IACC: All we need is love

Bravo. However, in addition to the love, there were some very public put-downs and adversarial comments made by Mr. Newman to members of the public and to/about one of the local vets in the community. He says that no one should fear coming forward to report things, and that there should be no paranoia about the situation, yet he all but called some of the complainants liars in a public forum. I'm sure it is all captured on the public access video of the meeting. I found that to be alarming and unnecessary.
It's about doing the best job possible with the resources the shelter has, not about making excuses for why things did or did not happen and becoming defensive. Are they understaffed and overworked? Absolutely. No question. That is not an excuse for some of the things that have been observed at the shelter. The people who reported them have nothing to gain by pressing these points, so why would they lie?

That meeting was painfully long and drawn out. I liked the things Scott Newman had to say and the timelines he gave. I liked the changes Steve Talley and Kirstin are making with the puppy/small dog room. I don't think anyone disagrees that the IACC staff is overworked and underpaid. They need more people. I too like Adam, Kirstin and Officer Bippus (who never gets mentioned, but really kicks butt). I don't think they would get anyone else to run the kennel better than Kirstin does (taking into account current policies, staffing, etc). I can see both sides of the situation. Don't hate me, I'm a Libra! I can't help it! Sometimes I can pick a side and stick with it, but I'm having a really hard time on this. Do the people who filed the grievance want policy changes, better training, more staff or do they want to see the current staff reprimanded, or both? I think that's my biggest point of confusion on the situation. I don't think the things in the grievance would've happened if they weren't understaffed and were using the pre-sedation drugs that they plan to start using. Do you think that's true, or am I missing the mark?

Although I wasn't at the meeting I thought I'd chime in. I think most if not all of the unsanitary conditions are due to understaffing and lack of time rather than purpuseful neglect. I think it's a crime of ommission rather than commission. how can that few people reasonably keep that many animals clean 100% of the time(esp considering many are not housebroken, may be ill, etc). They just simply can't. So did you guys form the love circle, hold hands and sing Kumbaya around the campfire at the end of the meeting?

There was no singing, no hand-holding, and no cookies.

Cookies would've been nice!

I, too, was at the meeting, but found Dir. Newman's comments more than appropriate. The comments about the vet was related to a letter placed in the packets set out for the board members, and was written by a vet (or at least on the vet's letterhead) who was not in attendance and has not been to IACC. The letter, which apparently was placed in these packets without permission from the board or any supervisor at IACC, made inflammatory statements about the facility, per Dir. Newman. Dr. Short, who works for this particular vet and is on the board, stated that she knew nothing about this letter or how it got routed to the board members. And the comments Dir. Newman made about whistleblowing were for the staff, not for volunteers. If a staff member sees the need to report a co-worker or supervisor, a reporting system will be put into place without the employee fearing for their jobs or worrying about mistreatment.
The kinds of negative-agenda-driven activities that have gone on at IACC over the past couple of months do absolutely no good except to play on the public's emotions, mostly the public that isn't actively involved in rescue and animal welfare and doesn't have a clue how shelters are run. There will be a hearing on the grievance/complaint filed by Greg Brush and his group of "volunteers," and personally I'm very happy Newman has chosen to handle the situation in this manner. I'm looking forward to hearing the whole story from all sides. Brush and his "volunteers" showed up for two days over two weeks. Under the guise of volunteering to make things better, they went in specifically to find problems. Are they trained in shelter management? Nope. Have they had years of shelter experience? Uh, no. Did they volunteer in an adversarial position? Yes, they did. Antics like this serve no one, least of all the animals. Hundreds of other IACC volunteers put in their time to try and make IACC a better place for the thousands of animals brought to this facility, and this was a slap in the face to those folks as well as to the staff. The staff at IACC work their butts off for very little compensation. Steve Talley has spent a tremendous amount of his own money to purchase necessary supplies. So to try and tear down this facility and its employees does nothing but damage it further. Learning to work with city government and behaving in a professional manner is the key and will get us much further down the road to implementing positive change. Yes, there are problems at IACC, problems that have been there for years. But good, positive things happen there every single day. And if we all keep very cool heads, stay focused on making positive change, and do our work above board, good stuff will happen. FYI, I had to leave the meeting at 8:15 to pull eight cats out of the intake room and get them to a no-kill facility. If you really truly want to help the animals in Indianapolis, volunteer at IACC, foster a cat or dog or two, raise funds for food and litter, work with a rescue group that pulls animals from city, volunteer for one of the panels and committees that Newman discussed last night . . . there are so many ways to make a positive impact, so just go do it.

