Chapel Hill Herald April 3, 2004 County rules out APS as animal shelter's future manager BY GEOFFREY GRAYBEAL : The Herald-Sun HILLSBOROUGH -- The Animal Protection Society of Orange County will no longer run the county-owned animal shelter off Airport Road in Chapel Hill after June 30. The Orange County Commissioners bounced the APS from its consideration of which organization in the future will run the shelter at a commissioners' work session this week. Commissioner Steve Halkiotis asked if any of the five-member board objected to removing the option that would have meant the county would continue its contract with APS. When no one did, Halkiotis instructed Greg Wilder, the assistant to County Manager John Link, to remove that particular poster display from sight. The commissioners also instructed staff to "fine tune" the two remaining proposals -- creating an "animal services bureau" or a separate department under the county manager's office -- and to bring back estimates for what it will cost the county to take over the shelter operation. "I think there may be another model that's not up there that has some sort of combination of all three," Halkiotis said. The Animal Shelter Operations Task Force, a commissioners-appointed citizens group studying shelter operations, recommends that the county manage the facility through the bureau option. Commissioner Alice Gordon asked how the bureau would differ from a county department. "Really, it's about approachability, this animal bureau being somewhat different from a county department," said task force member Linda Schmoldt. "It's definitely a fine point. It's not something that jumps out and grabs you. It's more of a perception, more of a distinction." Assistant County Manager Gwen Harvey explained that a bureau would appear to the public to be less bureaucratic and more entrepreneurial. Similar to a visitors bureau, the animal services bureau could be managed by the county, staffed by county employees and have a commissioners-appointed advisory board. "I think the idea of accountability to the county manager at this point is a given," said Commissioners' Chairman Barry Jacobs. Jacobs proposed a "hybrid model" that leaves open the possibility of the county working with nonprofit agencies such as the Piedmont Wildlife Center, the Humane Society of Orange County and the APS. Jacobs said he wants to see more of a public-private partnership rather than the county assuming all costs of providing animal services. He argued that a hybrid model could address concerns about volunteer involvement and costs. But Commissioners Gordon and Moses Carey questioned what Jacobs was envisioning. "I thought that [the task-fore recommendation] is a hybrid that captures all of the things you all are mentioning," Carey said. "I thought that was the hybrid that captures the best of all worlds." Jacobs said he was proposing a variation of the task force-recommended model that instead of an advisory board "sitting on the sidelines" functioned more as a partner. Task force member James Kramer, however, argued that the county should work with nonprofit agencies at a lower level of involvement. Kramer said the county should have greater control, such as mandating that an adaptability screening be conducted on each shelter animal and that the animals be held at the shelter for a specific period of time. After that, non-adopted animals could be turned over to nonprofit groups, he said. Link said it would be helpful to know in what areas the commissioners would like volunteers to work. For instance, he assumed volunteers wouldn't handle euthanasia. The manager said he would need a decision from the commissioners on the shelter model by April 20, since APS intends to vacate the shelter June 30 and take its equipment with them. "We need our marching orders so we can begin testing out what other possibilities there may be ... and just as importantly begin ordering equipment," Link said, adding later that "it's going to take us every single day between now and July 1 to make this work." Carey noted that until the county determines shelter policies, there could not be agreement on operating costs, but that he always assumed a county takeover would be more expensive than contracting with APS. The commissioners want more cost estimates. A report last fall from Link's staff said the county would need to spend $1.1 million in the first year of a management takeover and $969,943 the second year. Commissioner Margaret Brown decried those numbers as "bogus" while Halkiotis called such a budget "frivolous," adding that volunteers can significantly reduce the county's costs. "I will support a realistic budget, but I will not support a bureaucratic fantasy piece like I got the last time," he said. ________________________________________________________________ Daily Tarheel April 02, 2004 APS to lose shelter control Comment: Several taskforce members present indicated they would not have recommended APS under ANY circumstances. This was perfectly clear from comments at the Taskforce vote. By Chris Glazner Assistant City Editor The Orange County Board of Commissioners ruled out Thursday the possibility of the Animal Protection Society continuing to manage the county's animal shelter, confirming a recommendation made last week by a task force studying the issue. The board cited a lack of accountability and past problems with APS as reasons not to recontract with the nonprofit group. The task force had recommended creating a county department or an animal services bureau to run the shelter, but the county commissioners had the option of overruling those recommendations. Commissioner Alice Gordon in particular said she would have preferred a shelter that would not have to answer to the board, noting the cost efficiency of contracting the job to a nonprofit agency. But she agreed when Commissioner Steve Halkiotis suggested leaving APS out of the equation. "As a practical matter, we don't have that entity we're comfortable with," Gordon said, referring to APS. APS has come under fire in the past year, receiving complaints and a lawsuit from two county residents alleging mismanagement of the shelter. The other two options will require more county involvement and, potentially, more cost. Commissioner Moses Carey, chairman of the task force, noted that the group did not look at cost when considering the options. If it had, he said, it would have voted for recontracting with APS. But several commissioners were adamant that the shelter be directly accountable to the board. "My bottom line on this whole thing is accountability," Commissioner Margaret Brown said . She recounted numerous complaints she had received from county residents and expressed frustration at having no power to address the problems. Brown's concerns echoed those expressed at the task force meeting in March, when residents decried the poor performance of the shelter under APS. Halkiotis noted the importance of hiring an amiable director to recruit and retain volunteers, minimizing the cost to the county. County Manager John Link asked for guidance as to what jobs could be performed by volunteers in order to provide an accurate cost assessment of the two options left for the shelter. Link will provide more detailed information on the remaining options at the board's next meeting, and the task force might make more recommendations. The entire process must be completed by mid-June to prepare for the June 30 change in the shelter's management. "It's going to take us every single day between now and July 1 to make this work," Link said. ________________________________________________________________ Chapel Hill News April 4, 2004 County board still stalled on animal shelter Commissioners raise more questions, but county manager and task force members say time is running out. By Kathleen Kearns, Staff Writer CHAPEL HILL _ To the apparent chagrin of Commissioner Moses Carey, who chaired the Animal Shelter Operations Task Force, and of normally unflappable County Manager John Link, how a county-run animal shelter might be structured became only slightly clearer at the Orange County Board of Commissioners' work session Thursday. The board did not vote, but it set aside one option: having the Animal Protection Society continue to operate the shelter under contract with the county as it has since 1979. And the commissioners clarified the issues that remain to be grappled with before new organizational charts can be drawn. But they did not come much closer to settling on a structure they did want. Nor did they embrace the recommendations of the task force, which voted March 23 to bring forward two options: a new animal services bureau _ the task force's stated preference _ and a new county department or division. Instead, commissioners raised additional questions for the citizens' group and county staff to answer about costs, accountability