2009-06-27: Daily Star Article on the Hermitage
The local media is starting to weigh in. This was written by Kim Smith of the Arizona Daily Star, appearing this morning.
"Judge rejects effort to silence Hermitage criticism"
"Judge rejects effort to silence Hermitage criticism"
2009-06-26: Tucson Weekly
On Thursday, July 2, Tim Vanderpool will have another article in his series on the Hermitage, this one focusing primarily on the hearing this past week. If you'll be heading to cooler climes then, you can still check out his take on it by going to their website at www.tucsonweekly.com Oddly, that will be the same holiday weekend last year over which the story broke in the print media, and Ms. Spring called her now infamous press conference.
I called the clerk of court today to see when transcripts would be available, and was told it would take several days, and due to the length of the hearing (3 hours), the cost would be in the neighborhood of $350. I've also been getting calls and emails from folks who are asking how they can help. Thus far everything has been out of my own pocket, but I've decided that I'll open the transcript purchase up to public. So if there is anyone who would like to contribute to getting those so I can put them on the blog, just click on the contact us button, send me an email, and I'll get you the address. I know there are a lot of folks out there who are monetarily having a hard time, so if you just want to send a penny, that's fine, or if you want to cover the entire amount, that's lovely too. I want lots of people to be able to enjoy the symbolism of being able to participate in making public what has been behind closed doors for so long. Believe me, it will be money well spent. If there is any overage, I will donate it to Casa de los Gatos, I will not use any of it for myself.
I called the clerk of court today to see when transcripts would be available, and was told it would take several days, and due to the length of the hearing (3 hours), the cost would be in the neighborhood of $350. I've also been getting calls and emails from folks who are asking how they can help. Thus far everything has been out of my own pocket, but I've decided that I'll open the transcript purchase up to public. So if there is anyone who would like to contribute to getting those so I can put them on the blog, just click on the contact us button, send me an email, and I'll get you the address. I know there are a lot of folks out there who are monetarily having a hard time, so if you just want to send a penny, that's fine, or if you want to cover the entire amount, that's lovely too. I want lots of people to be able to enjoy the symbolism of being able to participate in making public what has been behind closed doors for so long. Believe me, it will be money well spent. If there is any overage, I will donate it to Casa de los Gatos, I will not use any of it for myself.
Category: Injunction Denied
Posted by: admin
(Subtitle: What You Won't Be Reading on the Hermitage Official Website or eMewsletter)
The hearing yesterday was simply amazing, I could not have asked for anything better if I had written it myself.
This is the result from just the hearing for the preliminary injunction, where the shelter was trying to muzzle me until there can be an actual trial. I am therefore permitted by the court to continue blogging. I will also publish the hearing transcripts as soon as they are available. Below is the text of the order, I will put a link to a pdf copy as soon as I can get one that is easier to read. I have removed the attorney's names at the bottom, and the admininstrative assistant's name, which appear on each of the four pages.
(The counter-claim was not dealt with at the hearing, that comes later. That is a claim by me against both the Board and Mary Jo Spring personally for publicly calling me a terrorist).
======================================================
ARIZONA SUPERIOR COURT, PIMA COUNTY
JUDGE: HON. MICHAEL MILLER CASE NO. C20091025
COURT REPORTER: NONE DATE: June 24, 2009
THE HERMITAGE CAT SHELTER, INC, an
Arizona non-profit corporation,
Plaintiff,
v.
ROSALIE TORSKE and JOHN DOE TORSKE, et
al.,
Defendants.
MARY KATHERINE HECK,
Counter-Claimant,
v.
THE HERMITAGE CAT SHELTER, INC., an
Arizona non-profit corporation,
Counter-Defendant.
MARY KATHERINE HECK,
Third-Party Plaintiff,
v.