While it may have been appropriate for Dir. Newman to ask about the letter, to bring that level of caustic comment to a televised meeting was not warranted. I read the letter. It was totally taken out of context I think. Dr. Ward was talking about patients he sees at his practice. Not about something he saw at IACC. And to take to task a member of the board publicaly as he did was also inappropriate. I have covered numerous government board meetings over the years as a journalist and I have never seen a board member chastised in a public manner such as happened at the meeting.

Also, how do you know Greg, Kathleen, Maureen and Jill came to volunteer with a hidden agenda or had an adversorial agenda?

What do they gain by doing this?

I have been trying to figure out why anyone thinks they had some kind of secret mission. I had been going to come to help, but Tuesdays are difficult for me to get off. None of them said anything about going there for any other reason than to clean.

And no one denies that people who are there work hard. But, if you looked at those photos, how could you not think there was a problem?

Susan,

I am saddened that there is such a growing rift between the public and the government. I do believe there are probably truths to both sides, as there always are. I also do not put it past extreme minded people to exaggerate some issues. Nor do I put it past the IACC to become defensive. We could all serve well to remember that charging at someone with violent accusations puts them in no other position than the defensive. I hate to sound like the "Can't we all just get along?" cliche, but how can we, as a group of animal lovers, help? Where can we find information about the panels and committees that are needing volunteers? It just keeps crossing my mind that, maybe a group representing the IndyPaws board could volunteer together if even just once a month, after hours, to clean, organize, love the animals... It seems obvious that they are in dire need of volunteers. And as Susan implied, here we are, watching from the outside and demanding results. I know that everyone here has the same goal. No one wants any of these poor babies to suffer. So what can WE do?

I sent Dir. Newman an email July 15 and offered to help if he needed more information on groups, but never heard back from him. I plan on posting the information on the new committees and I will put my name in to be considered for any I think I can help with. Although I cannot sign an agreement barring me from discussing what I see at the shelter. So, if I have to sign that, then I think I will be very conflicted.

Why do I think Brush and his group went in with an agenda? Because they stated they did! They stated it in the Star article (on their second visit, per the story that ran yesterday), and reiterated it last night at the meeting. Maureen and Talley had quite a lengthy exchange about this situation. And whoever placed that letter in the board's packets had no right to do so. Again, it's another example of not doing things publically and above board, but rather sneaking around to try and pull another "gotcha" move. We don't even know if the vet actually wrote this letter because he wasn't in attendance and, per Newman, has not been to IACC. So I think Newman's comments were well warranted. This is a government-run facility, not a private not-for-profit. There are unions involved, criteria and protocols that need to be followed and maintained. Scott Newman and the city are not going to put up with anything that can cause union greivances to be filed or staff members to be falsely accused of anything. Too, someone had to take control of this meeting, and I think Newman did a fine job of doing just that. Now, regarding these photos, I've not seen them. Who had them, who took them, when were they taken, and has it been confirmed that they came from IACC? Before jumping to any kind of conclusion, it'd be a good idea to get all the facts. Maybe that'll all come out in this public hearing next month. I hope so. I, too, have been in communications for many years, and know the importance of verifying and validating every single piece of information before making a statement or forming an opinion. I'm really hoping this hearing will shed some light on some of these recent allegations, one way or the other.

Thank you, Connie.

You can help in so many different ways. You can volunteer with any number of shelters or rescue groups. That will give you not only hands-on experience with animals, but over a period of time, you'll learn who's who and how things are run. You'll also make wonderful, like-minded friends. I can recommend a number of tremendous shelters and groups, if you don't want to work with IACC. If you can't volunteer like that, I suggest simply getting informed. Regarding IACC specifically, take a look back at its history, study its budget, learn how it operates, understand its mission, and know the players. IACC has no food budget; they rely soley on donations. You could have a food and supply drive for this facility, if you wanted. Regarding the panels that Newman discussed last night, give his office a call, or contact someone with IACC to see how they're forming and what they need from volunteers. Most importantly, however, keep a level head and an open mind.

Thank you for the info, Susan.

