BOARD FAILURES

FAILURE TO ADDRESS ANIMAL WELFARE CONCERNS AND IGNORING COMPLAINTS ABOUT EX-CEO GREG HALL

Over the last four years, the Nevada Humane Society (NHS) has received many complaints. However, the Board refused to take any action. In the past few months, the number of complaints multiplied, and were sent to the Reno Mayor’s Office, and the Washoe County Regional Animal Services (WCRAS) Advisory Board, as well as the Board. The complaints covered a wide range of issues, including Board of Directors’ non-compliance with NHS bylaws, financial inconsistencies in its tax returns, animal care failures, adoption failures, abysmal CEO performance, poor personnel management practices, use of funds for items not intended by donors, etc. The complaints were submitted by prior managers, employees, concerned citizens, donors, etc., and included requests for the Nevada State Attorney-General’s Office and the US Internal Revenue Service to investigate inconsistencies in NHS legal filings and non-compliance with non-profit fiduciary duties. 

On April 21, then NHS CEO Mr. Greg Hall was scheduled to present findings from an assessment of NHS, funded by the Dave and Cheryl Duffield Foundation, to the WCRAS Advisory Board, but did not show up to the meeting. The report was released in July 2022, documenting numerous problems at the facility, including an exhortation to “Increase the quality of housing, care, and welfare provided to animals during their stay in the shelter to improve the well-being of both animals AND (emphasis added) staff alike.” Additionally, there is a statement that NHS should “expand emotional intelligence and resilient work teams.” There is a recommended reading list, including: “Emotional Intelligence: Why it can matter more than IQ” by Daniel Coleman. 

While the Assessment cited two strengths ("excited to pursue opportunities to exceed minimal humane housing" and "operating at capacity") on Animal Care, these were greatly overshadowed by the TWENTY-THREE (23) areas identified for improvement, including such basic welfare items as better cleaning and scheduling regular walks and potty breaks.  In the area of animal enrichment and behavior modification, there were six (6) suggested improvements, including the “CERTIFICATION” and “CONTINUING EDUCATION” of staff. These findings, along with the many issues identified in the complaint letters, reflect the poor standard of animal care at the NHS for the past several years. More concerning, as of Sunday, May 21 2023, almost a year after the Assessment Report was released, NHS Development Director Mr. Trent Bingham told members of NHS Watchgroup that the NHS has NOT implemented any of the Assessment’s recommendations, and to “keep in mind that the report is optional.”

Several days after the 21 April meeting, then President of the Board, Ms. Kris Wells (Area Manager, External Affairs, AT&T), replied to an inquiry from news reporter Mr. Joe Hart that no one from NHS could attend due to “an unforseen event...requiring our immediate and full attention.” However, at the 15 May public meeting, the current President of the Board (Mr. Ray Gonzalez, Wells Fargo Advisors) stated that NHS wasn't ready to present the findings during the scheduled meeting, and the Board of Directors approved the decision not to attend.  This decision was not shared with WCRAS or the public in advance of the meeting.  One has to wonder whose version is the truth: was there an "unforseen event" (Kris Wells), or was the NHS not ready to present the Assessment findings after almost a year (Ray Gonzalez)?

 On 4 May then President of the Board Kris Wells (Area Manager, External Affairs, AT&T) resigned, after staying on the board for 10 consecutive years.  Her length of service was in direct violation of the NHS bylaw that requires members of the Board to leave for one year after two 3-year terms (i.e., 6 years). This was followed by an announcement on May 10, stating that Mr. Hall had resigned, effective immediately on May 9.  

The 10 May announcement also stated that Mr. Raymond Gonzalez (Financial Advisor, Wells Fargo Advisors) has assumed the role of NHS President of the Board, and Ms. Rita Eissmann, (wife of DDS Greg Eissmann, as listed on the NHS website) assumed the role of Vice-President.  Mr. Gonzalez and Ms. Eissmann both joined the NHS Board of Directors in 2020.

