Extracts from the Ann Peterson deposition relating to Cramer's intentions regarding APS Deposition Exhibit 10 referred to below is a letter from Ann Petersen to (then) APS Board member John Guibert. Evidently Ms. Petersen (an attorney involved in capital litigation) does not know the meaning of the word litigation (defined in Webster as the act of carrying out a lawsuit). This is the only lawsuit I have ever been a party to except as an expert witness. She is also misinformed regarding "mandatory counterclaims". The APS slander suit was both frivolous and unnecessary. It was proposed by Ann Petersen BEFORE we sued APS. The statement below that I told APS that I was going to take over their Board and destroy the organization is false. My first statement to the APS Board (below) was on October 14 and offered cooperation. My second statement was on November 11 where I was introduced as a nominee AFTER APS took voting rights away from the Membership. It seems that Ms. Petersen has a rather faulty memory, surprising in an attorney. ________________________________________________________________ Q: Okay. On page 30-13 of Deposition Exhibit 10, you write, referring to Elliot Cramer, "He came to us and told us he was going to join our organization, get his people to apply as members, take over our board, fire our executive director, and destroy the organization as it is now." Is that right? A: That's what I said. Q: And when did Elliot Cramer do that? A: He came and gave a speech to us. Q: And what did he say in the speech? A: He said exactly that. Q: When you say "he came and gave a speech to us," to whom did he give that speech? A: The Board of Directors. Q: Of APS? A: Of APS. In fact, he even presented us with a lot of his speech in writing, gave it to us at the end. We had invited all of the candidates that had signed up to run for the board to speak. He was one of them. Q: And does his written statement also say that he was "going to join our organization, get his people to apply as members, take over our board, fire our executive director, and destroy the organization as it is now"? A: Not in that speech he didn't say all those things, but in prior--he came to the board at least twice, and then he e-mailed and spoke to a lot of the people on the board prior to him coming, signing up, bringing his petitions. Then he was told that the people that were on his petitions weren't all members. He had to go back and get them to become members so that his petition was lawful. And in those conversations with people and staff, he said some of those things. Q: And who are the people that he said those things to? A: I don't--Laura Walters I'm sure was one of them, because she was the one that I believe was having the conversations with him about the petitions. Although I'm not certain about that. I know that there were e-mails that went back and forth and conversations that went back and forth between Elliot and Pat Beyle, but I don't remember specifically what they were. A lot of that was stuff that was reported to us by either Pat and/or Laura. Q: By "Pat" or "Laura"--and I'm trying to understand it. First you said he said this in a speech he gave to the board and-- A: Some of it he said in a speech that he gave to the board. The sequence of events, my memory was that--and I'd have to go back and look at the board minutes to give you the exact dates. But my memory was that there were several Board of Commissioners meetings that he went to--August, September, maybe October. And around that time he had conversations with Pat Beyle and maybe a couple of other board members. But I remember specifically a conversation that he was complaining about that he had with Pat Beyle. So I know he at least talked to her once. Where he said that he and Jude were--they came in, they joined in order to run for the board, that they had gotten four or five people to run for the board. Some of this information came from, I believe, Kendall Page as well, after she was elected on the board. I don't think I had any information about that from her before she was elected on the board. MR. MERRITT:Excuse me. For the record, what's the date of this exhibit? THE WITNESS:Summer of 2003. MR. NAKELL:June 4 and 5, 2003. A: So that's a composite-- Q: Keep going. You said some information came from Kendall Page after she was elected to the board? MR. MERRITT:I object to the direction to keep going. If you've got another question, you can ask another question. MR. NAKELL:Mr. Merritt, you interrupted her in the middle of her answer to ask about the date. MR. MERRITT:I don't think so. (Deposition interrupted by phone call.) MR. NAKELL:So I'm just asking that she continue with her answer. MR. MERRITT:You can ask her if she's finished her question [sic]. Q: You may continue your answer. A: I'm sorry. Where am I? Q: You may continue your answer. You had said that some of the information came from Kendall Page. A: Some of the information came from Kendall Page after she was elected onto the board. I know there were conversations between Elliot and Jude and Laura Walters--I shouldn't say I know. I believe that there were conversations between Elliot and Laura when he brought in his petitions to be on the board, and she would have to communicate to him that some of the members that were listed on this petition were not members of APS. And so they were sent back to him. And then once all those petitions were properly brought to--with the right signatures, then we invited all of the people, all five of the people, to come and talk to us. And at that point, Elliot was extraordinarily antagonistic. And he