REVEALED

disappointment and regret

Our family volunteered with PAW for 11 years. We had countless cats and kittens--and some dogs--in foster care and enlisted some of our closest friends to help. We were aware of the fact that PAW's leadership was not averse to "political" alliances, but it turns out we had no idea. We stuck to doing what we were asked: transported, walked, and nursed back to health the animals who needed our help. We covered phone lines, did house checks, and attended adoption shows. We stayed out of "politics." At times we questioned denied adoptions, but our firm belief that PAW's leadership had its charges' best interest at heart was unshakable. Until Clooney. His tempestuous adoption was like a bad dream, and it was revealing. The "official" reasons given to us by Ms. Victoria Balenger (the dog coordinator) for the denial to our request to adopt Clooney, who had already been living with us for several months, was that we "might" have a grandchild soon and that our other dog would be a "bad influence" on him. The true reason was most likely a personal grudge (yep!).

This blog was created to raise awareness of objectionable practices in local rescue groups. Few people realize that under the guise of helping homeless animals, some individuals engage in various behaviors that have little to do with animal rescue and much to do with creating a power base among fellow humans.

the divorce

As if the Clooney affair wasn't shocking enough, the PAW vet affair was even more shocking. It was so disturbing and, in our view, so revealing of a pattern of personal alliances priming over the interests of homeless animals that our participation in PAW's activities had to end. It was very sad, as we felt that we were betraying the dogs who would no longer be able to enjoy the walks with us or get a ride from us to a show or a vet's appointment. However, in retrospect we realized that our longstanding belief that, despite our differences, the PAW people always acted in the best interest of the animals had kept us in the dark. We did not question the PAW decision makers, and that was wrong! We did not realize that many of the PAW dogs we were asked to walk languished in boarding for months on end (sometimes for over a year) because of applications denied for totally arbitrary reasons, such as a possible move or a lack of fence. The attempted denial of Clooney's adoption due to a "possible" grandchild brought the problem--in all its glory--into focus for us. The recollections of other dogs' "bad match" denials began to emerge as a probable explanation for why some dogs took so long to place. Some of these dogs would wait for 10 months in a cage for a home with a fenced yard, after applications for them from people living in apartments were denied. One fact of Clooney's hard-won adoption was particularly unsettling and, when added to those recollections, served to reveal a clearer picture of PAW's questionable practices. When PAW's medical coordinator, Suzanne Mattingly, was asked whether the denial of Clooney's adoption could be appealed to the PAW board, she revealed that the board members will be likely to vote "with the dog coordinator," Vicky Balenger, regardless of what they thought was best for Clooney. Ms. Mattingly added Vicky had "a lot of influence" over many PAW volunteers. When I brought this matter to Amy Bleich, the following year's dog coordinator, she agreed that the tendency to "group think" is prevalent with the PAW board but added that "there is nothing you can do about it."

the vet

Sadly, what happened after Clooney's tumultuous adoption was even more troubling. In January of 2008, our beloved old cat, Smokey, fell ill. Since PAW's primary, and at the time practically the only, vet hospital was also ours (upon PAW's insistance that it is "the best in the area"), Smokey was treated there along with our other pets. Tragically, his obvious heart condition was missed on an X-ray by two veterinarians at this clinic. As a result, Smokey suffered and wasted away for almost three weeks without treatment. He died at the emergency hospital when a sedative was administered to him. After Smokey's death, I filed a complaint with the State Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners against PAW's vet, and one of the vets responsible for the missed diagnosis received a formal letter of censure. He also took classes to improve his skills in interpreting X-rays and ultrasounds.

The Vet Board's decision, however, took over a year. If I backtrack to the time following Smokey's death, it would be no exaggeration to say that it was a nightmare. As if a wrongful death of a pet isn't tragic enough, I had PAW's and its vet's hostility, evasiveness, and dishonesty to contend with.

