(VIDEO: COMMISSIONERS - FUTURE OF DOG POUND ADVISORY BOARD BEING PONDERED). BOARD COULD BE DISMANTLED BY 07/31/2012. THE PRICE OF SPEAKING OUT?

 

It has been apparent for some time to the Stark County Political Report that those who are appointed to county, city, township and board of education advisory boards and/or commissions are by and large expected "not to make waves;" especially in public.

If one does, he or she can expect to be come an ex-board member or commission member when reappointment comes up for consideration by the appointing authority.

Or, worse yet, the entire board or commission may get "worked around" or even abolished if the appointees have caused the appointing authority chronic and persistent embarrassment (merited or not) in the public eye.

It appears to The Report that it could be that the Stark County Dog Pound Advisory Board (SCDPAB) is about to be dismantled sometime before July 31, 2012.

Yours truly has been told that such a fate possibly awaits the SCDPAB and commissioners' did nothing in an opportunity presented by The Report in question form (see video below) to squelch the speculation.

Four of the "unpaid" seven members of the SCDPAB have their terms expire on this coming July 31st.  Although the commissioners did not say on the video when they might decide the fate of the advisory board, it seems obvious that the decision will be made in the next 45 days or so.  It makes no sense whatsoever that they would appoint/reappoint the four expiring terms if they planned within the foreseeable future to disband the board.

The SCPR has been following this particular story for a number of years and has blogged repeatedly about numerous conflicts between the commissioners (from the current board through the last couple of boards) and the SCDPAB.  Here are some links.

BLOG:  May 25, 2012

BLOG:  December 20, 2011

BLOG:  October 8, 2011

BLOG:  August 24, 2011

BLOG:  December 26, 2010

 

If any one of the commissioners frames the issue between the two, it is likely to be in terms of:  "Who is in charge, the commissioners or the advisory board?"

If any one of the advisory board members were to frame the issue, it likely be:  "What are we, wall flowers?"

The SCPR's own take is that the SCDPAB is composed of consummate dog lovers who volunteer hundreds if not thousands of hours each year towards looking after Stark County's dog population and passionately advocate for the dogs' welfare.

If it were not for the advisory board speaking out over the last several years, Stark County dog lovers should shudder to think what conditions at the Pound would be like.

But as we all know, frequently "no good deed goes unpunished," especially when one has demonstrated an audacity to offend a government official.

While the commissioners appear to care, too; they seem to be imbued with a "We insist on being in charge" mentality about them that manifests as an oversensitivity to anyone who would question the quality of the discharge of their oversight function over the Stark County Dog Pound (SCDP - Pound).

If the commissioners decide to disband the SCDPAB, the SCPR thinks that such is a signal that they (especially Bernabei and Creighton; Ferguson is off the board at the end of this year) are losing their fervor for open and participatory local government.

Moreover,  the Stark County public should begin questioning how deep the commissioners' overall commitment to access, accountability, two-way communication, and transparency really runs.

It was a terrific breath of fresh air when Commissioners Bernabei and Creighton came aboard the Stark County board of commissioners after being elected in November, 2012.

The fresh breezes of "attentive to the public air current" wafted throughout the county up and through the election victory of November, 2011 when Stark Countians agreed to provide county government with about $22 million a year in new revenues.

The commissioners themselves were astounded at the margin of victory of the sales tax levy.

There were two reasons that the levy passed with the margin it did.

First, Stark Countians were frightened big time at what might ensue in terms of law enforcement and the public safety were the levy to fail.

Second, the commissioners convinced the voting public that that there was "a new sheriff in town" in the form of the Bernabei/Creighton tandem and that the days of cutting the public out of local government decision making were over.  In short, Stark Countians had found reason to once again trust county government.

To the SCPR, the apparent inability of the commissioners to cope with and accept, for whatever it is worth, dissent emanating from its dog pound advisory board is not the only sign that the vigor of their embrace of the public may be ebbing.

For The Report, how the commissioners handle the SCDPAB situation will be a litmus test of the larger question of whether or not they have the political maturity to lead when not everyone agrees with the substance and/or style of their leadership.

In other words, can they embrace publicly expressed dissent and deal with it constructively and effectively or will they resort to typical public official techniques and strategies designed to stifle and eliminate.

And beyond the political maturity factor is the question of whether or not their original enthusiasm for reform of how county government functions/interacts vis-a-vis the Stark County public is losing its vigor?

IS THE CURRENT BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MAKING PROGRESS ON "CHRONIC" STARK CO. DOG POUND PROBLEMS?

For as long as the SCPR has been existed (working on 5 years now), the Stark County Dog Pound (SCDP - Pound) has experienced problem after problem after problem after problem.

The Report has never believed that former boards of commissioners were inclined to or, better to the point, were up to solving the problems at the Pound. 

With the election of former Canton mayor Janet Creighton (a Republican) and former Canton law director Thomas Bernabei (a Democrat) in November, 2012, The Report was hopeful that "at long last" Stark Countians would see some effective executive leadership exercised to restore public confidence in the operations of county government. 

Generally, the SCPR has been positive about Creighton and Bernabei and the "breath of fresh air" they have brought to the office.

