesday deadline on a request for more funds. 


By KATHLEEN KEARNS, STAFF WRITER 

CHAPEL HILL _ The county commissioners' public hearing on animal 
shelter operations was intended to give residents a chance to 
have their say on the final report on animal services by the 
Humane Society of the United States and a parallel report by 

county staff.

Instead, the meeting at the Southern Human Services Building on 
Thursday was a rehash of charges and counter-charges that have 
swirled around the APS Animal Shelter during the past year.

Amidst the debate, Jay Fulkerson of Chapel Hill took another 
tack.

"It seems to me the county should support APS and the Piedmont 
Wildlife Center and not have APS deal with wildlife," Fulkerson 
told the commissioners. "It would mend a lot of fences to have 
the county support both. Both groups can work together and keep 
the volunteers active."

Criticism of APS mounted after Bobby Schopler, the shelter's 
veterinarian and wildlife expert, left the shelter in a storm of 
controversy in July 2002 and APS closed the wildlife facility. 
Shopler has since headed up the effort to open the independent 
Piedmont Wildlife Center and is seeking county funds for its 
operation.

The two reports were presented Aug. 28 to the commissioners, the 
Orange County Board of Health, and the board of directors of the 
Animal Protective Service of Orange County.

Though it was the sole opportunity for members of the public to 
comment on the reports, few present addressed the documents' 
specific assessments and recommendations. Most speakers fell into 
one of two camps: those who praised the nonprofit APS for its 
commitment to animal care, and those who vilified the agency for 
the way it has run the Orange County Animal Shelter. 

Sub-themes included charges that negative publicity has affected 
APS's ability to attract donations and volunteers; and tension 
bordering on animosity between advocates of APS and advocates of 
the Piedmont Wildlife Center.

Early in the hearing, APS critic Jude Reitman recounted her visit 
to the shelter early Thursday afternoon to pay to renew her 
membership and that of Elliott Cramer. Shelter director Laura 
Walters refused the checks, Reitman said, and had an APS staffer 
call Chapel Hill Police. Police records note that an officer 
responded to a disturbance at the shelter at 12:33 p.m. Thursday. 
Reitman left the building before the officer arrived, and no 
charges were filed.

APS banned Cramer from APS property in January. On Feb. 10, he 
was escorted from the shelter by police officers after he 
appeared at an APS board of directors meeting.

Reitman and Cramer filed suit Feb. 20 in Orange County Superior 
Court alleging that the APS board illegally refused to disclose 
information and records, removed members' 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 the 
critics have defamed APS's reputation.

At Thursday's hearing, Cramer characterized the HSUS report as 
"devastating." In it, he said, Kate Pullen, the HSUS director of 
animal sheltering issues, struggled to find good things to say 
about APS. 

Ann Petersen of the APS board said the agency had generated 

thousands of dollars in privately raised funds and thousands of 
hours of volunteer service. 

"No good deed goes unpunished," Petersen said.

The issue before the commissioners is whether Orange County 
should renew APS's contract, run the shelter itself, or turn the 
management of animal services over to another organization. In 
two Sept. 13 letters, APS President Pat Beyle told the 
commissioners and County Manager John Link that APS would not 
continue to manage and operate the shelter beyond Sept. 30 unless 
the county increased payments to APS by $10,636 a month. Link and 
the commissioners have not yet responded to the funding request.

Link said county staff are expected to present their 
recommendations about shelter operation to the commissioners at a 
meeting Oct. 21 at 7:30 in the Southern Human Services Center. At 
or after this meeting, the commissioners will decide how to 
respond to the request for increased funds and whether to renew 
the APS contract.

APS has asked for a meeting with the commissioners to discuss all 
issues related to county animal services. 

Beyle said the agency would like to continue operating the animal 
shelter in partnership with the county. 

"The decision rests with you," Beyle told the commissioners. "It 
should be made deliberately and without delay but not before you 
meet with (the APS board) directly."

Walters said Friday that such a meeting would be open to the 
public if it occurs. The Board of Commissioners has not yet 
responded to the meeting request.

Walters said that unless the agency receives an answer from the 
county on the funding request by Tuesday, it will immediately 
discontinue Emergency Animal Rescue Services and begin working 
with the county on transferring management of the animal shelter 
to the county or another organization by Dec. 31. Beyle's Sept. 
13 letter stipulated that APS would be willing to continue 
emergency services beyond Sept. 30 if the county increases its 
monthly payment to the agency by the $10,636 requested.