and the role of volunteers. Board Chairman Barry Jacobs requested that task force members consider a hybrid option that would have county employees working with an amalgamation of nonprofit groups to run the shelter. Link told the commissioners they will need to make a decision no later than April 20 about how lines of accountability will be drawn between a shelter director and the county management team. "We need our marching orders," he said. "And it's just as important to start ordering equipment. I've talked to (APS Board President) Ann Petersen and (APS Interim Shelter Director) Suzy Cooke. Their intent is to finish their contract with the county June 30. They're not interested in month-to-month continuation. "If the board had some initiative under which APS would have a role, they would consider a six- or 12-month extension, but not month-to-month. I'm assuming we need to be there, ready, on July 1, running the shelter." Link told commissioners that some decisions _ like how many shelter employees would be county employees and whether animal control should be part of the county manager's office in some way _ can be made later. By law, the county health department must oversee some animal control functions, those Commissioner Steve Halkiotis characterized as "bird influenzas and rabies and fish that come up out of the water and attack bathers." Carey said that in his instructions to the task force, he tried to steer them away from cost considerations because that was an issue for the commissioners to address. "I'm getting concerned here," he said to his colleagues. "You asked me to convene the committee, work in a short period of time and come back with some recommendations. I was a tough taskmaster and they were patient with me. "I thought you wanted real strong influence in the county manager's office so this board would have more influence. I also said you wanted to sustain the benefits of the volunteerism. "If we'd factored in the range of costs, we might have been still debating what the costs would be. When you develop costs, it's a function of what your policy's going to be. If you all are telling me those criteria are not important to you, then I apologize to those people because I was steering them in the wrong direction." Dan Textoris, a member of the task force who attended the meeting, said that had cost factors been considered, his guess was that keeping the contract with APS would have beat other options. Jacobs said that the board would consider costs. "As we often say, advisory groups can make recommendations to the commissioners, but the commissioners can do what they want with the recommendations." Carey said the animal services bureau model that the task force recommended addressed the issues of volunteerism, cost containment, and accountability. "I thought that was the hybrid that captures the best of all worlds. I recognize that any citizen group is advisory. But I happen to think that when you ask folks to make a recommendation to you, you ought to give it as much weight as possible in the decision. You're saying to us that we've wasted our time." Jacobs said he hesitated to make everyone working at the shelter a county employee because that would be a huge addition to county staff. He said the hybrid he projected would be close to the bureau model but that it would include another entity that could participate as a volunteer group and would bring in people and resources. Jim Kramer, another task force member, said that he would like to see county employees, not volunteers, handle such tasks as taking in and evaluating animals and interacting with members of the public looking for lost animals. Commissioner Margaret Brown said she'd like to see operating expenses calculated by county staff. "The last (estimate) we got was pretty bogus. I could even see terrible mistakes in it. I think it was put forward as a deterrent." In November, when the county took bids to run the animal shelter, APS estimated it would cost more than $60,000 a month for the county to run the shelter itself. Halkiotis said he agreed with Brown's characterization of the APS estimate. "If you take the volunteer piece and make it work, you can significantly reduce costs. I will support a realistic budget but I will not support a bureaucratic fantasy trip like we got the last time." Link assured the commissioners that he and his staff would provide a hard-nosed cost estimate by April 20. "It's going to take every single day between now and July 1 to make this work, and that's assuming the core is county employees," he said. "We can pursue volunteerism after July 1. But we have to assure the shelter is up 24/7, and we have to be hard-nosed about the numbers of people and equipment. We'll come back by the 20th with that number." Carey said that his schedule would not allow him to convene another meeting of the task force before April 20. Jacobs suggested that task force members could use e-mail to make comments to commissioners and county staffers. Assistant County Manager Gwen Harvey said Friday that she is trying to organize a meeting Monday for the subcommittee of the task force that prepared the report to the commissioners. ________________________________________________________________ Comment: This was not my take on the meeting; I don't think that the BOCC was stalled at all. It directed John Link to come forward with cost figures for the two non-APS options. No vote was taken but Moses Carey had previously stated that the BOCC was unlikely to vote at the work-session. It is certainly clear that APS will not be running the shelter on July 1 and the only other viable option is the County. APS has picked up it's marbles and has indicated that it will not cooperate with the County in any way (such as letting the County use APS shelter supplies which APS has no for on July 1.) Ostensibly APS will transfer this equipment to it proposed adoption center, but, given APS's statements about its limited discretionary funds, it certainly will not have the $100,000+ per year needed to operate it. Jacobs was the only Board member to suggest an "amalgamation of nonprofit groups to run the shelter"; this clearly had no support and Jacobs did not pursue it. Although former APS board member and current Taskforce member Dan Textoris said that "if cost factors been considered, his guess was that keeping the contract with APS would have beat other options", I saw a vigorous shaking of heads among the other Taskforce members. When the Taskforce voted, there appeared to be no support for APS except from Textoris and one other member. The Commissioners were given a letter from Ann Peterson to the APS Membership (posted on the APS website) saying: "This task force was recently formed by the BOCC and concluded after a few short meetings that Orange County would be better served by having a County-managed shelter. ... In short, this task force made their subjective decisions based on little objective information and mostly on the past negative information reported widely in the media and on their perceptions based on a few vocal critics." Ann Peterson is uninformed; Commissioner Carey oversaw a thorough evaluation with five meetings of two hours or more. The Taskforce had the HSUS report which alone would be sufficient objective justification to reject APS. It is apparent from volunteer reports that the APS operation is a continuing disaster. Puppies have been starving and dying, animals are mistreated, and APS STILL does not vaccinate their animals in a timely manner. Volunteers will support the shelter because that's where the animals are. It is a tragedy for the animals that APS apparently will be there until July 1. ________________________________________________________________ The Chapel Hill Herald April 5, 2004 Shelter must move on without APS CHAPEL HILL -- It may still be unclear exactly how the county's animal shelter will operate in the future, but we do now know one thing for sure about the operations: they won't include the Animal Protection Society. The decision to eliminate the APS from consideration of managing the shelter in the future, made last week by the Orange County Commissioners, was probably inevitable. It was also probably correct. Despite the APS' many years of service in running the Airport Road facility, despite the many good things the society has done, and is continuing to do, there's just too much history involved, too much metaphoric blood already spilled. The battle between the APS and several of its most vociferous critics is still in litigation, a "bloody thermonuclear war," in the recent words of the judge hearing the case. Meanwhile, the community still seems divided over the stewardship of the APS. At a recent "listening session" held by the county's Animal Shelter Operations Task Force, almost equal numbers of local residents felt the APS should continue running the shelter