Trending
Dear Editor:
The last meeting of the Hancock County Commission left no doubt that management of the animal shelter will never be reinstated to the Hancock County Animal Shelter Foundation. Since almost half of the current board members have over 20 years dedicated to this cause, we are at a loss as to the reason for this denial.
The contract presented to the Foundation would have not been acceptable by any animal welfare organization. The commission has stated that the contract had to be rewritten to include wording as a result of a lawsuit brought against the county by a former commissioner, who was also a contributor to Mr. Barnabei’s election campaign. In review of those court documents, no mention of a revision of the contract with the Foundation can be found. Why mislead the public?
Our Foundation president stated his concerns to the press regarding the euthanasia clause only after being asked by a reporter. The public voiced their concerns to the Commission (their elected officials), who became offended and demanded an apology from the Foundation. Instead of admitting it was a misinterpretation on the part of their legal representative, they wanted us to apologize.
In a letter dated June 9, the Foundation expressed willingness to run the shelter with the funding allocated out of the general budget and the levy money, but requested an extension on the bidding process due to the language in the contract. Subsequently, we were informed we had not “officially bid” by the deadline of June 10 and the process was over, even though the commission was aware of our attorney and their legal representative working on contract negotiations up until June 29.
The commissioners stated the takeover was necessary because we had not “officially bid.” However, advertisement for the bid states, “The County reserves the following rights: … To waive any informalities in awarding the contract. … To exercise sole and complete discretion in making a contract award.” There were options available. Wouldn’t it be easier to just admit they had this planned rather than hiding behind ridiculously transparent excuses and deceiving those who elected them into office?
The Commission now say the two sides are too far apart to negotiate, although originally stated the shelter would be run the same as the Foundation. Ultimately, the true intentions of the commission have been revealed. They now reserve the right to kill healthy, adoptable animals in order to prevent them from suffering in cages in the name of low-kill. Obviously, that is one of the “far apart” issues they’re talking about. As citizens, taxpayers, and those who vote them into office, why do they feel it is acceptable to keep modifying their vision to suite them?
Approximately a year ago, the Foundation board was made aware of one instance with a citizen regarding concerns with the waiting list. The board was in the process of addressing that concern.
Our outstanding supporters had enabled us to continue our humane operations of the shelter despite the commission steadily decreasing the amount of money allocated for operations. Taxpayers were not paying for the “excess” animals. The wonderful people who willingly supported the Foundation were covering those costs.
Saving animals from death and providing humane treatment is not just the desire of the Foundation. It is the will of the citizens of this county. The support of the Foundation in the animals’ favor is an example of a community working willingly together, instead of being torn apart.
Carolyn A. McIntyre
Secretary, HCASF
New Cumberland