Accused vet wasn’t part of shelter review

Nobody interviewed a Franklin County Dog Shelter veterinarian who workers and volunteers accused of unnecessarily marking dogs for death, according to a summary of a county investigation.

The investigation, which began in mid-March, concluded with the removal of shelter director Joe Rock late last month. County officials publicly announced the case in early April, after local dog advocates demanded the county look into whether Dr. Vincent Morton, the veterinarian, unnecessarily designated dogs for euthanasia.

But now, county officials say the recent investigation did not involve Morton.

“To our office’s knowledge, Dr. Morton is performing well in his role as shelter vet,” said Tyler Lowry, spokesman for the county commissioners. Last

See

Page

fall, Morton was “counseled” about an allegation that he made “inappropriate or insensitive comments to a coworker,” Lowry said in an email.

The investigation centered on Rock’s leadership of the shelter, as well as his wife’s involvement there, according to a summary released to The Dispatch. It also reviewed “general policies, programs and procedures,” including the “dog behavioral assessment process” — a test that some say Morton used to label dogs for euthanasia. The investigation summary listed nine people who were interviewed and did not include Morton.

The summary document was the only one generated by the investigation, and does not identify any problem at the shelter, or why Rock was fired.

Morton remains employed at the shelter. Incident reports from 2012 and 2013 allege he provoked dogs to aggression so he could mark them for euthanasia.

One complaint submitted in August 2013 says Morton would “purposefully be rough with them almost like he was trying to get them to growl or bite.”

“People have asked: ‘OK, they fired Joe, but why is Dr. Morton still there?’ That is what no one can understand,” said Susan Geier, a shelter volunteer for six years and one of the dog advocates who pushed the county to investigate in April. “I’m questioning why (Morton) wasn’t included as part of the investigation.”

Geier and other dog-shelter advocates said that when the county announced the investigation, they believed it was centered on Morton because officials appeared to be responding to their complaints about him.

They also saidMorton has been cruel to those working and volunteering at the shelter, disparaging anyone who speaks against him.

Morton did not respond to a telephone message yesterday.

Meanwhile, the search for a new director is going slower than some would like.

The county has not posted a job advertisement for a new dog shelter director, more than three weeks after Rock was removed.

“Franklin County is focused on moving forward in the search for new leadership at the shelter,” Hanna Greer, a county spokeswoman, said in an email. “A search firm will be engaged in the near future to assist with that effort.”

And Rock’s relationship with the county might not be finished.

“Mr. Rock is currently evaluating the various legal claims he possesses against the county, but is hopeful the parties can continue in good-faith negotiations in an effort to avoid costly and time-consuming litigation,” said Nicholas Yaeger, Rock’s attorney.

The county prosecutor’s office and commissioners’ office would not provide The Dispatch with copies of correspondence between the county and Rock and his attorney.

Nick Soulas, the county’s first assistant prosecuting attorney, called the correspondence outlining Rock’s claims against the county “confidential information” of his clients, the commissioners, and said that they would have to provide it. Lowry refused to provide the correspondence.