Because of them, Stark County government is much more accessible, accountable, communicative, open and transparent.

Moreover, because of the trust they have built up with the Stark County electorate, they have been able to partially solve the financial crisis that threatened to bring county government operations to a near grinding halt.
 
Their invigorated leadership convinced Stark Countians in November, 2011 to trust them to manage with a newly voted in 0.5% sales tax for a term of eight years.

One-half percent probably was all that was politically doable given the downturn in the economy that began in 2008, and given the turmoil that erupted in the Stark County treasurer's office in April, 2009.

The sales tax should have been 1% if the county was going to be able to move forward with bold initiatives to solve a number of countywide problems (e.g. the decrepit conditions of the Stark County ditching system).

For all that they have done, the commissioners (including Pete Ferguson who is not running for re-election), deserve plaudits.

However, this board of commissioners in the opinion of the SCPR continues "to stumble and bumble" as did previous boards on getting the operations of the Stark County Dog Pound in order.

The SCPR has covered the goings on at the SCDP more consistently and more thoroughly than any other Stark County media outlet.

Accordingly, sources who want the problems solved "once and for all" have turned to The Report with information about the exceedingly slow degree to which commissioners (through its chief administrator Mike Hanke) are solving the persisting problems at the Pound.

A matter that has plagued the Pound over its recent history are allegations of hiring for positions at the facility on the basis of political or inside connections and that the general public has not had a fair chance to apply for and be considered for these public jobs.

Even when the current dog pound warden Reagan Tetreault was hired (effective - May 24, 2010), there was a tussle between the then-commissioners (Bosley, Ferguson and Meeks) and a body known as the Stark County Dog Pound Advisory Board (SCDPAB) as to how much say the advisory board had as to whom would be hired. 

The SCDPAB had a group of its members comb through the applications and narrow the list.  When a person appeared on the final list that the advisory board had not recommended be on it, "all Hell broke loose."  Go to this SCPR blog LINK for a more detailed description of the incident.

The compromise solution resulted in the hiring of Tetreault.

Interestingly enough, the "favoritism" allegation has been raised again in the replacement of a departing dispatcher during this the Tetreault regime of onsite management at the Pound.

It turns out that the new hire Tessa Neville formerly worked for Tetreault at the Holmes County from July 2009 through Treteault's departure for the Stark County job in May, 2010.

One SCDPAB member tells the SCPR that there was a Stark Countian with credentials at least the equal of Neville that should have been hired (assuming all things being equal) because the applicant is a Stark Countians.

Because the Stark County commissioners go to great pains in the course of their meetings (which the SCPR attends pretty much week in and week out) when they are letting contracts to inquire as to why there were no Stark County bids with attendant statements that they prefer to find Stark County business with equally competitive bids to award contracts to, The Report felt that the SCDPAB member source had a good point.

Yours truly asked Commissioner Creighton that question point blank.

Her response?  She said that indeed the preference (of course, speaking only for herself, but The Report believes that Ferguson and Bernabei concur) is to hire Stark Countians - "all things being equal."

Creighton did not nor did any other commissioner participate in the interviews.  There were 27 applicants and the list was narrowed down to seven for interview.  Warden Tetreault and Stark County Chief Administrator Mike Hanke conducted the interviews.  Mike Hanke is on vacation and is not available for The Report to talk to.

It is quite understandable that the complaining (to the SCPR) SCDPAB member would be distressed that Neville was hired when it came out that the two had worked together in Holmes County.

Creighton tells The Report that she quizzed Tetreault thoroughly to find out whether or not there was a special relationship (e.g. do you hang out together a la person friends do) between the two that advantaged Neville over other applicants.

Creighton further says that she was satisfied with the explanation by Tetreault that Neville was hired because she had more impressive credentials than the SCDPAB member's preferred Stark County-based applicant.

The Report obtained copies of the applications (via a public records request) of the seven finalists interviewed for the dispatcher position.
 
From what The Report sees from a review of the overall applications of the two contenders cited above, the credentials seem to be pretty much of a wash and therefore one has to wonder what happened to the Stark County preferred criterion that the commissioners say they heed.

It could be that something surfaced in the interview that made it apparent to Tetreault and Hanke that Neville was "head and shoulders" over her competitor in qualifications for the job.  Such is certainly not apparent from a reading of the resumes themselves.

Creighton said that such (the results of the interview) was the case.   But she was unable to provide specifics.

Nonetheless, one can understand the skepticism that the prior employment connection between Tetreault and the hiree was not a factor in determining who got the Stark County taxpayer provided job.

The Report believes that the hiring decision will make it more difficult for the SCDPAB, the commissioners and the warden to work harmoniously towards realizing their common objectives.

Accordingly, Tetreault is to be held accountable for her hiring decision making judgment skills.  Ant the SCPR will be watching closely.

To repeat, there appears to the SCPR to be a wary relationship between the officialdom of the commissioners and the dog warden, on one hand,  and members of the SCDPAB, on the other hand, who are concerned about policies, procedures, practices and the quality of facilities at the Pound.