or should have nothing to do with it. The APS critics who spoke at the meeting clearly were intransigent. They didn't care if the APS had changed at all or would change in the future. They simply didn't want the organization, in any way, involved in the shelter. Meanwhile, to provide a new start, the society has just hired a new director for the shelter, who comes with years of experience and a solid background in shelter management. But the hiring of Joe Pulcinella can't stop the bleeding either. The APS currently manages the shelter on a short-term contract with the county. That contract expires June 30, at the end of the current fiscal year. The county commissioners are still weighing whether the management structure of the shelter after that date will be that of an animal services bureau -- sort of like the county Visitor's Bureau -- or simply a department, under the aegis of the county manager. In either case, the responsibility ultimately will lie with the commissioners themselves, as it should. And all things considered, when the time comes, it's best that the APS go. The wounds are otherwise too deep to heal. ________________________________________________________________ Daily Tarheel April 06, 2004 Judge dismisses two claims in APS battle By Sara Lewkowicz Staff Writer An Orange County Superior Court judge threw out claims Monday by both sides of the ongoing legal battle between the Animal Protection Society and critics Judith Reitman and Elliot Cramer. Judge John R. Jolly Jr. dismissed a defamation countersuit -- filed by APS in response to a suit filed by Cramer and Reitman -- along with Reitman and Cramer's claim of breach of fiduciary duty. Barry Nakell, attorney for Reitman and Cramer, said Jolly did not give any reason for the dismissal of the claims. Jolly did not dismiss the defamation countersuit filed by APS directors and Laura Walters but did acknowledge the difficulty the plaintiffs would encounter in proving their case. "We will defend those claims at trial," Nakell said. "I believe that the court probably held that the First Amendment applies to the claims of APS for defamation. I don't understand why the court let that go to trial." Former APS President Pat Beyle expressed her relief at the court's decision. "I am so relieved, and I am so delighted," she said. "This has been going on for a very long time, and it's time to move on and have this over with." Cramer and Reitman filed their suit two years ago claiming that the APS board illegally altered the organization's bylaws to prevent non-board members from participating in the election of board members. APS and Laura Walters, director of the animal shelter at the time, countered with claims of libel, slander and defamation. Since then, the organization has come under harsh criticism from Cramer and Reitman over how it runs the county's animal shelter. As a result, the Orange County Board of Commissioners appointed a task force to examine the future of the shelter. After examining the management and structure of APS and the shelter, the commissioners decided Thursday to remove animal shelter control from APS. Members of a task force sub-committee met today to discuss the ultimate fate of the animal shelter. Jim Kramer, a member of the county's task force, said he believes the animal shelter will end up in the hands of the county. "From the last meeting, it's pretty clear that the county is going to take over the shelter one way or another," he said. "It's just a matter of going through the formalities and the shift in regime." Kramer said he is relieved at the developments regarding the organization. "I have a very poor opinion of the APS. ... I really hope the county can get in there and do what they are supposed to be doing." The trial date is set for June 28. Contact the City Editor at citydesk@unc.edu. ________________________________________________________________ Chapel Hill Herald April 7, 2004 Altered APS suit gets trial date BY GEOFFREY GRAYBEAL : The Herald-Sun HILLSBOROUGH -- Superior Court Judge John Jolly on Monday dismissed most of the claims made by two vociferous critics of the Animal Protection Society as well as a counterclaim filed by the organization. A few remaining issues in the legal dispute between APS and critics Elliot Cramer and Judith Reitman likely will go to trial this summer. In February 2003, Cramer and Reitman filed a lawsuit against the APS in Orange County Superior Court, accusing the society of, among other actions, refusing to hand over minutes from board meetings, membership lists and financial records, and improperly changing the group's bylaws. Their suit asked the court to set a jury trial and declare APS' actions unlawful. It called on the court to force the group to release information, order a new election of board members and award more than $10,000 in damages. The APS responded with a counterclaim, contending that Cramer and Reitman made slanderous and damaging statements about the society on several occasions, both in spoken comments in public meetings and in written comments. The court on Monday found no "genuine issue as to any material fact" on three of four counts made by Cramer and Reitman in their lawsuit. Those were chiefly claims that APS was financially irresponsible, failed to disclose information as required by law and wrongfully adopted bylaw amendments that violated the law. The court did not rule on their fourth count, requesting a new election of APS board members. The court also dismissed APS' counterclaim and a request by APS attorney Ron Merritt to impose sanctions on the critics' attorney, Barry Nakell, for "contended discovery abuse." Merritt had maintained that Nakell wasn't cooperating with his requests. In a separate counterclaim, however, the APS board alleged that its members were libeled, slandered and defamed in comments and statements made by Cramer and Reitman. That counterclaim, which former Executive Director Laura Walters later joined, also claims that Cramer and Reitman spoke and published false and defamatory statements intended to interfere with the contract APS had with Orange County to run the county-owned shelter on Airport Road. A motion by Nakell requesting that suit be dismissed was denied by the judge and will proceed to trial. "We're certainly pleased the court dismissed their claims and we're looking forward to proceeding to the jury with the claims still left in the case," Merritt said. In the past, Cramer and Reitman have referred questions about the cases to their attorney. Nakell could not be reached Monday for comment. The APS is seeking compensatory damages of more than $10,000, as well as punitive damages in an amount to be determined by a jury. The remaining legal wrangling will tentatively be heard again in court on June 28. ________________________________________________________________ Chapel Hill News April 7, 2004 Editorial Next stage for animal shelter The residents at the APS animal shelter might be wondering: What are the humans out there doing now? After a year of hand-wringing over the shelter's future and three months of deliberations by a new task force, Orange County still doesn't know what it's going to do with the shelter after June 30, when the contract with the Animal Protection Society ends. That's a short time frame, and we don't even know what the cost will be, if the county does take over the shelter. All this came to a head last week when the Animal Shelter Operations Task Force presented its recommendations to the county commissioners. The task force wasn't sure what it wanted, in terms of future management of the shelter, but it was sure what it did not want _ continued operation by the Animal Protection Society of Orange County. The task force recommended against continuing the county's annual $450,000 subsidy to APS in favor of either a new animal services bureau, or a new animal shelter operation under the county manager's office. The bureaucratic details differ, but both would be under the umbrella of county government. But the task force got less than a face-licking reception last week from the commissioners. Several commissioners had cold feet about the idea of lodging a new agency within county government and about the cost of the operation. Incredibly, the county does not know what it would cost to operate a shelter, even though it may be doing so in three months, and the task force, for some unclear reason, did not consider the cost factor in making its recommendations. Commissioners Chairman Barry Jacobs asked the task force to look at the idea of a public-private enterprise that would combine county oversight with involvement by nonprofit groups. The intent would be to engage the large corps of volunteers that is presumed to come with nonprofit involvement, attract financial contributions and limit the number of employees that would be added to the county payroll. It sounds like