was the last person that spoke. And he read from a speech, and he says, "I know you all aren't going to elect me onto your board," and he was angry. And he said--he said a lot of the things that were in that paragraph. Q: Okay. And was that invitation to the five people to speak, and when they appeared before the board, was that after the bylaws change taking the voting rights away from members? A: Yes. Q: And the five people that the board invited to speak, were those the five people on the slate that Elliot was supporting? A: Yes. Q: Do you remember who those people were? A: Kendall Page. Q: Kendall Page. A: Pardon? Kendall Page. I'm sorry. Kendall Page, Elliot Cramer, Margy Huggins. I can picture her-- Q: Beverly Rockhill? A: Beverly Rockhill. And then Bibb Latane. Q: Okay. Let's just talk about those people in reverse order. Who is Bibb Latane, as far as you know? A: I think he is the son of the woman who donated the property out on Nick's Road. And I think he's in charge of her foundation money. I'm not sure exactly what his role is. Q: Is that--was his mother Felicite Latane? A: I think that's right. Q: And the sanctuary is named after her? A: Yes. Q: And in his capacity with regard to her foundation, had he made substantial donations to the APS? A: I don't know that. Q: And did you have any reason to think that Bibb Latane was interested in taking over the board, firing the executive director, and destroying the organization as it is now? A: I had reason to believe that he was recruited by Elliot so that Elliot could get his group of people on the board. Q: And do you know whether Bibb Latane would have been a responsible member of the board? A: I have no idea. Q: Do you have any reason to suggest that he would not have? A: The information that we had about him on other boards suggested that he was not an active participant on those boards. Q: Not an active participant? A: (Witness nods affirmatively.) Q: All right. Anything else? A: No. Q: Beverly Rockhill. What do you know about Beverly Rockhill? A: Beverly had been a friend and supporter of Bobby Schopler and the wildlife program, and she--our understanding was that she again was part of Elliot's group of people that were wanting to get on the board. Q: Okay. Do you know whether she had been a volunteer at the shelter? A: Sure. She had. Q: And do you know over what period of time she had been a volunteer at the shelter? A: I don't know exactly what time. Q: Do you know whether she was a life member of APS? A: Yes. Q: Do you know what her professional position was? A: No. She's a teacher, but I don't know what-- Q: A teacher? A: She's a professor. Q: At UNC? A: I think so. Q: And do you know--do you have any information to show that she was trying to take over the APS board, fire the executive director, and destroy the organization as it is now? MR. MERRITT:I object to the form of the question. Nobody has attributed that statement to Beverly Rockhill, whatsoever. Q: Your answer? A: Ask me the question again. Q: Sure. Do you have any information that Beverly Rockhill intended to take over the APS board, fire the executive director, and destroy the organization as it is now? A: I know that she wanted the executive director fired. I know that--could you read those three things again? Q: "Take over the APS board, fire the executive director, and destroy the organization as it is now." A: I don't know--I can't attribute destroying the organization as it is now to Beverly Rockhill. I know that she had several changes that she wanted to be made, and she felt that the organization should be changed. Q: You at one time actually thought the executive director should be fired, didn't you? A: Before we got her answers to the questions. Q: Do you have any reason to believe that Beverly Rockhill would not have been a responsible member of the board of APS? A: Yes. Q: What is that? A: Since--oh, for the last probably nine months or a year, she's appeared at many of our board meetings, and she's gone into tirades. I think I view a board member as somebody who is even-keeled and can listen to both sides, and I don't think she is capable or willing to do that. Q: And during what period of time has Beverly Rockhill done that? A: At least the last nine months, maybe a year. She hasn't been there recently. Q: By recently, you mean-- A: The last three months. Q: And all of these experiences are after the time that the board made the decision not to elect her to the board? A: The decision not to elect some of the people on the board were not necessarily based on some of these things. Q: "On some of these things" meaning-- A: I mean, we had other information about each one of the people. Q: Oh. What other information did you have-- A: Oh, lots of people-- Q: --about Beverly Rockhill? A: Excuse me. I didn't mean to interrupt you. Q: Sure. A: Lots of people knew Beverly for the years that she had worked as a volunteer. Q: And what did they say about her? A: There were some negative comments about her as a reasonable person. Q: Who made those negative comments? A: I don't know if I can attribute them to any particular person on the board. I mean, they were board members. Q: Okay. Do you remember anything else about the comments? A: That she was volatile. That one day she would be reasonable, and the next day she would go into a tirade. That she was a difficult person to deal with. I don't remember--I mean, the positives were that she had spent a lot of time volunteering, that she and her ex-husband had contributed money to the wildlife, that she had a lot of educational background that was probably helpful and