Residents press Cheshire council for answers after Department of Agriculture reports on pound conditions

Dozens of residents and animal-welfare advocates pressed the Town of Cheshire council on March 11 for action after multiple speakers cited Department of Agriculture reports and veterinary records they say show neglect of animals seized in a cruelty case.

Speakers described repeated problems at the town pound, cited veterinary findings they said showed treatable conditions that were not addressed and asked why a long‑time animal control officer remained on the job while an outside investigation proceeds.

The concerns centered on two animals specifically named by multiple speakers: “Tiny,” a small Shih Tzu whose necropsy and medical records were read into the record, and “Lily,” another dog whose treatment was discussed. Several speakers said the state Department of Agriculture and treating veterinarians concluded the animals’ conditions could have been treated.

“Please show the town you really care about what goes on with our public officers,” said Diane Schaffer, a Cheshire resident, during public comment. “While you ignore our pleas for help, you’re potentially putting other animals’ lives at risk and the town itself at risk.”

Other residents described veterinary records and witness statements they said were part of the Department of Agriculture’s review. A Meriden Animal Hospital veterinary technician’s email included in public comment said Tiny had “urine scalding, urine stained fur, multiple mats and stools stuck to the hair … grade 4 dental disease” and that Tiny’s condition worsened between visits. Marina Bagliore, who said she had reviewed the DOAG interview transcript, quoted a line attributed to the treating veterinarian: “Condition presented could be treated.”

Holly Fontaine and other speakers described examples they said appeared in medical records: abscessed eyes and jaws, severe dental disease and skin problems. Amy Lynn Gentile, a professional groomer, testified about matted fur, overgrown nails and a grooming environment she described as unsafe and unsanitary.

Not all commentary was accusatory toward town staff. Retired veterinarian Bob Giddings said the sudden arrival of many dogs at the pound “was a crisis” and that personnel and volunteers “did the best they could under extremely challenging circumstances,” while urging continued oversight and constructive cooperation.

Mayor Peter J. Talbot and the council did not take further public comment on the matter at the meeting. Talbot told the room that the council has commissioned an independent third‑party investigation and that, “in order to ensure the integrity of that investigation, the town council will have no further comment until that investigation has been completed.” That restriction on public comment by the council was repeated by the chair at the meeting’s close.

Several speakers urged personnel action, including suspension or firing of the animal control officer identified in the public testimony, and asked why a warrant described in Department of Agriculture filings was not pursued by prosecutors. Others urged the council to release more information to the public; several said they were frustrated by what they described as lack of transparency and delay.

The council did not vote on any personnel matters during the meeting. Council members acknowledged receipt of the public comments and said an independent investigation is underway; the council’s statement that it will not comment further was the only specific, board‑level instruction reported at the meeting. The investigation’s timeline, next steps and scope were not specified at the meeting.

The town manager and councilmembers who spoke at the meeting reiterated that the council would not comment further while the independent review is in progress. Residents in the audience said they expected the investigation’s findings to be released to the public when complete and to include steps for accountability and facility upgrades.

The council meeting agenda did not include any motions or votes on animal control policy or personnel; further action by the council on the subject will depend on the independent investigator’s report and any legal or personnel guidance that follows.