moosmom
02-10-2010, 12:09 PM
Please read on:
Get Johnsonn Out of Office!!!!!!!!
I've posted the 2 most recent articles from ctwatchdog.com. Please read & then go to ctwatchdog.com & make your voice heard. We need people to speak up in order to get the CT Humane Society back to the way it was intended to be. The animals need your help ~ please be their voice.
Inside View At Connecticut Humane Society: Former Finance Assistant Details Needless Killing Of Animals And Other Impacts of Staffing Shortage
By George Gombossy | Feb 7, 2010
The following is the draft of a letter that Bridget Karchere, former finance assistant at the Connecticut Humane Society, is preparing to provide to the CHS board of directors.
Karchere was one of three workers fired in December for being union supporters. Her written statement alleging financial improprieties against Richard Johnston, full-time president and board chairman, led to the ongoing investigation into Johnston by the state Attorney General's office.
"While I was employed at CHS as the Finance Assistant I was increasingly concerned about the number of staff, their treatment, and how this affected the animals in CHS' care. It was obvious to anyone who worked for the organization that they were understaffed; in fact they have always been understaffed. But, never had the levels been as dangerously low as they were in 2009.
The branch that was most affected by this shortage was the Newington branch; this is due to the fact that the highest volume of animals flows through Newington. Richard used a smoke screen to explain this shortage; he blamed, of course, the economy. However, if one would peruse CHS and FMC's financials it's clear that the organization is not in any dire financial state. In fact it is doing quite well compared to other businesses, charities, and rescues in Connecticut. If CHS had more qualified staff the organization would actually perform better than it is currently.
While I was employed I completed a staffing analysis on the Newington branch. I compared the amount of staff in 2008 to the amount in 2009. Comparatively I also looked at total animal numbers from 08 to 09 in Newington. On a side note, this was the first time anyone had actually analyzed the numbers at CHS in comparison to the amount of animals handled; an employee to animal ratio.
Decisions at CHS are made by Richard, no one else; many employees and volunteers can vouch for this statement. And, he does not base his decisions on fact, logic, or reason; nor does he do so with the employees, animals, or the organization in mind. He bases his decisions on revenge, personal gain, and superficial materialism.
In the analysis I completed I used payroll data, raw animal data from the shelter database, historical data, and data from the statistical analysis spreadsheets (which are tallied each month of the year to track the success of each branch). The results were mind boggling. It showed that despite what Richard was saying, "We need to make more numbers"; the actual difference between animals handled in 08 to 09 was only -2%. So despite all of Richard's focus on making numbers he wasn't looking at the big picture, because the difference between staffing levels in 08 to 09 conservatively speaking was -23%. He was focused and still is on income; he is concerned with adoptions. How much revenue CHS brings in; and yes that should be the concern for any business, but it should not be the main and only concern.
I say that the ratio was conservative because I included customer service employees and management in the analysis; employees in these positions rarely ever handle animals. So the -23% is an extremely conservative assumption.
To take the analysis even further I broke down the numbers into an animal to staff ratio. Schools do this, most companies do this; for example how much piece work can an average factory employee do in an hour. All companies monitor standards; this is how they effectively evaluate business, performance, and most importantly safety. Richard could care less about any of those things. In fact I was fearful of doing this analysis due to the fact that I was sure there would be some sort of retribution for speaking out.
The results of the analysis were astounding! The actual animal to staff ratio was down 50%, when looking at current months' data in comparison to 2008 for the exact same time period. I immediately brought these results to the CFO. Unfortunately he wasn't that concerned, he probably dreaded bringing this up to Richard or any other of the executive team for fear of retribution as well. In disbelief he checked all of the data I used to compile the analysis, and then he took a look at the spreadsheet and checked my formulas and reasoning. In the end he came to the same conclusion, the numbers were accurate.