The public announcement also made several generic assertions as to successful operation of NHS, without providing any details on the veracity of those statements: 

Board Assertion 1: “On Thursday, May 4, the NHS board immediately conducted an internal inquiry regarding the facility’s processes. After this inquiry was completed the board was assured the facility is operating in accordance with all National Humane Society standards. At this time, the organization maintains it has achieved a 95% lifesaving rate (which it has maintained since 2012) in Washoe County as well as a 95% lifesaving rate in Carson City, where the org expanded in 2014.” 

COMMENT: The current Board has no members with shelter or animal care experience. One wonders how a group comprising a financial advisor, a realtor, two lawyers, a corporate partnerships VP, and two people of indeterminate profession, can audit a shelter and make such assertions so quickly? When asked, the Board did not answer questions on who conducted this assessment, and how it was conducted. The term “National Humane Society standards,” also raises several concerns. Persons with knowledge, experience or interest in the shelter or animal care field know that “national” Humane Society standards do not exist, since there is no single governing Humane Society body running shelters in the United States.  Each Humane Society is an independently run organization. A simple Google search for national humane society standards of care shows that no such standards exist.  Additionally, the Humane Society of the United States' website specifically states that it does not run shelters, and has no oversight on individual Humane Societies, which are all independent.

COMMENT: With regard to the assertion of lifesaving rate, former managers at NHS have questioned this claim, due to a) their knowledge of higher rates of behavior-based euthanasia; and b) NHS’ shelter software ShelterLuv, which double/triple counts dogs that are returned to the shelter after failed adoptions, and double counts dogs each time they are moved between the Reno and Carson City facilities (e.g. to receive medical attention at the Reno facility). In fact, NHS’ poor performance has been noted far and wide in the animal shelter field. In an industry newsletter “THIS WEEK IN ANIMAL PROTECTION,” for the week May 6-12, 2023, Nathan Winograd, one of the pioneers of the No-Kill movement, wrote: “Animal shelters in Austin, TX, Rosenberg, TX, Reno, NV, Palm Springs, CA, Charlottesville, VA, Spokane, WA, and others used to be at the forefront of the No Kill movement with placement rates of 95% or better and as high as 99%. Not anymore.” One has to question, are members of the NHS Board of Directors unable or unwilling to provide accurate data on the lifesaving rates at NHS? See Update on NHS identification as a "low-kill" shelter. 

Board Assertion 2:  “A third-party investigation has been scheduled for May 22 to identify relevant data and further feedback through an outside evaluation. The intent of this investigation will be to identify the veracity and extent of these claims to ensure NHS operates within full compliance with animal husbandry ethics and standards.” 

COMMENT: The Board has yet to answer questions posed to them about this event, including who is performing this assessment, what they are reviewing, or how much of the donors’ money will be paid to the performers. These questions were sent to the Board of Directors three days after the announcement was released. It is unclear what is meant by the phrase “full compliance with animal husbandry ethics and standards.” How can husbandry (breeding of animals) have anything to do with a shelter? The prevailing shelter care standards accepted by most animal shelters, are set out by the Association of Shelter Vets (ASV), which touch on the Five Domains (formerly known as the Five Freedoms) - Hunger/Thirst; Pain/Injury/Disease; Fear/Distress; Discomfort; Express Normal Behavior, the first four being "freedom from" and the last being "freedom to." In the judgement of shelter and animal care professionals, including some that have worked at NHS, there are tremendous failures in animal care in all but one of the five domains, Hunger/Thirst being the exception. (see Complaint Letters on Animal Care).

On the same day as the public announcement (10 May), an email was sent by the new VP of the Board, Ms. Rita Eissmann, wife of DDS Greg Eissmann, to address some of the issues identified in various complaints.

Board Assertion 3: Ms. Eissmann asserted that the Board could not comply with the 6-year term limit imposed in the bylaws, because “it would have created a gap in information for the newest 2021 class.”

COMMENT: Between 2015 (when the bylaws with term limits came into effect) and 2021, 2 to 6 new members of the board were added each year, ensuring that it was impossible  to have a “gap in information” in 2021 (by design of the bylaws' laddering requirement). Ms. Eissmann’s response implies the Board knowingly broke NHS bylaws, despite the inclusion of new members every year. Additionally, the bylaws institute a maximum number of board members, but no minimum.  It is hard to believe Ms. Eissmann's justification for Board members to break the bylaws by staying beyond their term limits.