useful. Q: All right. Did you have any other information about Bibb Latane? A: Not other than what I've told you. Q: And who is Margy Huggins, as far as you know? A: The first time we ever met Margy Huggins or saw her or had any experience with her was when she represented Elliot and Jude in--my understanding was that she took over in representing Elliot and Jude after Bill Reppy got out. Q: When did you see her represent Elliot and Jude? A: Well, I don't know that she represented them. My understanding--and this is only based on hearsay. My understanding was that Jude was considering appealing or filing further proceedings when the adoption appeal was denied. And Bill Reppy said he wasn't going to go any further with it, and she then hired Margy Huggins. Q: Okay, so-- A: And then the next thing we knew, Margy Huggins appeared before the Board of Commissioners with Elliot and Jude. That's the first time I ever heard the name Margy Huggins. Q: All right. So you know that she is an attorney? A: I know now that she is an attorney. Q: Did you know when she was a candidate for the board that she was an attorney? A: Yes. Q: Did you know anything else about her at that time? A: Very little. Q: Did you have any information that would suggest that she wanted to "take over the APS board, fire the executive director, and destroy the organization as it is now"? A: Only because of her connection with Elliot and Jude. Q: Okay. And then Kendall Page. What do you know about Kendall Page? Or what did you know at the time she was a candidate for the board? A: At the time she was a candidate for the board, I knew she was a long-time APS supporter. I knew she was a respected attorney in town. I knew she had been on the boards of other organizations and had been a valued member of those boards. She had always--if we called her and asked her to do something, she always agreed to do it. I knew she grew up in Chapel Hill and had lots of local interest and stake in the community. Q: Did you know Kendall Page personally before she was a candidate for the board? A: Not really, no. I mean, I knew who she was but I didn't know her personally. Q: Okay. Did you have any information that Kendall Page intended to "take over the board, fire the executive director, and destroy the organization as it is now"? A: No. Q: Did the board then elect Kendall Page to its membership? A: Absolutely. Q: And why did the board do that? A: For the very reasons that I just gave you. I felt that--I can't tell you why other people voted for her, but I can tell you why I did. Q: Why did you? A: Because I felt that she was a well respected, even-keeled, rational person that would listen to both sides, that had been a long-time supporter of APS, that had been interested in both animals--domestic animals and wildlife, that she had been in Chapel Hill for a long time, had local connections and concerns about local issues. That she had been on other boards and been a good board member on other boards. And I felt that she would be a gr eat addition to our board, so I voted for her. Q: After she became--after Kendall Page became a member of the board, what did she tell you about Elliot Cramer? A: That he had called her and asked her to be part of his slate. Q: Did she tell you anything else about Elliot Cramer? A: Not that I remember, not specifically. Q: Did she tell you anything about what Elliot said to her when he asked her to be a member of his slate? A: I never asked her. Q: Do you know whether she told anybody at APS anything else about what Elliot told her when he asked her to be a member of his slate? A: I don't know. Q: Do you know whether Elliot said anything to--did Kendall Page say anything to you or to the APS that Elliot had told her anything about wanting to "take over the APS board, fire the executive director, and destroy the organization as it is now"? A: Ask that question again? Q: Yes. Did Kendall Page tell you or the APS that Elliot said anything to her about wanting to "take over the APS board, fire the executive director, and destroy the organization as it is now"? A: Did Kendall--one more time. Q: Did Kendall Page say anything to support those statements that you made? A: Did she tell me? I just answered the question. I didn't ask her. Q: Okay. A: The only thing I remember her saying to me personally was that Elliot had asked her to be a part of his slate. Q: I may have misunderstood you earlier-- THE WITNESS:Can I-- MR. MERRITT:Yes. (Witness and counsel confer.) Q: I may have misunderstood, so I'm going to clarify something. My notes indicate that you said that some of the information that you had that supported your statement that Elliot wanted to "take over the APS board, fire the executive director, and destroy the organization as it is now" came from Kendall Page after she was elected to the board, but not before. A: I'm sorry if I said that. I don't think I attributed anything specific to Kendall Page. You asked me--ask me your question again? Q: I was just--I thought that you had said that some information that supported that statement in your message to John Guibert that's on page 30-13 of Deposition Exhibit 10 came from Kendall Page after she was elected to the board but not before. I thought that's what I heard you say, so I'm asking for clarification. A: The information that came from Kendall was that he was soliciting people to run for the board. That came from Kendall. Kendall did tell us that after she was elected, that Elliot had recruited her as part of his slate, to get on the board. I cannot attribute a statement that she said that he intended to take over the board, but