At this point there were many workers compensation claims occurring; many employees were being injured. Injuries such as chemical burns, bleach induced ammonia, animal bites, broken bones, hands being shut in doors, etc. These were all careless errors, but they were errors that were occurring because the animal care staff was being so severely over worked. Management was actually being careless, for pushing the workers so hard and not speaking out about the shortages. In fact, most management blamed the staff, they claimed they were lazy and did not want to work, or injured employees were labeled as trouble makers.
I sat through many meetings where management made these claims. There were many witnesses in attendance. Managements' accusations were so tactless at one point they were trying to come up with gimmicks, basically incentives, so they could "persuade" the employees not to become injured on the job. They offered to buy the animal care staff coffee and donuts if they didn't have a claim for a month!
In a management meeting the Assistant District Manager stated that the staff was lazy, other managers stated that they were careless, that the staff were just complaining and that they were the problem. Maureen Lord actually spoke out at one of these meetings against these claims and defended the employees; she stated that the comments were unfair and inappropriate. Alicia Wright approached Maureen Lord after the meeting and said to her, "I'm so glad you said something, I was upset by it too." Why didn't Ms. Wright speak up? She is the Director of Public Relations; surely she should have some authority within the group. I guess not.
I then started to harp on the analysis I had done. Janice Marzano, who oversees the human resource functions at CHS, was the biggest culprit in denying that they were any staffing issues aside from Richard, despite what the numbers were saying. The CFO was no help in pushing the issue as well. But, all of my complaining finally got Richard's attention. He was not pleased with this analysis. In a Monday morning management meeting at the Newington Branch Richard made a "guest appearance". He came specifically to challenge these claims. He came in to the meeting that was already in session. He then made me switch my seat so he could sit at the head of the table. Then it was time for his speech. He stated in front of the entire management team that he would not staff until we reached the number of animals handled that he wanted. He uses an arbitrary number of 9,000. Which if CHS handled 9,000 animals with the amount of animal care staff employed; there would be dangerous consequences for the animals and staff. In fact, the Assistant District Manager said, after Richard left the meeting, that CHS had never handled 9,000 animals before. She claimed that they came close in 2005 but she admitted they weren't doing things properly or safely during that time frame either. And, their staffing levels were much higher at that point.
I decided to pull information from other sources. I looked to other shelters and animal organizations for their ratios and statistics. I found the General Staffing Recommendations for Kennel Caretaking on the Humane Society of the United States' (HSUS) website. I spoke with friends in the animal industry and found out they used a similar formula to evaluate their staffing levels.
The HSUS analysis confirmed my assumptions; CHS was short staffed 50% in clean and feed duties alone. The analysis showed that there should be a bare minimum of 18 staff performing the clean and feed duties. The 9 staff included the two Team Leaders. So actual staff working most days was 7, sometimes less, and these individuals are split between adoption and incoming. How dangerous it must be if someone called out sick or took a vacation.
The HSUS formula breaks down the duties into increments of time; the formula was based on a per-animal time of 9 minutes for cleaning and 6 minutes for feeding. This does not even include walking the animals! So if CHS was 50% short staffed how much care were the animals truly getting? I'm sure the donors would love to know this information. They would be appalled at the treatment of these animals and staff. What a dangerous situation.
Also let's take a look at what the numbers are saying besides staffing levels and basic animal care. If the difference in animals handled in 08 to 09 at that point was only -2% but the adoption numbers were much lower; unfortunately I do not have those exact figures, than what was happening to all of the animals?
The concerned staff in Newington including administration and animal care workers had been speaking out for quite some time about the unfair euthanasia policy and the untrained behavior staff. However, there was retaliation from management if people spoke out. Essentially employees had to result to sneaking animals out of the building to save their lives. This was achieved in a number of ways; but in all cases rescues, the ones CHS alienates, and staff were the animals' saviors.
One member of the "behaviorist team" told staff of the inconsistent and brutal way euthanasias were carried out. This is someone who had no formal training in animal behavior, the shelter environment, or dog training. She had a quick form of training under CHS' head "behaviorist". The head behaviorist is not a behaviorist at all, she is a dog trainer, and consequently does not have the knowledge or proper education to run a behavior program of this size.
