Davies announced last Friday at the dinner at Adolfo’s she was stepping down as director of the Worcester County Humane Society but made it clear it was a not a voluntary decision. According to Davies, two Board of Directors members and their attorney are forcing her out and replacing her with an unnamed individual at a salary of $50,000.
Several sources close to the situation maintained this week an internal investigation into the shelter’s finances revealed numerous concerns and serious questions, and, as a result, Davies has reportedly been offered a two-year severance package to retire at the end of the month. No specific allegations of any wrongdoing by the long-time director have been made public. The humane society’s Board of Directors declined to comment on the situation this week, and attorneys have reportedly been hired by Davies as well as board members.
More
18 comments:
Shame on these trouble making board members and the couple who are in on this. When they found out Ms Davies had (unknowingly to her since she didn't know the particulars)spent some of the principal of an endowment, they used it in their favor and against her to get control of the shelter. I think they (board members and couple) all should be charged with something. The right and honest thing to do would have been to work with Ms Davies to pay it back somehow. This is why these members don't want their identities revealed and the fact that Ms Davies came out first swinging shows she is the honest one.
I was put in this position once and all it amount to was nepotism and slander.
In a small similar sized community a councilman wanted my job, so he got me fired, then released a similar lie about improprieties, but charges not being filed against me.
A local newspaper picked up the story and revealed that the councilman who initialed my release had now applied for my job. What a crap storm. To top it off they hired the daughter of the highway dept to fill the spot.
To this day, 25+ years later, I still occasionally get inquiries about it.
I fully believe this is also the case at WCHS.
If Davies had done anything inappropriate NO severance would be offered...period, especially not 2 years.
The board is now feeling the heat and has decided to coyly slander Ms Davies with this additional but secret information.
The Winegards, not being board members should keep their mouths shut. Just because I donate to the Wico Cnty Hum Soc and other animal organization in no way makes me an expert in their business. Nor does it make my opinion valid.
To add up the boards members collective service and state it is 50 years is a joke.
If it is time for a change, fine, but to insinuate management concerns but not substantiate them is ignorant small town politics.
Because they will not state directly what the improprieties are, they can't be sued for slander, even though this will tarnish Ms Davies long time contribution to the organization, and future reputation.
Take if from one who knows.
Kenille should hold her head high and realize that a high percentage of us see past the smoke screen and those that don't aren't worth worrying about. They are petty simpleminded gossips.
Small town, small minds.
I am a little disappointed that The Dispatch published this article without actual facts and used only hearsay.
What a self serving "statement" the Winegards have offered up. Kenille made an honest mistake and is excusable but what they have done is inexcusable and speaks to their and the board members lack of character. They just figured they could ignore the wishes of a dead person's will and use it against Kenille. If the Winegards, the lawyer and the board members were on the up and up they would have gotten together and let everyone in the community know so it could be made right. Kenille stood up and did the right thing by making the public aware of this. It's clear now why the board is hiding.
Everyone is to think now that they are the responsible ones when proof shows that if they think funds are misused all someone in the organization has to do is comply with their wishes and they will sweep it under the rug!!!!!
More of this puzzles pieces can be put together by reading the article in the OC Today. I would just love to know how involved the ambulance chaser from Baltimore was in all of this. Would also love to view the 7 page letter sent to the director. Most likely, at the very least, the resignation (contract) was signed under duress which would make it null and void if that avenue were pursued. I think the States Attorney should investigate and look into filing criminal blackmail charges against the parties.
"Because they will not state directly what the improprieties are, they can't be sued for slander, even though this will tarnish Ms Davies long time contribution to the organization, and future reputation.
Take if from one who knows."
Nope not at all. Ms Davies will come out as the Rose (as she is) in the Sea of the Thorns so to speak. Really no slander involved. The Thorns won't state directly the circumstances because it appears they blackmailed her. Evidently the shelter was willed some money that was to be placed unknowingly by Ms Davies into an endowment meaning only interest/gains spent not principal. A portion of the principal was spent and when the Thorns found out about it instead of going about in the legal/responsible way of fixing this problem resorted to blackmailing Ms Davies into signing a resignation agreement.
