News, Events and Information from Indianapolis Animal Care & Control

As improvements continue at Indianapolis Animal Care & Control (IACC), a small group, including the Humane Society of Indianapolis and councilors move to oust new IACC administrator in secret session

One year ago, a group of 50 people filed a grievance with the Indianapolis Animal Care & Control advisory board bringing forth allegations of mistreatment and abuse of animals in their care and violations of Indianapolis law and internal procedure at the city's shelter. Two independent investigators confirmed the allegations. Although no legal action was taken, then-administrator Steve Talley resigned, followed soon by the long-time kennel manager Kirsten Vantwoud (now employed by Humane Society of Indianapolis).

A search for a new, highly-qualified administrator for the troubled facility found one in the hiring of Doug Rae. Mr. Rae had appreciable sheltering experience, and a bold vision for reform of the shelter and increasing the number of animals saved from about 7,000 per year to over 16,000 of the 18,000 that the shelter typically accepts.

Since beginning in January of this year, Administrator Rae has had more challenges than he had ever imagined. By his own admission, his job in at IACC has been the toughest. It has taken 6 months to complete his management team. Despite the considerable obstacles, today's IACC is not the same shelter it was in 2008.

There have been too many improvements within the shelter to attempt to list them all, but they include: new cleaning practices and chemicals, isolation of sick animals, new, larger cages, and 2 shifts of kennel workers. Two of the innovations have already been publicly visible -- permitting the conditional adoption of dogs that pass evaluation and appear to be pit bulls, and the amazingly successful July 4^th adoption event. This well-publicized event was held at the IACC shelter and the adoption fee was reduced to $4 per animal. Over 150 animals were adopted in a single day! Definitely a record for Indianapolis, but also a bold effort to place more animals into homes.

Has Rae accomplished his goals yet? Not by a long shot, and he is the first to admit it. While everyone, including Rae, would like more progress at the shelter, the fact that he recognizes – and admits to – the shelter's shortcomings is an incredible improvement from last year. when concerns taken to IACC management were dismissed and problems observed were denied. Doug Rae is a man with a deep passion for the animals, but as a leader, he focuses on solutions and facts and has no interest in making excuses.

While he is arguably the most visionary and qualified administrator to ever helm the shelter, his straight-forward nature hasn't made him the most popular. Previous administrators have been political appointees with no sheltering experience, but with much more political savvy.

While this release was originally intended to be just about the improvements made and still upcoming at IACC, disturbing information came to light about efforts by a small group of animal welfare interests and city-county councilors who attempted to bully the city to remove Administrator Rae from his job in a secret meeting.

The information on this meeting is sketchy, and the participants have thus far refused to comment openly. Apparently, on July 25th, a meeting was hosted at the Humane Society of Indianapolis (HSI). The meeting with representatives of the Public Safety division was insisted upon by councilors, which sources say included Benjamin Hunter, Christine Scales, Mike Speedy, Angela Mansfield, Mary Moriarity-Adams and Virginia Cain. Accompanying the councilors were representatives from local animal groups, apparently including Humane Society of Indianapolis, IndyFeral, F.I.D.O and Indy Pit Crew. While the specifics of the discussions remain unknown, the nature of this meeting raises some very serious concerns.

What complaint would be so serious to think it necessary to remove Administrator Rae by secret session after only 6 months on the job? So far, we have been unable to get participants to respond to this question. But what we do know is the procedure described in Indianapolis law § 251-335(2) for bringing forth a grievance relating to IACC was not followed. This grievance procedure allows for concerns or problems to be heard and addressed publicly. In short, it provides the people of Indianapolis the chance to be involved in decisions that affect them.

But for some reason, the parties that orchestrated this meeting seemed to believe that the public should not be able to participate in this discussion. Perhaps they believed that their grievances were so special, that they were beyond the laws of the city. Oddly, one of the people not present at that meeting was Administrator Rae himself. I think all of us would hope that if allegations were being made against our job performance, we would have the opportunity to hear and refute whatever allegations were being made. This sure doesn't seem to be the case at the July meeting.

Since all information surrounding the meeting has thus far been kept from the public, we are left with only questions:

1. Were the councilors acting in the interest of the city, and considering the welfare of the roughly 18,000 animals that will go through the shelter this year?