I never realized they didn't have a food budget. I just got involved with local animal groups about a year ago. I am trying to learn, but there are so many groups, viewpoints, it seems I'm learning something new everyday!

It takes a while to figure out who's who, who has an agenda, who doesn't, how things are run, where money comes from, how it's spent, and so on. I've been at this for years, and I'm still learning, too. But one thing I've learned over the years is not to believe everything you see, read, or hear. Form opinions based on what you know, not on what someone else has told you or what you read on a website. Dealing with animals is a very emotional issue, and it's easy to let our hearts get beyond our heads. Hopefully everyone wants the same thing, however,which is what's best for every homeless or unwanted animal out there.
Regarding the food/litter situation, one of our volunteers drives about 200 miles each week to pick up donated cat/dog food and litter from a major retail distribution center. We then take food and litter to IACC, if they need it, offer as much as we can to other groups, and keep some back as a food pantry for pet owners who are struggling to afford to keep their pets. We'd rather give away food and litter than have someone surrender an animal because they can't afford to feed it. This is a great example of how local rescues and shelters can work together to ensure that needs are met. It's too bad that more people can't take their time to come up with creative solutions to problems, rather than piling more garbage onto an already-full situation.

Just a quick note regarding this quote "If you really truly want to help the animals in Indianapolis, volunteer at IACC, foster a cat or dog or two, raise funds for food and litter, work with a rescue group that pulls animals from city, volunteer…. " - I think everyone involved knows that or should know that Greg and all of the volunteers who cleaned ACC the night that the allegations in the grievance were discovered DO volunteer in the trenches for the animals. I think everyone also knows that Greg is one of the founders of FBI an Indy-Feral-like organization that is responsible for spay/neuter of over a thousand feral cats in the past year. I also know personally that the other ACC volunteers and individuals who signed that ACC grievance, foster as many animal as possible, pull animals from kill shelters, transport animals, donate food and money, and the list goes on. In fact, it is because these individuals are so involved in animal welfare and work so hard in the trenches for animal welfare that they are interested in changing the system that still kills over 60% of orphaned pets every year despite their diligent efforts. I know a lot of people will hate this comparison but would you work within Hitler’s regime to reduce the killing of the Jews or would you demand that an entirely different regime be put in place? If our orphanages were killing unwanted babies would you suggest that we volunteer at that organization or would you be marching in the streets?! The people whose voices were heard in the grievance are simply fed up with the status quo. We can do much better than this as a community and the animals that are suffering and dying every day in the current system that exists today cannot wait for things to change at a snails pace as we encourage people to “do their part”. They are beautiful, they are innocent and they are DYING.. today.. right now!! All of us who care are already doing whatever we can and it is simply not enough. We need systemic change and it will never come unless we demand it.

And there are many of us in the trenches who want and are working for change, but who don't resort to the types of activities recently seen at IACC. No one has said that Greg and his group haven't taken positive actions over the years to get thousands of animals spayed and neutered. IndyFeral is one of the most well-respected and upstanding organizations out there. And no one has said that the status quo is fine. When you go into any organization, however, without full disclosure of why you're there and what you want, your actions then become dishonest. And isn't dishonesty in any realm always suspect? I have no doubt that intentions were good, but the way this was done, in my humble opinion, was wrong. Animal welfare workers and supporters have enough trouble being taken seriously as it is. We're looked at as 'that crazy cat woman' or 'that person who gets along better with his dog than with people.' And then there's the PETA situation. To the people (i.e., city officials) who can help change IACC, do we want to present the image of being sneaky and dishonest, or transparent and above reproach with well-documented information? In my personal opinion, there is no choice if we want to be heard, taken seriously, and see change sooner rather than later.

Sue,
I think I see where some of our issues stem from now. You and I are interpreting something Greg said differently.

I think you are referring to this quote from the Star:

"Brush said the observations listed in the grievance stem from things he and other members of the Indy No Kill Initiative, a group working to end most euthanizing of shelter animals, witnessed while volunteering at the agency on June 24 and July 1. He said members made their purpose clear on the second visit."

I have spoken with Greg, Maureen, Jill and Kathleen several times regarding their two visits to IACC. They did not go into the shelter to spy. I think this sentence refers to the fact that they made clear their purpose was cleaning. You think it says Greg was saying they made clear their purpose was spying. That makes no sense. No one would make "clear" their purpose was spying. It would defeat the concept of spying.

