Friday, April 8, 2016

$20,000+ Discrepancy 2015 Bark in the Park

May 20, 2015 Greenhill Humane Society claimed Bark in the Park 2015 raised $86,000.  Yet, in their 990 tax return to the IRS they claimed this event raised far less.  Who is Greenhill not being truthful with; their donors or the IRS?

On March 6, 2016 we sent out an email regarding the $20,000 discrepancy between what Greenhill reported to the community and what they reported to the IRS as funds raised at last year's Bark in the Park. As per usual, when they have something to hide, we have had no response or clarification of this missing money. 

The IRS 990 clearly states in the instructions, that all amounts, even gifts in kind should be listed as raised for that event.  The amount should total $86,000 and it does not.

Please email the board and request an explanation. We'd love to know if you hear back and what their excuse is for deceiving their donors or the IRS.

Click on image to view.  Click here for Greenhill's IRS 990 form

Thursday, January 21, 2016

Recent Volunteer Testimony - Problems at Greenhill Humane Society

Admin note:  Here are a series of emails from former volunteer, Katie Lepinski  to Greenhill staff and management. Instead of responding appropriately by thanking this volunteer for bringing information about a potential adopter and safety concerns for a kitten to light, Greenhill's staff responds by juvenile tattling and bawling out this dedicated volunteer who, by the way quit volunteering in disgust by how she was treated and the very real concerns that she now has about the safety of the animals in Greenhill's "care".  Greenhill's "professionals" do not care about the animals, only their egos apparently.  Shameful.  Is it any wonder they can't keep volunteers?  Who would stay on and be treated like this while valid concerns about animal safely are not only totally ignored, but you are bawled out by the Volunteer Coordinator for caring? Time for all these people who took part in bashing this volunteer and potentially ignoring the safety of a kitten to be fired.
-----Original Message-----
From: Katie Lepinski
Sent: Fri, Sep 11, 2015 1:26 pm
Subject: Organizational Concern

Hi Ginny,
I had a disturbing conversation with Kristi last night.  She said that Hannah had complained to you, and you had complained to Kristi, and thus she was deputed to speak with me, about my actions during the adoption of a kitten from the cattery.  She said I shouldn't have tried to speak with Hannah about my concerns about one of the children's behavior toward the cats while the adoption was underway.
I find this hard to believe so I wonder if you have an accurate knowledge of what happened. A couple and their two young children came into the cattery.  The younger child--perhaps around five years old?-- was unaware of how to act toward cats and for perhaps half an hour I was chasing after her and explaining to her how her actions were making the cats feel and letting her know how she could act so as not to frighten or hurt the cats.
She was quite open to learning and it was clear that her behaviors were not due to not caring but to not having an understanding of what would hurt a cat.  Partway through this process, I saw Hannah talking with the parents and it became clear at some point that they were in the process of adopting a cat.  It was clearly important for me to make some kind of intervention to let Hannah know about the little girl and to do something to make sure she would be appropriately monitored if a cat were adopted.  (The parents never made any effort to monitor her behavior during their time in the cattery; the little boy, however, several times made an effort to do so).
I spotted Hannah in the lobby and rushed out so I could speak with her privately about these concerns.  She tried to brush me off but I insisted on speaking with her because it was information she really needed to have in order to make a safe adoption.  I spoke briefly about my concern; she replied that the parents weren't monitoring the child because they were speaking to her about the adoption--I started to explain that it went beyond that but she moved back to the cattery and I could no longer speak privately to her and the adoption went forward and that was the end of our interaction.
In my opinion, Hannah's behaviors were inconsistent with putting the needs of the cat first and with respectfully appreciating information from another team member,and may have resulted in an unsafe adoption.  I find it outrageous, frankly, that I have been called down for my providing input about an important matter relating to a cat's well being.  Kristi said I should respect the judgment of a staff member regarding an adoption.  I think that is mistaken thinking; no one person has all the information that might be useful in a given situation.  I had seen a lot more of the family than Hannah had and that is frequently the case with volunteers who tend to be the primary people in the cattery during open hours, when I have been there at any rate.  It appears in this situation that moving speedily forward with the adoption was considered to be more important than taking time to listen to what may--or may not--have been useful information.
I am bringing this to your attention as good communication is absolutely vital to ensure that the cats are well served and that is all that we care about, I hope.  I also feel I need to let you know how I feel, as a volunteer who is helping out in multiple areas of the shelter.  How I feel is unappreciated and disrespected.
I appreciate this opportunity to let you know my point of view on this matter.
Katie Lepinski 
-----Original Message-----
From: Ginny Johnson
To: Katie Lepinski
Cc: Kristi Chizacky;; Jaclyn Rudebeck;

Sent: Fri, Sep 11, 2015 6:23 pm
Subject: Re: Organizational Concern
Katie: Thank you for your time in giving me your feedback about this matter. It appears that you do not  agree with the decisions we make here in the cattery pertaining to our adoption interview process nor in our belief that we do have the animals' best interests at heart. I'm sorry to hear that you feel this way. Given this, you may want to consider that the GHS cattery may not be the best fit for your needs as a volunteer. Please let us know if you would like Kristi to follow up with you further to discuss what might be a better fit for your volunteer work. Please be aware that this is not my private email, so you should direct your emails to Kristi at Thank you. 
Ginny Johnson
Cattery Manager
Greenhill Humane Society
Eugene, OR
541-689-1503 ext. 128

Admin note:  Greenhill's staff does not have the animals' best interest at heart.  Here is additional documentation: 
Greenhill's long established culture of neglect
Proving Neglect:  Oscar the Cat 
Tasha Roberts Resignation Letter This letter includes instances of Ginny Johnson's disregard for the best interest of some cats

 -----Original Message-----
From: Katie Lepinski 

To: Cary Lieberman
Sent: Sun, Sep 13, 2015 1:43 pm
Subject: Organizational Concern

Hi Cary, I'm writing to you as a volunteer with a concern.  I will follow up this email by forwarding two other emails which will give you more context for my concern.
Here is my service history:
Greenhill Humane Society Volunteer information for 
Eleanor (Katie) Lepinski
Start date: October 22, 2014
Life hours: 125.78

My Service Records
Year Hours
2015 110.52
2014 15.27
Life total: 125.78

I am currently helping out in three areas:  cattery companion, front office at 1st Ave, and follow-up calls on cat adoptions at 1st Ave.

My concern, briefly, is this:  as a volunteer at the cattery, I tried to (privately) communicate concerns, from things I had observed, to Hannah regarding an adoption she had underway.  She brushed me off although I tried to insist on sharing my observations.  That was the end of the interaction.  Thursday evening Kristi called me regarding the 'situation' as she called it.  Hannah had complained to Ginny who complained to Kristi who called to tell me not to interfere with adoptions that were underway.  She said I should trust the staff.  I said that I had information that Hannah didn't have as no staff had been on the floor during the time the problematic behaviors were occurring, and that it was vital that I share that information to ensure that a safe adoption was made.  Kristi said I should have called staff out to the floor earlier, and I certainly could do that and would be willing to do that. However, I now have a 'situation'.  When I communicated my concerns about this to Ginny, her response was that perhaps I should not volunteer at the cattery anymore.
I am deeply concerned that staff would not have as their top priority the safety of all cat adoptions, and that they would not be willing to hear any information related to that.  I understand that the final call is up to the staff, and that is appropriate.  However, if staff aren't open to hearing all relevant information, I question their judgment and, ultimately, the safety of the cats. 

I hope that as executive director, you will also be concerned that staff would think it appropriate to call down a volunteer who tried to share information relevant to a cat's safety, and when that criticism was questioned, would suggest the volunteer stop volunteering.  I don't mean to be immodest, but I'm contributing a lot to Greenhill, and to the cats.  I can't imagine being comfortable coming back to the cattery at this point, but it's a sad thing for the cats as I give them a lot of love and support which makes a difference for some of them.