In June, commissioners voted to extend the county's contract with 
APS until Sept. 30, after which it would come up for renewal each 
month through Dec. 31. The commissioners recently decided to 
extend the contract until Oct. 31.

Earlier this month, Link recommended that the commissioners 
appoint a task force to review the HSUS report on APS. Board of 
Commissioners Chair Margaret W. Brown said Friday that her board 
colleagues asked her at a meeting last week to get 
recommendations on who would make up such a task force and what 
its charge would be. She said she is presently working with the 
other commissioners to fulfill that request.
________________________________________________________________

Chapel Hill News
September 28, 2003

Comment:  What would you do if a big client hires a new manager
who has a history of incompetence in her prior position.  You
receive many complaints from customers about the service and this
manager continually submits false reports and statements justifying
her inadequate performance.  Her Board, instead of investigating and
remedying the situation repeated says what a wonderful job she is 
doing.  I think you would contract with someone else.

---
What would you do in this case?

You are about to go into contract negotiations at the end of the 
fiscal year with a big client who you have been in business with 
for many years. 

During the year, you have been subjected to a slanderous attack 
by partisan critics. They attempt a hostile takeover. They sue 
you. Your lawyer counsels public discretion while the allegations 
and counter suit proceed. 

The press repeats daily the negative quotations of the attackers 
with little research of underlying causes. Repetition causes 
public distrust of your service. 

Your client commissions a major report on the state of the 
business. Before receiving the report and considering the 
third-party suggestions, they decide not to renew the yearly 
contract. They unilaterally demand month-to-month continuance 
from your firm. 

Investments in your service drop away after the non-renewal. 

Your client's management advises its board that they are not 
ready to take over the operation for half a year. Further, they 
prepare projections that show that they cannot beat your prices. 

The client says, "Maybe if you give us thousands of dollars in 
contributions indefinitely we may use your group for a few more 
months. We are not sure how many months." 

You hire a top business analyst to go through all the books. He 
is convinced you have been ethical and shows how you have saved 
your client thousands of dollars over the years. He reorganizes 
and clarifies the books to show actual cost of services provided. 
Your client ignores this expert's report. The client's chief 
executive says, "You are no longer financially viable." 

Being responsible to its other division, your board decides to 
protect its continuing operations from financial harm. Since 
there has been no opportunity offered for direct sit down 
negotiations your board asks for actual compensation of service 
provided and sets a deadline for a transition or a commitment. 
What would you do? 

-- Jesse Kaufmann, Hillsborough

________________________________________________________________

Chapel Hill News
September 28, 2003

Clashes continue at APS hearing
Agency has issued a Tuesday deadline on a request for more funds. 


By KATHLEEN KEARNS, STAFF WRITER 

CHAPEL HILL _ The county commissioners' public hearing on animal 
shelter operations was intended to give residents a chance to 
have their say on the final report on animal services by the 
Humane Society of the United States and a parallel report by 

county staff.

Instead, the meeting at the Southern Human Services Building on 
Thursday was a rehash of charges and counter-charges that have 
swirled around the APS Animal Shelter during the past year.

Amidst the debate, Jay Fulkerson of Chapel Hill took another 
tack.

"It seems to me the county should support APS and the Piedmont 
Wildlife Center and not have APS deal with wildlife," Fulkerson 
told the commissioners. "It would mend a lot of fences to have 
the county support both. Both groups can work together and keep 
the volunteers active."

Criticism of APS mounted after Bobby Schopler, the shelter's 
veterinarian and wildlife expert, left the shelter in a storm of 
controversy in July 2002 and APS closed the wildlife facility. 
Shopler has since headed up the effort to open the independent 
Piedmont Wildlife Center and is seeking county funds for its 
operation.

The two reports were presented Aug. 28 to the commissioners, the 
Orange County Board of Health, and the board of directors of the 
Animal Protective Service of Orange County.

Though it was the sole opportunity for members of the public to 
comment on the reports, few present addressed the documents' 
specific assessments and recommendations. Most speakers fell into 
one of two camps: those who praised the nonprofit APS for its 
commitment to animal care, and those who vilified the agency for 
the way it has run the Orange County Animal Shelter. 

