The Executive Director of the CC SPCA, Ms. Jeanne Deeming wrote a June 2, 2009 letter to the Maryland Department of Agriculture’s, Maryland State Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners, Executive Director, Laura C. Downes regarding the agencies investigation into the allegations against the CC SPCA veterinarian Dr. McDermott. Ms. Deeming attached several pages to her letter, which amount to little more than a collection of irrelevant, mistatements and attempts at character assasination.
You need not read any further than the second attached page to the June 2, 2009 letter of Mrs Deeming, Director of the CC SPCA to see just why the citizen, volunteers and employees are afraid to try to report or get involved in any matter involving the CC SPCA because of the resulting charachter assassinations that take place. In what appears to be some sort of press release attached to the letter the first page mistates and selectively reports on the Jonathan Newell, June 1, 2009 letter. On the second page, Ms. Deeming addresses the findings of Mr. Newell which find fault with the manner in which the CC SPCA is operating. In doing so she ends her argument in her defense with the totally irrelevant attempt to now smear the reputation and motives of the State’s Attorney Mr. Newell by writing that Mr. Newell is a Republican in a County that Delegate Smigiel represents half of as a Delegate. Then in a total lack of any relevance and a clear attempt to assassinate his character Ms. Deeming writes:
“It is also a matter of public record that Maryland’s highest court, the Court of Appeals, ruled 7-0 in March 2009 that Mr. Newell could not violate the free speech rights of two women working as victim witness coordinators in his office by firing them because they had supported the candidacy of Mr. Newell’s Democratic election opponent.”
Please explain to me what that has to do with anything related to the care or treatment of animals by the veterinarian at the CC SPCA. If we are not to believe Mr. Newell because of his alleged bad character when he says something bad about the CC SPCA why should we believe anything he said in favor of the CC SPCA. Everything said by Ms. Deeming in her letter to the Veterinary Board is irrelevant to the allegations of abuse and neglect at the CC SPCA.
Delegate Smigiel’s office was presented a plethora of complaints about animal abuse and neglect at the CC SPCA. These allegations came from former employees, volunteers and citizens who utilized the facilities. Several of these complaints come from eyewitnesses to behavoir by the Veterinarian Dr. McDermot. There are documents from the agency that support many of the allegations of professional malpractice.
The eyewitnesses have offered to take polygraph tests regarding the allegations they have alleged. There are witnesses to botched operations, neglect and failure to provide follow up care. There are witnesses to nonqualified personell being allowed to perform operations on animals and witnesses with supporting documentation to support veterinary medicine performed by nonqualified individuals on animals treated at the CC SPCA. Delegate Smigiel’s office provided the Veterinary board with documents alleged to have the forged signiture of Dr. McDermott and an internal E-mail from Ms. Deeming herself complaining about Dr. McDermott. None of the specific allegations are addressed by Ms. Deeming, instead she engages in a misdirection of the question to the character of those making the allegations and to a debate of the possible motives for various individuals, (interesting enough, herself included) to have said things about Dr. McDermott’s failure to appropriately provide veterinary care to the animals at the CC SPCA. All the Animal Control Officers have refused to be polygraphed and no one has asked Ms. Deeming or Ms. Schwertzler (The President of the Board of Directors) Susan Maldonado, or Dr. McDermott to take a polygraph. Sure, they might have said no also, but any investigation of allegations of such incompetance should seek to find the truth.
Regardless of whether the CC SPCA personnel volunteer to be polygraphed there certainly is no excuse for refusing to accept the offer of the eyewitnesses who worked, volunteered or utilized the services of the CC SPCA. Ms. Deeming’s letter is devoid of any attempt to address the material facts alleged by the various constituents who came forward with complaints.
Mrs Deeming herself had some interesting things to say about Dr. McDermott in an E-mail she sent to one of the employees who came forward with allegations against the agency. If the State Veterinary investigator had any questions about what was thought of the Doctor’s ability he could have them quickly addressed by reading the E-mail from the CCSPCA director, Ms. Jeanne Deeming of December 6, 2008, where she wrote the following about Dr. McDermott:
“His type of medicine is the reason that we have so much problem with the spays/neuters and sickness. He just doesn’t care about any of the animals, to him it’s all about his money . This is not something that he hasn’t been told about in writing so I am not talking behind his back.”
I am sure the investigator received the same report of the Vet’s abilities from Ms. Deeming and then obtained and reviewed all the documents that “were put in writing” telling the Dr. about his deficiencies. Which begs the question, If the management of the CCSPCA felt this way about their Vet, Why did they continue to use him and promote him to the public? Did they also care more about the money than they did about the animals?
For now, we and the State investigator also know what Ms. Deeming thinks of one of her current accusers, from what she wrote about her former employee in the same E-mail, ”You on the other hand, do care about the animals, are very pleasant with the clients and do your job the best you know how.”
I trust the State will have taken into consideration the credibility assigned to the accused and accuser by the Directer of the CCSPCA before she herself became an accused. We will have to wait and see if the Veterinary Board does it’s job and sends a message to other Veterinarians who may care more about money than they do the care of the animals they are in-trusted with.
We will also have to wait and see if the veterianary board looks beyond the attempts at character assasination and seeks anwers to the questions raised by so many citizens.