Dogs were being euthanized because the evaluator felt "weird" about the dog. They were also euthanized for simple behavior issues that could have been easily fixed by having ample qualified staff, proper training, and placement with the appropriate family. But, because of the staffing shortage, unqualified behavior staff, and the constant push to move animals through the system, these poor souls fell by the way side.
I have spoken with the behavior assistant, she told stories of having to wrestle dogs down and stab them in the neck to euthanize them. She also claimed that whenever a shipment of dogs came in from the south, she was pressured to go through the line of dogs waiting to be evaluated or re-evaluated, and euthanize most if not all of them. She also had no clue on how to treat a lot of these miniscule behavior problems that would ultimately end the lives of these dogs. Many staff can attest to this. It was a sad situation, and any staff that did speak out were quickly shut up by way of bullying and scare tactics from management.
In fact the dogs scheduled to be euthanized, that concerned staff and rescues placed with families, turned out to be wonderful companions. Some of the reasons dogs were being euthanized were for separation anxiety, dog aggression, insistent barking, and food bowl aggression. Not only are most of these issues easily fixed but contemplate this for a second: CHS is a shelter; dogs are scared, hungry, confused, and depressed. How would they react to the behavior tests initially? It then makes sense that a lot of these "problem" dogs had no problems when they were placed with happy loving families.
There were even times that "behaviorists" starved the dogs before a food bowl aggression test to make them more aggressive. Then they would shove a fake hand in their faces while they were eating. Of course the dogs acted aggressively, I would too in the same situation. This is not an empty accusation either. Witnesses to these abuses are numerous and would attest to observing these despicable acts of inhumanity.
I turned my focus to the euthanasia numbers; however this analysis was much more difficult to perform. It took a lot of digging. I used numbers from the old computer system, numbers from the current database, and numbers from the statistical reports. I could not complete this analysis before I was fired. The process was tedious and, due to the system conversion, quite cloudy. But, the results I did find were truly upsetting. The Newington branch, in comparison to 2008, showed a small increase in medical euthanasia in felines and canines, the difference was approximately 1%. So the medical department's practices were relatively consistent. Conversely, the euthanasia numbers for behavior in canines increased approximately 31%, and the number of euthanasia in felines increased approximately 85%.
These results validate all the claims that staff and volunteers had been making about the unfit behavior staff, and the senselessness of the euthanasias being performed. To answer Richard's consistent question, this is where your adoptions went. These animals were senselessly euthanized before they were ever given a chance.
I brought these numbers up in a monthly business meeting. I was quickly shot down by Newington's Assistant District Manager, and Westport's District Manager. They claimed the increase in euthanasia numbers was due to more CT dogs coming through the system. Then what about the cats?
I tried pushing the issue with the CFO as well; he was disinterested and unwilling to take it further. Unbelievable! An animal shelter that isn't concerned with its statistics, the impact of its business, or the health and safety of animals in its care or the dedicated staff caring for them; I'm sure the donors would be thrilled to hear this information.
Now after the recent firings of at least 5 dedicated employees, at least 3 of them who were involved with direct animal care, the ratio of animals to staff must be dangerously low. If the animals weren't receiving proper care before, I cringe to imagine the level of care they are currently receiving. Also, the staff working to care for the animals must be in a dire predicament. This is a terrible case of cruelty and inhumanity; and to make matters worse the citizens of Connecticut are the ones unknowingly paying for this corrupt management team's salaries and crusade against dedicated staff. "
Connecticut Humane Society Firing More Union Supporters, Not Enough Staff Left To Properly Care For Animals, Workers Claim
By George Gombossy | Feb 7, 2010
In what supporters charge is an attempt to destroy a successful unionizing drive, the head of the Connecticut Humane Society last week fired two more employees and put two more on probation - all of them union supporters.