MARY JO SPRING, JOHN DOES 1-5,
Third-Party Defandants
ORDER
Plaintiff The Hermitage Cat Shelter, Inc. moves for a preliminary injunction to enjoin Defendant Mary ("Katy") Heck from disseminating confidential information, interfering with Plaintiff's business relations, or communicating with Plaintiff's donors. Defendant Heck opposes the application for preliminary injunction. The Court conducted an extended evidentiary hearing on Plaintiff's application that included numerous enhibits, as well as party and non-party testimony.
The criteria for granting preliminary injunctive relief are: 1) the strong likelihood of success on the merits, 2) the possibility of irreparable harm to the plaintiff if relief is not granted, 3) a balance of hardships favoring the plaintiff, and 4) advancement of the public interest. LaFaro v. Cahill, 203 Ariz. 482,56 P.3d 56 (App.2002). Whether an injunction should issue is a matter commited to the trial court's discretion, which will be disturbed generally only for abuse of discretion. Valley Medical Specialists v. Farber, 194 Ariz. 363,982 P.2d 1277 (1999). The Court is required to set forth findings of fact and conclusions of law supporting its decision. Ariz. R.Civ.P., Rule 52(a).
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
The Court finds and concludes as follows:
1. Plaintiff the Hermitage Cat Shelter, Inc. is a non-profit corporation doing business as a cat shelter in Tucson, Arizona.
2. Defendant Heck was an employee of Plaintiff, but left in 2007.
3. Plaintiff has been the subject of unfavorable information from a variety of sources for at least the past year. The sources include prior employees, volunteers, and Board members. The unfavorable information includes criticisms of personnel practices, fundraising, expenditures, cleaning practices, and disclosure of information.
4. As a non-profit corporation that relies upon unpaid volunteers and donors, information about the activities and goals of the organization is made available in a variety of contexts.
5. The testimony among the witnesses frequently conflicted as it pertained to who had information, when they had information, the accuracy of the information, and whether the information was public or private. Additionally, there was testimony from which a finder of fact could conclude that information was obtained and disclosed by persons who are neither parties nor witnesses.
6. It is not clear that the Employment Manual supports the post-employment restrictions that Plaintiff infers from it.
7. The Court concludes that Plaintiff has not proven a strong likelihood of success on the merits.
9. The unfavorable information may be causing harm to Plaintiff. The testimony and exhibits, however, do not support Plaintiff's contention that a preliminary injunction against Defendant Heck will prevent irreparable harm to it. There is sufficient evidence showing that the harm of unfavorable information comes from sources other than Defendant Heck.
9. The Court finds that the exhibits and testimony does not favor either Plaintiff or Defendant with respect to the balance of hardship and advancement of the public interest. As with the other factors, different inferences could be drawn from the conflicting testimony. Plaintiff has not met its burden with respect to these criteria.
For the foregoing reasons,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED denying Plaintiff's application for preliminary injunction against Defendant Mary Katherine Heck.
Dated this 24th day of June 2009.
Judge Michael O Miller
Lynne Booth
Judicial Administrative Assistant
The hearing yesterday was simply amazing, I could not have asked for anything better if I had written it myself.
This is the result from just the hearing for the preliminary injunction, where the shelter was trying to muzzle me until there can be an actual trial. I am therefore permitted by the court to continue blogging. I will also publish the hearing transcripts as soon as they are available. Below is the text of the order, I will put a link to a pdf copy as soon as I can get one that is easier to read. I have removed the attorney's names at the bottom, and the admininstrative assistant's name, which appear on each of the four pages.
(The counter-claim was not dealt with at the hearing, that comes later. That is a claim by me against both the Board and Mary Jo Spring personally for publicly calling me a terrorist).
======================================================
ARIZONA SUPERIOR COURT, PIMA COUNTY
JUDGE: HON. MICHAEL MILLER CASE NO. C20091025
COURT REPORTER: NONE DATE: June 24, 2009
THE HERMITAGE CAT SHELTER, INC, an
Arizona non-profit corporation,
Plaintiff,
v.
ROSALIE TORSKE and JOHN DOE TORSKE, et
al.,
Defendants.
MARY KATHERINE HECK,
Counter-Claimant,
v.
