Grievance Hearing Wednesday, Sept. 10th

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).