Sub-themes included charges that negative publicity has affected 
APS's ability to attract donations and volunteers; and tension 
bordering on animosity between advocates of APS and advocates of 
the Piedmont Wildlife Center.

Early in the hearing, APS critic Jude Reitman recounted her visit 
to the shelter early Thursday afternoon to pay to renew her 
membership and that of Elliott Cramer. Shelter director Laura 
Walters refused the checks, Reitman said, and had an APS staffer 
call Chapel Hill Police. Police records note that an officer 
responded to a disturbance at the shelter at 12:33 p.m. Thursday. 
Reitman left the building before the officer arrived, and no 
charges were filed.

APS banned Cramer from APS property in January. On Feb. 10, he 
was escorted from the shelter by police officers after he 
appeared at an APS board of directors meeting.

Reitman and Cramer filed suit Feb. 20 in Orange County Superior 
Court alleging that the APS board illegally refused to disclose 
information and records, removed members' 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 the 
critics have defamed APS's reputation.

At Thursday's hearing, Cramer characterized the HSUS report as 
"devastating." In it, he said, Kate Pullen, the HSUS director of 
animal sheltering issues, struggled to find good things to say 
about APS. 

Ann Petersen of the APS board said the agency had generated 
thousands of dollars in privately raised funds and thousands of 
hours of volunteer service. 

"No good deed goes unpunished," Petersen said.

The issue before the commissioners is whether Orange County 
should renew APS's contract, run the shelter itself, or turn the 
management of animal services over to another organization. In 
two Sept. 13 letters, APS President Pat Beyle told the 
commissioners and County Manager John Link that APS would not 
continue to manage and operate the shelter beyond Sept. 30 unless 
the county increased payments to APS by $10,636 a month. Link and 
the commissioners have not yet responded to the funding request.

Link said county staff are expected to present their 
recommendations about shelter operation to the commissioners at a 
meeting Oct. 21 at 7:30 in the Southern Human Services Center. At 
or after this meeting, the commissioners will decide how to 
respond to the request for increased funds and whether to renew 
the APS contract.

APS has asked for a meeting with the commissioners to discuss all 
issues related to county animal services. 

Beyle said the agency would like to continue operating the animal 
shelter in partnership with the county. 

"The decision rests with you," Beyle told the commissioners. "It 
should be made deliberately and without delay but not before you 
meet with (the APS board) directly."

Walters said Friday that such a meeting would be open to the 
public if it occurs. The Board of Commissioners has not yet 
responded to the meeting request.

Walters said that unless the agency receives an answer from the 
county on the funding request by Tuesday, it will immediately 
discontinue Emergency Animal Rescue Services and begin working 
with the county on transferring management of the animal shelter 
to the county or another organization by Dec. 31. Beyle's Sept. 
13 letter stipulated that APS would be willing to continue 
emergency services beyond Sept. 30 if the county increases its 
monthly payment to the agency by the $10,636 requested.

In June, commissioners voted to extend the county's contract with 
APS until Sept. 30, after which it would come up for renewal each 
month through Dec. 31. The commissioners recently decided to 
extend the contract until Oct. 31.

Earlier this month, Link recommended that the commissioners 
appoint a task force to review the HSUS report on APS. Board of 
Commissioners Chair Margaret W. Brown said Friday that her board 
colleagues asked her at a meeting last week to get 
recommendations on who would make up such a task force and what 
its charge would be. She said she is presently working with the 
other commissioners to fulfill that request.
________________________________________________________________

Chapel Hill Herald
September 29, 2003 

APS' funding request had multiple reasons 

Comment:  What service could be more valuable or important to APS 
that than attending to injured animals that citizens find on the 
road or elsewhere - a dog park?.  The County has no legal 
obligation to provide the EARS service but it has been an 
implicit part of the APS contract for many years.  If APS thinks 
it is not required to do this, it should anyway as part of its 
mission.  I have no doubt that the cancellation of the service by 
APS was a ploy by Laura Walters to pressure the BOCC.  The 
low-cost spay/neuter program is certainly a valuable service, but 
it has been a money maker for APS;  it completely funded the APS 
Wildlife program which APS has abandoned, providing additional 
income for other APS programs.
----

On behalf of the aps Board, I would like to provide additional 
perspective on our recent request for additional funding to 
operate the Animal Shelter. 