a reasonable approach. County Manager John Link told the commissioners he'd come up with a cost estimate by April 20 for county operation of the shelter. The commissioners are in a tough place. They would be taking over a job that is expensive and messy to run, involving very emotional input from the public. It's doubtful that the county, with its higher overhead costs and more costly personnel policies, can run the shelter as cheaply as APS has. But the APS has not been running a quality operation, as evidenced by the Humane Society report last year, and the public is at best split over continued APS management of the shelter. The county should pay attention to the recommendations of its own task force, at least in not continuing the current APS shelter arrangement. The guiding principle here should not be politics or even cost _ although that has to be a consideration. The main concern should be the welfare of the animals. Other counties in the state _ Mecklenburg, Wake, to name two _ have begun moving toward more enlightened "no-kill" shelter policies that minimize the number of animals that go to shelters _ through good spay and neuter programs _ maximize adoption and minimize euthanasia. The state legislature has begun focusing on better animal protection policies, and more state money for counties may be forthcoming via a tax on pet food or other sources. Orange County's role now is to put in place, quickly, a well-managed program that, first, provides quality animal care, and second, restores public confidence in the shelter. ________________________________________________________________ Chapel Hill News April 11, 2004 County decision ignores animal welfare My view By Cutler Andrews As a concerned voting citizen of Orange County, I am appalled by the decision of the task force that was established to decide the fate of the animal shelter. I am disheartened by such a laughable approach to animal welfare with such complete disregard to the actual welfare of the animals. The purpose of the task force, according to what I heard at the commissioners meeting, was to objectively research options for the future of the animal shelter. One of my main concerns about the task force recommendation is that they did so little research about the varying components of running a shelter. In the limited research that I, myself, did, I could not find a shelter in the state with better animal care, volunteer contributions, or adoption rates. It would be irresponsible for the county commissioners to make a decision of such magnitude that affects the lives of so many animals without requiring the fair amount of research and facts to support it. To show how blatantly obvious it is that most task force members did little to no research you have to look no further than a quote in The Chapel Hill News by task force member Bill Strom. "While we talked a lot about no-kill as a community value, we thought in the end the reasonable, progressive approach was to establish a bureau that was guided not by first-in, first-out inventory control, but by a progressive approach to evaluating animals and finding homes for all the adoptable animals that come into the shelter. I hope this recommendation leads to a reduction if not elimination of euthanasia for adoptable animals." What Strom is describing is exactly the current policies of the Animal Protection Society of Orange County. If he had spent any time at the shelter talking to staff and volunteers he would easily realize that they do everything possible to adopt out adoptable animals. At the APS shelter, highly trained dog behaviorists conduct temperament tests, uncommon among most shelters, which helps to determine how long a dog will stay at the shelter. Strom also fails to understand that the goal of every shelter is to be a virtually no-kill shelter. There is not a single person at any shelter who enjoys euthanasia and thus does everything within reason to adopt out as many animals as possible. Staff and volunteers spend long hours and shed many tears in this process, all while receiving criticism from those who know little to nothing about shelter operations and while the county is about to disregard all their hard work by taking over the shelter. What you might not realize is that these people, staff and volunteers, believe in APS and thus give their all. By the county taking control over the shelter, you are telling these people that they are not working hard enough, and they have failed at something for which they are so passionate. Of course there are mistakes, but in every organization there are mistakes. Just because the county is running the shelter does not mean that those mistakes will disappear, but instead be under a different jurisdiction. It would be arrogant of the commissioners to believe any different. Instead of solely focusing on these mistakes, the commissioners need to look at all the improvements that have been made to the shelter by APS board, staff and volunteers in accordance to Humane Society of the United States recommendations. The improvements have been noted and commended by HSUS itself. I believe that when it comes to animal welfare, HSUS is the authority and, respectfully, not the commissioners. The county is in an amazing position to have an outstanding organization helping with animal welfare issues in Orange County. This obviously saves the county money and other valuable resources. As a taxpayer I expect elected officials to be fiscally responsible while still providing superior services. The money required to attempt to sustain even a comparable facility under full county jurisdiction would be better spent addressing the varying needs of the citizens of Orange County. The county continuing to contract with APS would be an investment that will continue to provide them with the best shelter in the state at a reduced cost. With APS involved, you will continue to have access to the animal sanctuary near Mebane, a large number of committed volunteers, established list of foster parents, long list of generous donors, and the highest adoption rate and lowest euthanasia rate in the state. There are so many positives that the Task Force neglected to consider. In the end, our animal shelter's main goal is serving the animals of Orange County. Unfortunately, in this debate the animals have been consistently left out of the equation. Now it is the commissioners' responsibility to look out for those who cannot speak for themselves. Cutler Andrews lives in Carrboro and is an active volunteer and foster parent with the APS Orange County Animal Shelter. Comment: The County is now paying the full cost of shelter operation. The problem is not the dedicated staff but rather the incompetent leadership which has led to the serious problems noted in the HSUS report. APS has failed the public. With regard to the "large number of committed volunteers", APS records show only 16 who have fulfilled the eight hour per month commitment cited by Amy Elder since November; I expect that most of these (as well as many others) will continue their volunteer efforts under County management since their love is for the animals, not APS. ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ Chapel Hill Herald April 13, 2004 APS readies exit from animal shelter helm BY GEOFFREY GRAYBEAL : The Herald-Sun ggraybeal@heraldsun.com CHAPEL HILL -- After three decades of running Orange County's animal shelter, the Animal Protection Society is making plans to part ways with the county after its contract expires June 30. "We assume we're out of the business of operating the [county's] shelter and we're going our own way," said APS board president Ann Petersen. More than two years of public controversy over the APS' operation of the county-owned facility on Airport Road in Chapel Hill led the County Commissioners earlier this month to bounce the nonprofit from its consideration of which organization in the future will run the shelter. APS is in the process of hiring a new executive director to replace Laura Walters, who resigned in November. Along with input from County Manager John Link's staff, the APS has hired a new shelter director, Joe Pulcinella, who will start Monday. The commissioners have requested estimates for what it will cost the county to take over the shelter operation. They are expected to make a decision on their desired shelter model at an April 20 work session. Petersen said APS and Orange County had a good working partnership and that it "seems a shame to throw it all away without knowing where you're going, how you're going to get there or how much it's going to cost. "The one thing I am certain of, to make a decision without any kind of management structure or cost ... is a recipe for nothing but chaos and disaster," she added. "I am extremely sad for animals in this county that we're in this unplanned, unstructured chaos at the moment. There's no