to get five people on the board at one time to us inferred that he was trying to take over the board. That didn't come directly from the mouth of Kendall. But she did tell us that he recruited her. Q: And was she a responsible candidate for membership on the APS Board of Directors? MR. MERRITT:I'll object. You've already asked about Kendall Page's being a responsible candidate, and she's already answered it. Now, you've agreed--for the record, he's agreed that he will only ask two hours' worth of questions today, and I want to make sure that he's aware of that. And I'm going to instruct her not to answer that question, because she's already answered it once. MR. NAKELL:I don't think I've asked her that question about Kendall Page. MR. MERRITT:You certainly did. MR. NAKELL:Are you instructing her not to answer? MR. MERRITT:I am. Q: Okay. Will you answer the question? MR. MERRITT:No, she will not answer the question. A: I've been instructed not to answer the question. Q: And will you follow that instruction? A: Yes. Q: Okay. A: I do what my lawyer says. Q: Huh? A: I said, I do what my lawyer says. Q: Okay. MR. MERRITT:I would also like to say for the record that Mr. Nakell indicated when he wanted to come back this morning--first of all, he indicated that he would not have any further questions. And then he called up and indicated--he actually, I think, e-mailed and said he had a few more questions. And I wanted to make sure that that was clear for the record, because this seems to be dragging on as we have in the past. Q: On page 30-13 of Deposition Exhibit 10, you wrote, "Elliot has been in Chapel Hill for years. He attaches himself to a cause and takes it on to destroy. He has done it several times before. Any governmental agency is afraid of him, because if he gets on one of his missions, it is years of litigation and useless time and expense. Google him and see." What was the basis for that statement? A: Conversations and memory. I remember when he took on OWASA. I remember how frustrated everybody was when he took on OWASA. I've been a member--I used to be a member of the Tennis Club, and I know that he caused no end of useless time over there. Q: Okay. What governmental agency is afraid of Elliot? A: I think to some extent our current Board of Commissioners is. Q: And what's the basis for that statement? A: Just my own impression. Q: Any other governmental agency that's afraid of Elliot? A: The basis for that statement, like I just said, was my memory of what happened when he took on OWASA, and my conversations with people when they see Elliot's name. The first thing they think about is what he did with OWASA, and how many years of needless time and expense all of that mess took. Including all the government people that were involved in that. I consider OWASA as government. Q: All right. Did the OWASA issue involve years of litigation? A: I don't even remember whether it was--litigation in the sense of being in court, I don't remember. But litigation in the context of hearing after hearing after hearing, I think there was. Q: Okay. But no litigation in court, so far as you know? A: I don't remember. Q: Okay. What's the basis for your saying that "Elliot takes on a cause to destroy"? A: Because I think that was my personal opinion. Q: And what did you think he tried to destroy in connection with the OWASA issue? A: Whatever he was trying to do over there. I don't even remember the specifics that were involved in OWASA. Q: Was he trying to destroy OWASA? A: I don't--I just finished answering that. I don't even remember what it was. I just remember all the controversy. Q: What was he trying to destroy when he took on issues at the Tennis Club? A: The board. Q: The board of the Tennis Club? A: Uh-huh (affirmative). Q: Were you on the board of the Tennis Club? A: No. Q: What is the basis for your information about what Elliot did with regard to the Tennis Club? A: That he gets involved in issues and attaches himself to it, and just endlessly, endlessly complains and complains and complains until he gets what he wants. Q: What is the source of your information about that with regard to the Tennis Club? A: People that are members of the Tennis Club, people that used to be friends of mine and still are friends of mine, people who are no longer members of the Tennis Club but were there at the time, people at the Country Club that have experienced him when he's come over and played at our club. Q: And who are the people at the Tennis Club who have told you about that? A: Judy Kuzminski. Q: Spell that name. A: K-u-z-m-i-n-s-k-i. Abby Dickinson. Q: Okay. A: I mean, it's come up--those two I remember specifically, and I'm trying to remember anybody else. I know it's come up five or six times by people that I've seen recently in the last year, year and a half, but I don't remember exactly who they are. Q: Can you remember any of them? A: Those are the two that I remember offhand. Q: When did Judy Kuzminski and Abby Dickinson tell you what you've reported about Elliot and the Tennis Club? A: As soon as his name came up with my name in the same article connected to APS. Judy is the--she runs the Pro Shop at the Country Club. Q: And who at the Country Club has told you about Elliot taking on an issue to destroy? A: There's a men's group. There's a men's group that plays at the Country Club that also plays over at the Tennis Club a lot. And I cannot tell you which person in that group it was that said something to me, but it was one of the men in that group. Some of them are members at both places. Q: Now I call your attention to page 30-14 of Deposition