That brings the total union supporters fired since December to five. Supporters of the workers believe the two just placed on probation will also be fired soon and other union backers are getting poor reviews.
Until this year, the Humane Society rarely put anyone on probation, workers told me. In the past 10 years, they said, only one person they know of was placed on probation and that was for a serious violation.
At least one of those put on probation recently was told in writing that he needs to "smile" more and to have better "eye contact" with other workers, according to internal documents made available to me by Cathy DeMarco, spokeswoman for the Coalition For Change, a group she founded after she quit working for the Humane Society last summer. The group has more than 120 members, including present and former employees, volunteers, and donors.
"This is a blatant attempt by Richard Johnston to fire anyone who supported the union, and it is resulting in lack of care for the animals at the shelter," DeMarco told me today. As the result of the firings the shelter is so short-staffed, she said, it "is in a state of crisis."
Instead of spending tens of thousands of dollars in high-priced lawyers, DeMarco said, the Humane Society should be hiring more workers.
Johnston is both the director-president of the center and chairman of its board of directors. He is a lawyer, real estate agent and a former state senator. He has yet to respond directly to any allegation against him, but through his spokeswoman has threatened libel suits.
The wave of firings and disciplinary actions began in late December after a successful union drive by the Machinist union when workers voted 18-15 to unionize. Johnston fired three of the union supporters in December - including his former assistant and another worker who was a finance clerk. Two of them provided me with signed statements alleging financial wrongdoing on his part as well as accusations of bullying the staff. I turned their statements over to the state attorney general's office, which is now investigating the claims.
Johnston also ran afoul of OSHA when he led a group of managers in a successful effort to hide dangerous chemicals as a team of two OSHA employees were preparing to inspect the Newington facility after a worker was injured inhaling bleach. OSHA is now investigating what happened in that Sept. 11 inspection as the result of my column.
Only six workers now are left to care for the animals in Newington, DeMarco said, while the number needed according to national standards is 18.
She and other society sources say that volunteers are being asked to take on the work of full-time workers who were fired. At least one volunteer has written me saying that he will not help until the fired workers are rehired at the 129-year-old institution - one of the oldest and best known charities in Connecticut.
At the bottom is one page from the probation form for Ryan Sheehan requiring him to smile and make better eye contact. The following is Demarco's full statement:
"The Newington Headquarters of the CT Humane Society is in a state of crisis at this time.
Back in November, the animal care staff was at 50 percent of the recommended ratio of workers to animals determined by the HSUS (Humane Society of the U.S.).
In December of '09, the first adoption counselor was terminated after 6 years of hard work and service to CHS.
On Friday, Feb. 5th a second worker was terminated after 5 years of service for not turning in an insignificant form by a new management imposed deadline.
And on Feb. 6th, a third worker was terminated for supposedly not following proper protocol when trying to rescue a cat. In fact, this one worker who is credited with saving many lives was actually set up. A manager put her name on the cage of a cat but did not inform her or get this worker's approval that she would indeed take the cat.
Anyway, CHS is now functioning well below any kind of adequate level of animal care. They are pulling in volunteers, friends, and hiring temps to cover animal care, adoptions, and the front desks. Many of these people are untrained and lack the relevant experience and credentials.
The Coalition has asked that the BOD intervene and re-instate the 2 most recently fired employees AS WELL AS place a cease and desist order on the president and his managers with regard to any further probations and/or terminations.
As you can imagine, the quality of care that the animals were receiving prior to the firings was barely adequate but now it is a very serious situation. Animals do not get fed, cleaned, exercised, or obtain medical treatment for hours- sometimes longer.
The few remaining employees will probably be fired in the very near future which is also the president's way of putting an end to their legal right to organize. The CHS management has done everything in its power to block the formation of the union. Many thousands of dollars, donated money from the hard working citizens of CT, have been spent on high-priced attorneys to fight the Machinists Union. The employees are being fired one-by-one but it is ultimately the innocent, homeless animals that are being negatively impacted in a huge way."
