No one should have to be in fear of losing their job for standing up for the law, but many of us were after being hired by the AWL and signing the employee handbook stating in laymen terms that you cannot take your complaints any farther than the executive director or board of directors to report an incident. I, too, was also told that I could no longer speak to the board when I worked there. I could only report to the executive director.
There were complaints but they fell on deaf ears. Perhaps politics overrode the care the animals should of been getting. It should not take 16 complaints to get something done about the animal control officer. It should have been over with the first one. But, the problem goes much deeper than that.
I was never a director at the AWL. I was animal shelter coordinator/medical technician. And I did complain. I complained to the director, when we had one, and I complained to board members but was told they did not have time to hear my complaints. In my opinion the board was ran by one person. When I wanted to write a letter to the editor I was told that it had to be approved by the board or I would no longer be working there.
A board should be made up of people with a passion for the animal's well-being along with common business sense. Not what it can do for them.
If you do voice your opinion all of a sudden, you are written up for poor job performance. I have a perfect evaluation that was presented to me by the board if anyone would care to see it. And why aren't the regular AWL board meetings advertised and made known and open to the public or even to the members? Why aren't the financial statements shown to the members?
I believe if you are 501c3 not-for-profit then all of this is public information. Why are there executive meetings before the regular board meeting to rehearse what should be said and done in the regular board meeting? Why are animals euthanized (fresh and frozen) and being sold to Nasco, in Ft. Atkinson, Wis., instead of going into foster care or to a rescue group? Nasco is a dealer that supplies dead animals to educational institutions. I believe they pay $3 for a cat and $7 for a dog. Let's see ... surrendered cat, 5 years old cost the shelter a feline leukemia test, deworming, vaccinations, a spay or neuter and food for its endless stay until adopted verses $3 in the pocket.
No one can say that this is for the good of human kind or the animals. It's good for a shelter that is over flowing in animals and will have to be euthanized for space. But this is only my opinion. I feel that this goes against the exact thing that the shelter is there for. Why is there a flurry of euthanizations when the truck is coming to pick up the animal? This is not in the best interest of the animals.