Exhibit 10. You said, "We filed our countersuit for libel and slander after they sued us. It was what is called a mandatory counterclaim. In other words, if you have a claim against someone and they sue you first, you have to assert it in a counterclaim when you answer the lawsuit, or you forever give up your right to sue on that claim." Is that right? A: Right. MR. MERRITT:I'm going to object and instruct her not to answer any questions about the nature of the lawsuit or anything that might reflect advice of counsel, which this question is about. Q: Okay. do you know yourself about the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure? A: I'm not primarily a civil lawyer. Q: Okay. So the answer is no, you don't? A: I know some. MR. MERRITT:I object to that question. Q: Do you know the Rules with regard to mandatory and permissive counterclaims? A: No, I don't know all of the Rules. I know some of them, and I know what we were told by our lawyer when we were talking about the lawsuit. MR. MERRITT:I'm going to object for the record, and instruct her not to answer any further questions about the Rules of Civil Procedure, because unless it relates to this lawsuit, it's immaterial and outside the scope of discovery. If it does relate to this lawsuit, then it will reflect advice of counsel in this case. So I'm going to object and advise her--and direct her not to answer any further questions about the procedures that have been taking place in this case. Q: When you made this statement about a mandatory counterclaim, were you relying on your own knowledge of the Rules with regard to mandatory and permissive counterclaims? A: Some. Q: You then said, "We originally did not want to sue, just because it would bring more publicity and cost." Is that right? A: Yes. Q: But actually, the APS decided to sue Elliot and Jude for libel and slander or defamation before they filed their lawsuit, didn't it? MR. MERRITT:Objection. Again, it involves privileged communications, and on advice of counsel, I direct her not to answer that. MR. NAKELL:Okay. I'd like to have this document marked for identification as Deposition Exhibit 11. And it's been produced in discovery to us as Exhibit H-29. (Whereupon, Deposition Exhibit No. 11 was marked for identification.) Q: And I'll ask whether you recognize that. (Witness reviews document.) A: It is the minutes of an executive session of APS in February of 2003. Q: Do you remember that on February 18 of 2003 that you made a motion that the APS of Orange County and Laura Walters sue Jude Reitman, Elliot Cramer, et al., for defamation of character and any related claims, and that the motion carried? A: I don't remember it. I mean, obviously, I did that. I'm not denying that I did that, but I don't remember doing it. I remember the meeting. Q: Looking back at Deposition Exhibit 10, page 30-14, you wrote to Mr. Guibert, G-u-i-b-e-r-t, "The County kept telling us to fight back and say something. We did." When you said the County kept telling you to fight back and say something, who was telling you that? A: The County Staff told us that the County Commissioners wanted us to fight back. Now, whether that's true or not, I don't know, but that's what the staff was telling us. Q: Who in the County Staff told you that? A: Neither one of them told me personally, but we were told that both John Link and--the woman, I can't remember her name, his assistant--were saying that we should come forward and fight back. Q: And who told you that? A: Laura Walters, Pat Beyle. Q: Anybody else? A: No. Q: When you say the woman who's John Link's assistant, are you referring to Gwyn Harvey? A: Yeah, I think that's her name. It may have been Rosie Summers as well. I know the three of them were talking to Laura at that time. (Whereupon, Deposition Exhibit No. 12 was marked for identification.) Q: I'll show you a document marked for identification as Deposition Exhibit 12. This is a document that was produced for us by your attorney, APS attorney, as Exhibit B-20 and B-21, and ask if you can identify that. (Witness reviews document.) A: This is an e-mail that I wrote. Q: And do you know the date of it? A: I know I was in Florida, but I don't remember what the date was. Q: Okay. And do you know whether it was before the February 18, 2003 executive session, the minutes of which are Deposition Exhibit 11? A: I don't--I'd have to go back and look at my calendar. I remember writing this when I was in Florida, and the reason I did it was because I was not going to be at the meeting. And I was obviously at this meeting. So I don't know whether this was--I don't know whether this was for the January meeting, for the February meeting, or for the March meeting. I don't know. I just know I was in Florida when I wrote it. Q: In this memorandum that you sent to Pat Beyle, you recommended that APS "join in Laura's lawsuit against Cramer and Reitman"; is that right? A: That's what it says. Q: Now, what did you have in mind when you referred to "Laura's lawsuit against Cramer and Reitman"? A: I think Laura was planning on suing Cramer and Reitman at that point. Q: And do you know whether she did sue Cramer and Reitman before APS did? A: I don't remember. I don't remember the sequence. I know she was talking about suing them, and the question was whether we were going to join in. MR. NAKELL:I'd like to have this document marked for identification as Deposition Exhibit 13. (Whereupon, Deposition Exhibit No. 13 was marked for identification.) Q: And I'll ask if you can identify Deposition Exhibit 13, which was produced to us as Document 29-35. (Witness reviews document.) A: Yes. I mean, I remember the conversation. Q: What is Deposition Exhibit 13? A: It's an e-mail from me to Laura. Q: And when you say you remember the conversation, do you remember the conversation that you're reporting in that e-mail? A: I remember the conversation from Elliot. Q: What do you remember about that conversation? A: The day after the board meeting--we had a board meeting that Monday night, and he came to the board meeting and was complaining or hollering about us changing the bylaws. And he called the next day and said that it was his--my memory is that he said it was his information that the bylaws had been changed. And I told him that they had not. Q: And you say there you told him rudely that they had not. A: Yeah, I probably did. Q: What do you mean by that? A: That morning, Pat had called me and said--several board members had called me and said that Elliot had either called them or was continually calling them, trying to find out what happened with the bylaws, that he wouldn't believe them. And when he called me, I was busy. And I think he said--or maybe I already knew that he had called several people, and that several people had already told him that we hadn't changed the bylaws. And so I probably very rudely said, "You got the answer. Why are you calling me? We didn't change the bylaws." And I hung up. Q: Okay. The date of this message is October 15, 2002; is that right? A: Yeah. Which probably, if you look at it, it's the day after the board meeting. Q: And the board meeting that you're referring to, is that an open meeting or an executive session meeting? A: Part of it was open and part of it was in executive session. Q: And at this time did the board have in mind, or had the board started the process of changing the bylaws to take away voting rights of members? MR. MERRITT:Objection to the form of the question. He asked if the board had it in mind, and then he asked "started the process." And I don't know what the question is, so I object to the form. Q: Okay. Do you understand the question? A: No. Q: Okay. At that time, October 15, 2002, had the board discussed changing the bylaws to take away voting rights from members? A: I don't remember the sequence of events, Barry. Mr. Cramer was at the board meeting, and he was told at that board meeting that we were not going to change the bylaws that night. I know we went into executive session, and I know we did not change the bylaws that night. He then called everybody the next morning, and one of those calls--in one of those calls, my memory was--because I remember him calling me distinctly--in one of those calls, I was told that he said that he was told we changed the bylaws. And I know we did not change the bylaws. Now, where in the process that was, I--to tell you the honest truth, I don't even remember where it was. I know that it wasn't long after that when we did change the bylaws. And we had been working on the bylaws for a long time. Q: Okay. And did you in that phone call, when Mr. Cramer called you and asked you whether the bylaws had been changed, did you tell Mr. Cramer anything about the plans at the time for the bylaws change? A: No. MR. MERRITT:Objection to the form of the question. There's been no testimony that there was plans at the time. Q: All right. At the time that he called, did you know that the board was going to take action soon after that to change the bylaws to take away voting rights from members? A: Barry, I don't remember the sequence. Probably. I mean, I know we were talking about it, so I think the answer is yes. But, you know, again, I would have to go back and look at the dates. Q: And the purpose of changing the bylaws to take away voting rights from members was primarily to prevent Elliot from getting elected to the board, wasn't it? MR. LEWIS:I will object, just to clarify the point. The bylaws amendment only affects the election of directors, and does not eliminate all voting rights by the terms of the bylaws. The amendments we're talking about specifically just address election of the directors, and are not quite that comprehensive. Just for the record, to clarify, since that's the question you're asking about. MR. NAKELL:Okay. Q: The purpose of that bylaw change was to prevent Elliot's election to the board, wasn't it? A: The purpose of the bylaws change had a number of reasons. We had been talking about it for some time. It was to prevent somebody like Elliot, and including Elliot, from--if you want to use the term "hostile takeover," whatever--from getting a group of people to come to a general membership meeting and take over the board in a manner that we felt was harmful to APS and to the organization. Q: And the reason for doing that at the time that the board did it was specifically directed towards Elliot, was it not? MR. LEWIS:Object to the form. MR. MERRITT:I object as well. She just answered the question. A: I thought I just answered it. I mean, we had-- MR. MERRITT:No, you've already answered it. You don't have to answer any further. THE WITNESS:Okay. Q: Please continue with your answer. A: I was finished. Q: You were interrupted by your attorney. I'm asking you to continue your answer. A: I was going to repeat what I said. I said that we had been looking at bylaws changes. We had been looking at other organizations and how they elected their boards. And nobody ever came to the general membership meetings anyway. It was the Board of Directors that elected the board members anyway. And it was a better way of electing board members. It would also prevent people like Elliot from doing exactly what he intended to do, or what