WANTAGE RESPONDS TO “WITCH HUNT” BEING CONDUCTED AGAINST THE WANTAGE DOG POUND

Township of Wantage, December 15, 2006: 
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

The Administrator of Wantage Township says that it is time to fight back in response to “a concerted witch hunt” being conducted against the Wantage Township Dog Pound Operation.

Mr. Jim Doherty says, “In my capacity as the Administrator of Wantage Township, I am charged with the responsibility of investigating complaints against municipal employees.  Where investigation reveals that the accused party is guilty of conduct unbecoming a Wantage Township employee, I pursue appropriate disciplinary action.  Where investigation reveals the complaint to be baseless in fact, I must take whatever steps are available to defend the charged employee, to protect his good name and the name of the Township.”  Doherty says that recent allegations against the Wantage Township Dog Pound operation “clearly fall within the category of being baseless in fact, and are clearly designed to impugn the good name of Wantage Township and its employees.”

“The misrepresentations and the reporting of facts taken out of context with respect to the Wantage Township Dog Pound operation is shameful.  A lot of this borders on the edge of slander, and I am tired of just sitting back and defensively waiting for the next barrage of unsubstantiated, undocumented allegations to be leveled against us” says Doherty.

In a letter dated November 29, 2006, addressed to Dr. Colin Campbell, the Senior Public Health Veterinarian of the New Jersey Department of Health, Doherty called into question a lack of accountability within the New Jersey Office of Animal Welfare.

 “I question why a State agency would be given the responsibility of accepting and reporting allegations of wrongdoing, but not be charged with any responsibility for determining whether or not those allegations are true” wrote Doherty, who then continues to say “there needs to be follow up and investigation of complaints that are lodged.”  Doherty says that without those elements, the value of having the Office of Animal Welfare accept reports of wrongdoing becomes meaningless, and indeed it promotes nothing more than an opportunity for individuals to conduct a witch hunt against persons and groups they wish to harm.
 
Of particular concern to Doherty are recent allegations leveled and reported in local newspapers.
Doherty says, “Let’s just connect the dots here:

1. Prior to August of this year, the State Health Department had not cited Wantage Township for failing to have a dedicated isolation room for sick animals; never mentioned any concern about the Pound facility being overcrowded; never cited Wantage Township for concerns regarding release of animals before a seven day waiting period has expired.  
2. On August 1st of this year, Wantage entered into a contract to provide pound service to Stillwater Township.
3. Dr. Linda Grau provides veterinary service to many of the pet owners of Stillwater.
4. Gwyn Sondike, a Principal Animal Facility Inspector for the New Jersey Office of Animal Welfare, is a Stillwater resident
5. 5Although she has a Sussex-based cat shelter and there are numerous fully qualified veterinarians within a ten mile radius of her operation, Laurie Walsh makes frequent use of Dr. Grau’s services for cats she has taken into her care.

False Accusation #1:
“Based on representations made by Ms. Walsh in August – the same month that pound service commenced for Stillwater - Ms. Sondike, a Stillwater resident, takes it upon herself to cite Wantage Township for violating State Regulations for releasing cats prior to a mandatory seven day waiting period.”  Doherty says, however, that the cats which Ms. Walsh alleged to have been released early were, in fact, released to Ms. Walsh, and that was done at Ms. Walsh’s request, solely for the purpose of having Ms. Walsh take the cats for veterinary treatment.  “And who did Ms. Walsh take these cats to?  As it turns out, that person was Dr. Grau” says Doherty.

“It remains our understanding that State regulations permit one shelter to transfer an animal to another shelter without violating the seven day waiting period requirement, and that is the action we took, upon request by Ms. Walsh.”  Doherty states he does not understand why Ms. Walsh failed to make known this fact to Ms. Sondike when she reported this matter.  Nor does he understand why Ms. Sondike cited Wantage Township for a violation if the action taken was permissible.  Doherty states that the failure of the State Health Department to change its citation of violation leads him to conclude that the State Health Department must not recognize the CLAWS operation as a bona fide shelter capable of accepting the transfer of animals from other shelters.  As a precaution against any future misrepresentations, Doherty has informed the Wantage Township Dog Pound personnel to cease releasing animals prior to the seven day waiting period to any person, for any reason, even if they believe that such action is permissible.
 
False Accusation #2:
“Based on photographs provided by Ms. Walsh in August, Ms. Sondike took it upon herself to report concerns involving the care of animals under the jurisdiction of the Wantage Township Dog Pound to the County Health Department” says Doherty.  “Upon investigation by Wantage Township, it was revealed that these photographs represent conditions of animals that were created by the owners of the animals prior to having been rescued by the Wantage Township Dog Pound personnel.  However, upon presentation of these photographs to state inspectors, the circumstances were falsely reported as having been created by the pound personnel.  Yet where is the retraction?  Where is the apology for false accusations being leveled against Wantage?”