I first confronted the owner and head vet of the practice. I was a grieving owner of a pet who suffered and died as a result of medical errors of two of this man's staff members. I had proof of the errors (the ER records), which was obvious and undeniable. I wanted these vets to take responsibility for their errors and to commit to being safer vets for their future patients. I wanted them to express regret for my pet's suffering and my family's loss. Instead I got evasive lies recorded on my phone voice mail. The head vet stated that the condition I alleged was missed on Smokey's X-ray cannot be diagnosed on an X-ray! He added that only a cardiologist can diagnose this condition (Smokey was not referred to a cardiologist, and three other non-cardiologist vets diagnosed the condition on the very same X-ray). When I told the head vet that this explanation will not do, he turned nasty (really nasty). The nastiest thing he did (all are too numerous to list) was to ban me and three members of my family from coming onto the clinic premises for the purposes of walking convalescing PAW dogs. These dogs were boarded at the clinic in cages with no outside runs around the clock. At the time we were their only source of walks and socialization. After the ban, PAW had to reshuffle its volunteers away from other dogs to accommodate the ones the four of us could no longer walk.

appeal to the PAW board about the vet

PAW's bylaws allow any volunteer in good standing to appeal to the board, which I did in writing. My goal was to discuss PAW's association with its main vet and to question why this practice is virtually the only one used by PAW. I had gathered some information on other area vets offering the same services and discounts and wanted to discuss the potential benefits of enlisting more of these vets' help. I wanted to also discuss the manner in which my pet's treatment was handled and the way I was treated by PAW's vet as I felt it was relevant. I had written proof to present to the board, which I wanted looked at and discussed openly. I wanted the PAW board to address this vet's treatment of the homeless dogs in its care. At the insistance of PAW's vet, these dogs were deprived of walks and socialization offered by four PAW volunteers, and I felt it was appropriate for the board of directors to discuss this incident. In addition, I wanted to discuss another incident, in which PAW's vet ordered two young cats abandoned at his doorstep in August of 2008 picked up by Prince George's animal control (a high-kill facility) before any other opportunity could be explored. I believed (and still do) that this vet's philosophy was not consistent with the philosophy of rescue and that pouring tens of thousand of dollars of donors tax-free contributions (without these donors' being informed of the truth) was inappropriate. I believed that this matter was important enough to warrant an open discussion. Several other PAW volunteers aware of the situation believed so too.

Well, the discussion was not allowed. I was not allowed to come to the meeting at which it took place. My suggestion that a separate meeting be held either in person, over the phone, or e-mail was not addressed. The documentation I had to present in support of my position was not considered (I was not even allowed to submit it). The meeting was held behind closed doors on September 14 2008 and I was not notified of what the discussion entailed. I asked Amy Bleich, the dog coordinator, what happened during the discussion. In an e-mail she said I should wait until the minutes of the meeting come out (hah?). I asked Ms. Bleich why she couldn't tell me what the decision was, but she wouldn't. I then e-mailed the PAW secretary, Vicky Balenger (the very same who attempted to deny Clooney's adoption--PAW's board positions are often rotated within the inner circle). Vicky said she didn't have an approveed copy of the minutes and it probably wouldn't be available until the next meeting (six months later!). I then said that I would like to see the minutes sooner than the next scheduled meeting, and Ms. Balenger grudgingly produced them attatched to an e-mail in which she expressed a hope that my "bullying behavior would now cease," for which she later apologized (probably under pressure from someone else).

The minutes had all of two lines of text devoted to the issue I had raised: no reduction of the business supplied to the vet because the board would not "take sides" in my dispute with the vet. The minutes contained no details on the discussion, the reasons for my request, or the reasons for denying it. I e-mailed the board members explaining that I had not asked them to "take sides" but rather wanted them to discuss the merits of continuing PAW's close association with this business in light of not only my personal exprience with it but of the questionable treatment by the business owner of the homeless animals PAW is supposed to protect. No answer. No phone calls, e-mails, or disussions. Sticking the head in the sand seemed to be the preferred course of action. After several e-mails from other PAW volunteers who saw this situation as troubling, Amy Bleich offered a polite (at first) e-mail brush-off. In it she explained that when it comes to the vet's treatment of homeless animals "compassion is a bonus" but not a must for receiving PAW's business. When I questioned the vet's treatment of PAW's homeless dogs deprived of their walks, Ms. Bleich stated that the vet "had his side of the story." No discussion of the vet's side of the story (or mine) to attempt to reveal the truth was allowed. Ms. Bleich also stated to me that it was not "cut and dried" whether my pet's heart condition was even missed on an X-ray. My suggestion we discuss the proof I had of the facts was ignored. The rest of the PAW board was copied on our communication with Ms. Bleich. Not one person had anything to say. Not one person responded to any of our requests to adress the issues substantively. An e-mail from a PAW volunteer with a medical background was ignored entirely (even by Ms. Bleich). All evidence of distress at the avoidance of the issues was ignored. All attempts to resolve the problem in an open and fair manner were quashed.