While it seems that the commissioners appreciate the dedication and commitment of the SCDPAB membership to the well-being of the dogs processed through the Pound, the commissioners are firm in their determination to have a line of demarcation between those who have official responsibilities and those who are advisers.

More than any other board of commissioners, the sensitivity of the relationship notwithstanding, the current board has made significant progress on resolving the complaints of the membership of the SCDPAB and others.

Recently, the SCDPAB submitted a quarterly report to the commissioners with the following positives about solving the problems at the Pound.

• euthanasia numbers are down,
• accurate completion of inbound dog paperwork is improved,
• improved communication on dog rescues resulting in more adoptions,
• better management of "catch pole" use,
• effective management of rodent infestation, and
• cleaning protocols are improved

That same report also list lingering problems.

• poor customer services to those wanting to adopt a dog,
• a "spay-and-neuter" program is practically non-existent,
• promised facility improvements have not materialized, to wit:
• mats for small dogs,
• a rework of the ventilation system, and
• building of additional outdoor runs.
• compared to the Wayne County Dog Pound (privatized) and the Summit County Dog Pound (run by the county), Stark's operation markedly comes up short on the matter of accountability,
• Stark should mimic Summit by having:
• clearly communicated job descriptions and standards of performance in writing,
• published cleaning, watering and feeding schedules, and
• a written schedule of "spot-checks" of the facility.

Yours truly spoke at some length with Commissioner Janet Creighton after last Wednesday's regular board meeting about the persisting problems at the Pound.

Tetrault has been dog warden for a full two years now and the SCPR believes that it is telling that many of the problems she faced when she first took charge still persist.

Creighton did obtain the following responses on various problem matters that were contained in the SCDPAB report and which yours truly specifically addressed to the commissioners office, to wit:

• as to the ventilation system improvement project, the commissioners have just approved mechanical engineering bids for the design of the project,
• while it is claimed that the spay/neuter program has not been dismantled, Warden Tetreault admits that her attempt to attract veterinarians to a program that would make spay and neuter available for $50 each has been unsuccessful.  Moreover, in the meantime adopters are provided the opportunity to obtain spay and neutering at the One of a Kind Spay and Neuter Clinic located in the 1700 block of West Market Street in Akron,
• establishing an "in-house" veterinarian program for general medical treatments is a work-in-progress which should be up and running soon, and
• mat material has arrived at the Pound for cutting to size to provide mats for the smaller cages.

Basically, Commissioner Creighton said that resolving chronic problems takes time and that:

• it does not help any that the SCDPAB seems bent on being the "tail that wags the dog" (the SCPR's coined characterization; not Creighton's),
• and that there is discord among competing organizations/groups (e.g. The Humane Society, the Friends of the Pound, the SCDPAB and Animal Welfare of Stark County) as to exactly what the commissioners ought to be doing to solve the problems at the Pound.

The SCPR's take on the commissioners' attitude on solving the problems at the Pound is that of being generally annoyed with the Stark County Dog Pound Advisory Board.  And The Report's take is not based merely on last Wednesday's sit down with Commissioner Creighton.  This attitude has been communicated in various and sundry ways by not just this board of commissioners.  It goes back a number of years.

Creighton did muse to yours truly as to how the SCDPAB got started in the first place.  She says that there appears to be no underlying legal requirement/authority for a prior board of commissioners having done so.

To The Report, her reflection is evidence of the commissioners' ongoing frustration with the SCDPAB.

And The Report thinks that Warden Tetreault has picked up on the commissioners' being irritated with the advisers as a cover for dragging her feet in communicating with, working with, and problem solving with the SCDPAB members and others who desperately want to make the problems at the Pound to be occasional and an aberration and not "par for the course" as now seems to be the case.

As stated above, the SCPR is impressed with the work that the Bernabei/Creighton-led board of commissioners (as compared to previous boards) has done in making county departments of government more responsive to Stark County citizens and taxpayers.

It would be a shame for the commissioners to lose the overall confidence and trust of the Stark County electorate over something like chronic and persisting problems at the Pound.

And make no mistake about it, Stark Countians like all Americans do love their dogs and want them properly cared for when they are entrusted to the care of government.

Knowing that the commissioners do not like outsiders weighing in on how they do the public's business, in particular with reference to the Stark County Dog Pound; yours truly nonetheless takes on the audacity to suggest to them that they develop a published list of problems and solutions on a timeline and thereby hold themselves accountable to the taxpayers of Stark County.

Some money (according to Creighton) has been taken out of the capital fund to expedite facility problem solving projects.  Financing of fixes at the Pound should be no problem.  The Pound is an enterprise type fund which means that he should be self-supporting through fees for service provided.

Last year, the commissioners imposed a fee increase.  Accordingly, there is little if any room for the commissioners to say they do not have adequate funding.

Moreover, rather than be annoyed with and resistant to outsiders, they should embrace those of us who want to interact with our governors and thereby fashion remedies that are beneficial to all.

From what the SCPR has seen of the SCDPAB, it is doing a valuable and worthy work on keeping the heat on to fix the seemingly eternal problems at the Pound.

The commissioners are right to maintain ownership of the remediation effort. 

