Residents press Cheshire council for independent probe after alleged neglect at animal control facility

Dozens of residents and animal-welfare advocates urged the Town of Cheshire Town Council on Feb. 11 to press for accountability after alleging prolonged neglect and record-keeping failures at the municipal animal control facility. Speakers pointed to veterinary records, photographs, FOIA documents and whistleblower statements that they said show delayed care, missing paperwork and financial irregularities; two dogs were described as having died while in town custody.

Why it matters: The speakers said the events involve a municipal employee entrusted with animals seized as part of an abuse case on Oct. 6, 2022. Council members told the room the town has engaged a third-party investigator and that public discussion while litigation and personnel matters are active could harm the town’s interests.

Advocates and residents described a pattern of problems. “The dogs were entrusted to the care of ACL Lealer and the Town of Cheshire on 10/06/2022,” said Robin Zilla Canamella, identifying herself as the cofounder and president of Desmond’s Army Animal Law Advocates. She said she had shared inspection reports and photographs with state agencies and the council. Linda Pliva, vice president of Desmond’s Army, said the condition of 32 dogs under the animal control officer’s care warranted criminal charges and that two deaths “solidifies the need for legal consequences.”

Several speakers detailed documentary evidence they said was given to the town and to the Connecticut Department of Agriculture (DOAG). Mariah Melendez said her group had “very compelling, corroborated evidence” including emails, veterinarian notes and videos obtained through FOIA; Holly Fontaine described how FOIA records and veterinarian documentation had been assembled and redacted to protect whistleblowers. Patricia Venice summarized a timeline she said began with complaints in February 2023 and noted DOAG opened an investigation that resulted in a formal decree addressing some issues but, in her view, not staffing or oversight.

Speakers cited individual cases by name. Marina Bagliore detailed veterinary findings she said showed severe dental disease, untreated infections and malnourishment in a dog the group called “Tiny/Nene,” and said necropsy findings suggested prolonged lack of adequate feeding. Lori Russo described puppies born at the pound in August 2024, reporting one died shortly after birth and others had treatable conditions that went untreated.

Several commenters alleged record-keeping and financial irregularities, including late or missing reports from April–September 2024 and questions about funds held by a volunteer group. “This pattern of missing, altered, or delayed documentation highlights not only poor administrative practices, but may also indicate a deliberate concealment of evidence,” said Lorraine Sarno, who reviewed internal emails and financial records.

Council response and next steps: A council representative told the room the council had been delayed in commenting because of ongoing litigation in Superior and Bankruptcy Courts but that after the withdrawal of a counterclaim on Jan. 30, 2025 the town engaged an experienced third-party investigator. The council representative said to “ensure the integrity of this investigation, we will have no further comment until the investigation is concluded,” and noted statutory and collective-bargaining limits on public discussion of personnel matters.

What callers asked: Several advocates asked the council to terminate the animal control officer, remove the direct supervisor, commission a comprehensive third-party audit of the shelter, and publicly release all non-confidential records relevant to the investigation. Jean Melendez, summarizing the group’s demands, said the council should “initiate a third-party audit covering all shelter” records and operations and consider immediate termination of the animal control officer.

Context and limitations: Speakers repeatedly said they had given documents, videos and metadata to the town and state agencies. The council’s statement that a third-party investigator has been engaged came from the dais during the meeting; the council also said it cannot comment publicly while litigation and personnel protections apply. The transcript records allegations, documentary claims and demands from residents and advocates; it does not record criminal charges, formal disciplinary action or the content or results of the investigator’s work.

Ending: The council closed public comment and moved on to its regular agenda. The investigation and any resulting council or personnel actions were not completed at the Feb. 11 meeting; the council said it would withhold further public comment until the investigation concludes.