reason for it." The APS plans to operate its own shelter in Mebane that is set to open June 28. Originally, that facility was going to be a "halfway house" for about 50 dogs and 35 cats -- animals that have been adopted and will be spayed or neutered -- to be stored a few days before heading to their new home. The plan was designed to help with disease control. "If we no longer run the [county] shelter, those plans are obviously not going to take place," Petersen said. "At the moment what we're going to do is that same facility will become APS' shelter. We will just have another shelter. As we grow then, that shelter will grow. We will [likely] apply for 'no-kill' grants and run that shelter as a 'no-kill' shelter although the [APS] board hasn't decided that yet." APS owns most of the equipment at the county-owned shelter, which it will take to its new facility. APS plans to continue offering dog training, low cost spay and neuter programs, a rabies clinic and feral cat program from its approximately 75-acre compound on Nicks Road in Mebane. The nonprofit agency will continue to rely on volunteers to assist with its programs. "We've been in flux and on hold for nine months and simply need to get on with our business," Petersen said. APS' legal tussle with its two most vociferous critics will go to a jury trial June 28. Orange County Superior Court Judge John Jolly last week dismissed the claims made by critics Elliot Cramer and Judith Reitman, who in February 2003 filed a lawsuit against the APS. They accused the society of, among other actions, refusing to hand over minutes from board meetings, membership lists and financial records, and improperly changing the group's bylaws. Jolly also dismissed an APS counterclaim, but permitted a separate counterclaim filed by the APS board to be heard by a jury. The APS board has alleged that its members were libeled, slandered and defamed in comments and statements made by Cramer and Reitman. --- Comment: It is unfortunate that APS is not fully cooperating with the County in an "orderly transition" as it said it would. APS has little use for much of the equipment in the current shelter. It remains to be seen what will open in Mebane on June 28, given APS's claims of poverty. The County is now paying APS the additional $100,000 it demanded, providing the full cost of shelter operation. The County will be taking over an operating shelter with a full staff including (for the first time over two years) a competent shelter director. It will have the services of most of the current APS volunteers, far fewer than APS has claimed. (See the listing below of those who completed the APS commitment of 8 hours per month, few of whom volunteered prior to January). The past two years HAVE been sad for the animals. I have had a recent report from a long-time volunteer of puppies not being fed and animals being mistreated. Just Thursday I saw a young girl in the restricted "red wing" and children going from cage to cage, petting animals and spreading disease. In her deposition Ann Peterson admits having written for a unanimous personnel committee (caps in original) "BOTTOM LINE. LAURA HAS PUT APS, OUR FUND-RAISING EFFORTS, OUR REPUTATION, OUR PUBLIC PERCEPTION, OUR ANIMALS AND POTENTIALLY OUR LEGAL STATUS AND CONTRACTS WITH COUNTY AT RISK. IS SHE A LIABILITY WE CAN'T AFFORD?" Despite this APS kept her on for TWO years. As former APS Board member Virginia Ellington wrote last October. "According to President Beyle, donations have really dropped off. The number of volunteers has declined markedly. The reputations of the Orange County Animal Protection Society and the Shelter have gone down the drain. How in the world did so few do so much damage to so much in such a short time? No one on the outside is responsible for all of this. The Society self destructed. It is sad to see all of this happen. It's almost like the death of a dear friend." I share her feelings. --- APS Volunteer hours (provided by APS) NAME July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb March Activity 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 courier 100 80 80 80 80 80 65 60 60 temperament 25 50 45 45 40 50 walk, bath etc 30 web site (1 time) 16.5 26.5 walking 2 8 6 18 13 6.5 18 13 22.5 cat cages 2 8 8.5 15.5 12.5 6.5 12 15 22 walking, 20 clerical 20 walking 2 8 12 15 12 6 8 12 16.5 walking, cat cage 16 16 16 walking 15 15 15 15 15 15 temperament 1 4 11 12 5 15 walking, errands 10 10 10 10 15 10 10 15 temperament 7 13.5 info guide 7.5 13.5 info guide 13.5 cat cage, walking 12.5 9 13 walking 3 8.5 7.5 9.5 12 info guide 5 15 17 15 12 13 9 11 walking 11 walking 11 walking 10 veterinarian 4 3.5 3.5 4 15 22 7 7.5 10 walking, adopt 10 walking 10 veterinarian 21.5 19 10 11 8 5 5 10 walking, adopt 5 17.5 12 17 12 15 12.5 10 walking 7 9 walking 9 walking 7 8 6 6 8 8 8 8 adoption 9 8 walking 5 5 7.5 walking 3.5 5 8 15 8 9 12 7.5 7.5 walking ________________________________________________________________ The Daily Tarheel April 15, 2004 Animal shelter staff prepares for transition By Shannan Bowen Assistant City Editor When Orange County government takes over the management of the county's animal shelter in July, employees -- including those who transfer from the Animal Protection Society's shelter staff -- might be paid higher salaries. The estimated change in costs for switching management from APS to the county includes an increase of more than $36,000 in total salaries and benefits for shelter staff. On Wednesday, county staff and the task force charged with reviewing shelter management viewed the draft of estimated costs to be submitted Friday in a final recommendation to the Orange County Board of Commissioners. The board is expected to vote April 20 on a resolution for the management of the county's animal shelter when its contract with APS ends June 30. At its April 1 meeting, the board ruled out the possibility of APS continuing to operate the shelter, as has been the case for the past several years, and decided that a county bureau or department, led by the county manager, will take over. Nevertheless, APS shelter staff will be encouraged to remain in their positions, if qualified, and will undergo a transition to county management when the new operation structure is created. County Manager John Link said APS applicants, like all county employees, will be required to serve a six month probation period to have their work evaluated. APS's newly hired director, Joe Pulcinella, who will start Monday, will be given the option to stay as shelter director when the county takes over management. The shelter director's estimated salary and benefits amount to $63,716, as compared with the current director's salary of $59,522 under APS management. The increase in salaries is a result of the county's living wage and benefit package, Link said. The county has a living wage of $9 per hour, said Link, which means that no county employee is hired for less than that amount. Because APS owns most of the equipment at the shelter, the county expects to spend $107,901 in one-time start-up costs to replace the equipment APS will take away. The start-up costs cover computers, dog and cat cages, feeding supplies and other utilities necessary for shelter operation. But APS will continue offering the spay and neuter programs at a different facility, supported by the animal shelter, Link said. Link said that because the July 1 deadline for switching management is approaching quickly, the county staff will be working with APS to make a smooth transition. "I have to tell staff that this proposal will be ready July 1st," he said. "This combination of resources will get the job done." ________________________________________________________________ Chapel Hill News April 18, 2004 County should have best animal services As a past and current volunteer at the Orange County animal shelter, I'm very concerned about the caliber of animal shelter Orange County will create. I have sacrificed much economically and emotionally to live in Orange County, since I believe it is the most progressive county in all of North Carolina in terms of services to its citizens. For the past 20 years I've lived in this county, where I was afraid to take stray animals to the local shelter for fear they would not leave the shelter alive. I worry about the fate of my own animals so much that I've made elaborate arrangements after my death to transport them halfway across the country to avoid their ending up in my local shelter. My dream for animal welfare in Orange County is to see the best animal services in the state. I fear all this competitive "backbiting" and threats and lawsuits will ultimately end up destroying the future for our animals, because of all the money and energy that is being wasted on such unproductive actions, rather than creating a positive and happy future for our animals and ourselves. I believe the majority of pet