However, to make their remake of county government to be continuingly creditable, it is important that they endeavor to make solving the ongoing Pound problems a collaboration and thereby show that citizen/government interaction can be a productive effort.

The only remaining question is whether not the commissioners have the will to "once and for all" solved the Pound problems which as "dogged" Stark County for all too many years!

NEW ALLEGATIONS ARISE THAT COMMISSIONERS ARE NOT EFFECTIVELY OVERSEEING THE STARK COUNTY DOG POUND. IS PRIVATIZATION THE ANSWER?

An October 8th blog went into some detail about problems which are said to persist at the Stark County Dog Pound (SCDP - Pound) (CLICK HERE for a refresher).

Going on nearly three months later and very little, if anything, has been done to solve the seemingly eternal problems in the operation of the SCDP.

Well, if you believe an e-mail that the SCPR received yesterday from a member of the Stark County Dog Pound Advisory Board (SCDPAB), that is the state of affairs is in these days.

The commissioners have space on Monday and Tuesday of each week to schedule work sessions to work out problems such as those said to exist in the e-mail.  That is precisely what The Report thinks the commissioners should do.  They need to bring in Dog Pound Warden Reagan Tetreault, SCDPAB members and interested Stark County citizens as a forum in which to lay out the problems that all agree exist and to establish an agreed plan of action to resolve the agreed to list of items to be remedied.

Or, alternatively, perhaps the commissioners should piggyback on a look see initiative by SCDPAB members on the viability of privatization of the Pound.

In yesterday's e-mail, the following additional (in addition to those recited in the October 8th blog) allegations are made:

• A worker, who,  apparently, had been on sick leave for some six weeks while working a similar job elsewhere and who avoided sanction because Warden Tetreault did not provide the employee with a "light duty" alternative.
• Suspicions that Pound dogs were not properly fed over the Thanksgiving holiday period.
• Some time in the fall of this year Warden Tetreault worked out a "trade" with the Stark County Humane Society of adoptable Pound dogs in exchange for Humane Society pit bulls which the writer of the e-mail says are not readily adoptable and therefore become prime candidates for euthanasia thereby creating conditions for enhanced euthanasia numbers at the Pound.
• There is an atmosphere of "communication" distrust (the SCPR's interpretation) between Warden Tetreault and SCDPAB volunteers at the Pound.
• A perceived Warden Tetreault inability to make timely decisions and overreliance on Stark County Chief Administrator Mike Hanke for decision making.
• A belief that commissioners do not take the SCAB seriously (e.g. Commissioner Creighton has told a SCDPAB member that the Pound is a low priority for her) and has either directly or inadvertently communicated such to Warden Tetreault and that a "not take seriously" has taken hold on the SCDPAB/Tetreault interaction to the point that the Warden no longer attends SCDPAB meetings.
• Although the SCDPAB raised $7,800.00 to replace an inadequate ventilation system, the commissioners seem to be dragging their feet in getting the ventilation system improved.

The SCPR has been covering the Stark County commissioners for several years now and one festering problem that neither former boards nor the current board have effectively dealt with is the longstanding and chronic complaints about the Stark County Dog Pound.

The Report did not expect much from the former boards.

However, yours truly does expect that the current board with its more citizen-friendly/responsive attitude will move to solve the pound's problem. 

And to be fair with respect to Commissioner Creighton's purported statement, if she made it, The Report has to believe it was made in the context of dealing with county budgetary matters and getting the November sales tax passed.

As The Report has written frequently since Commissioners Bernabei and Creighton came on board in November, 2010 and January, 2011 respectively; the current Stark County Board of Commissioners is vastly improved over recent boards.

But it is not perfect and one aspect of its imperfection seems to be centered on a lack of resolve to solve the persistent problems of the Pound.

Again, the SCPR calls on the commissioners to schedule a public work session(s) sooner than later and work with the SCDPAB to get to an agreed bottom line definition of the problems and develop a plan of action to remedy the inadequacies in the context of a defined timeline.

Alternatively, the commissioners may wish to get out of the dog pound business.

Because of their dissatisfaction with the way Stark County oversees the operation of the Pound, members of the SCDPAB are looking into privatizing the county's dog pound operations.  Perhaps the commissioners should jump onboard and join in on the inquiry.

The SCPR's historical take on the Stark' commissioners' oversight of the Pound is that it has been "a pain in the neck" and it is a function in terms of the commissioners wholeheartedly embracing it and finding lasting solutions to its problems they would rather not be into.

As it is, the SCDP is not a general fund department of county government, it is rather an enterprise fund type operation supported by various licensing and services fees it charges users.

So if having a county dog pound and seeing to it that it is run properly is a bother to the commissioners, then should it not be full bore ahead with privatization?

(VIDEO) COMMISSIONER PETE FERGUSON BECOMING "POLITICALLY CORRECT" ON WHETHER OR NOT HE SAW VIDEOTAPE OF DOG ABUSE AT STARK COUNTY DOG POUND?

There is no doubt about it!