2. What group were the councilors representing, and in what capacity were they functioning in calling such a meeting? Were they serving the interests of their district, the people of Indianapolis as a whole, or were they perhaps acting as the mouthpiece for a group with a narrow, perhaps even self-serving interest?

3. Why did the councilors or those from the animal groups they represented not use the existing mechanism for airing grievances?

4. Did any of these councilors attempt to discuss the animal groups' concerns with Administrator Rae and achieve a practical, professional solution prior to convening this secret meeting?

5. Was there a deliberate effort to deny the public (and Administrator Rae) the opportunity to openly discuss concerns about the performance of IACC?

6. Why did Humane Society of Indianapolis host and participate in this meeting? Wouldn't they want to avoid involvement in the criticism of the leader of a sister organization?

7. By city ordinance § 251-332(3), a representative of HSI sits as a voting member on the IACC advisory board. Does HSI's participation in the July meeting represent a conflict of interest?

8. Was the July meeting an effort to achieve government change by bullying, rather than by due process?

These are questions that absolutely must be answered. They also serve to perfectly illustrate the challenges faced by Rae while trying to perform the business of reforming IACC. Many people would've simply packed up and left after receiving personal threats and twice having their vehicle vandalized, all in the first two weeks on the job. Anyone who talks to Doug Rae understands that he's in Indianapolis to stay, and his job is to save lives. He is a man singularly suited for the job, and we believe he can finish what he has started, if given the support he needs.

Apparently the rumor mill felt that it was necessary to churn out the most idiotic idea possible and they came up with a doozy. It seems a couple of local animal welfare groups are insisting that I (Greg Brush) have accepted a job at IACC.

First off, it's just totally false. I have never discussed working at IACC in any capacity other than occasionally volunteering, have never submitted a resume to IACC or the city, have not filled out an application online or on paper or written anything that could be construed as suggesting that I want to or would work at IACC. It's just a load of crap! This leads me to conclude that whoever started the rumor, and those who would perpetuate it are doing so with mailicious intent to fulfill some agenda.

What's more interesting to me is why folks within a couple of local animal welfare groups think it's interesting to circulate such a preposterous rumor. I can only assume that it was a half-witted effort at somehow damaging my credibility. I, however, am rather at a loss to understand that reasoning. More likely, it's a scheme to somehow attack IACC Administrator Rae. In pushing forward change at IACC, he has certainly ruffled some feathers. Even at that, I'm somewhat at a loss to see how this allegation would be damning or damaging.

Feral Bureau of Indiana, Inc., of which I am the C.E.O. (a strictly volunteer position), has made it no secret that we are motivated to see IACC become a humane place, where destruction of animals isn't the daily routine, but the exception. We have worked to support Administrator Rae's bold vision of an IACC where 90%+ of the animals are saved. This includes taking "humane transfer" of special needs, ill, injured and hard-to-place animals and providing consultation on various animal welfare topics. If someone is reading a sinister motive into this, they need to find better ways to spend their time (I would recommend volunteering at IACC).

If someone tells you this rumor, you would do well to question the credibility of the source, and evaluate why they have a motive to perpetuate such blatant lies. What is their agenda, and what do they have to gain? Perhaps more importantly, in pushing this agenda forward, are they acting as the best representatives of animal welfare? Are they being champions for the animals or self-serving cowards?

With news coverage from all the local TV stations, Indianapolis Animal Care & Control's $4 adoption event on July 4th was a smashing success. People could come to the shelter, or to any of the Petsmart stores where IACC animals are available for adoption and adopt a dog or cat for $4. That price includes spay/neuter, vaccinations and even an identification microchip! At noon it was reported that the IACC parking lots were full and cars were backed up all the way out to Harding Street! The lobby was packed and the kennels were crowded with people eager to pick out a new member for their family (see news story and video clip from Channel 6 or Channel 13.)

When the day was done over 150 cats, dogs and even fish had been adopted! Humane Society of Indianapolis held a similar event running for several days and adopting animals for $17.76. While Humane Society for Hamilton County wasn't running any adoption specials, a volunteer there reports that people came in asking if they were running the special and many of them stayed and looked at animals anyway.

