Minutes - 20021028 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

outside facilitator be engaged to run a focus group process to narrow down the public input. The primary difference in the two organizations is that the Humane Society of the United States focuses on a comprehensive organizational assessment, while the American Humane Association targets limited objectives identified by agencies that they would like to have answers to. The element of controversy in the assessments is haw people view the job that organizations do when they do the assessments. The timeframe is flexible and takes about four weeks to gather data. The Board of Health and the staff are recommending that the HSUS be the contractor of choice and the APS Board does not have a preference. The APS is willing to participate in this process and open their doors for examination and study. Chair Jacobs encouraged that speakers be kind. Public Comment Bonnie Norwood said that she volunteers at various organizations (Vllomen's Center, ArtsCenter, Senior Center, UNC Hospitals, etc.}. She has been with the animal shelter for mare than 17 years. She has never seen programs dropped until recently. She said that because no wildlife program exists, those animals are dead and they will continue to die until same program is created. There was aloes-cost spay/neuter program, but it was dropped. She would like these two issues addressed because these two programs have been dropped. She distributed an affidavit. There are other issues and all of them are costing animals' lives. Judith Reitman, an APS board member and a journalist, said that she will email details to the County Commissioners, but the theme is financial problems. She said that the question is what HSUS is going to be looking at. She said that there has been inaccurate record keeping and APS has been misrepresenting the numbers of animals in its care. Based on the records kept, hundreds of animals either do not exist, andJor are simply not accounted for. APS reports in its latest newsletter that its adoption rate is 48°~, and it uses that number as a basis on which to raise funds for the adoption center. This number does not reflect the true adoption rate, which is far lower. She said that few statistics of the APS could hold up to scrutiny. There has also been mismanagement of funds, which include expenses not associated with the shelter. Qne large expense was as a result of poor planning. APS continues to misrepresent many of the breeds of its animals under adoption. Also, APS fails to report complaints made by the public about its personnel. She said that the Board of County Commissioners needs to make sure the current leadership is replaced with a qualified, ethical administration. Elliot Cramer, UNC professor emeritus and APS supporter and beneficiary and practicing statistician, said that he was here to express concerns of the APS and its practices. The policies seem to date from the period when the new leadership was assumed at APS this year. He thinks that a more general type of external evaluation is needed. He said that several supporters formed a group to nominate members to the APS board, which is in accordance with the APS bylaws. When the President of APS learned of this, she gave notice to the board of a change to the bylaws to be voted on in executive session without public notice. The intent was to remove voting rights from the membership. He said that when he spoke to her, she said that only minor changes were contemplated. He was assured by the APS attorney that there was no intention to discuss bylaw changes. He has heard that these changes were discussed and would be voted on at a later time. He made a statement to APS, which was met with silence. He said that the APS attorney was also unresponsive and misleading. He said that APS is working like a secret society, despite its public funding. He said that animals are