NA_100207_236280162 (Ryan Sheehan probation report page 2)
Get Johnsonn Out of Office!!!!!!!!
I've posted the 2 most recent articles from ctwatchdog.com. Please read & then go to ctwatchdog.com & make your voice heard. We need people to speak up in order to get the CT Humane Society back to the way it was intended to be. The animals need your help ~ please be their voice.
Inside View At Connecticut Humane Society: Former Finance Assistant Details Needless Killing Of Animals And Other Impacts of Staffing Shortage
By George Gombossy | Feb 7, 2010
The following is the draft of a letter that Bridget Karchere, former finance assistant at the Connecticut Humane Society, is preparing to provide to the CHS board of directors.
Karchere was one of three workers fired in December for being union supporters. Her written statement alleging financial improprieties against Richard Johnston, full-time president and board chairman, led to the ongoing investigation into Johnston by the state Attorney General's office.
"While I was employed at CHS as the Finance Assistant I was increasingly concerned about the number of staff, their treatment, and how this affected the animals in CHS' care. It was obvious to anyone who worked for the organization that they were understaffed; in fact they have always been understaffed. But, never had the levels been as dangerously low as they were in 2009.
The branch that was most affected by this shortage was the Newington branch; this is due to the fact that the highest volume of animals flows through Newington. Richard used a smoke screen to explain this shortage; he blamed, of course, the economy. However, if one would peruse CHS and FMC's financials it's clear that the organization is not in any dire financial state. In fact it is doing quite well compared to other businesses, charities, and rescues in Connecticut. If CHS had more qualified staff the organization would actually perform better than it is currently.
While I was employed I completed a staffing analysis on the Newington branch. I compared the amount of staff in 2008 to the amount in 2009. Comparatively I also looked at total animal numbers from 08 to 09 in Newington. On a side note, this was the first time anyone had actually analyzed the numbers at CHS in comparison to the amount of animals handled; an employee to animal ratio.
Decisions at CHS are made by Richard, no one else; many employees and volunteers can vouch for this statement. And, he does not base his decisions on fact, logic, or reason; nor does he do so with the employees, animals, or the organization in mind. He bases his decisions on revenge, personal gain, and superficial materialism.
In the analysis I completed I used payroll data, raw animal data from the shelter database, historical data, and data from the statistical analysis spreadsheets (which are tallied each month of the year to track the success of each branch). The results were mind boggling. It showed that despite what Richard was saying, "We need to make more numbers"; the actual difference between animals handled in 08 to 09 was only -2%. So despite all of Richard's focus on making numbers he wasn't looking at the big picture, because the difference between staffing levels in 08 to 09 conservatively speaking was -23%. He was focused and still is on income; he is concerned with adoptions. How much revenue CHS brings in; and yes that should be the concern for any business, but it should not be the main and only concern.
I say that the ratio was conservative because I included customer service employees and management in the analysis; employees in these positions rarely ever handle animals. So the -23% is an extremely conservative assumption.
To take the analysis even further I broke down the numbers into an animal to staff ratio. Schools do this, most companies do this; for example how much piece work can an average factory employee do in an hour. All companies monitor standards; this is how they effectively evaluate business, performance, and most importantly safety. Richard could care less about any of those things. In fact I was fearful of doing this analysis due to the fact that I was sure there would be some sort of retribution for speaking out.
The results of the analysis were astounding! The actual animal to staff ratio was down 50%, when looking at current months' data in comparison to 2008 for the exact same time period. I immediately brought these results to the CFO. Unfortunately he wasn't that concerned, he probably dreaded bringing this up to Richard or any other of the executive team for fear of retribution as well. In disbelief he checked all of the data I used to compile the analysis, and then he took a look at the spreadsheet and checked my formulas and reasoning. In the end he came to the same conclusion, the numbers were accurate.
