Kane board challenges leader on vet contract, salary, more

Kane County Board members told Public Health Executive Director Paul Kuehnert they hold him and county board Chairman Karen McConnaughay responsible for the lackluster and nontransparent operation of the county's animal control department.

The criticism followed the findings of a recent task force showing McHenry County provides a greater expanse of services in its animal control department and handles far more animals at a much cheaper cost. The county board's Public Health Committee grilled Kuehnert Tuesday about a series of decisions made without their knowledge or approval.

The committee asked about a new contract with the VCA Animal Hospital in Aurora. The hospital has agreed to supply a limited amount of free spaying and neutering services to the county. Until now the county has shipped animals to Yorkville for those basic surgical procedures, in addition to contracting with a private veterinarian.

The contract had been offered to the county for several years. The county inked its first deal with VCA on June 16, and committee members didn't learn about it until Tuesday.

Kuehnert said the contract is for free services, meaning there was no legal requirement for a formal bidding process. The value of the veterinary services is only about $11,000 a year, making it a relatively minor focus in the department's overall budget, he said.

“I think it's important that we keep this in perspective,” Kuehnert said.

But the committee then built on a theme of lack of transparency by asking about the status of the volunteer program at Kane County's Animal Control facility.

There is no volunteer program — Kuehnert decided, on his own, to terminate it. Instead, the county uses temporary employees for data entry, the answering of phones and assistance of walk-in clients.

Kuehnert said he ended the volunteer program because in the past animal control had used people sentenced to community service to perform some of the work.

“We've been exploring how we can create a much more extensive volunteer program,” Kuehnert said. “We agree we need to supplement our staff with volunteers. But we have to recognize there are risks involved. We were bringing in people through the courts with no screening system. We were putting the county at risk.”

Committee members asked Kuehnert why the problem was never brought to the county board to expedite a solution.

“If I was to report every operational detail we would spend an inordinate amount of time doing that,” Kuehnert said. “As things come up, we've been very transparent.”

“Well, it doesn't feel that way,” board member Bonnie Kunkel responded.

Board member Jackie Tredup echoed that opinion.

“There are a lot of things coming out that haven't come out before,” Tredup said. “It's really taken a downhill roll. We need to get a hold of it and not just say we're getting bad information. This facility is very deep in my heart. It's as important as anything we do. But I'm hearing it everywhere now. People are coming up to me and saying, ‘I want you to know this bad thing happened to me with animal control.' We're getting a lot of public information on this.”

That comment then led to questions about Sharon Verzal, the interim animal control director. Verzal was appointed to the role when the former director was suspended and then resigned. Verzal previously worked as an inspection supervisor for the health department.

Committee members wanted to know how much Verzal is being paid to run animal control on an interim basis versus her prior salary.

“I don't know it off the top of my head,” Kuehnert said.

Verzal said she's being paid $85,000 a year for the job. She then stated she couldn't recall what she was paid in her formal role. But further questioning revealed Verzal earned about $50,000 last year. That works out to a raise of about $35,000.

“I think one of the things that we recognize when someone is promoted into a temporary assignment is their duties change,” Kuehnert said. “The responsibilities for an animal control supervisor are significant, so I made that decision (to give her the raise).”

“What bothers me is you didn't tell us about that,” county board member Melisa Taylor said. “I'm finding this out today.” She also said she is uncomfortable with an interim director receiving a $35,000 pay raise.

Kuehnert said he makes all his decisions while reporting directly to McConnaughay.

“Well, then I guess while I'm criticizing you, then I'll also criticize Chairman McConnaughay for doing that,” Taylor responded. Taylor added she's so baffled by all the closed-door moves that she doesn't feel comfortable approving the 2012 budget pending for animal control without a full forensic audit of the department.

“We're not all on the same page here,” Taylor said. “A forensic audit similar to what we did with (the sheriff's department) seemed to put a lot of the gossip and innuendo away. We owe that to the taxpayers in this county. We owe it to me. I'm a taxpayer in this county.”

Tom Van Cleave was the only committee member to defend Kuehnert, McConnaughay and the animal control operations.

“There's been way too much pointing, way too much accusation and way too much putting blame on staff,” Van Cleave said. “Weekly, I'll open up the newspaper and there will be an article about the county that I know nothing about. It may even be on a committee I serve on. I don't expect to know all the details of what's going on in this operation.”