There are always critical voices, particularly within the animal welfare community that claim that these kinds of events send the wrong message by saying that pets' lives aren't worth more than $4 or $17.76. The mantra for adoptions from the animal welfare community has long held that the higher the adoption fee the "better" the quality of the adoption. While it's an interesting theory, it is just that -- a theory. It's also a theory that many people do not believe, and many people find offensive. Making such a statement implies that somehow a person's capacity to love and provide quality care for a pet is somehow tied to their willingness or ability to pay larger amounts of money for adoption fees.

Recently a story came to me of an owner wanting to surrender for reasons of convenience, a "purebred" dog for which she paid over $800. At the same time, there are people out there denying themselves medical care, food and even necessities to ensure their pets are provided with care.

There will always be some portion of people who will not care for their pets well or responsibly. There are people who do not provide proper care for their children, or have trash-strewn properties. There are people who drive unsafe vehicles in an unsafe way.  There are laws in place to prevent many bad things, but they still happen. But to cite examples of "irresponsible" pet owners as a reason to promote policies that make adopting a pet unreasonably difficult or expensive does more harm than good.  Animals do much better in homes than in shelters. And the longer animals stay in shelters, the greater their chances of becoming ill or developing behavioral problems. No amount of screening or background checking will guarantee that an adoption will end up well. It is guaranteed, however, that animals that are adopted into a home have a 100% better chance of staying in a home than animals that don't leave a shelter alive.

Huge kudos to Administrator Rae and the staff at IACC for making such a bold move. There is no doubt that everyone worked their "tails" off on July 4th, but the results are simply astounding!

As most of you may have heard by now, Doug Rae has been hired as the new administrator of Indianapolis Animal Care & Control. As Mr. Rae said during the public portion of the interview process, Indianapolis is poised to undergo a revolution in animal welfare. With a new director at Humane Society of Indianapolis, and a new administrator at IACC, there is great reason to hope! Mr. Rae has an impressive resume' of reform in animal shelters, most recently bringing the 'save rate' in Philadelphia up to 72% in only 12 months. Bear in mind that in Philly, the budget was $600,000 less, and they took in 2/3 MORE animals every year (about 30,000). During his public interview, Mr. Rae said his goal will be to have the save rate for IACC up to 85%...and I have every reason to believe that he has the skills and experience to overcome the challenges and do it!

For those that saw this morning's Star, the quote from me was taken a bit out of context, perhaps to make a the story somehow controversial where there is no controversy. The part they didn't include is that part of the equation for success at IACC will be Mr. Rae getting support from the city, and support from Indianapolis-area animal welfare organizations. Hopefully Mr. Rae won't be shackled in his ability to manage the facility, the staff and the budget as he deems necessary to bring about the change. Since IACC operated seemingly without oversight by anyone in the city through several previous administrations, resulting in disastrous mismanagement, the natural reaction by the current administration might be to become overly controlling of the situation. But the entire purpose for hiring a very well qualified person like Mr. Rae would be to make it unnecessary to micromanage IACC. When Mr. Rae goes to work, I think all of us can breathe a deep sigh of relief!

Although 2008 has unfortunately been business as usual at IACC for the animals (over 10,000 animals have lost their lives there already this year), it has obviously been a year of incredible change too. We've seen it come from you all, from the so-called grass roots, and from the top down. It seemed like a fairly long and painful process for some of us, but the fruit that this process has borne is unprecedented in the history of Indianapolis. You all have been a critical part in bring an end to the age-old practice of installing political appointees to do the job of an animal sheltering professional. You have all voiced your concern, and the city administration responded. Many cities take years to achieve this...and some never do. There is still a lot of work ahead to make Indianapolis the animal-friendly city that it can be, but 2009 holds the promise of being the beginning of a new era for animal care in Indianapolis! I can't think of a better holiday present for us all!

Three weeks after two independent investigators substantiated claims of mistreatment of animals and violation of laws at Indianapolis Animal Care & Control, and the subsequent resignation of IACC Administrator Steve Talley, more disturbing reports of suffering and death within the facility are surfacing.

The group of concerned citizens that filed the grievance leading to the independent investigation submitted their own recommendations for reform to the IACC Advisory Board and the Director of Public Safety. Top on the list of recommendations are calls for consideration of disciplinary and/or legal action against individuals whose mistreatment of animals at the city's shelter was found to have violated Indianapolis law.

