Published: March 15, 2007 11:07 am            

Readers defend Clinton Humane Society Board of Directors

I am a member of the Clinton Humane Society. I am sickened by the endless public attacks on our Board of Directors. I am also appalled at the behavior of the group of people who continue to harass the board members because they are angry that their friend Jean Regenwether was fired.

I attended the board meeting right after Ms. Regenwether’s termination. It was held Oct. 16, 2006. A group of Regenwether’s friends also attended. This group accused the board of every crime under the sun; tax evasion, breaking federal laws, illegal board actions, conflicts of interest, etc. This group even scolded the board for the actions of previous boards, such as the termination and treatment of past administrators, some of whom current board members have never even met.

The accusations I heard that evening were completely false. Unfortunately they have been reprinted time and again in editorials, Letters to the Editor and in full page advertisements paid for by the same group.

The behavior of this group at the October meeting was atrocious. They were rude, threatening and disruptive. One lady in the crowd had to shout them down and tell them to let the board speak. They then verbally attacked one gentleman in the crowd because he dared to speak up on the board’s behalf. They went so far as to try to discredit him by falsely accusing him of not even being a Humane Society member. A threat was even made against Animal Birth Control, Inc. just because board members support its mission. ABC is a separate, nonprofit organization that has done wonderful work for Clinton’s dogs and cats.

The board could not attend to any business concerning the shelter’s welfare that evening. I don’t blame them for having closed meetings.

The general membership of the Clinton Humane Society should not put up with the harassment of their Board of Directors. They should demand that this group leave these volunteer board members alone and let them attend to the business of operating the shelter for the benefit of Clinton’s homeless animals.

It is to the detriment of your community, your nonprofit organizations and volunteer programs to allow this controversy to continue. What citizen in Clinton will want to volunteer their time and talents to any organization if the community allows such bad treatment of its good citizens?

Jody Roach,

Rock Island, Ill.

•

Last October the Clinton Humane Society Board of Directors fired its administrator. A group of the administrator’s friends are angry about her dismissal and have made many complaints against the board. As a former board member and shelter employee, I have worked with the people on both sides of this dispute. I nominated Ms. Thomsen as Board President when I was a board member. I later worked with Jean Regenwether when I was a shelter employee. I have kept in contact with my friends back in Clinton and feel it is important to find out if the grievances against the Board are valid. I have learned the following.

1. The Board was accused of violation the Iowa Open Meetings Act by holding a closed meeting. This act applies only to governmental bodies, which the CHS is not. CHS bylaws state that the board may close its meetings. The purpose of board meetings is to conduct shelter business. This isn’t possible in a hostile environment with people acting out of order.

2. The Board was accused of violating the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. However, the Act applies only to publicly-traded corporations. Two provisions applying to all corporations are 1. It’s a crime to retaliate against persons who provide information about a corporation to a federal law enforcement officer. 2. It’s a crime to falsify or destroy documents used in official proceedings. The board did not violate these provisions or the act.

3. The Board was accused of not filing its 990 Nonprofit Tax Form. Shelter accounting records disclose that no filings are delinquent.

4. The Board was accused of a conflict of interest regarding a grant-writing contract with a board member. Iowa Code 504.833 states no conflict exists if the transaction is fair, fully disclosed and approved by a majority of directors. The grant-writer was not a director when she held a contract with the current board. When she previously served on the board as a grant-writer the transaction was disclosed to the board and approved by a majority.

5. Another conflict assertion involves the transfer of CHS accounts to a bank where a director worked. Transaction records show no conflict occurred, but the director resigned due to fear of harassment from the Board’s critics.

6. The Board was criticized for hiring a lawyer, but Jean Regenwether and her friends threatened legal action against the Board before the board hired a lawyer to protect the shelter.

7. The Board’s critics continually point out that the Attorney General’s office is investigating the board, but fail to mention they requested the investigation.

Publicizing deliberate misinformation about volunteers can be considered irresponsible, even malicious. It discourages volunteerism, injures reputations of private citizens and jeopardizes the organizations they represent.

Jan Golden,

New Church, Va.

•

I was born in Clinton and was a lifelong resident for more than 50 years until leaving the area seven years ago. I am a former member of Animal Birth Control, Inc. I have several friends on the Clinton Humane Society Board of Directors, and I am also a member of that organization.

I have closely followed the recent Humane Society controversy in the Herald, and I have read between the lines.

This nonsense has been going on ever since Ms. Regenwether was fired and her friend Maggie Bielenberg was voted off the board. I am extremely upset by the on-going harassment of the board members by these women and their friends.

Judy May is a CHS board member. She has dedicated her life to the welfare of the dogs and cats in the Clinton community. She has done more for animals that any of her accusers could dream of accomplishing in 10 lifetimes. In just six years Sheryl Ziegler has brought in over $100,000 in grants to the Clinton area for animal welfare projects. Can any of her accusers claim the same? These accusers need to find something constructive to do with their own lives and allow the volunteers on the CHS board continue their good work for the sake of the animals.

The false accusations against the board that I have read in the Herald range from the petty (a board member smirked during a meeting) to the defamatory (board members didn’t file taxes and have violated federal statutes). Some of these claims are silly. Others should result in legal action by board members against their accusers.

If Ms. Regenwether really thinks she was illegally terminated, why doesn’t she settle the issue in a court of law instead of in the court of public opinion? Reading between the lines I think I already know the answer to that.

In a recent Letter to the Editor, Ms. Regenwether claims that CHS members have lost faith in their board. Reading between the lines we can all see that the reason for this alleged lost faith is the unending torrent of false accusations by Ms. Regenwether’s friends ever since she was fired.

It is always easier to throw grenades than to catch them, and Ms. Regenwether’s friends have thrown a lot of grenades at the board just hoping that one will cause permanent damage to individual board members. But false accusations hurt both the accuser and the accused.

Members of the CHS and the citizens of Clinton should demand an end to this nonsense. But how does anyone stop a group of angry people from making false accusations, defamatory statements and libelous claims against a group of private citizens who have volunteered to rescue the homeless animals in their community?

It is very important that we all continue to read between the lines.

Mariann Christofferson,

Cape Coral, Fla.

•

I am a member of the Clinton Humane Society. As a member I want to say that the so-called SOS group does not speak for me, or for the majority of CHS members.

The SOS group was formed by the friends of ex-administrator Jean Regenwether. They are angry because the CHS Board fired her. Last fall they sent a letter to the CHS members that stated their goals of taking over the board and re-hiring Ms. Regenwether. As a CHS member I do not want this to happen. I do not agree that this would be good for our shelter or the animals.

Natalie Ehm is the new administrator. She is a pleasant, capable woman who is skillfully managing the shelter. She is an asset to our organization. Many CHS members do not want the SOS group to steal her job and give it back to Mrs. Regenwether. I have heard and read too much about this group’s tactics to feel comfortable with the outcome. They have spread untrue stories about our Board of Directors and have dragged the shelter through the mud.

Members of every nonprofit organization have the right to remove their directors without cause at any time. This means that the most perfect board of directors can be replaced for no reason at all. So all of these untrue charges the SOS group has made against the volunteers on our board have been needless and uncalled for. It makes me wonder what the group’s true motives are. These motives certainly do not appear to be “saving our shelter.”

The SOS group is a vocal, angry minority. I am part of a larger, concerned majority that is mortified by what they are doing to our animal shelter and our board. I am also mortified by their intentions to replace our wonderful new administrator. The CHS majority should not allow this to happen.

Renee White,

Clinton

        

• Click to discuss this story with other readers on our forums.