Rhodes lowered the RCHS euthinazia rate by refusing to take in strays. And by the way, Rhodes never once asked the municipalities to pay the "actual" costs to take in strays, which were never defined in dollars.

I wish the RCHS board would have listened to the many letters of concern sent to them by me and other very dedicated volunteers back in 2009 about concerns with Angela. I think a lot of the downfall of RCHS could have been avoided if they had. We expressed to them concerns about losing donations and sponsors at the time as well as poor customer service and a few concerns about animal treatment. I know I personally provided specifics in the letters to every board member and gave contact details if they wanted to discuss it personally with me. But not a single board member contacted me and instead a huge article came out in the Gazette a few weeks later supporting Angela and labeling those of us who wrote them as "embittered volunteers." It really hurt to make the decision to leave as a volunteer back then because I dearly loved working with the animals and adopters to find the perfect match for each other. I know that the stray policies when Angela took over was very confusing and differed from township to township which caused a lot of confusion and contention with the public. That definitely needed revising which was definitely a difficult task due to local economy combined with the budgets. But all the good policies the RCHS had in place when she took over shouldn't have been thrown out just because there were some bad ones in place at the time as well. Some people here are suggesting we continued to try to cause problems for Angela. But all the people I know who left back in 2009 / 2010 due to these issues moved on to work with other non-profit organizations. We tried to let it go and figured eventually the public and municipalities would figure out what we already knew. And the public and municipalities did. It is sad it took so long. Hopefully the RCHS will recover. I hope the next director will be a personable person who can bring back the donors and great volunteers as well as an animal lover with good managerial skills who also is very skilled at locating and writing grants.

neweyes- I guess I didn't elaborate enough- I didn't mean to sound like I was railing against them, and I do agree with everything you said. I was just saying that I felt the board used her to take blame for their actions. I think she did a great job turning the place around, lowered the euthinazia rate, and having been there many times myself when my brother worked there, and always felt they did everything they could to help put all the animals there in good homes.

Stormchaser: Nobody said the RCHS board had nothing to do with the contracts. I believe they were advised by consultants a few years back that the contracts in place were a complete mess and sorely needed revamping. Rhodes was hired to do that job. Why should RCHS offer a service to the city for considerably less than the cost to do so? Could you do the same and stay in business? If the city had a bridge with no guardrails and cars perpetually were running into the water, is it better to continually complain about the high cost of fishing cars out of the river or maybe spend some bucks and put up a guard rail? The city does little to help promote responsible pet ownership and ultimately the taxpayers pay the price. To hear people rail against RCHS, you'd think they created the problem!

Rexkramer, you clearly do not understand the vast difference between a non-profit that offers contracts and those that do not. Friends of Noah (FON)cannot offer contracts because it would require a building to house an unknown and completely unpredictable number of animals from month to month. They (FON)has the ability to say no to more foster animals once the volunteer foster homes are full. Any shelter that has a contract with a municipality is required to take any and all animals, desirable or not. Being a no-kill shelter is an admirable thing, but that doesn't potentially help the large numbers of animals still running around outside freezing and starving. Fundraising can also be accomplished in more than one way-holding multiple small events that generally raise smaller amounts of money and require a lot of work or by direct mail requests. Just because they (RCHS)doesn't hold an annual rummage sale that requires hundreds of hours of mantime and yields little profit doesn't mean they aren't fundraising!!

Oh please! Like their board didn't have anything to do changing the contracts and city fees? I would think they would have to approve something that important, especially when dealing with money. Sounds more like they used her as a scapegoat for their OWN decisions and mistakes!

Funny how the phrase ""Rhodes asked/advocated for more money from cities/governments" appears repeatedly in this story. That's exactly why you're out on your duff Ms. Rhodes, because you never figured out that the rest of the non-profit world has to go out and bust their humps to raise funds, they don't just rely on strong arming local municipalities. I've seen numerous fundraising events for Friends of Noah, I can't remember when I've seen anything for the RCHS. Couple that laziness with the apparent winning personality and PR savvy that many have described and its a wonder RCHS lasted this long.

Oh thank you Lord, it is time that this woman be gone from anything having to do with the public. She had no etiquette with the public and her motto of my way or the highway in the end really did work, she hit the highway. I hope that the city will rally now and make those animals top priority!!!