PAW's leadership answered one letter, however. It was from a local activist named Stefani, who is very vocal in promoting veterinary safety and runs several web sites. That got their attention pronto! Stefani was never a PAW volunteer, but unlike all the volunteers (some long-time) who never heard from the board in response to their e-mails, her e-mail was answered very quickly. The letter, as Stefani described it, "voiciferously defended the vet." In addition, Ms. Bleich (surpise!) sent a separate e-mail to Stefani, offering to meet in person to discuss how much PAW's vet does for rescue. One has to wonder what was so secret about PAW's vet's distinctions that they had to be discussed in person and off the record.

Questionable practices?

PAW is a charitable organization incorportated in Maryland. It solicits and operates with tax-free donations from the public and corporate sponsors. Contrary to popular belief (and actions) of some, charitable organizations are public entities, not private clubs. They are supposed to be founded on the principles of transparency, accountability, and open communications with the public about what they do and how they do it. The Standards for Excellence guide for Maryland non-profits is a 30+ page document outlining the principles of ethical conduct expected of these organizations. As a former PAW volunteer, when read this document, I can't help but make mental notes of how many of these principles are disrespected by PAW's governing elite. I suspect that this is a common problem in the non-profit sector: volunteer charitable organizations are by default assumed to be run by well-intentioned and ethical people. Yet, we can't even begin to assess how often good intentions go awry. For example, the Standards state that "non-profits must honor known intentions of a donor regarding the use of donated funds." Or, the Standards also state that "all statements made by the non-profit in its fundraising appeals about the use of a contribution must be honored." Yet, how can it be assumed that PAW honors these principles if it claims on its How You Can Help page that "of the money donated to PAW, 95% goes to veterinary care of the rescued cats and dogs," while its 2008 tax form shows that nearly half of its monies goes to pay for boarding in a commercial kennel? What about the "openness" standard, which says "non-profits should provide members of the public who express an interest in the affairs of the organization with a meaningful opportunity to communicate with an appopriate representative of the organization"? Virtually all attempts to have a "meaningful" discussion with the leadership of PAW as to whether its main veterinarian is an appropriate choice for the organization were quashed. The president, Ms. Krissy DeShetler, never answered a single e-mail or had a single conversation (phone or face-to-face) on the subject. Neither did any other member of the board except the dog coordinator, and all of her communications were brush-offs, as opposed to discussions. Another e-mail was sent to the board in the following year, with a copy to the dog coordinator, Ms. Bleich, who responded by saying that she was no longer on the board and refused to be "continuously harassed" about the issue. Meaningful indeed.


Tuesday, June 8, 2010

Thank you to my friends!

Folks, to all of you who offered your unwavering support as well as plain good sense, thank you! It is far easier to do what the PAW people have done: put your head in the sand and find strength in numbers. It is easier not to question a big established group or challenge its leadership. Many people have done that, even if they quietly disagreed with PAW's policies and criticized them behind the back of the leadership. There is something instinctive about wanting to "fit in" with a social group, and it takes a lot of courage to go against this need. It's up to us, the ones able to forgo the comfort of a group, to expose what happens in bad rescue groups and with bad vets. It's for the animals, who count on our voice. Rescue groups should never be about the social needs of people or their quest for power and influence, but sadly that's often the case. Thank you all. Natalie
Posted by at 4 comments:
Labels: , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)