The aps has requested the county to increase its funding level 
for the shelter by $10,636 per month starting Oct. 1. aps has 
already subsidized operation of the shelter by approximately 
$32,000 this fiscal year. If the county does not grant our 
request, we will continue to subsidize operation of the shelter 
through December 31, 2003 -- an additional $32,000. 

Our request for additional funding was based on a number of 
considerations, including: 

*Annual costs of operating the shelter have increased by 
approximately 7 percent, due in part to implementing certain HSUS 
recommendations. 

*The controversy over aps operation of the shelter and the 
"short-leash" approach the county has taken with aps have, over 
the past year, significantly affected our ability to obtain 
funding from the community (the primary source of funds 
subsidizing shelter operations). 

*Continued aps subsidization over the years -- particularly since 
July 1, 2002 when the county essentially (and unilaterally) froze 
its annual funding level for the shelter -- has led to a 
dwindling of our unrestricted cash reserves. 

The aps provides a number of animal welfare programs and services 
to the community separate and apart from its operation of the 
shelter (e.g., a low-cost spay/neuter clinic, educational 
programs, animal training programs, a recreational dog park -- 
all centered at the Felicite Latane Center in Mebane). 

The aps is not "going broke." However, our ability to protect 
these other valuable programs we provide would be significantly 
threatened if the current situation were allowed to continue as 
is much longer. We would be irresponsible if we did not act to 
protect these other activities, particularly in the absence of 
assurance of a continuing working relationship with the county. 

We are hopeful our financial situation with respect to 
subsidizing the shelter is temporary in nature. The answer to 
this depends on a timely decision by the county as to who will 
operate the shelter in the future. If the county decides to 
continue to contract with the aps, we anticipate this would have 
a positive impact on our ability to restore previous levels of 
community funding. 

We have asked the county to make this decision by no later than 
Jan. 31, 2004 -- which is more than sufficient time to do so. 


John Guibert 

Chapel Hill 

The writer is a member of the Animal Protection Society Board of 
Directors.

________________________________________________________________

Chapel Hill Herald
September 30, 2003

Comment:  More of Laura's lies.  There was no disturbance; Judith 
simply insisted on a receipt as is her right
------

APS conflict with 2 critics returns to court 
Membership list, records access at issue; police matter delayed


HILLSBOROUGH -- The Animal Protection Society of Orange County 
and its two most vocal critics were in court again Monday as they 
parried back and forth over access to aps documents and the aps 
membership list. 

Superior Court Judge Ronald Stephens heard arguments from Barry 
Nakell, a lawyer representing Elliot Cramer and Judith Reitman. 
Nakell said that aps has not provided the documents and the 
membership list as required by previous discovery motions. 

Cramer and Reitman sued the aps in February, claiming that the 
group, which manages Orange County's animal shelter, refused to 
hand over board minutes, membership lists and financial records, 
and that it secretly changed its bylaws to keep control of the 
board of directors. 

In turn, the aps and its director, Laura Walters, filed 
defamation counterclaims against Cramer and Reitman because they 
published posters and other information claiming the aps and 
Walters had engaged in illegal conduct. 

Thursday, the conflict became a police matter for the second time 
in the yearlong dispute when Reitman went to the shelter. She 
attempted to renew her own aps membership, which expired in 
August, and to renew Cramer's membership, which is due to expire 
today at midnight. 

Cramer claims that Reitman handed two dues checks to Walters, but 
Walters would not give her a receipt. When Reitman demanded 
receipts, Walters called the police, and Reitman went outside and 
waited for police to arrive. 

For her part, Walters said that while Reitman gave her the dues 
checks, she told Reitman she would have to consult the aps board 
about whether it would renew the memberships. 

As they argued about the checks and receipts, Reitman became 
upset and followed her around the office demanding receipts, 
Walters said. 

"I asked her to leave because she was causing a scene, a large 
disturbance," Walters said. "The crowd in the office seemed very 
shocked at what was happening, and I thought it was very 
important to bring the situation under control." 

Walters said she called the police when Reitman refused to leave 
the building. 

The police report said Reitman was waiting outside when the 
officer arrived. He asked her to leave, and she did. 