Doherty continues:  “Upon follow up conversation with Ms. Walsh regarding the photographs she took and gave to the State Inspectors, Ms. Walsh confirmed that the photographs indeed represented animals whose conditions were created prior to their having been brought to the Wantage Township Dog Pound.  Ms. Walsh tearfully explained that she was coerced into misrepresenting the conditions and circumstances involved, and indeed that her own CLAWS operations were being threatened with adverse impact if she failed to offer testimony against Wantage.”  Doherty says that when he reported this information to the State Health Department, Ms. Sondike denied having taken any coercive actions toward Ms. Walsh, but declined any interest or desire to follow up on this report.  Doherty asks, “Again, what is going on here?  Either Ms. Walsh was wrongfully coerced into giving false testimony to a State Inspector – which ought to rightfully be a matter of concern to that State Inspector, - or else the circumstances surrounding the report of wrongdoing at the Wantage Township Dog Pound were completely fabricated and misrepresented.  Yet no action has been taken to investigate Ms. Walsh’s statements, nor has any retraction been made regarding the false accusations against us.”

False Accusation #3:
At a meeting held on October 5, 2006, Ms. Gwyn Sondike reported that Dr. Linda Grau had in her possession a large volume of documentary evidence involving neglect and abuse of animals that had been in the care of the Wantage Dog Pound.  Ms. Sondike explained that she expected the submission of these documents in the near future.  This statement was made in the presence of several witnesses in the Wantage Township Municipal building.  Ms. Sondike used this information to conclude that the concerns raised during the month of August – which were indeed subsequently found to be completely baseless and false, - were in her words “just the tip of the iceberg” regarding instances of wrongdoing at the Wantage Dog Pound.
 
In a letter dated October 5, 2006, Dr. Linda Grau states that the concerns raised by Ms. Sondike involved a “misinterpretation” of the conversation between Dr. Grau and Ms. Sondike.  Doherty concludes:  “Obviously, the “iceberg” reported by Ms. Sondike does not exist at all.   So where is Ms. Sondike’s retraction of this false allegation?  None has been offered to date, and it appears that none will be forthcoming at all.”
 
 False Accusation #4:
Doherty reports, “Amazingly, in the same letter that Dr. Grau wrote to confirm that the conversation between her and Ms. Sondike was misrepresented, Dr. Grau chooses to perpetuate the same false accusation against the Wantage Township Dog Pound that had been made in Accusation #1 shown above.  Dr. Grau reported her concern regarding ‘a two month old kitten, dehydrated, emaciated, with an enormous maggot lodged in its neck and a billiard ball sized abscess under its throat’.  Grau used this as an example to support a concern about the welfare of animals at the pound.  “This was one of the kittens released to Laurie Walsh after one day of being housed at the Pound, and the paperwork clearly reveals that the kitten was released to Ms. Walsh for the purpose of seeking medical care for the animal”.  Doherty says he cannot understand why Ms. Walsh would fail to make this fact known to Dr. Grau when presenting the animal for care and medical attention.  “How disappointing that a professional and highly qualified animal care expert would reach such a blatantly biased and untrue conclusion about the causes of an animal’s condition” says Doherty.

False Accusation #5:
“And the hits just keep on coming” says Doherty, citing a false accusation reported in the newspaper that Dr. Grau categorizes the Wantage Township Dog Pound operation as an “all kill” facility, and Ms. Walsh being quoted as saying that “all, or nearly all, of the animals (at the Wantage Pound) are killed after seven days.”   Doherty says, “These statements are completely false, and they border on the verge of slander.”  Doherty says that both the 2005 and 2006 pound records clearly prove that 60% of the animals housed at the Wantage Township Dog Pound are either successfully returned to their prior owners, or adopted to new owners.  Doherty points out that, based on a State-level survey in a seven county sampling, this puts Wantage well below the average for the number of animals euthanized compared to other shelters and pounds.

Doherty says that any legitimate concerns regarding the Wantage Township Dog Pound Operation have always been fully investigated, and where problems have been discovered, immediate action has been taken to rectify the problems.  “We’re certainly not perfect.  Mistakes get made, and when they do, we own up to those mistakes and correct them.  By the same token, if and when false testimony is given, we will do everything in our power to expose the situation and hold the people responsible for those false accusations accountable for their actions and statements against us.”

Doherty says that Wantage Township is owed an apology from Dr. Grau and from Ms. Walsh for their false statements and disparaging remarks, and that Ms. Sondike ought to recuse herself from any further involvement with investigating allegations against the Wantage Township Dog Pound, to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest.  

“Maybe Wantage Township does not share the same philosophy of animal care at the taxpayers’ expense that these individuals hold.  That does not justify making false accusations and misrepresenting the truth.  We did not pick this fight, but neither will we shirk our obligation to expose false testimony and defend the honor of our employees against such an obvious and pathetic witch hunt”.