THE HERMITAGE CAT SHELTER, INC., an
Arizona non-profit corporation,
Counter-Defendant.
MARY KATHERINE HECK,
Third-Party Plaintiff,
v.
MARY JO SPRING, JOHN DOES 1-5,
Third-Party Defandants
ORDER
Plaintiff The Hermitage Cat Shelter, Inc. moves for a preliminary injunction to enjoin Defendant Mary ("Katy") Heck from disseminating confidential information, interfering with Plaintiff's business relations, or communicating with Plaintiff's donors. Defendant Heck opposes the application for preliminary injunction. The Court conducted an extended evidentiary hearing on Plaintiff's application that included numerous enhibits, as well as party and non-party testimony.
The criteria for granting preliminary injunctive relief are: 1) the strong likelihood of success on the merits, 2) the possibility of irreparable harm to the plaintiff if relief is not granted, 3) a balance of hardships favoring the plaintiff, and 4) advancement of the public interest. LaFaro v. Cahill, 203 Ariz. 482,56 P.3d 56 (App.2002). Whether an injunction should issue is a matter commited to the trial court's discretion, which will be disturbed generally only for abuse of discretion. Valley Medical Specialists v. Farber, 194 Ariz. 363,982 P.2d 1277 (1999). The Court is required to set forth findings of fact and conclusions of law supporting its decision. Ariz. R.Civ.P., Rule 52(a).
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
The Court finds and concludes as follows:
1. Plaintiff the Hermitage Cat Shelter, Inc. is a non-profit corporation doing business as a cat shelter in Tucson, Arizona.
2. Defendant Heck was an employee of Plaintiff, but left in 2007.
3. Plaintiff has been the subject of unfavorable information from a variety of sources for at least the past year. The sources include prior employees, volunteers, and Board members. The unfavorable information includes criticisms of personnel practices, fundraising, expenditures, cleaning practices, and disclosure of information.
4. As a non-profit corporation that relies upon unpaid volunteers and donors, information about the activities and goals of the organization is made available in a variety of contexts.
5. The testimony among the witnesses frequently conflicted as it pertained to who had information, when they had information, the accuracy of the information, and whether the information was public or private. Additionally, there was testimony from which a finder of fact could conclude that information was obtained and disclosed by persons who are neither parties nor witnesses.
6. It is not clear that the Employment Manual supports the post-employment restrictions that Plaintiff infers from it.
7. The Court concludes that Plaintiff has not proven a strong likelihood of success on the merits.
9. The unfavorable information may be causing harm to Plaintiff. The testimony and exhibits, however, do not support Plaintiff's contention that a preliminary injunction against Defendant Heck will prevent irreparable harm to it. There is sufficient evidence showing that the harm of unfavorable information comes from sources other than Defendant Heck.
9. The Court finds that the exhibits and testimony does not favor either Plaintiff or Defendant with respect to the balance of hardship and advancement of the public interest. As with the other factors, different inferences could be drawn from the conflicting testimony. Plaintiff has not met its burden with respect to these criteria.
For the foregoing reasons,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED denying Plaintiff's application for preliminary injunction against Defendant Mary Katherine Heck.
Dated this 24th day of June 2009.
Judge Michael O Miller
Lynne Booth
Judicial Administrative Assistant
The Hermitage is suing me to stop publication of this blog. They contend that my words have caused donors to stop giving money. While I like to think I am a persuasive writer, my contention is that I have only been one of a number of sources bringing attention to their inappropriate behavior; and it is the Hermitage's own behavior that has caused donors to withdraw, not my golden tongue. And I note that although articles on the Hermitage, some less than complimentary, have appeared in the Arizona Daily Star, Tucson Citizen, Tucson Weekly and on two TV stations, I am the only one being sued. I think this is because I am an individual person, and lack the deeper pockets of these institutions, and also the fact the blogging is a newer medium; presumably I am an easier target. I am also the one with personal connections to other people, those former volunteers, donors and staff, who they would like to shut up.