Interestingly enough just read where one of these Thorns thinks she is entitled to the shelter paying her electric bill because she takes cats home now and again! Sounds like a bunch of bottom feeders to me using the shelter to pay some bills. Curious to see which one gets the $50,000/year potion they are intending to create.
10:54, From the Friends For Kenille Davies Facebook
"The mention of a "severance package" was mentioned briefly BEFORE Kenille was able to extend her time at the shelter longer than they wished. See, they wanted her out immediately and used many scare tactics to do so. The "package" has not been mentioned since; neither we believe is it in written form. Now, of course we could be wrong. Maybe they will share with us that written form."
What I'm wondering is "severance package" or hush money as in go now and go quietly.
Sometimes it is best to walk away when the board are buddies with warped willful emotional perspectives and have their own private agenda. Some do only what they want with no regard to non profit rules. I have found from experience that money and those with money tend to get their way even when they are wrong because very few have the courage to speak up against wrong actions.
Two people being the board??? Two against one. OK I see the problem, a lack of a proper unbiased board. Cant run a non profit with two board members especially when they both are related.
It is always so disappointing to see people who perceive themselves to be in power acting in such a horrible manner.
Thing is, outside of their own community they are nobody, nothing.
And people like this, even if they know they are wrong will never admit it.
I just do not understand why you would treat someone like this.
Speaks volume to their and their associates character.
The only people who should be replaced are the two board members and of course the bottom-dwelling attorney.
Well, whatever the politics, Ms Davies needs a job that she loves. Anybody out there that needs a solid gold woman with super morals and love for animals and a business sense for a shelter, please seek her out!
Used toilet paper has more value than yes, this self serving, holier than thou, self righteous "statement" "released" by these 2 wingnuts who for whatever reason felt compelled to inject themselves into something they are clueless about.
Long time shelter supporters will remember years and years ago when that wingnut woman veterinarian was going to save the day and tried to use strong armed tactics on the shelter. She because persona non grata. Her business went to hell and she ended up running away. She too was all doom and gloom and how the shelter was going to fail due to Kenille Davies leadership. That was what like 20 some years ago and the shelter's still here.
The Wingnuts may have had good intentions in their eyes but used extremely poor judgment in not getting "his side her side the real side" before injecting themselves into this.
I think this lack of good judgment completely and unequivocally cancels out anything they have to offer up at this point in time. They are coming across as busy bodies looking to inflate their importance.
The fact that the "wingnuts" stand behind a particular board member who has taken money from the shelter to pay her personal electric bill under the guise of she has shelter cats there does show complete lack of judgement on their part I think. They will possibly claim to not have known which furthers the idea that they had no business getting involved in this anyway.
These type of boards are filled with cronyism and nepotism, obviously these board members have someone in mind that they want on their payroll, whether qualified or not!
How much you want to bet it's one of them 10:25? Maybe even the one who they wanted to have a paid position some time ago but Kenille overruled the request. Go read on Friends for Kenille Davies facebook. Very informative. It's so not about the animals with these takers. If it were, they would find a way to pay their bills themselves while VOLUNTEERING at the shelter. Kenille did it. I remember so well how she cleaned houses for income so she would have a flexible enough schedule to then do many hours at the shelter.
Maybe folks will actually be able to adopt out of that shelter now, instead of hoarding the animals.
I'm not for or against Kenille Davies, but I will tell you that a lot of younger locals believed the Worcester County Humane Society was more of an animal sanctuary than a place to adopt animals. The dogs seemed to be there for a much longer time than at any other shelter we looked at. My boyfriend and I went to the WCHS to adopt over 2 years ago, and weren't given the time of day. I believe it might have been Davies and another man (that normally came on Sundays) that were there at the time. No help, seemed disinterested while we were there. Left an application, no response. Left a message, no response. Spoke with a friend who had recently tried to adopt there, he was snubbed too. Spoke with more friends, none of them were able to adopt from WCHS. We met all of the qualifications stated on the application. We assumed it was because we were younger (late 20's) and didn't own our own home (even though our landlord approved and we left his information on the application). Our friend ending up buying from a breeder, and we adopted from the Georgetown SPCA. Since then we've bought our own home, fostered, and adopted again from a rescue. Taking a new direction isn't always a bad idea, especially if it means more animals will be finding loving, qualified homes.
Post a Comment