Heritage Humane Society Board Fires Shelter Director

By Kimberly Lenz Wednesday, March 17, 2010

Not four months after she was hired to lead the Heritage Humane Society Dana Cheek is out.

Complaints about Cheek ranging from leadership style to her philosophy advocating adoption of all animals to the way she handles feral cats have been buzzing in the shelter community since shortly after Cheek was chosen from 100 applicants and hired in late November 2009.

Monday night, one of those volunteers took to the Internet to rally support for Cheek’s dismissal. By Tuesday afternoon, Cheek had been fired.

Cheek said in an email response to questions that Heritage Humane Society Board President Peggy Scholley told her Tuesday afternoon she was being terminated “because of too much negative publicity from the volunteers and former staff members and for ‘polarizing’ HHS.” Cheek wrote that Scholley initially gave her the option to resign or be fired. “Out of principle, I chose to be fired,” she wrote.

Scholley confirmed via email that Cheek had been terminated. She said the HHS board would have a statement later today.

Cheek said she was not aware of the Facebook page called “Save Our Shelter,” which longtime volunteer Sue Babischkin launched Monday night, until Scholley told her about it Tuesday. The site campaigned for Cheek’s dismissal and listed a host of complaints, including concern over firing a longtime volunteer coordinator, treatment of animals that appeared to be in distress, presentation of dangerous animals as adoptable, the type of food given to animals and management style.

“The new Executive Director has a blatant disregard for public safety and is promoting the suffering of the animals at Heritage Humane Society,” the page said. The page is no longer available; Babischkin wrote late Tuesday that the HHS board “has graciously asked that this page be removed by the end of the night and it will be.” Scholley confirmed Wednesday that "in the spirit of civility and moving forward, the board did ask Ms. Babischkin to take the Save Our Shelter Facebook page down."

Tuesday’s turn of events surprised Cheek, who said issues with the staff began about six weeks ago after she terminated the longtime volunteer coordinator “for cause.” That action prompted the HHS board, staff and Cheek to participate in mediation to resolve issues, Cheek said.

But the volunteer coordinator’s dismissal brought the former employee’s colleagues together in complaints about Cheek. The complaints culminated in the Facebook page, launched after at least two shelter managers quit Monday and another employee was demoted.

Complaints were specific and personal, and several were accompanied by photos. In most cases Cheek posted responses to the allegations Tuesday night, after her termination.

In one incident, Cheek is accused of bad judgment in allowing a pitbull mix that had bitten four staff members to have another chance. According to the post, an animal control officer approached Cheek on March 1 to request the animal be removed from the shelter and humanely euthanized. Cheek instead allowed the dog to play in the yard and, when a staff member went about an hour later to get the dog for a walk, the dog “attacked the staff member in order to get past the staff member to fight with another dog.” The staff member put up his arm, and the dog hung on until the man was able to pull free.

Cheek responded on the Facebook page that a volunteer was present when the animal control officer, kennel technician and Cheek assessed the dog. She wrote: “Once it was determined that the dog was not dog aggressive and an adequate playmate was matched with him for exercise in the play yard, we all agreed to seeing if he could benefit from the out of kennel time. It's unfortunate that a dog that has demonstrated that he gets along with other dogs and wiggles his rear end with so much enthusiasm when he sees a human will be destroyed because of unskilled handling. The staff need to understand and identify barrier frustration and address the need for additional stimulation for dogs housed long term. I instructed the staff to utilize the often-vacant play yard to allow the dogs to get out of their cages and play.”

In response to emailed questions, Cheek disagreed with the volunteers and said her practice was not to allow adoption of dangerous animals but to be thorough in determining behavior and temperament during an initial assessment. Trainers and veterinarians are involved in those assessments, along with staff observations, she wrote.

“Prior bite history does not automatically mean that an animal is euthanized. Every attempt is made to determine the nature of the bite, whether it was provoked or unprovoked, and if the animal can be safely placed in a home. Sometimes that may mean that there are limitations for the adoption, i.e a home with no small children, a home with no other dogs/cats, etc.,” Cheek wrote. “Each situation is handled on a case-by-case basis. Euthanasias are performed if we feel that an animal is a risk to the general public.”

Cheek said one of the issues at the shelter is staff handling of animals.

She wrote: “I became aware that there were no written or formal training programs provided to the animal care technicians from their supervisor when I started questioning the number of incidents involving employees being bitten by shelter animals. This is one of the issues that led to the demotion of the animal care supervisor and ultimately her resignation. Unfortunately, animals that had bit staff due to improper handling were labeled ‘dangerous’ and unadoptable despite my ability to show staff how to interact with the animal properly. Ultimately, many of these animals were voted by the staff to be euthanized. I was in the process of implementing a formal training program to remedy the situation as well as hiring competent staff.”

The HHS shelter is, by its contract with Williamsburg and James City County, not allowed to become a no-kill shelter. But Cheek, who led the transition of the Norfolk SPCA to a no-kill shelter during her seven-year tenure there, made clear her goal was to euthanize fewer animals. She told WYDaily in an interview just after she began at HHS, “We want to keep animals from coming in here in the first place. We want to offer resources.”

Among those resources, she said in December, was an on-site spay/neuter clinic, which the HHS does not have.

“I was hired to further the board's commitment of maximum adoption and ensure that we utilized every available resource before deciding to euthanize an animal,” Cheek wrote in response to questions. “I feel now that the commitment I received from the staff initially was set aside because of personal agendas and the additional work required to rehabilitate an animal. It's not about adopting the easy ones and killing the rest. It's about providing the animals entrusted in the care of the shelter a second chance.”