Commissioner Ferguson did say (see video posted at the end of this blog; hereinafter "TAPE") in July at the regular monthly meeting of the Stark County Dog Pound Advisory Board (SCDPAB) that he in fact saw dog abuse on a videotape taken of operations at the Stark County Dog Pound.

By the regular November 24th meeting of the commissioners, he had a "revised" memory and he had not seen what he saw in July.  Moreover, on January 20, 2011 he appeared before the SCDPAB at its regular monthly meeting and reaffirmed that he did not see what he said he saw back in July, 2010.

So, what is one to make of the turnabout?

The SCPR believes that it became "politically incorrect" (in terms with the commissioners' relationship with the Teamsters Union - which represents the dog pound workers) for Ferguson to have seen what he emphatically saw in July.

Another interesting thing is that one SCDPAB member (seen on the accompanying tape) muses about how "THE TAPE" (defined as being the tape that Ferguson was referring to at the SCDPAB July meeting) has come up missing.

The SCPR asked Stark County Dog Warden Reagan Tetreault for a copy of THE TAPE (request made by the SCPR in December, 2010) and, after being ignored for the better part of two days and only after County Administrator Mike Hanke intervened to get her to respond to The Report's telephone call, did Tetreault provide "A" tape (an October tape - not "THE TAPE").

The Report believes that THE TAPE existed at one time and that Ferguson in fact viewed it.

The only other possibility is that Ferguson totally fabricated his account of having viewed THE TAPE at the July SCDPAB meeting.

Either scenario should not be comforting to Stark Countians.

While some may think that THE TAPE incident is "much ado about nothing," it is a mistake for any citizen who cares about the accountability of government to take such a view.

At issue in this vignette on the operations of county government, is the credibility of an elected commissioner, the preservation and protection of public records, the job performance standards at a unit of county government, the responsiveness of the dog warden and whether or county taxpayers are getting what they are paying for (i.e. Ferguson "All I saw were people sitting around doing nothing").

There are signs that Tetreault is getting a handle on matters at the Stark County Dog Pound (Pound), but it still is too early to tell definitively.

Stark Countians who care about the handling of and care of dogs at the Pound should be appreciative of the Stark County Dog Pound Advisory Board.

One has to wonder whether or not the Stark County commissioners (especially Ferguson, and former commissioners Bosley, Jackson, Harmon, Meeks and Vignos) rue the day that the Advisory Board was created and staffed.

They surely have been "a pain in the _ _ _ _" to the commissioners while being "guardian angels" for those Stark County dogs who have the misfortune (at least historically) to end up at the Stark County Dog Pound.

(VIDEO) CONFUSION REIGNS AT SC DOG POUND. COMMISSIONERS ARE DOING VERY LITTLE TO CLEAR THINGS UP? SCPR: "COMMISSIONERS NEED TO APPOINT A 5 MEMBER INVESTIGATORY COMMISSIONER TO DEAL WITH PERCEIVED PROBLEMS WITH THE POUND!

There is a lot of talk going on with the Stark County commissioners about the "problems" at the Stark County Dog Pound (SCDP - Pound), but very little action.

And confusion seems to reign supreme among volunteers at the SCDP on a number of issues.  At Thursday night's meeting (November 18th) of the Stark County Dog Pound Advisory Board (SCDPAB), it was apparent to one and all that the confusion was the dominant topic of discussion.

One topic that ought to catch the attention of Stark Countians is whether or not dog abuse is taking place at the SCDP.  Thursday night SCDPAB members were totally confused as to Commissioner Pete Ferguson's take on the existence or not of abuse at the Pound.  Members said (see video below) that Ferguson has said (contractorily) that his view of video taken by video equipment installed at the Pound revealed evidence of serious questions of abuse and, then, on another occasion - according to board members - that "all?" he saw was a bunch of employees sitting around doing nothing.

And there are other issues.

Questions of the financing the operations (e.g. funds to buy sufficient food for the dogs), capital improvements in terms of needed repair, the role of volunteers at the Pound and on and on and on goes the list.

SCDPAB members are in the process of developing a form for volunteers at the Pound to use to record incidents at the Pound which the volunteer believes to be a problem in need of a response/solution.

The SCPR would go one step further.  The SCDPAB or the commissioners or Warden Tetreault should develop a Pound user evaluation form for citizens who use the services of the Pound to use in evaluating the quality of their experience with Pound employees.

Moreover, the SCPR believes that with the entrance of newly elected Commissioner Tom Bernabei at Wednesday's upcoming meeting (November 24), the commissioners need to seize the day on all of these issues and appoint a official five member nvestigatory commission composed of a commissioner (either Ferguson or Bernabei), a SCDPAB member, Warden Reagan Tetreault, a citizen who is not a Pound volunteer or SCDPAB member who has experience in dealing with the Pound and Canton law director Joseph Martuccio to develop a list of perceived problems with the Pound and to either substantiate them and recommend specific remediative measures or to debunk them and thereby put them to rest.

Here is a video of SCDPAB members discussing the contradictory take of Commissioner Ferguson on whether or not he believes the video he has seen is evidence of abuse.