Following this email will be the email I sent to Ginny, which gives more specifics, and the email she sent back to me.

Thank you for listening to my concerns.
Katie Lepinski

  -----Original Message-----
From: Cary Lieberman <>
To: Katie Lepinski
Sent: Thu, Sep 17, 2015 2:12 pm
Subject: Re: Organizational Concern

Hello Katie,

First let me apologize for not getting back to you immediately when you sent me this email a few days ago.  It's been a very busy past few days, and I've been thinking about what you wrote, but until now haven't had a moment to sit down and write you.

I believe that our staff do have it as a top priority to ensure the safety of our animals.  My understanding after speaking with Ginny is that Hannah did hear your concerns that the family’s four-year-old would need to be monitored around the cat.  Whenever there are children in the home, we make a special effort to talk with adopters about safety for both the child and the animal. Hannah would have already incorporated your concerns in the discussion with the adopter by matter of course, and I’m sure that Hannah would have relayed your additional, specific feedback as best she could.  We also follow up on every adoption with a phone call to check to see how everyone is doing in the home.  At that time, if we hear things that are concerning, we offer help, and make suggestions to ensure that the adoption goes well (or the animal returns if that appears to be the best thing.)

I think that there may have been some miscommunication in the moment, and you were left with the impression that Hannah didn't care about or was not open to the information that you were providing at the time.  That’s not the case.  Hannah cares deeply about the animals in our care, and she consistently demonstrates that she listens to and values her co-workers and the volunteers.

My understanding is that Hannah didn’t come to Ginny to complain, but rather to express that the interaction she had with you was challenging.  Ginny relayed that concern to Kristi, who in turn contacted you to discuss what happened, and to offer ways in which future information could be better relayed during an adoption.

Balancing the needs of the animals and all the people involved is challenging. We all have the care and safety of the animals as our highest priority, and I know that our staff always try to do their best at communicating. I apologize that some of our communication left you feeling unappreciated and disrespected. Sometimes when emotions are high, it is the most challenging to ensure that communication happens in the best way possible. 


Cary Lieberman, CAWA
Executive Director
Greenhill Humane Society

Admin Note:  Even when presented with facts, Lieberman is oblivious to the need for change and to respect the people who give their time without pay. Clearly what was said to this volunteer was inappropriate and there is no way anyone should consider the passing on of information relevant to an animal's safety as "challenging".  If this sort of communication is "challenging" to Hannah then she needs to be in a different job.   This sort of blind support of staff and not hearing valid concerns (seen as criticism so ignored) is why Greenhill is the big mess that it is.  This is not good management.  We call B.S. on "We all have the care and safety of the animals as our highest priority."  These people with such poor communication skills and huge egos need to go.
Documentation that this statement "We all have the care and safety of the animals as our highest priority." is completely false: 
Lieberman's Attempted Emotional Blackmail of former Employee  
Greenhill's vet withholds treatment in violation of State Law   
CVT Testimony Re:  Greenhill's vet 
Testimony from CVT Heidy Hollister  

Wednesday, December 30, 2015

Your donations to Greenhill Humane Society are funding much more than you realize...

The Lane County District Attorney ruled on 3/13/15 that First Avenue Shelter is subject to public record requests. Greenhill Humane Society has refused to voluntarily provide records from the public shelter run with taxpayer money. Instead, Greenhill is using donor dollars in a costly legal challenge of this ruling.  Greenhill claims that their self-reported and undocumented abstracts equals transparency.  It does not.
What is
Greenhill hiding?
"Greenhill seems so withdrawn and covert—like they are separate from the public from whom they want money, not help. They appear to have an ‘us-and-them’ attitude and are constantly on the defense ... it isn't going to change overnight with the current management."   - from a Current
Public exposure of Greenhill’s records is the first step toward
accountability and progressive change. No Kill Lane County has
launched a
fundraising campaign for legal and public record fees. Your donation sends the Greenhill Board of Directors a message that our community strongly supports the well-being of shelter employees, volunteers, and all homeless pets.