owners want to and can be responsible pet owners; if the facilities and resources are available to them, they will sterilize their pets and provide the appropriate medical care and vaccinations. They will keep their pets as they do their human families, loved and cared for. And they will feel confident that if the worst happened and their pets ended up at the shelter, they would know their pets were still in a safe, healthy place until they could be returned home. We provide subsidized, low-income resources for access to the necessities of life for our elderly and our children. No human has to freeze, starve or die from lack of shelter, food or medical treatment in Orange County. But we have no such programs for our animals. And the lack of decent animal resources is beginning to have a negative impact on our own lives -- rabies, overpopulation, encroachment on wildlife habitats. When all the creatures who share our world are gone, our own extinction is not far behind. Let us all forget the past, forget who did what and who said what, and turn our efforts to creating a haven we can all trust and be proud of for ourselves and our animal friends. Our efforts will enhance our own lives as well as the lives of the animals. We can have an animal services bureau we can all be proud of. Margaret Mauney Efland ________________________________________________________________ Chapel Hill News April 18, 2004 More time needed before shelter transfer As a volunteer with the animal shelter, I have serious concerns about the proposed transition to county management. It seems unlikely that the county will be in a position to assume responsibility for the shelter on July 1 without causing serious disruptions that could lead to the loss of valuable personnel and volunteers, and the unnecessary death of many animals. The report that the task force was asked to conduct scenario planning without taking budgets into consideration would be amusing if the potential consequences were not so serious. Since when do government officials do planning without taking budgets into consideration? The county has not only to propose a realistic budget that can be supported in the current economic environment, but it has also to provide assurances that in the future the shelter allocation will be protected from competing budgetary needs. Since it seems improbable that the commissioners can commit to earmark funds on a long-term basis, a partnership with a dedicated non-for-profit organization seems to be the most sustainable approach because money and volunteer time donated to such organization is protected from diversion to alternative uses. Managing this animal shelter is a highly specialized and challenging task. Facilities are inadequate, budgets are limiting and pet populations are out of control. The shelter functions as well as it does only because the permanent personnel love their jobs and are very good at what they do, and because of the significant contributions of a committed volunteer corps. When it comes to the county taking over, the axiom of "First, do no harm" applies. Unless the commissioners can honestly promise that under county management shelter operations would improve instead of deteriorating, the responsible decision is to renew the APS contract for one year. During this period, officials and private citizens could work to structure a partnership with checks and balances that would prevent the reoccurrence of prior mistakes. In turn, this partnership should be integrated into a statewide effort to curb pet populations and provide free health care to pets owned by low-income families and individuals. This system would benefit from the participation of licensed veterinarians, a group that has been strangely silent during the shelter evaluation process. In this situation, the past does not offer good guidance. What should be done is to focus on the future. It is time to admit that the complexity of the task exceeds the ability of any single private or public organization to implement the best possible solution, and that more time is needed to implement a creative partnership. Pablo A Scolnik Chapel Hill ________________________________________________________________ Chapel Hill Herald April 21, 2004 Orange County will run own animal shelter By Geoffrey Graybeal : The Herald-Sun CHAPEL HILL -- The Orange County Commissioners unanimously decided Tuesday night that the county will run its own animal shelter starting July 1. The board gave County Manager John Link the go-ahead to purchase $107,901 worth of necessary equipment to stock the shelter on Airport Road in Chapel Hill. Meanwhile, the Animal Protection Society, which the county has been contracting with to run the shelter for years, plans to take the existing equipment to a new shelter that it will open in Mebane. More than two years of public controversy over the APS' operation of the county-owned shelter led the commissioners earlier this month to rule out allowing the nonprofit group to continue running the facility once its management contract runs out on June 30. On Tuesday night, the commissioners also approved a staffing plan for the county shelter. The county's proposal calls for hiring an animal services director, a shelter director, a shelter operations manager, a customer relations/volunteer manager, one office assistant, an accounting technician, five animal care technicians and two health care technicians. However, while the commissioners agreed that the shelter would fall under Link's authority, they still were undecided about whether it would be an "animal services bureau" or a separate department. "It's still a little bit murky on how exactly these two models would work," Commissioner Alice Gordon said. Other commissioners also requested more information defining the two proposed management models. "I'm not 100 percent clear on what the relationships are here," Commissioner Steve Halkiotis said. But Commissioner Moses Carey argued that the commissioners should choose a model Tuesday night so the public knows what direction the county is heading in. "The longer we delay, the more indecisive the public is going to think we are about what we want to do with the [shelter]," Carey said. Monday was the first day on the job for the shelter's new director, Joe Pulcinella, whom the APS hired with input from county staff during the selection process. "I'd like to see things move forward as smoothly as possible," chief APS critic Elliot Cramer told Pulcinella after Tuesday's commissioners meeting. The commissioners also are undecided about how to provide veterinary care to the shelter animals once the county takes over and what would happen to the animals currently in the shelter during the transition period. APS officials said they either would like to take the animals with them to the new shelter or be compensated for the loss of revenue not collected through their adoptions. "This issue, second only to the issue of educating public schoolchildren, has become the most contentious in this county this year," Halkiotis said. ________________________________________________________________ Chapel Hill News April 21, 2004 APS caused its own problems In a recent editorial, Ann Petersen, President of the APS board, noted her extreme sadness for the animals in this county. I would like to ask Ms. Petersen to live up to the words of her sentiment. The APS' resolve to take all equipment, cages, supplies (essentially everything but the structure itself), when they leave the animal shelter on June 30 will undeniably cause harm to the animals. Although Petersen chides the county for having no clear direction with respect to the shelter, the APS' future is even less certain. Leaving the supplies to be used by the county animals who will clearly need them on June 30, and planning for a transition in their ownership if and when APS has need for them, would indicate that her statements about caring for the animals are (NOT?) truthful. Many people have donated tremendous amounts of time and money to APS over the past decades. Can Ms. Petersen not find it in her heart to consider freely donating back to this community now, even if for a limited period of time? The APS Board's continuing blame for the destruction of APS on outside forces is growing tedious. Truth is the best defense against any challenge, and the failure of APS and its leaders to speak the truth during the past two years has led to its downfall. External critics were merely vocal messengers of the duplicity going on with the board. Ms. Petersen's letter of summer 2002 to the APS personnel committee highlighting the problems Laura Walters was bringing to the institution, followed, almost unbelievably, by the board's heated defense of Walters for the following year and a half while the institution unraveled, is a potent and literal illustration of the double-dealing that has been going on. No one