VIDEO SERIES: EPISODE 1 - AIRING OUT THE DOG POUND COMPLAINTS! SEE YOUR FELLOW CITIZENS PETITION THEIR GOV'T FOR REDRESS OF THEIR GREIVANCES. CAN THE COMMISSIONERS GET IT RIGHT?

This blog is a first in a series that the SCPR is reporting, in detail, on the long-term problems at the Stark County Dog Pound which have been unsolved by the Stark County commissioners going back at least five years.  Moreover, The Report will be commenting on the status of attempts to rectify the problems and whether or not they are being effective.

About a week ago, there was a re-eruption of discontent among Stark County dog lovers that surfaced at the Stark County commissioners regular weekly meeting on October 20th  when the Michael Greathouse, II family appeared at the meeting to get answers as to why, on October 13, 2010 the family dog (Roxy) was on October 13th accidentally euthanized by personnel of the Stark County Dog Pound.

Ohio statutory law requires that a dog be kept a minimum of 72 hours by a county dog pound prior to being euthanized.  Roxy was missing a mere 14 hours prior to the Greathouse's learning that their dog had been euthanized.

Kristen Greathouse was back to the commissioners meeting on October 20th wanting to know why they had no answers after two full weeks of waiting for the outcome of the investigation and a report of the disciplinary action taken.



The SCPR attended a meeting of the Stark County Dog Pound Advisory Board (SCDPAB) on October 21st, the day after the Greathouses appeared at the October 20th commissioners meeting at which they lodged a complaint with the commissioners and asked for reasons why their dog was euthanized.

At the SCDPAB meeting (which is held monthly at the North Branch of the Stark County District Library at 6:00 p.m.), another family (the Beaver family) surfaced telling a tale of horror of how their dog who was properly licensed, sheltered, secured and maintained in terms of being vaccinated up to standard was attacked and mauled by neighboring pit bulls whose owner, they said, had not properly licensed, sheltered, secured, maintained and insured them.

Because the Beaver family dog was so badly mauled it would have cost upwards of $22,000 to have the dog surgically repaired without any guaranteed of recovery, the Beavers elected to have their dog put down.

The Beavers had been working with the Stark County Dog Pound (SCDP) since June of this year to deal with the pit bull owner's failure to comply with being cited by the SCDP with corrective action, but to no avail.

The Beavers believe that the SCDP's failure resulted in the mauling and the need for them to put their dog down.

The SCPR has much video footage to present to the Stark County public on the many, many problems at the SCDP.

The Report is digging into why the Stark County commissioners have been so out-of-touch with the problems at the pound; apparently working to resolve the many complaints about personnel staffing the pound, but seemingly spinning their wheels.

It seems to yours truly that the commissioners have not effectively taken charge of correcting problems at the pound that the current commissioners and their predecessors have long known about.

Commissioner Meeks told The Report on Wednesday evening the commissioners are proceeding cautiously because a number of years ago a pound employee was found to have been improperly disciplined by the county and the finding cost the county in the neighborhood of $50,000 to settle.

One of the looming problems facing Stark's dog lovers and the volunteers at the pound is that two of the three commissioners dealing with the current outcry will be gone in a matter of about two months.

Commissioner Todd Bosley is vacating his commissioner's job effective December 31st of this year as he is running for state representative in Ohio's 50th District.

Commissioner Steven Meeks is likely to be defeated in his endeavor to be elected to a seat on the Stark Board of Commissioners by his Republican opponent Janet Creighton.

Even if he should win, which the SCPR does not expect, he still will be required to step down for at least five weeks because the term he is serving now (the unfilled term of former Commissioner Tom Harmon) will expire as soon as the Stark County Board of Election certifies either Democrat Tom Bernabei or Republican James N. Walters in the election to fill the remaining two years of the Harmon seat.

The Report has gone into the political side of the succession of office to acquaint readers with yet another complication that citizens actively engaged in trying to work out the problems of the pound with commissioners will have to face.

By following the daily blogs of the SCPR, readers can become well informed as to what the problems at the pound are, who is dealing with them, what is being done, and whether or not "real" solutions are being achieved.

Commissioner Bosley (the president of the Stark County Board of Commissioners) has demanded that Warden Reagan Tetreault have a final report on the investigation of and disciplinary disposition of Roxy's erroneous euthanization by next Tuesday's scheduled commissioners' meeting.

Next up:  Episode 2.

HOW IS STARK COUNTY'S NEW DOG WARDEN DOING? WILL SHE MAKE IT PAST THE PROBATIONARY PERIOD?

On Monday, May 24, 2010, Reagan Tetreault (former Homes County warden) took over at the much-troubled Stark County Dog Pound.  On May 23rd, the SCPR did a report on Tetreault's first public appearance (including video) in Stark County.

Recently the SCPR talked with Nanci Miller, who is a member of the Stark County Dog Pound Advisory Board and also involved with the Animal Welfare Society of Stark County (AWS), about her take on the first few weeks of Warden Tetreault.

Nanci was at the Stark County commissioners' meeting of June 23rd to share with commissioners the progress being madeon  the effort to put together a spay and neuter clinic for Stark Countians who cannot afford to spay/neuter their animals.