The recommendations even suggest that the shelter be temporarily closed until necessary changes can be put in place to ensure that laws will not continue to be violated. Even last week came a disturbing report of a dog tranquilized by an animal control officer left in a kennel unconscious, bleeding and eventually dying. In the same kennel, dog(s) infected with the very dangerous and contagious parvovirus were housed with the general population of kennel dogs, violating quarantine policies and jeopardizing the lives of the nearby animals.

“IACC has ample policies in place to prevent such occurrences and they are apparently ignored with disastrous, and all too often fatal results,” commented Greg Brush, the group's spokesman. A review of the shelter's policies showed that there are at least 4 separate policies that outline the process of tranquilizing an animal. The policies recognize the seriousness of the process, and recommend that animals which are not recovering well from the process should be transferred to a veterinary hospital.

Maureen Owen, veterinary technician and president of the Feral Bureau of Indiana and signatory to the group's grievance further added, “Tranquilizing is similar in consequences to general anesthesia. It's very serious, and in veterinary practices, anesthetized animals must be warmed to maintain their body temperature and their heart and respiration should be monitored constantly. To lay a tranquilized dog in a cold kennel and then walk away and hope it will survive is reckless.”

Although the shelter has suspended an officer for incorrectly reporting the situation to a kennel staffer working in the kennel, rather than to a supervisor, there has thus far been no disciplinary action taken against the officer who tranquilized the dog, supervisors or kennel manager who were also apparently involved. “Despite Director Newman's assurance that there would be no retaliation for so-called whistleblowers, the suspension of the reporting officer rather than those who actually placed the dog's life in jeopardy seems to have all the outward signs of retribution for speaking up about this incident,” offered Brush.

The IACC Advisory Board is expected to present and vote on their own recommendations for
reforming IACC at the next IACC board meeting on October 8th at the IACC shelter, 2600 S. Harding
Street at 6pm. The public is welcome and encouraged to attend

Download this document (press release) as a PDF file here

Download the recommendations submitted to the IACC Advisory Board here

Late last night I received the investigators' reports. There is a bit of confusion since the reports are substantially similar and both seemed to be signed by Joan Isaacs, but only one was signed by Karen Jensen. I presume the confusion will be addressed at the hearing this afternoon.

Report submitted solely by Joan Isaacs

Report submitted under Karen Jensen and Joan Isaacs' names

The full text of the grievance filed August 10th, 2008 with the IACC advisory board, complete with all attachments, as well as a complete archive of full-resolution photos depicting various conditions within IACC is now available as a .zip archive file. The file can be downloaded by clicking here. Please note that the file is 16MB due to the large number of high-resolution photographs. People using Windows XP or later should have no trouble opening the archive. Users of earlier versions of Windows may need to download a free program like 7-Zip (www.7-zip.org) to open the archive.

We received a notice from the Erin Pratt in Public Safety that the hearing and IACC board meeting would be in the Public Assembly room on the 2nd floor of the City-County building, NOT in room 260, as had been stated previously.

This update is long overdue, and I apologize for that. My last update e-mail asked many critical questions about the upcoming grievance. Fortunately, someone passed that e-mail along to Mr. Newman who was kind enough to spend time responding to the questions, as well as assuring me that his aggressive, prosecutorial demeanor at the August 13th board meeting was not at all an expression of bias. So apparently the considerable number of us who interpreted it that way were all mistaken, as Mr. Newman was actually supporting our right to volunteer, and file the grievance. Fascinating difference in opinions.

On Thurs, August 28th, the IACC board held an Ad Hoc meeting to review candidates for investigator. To this day, there is still some confusion about the role of the investigators, as both have stated to me that they don't believe that the facts of the grievance seem to be in dispute. Apparently Mr. Newman must've felt that the facts were in dispute, as he referenced them at the board meeting with the caveat "if they occurred," and presumably the need for investigators. I got the sense that the board wasn't even sure why they needed investigators. Indeed, the board is the ultimate adjudicator for the grievance and was well within their authority to rule on it at the August 13th board meeting. I'm not sure that the board was (or possibly still is) fully aware of their role and their authority (or Mr. Newman's role)??