we felt he intended to do. MR. NAKELL:Let me have this document marked for identification as Exhibit 14. And this was produced to us as Exhibit 29-52 by APS counsel. (Whereupon, Deposition Exhibit No. 14 was marked for identification.) Q: I ask whether you can identify that. (Witness reviews document.) A: Yes, I recognize this. Q: What is that? A: It's a memorandum that I wrote to myself, I think. Well, maybe I didn't write it to--I don't know who I wrote it to. But I think I drafted this. It essentially says what I just told you. Q: All right. Does it also say that the APS board deemed the change in the bylaws to take away the right of members to vote for board members "an absolute necessity to prevent Elliot and his supporters from doing what they said they wanted to do, get on the board and take over, which would have destroyed APS, in our opinions"? MR. MERRITT:Well, I'll object. The document says what it says, and he just read it. So, obviously, that's what it says. And next question. Q: Okay. Can you answer the question? A: The document speaks for itself. Q: And does it say that? That's what you wrote in the document? A: It says what it says. Q: That's what you wrote in the document? A: That's what's in there. MR. NAKELL:Okay. I have no further questions. ________________________________________________________________ October 14, 2002 Statement to the APS Board I'm Elliot Cramer, a retired UNC professor and statistician, an animal lover (four dogs), a long time somewhat silent APS sup- porter and beneficiary (all of my dogs have their rabies shots from APS, one was neutered by APS), several of my dogs were euthanized by APS in the true sense of the word, indeed somewhat later than was probably best for them. I have contributed smoked ducks for APS auctions and have bought things at APS auctions, but I have only recently become a member. APS has a wonderful history of doing good for the community and for animals. Obviously, serious questions have been raised about the care of animals at the shelter and the openness of the APS Board. It is very clear that the Orange County Commissioners are extremely concerned about this situation and that the shelter funding is in jeopardy. I have recently learned that notice was given to the Board of a change in the bylaws regarding the election of members. This change would have taken away from the membership their historical right to elect Board members, giving that right to the Board. I am a nominee to the Board and this would have removed any chance I might have of election. It is clearly undemocratic and though legal, it is wrong. Pat Beyle has assured me verbally that no such change will take place tonight. I would like the Board's assurance that any future changes in the bylaws will take place only at the annual meeting and be preceded by an announcement to the general member- ship so that they may voice their objections. I further object to the Board's policy of going into Executive session to discuss matters of concern to the general membership. I believe that only personnel and property acquisition matters should be discussed in executive session. I petition the Board to adopt such a policy effective immediately. Given the suspicions of the general public as reported in commun- ity newspapers, I suggest that the Board reconsider its Board nominations and consider supporting five of us nominated by the Membership. We would be eager to work with the current Board to bring back community support and assure a bright future for APS. ________________________________________________________________ Statement to the APS Board Elliot M. Cramer November 11, 2002 I'm Elliot Cramer and I've spoken to you before. Now I am speak- ing to you a as nominee to the Board who has been treated very badly by your Executive Board and Attorney. I understand that Mr. Merritt has warned you (as he has warned me) about being sued. I understand that his practice has been devoted to crimi- nal law and I believe that his efforts on your behalf leave something to be desired. He should have told you about your fiduciary responsibilities as APS Board members which, I believe, you have neglected. I particularly speak to the "silent majori- ty" on the Board, giving you the benefit of the doubt and assum- ing that you have been kept in the dark about the improper ac- tions of your staff and leadership. I hope that the material I am giving you will remove all doubt about the impropriety of their actions and that you will restore voting rights to the Membership and remove your Executive Director and Board members who have acted improperly and inappropriately. Some cowardly anonymous "longtime current and former APS volun- teers and staff" stated to the Orange County BOC "we understand that Pat Sanford, Bobby Schopler, and Jude Reitman have banded together to overthrow the current APS management and leadership of the Board." Clearly Bobby Schopler has his own wildlife agenda and I have yet to hear of a public statement by Pat San- ford. Don't I get any credit? I've been very busy documenting APS misdeeds and incompetence and have 21 pages (single spaced) of correspondence with APS available to you for the asking. Your staff member Nicole said that I was the "one who was trying to bring APS down". Nothing could be further from the truth but this Board and Laura Walters are doing a very effective job of it. Your ill-considered action changing the bylaws without notice to the Membership, despite my request, will undoubtedly be chal- lenged in Court if you do not quickly rescind it. My previous statement to you and Orange County and the