Board Assertion 4:  Ms. Eissmann confirmed long-standing suspicions that Board Members were receiving donor money from NHS, via contracts approved by the Board. “As to payments made to former board members, according to the 2015 Nevada Humane Society bylaws, the board may distribute funds with those they have entered into contractual relationships or elect to make lawful payments in furtherance of the purposes of the organization (Article II, Section 3).”  

COMMENT: The Board of Directors and CEO of NHS have been asked this question many times in the past, going back to 2021, and they had always refused to answer. Ms. Eissmann’s response is the first acknowledgement that Board Members were paid with donor funds. Requests for specific information on these "lawful" payments have been ignored by the current Board of Directors. If, as Ms. Eissmann states, this is allowed in the bylaws, why are those payments not being made known to the public and more importantly, to the donors?

Board Assertion 5:   Ms. Eissmann stated that NHS is spending donor funds to hire a law firm. “Nevada Humane Society has retained law firm Fennemore Craig P.C. to provide legal counsel and support to the organization during this time… The legal team is in place for the sole purposes of understanding contract and employee law so that Nevada Humane Society board members may make decisions for the future of the organization within proper legal parameters. It is the unanimous opinion of the board that this expenditure, and others we may approve, is critical as we seek to ensure forward steps safeguard the future of the organization and, again, no one person. It would be unethical for this organization to make decisions that inadvertently open the Nevada Humane Society to future liabilities, so we must endeavor to make every forward step compliant and within the best interest of our staff, volunteers and the animals within our care.” 

COMMENT: Hiring a legal firm to ensure that the Board of Directors can do its job without breaking the law, makes many donors and concerned citizens question the qualifications and fitness of members of the Board. It is also worth noting that there are currently two attorneys on the Board of Directors. 

Since assuming the roles of President and Vice-President of the NHS Board of Directors (on 10 May), Mr. Gonzalez and Ms. Eissman have made multiple appearances on TV, interviews with the press, and a public meeting with the WCRAS Advisory Board (15 May). Mr. Gonzalez promised “1,000% (sic) transparency” and “drastic change” to address numerous complaints received about: NHS board member deviations from the bylaws, financial inconsistencies, animal care shortcomings, poor personnel management practices, donor concerns, etc. Statements made at these appearances have uncovered additional concerns with the Board's lack of transparency, as well as more questionable expenditure of donor funds:

Board Assertion 6:   In 2022, the Board of Directors signed a 3-year contract with a “culture consultant.” This individual was hired to train the managers on "how to use tools to manage people. " The top result to the question "What does a culture consultant do?" on Google defines culture consulting as "a practice designed to help companies achieve their financial, strategic, organizational and social goals by creating a desired organizational culture." One has to question how this helps the animals. (watch the Culture Consultant video)

COMMENT:  NHS has not released the terms of the contract nor amount of donor money being spent on this contract. Oddly enough, the Board of Directors under Ms. Kris Wells (Area Manager, AT&T) used to assert that there were only “three” complaints against Mr. Hall during prior years; and some current members of the Board have claimed they “did not know what was going on." One should wonder, if the Board of Directors were unaware of the bad management practices, why would they lock into a 3 year contract, to train managers.  During the 15 May public meeting, the culture consultant Nikki Antone, confirmed that she is under contract for 2 additional years. 

Board Assertion 7:  The Board has appointed an interim CEO, Ms. Jerleen Bryant, formerly of the Maui Humane Society. 

COMMENT: The terms of the interim contract, its conditions, and cost, have not been released. Also worth noting is that no public announcements or job postings were made in an effort to find the best candidate for the permanent CEO position. The only publicly posted NHS position was for a COO, which was removed after less than a week. One has to wonder, if they are not advertising for open positions, then how are they finding qualified candidates? The Board of Directors has no one with shelter or animal care experience. Since they are not in the field, how can they expect to find qualified people from the shelter and animal care field without open advertisements?

Board Assertion 8:  At the public meeting on May 15, Mr. Gonzalez pledged to release the NHS’ Conflict of Interest (COI) Policy, as well as each individual board member’s COI yearly declarations, past and present. To date, this has not been done. (see video of Mr. Gonzalez promising transparency)

COMMENT: No COI documentation has been released by the Board.