The hearing requested by the Hermitage is to ask a judge to prevent me from blogging further until a full trial can be held. The claim is essentially that my words have caused such serious, imminent and permanent damage that I cannot be permitted to write further in the time between now and a trial, that the damage would be too severe for recovery. You will note that this blog began in earnest back in the spring of last year, and they just got around to filing suit in February of this year. If something was truly causing me permanent, serious damage, I would not be waiting a year to attend to it; but that's me. If the judge orders me to halt until the trial, I will do so, for I am not a terrorist, as Mary Jo Spring has claimed, but a law-abiding citizen. There will be print media covering the hearing, so even if I fall silent, I expect you would be able to find out what happened.
The longer this has gone on, and the more different people's reactions I have seen to the chain of events, the more concerned I have become about the social ramifications of the Hermitage's behavior. The bullying attempts have worked on a large number of people, who have told me things, but not wanted them attributed to them as individuals, for fear of being sued themselves. One person was concerned if their name appeared in the paper in a negative context, it might endanger their job. And if it's this easy for a little animal shelter to frighten people over what many would consider a relatively minor civil matter, what does that mean for our society in general when it some to other, larger issues, where there might even be criminal activity? I have become more convinced than ever of the importance of free speech in maintaining our society as a democratic and civil organization.
If this had all happened 10 or even 5 years ago, there would not have been a blog, and there would not have been a coalition. The many people who were having bad experiences with the Hermitage would not have realized they were part of a much larger group, would not have been able to find one another, and would not have formed an activist body. The newspapers and TV stations probably would not have picked up on the story, and far fewer people would have been aware of what has happened.
There has been much talk this week about people using Twitter and texting in Iran in order to get around their government's attempt to control information. Technology is making it harder and harder to control and hide information, and I believe it will become the predominant force in the next 20 years, forcing a global opening of societies. The law on bloggers and twitterers and other writers in the new technologies has a long way to go to match that of the more traditional media. If this case continues forward, it will enter uncharted territory. For my part, I write with electrons, not ink. But it is the content, not the delivery system, which makes it valuable. In writing this blog, I serve the same purpose as the original muckrakers: shining light on a dark recess, on behalf of the public good. At this point, I now go before the judge, present my side, and wait. I hope to see you soon on the other side.
The hearing requested by the Hermitage is to ask a judge to prevent me from blogging further until a full trial can be held. The claim is essentially that my words have caused such serious, imminent and permanent damage that I cannot be permitted to write further in the time between now and a trial, that the damage would be too severe for recovery. You will note that this blog began in earnest back in the spring of last year, and they just got around to filing suit in February of this year. If something was truly causing me permanent, serious damage, I would not be waiting a year to attend to it; but that's me. If the judge orders me to halt until the trial, I will do so, for I am not a terrorist, as Mary Jo Spring has claimed, but a law-abiding citizen. There will be print media covering the hearing, so even if I fall silent, I expect you would be able to find out what happened.
The longer this has gone on, and the more different people's reactions I have seen to the chain of events, the more concerned I have become about the social ramifications of the Hermitage's behavior. The bullying attempts have worked on a large number of people, who have told me things, but not wanted them attributed to them as individuals, for fear of being sued themselves. One person was concerned if their name appeared in the paper in a negative context, it might endanger their job. And if it's this easy for a little animal shelter to frighten people over what many would consider a relatively minor civil matter, what does that mean for our society in general when it some to other, larger issues, where there might even be criminal activity? I have become more convinced than ever of the importance of free speech in maintaining our society as a democratic and civil organization.
If this had all happened 10 or even 5 years ago, there would not have been a blog, and there would not have been a coalition. The many people who were having bad experiences with the Hermitage would not have realized they were part of a much larger group, would not have been able to find one another, and would not have formed an activist body. The newspapers and TV stations probably would not have picked up on the story, and far fewer people would have been aware of what has happened.
