Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Animal Welfare Contracts topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge Oak Lawn to end contract with Animal Welfare League after dog held 16 days
Summary
At the March 11 Village of Oak Lawn Board of Trustees meeting, two non-resident commenters urged trustees to end the village's contract with Animal Welfare League, saying a dog picked up by Oak Lawn Animal Control was denied access to its family and held for 16 days after the seven-day stray holding period.
At the March 11 Board of Trustees meeting, Kristin Adomiak and Carly Roberts urged the village to stop contracting with the Animal Welfare League, saying the shelter denied families access to animals and held at least one dog well beyond the required stray-holding period.
Adomiak, who told the board she lives in Joliet but grew up in the Oak Lawn area, said her father's dog was picked up by Oak Lawn Animal Control and taken to the Animal Welfare League. "They would not give my dog back for 16 days," she said, adding that shelter staff demanded veterinary records as the only acceptable proof of ownership and refused multiple requests to view the dog. Adomiak said her family sought to see the dog at least eight times during those 16 days and that the shelter required them to formally re-adopt the dog after the hold period.
Carly Roberts said she also grew up on the South Side and provided additional documents and allegations about the shelter's operations. Roberts said she reviewed an Animal Welfare League Form 990 showing payments to a law firm and referenced prior investigations in Chicago Ridge that led to revoked licenses for some veterinary technicians. She said Chris Higgins, identified as the shelter president, had recently stated the village was no longer contracted with the shelter; Roberts urged trustees to research and solicit other options that will house Oak Lawn strays on the village's behalf.
Village President Forter asked clarifying questions about the incident; Adomiak said shelter staff told the family the only acceptable proof of ownership would be veterinary records, which her father, a senior resident, did not have. The transcript shows no formal action by trustees in response to the commenters' concerns during the meeting.
The speakers asked the board to examine the village's contracting practices and consider alternative animal-holding facilities. No motion or vote to change the village's provider was recorded in the minutes for the March 11 meeting.
The comments came during the public comment portion of the agenda; trustees later moved unrelated items E and F to executive session for pending litigation and returned to vote on those items. The public commenters' requests were recorded but not acted on at the March 11 meeting.