Board Assertion 9:  At the public meeting, Mr. Gonzalez stated several times that he would love to have people with animal shelter experience on the Board, specifically Ms. Jill Dobbs (current member of WCRAS Advisory Board and Director of SPCA of Northern Nevada) and Ms. Bonnie Brown (see video for these statements). Ms. Dobbs informed Mr. Gonzalez that she was in the last year of her term on the WCRAS board and would consider joining the NHS board. As shown on the video, Mr. Gonzalez rescinded the offer, stating that the bylaws restrict members of other animal facilities from being Board Members. 

Comment: It is unknown if Ms. Dobbs’ invitation to join the board remains rescinded.

It is clear that a few changes have occurred at the top of NHS. However, given the aforementioned information, it appears that the old problems of lack of transparency, lack of accountability, and questionable use of donor funds, have NOT CHANGED. 

The current President (Mr. Ray Gonzalez) and Vice President (Ms. Rita Eissmann) have served on the NHS Board since 2020. There have been major problems at NHS during this time including: a severe outbreak of Panleukopenia among the cat population (caused by lack of vaccination of the cats that entered NHS) that led to more than 50 cats getting infected, and at least 11 deaths; adoption of a dog to someone who physically abused the dog in the NHS parking lot (see letter from Kris Mansel on COMPLAINTS page); the indiscriminate firing of experienced and knowledgeable staff members; retaliatory firings of employees and volunteers who questioned the lack of care for the animals; non-compliance with NHS’ whistleblower policy, etc.  During this time, the Board also turned a blind eye to then CEO Mr. Greg Hall's lack of experience in animal care, lack of experience in personnel management and inability to perform CEO tasking such as failing to submit grant reports, or even be punctual for meetings. The Board shielded Mr. Hall from accountability, despite multiple complaint letters to the Board, and instead, hired a “culture consultant” (this was the idea of Rita Eissmann, wife of DDS Greg Eissmann) for 3 years to teach NHS managers how to do their jobs.  A 3-year binding contract implies that the Board knew the extent of inexperience/incompetence among NHS managers, many of whom were promoted from entry level positions to managers with no management experience. This begs the questions: why did the Board give Mr. Hall such latitude? When experienced and qualified staff were being replaced, did the Board of Directors bother to review their resumes? When complaints were received, why did the Board of Directors spend donors’ funds on a culture consultant vs hiring qualified personnel? How many lick mats, trainers, and staff training hours could have been purchased for the money spent on the "culture consultant"? For every dollar spent on something other than animal welfare, the opportunity cost of that spent dollar is borne by the animals. 

Mr. Hall’s transition from President of the Board to CEO (in 2018) raised many red flags because of a) his lack of any relevant experience; b) the Board appointed him after firing someone with non-profit experience, AND, c) the lack of conducting a single search for a more qualified candidate. While Mr. Ray Gonzalez, Ms. Rita Eissmann and other current Board members were not part of the appointment of Mr. Hall in 2018, the consequences of his incompetence have been well-known throughout their years on the Board, as abundantly demonstrated in the complaint letters. As former Board member Britton Griffith noted in her letter: “I felt in my time at the NHS that Greg was protected by the Board of Directors, for whatever reasons, I do not know. However, I know that in the Board Meetings, word of mouth, reports of turnover and committee reports, there is no possible way someone could say they don’t know Greg is detrimental, causes a hostile work environment and is the single reason good staff were being fired without cause.” One has to wonder, why would the NHS Board of Directors choose to support Mr. Hall’s need for employment over the needs of the animals in the care of NHS? Why would the Board of Directors let Mr. Hall have so much unfettered control of the staff, without questioning the qualifications of people being given management positions?  

As discussed above, the Nevada Humane Society (NHS) has been the subject of many complaints sent to the Reno Mayor’s office and WCRAS Advisory Board. On 10 May, the board released a public announcement that CEO of NHS, Mr. Gregory Hall, had resigned effective May 9. Additionally, 3 board members also resigned, leaving the following board members: