The past year has seen much turnover at the Green County Humane Society. It will be up to the current, mostly new, board members to ensure that the changes are positive.
That turnover continued last week when two board members resigned and were immediately replaced. It continued with the institution of a policy that allows GCHS to adopt pets to owners that will keep them mostly outdoors.
Board members Marci Hensel and Marsha Stanek submitted their resignations at the GCHS board's January meeting last Wednesday. They were replaced by Sherri Fiduccia and Mick McClain.
Hensel and Stanek are the second and third longtime board members to resign in the past few months. Gunhild Marcher also recently stepped down from the board. There are many who say that the GCHS board was hindered by a philosophical battle between the newer members and those who had been around for a while. Specifically, the outdoor pet adoption policy was a major sticking point for Hensel, Stanek and Marcher - who says in a letter today that Hensel and Stanek resigned in protest of the new guidelines.
If it is true that the longtime members were impeding the progress of the new board, that will become evident in the coming months. The old guard is gone, as is the excuse of board conflict.
As Marcher points out, the "old guard" on the board did a lot for the GCHS. They did a lot of dirty work, literally, around the shelter and elsewhere for the organization. While that's not necessarily a job requirement of a board member, those contributions will be difficult to replace.
That said, the outdoor pet adoption policy can be a positive step for the GCHS, which historically has struggled to find enough homes for the number of animals it takes in. The arguments against allowing people to adopt pets that will be kept outdoors is understandable, but probably not realistic. It is common for dogs and cats to be cared for and content living outdoors in rural settings. To not allow those kinds of adoptions, particularly for an organization suffering from animal overcrowding, is not realistic.
However, the board now must closely monitor the effects of its new policy. What is the impact on the animal counts at the shelter? What are the health-care ramifications for the pets adopted to outdoor homes? How are the GCHS' finances affected by the additional adoptions? All of these questions must be answered by the board with quantitative and public evidence.
There have been other recent rumblings at GCHS that are cause for concern. There has been a significant turnover in shelter staff, with questions raised about the professionalism with how those terminations were handled. One of those let go was a veterinarian, who wrote in a letter to the Times earlier this month about her concerns about staff turnover and about care for the animals at the shelter.
Is this just more of the same behind-the-scenes bickering at the GCHS, or is it a legitimate problem? Time should bring the answer to that question, as well.
Finally, the lack of minutes for recent meetings and other updated information on the GCHS Web site may seem like a small matter. But communication with the public is an important board function. Past boards have been criticized for their inability to provide current and meaningful information. This board must meet that expectation.
Amid the chaos of the past year were positive signs. GCHS reported being in the budget black last year. And an exploratory committee was established to move forward the push for a much-needed new shelter.
But where 2007 was a year of change, 2008 must be a year of progress.
That turnover continued last week when two board members resigned and were immediately replaced. It continued with the institution of a policy that allows GCHS to adopt pets to owners that will keep them mostly outdoors.
Board members Marci Hensel and Marsha Stanek submitted their resignations at the GCHS board's January meeting last Wednesday. They were replaced by Sherri Fiduccia and Mick McClain.
Hensel and Stanek are the second and third longtime board members to resign in the past few months. Gunhild Marcher also recently stepped down from the board. There are many who say that the GCHS board was hindered by a philosophical battle between the newer members and those who had been around for a while. Specifically, the outdoor pet adoption policy was a major sticking point for Hensel, Stanek and Marcher - who says in a letter today that Hensel and Stanek resigned in protest of the new guidelines.
If it is true that the longtime members were impeding the progress of the new board, that will become evident in the coming months. The old guard is gone, as is the excuse of board conflict.
As Marcher points out, the "old guard" on the board did a lot for the GCHS. They did a lot of dirty work, literally, around the shelter and elsewhere for the organization. While that's not necessarily a job requirement of a board member, those contributions will be difficult to replace.
That said, the outdoor pet adoption policy can be a positive step for the GCHS, which historically has struggled to find enough homes for the number of animals it takes in. The arguments against allowing people to adopt pets that will be kept outdoors is understandable, but probably not realistic. It is common for dogs and cats to be cared for and content living outdoors in rural settings. To not allow those kinds of adoptions, particularly for an organization suffering from animal overcrowding, is not realistic.
However, the board now must closely monitor the effects of its new policy. What is the impact on the animal counts at the shelter? What are the health-care ramifications for the pets adopted to outdoor homes? How are the GCHS' finances affected by the additional adoptions? All of these questions must be answered by the board with quantitative and public evidence.
There have been other recent rumblings at GCHS that are cause for concern. There has been a significant turnover in shelter staff, with questions raised about the professionalism with how those terminations were handled. One of those let go was a veterinarian, who wrote in a letter to the Times earlier this month about her concerns about staff turnover and about care for the animals at the shelter.
Is this just more of the same behind-the-scenes bickering at the GCHS, or is it a legitimate problem? Time should bring the answer to that question, as well.
Finally, the lack of minutes for recent meetings and other updated information on the GCHS Web site may seem like a small matter. But communication with the public is an important board function. Past boards have been criticized for their inability to provide current and meaningful information. This board must meet that expectation.
Amid the chaos of the past year were positive signs. GCHS reported being in the budget black last year. And an exploratory committee was established to move forward the push for a much-needed new shelter.
But where 2007 was a year of change, 2008 must be a year of progress.