The board selected 2 investigators: Karen Jensen, asked to participate by Mr. Newman (her former boss at the prosecutor's office); and Joan Isaacs, an attorney who saw the media coverage and wished to become more involved. Both are attorneys, have done investigations before, and have very impressive résumé's. Board member Dr. Dave Bash dissented from the vote to have both investigators, as he was concerned that Ms. Jensen's openly expressed loyalty to Mr. Newman may represent a bias. Despite this, the majority did vote to select both investigators. Both investigators have been interviewing people both from the grievance filers and from IACC staff. Ms. Jensen was even furnished with a key to IACC's shelter so that she could visit there at will.

The investigators are to present their conclusions to the board on Tuesday, Sept 9th to allow the board members time to review the conclusions prior to the hearing on Weds, Sept 10th. I would encourage you all to attend the hearing Weds, Sept. 10 at 4:30pm, Public Assembly Room on the 2nd floor of the City-County building. If you've never been there before, plan to park on the street or in nearby pay lots. The entrance to the building is on the north (Market St.) side, and you will need to pass through a metal detector, so please plan accordingly.

The hearing is scheduled to take 90 minutes, and the regular board meeting will follow at 6pm. But the public is invited to both the hearing and the meeting. How the hearing goes will presumably be determined by the board, but I believe there will be time for statements to be made prior to the ruling of the board. The board has the latitude to structure their ruling in any fashion they like, as there is apparently no legally mandated form or structure. I would hope that the board will address the validity of the key claims in the grievance:

• Mistreatment of animals;
• Violation of care & treatment laws;
• Failure of IACC to operate within their mandate;
• Accountability for the failings of IACC in allowing/dismissing mistreatment; and perhaps most importantly
• Offer recommendations on how the mistreatment of animals can be stopped, and a mechanism put in place to prevent it from happening again and provide for continued accountability/assurance to the citizens.

Ultimately, though, the board is only advisory in nature. The result of all these gyrations will simply be a recommendation that the board will issue to the city (i.e. Mr. Newman), and it will be up to the city to decide what they are actually going to do with the board's recommendation. How the city responds to the board's recommendations will be the real test of their responsiveness to the will of the citizens and concern for the humane treatment of animals. Will they respond decisively, and in ways that immediately address anything determined to be a care & treatment problem by the board? Will they act to protect the animals now, or simply pay more lip service and stall for more weeks and months without ensuring that steps are taken to protect the animals charged to their care??

This degree of attention by the public to the care of animals at IACC is unprecedented. It has already paid dividends as the intense scrutiny seems to have improved things somewhat at the shelter from what has been reported by both investigators. But to ensure the animals are protected, we need to continue this focus, making sure that the city knows that taxpayers care about how their money is spent and that people do care about how animals are treated by the city and will not tolerate the same tired excuses for providing poor care.

If anyone wants to catch up on the board meetings, all are archived for more than a year at the channel 16 web site:
http://indianapolis.granicus.com/ViewPublisher.php?view_id=26
Note that the date listed may not be the actual date of the meeting, but may be the date the video was archived (as in the case of the Aug 13 meeting, listed as 8/15/08).

Indianapolis, Ind., August 10, 2008– In a letter of grievance filed today with the Indianapolis Animal Care & Control (IACC) advisory board, a group of over 50 citizens cited multiple violations of Indianapolis law and examples of animal mistreatment within the IACC shelter.

Most disturbing was the account of a cat supposedly euthanized and left for dead, but found alive and in pain hours later, and evidence that there may be deliberate alteration of official kennel records to conceal failure to provide timely treatment for a seriously ill animal.

The letter also cites instances of other painful, botched euthanasias, excruciating injuries (including a maggot-infested kitten with a broken leg) untreated for days, contagious disease, deplorable sanitation, and numerous examples of animals being deprived of other basic necessities like clean food and water within the city's tax-funded shelter.

The grievance petitions the IACC advisory board to recommend to the city that the shelter be placed under the control of a receiver, appoint an independent oversight panel to act as a watchdog for the shelter and hold Administrator Steve Talley accountable for the failings of the agency to fulfill their duty to the public, and the animals in their care.

The grievance filing asks that the IACC advisory board resolve the violations and mistreatment by the end of the upcoming IACC board meeting on Wednesday, August 13 at 6 pm at the IACC shelter, located at 2600 S. Harding Street. This meeting is open to the public and all are encouraged to attend.

You may read the full text of the grievance filing here.