A couple of the photos have IACC kennel cards showing.

Generally when people are lying, their stories do not remain consistent, especially a large group of people. But, I have personally spoken to four of the people who went on at least 2 occasions. I spoke with three of the people more than that. Their stories are very strong and their details match. I also saw some of those photos the day after they were taken. The photos I saw that day and the photos I saw last night matched.

Several people 'warned' me that I needed to know all the players better when I first started blogging. I've been told more than once that I need to be careful of the Move to Act and Indy No Kill groups. So, I proceeded with caution. But, so far, I haven't seen anything to arouse my suspicions. Are those people passionate, yes. Just as you are.

After I found out about what they saw at the first trip, I was very vocal in urging them to take photos. Without photos you can't prove anything. I wish you would have looked at the photos. Since you go in there so often, you would have to recognize the cages and possibly you would have even recognized the cats.

Sometimes you can't just nicely ask people to do the right thing. If that were the case, the world would be a much better place. But, sometimes you have to kick people where they sit to get them to see they do have a problem.

I recall Maureen's first trip to the podium several months ago. She very clearly said she wanted to help evaluate cleaning and sanitation procedures at IACC because of the high rate of illness existing in animals adopted from IACC that their new owners brought into their clinic. In the second meeting at which she spoke, she reiterated her request to come in and help with cleaning and sanitation. I don't think there was a hidden agenda there, just a desire to offer her expertise and time to a system that needed to be improved. While there cleaning and sanitizing she saw things that, in her opinion, were neglectful and abusive. Should she have not spoken up about those things just because her initial purpose in coming was to clean and sanitize? How is that sneaky and dishonest?

As far as I understand it, they went in as "volunteers." You'd have to talk to someone at IACC to find out under what conditions and understanding these folks went in. Did they meet with Steve Talley and explain specifically why they were there? Was the rest of the IACC staff apprised of the reason for this visit? I, too, remember Maureen speaking a couple of times at board meetings about sanitation and disinfection concerns, but I don't remember anything being said publically about her going in as a sanitation expert or consultant. There are two sides to every story. Let's let this hearing play out and see exactly what was expected by IACC from these "volunteers." Too, if they were really serious about helping, why have they not been back? By their own admission, they were there for two days in two weeks, six hours each day, part of that time taken up with orientation and training. Seems to me (although I could be wrong) that no one could possibly get any type of true assessment in this short amount of time.

So do you think if they did, in fact, go in under false pretenses, they'd say "Hey, Connie. We went into IACC today with the understanding that we were gonna volunteer, but we were actually there to find problems." And if they were there just to volunteer and clean, what "purpose" would they need to make clear? As I mentioned earlier, Maureen and Talley had an exchange about this during the board meeting last night. Again, I think this hearing will answer some questions.

I wasn't going to enter this blogging session and spar with Susan but I will state the facts.
If you archive the board meetings, you will see how Talley, Kirsten and I discussed sanitation and I offered to come and help set cleaning protocols . They were to email me with dates and such to do that, I never had a response. The next couple board meetings, they asked about volunteering and I said I could do that and he would make special accomadations since I couldn't come to the Wednesday volunteer orientation. Kirsten sat down with us that first Tuesday with us and explained the cleaning protocols, which were adequate and we were offered our choice of places to start cleaning and we picked the receiving since it was in dire shape as we noticed when they gave us the tour. There was no hidden agenda. I was questioning their cleaning protocols and though they had good protocols, we found no one was following them. There were no adequate cleaning equipment, the disinfectant was not even mixed properly nor really used. If you read the grievance letter, all of these were listed. The issues went far beyond sanitation and that we did not expect.
No hidden agenda with Mr Talley, Kirsten and Adam , they were expecting us to volunteer and even asked to keep coming back.
I took off two unpaid work days to do this, I thought it was that important.
My only agenda is for the poor cats and dogs languishing there. We took out over 38 animals over those two days and I still am haunted by the ones we left behind. It was an absolutely horrible experience and I just can't understand anyone diminishing my observations. They weren't exaggerated and the pictures are real. I've seen much neglect and abuse over the 30 some years in animal care and this was, by far, the worst. You can go volunteer and listen to crying puppies with botched euthanasias while you try to clean a cage or tend to a kitten in shock with broken legs and maggots...then we'll talk.

If there were any folk singing, I'd go Blutarsky on their butts.