At this point there were many workers compensation claims occurring; many employees were being injured. Injuries such as chemical burns, bleach induced ammonia, animal bites, broken bones, hands being shut in doors, etc. These were all careless errors, but they were errors that were occurring because the animal care staff was being so severely over worked. Management was actually being careless, for pushing the workers so hard and not speaking out about the shortages. In fact, most management blamed the staff, they claimed they were lazy and did not want to work, or injured employees were labeled as trouble makers.
I sat through many meetings where management made these claims. There were many witnesses in attendance. Managements' accusations were so tactless at one point they were trying to come up with gimmicks, basically incentives, so they could "persuade" the employees not to become injured on the job. They offered to buy the animal care staff coffee and donuts if they didn't have a claim for a month!
In a management meeting the Assistant District Manager stated that the staff was lazy, other managers stated that they were careless, that the staff were just complaining and that they were the problem. Maureen Lord actually spoke out at one of these meetings against these claims and defended the employees; she stated that the comments were unfair and inappropriate. Alicia Wright approached Maureen Lord after the meeting and said to her, "I'm so glad you said something, I was upset by it too." Why didn't Ms. Wright speak up? She is the Director of Public Relations; surely she should have some authority within the group. I guess not.
I then started to harp on the analysis I had done. Janice Marzano, who oversees the human resource functions at CHS, was the biggest culprit in denying that they were any staffing issues aside from Richard, despite what the numbers were saying. The CFO was no help in pushing the issue as well. But, all of my complaining finally got Richard's attention. He was not pleased with this analysis. In a Monday morning management meeting at the Newington Branch Richard made a "guest appearance". He came specifically to challenge these claims. He came in to the meeting that was already in session. He then made me switch my seat so he could sit at the head of the table. Then it was time for his speech. He stated in front of the entire management team that he would not staff until we reached the number of animals handled that he wanted. He uses an arbitrary number of 9,000. Which if CHS handled 9,000 animals with the amount of animal care staff employed; there would be dangerous consequences for the animals and staff. In fact, the Assistant District Manager said, after Richard left the meeting, that CHS had never handled 9,000 animals before. She claimed that they came close in 2005 but she admitted they weren't doing things properly or safely during that time frame either. And, their staffing levels were much higher at that point.
I decided to pull information from other sources. I looked to other shelters and animal organizations for their ratios and statistics. I found the General Staffing Recommendations for Kennel Caretaking on the Humane Society of the United States' (HSUS) website. I spoke with friends in the animal industry and found out they used a similar formula to evaluate their staffing levels.
The HSUS analysis confirmed my assumptions; CHS was short staffed 50% in clean and feed duties alone. The analysis showed that there should be a bare minimum of 18 staff performing the clean and feed duties. The 9 staff included the two Team Leaders. So actual staff working most days was 7, sometimes less, and these individuals are split between adoption and incoming. How dangerous it must be if someone called out sick or took a vacation.
The HSUS formula breaks down the duties into increments of time; the formula was based on a per-animal time of 9 minutes for cleaning and 6 minutes for feeding. This does not even include walking the animals! So if CHS was 50% short staffed how much care were the animals truly getting? I'm sure the donors would love to know this information. They would be appalled at the treatment of these animals and staff. What a dangerous situation.
Also let's take a look at what the numbers are saying besides staffing levels and basic animal care. If the difference in animals handled in 08 to 09 at that point was only -2% but the adoption numbers were much lower; unfortunately I do not have those exact figures, than what was happening to all of the animals?
The concerned staff in Newington including administration and animal care workers had been speaking out for quite some time about the unfair euthanasia policy and the untrained behavior staff. However, there was retaliation from management if people spoke out. Essentially employees had to result to sneaking animals out of the building to save their lives. This was achieved in a number of ways; but in all cases rescues, the ones CHS alienates, and staff were the animals' saviors.
One member of the "behaviorist team" told staff of the inconsistent and brutal way euthanasias were carried out. This is someone who had no formal training in animal behavior, the shelter environment, or dog training. She had a quick form of training under CHS' head "behaviorist". The head behaviorist is not a behaviorist at all, she is a dog trainer, and consequently does not have the knowledge or proper education to run a behavior program of this size.