In court, Nakell asked for a temporary restraining order and 
injunction to compel aps to accept the membership applications of 
Cramer and Reitman, and to withdraw a trespassing notice the 
group lodged against Cramer after an incident at the shelter last 
year. 

Stephens refused to hear arguments on those issues, on the 
grounds that the aps and its lawyers hadn't received enough 
notice about Nakell's request. He said he would hear arguments on 
that motion on Oct. 13. 

The judge did hear arguments Monday on whether aps has provided 
Cramer and Reitman the documents they're entitled to under the 
rules of discovery. 

aps attorney Ron Merritt handed Nakell two boxes of documents 
early Monday morning that supposedly contained all the requested 
documents, except the membership list and financial records. 
Stephens said he would make a decision on whether Cramer and 
Reitman should receive those too on Thursday at 2 p.m. 

aps attorney Chris Lewis argued that Cramer and Reitman were not 
entitled to the membership list and financial records because 
they planned to use them in bad faith and for improper purposes. 
Nakell claimed they would not. 

During Nakell's background summary of the lawsuit to Stephens, 
who had not heard any previous motions about the case, Nakell 
said that Cramer's interest in the aps began after the group 
declined to renew the contract of Bobby Schopler, the 
veterinarian who ran its wildlife program. 

aps officials believe Cramer's interest in the aps grew out of a 
longtime friendship with Schopler and his mother. In an 
affidavit, aps President Pat Beyle said she believes Cramer has 
criticized aps operations and management in an effort to destroy 
the contractual relationship between the aps and the county. 

Cramer denied Beyle's assertion, calling it "that Schopler 
garbage."

________________________________________________________________
Daily Tarheel
September 30, 2003

Questions linger over control of animal shelter

By Dan Schwind
Staff Writer

September 30, 2003 

As discussions about the viability of the local Animal Protection 
Society's administration of the county's animal shelter approach 
an endgame, just who will run the shelter -- and how much it will 
cost -- remains as muddled as ever. 

After months of scrutiny and intensive efforts to bolster the 
shelter's quality during the last few months, APS recently 
requested $138,000 in additional funding from the Orange County 
Board of Commissioners. 

If the board does not provide the funding by Wednesday, APS said, 
it will relinquish control of the shelter at the end of the year.

Pat Beyle, president of the APS board of directors, said the 
organization is optimistic about renewing its contract for next 
year. "It's in their ballpark," Beyle said.

Beyle emphasized that the money is necessary to get back to "even 
keel" after implementing recommendations from the Humane Society 
of the United States.

Additional funding would help the group with public fund-raising 
efforts, though Beyle noted that county cooperation with the 
shelter is needed for continued operation.

"Just laying the money on us isn't going to do it," Beyle said. 
"We're asking for a partnership (with county officials)."

The APS ultimatum has hastened the dialogue among various parties 
concerning who should run the shelter.

One potential candidate is the county itself, though its proposed 
budget is significantly higher than the yearly $428,818 
allocation the commissioners grant to the APS.

Elliot Cramer, local resident and president of the Piedmont 
Animal Welfare Society, said the county would require an 
additional $400,000, compared with the $138,000 APS would need.

Assistant County Manager Gwen Harvey said the discrepancies 
result from the county's lack of experience in running the animal 
shelter. "(It's) based on understanding the frame of reference on 
what APS has now," Harvey said.

Cramer, one of APS' biggest critics, said the county's budget is 
bloated and includes items that are unnecessary. He said the 
county overestimated the number of kennel workers needed for 

operation. 

Cramer also offered a sample budget that was modified from APS' 
current budget. It calls for about $140,000 in extra funding 
above the yearly money now earmarked for APS.

Cramer said he believes that it is very likely that a group could 
be found to run the shelter in place of APS. "I am confident that 
some other group can and will stand up and take over," Cramer 
said. "If not, the county can at similar costs (to the sample 
budget)."

Recent debate also has centered on the creation of a task force 
proposed in the Humane Society's evaluation of the shelter. The 
Humane Society called for the task force to oversee the 
implementation of the recommendations in the report.

"It's at the board's pleasure to vote on that," Harvey said.

Currently at issue is how the task force would operate. 

Commissioners support assembling a force tailored to the Humane 
Society's specifications and might vote on implementation at 
their Oct. 21 meeting. The APS would create its own task force if 
the board can't agree on a county-led group.

Contact the City Editor at citydesk@unc.edu.