|
3/12/2009 11:14:00 AM
Critics assail R&R over a lack of transparency
Ryan Jeltema
News Editor
STANTON - Critics of R&R Research's controversial contract with the Montcalm County Animal Shelter pressed the Howard City company's owner for details of his operation and its relationship to the county on Wednesday but extracted little information.
That emboldened their claims that the contract is fraught with a lack of transparency.
During Wednesday's Animal Shelter ad hoc committee meeting, Greenville veterinarian Dr. Randy Carpenter asked what value and services the county gains from the contract.
R&R Research owner Jim Woudenberg explained that he disposes of animal carcasses at no charge in exchange for being allowed to take animals from the facility and sell them for medical research. He said the county benefits from not having to pay for carcass disposal and from new medical treatments derived from the research.
Carpenter then inquired where Woudenberg disposes of the carcasses, hoping to ensure the procedure conforms to state regulations.
"Per Michigan Department of Agriculture guidelines," Woudenberg responded. "I'm not going to discuss the operations of R&R in open forum."
"I think it's a legitimate issue that needs to be answered," Carpenter said.
"That's your opinion," Woudenberg said. He did not answer any further questions from Carpenter on the issue.
Committee member Fran Schuleit of Greenville said the county must prove R&R Research complies with local, state and federal guidelines before it can renew the contract, which expired in February and is continuing while the committee works to study the issue.
She said the committee's ability to understand the issue is hampered by Woudenberg's refusal to discuss the issues openly and invoking the Fifth Amendment to defer answering questions about his operation.
"We have a legal and fiduciary responsibility before we enter into a legal contract with a person or an entity we have to do our due diligence," Schuleit said. "If anyone wants to contract with this county they should remove the cloak. The Fith Amendment is not acceptable."
Carpenter said he doesn't know what happens under the contract so he doesn't feel educated enough to consider renewing it.
"If this is a discussion of the contract then we need ot understand what the county receives from the contract," he said. "For there to be community trust then there must be transparency. Without that, it does raise some suspicions."
Committee member Rhonda Waldorf of Sheridan said animal rescue groups suspect Woudenberg is receiving preferential treatment and the current contract lacks accountability to prove otherwise. She cited complaints about two dogs that rescue groups hoped to adopt from the shelter about two weeks ago that went to R&R Research instead.
"If the shelter knows that somebody is going to step up for that dog, then why doesn't that happen?" Waldorf asked. "It feels like there's a pressure to give R&R a dog. There's no logical reason for it. The accountability - it's just not there. I don't know what to think."
District 7 Commissioner Patrick Q. Carr, who is leading the committee, pointed out critics could add langauge into the contract if it is renewed to increase accountability.
"A recommendation could be crafted by this board to make it as transparent as you want," he said. "We can put anything in the contract that the committee feels strongly about. If you feel strongly about the past contract where something's lacking then throw it out there to put in the new contract. Or if you don't want a contract just throw it out there that you don't want one. We just need to move it off the middle."
|
Posted: Thursday, March 19, 2009
Article comment by:
Carol Manos
Wanna see the USDA violations against R&R Research?
Look no further:
http://www.lakehavenrescue.org/R_RViolations.pdf
Posted: Monday, March 16, 2009
Article comment by:
Jill Wheeler
I think this entire "blue ribbon" committee is just a stall tactic. I cant understand why R&R is involved in the first place, and why is Jimmy pleading the fifth? He has plenty to hide, and its time MC kicked him to curb, and start running a real shelter. It just not acceptable to sell once family pets to research. Im sure he doesnt want to discuss what he does, because he knows how upset people would be. When living in Chicago, I had first hand experience watching dogs and cats being put down in the "barrel." It is one of the most horrible things you can imagine, and the citizens of Montcalm Count deserve better than that. I cant understand why they do not want to make a decent shelter they can be proud of. I think the relationship between Jim, and some of the commissioners is not on the level. Furthermore, how would anyone know what dogs or cats from where helped find a cure? To my knowledge it takes years and years of research, and most all scientists have not used live animals for some time now. Wake up Montcalm County! Get mad, and let the commissioners know they work for you not Jim!!!!
Posted: Sunday, March 15, 2009
Article comment by:
Joe Q. Public
"Commissioner Patrick Q. Carr, who is leading the committee, pointed out critics could add language into the contract if it is renewed to increase accountability."
Come on Pat. Woudenberg is pleading the fifth while sitting on a committee to discuss a contract he wants from the county. Just how accountable and transparent will a future contract make him, when he won't talk now???
Not to mention you're out supplying false information to the public while campaigning for him.
There were 150 people at the BOC meeting asking the board NOT to renew the contract and you go out looking for support for the contract.
Why are you campaigning for this private business?
