Confusion, controversy surrounding termination of animal shelter director
PROTECTED CONTENT
If you’re a current subscriber, log in below. If you would like to subscribe, please click the subscribe tab above.
Username and Password Help
Please enter your email and we will send you a password reset link.
By Ben Crane
In a move that has caused public outrage, Spencer Hall, the director of the Douglas County Animal Shelter, has been terminated from her position, sparking outrage and a flurry of questions.
“Can you just tell us what is going on?” said one member of the public in attendance at the Douglas County Board meeting Wednesday.
Around 20 members of the public were in attendance, with many sharing their disbelief at the termination as well as applauding other attendees after they spoke.
“It is deplorable and unprofessional the way this board has handled the situation with Spencer,” said one attendee.
“She loves this community. We trust her,” said another.
Chairman Tom Hettinger was visibly smirking during the entirety of the discussion, causing more frustration from the crowd.
A member of the crowd asked if the Board cares about the animals.
“We do, and we do the best job we can,” replied Hettinger.
Because of the nature of the termination, the Board legally does not have to make any discussion or minutes of an executive session available to the public.
In an exclusive interview, Hall recounted the series of events that led to her suspension and eventual dismissal by the county board.
At the heart of the matter was a court-ordered return of four dogs to a suspected animal abuser, Luther Clark, a decision that Hall vehemently opposed, driven by her unwavering commitment to the welfare of the animals in her care.
“I was more worried about what he was going to do to those dogs,” Hall said, her voice tinged with frustration. “I didn’t want them to go backwards. They were happy and loving, and I didn’t want that to change.”
Despite her objections, Hall described the tense confrontation that unfolded as Douglas County Sherriff’s Office deputies arrived at the shelter to retrieve the dogs, citing a court order. Hall attempted to prevent the transfer of the dogs, particularly those that were heartworm positive, fearing they would not receive the necessary treatment.
“I said, ‘No, he’s not getting the ones that are heartworm positive, because they will not get treatment and they’re going to die,’” Hall recounted. “And then the cop said, ‘It’s a court order. Spencer, he will get whichever court he wants. You need to unlock this gate, or we will arrest you.’”
Reluctantly, Hall unlocked the gate, allowing the deputies to take the dogs. This incident, however, would prove to be the catalyst for her termination. In the days that followed, Hall received an email stating that the county board would be holding an executive session to discuss her “punishment” for not releasing the dogs in a “timely manner.”
This left Hall confused, as she believed she had acted within the appropriate timeframe, a sentiment echoed by those who witnessed the events unfold.
“I was very confused. There was going to be a talk about my punishment for not releasing the dogs in a timely manner, which I was confused because I had released the dogs in a timely manner,” Hall said.
During the executive session, Hall was informed that she was being suspended indefinitely, with a special hearing to be held regarding her future. The decision to terminate, she believes, was influenced by tensions with certain board members, a dynamic that had been simmering for some time.
It’s important to note that the Animal Control Committee consists of three voting members: Ed Carleton, Dan Henry, and Bibby Appleby. The special hearing was conducted without Henry, who had a pre-planned vacation. As chairman, Hettinger stepped in as a voting member.
Hall believes that if Henry had been there to vote, she wouldn’t have been terminated.
“I already knew that one of the board members didn’t like me, so I figured something was going to happen,” Hall said. The termination has sparked a wave of public support for Hall, with a petition garnering nearly 600 signatures calling for her reinstatement.
Many in the community have expressed their outrage at the board’s decision, citing Hall’s unwavering dedication to the welfare of the animals in her care and the significant improvements she had made to the shelter during her tenure.
“You have a man that was there for 15 years or 10 years, that got terminated, that didn’t have something like this. I was a manager for one year, and I have almost 600 people that signed a petition to get me back. That’s how much I have done at the shelter in just a year,” Hall said.
State’s Attorney Robert Kosic offered some insight from the County’s perspective.
“We are in the process of finding a replacement head for the shelter, which I understand is expected to happen within the next week. It is currently staffed. The dogs are currently being cared for and let out and fed and everything that would be expected. So the shelter is currently operating and staffed. There is an expectation that a new head will be appointed within the next week, and another employee being hired very soon.”
Kosic was not willing to offer any response to any of the backlash the County has received in its decision to terminate Hall and motion to allow Clark to retrieve some of the dogs.
However, Kosic told The County Chronicle that the decision was influenced by the “circumstantial” evidence surrounding the case.
As Hall prepares to pursue a wrongful termination lawsuit, the future of the animal shelter and the well-being of the animals remain uncertain.