She shared that the Dog Pound Advisory Board (DPAB)is optimistic that Warden Tetreault is going to work out.  Moreover, she provided the SCPR with a copy of the minutes of the DPAB at its June 17th meeting which has an outline of the projects underway at the hand of the warden.

Readers of The Report will recall that the DPAB (members of which are appointed by the commissioners) got into a fuss of sorts with commissioners over whom should be appointed warden and how much import DPAB members should have.

The DPAB seemed to be concerned that "the fix was in" and that a person who was not on the top five or six list of the DPAB was going to end up with the appointment.  Also, Member Swank got into an argument with County Administrator Michael Hanke as to whether or not Swank was to be part of the interview process of candidates for warden.

Hanke took the position that interim Warden Kevin Fox was to be the "outside" person to be part of the interview process as - according to Hanke - Swank had deferred to Fox.

The import of all of this is that the SCPR does believe that the DPAB was effective to kill the political fix, if there was one.  The operation of the DPAB is a good model for all boards and commissions throughout Stark County.

They should not be compliant rubber stamps.  They should endeavor to be cooperative in the context of taking a critical look at the appointing authority.

Here is a list of achievements that Warden Tetrault hopes to attain at the Stark County Dog Pound:

CONTROVERSY SWIRLS AROUND STARK COUNTY COMMISSIONER DOG WARDEN SELECTION PROCESS?

  
 UPDATE:  05/01/2010 - 11:00 AM

Hi Martin, 

Thank you for thoroughly and objectively covering the dog warden issue.  It seems that the more things change, the more they stay the same.  I am in agreement with the Advisory Board that a "breeder," someone who makes money by producing and selling dogs for profit is hardly a prime candidate for an agency whose job it is to deal with too many dogs, not enough homes. 

Ironically, I have heard from several sources that candidate Chapman would be an outstanding choice in the effort to transform the Pound into a model facility.  While I am not on the Advisory Board I did contact Todd Bosley stating the reasons I felt an outsider, someone with no County "obligations" would be advantageous.  I have not had a reply, but after reading about this latest clandestine meeting, excluding the very people who work tirelessly to improve the Pound, costing tax payers not one bloody nickle it seems once again that something is fishy. 

Like I said, the more things change, the more they stay the same.  

Karen L. Kirsch
Freelance Writer

ORIGINAL REVISED at 8:45 AM

On Tuesday, April 27, 2010 Steve Swank, a member of the Stark County Dog Pound Advisory Board appeared at the Stark County Commissioners office to participate in interviews that commissioners were conducting to hire a new county dog warden.

To his amazement, according to Swank, he was told by County Administrator Mike Hanke that he would not be allowed to participate.

Amazement?

Yes, amazement!

Why so?

Because back on April 7th, when Swank appeared before the commissioners to announce the recommendations of the Stark County Dog Pound Advisory Board (DPAB), the following exchange occurred, to wit:

Hmm?

Board members are indignant that Swank was excluded.  Here is the contents of an e-mail sent to the commissioners and to Administrator Hanke expressing their upset, to wit:

Dear Commissioners and Mr. Hanke

Members of the Stark Dog Warden Advisory Board were pleased to have the opportunity to review all the applications for the new dog warden position. With regards to all the facets this job entails, such as good management practices, dealing with labor unions and volunteers, budgeting, public relations , knowledge of basic dog handling, temperament and health issues, etc. , we carefully selected our top applicants from the 127 submissions.

All of us on the Board know we are not making the final decision; however we were shocked and angered to learn at the last minute - contrary to what we were previously told -   that a representative from the Board would  not be welcome during the final interview process. After almost two years  of dealing with Warden Gibson's indifference  to almost  all of our suggestions , it is extremely frustrating to realize that all the time and dedication the Advisory Board has spent trying to make the Stark Dog Pound a model for other pounds to follow and our community to be proud of, is likewise being disregarded by our commissioners. (emphasis added)

Stark County Dog Warden Advisory Board

Len Cooper, President
Steve Swank, Vice President
Nanci Miller, Secretary
Rosemary Hayne
Dana Muntean
Sally Roush

So what changed to cause Swank to be excluded?

It could be that a person was added to the list (hereinafter referred to as "lady" as identified by County Administrator Mike Hanke in an e-mail to DPAB president Len Cooper as set forth below) of those to be interviewed that was NOT on the top ten list of any of the DPAB members.

And what was a prime reason why the lady was not on anyone's top ten list?  Two of the members told the SCPR, it was because the "lady" has a history of dog breeding. 

The thinking of DPAB members seems to be that being a breeder is antithetical to being a dog pound warden.

How so?

One DPAB member told the SCPR that breeders get litters that have only a few (from the perspective of the breeder) "good" dogs in terms of saleability.  The remainder are cast aside and a number of them end up in dog pounds to be adopted out, if possible; if not, then euthanized.

Accordingly, the SCPR believes one reason that Swank and fellow DPAB member Cooper who was to be part of the Thursday, April 29th interviews were excluded may be because the commissioners perceived both to be set against dog breeders as viable candidates for dog warden.