Posted: Saturday, March 14, 2009
Article comment by:
Mary Ellen Snyder
Jim Woudenberg must STOP saying in public that anyone benefits from the "new medical treatment derived from the research." Until he can prove that ANY of the animals he deals are going to bona fide medical institutions, he has NO RIGHT to make that claim. And Mr. Carr is doing a disservice to his constituents, who he has stated are in favor of this "medical research" by not making Woudenberg PROVE it ever happens. Woudenberg has already said he doesn't know where most of the animals go because he sells them to other class b dealers. So everytime he refers to medical research, someone has to call him on it. It's clearly not true.
Posted: Saturday, March 14, 2009
Article comment by:
Linda L. Macias
Most of the other countys have thrown out R & R years ago. Check with Ingham County.
I believe ther are some actual tapes of his operation that show his cruel practices.
Posted: Friday, March 13, 2009
Article comment by:
Watching from the Sideline
The unknowns are still unknown: Where do the carcasses go? Who gets the live dogs and cats from Woudenberg? What kind of "life saving research" is performed on the animals? Why is Patrick Carr soliciting support for Woudenberg? Who really runs the animal shelter? Where did the missing dogs from the shelter go to? Why was Woudenberg euthanizing animals at the shelter for years? Whose idea was it to bring Howard City cats to Woudenberg? Who covered it up? Why are there commissioners still willing to give Woudenberg a contract when they have known about his USDA violations for years? How many more former animal shelter employees have the guts to step up and tell the real story?
Posted: Friday, March 13, 2009
Article comment by:
Montcalm Resident
Dear Confused,
You are another example of those who criticize our efforts who have no idea what you're talking about.
The dogs people are up in arms about are dogs that were spoken for by rescues in advance. Those dogs would have been pulled the day they became available, but the rescues were told NO YOU CAN'T TAKE THEM. INSTEAD THEY WERE GIVEN TO THE DEALER. Per shelter policy, rescues are made to wait one day after the dogs become available for adoption to the public, but the dealer evidently doesn't have to abide by that policy and can take them the same day they become to the public. Hmmm..what is wrong with this picture?
As long as this contract is in place, there will never be any trust whatsoever in our county's animal shelter staff. As a matter of fact, I believe we should consider a total house cleaning to get rid of the stigma and influence of an obviously crooked, unethical and underhanded individual. He's poisoned the place and I don't trust any of them to do their job in an ethical manner. Least of all our shelter's director.
Posted: Friday, March 13, 2009
Article comment by:
S Farrell
I find it very odd that certain commissioners stand by a business man who clearly has a lot to hide. I mean lets get real here. He is a business man not a healer of mankind. He has no problem putting a dog, cat, puppy or kitten in a barrell and suffocating them. I understand several at a time. He claims to care about helping mankind and that these animals he DEALS are used for medical research yet he won't tell us where they go. He should be audited and forced to show proof of EVERY animal taken, past and present. I mean lets get real. If you feel medical research is ok wouldn't you fell a lot better if you knew for sure. He pleads the 5th because the truth would incriminate him and everyone would know his dirty cruel secrets. His lies will catch up to him and research supporters will realize they have been supporting a monster. Montcalm County does NOT need this business man!
Posted: Friday, March 13, 2009
Article comment by:
Eileen Burr Montcalm tax payer
This is no longer a research issue, it has to do with honesty, truth and the way business is done. If any other business in this county kept books like our shelter does or signed a contract that is worded like the R&R Research/shelter contract is, which doesn't even cover the liability issues that could put this county in a bigger financial tail spin than it already is [this means every tax payer in Montcalm County], it wouldn't stay in business long. Why don't you citizens that do pay taxes in Montcalm County go to Stanton and ask to read the contract and make up your own mind if it is good or not. It won't take long, it is only 2 paragraphs. Pay close attention to the wording. Are there issues that are not being addressed? Is this contract wide open as far as accountability goes? Would you vote to renew it? There are many changes that could be made at our shelter to bring it up to code that would benefit the residents and animals. There are people and money waiting to help but not under the present system. Time for "out with the old, in with the new".
Posted: Friday, March 13, 2009
Article comment by:
Confused
If there were 2 dogs at the shelter that the rescue groups wanted, then why didn't they go up there and get them? I'm confused about the timeline. The groups had the time to post inflammatory posters complete with photos of the dogs on bulletin boards throughout the county, but they didn't go to the shelter on a daily basis and pick up all the adoptable dogs? Our shelter is NOT a humane society! It has one purpose: to enforce the Michigan Dog Law. If there were the same level of FINANCIAL support from the shelter critics as there is criticism, then we would have had a humane society in this county many years ago. The trouble is, the critics would rather gripe than pay.
|
|
Article Comment Submission Form
|
|
