News, Events and Information from Indianapolis Animal Care & Control

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.

Following numerous firsthand observations of animal care & treatment violations at Indianapolis Animal Care & Control (IACC) which were dismissed by IACC Administrator Steve Talley, a group of citizens has prepared an official grievance to be filed with the IACC Advisory Board for hearing/resolution at the IACC board meeting scheduled for 6pm, August 13th at the IACC shelter, 2600 S. Harding Street.

The observations included debilitated animals being deprived of relief for serious injuries, rampant disease,  deplorable housing and sanitation and cruel treatment of animals in the care of the city's animal division. The official response indicate that these observed situations are within the scope of their normal treatment of animals in their custody, and as such, no further investigation or discussion was necessary.

Everyone is encouraged to read the letter of grievance and consider adding your signature before the official submission date of August 11th. Although anyone who reads of the conditions at the shelter will likely be disgusted and appalled, Indianapolis taxpayers should be especially disturbed to know that their tax money is going to operate the shelter that so brazenly operates in violation of Indianapolis law, and with such a gross disregard for the care & treatment of animals.

Even if you're not able to or comfortable with signing the letter, you are encouraged to attend the board meeting on Wednesday, August 13th, to let the city know that they cannot continue to simply dismiss mistreatment of animals by claiming it's just the way they do things. The city will no doubt offer myriad excuses and justifications for why they need to maintain the status quo. The mistreatment of animals at IACC can only be stopped when people raise their voices and insist that it be stopped!

This situation doesn't just affect unfortunate, "street animals," but could well affect your beloved pets. Bear in mind that many of the animals at IACC come in as strays, which are often times pets that have simply wandered away from their homes. Would you like your pet ending up at IACC if he/she wanders away from your yard, only to be treated cruelly, deprived of clean housing, food and water, or even worse??

If you get bad service at a city office, you can complain. Even inmates in correctional facilities have some recourse for mistreatment. The animals have no voice, and no recourse. They get no chance to complain and have no advocate to ensure they are treated humanely and with dignity. Only your help can change this!

In response to an official letter of complaint filed to the IACC advisory board on July 4th, IACC adminstrator issued the results of their internal investigation. You may read the full text of the letter here, but the specific allegation read as follows:

"While cleaning, a few of us were alarmed by the cries of a dog in the hallway. We looked out the open door into the hallway to see a group of 3 people dragging a dog using some kind of pole device with a noose around the dog's neck. Since Receiving Room is next door to euthanasia, it was certain that the dog was headed to euthanasia. The dog was thrashing, barking and crying and was panicked such that he/she trailed urine and feces down the hallway."

Their response, issued through IACC advisory board chairman Warren Patitz, reads as follows:

From: "Talley, Steve" <STALLEY@indygov.org>
Subject: Investigation into Allegations of Animal Cruelty at IACCD
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2008 17:52:03 +0000

I have completed the investigation into allegations of animal cruelty at IACCD. I found the staff members involved in that incident on July 1, 2008 used only the force necessary to contain and transfer that animal from one area of the facility to another. I also found the use of that device "Stick" was required in that instance to insure the safety of our employees, the safety of visitors to our shelter, and that animal itself or other animal that might be entering the hallways.  
 
Steve Talley, Administrator
Indianapolis Animal Care And Control
Office (317) 327-1388
Fax    (317) 327-1390
Stalley@indygov.org

So, despite always having the option to chemically sedate animals prior to killing (which is strongly supported by Public Safety Director Newman), IACC believes that dragging an animal by the neck, causing so much terror that the animal defecates and urinates is necessary force.

Nowhere in the reply from Administrator Talley was there any mention made to any investigation into the maggot-infested kitten with the broken legs that had been languishing in their facility for days before we discovered it in the reveiving room. Perhaps only being a kitten, it doesn't merit any further discussion to them?

Perhaps working in a shelter hardens a person to the point where they are immune to the screams of terrified animals, and the horror experienced by a dog dragged by his neck some 40 feet down a hallway. This forces me to ask the following questions:

• If someone is so immune that they find this indignity preferable to applying chemical sedation, do we really want them handling animals?
  
• Does a facility and system that supports this behavior with Indianapolis tax money really express the will and interest of the taxpayers?
  
• Does anyone really believe that dragging a terrified animal is preferable to handling a sleeping, sedated animal?

Although this is sadly the response that was expected from their internal investigation, this is not acceptable. It does not embody humane treatment in a home, or on the streets, and certainly not within city's own animal shelter. 

In their 2007 Annual Report, they stated that one of their goals was to become a "world class" shelter. The handling of the ugliest, meanest, most fractious dog would demonstrate to me how a shelter really "thinks" and "feels" as an organization. Not what is stated in their policies, but what they actually do to the lowliest, most difficult animal. Do they treat the animal with respect? Do they show it compassion? That's what I believe a world class shelter would do. Never in a world class shelter would rough, angry or abusive treatment be tolerated, let alone supported. Indianapolis Animal Care & Control seems to be steadfastly maintaining the status quo...the mentality that has been present since they were called Dog Catchers.

I believe that until the attitudes have changed in the IACC organization from top to bottom, they should not be allowed to have the word "Care" in their name. This is shameful and disgraceful.

Indianapolis Animal Care & Control Statistics, as presented at June 2008 IACC Board Meeting

* Euthanasia is a term reserved for ending the irremediable suffering of animal
** Animals killed for reasons other than ending irremediable suffering
***Presumed to be going to no-kill organizations, except transfers to Humane Society of Indianapolis

Note that data from April 2008 was interpolated from the 5/31/2008 YTD statistics, as it was not available to the public at the May 2008 board meeting.