The purpose of any Board of Directors is to ensure the financial security of the non-profit they serve. They are not involved in the day to day operations nor do they micromanage the operations. They ascertain a level of trust with the executive director to operate the business with the understanding that they will be kept informed. The board combines their collective experience in their field of work to guide the operations. The RCHS contracts established years ago were a complete disaster; Angela had the unenviable job of trying to unify the contracts and actually charge what it costs to care for an animal. It was predictable that there would be great resistance, however it has been done in other counties in the state without such a hullabaloo. One has to wonder if all the blame should have been put on Ms. Rhodes? All parties have to be flexible and willing to negotiate. When none of the parties are (like the general state of the government currently), nothing is accomplished. Angela had an unbending loyalty to the animals and unfortunately proved to be her downfall. So now we are back to square one, unfortunately for the animals. Those in the community that did not care for Angela did everything in their power to "bring her down."

There has to be something in the background we don't know. Who or what caused Mounds to end the partnership and donations? That is the major over riding factor as I see it. There were trouble with municipalities also, again, who and why. A hands off board is pretty common for non-profits like this, letting the director lead. I think an overall re-assesment will be done and it will emerge better.
I am not for putting animals down, but we have to accept the cold hard truth about life....

Sounds like they lost a good advocate for the animals voices....

From the article: "Board members will seek to learn more about and participate in the day-to-day operations of the shelter "to make it a better place for animals and a better place to work," she said."
.
I find it concerning that the board doesn't already know how the RCHS tics. Now after another director bites the dust they have come to the conclusion that they should learn about the place they govern? As a board member you should be looked at for guidance and leadership. It is my opinion they have lacked that leadership and Rhodes is paying the price. An effective board would have reined in a director that was straying from the principles and charter of the organization before damaging community relationships.

Do not believe the board didn't support and even encourage Rhodes up until it eventually all fell apart. She would have never lasted that long without the boards blessings. It probably wouldn't hurt to start looking for board as well!

I understand Rhodes had issues with a lot of the community that lead to problems, but this article sure makes it sound like a lot of what she was doing was pushing the board's agenda. Are we really expected to believe that she changed contract terms, asked for fee increases from the cities, and pushed an all inclusive animal policy without the knowledge, direction, and input of the board?

My feeling on the matter is that the RCHS did a lot of things right in the last few years, but for whatever reason Rhodes couldn't get along with others. Whether that was because of the changes or because of her personally, who knows. I think she was right in saying donors don't want the humane society to be a place where stray animals come in, are kept for seven days and then euthanized because it is too expensive to keep them. I don't think this is what the community wants either. The board needs to figure out how to balance their goals with what is actually attainable in order to best serve the animals in this community. By ousting her they have an opportunity to blame her and try to rebuild relationships without her. I hope can do that successfully. It is what is best for everyone involved.

JIM HURLEY, should be the next boss. He is well liked and great with both people and animals.

I'm not surprised by Rhodes departure. Employees don't often survive where they aren't appreciated. They don't enjoy waking up and going to work. Their employer often makes the unappreciated relationship untolerable. Glad it worked out. Wishing the RCHS Board the very best!

Many donors obviously believed their money was not being managed sufficiently. Common sense has prevailed with them. I believe the donors would still support a different business policy. The Board of RCHS also must have recognized the obvious, the donors are not satisfied with the recent management philosophy and you can't run a shelter without sufficient donations. It must have been a painful decision for those donors, to abandon a cause they must have believed in. Thanks to those that found the strength to decide not to support the recent policies of the shelter. The ability to maintain these shelters always will be challenging. I hope they find a way to bring back the services that were appreciated. If they can, I hope donors can be convinced this worthy cause, with acceptable business and management philosophies, can once again justify opening up their wallets and purses to.

TheJoker: Are you serious? Doing a great job? She turned almost the entire county against her, and then lost Mounds as a supporter...you know the main company that provided for FREE all the dry cat & dog food and discounted litter that the humane society relied on. On top of that she had terrible customer service. The public has enough and apparently several donors too. You can't keep a nonprofit open when funding dries up and nobody can effectively communicate with her. The animals need and deserve better.
*
I hope the board can start over completely and get a fresh new start...a new name will go a long way to help overcome the public's perception of the shelter.

I felt she was doing a great job. Sounds like the board is trying to interfere too much. Dealing with animals and people's emotions is never easy. She needed to shake up things both inside and outside. Bottom line, it is a business. Non-profit or not, donors need to see that money is being used wisely and there are smart budget decisions being made.

its about time she hit the highway. the board of directers now can try, to fix the mess, she started!

Thank You Angela Rhodes for your years of service at RCHS.

"Board members will seek to learn more about and participate in the day-to-day operations of the shelter"
Being a non-profit I assumed the board members would already be working at the shelter. Maybe they're just going to be doing more of that now.
I'm just sayin'...

"A safe and loving home for every adoptable animal and humane treatment for all." That's a great mission statement. Let's hope the humane society finds a director who knows how to work with municipalities and other animal welfare groups to make it a reality.