Dogs were being euthanized because the evaluator felt "weird" about the dog. They were also euthanized for simple behavior issues that could have been easily fixed by having ample qualified staff, proper training, and placement with the appropriate family. But, because of the staffing shortage, unqualified behavior staff, and the constant push to move animals through the system, these poor souls fell by the way side.
I have spoken with the behavior assistant, she told stories of having to wrestle dogs down and stab them in the neck to euthanize them. She also claimed that whenever a shipment of dogs came in from the south, she was pressured to go through the line of dogs waiting to be evaluated or re-evaluated, and euthanize most if not all of them. She also had no clue on how to treat a lot of these miniscule behavior problems that would ultimately end the lives of these dogs. Many staff can attest to this. It was a sad situation, and any staff that did speak out were quickly shut up by way of bullying and scare tactics from management.
In fact the dogs scheduled to be euthanized, that concerned staff and rescues placed with families, turned out to be wonderful companions. Some of the reasons dogs were being euthanized were for separation anxiety, dog aggression, insistent barking, and food bowl aggression. Not only are most of these issues easily fixed but contemplate this for a second: CHS is a shelter; dogs are scared, hungry, confused, and depressed. How would they react to the behavior tests initially? It then makes sense that a lot of these "problem" dogs had no problems when they were placed with happy loving families.
There were even times that "behaviorists" starved the dogs before a food bowl aggression test to make them more aggressive. Then they would shove a fake hand in their faces while they were eating. Of course the dogs acted aggressively, I would too in the same situation. This is not an empty accusation either. Witnesses to these abuses are numerous and would attest to observing these despicable acts of inhumanity.
I turned my focus to the euthanasia numbers; however this analysis was much more difficult to perform. It took a lot of digging. I used numbers from the old computer system, numbers from the current database, and numbers from the statistical reports. I could not complete this analysis before I was fired. The process was tedious and, due to the system conversion, quite cloudy. But, the results I did find were truly upsetting. The Newington branch, in comparison to 2008, showed a small increase in medical euthanasia in felines and canines, the difference was approximately 1%. So the medical department's practices were relatively consistent. Conversely, the euthanasia numbers for behavior in canines increased approximately 31%, and the number of euthanasia in felines increased approximately 85%.
These results validate all the claims that staff and volunteers had been making about the unfit behavior staff, and the senselessness of the euthanasias being performed. To answer Richard's consistent question, this is where your adoptions went. These animals were senselessly euthanized before they were ever given a chance.
I brought these numbers up in a monthly business meeting. I was quickly shot down by Newington's Assistant District Manager, and Westport's District Manager. They claimed the increase in euthanasia numbers was due to more CT dogs coming through the system. Then what about the cats?
I tried pushing the issue with the CFO as well; he was disinterested and unwilling to take it further. Unbelievable! An animal shelter that isn't concerned with its statistics, the impact of its business, or the health and safety of animals in its care or the dedicated staff caring for them; I'm sure the donors would be thrilled to hear this information.
Now after the recent firings of at least 5 dedicated employees, at least 3 of them who were involved with direct animal care, the ratio of animals to staff must be dangerously low. If the animals weren't receiving proper care before, I cringe to imagine the level of care they are currently receiving. Also, the staff working to care for the animals must be in a dire predicament. This is a terrible case of cruelty and inhumanity; and to make matters worse the citizens of Connecticut are the ones unknowingly paying for this corrupt management team's salaries and crusade against dedicated staff. "
Connecticut Humane Society Firing More Union Supporters, Not Enough Staff Left To Properly Care For Animals, Workers Claim
By George Gombossy | Feb 7, 2010
In what supporters charge is an attempt to destroy a successful unionizing drive, the head of the Connecticut Humane Society last week fired two more employees and put two more on probation - all of them union supporters.
That brings the total union supporters fired since December to five. Supporters of the workers believe the two just placed on probation will also be fired soon and other union backers are getting poor reviews.