Another reason why Swank/Cooper were kept out of the interview process could be because the suspicion of one DPAB member that the commissioners have a political agenda to appoint the "lady" and that the other three candidates are a charade to cover for a political agenda candidate.

Because yours truly knew, from previous conversations with him on, what seems to be,  unrelated matters, that Commissioner Bosley has had contact recently with the lady's spouse, inquiry was made of Bosley as to whether or not those contacts had anything to do with the lady surfacing as a finalist for the warden job.

Bosley said they did not.  However, yours truly is skeptical and told Bosley so.

After saying that he did not know how the "lady" ended up on the "final four" list (who would believe this disclaimer?), Bosley referred The Report to County Administrator Mike Hanke for information on how the lady got on the list.

Moreover, Bosley did say, however, that the "lady" is number one or two oh his list - post interview.  Apparently, it was one heck of an interview, no?

The Report is also struck with the disingenuous way that The Report believes County Administrator Mike Hanke handled yours truly's inquiries as to how the "lady" got on the final four list despite not being on the top ten list of any DPAB member.  The exchange of e-mails between the SCPR and Hanke is set forth below.

Disingenuous?

How so?

First, take a look at a SCPR and Hanke e-mail exchange.

Second, about three hours later, see  what Mike Hanke wrote to Len Cooper (president of the DPAB) yesterday at 2:19 p.m.

Hi, Len:

I understand your concern, but perhaps you didn't know that a couple of the commissioners talked to this lady before they asked the advisory board to review resumes. She impressed them then. Frankly, they were surprised that she wasn't among the advisory group's recommendations. (emphasis added)

The commissioners said to me that they really would like to interview her and compare her to the group's recommendations, and I recommended to them that they add her name to the list. This is not precedent setting.

In previous hiring situations, commissioners have interviewed candidates in addition to lists given to them by groups that screened resumes.

Certainly the board highly values the recommendations from its advisory group but, as you note, ultimately they must hire the individual and they must consider some important areas, not the least of which are how the new warden interacts with commissioners, how he or she interacts with the public -- including those calling about problem dogs in neighborhoods -- and how he or she will react to situations as a law enforcement officer.

Len, I don't think the commissioners took your list of recommended candidates as a recommendation against all other candidates. We looked at it as the group's recommendation of its top five.

As it turns out, two of them didn't schedule interviews. I also await with interest the hiring, although nothing has been scheduled for next Wednesday.

Thanks,
Mike

The second e-mail was after Commissioner Bosley had spoken with Hanke about the matter.

More forthcoming, but not entirely.

The SCPR is beginning to see indications that Mike Hanke may be singling out The Report for "special" treatment in a negative way as compared to the employees of his former employer - The Repository.

The Report reminds Mr. Hanke that he is no longer at The Repository, but rather an "appointed" public official.  Yours truly will not tolerate discriminatory treatment and will make a very public battle of any effort by Hanke to treat the Stark County Political Report disrespectfully.

Now back to Hanke's "lame points" (remember, a man who wouldn't want to put words in the mouths of commissioners):

First, consider:   "... perhaps you didn't know that a couple of commissioners talked to this lady before they asked the advisory board to review the resumes ..."

Really?  Which two commissioners?  What was the occasion for the conversations?  Were the two commissioners together when the "talked to" occurred?  If separate, when did the two different conversations take place?  And, if separate, did the two commissioners compare notes prior to the actual interview?

Of course, Administrator Hanke doesn't go into the intricate implications of what he has to say.  Why not?  Perhaps because "[he] wouldn't want to put words in the commissioners (sic) mouths."

Second, consider:  "Frankly, they were surprised that she wasn't among the advisory group's recommendations."

Surprised?  Really?  What jumped out about the lady that was so riveting to the commissioners?

The Report's review of the lady's resume shows (other than owning and breeding dogs) that since 2003 she has worked in a collections department and as a real property manager.  From September, 1984 through November, 2003, she was office manager and secretary/treasurer of an animal hospital.

Why would anyone be surprised that such a resume would not be compelling to a group of advisers who currently work with dogs (and have historically worked with dogs) in various capacities for quite a few years?

Hmm?

If anything, the Hanke letter lends credence to the notion that the commissioners had pretty much made their minds up some time ago.

Now it appears to The Report they may be building a justification for a hire that doesn't seem to make sense.

Readers will recall that the SCPR has never bought Bosley's account of how former Commissioner Tom Harmon's stepson came be named deputy dog warden several months back.

Nor does The Report buy the official line on how the "lady" found a way to jettison from relative anonymity to "the final four."

Soon county commissioners will be deciding whether or not to put a tax issue on November's ballot.

The SCPR believes that the county is in genuine need of new revenues.

However, when the commissioner allow procedures like the dog pound warden selection to get shrouded in inexplicable, suspicious and Byzantine maneuvers, then "seeds of distrust" get sown and when teamed up with previous such incidents,  the chances of getting the voting public to vote for tax increases or even renewals plummet.

Only about 20% of Americans trust government these days.

It is becoming readily apparent to the SCPR why trust is taking a nosedive.

What is crazy about this phenomenon of growing distrust is this.

Who would want to govern in a atmosphere of overwhelming distrust?