wanted to see the treasured institution of the APS go. Many, including the most vocal critics, wanted to see certain individuals in the APS step down. Ms. Petersen should not make the mistake of confusing an institution and its ideals with the few individuals who effectively destroyed them. It is all our loss that the institution of the APS was so quickly and openly destroyed, by so few of those who had temporary stewardship over it. If the individuals at the helm of the APS truly cared about animals, they could still show it now. Let's watch what they do, not what they say. -- Beverly Rockhill, Carrboro ________________________________________________________________ The Daily Tarheel April 21, 2004 Board vote makes APS ouster official By Shannan Bowen Assistant City Editor The Orange County Board of Commissioners made it official Tuesday that the county government will take control of the Orange County Animal Shelter when its contract with the Animal Protection Society ends June 30. The unanimous decision was reached after a county-appointed task force reviewed a report by the Humane Society of the United States on APS's shelter management and made a recommendation on future operations. APS faces criticism for alleged shelter mismanagement and fiscal irresponsibility, along with lawsuits filed by critics Elliot Cramer and Judith Reitman. But many board members and residents also have concerns about the future involvement of APS with the shelter, along with questions about the county management's structure. In addition to the county running the shelter, the board will find ways to transfer qualified APS staff to the county shelter and to purchase equipment needed to begin shelter operation. According to initial cost estimates for the county-run operation, APS would continue to provide veterinary services, such as spaying and neutering, at a cost of $132,000 per year. But APS President Ann Petersen clarified that under a county-run model, shelter animals are owned by the county and could not receive veterinarian services through APS at a lower cost than it offers the public. Instead, she said, the county would pay double the rate, or $22,000 per month, for these services. "It's not that we don't want to help," she said. "But state law prohibits us to cooperate." Petersen said it would not be fair to offer its services to the county for a cheaper price than what the public pays. Cramer suggested that the county contract with a local veterinarian to offer the services. "(The Humane Society of the United States) severely criticized the animal care at (APS) based on quality of care, not quantity," he said. Linda Schmoldt, a member of the task force, said it is good news that APS will not provide shelter services. "It gives us a fresh start," she said. "And that's what everyone wants." Commissioners were not asked to make a decision on whether or not a county bureau or a department would be created, since many members had questions about the operations. A county bureau would be overseen by an animal advisory board and the county manager. A department still would allow the creation of an advisory board, but the Orange County Health Department would help oversee animal control. Commissioner Alice Gordon said the two models are similar and their differences need to be explained before a decision is made. "I think it's still a little murky as to how these two models will work." ________________________________________________________________ The Daily Tarheel April 23, 2004 APS forges ahead after controversy By Shannan Boweb and Dan Schwind Assistant City Editors The Animal Protection Society is moving on after a year of facing public criticism and alleged mismanagement of the county's animal shelter, but the organization still has a series of lawsuits to bear. Shelter critics Elliot Cramer and Judith Reitman filed a lawsuit two years ago accusing the organization's board of withholding financial records from them and illegally changing by-laws so as to prevent nonboard members from voting in board elections. The persistent criticism eventually forced former APS Director Laura Walters to resign on Oct. 27, the same night the nonprofit organization decided to bid to continue its operations. APS recently hired Joe Pulcinella, a director of a shelter in Delaware County, Pa., who took over the post on April 19. Some critics say they hope the new director will help correct the organization's alleged flaws. The county's Board of Commissioners authorized the Humane Society of the United States to conduct an assessment of the shelter's operations after Cramer and Reitman filed their lawsuit. A county-appointed task force, comprised of 11 county residents and officials, was charged with reviewing the report and making appropriate recommendations for future shelter management to the board and county staff. The task force met about seven times to discuss the report, draft management structures and project costs for the shelter. The task force approved three drafts for shelter management on Feb. 25. One would allow APS to continue its contract and the other two would create a county-run management. A listening session was held March 17 to receive public reactions to all three recommendations. The draft to allow APS to continue operations was quickly ruled out by task force members after hearing public comments, and commissioners made it official on April 1 that APS would no long run the shelter. Instead, the board decided on April 20 that a county department or bureau overseen by the county manager and commissioners will run the shelter beginning in July. But APS plans to move on to opening a new shelter in Mebane that will control adoption services, said Suzy Cooke, former APS interim director. APS will take animals that belong to its organization, Cooke said. She said when an animal comes to the shelter, it is property of the county until a waiting period has passed and then APS owns the animal. The APS board now plans to focus the majority of its efforts on preparing for its June 28 trial date in Orange County Superior Court. After Cramer and Reitman filed their lawsuit, APS and Walters responded with a countersuit accusing the critics of libel, defamation and slander. In October, Judge Ronald Stephens ruled that APS had to turn over its financial records and correspondence to Cramer and Reitman. But he did not rule on the other charges. Both sides then filed for a summary judgement on several charges. Judge John Jolly Jr. has since ruled on several of those summary judgements, throwing out Cramer and Reitman's charge of breach of fiduciary duty. "I don't think it was appropriate," Cramer said. "We think they actually did violate their fiduciary responsibilities." Jolly also threw out APS's charge of defamation. The suit filed by Walters and several former APS board members accusing Cramer and Reitman of libel and slander still remains. "This issue, second only to educating our school children in our school system, has become the most contentious issue in the county this year," said Orange County Commissioner Steve Halkiotis. Contact the City Editor at citydesk@unc.edu. ________________________________________________________________ Chapel Hill News April 25, 2004 County moves forward on animal shelter Discussions grow contentious as APS proposes to take animals, all equipment, security system with it. By Kathleen Kearns, Staff Writer CHAPEL HILL _ Fur continues to fly over the upcoming transition of the Orange County animal shelter from the Animal Protection Society to county management. The Board of Commissioners last week made it official that it will create a new county department or bureau to administer the shelter beginning July 1. It also approved a staffing plan and some capital costs. But before it got that far, tempers rose over veterinary services, whether APS should be compensated for lost adoption revenue for the animals remaining at the shelter on June 30, and even over whether APS will tear out and take with it the security system in the shelter building on Airport Road. County staff members had been considering contracting with APS for veterinary services on a short-term basis until other arrangements could be made. But APS board president Ann Petersen told commissioners state law would require APS to charge the county double the price APS itself pays for vet services. APS critic Elliot Cramer disputed Petersen's assessment. Petersen wrote County Manager John Link before the meeting to say that APS wanted either to take with it any animals left at the shelter at the end of its contract or to receive financial compensation for them. County staff consulted Kate Pullen, who led the assessment of the shelter the Humane Society of the United States conducted last year. Pullen said she had never heard of such an arrangement. "If APS considers them their animals, I think we should let them