Until this year, the Humane Society rarely put anyone on probation, workers told me. In the past 10 years, they said, only one person they know of was placed on probation and that was for a serious violation.
At least one of those put on probation recently was told in writing that he needs to "smile" more and to have better "eye contact" with other workers, according to internal documents made available to me by Cathy DeMarco, spokeswoman for the Coalition For Change, a group she founded after she quit working for the Humane Society last summer. The group has more than 120 members, including present and former employees, volunteers, and donors.
"This is a blatant attempt by Richard Johnston to fire anyone who supported the union, and it is resulting in lack of care for the animals at the shelter," DeMarco told me today. As the result of the firings the shelter is so short-staffed, she said, it "is in a state of crisis."
Instead of spending tens of thousands of dollars in high-priced lawyers, DeMarco said, the Humane Society should be hiring more workers.
Johnston is both the director-president of the center and chairman of its board of directors. He is a lawyer, real estate agent and a former state senator. He has yet to respond directly to any allegation against him, but through his spokeswoman has threatened libel suits.
The wave of firings and disciplinary actions began in late December after a successful union drive by the Machinist union when workers voted 18-15 to unionize. Johnston fired three of the union supporters in December - including his former assistant and another worker who was a finance clerk. Two of them provided me with signed statements alleging financial wrongdoing on his part as well as accusations of bullying the staff. I turned their statements over to the state attorney general's office, which is now investigating the claims.
Johnston also ran afoul of OSHA when he led a group of managers in a successful effort to hide dangerous chemicals as a team of two OSHA employees were preparing to inspect the Newington facility after a worker was injured inhaling bleach. OSHA is now investigating what happened in that Sept. 11 inspection as the result of my column.
Only six workers now are left to care for the animals in Newington, DeMarco said, while the number needed according to national standards is 18.
She and other society sources say that volunteers are being asked to take on the work of full-time workers who were fired. At least one volunteer has written me saying that he will not help until the fired workers are rehired at the 129-year-old institution - one of the oldest and best known charities in Connecticut.
At the bottom is one page from the probation form for Ryan Sheehan requiring him to smile and make better eye contact. The following is Demarco's full statement:
"The Newington Headquarters of the CT Humane Society is in a state of crisis at this time.
Back in November, the animal care staff was at 50 percent of the recommended ratio of workers to animals determined by the HSUS (Humane Society of the U.S.).
In December of '09, the first adoption counselor was terminated after 6 years of hard work and service to CHS.
On Friday, Feb. 5th a second worker was terminated after 5 years of service for not turning in an insignificant form by a new management imposed deadline.
And on Feb. 6th, a third worker was terminated for supposedly not following proper protocol when trying to rescue a cat. In fact, this one worker who is credited with saving many lives was actually set up. A manager put her name on the cage of a cat but did not inform her or get this worker's approval that she would indeed take the cat.
Anyway, CHS is now functioning well below any kind of adequate level of animal care. They are pulling in volunteers, friends, and hiring temps to cover animal care, adoptions, and the front desks. Many of these people are untrained and lack the relevant experience and credentials.
The Coalition has asked that the BOD intervene and re-instate the 2 most recently fired employees AS WELL AS place a cease and desist order on the president and his managers with regard to any further probations and/or terminations.
As you can imagine, the quality of care that the animals were receiving prior to the firings was barely adequate but now it is a very serious situation. Animals do not get fed, cleaned, exercised, or obtain medical treatment for hours- sometimes longer.
The few remaining employees will probably be fired in the very near future which is also the president's way of putting an end to their legal right to organize. The CHS management has done everything in its power to block the formation of the union. Many thousands of dollars, donated money from the hard working citizens of CT, have been spent on high-priced attorneys to fight the Machinists Union. The employees are being fired one-by-one but it is ultimately the innocent, homeless animals that are being negatively impacted in a huge way."
NA_100207_236280162 (Ryan Sheehan probation report page 2)