editorial from the Chapel Hill Herald speaks for themselves. Following your "nationwide search", I believe you should have disqualified Laura Walters based on her past history as document- ed in the enclosed statement from Deputy Sheriff and Animal Warden Ann Clark of Arkansas. Clark describes appalling condi- tions under the "leadership" of Laura Walters. Having ignored this, you should certainly now consider the public statements enclosed and others presented to the Orange County Board of Com- missioners. Based on these, it certainly appears that Ms. Walt- ers has lied to Board members and to others on numerous occa- sions. Bonnie Norwood reports that Ms Walters was asked by Clau- dia Shepherd in the presence of others "Are there ever any adopt- ed animals returned"? Ms Walters replied "No, there aren't any returns". This was false and she must have know it was false. There were in fact 15 and 17 returned in two months. Last month Ms. Walters reported to you that four animals were returned in September. It is inconceivable that she could have known this, given the sloppy record keeping and grossly incorrect County reports APS has submitted. Ms. Walter's attitude towards record keeping is documented in a letter from Melanie Blankenship who was in charge of data entry and statistical reports. She says "During April and May of 2002, it became clear that the new management had no interest in shelt- er reports and statistics. ... Earlier when I had pointed out missing log sheets or other discrepancies to Laura, she simply dismissed it." My own statement to Orange County documents that about 100 animals are misaccounted for in each of the last three monthly reports. Mr. Sauls will confirm this. It is in the public record that, after being informed by the NC Veterinary Board that APS "cannot legally own a veterinary prac- tice facility and employ a veterinarian to provide services to the public," the Director illegally allowed 71 surgeries to be performed between June 28 and July 25. Cari Clifford writes of numerous "violations of the operating policies and procedures of the APS by it's Executive Director." A formal second warning regarding a whipporwill was issued to the Nick's Road staff, based on false information as documented by Toni Constant. Obviously this was a ploy to discharge the staff despite a "non- retaliation policy stated by Ann Petersen. Stacy Hughes writes of Manager Melanie Piazza calling "US Fish and Wildlife to find out exactly what was and was not acceptable". Board member Ann Peterson then told Hughes and Piazza that "it was only illegal because we called to ask Fish and Wildlife and had we just left it alone, it would have worked out fine". This would appear to be unethical behavior in a Board member, let alone a member of the State Bar. In view of the above, I believe that you should dismiss your Executive Director and remove members of the Board who have acted inappropriately and irresponsibly. You should immediately re- scind your Bylaw change and adopt a policy of openness and trans- parency as Dr. Halkiotis has advised. I would like you to provide nominees access to all of the APS facilities this week. -------------------------------------------------------- Some highlights of statements The "longtime current and former APS volunteers and staff" state to the Orange County BOC "we understand that Pat Sanford, Bobby Schopler, and Jude Reitman have banded together to overthrow the current APS management and leadership of the Board and staff and take over the Orange County contract so that they can satisfy their own personal goals. My name is Melanie Blankenship. I was in charge of preparing statistical reports and entering data on all animals housed at the APS Shelter from MONTH, YEAR to April 2002. ... During April and May of 2002, it became clear that the new management had no interest in shelter reports and statistics. ... A short time before I was let go from the shelter, Linda Schmoldt informed me that Laura no longer needed me to do a monthly report. ... She told me they would not be turned in until they were asked for. ... Earlier when I had pointed out missing log sheets or other discrepancies to Laura, she simply dismissed it. Cramer to Link Considering the disorganized nature of the packets of animal records APS sends to Mr Sauls, it is not surprising that the APS statistical reports to the County are so flawed. I hope that you or Dr. Summers will look into this. Cramer to Summers The statistical errors will be of particular interest to you. These errors cannot be corrected by manipulation of numbers in the report itself. The Reports state that "In shelter is based on physical count of animals", and I presume that APS can do that correctly. It seems clear that there are fundamental errors in record keeping. Cramer to BOC 10/28 The required monthly Shelter Report given to you for August (p56- 57 Oct 1 Agenda) is clearly incorrect. The simple arithmetic is shown on my copy of the August report which you have. 317 ani- mals in the shelter on July 31 plus 379 admitted in August minus 224 still there at the end of the month gives 317+379-224 = 472 animals disposed during August. APS accounts for only 370. What happened to the other 102 animals??? This is not an isolated example. In July APS reports 85 too many animals and 93 too many in September. These reports to the Health Department are re- quired by contract and their accuracy is the responsibility of the Executive Director. If you cannot trust these statistics, why should you trust any that come from APS? ________________________________________________________________