go," Commissioner Barry Jacobs said. "It will probably be easier for the county and better for the animals." Concerning the security system, Commissioner Steve Halkiotis said if it was more than two years old it probably wasn't worthwhile for the county to purchase it and APS was welcome to take it. He did have a cautionary message, however. "When people start ripping things out of a county building, they should at least patch over the holes." Based on APS figures, county staffers estimated that veterinary care contracted through APS would cost $132,000. Petersen said APS would be forced to charge $264,000 or more. Cramer said that by his calculations vet services should cost the county $119,377. "If we no longer own those animals, we can no longer provide that service for that cost," Petersen said. "If the animals are not owned by APS, only a licensed veterinarian with their own facility that can be registered and inspected by the North Carolina Medical Board can provide these services. This is the issue that required us to renegotiate (former APS veterinarian) Bobby Schopler's contract two years ago. "You could hire your own vet and get your own facility, equipment and supplies," she told commissioners. "But there's nothing we can offer you. We can't sell services to you cheaper than to the public. You've got 80-100 animals a week that need to be spayed or neutered. No vet clinic in the area can handle that." Cramer, who has been engaged in ongoing legal battles with the society, disputed that. "Based on Ann Petersen's depositions, I know a lot more about APS records than she does," he said. "You can't imagine the contempt I have for these people, the management of APS." Linda Schmoldt, who chaired the county's Animal Shelter Operations Task Force, said, "I'm thrilled that APS will not be providing spay/neuter. This is a fresh start, which is what we all wanted." Link recommended that a decision on veterinary services be postponed while staff gathered more information, and the commissioners agreed. What the commissioners did decide on was a core shelter staff of 13, with four possible additional positions. APS currently employs 14.8 permanent employees and two part time employees. To replace the equipment APS owns and will take away from the county-owned shelter building on Airport Road, commissioners also approved a one-time capital equipment budget of $107,901. County staff provided cost projections of $695,550 to run the shelter for the year starting July 1, but that figure was not under formal consideration. The commissioners will approve a budget for animal services as part of the normal budget process this spring. Commissioner Moses Carey encouraged his colleagues to select a management model that night, and he recommended it be the animal services bureau endorsed by the shelter task force last month. With several commissioners unclear on exactly what the distinctions were between that bureau and an animal services department, they delayed making a choice. John Link said the staff would provide more information on the similarities and differences between the models within the next few weeks. Both models consolidate animal sheltering and animal control functions under a single director responsible to the county manager and ultimately to the commissioners. Either model could include a citizen advisory group. When the commissioners voted unanimously to approve the staffing plan, the capital expense budget, and some version of county control, some spectators applauded. As it prepares to move out of the county shelter, which it has run since 1979, APS is conducting a capital campaign to pay for construction and operation of its own shelter facility on Nick's Road in Mebane. As of last month, the society had in hand $180,000 of the $1 million it estimates it needs for building costs and operating costs for the first one to two years. Work began in March on the 5,600-square-foot facility the society originally intended to be a "halfway home" adoption center. It is being constructed on the 47-acre tract on which APS has its veterinary clinic. ________________________________________________________________ Chapel Hill News April 25, 2004 Orange Enterprises seeks shelter role Orange Enterprises has asked for a role in running the county animal shelter, which Orange County will take over from the non-profit Animal Protection Society July 1. The agency submitted a working proposal in early April to assume complete operation of the shelter on a contract basis. Assistant County Manager Gwen Harvey told the county Board of Commissioners last week that staff had reservations about the agency taking over wholesale operation. But they recommended that the county keep open the possibility that temporary or part time help could come from Orange Enterprises. Commissioners reacted positively to that idea, although they made no formal commitment. "I hope Orange Enterprises will contemplate a way to continue to work with us on some level," Commissioner Barry Jacobs said. "And I hope that whatever model we come up with, we develop a structure that does encourage volunteerism." Orange Enterprises submitted its proposal to run the shelter after an April 1 board of commissioners work session on possible models for county administration of the shelter. One model, continuing to contract with APS, was discarded at that meeting. Two others _ one for a county animal services bureau and the other for an animal services department _ remain in the running. Jacobs asked at that meeting whether another "hybid" model might be developed to engage the services of a non-profit in a supplemental role. Orange Enterprises, a private non-profit agency, serves those with barriers to employment, including people with physical or mental disabilities. It presently runs two businesses, a custodial service and a newly established landscaping service. "While Orange Enterprises does not have direct knowledge of animal shelter operations, we have had a great deal of success in establishing positive relationships with the general public and with other agencies," its proposal noted. Executive Directory Kathy Bryan said the agency is interested in creating employment and volunteer opportunities for persons with disabilities and in establishing sites that would allow them to evaluate the vocational potential of those they serve. The agency proposed to hire someone with expertise in animal sheltering to run the facility and have people with disabilities work as paid employees and volunteers. "The door is being left open," Harvey said. "We are working to see what might be created conceptually, and we certainly intend to follow through with additional conversations with Orange Enterprises." Bryan said she understood the county's position. "It's not a comment on our ability to run the shelter but a comment on the situation as it is," she said. "I'd like to see a cooperative working arrangement where they're willing to hire some of our employees, and I'm really interested in evaluation sites for high school students and others. We also desperately need opportunities for volunteer hours for students following a vocational track. I'm looking for this in every venue I can get." ________________________________________________________________ Chapel Hill News April 28, 2004 Raspberries to the Animal Protection Society for still not "getting it" as far as community relations goes. As it faced the reality of losing its contract to operate the county animal shelter, APS told the county commissioners last week that it would either take the animals in the shelter when its contract with the county ends June 30 or require compensation for them. An official of the Humane Society said she'd never heard of such a deal. APS also said it would charge the county double the amount for veterinary services that APS itself was paying, and that it would take with it the security system APS installed in the county-owned building. There are legalistic reasons, no doubt, for all these demands, but they add up to making APS look chintzy and vindictive. If any further justification was needed for ending the county's relations with APS, this was it. Raspberries also must go to APS's critics, who continue to over-reach in the venom of their hostility to APS. Longtime gadfly Elliot Cramer may have been warranted in his criticism of APS at last week's public hearing, but language such as "you can't imagine the contempt I have for these people" is too much. ---- Comment: I'm willing to eat my raspberries. I added my contempt extemporaneously in response to Ann Peterson's demands which I only saw five minutes before my statement. It appears to me that the News shares my contempt. As to venom, read the deposition statements of Ann Peterson on www.ourpaws.info. There are no "legalistic reasons ... for all these demands". ________________________________________________________________