There has been much talk this week about people using Twitter and texting in Iran in order to get around their government's attempt to control information. Technology is making it harder and harder to control and hide information, and I believe it will become the predominant force in the next 20 years, forcing a global opening of societies. The law on bloggers and twitterers and other writers in the new technologies has a long way to go to match that of the more traditional media. If this case continues forward, it will enter uncharted territory. For my part, I write with electrons, not ink. But it is the content, not the delivery system, which makes it valuable. In writing this blog, I serve the same purpose as the original muckrakers: shining light on a dark recess, on behalf of the public good. At this point, I now go before the judge, present my side, and wait. I hope to see you soon on the other side.
2009-06-21: So Much Is So Wrong
It's mid-June, and the most up-to-date financial information on the official Hermitage website dates from 2007. Where are the Form 990s for 2008? Where is the balance sheet for 2008? Where are the board meeting minutes, with their monthly summaries? Where is all the financial information on the actual money made at the fundraising events, promised by Executive Director Mary Jo Spring in their (now conveniently removed) blog, on the great successes of the El Tour, Litterbox Lariat, and other events? Where is the projection for 2009? What steps have they taken/are they taking to ride out the economic storm? Why is the Executive Director not stepping up the number of fund raising events?
Why is the Board meeting in secret? Why are the monthly meeting minutes not published? Why won't Executive Director Mary Jo Spring talk to the press? Why has the Board failed to answer the many phone calls, emails and letters they have received over the past YEAR?
Why in the world is the Board backing an Executive Director, who in the past year, has:
--filed police complaints against 3 former employees, none of which resulted in charges
--filed a complaint with the state veterinary board, which was dismissed
--was foolish enough to call a press conference to announce the filing of several of her complaints, resulting in a wave a bad publicity
--responded to reporter's questions about why such an allegedly serious sitation had gone on for so long steps from her office, could only glibly reply "I guess ignorace is bliss".
--challenged multiple employee's unemployment claims after they were fired, all her challenges being denied by the state, resulting in higher points for insurance
--decimated the volunteer program
--at public meetings called those who disagreed with her "terrorists"
--made statements to a media representative calling others "terrorists"
--failed to increase the income of the shelter, when she was hired as a fund raiser
--failed to lock and alarm the shelter after hours, which facilitated a break-in by 8 year-olds with dogs, who killed 1 cat and injured others
--stated to a volunteer that "a sanctuary is no longer feasible"
It is time for Ms. Spring to go, and for Mr. Taylor, Mr. Zack and Mr. Tulowitzski, who initiated and continue to support this travesty, to exit stage left. You have violated the public trust repeatedly, and in an extreme manner. Do you seriously think Sister Seraphim, the Hermitage founder, a nun who founded a sanctuary, would want this secrecy, this paranoia?
Why is the Board meeting in secret? Why are the monthly meeting minutes not published? Why won't Executive Director Mary Jo Spring talk to the press? Why has the Board failed to answer the many phone calls, emails and letters they have received over the past YEAR?
Why in the world is the Board backing an Executive Director, who in the past year, has:
--filed police complaints against 3 former employees, none of which resulted in charges
--filed a complaint with the state veterinary board, which was dismissed
--was foolish enough to call a press conference to announce the filing of several of her complaints, resulting in a wave a bad publicity
--responded to reporter's questions about why such an allegedly serious sitation had gone on for so long steps from her office, could only glibly reply "I guess ignorace is bliss".
--challenged multiple employee's unemployment claims after they were fired, all her challenges being denied by the state, resulting in higher points for insurance
--decimated the volunteer program
--at public meetings called those who disagreed with her "terrorists"
--made statements to a media representative calling others "terrorists"
--failed to increase the income of the shelter, when she was hired as a fund raiser
--failed to lock and alarm the shelter after hours, which facilitated a break-in by 8 year-olds with dogs, who killed 1 cat and injured others
--stated to a volunteer that "a sanctuary is no longer feasible"
It is time for Ms. Spring to go, and for Mr. Taylor, Mr. Zack and Mr. Tulowitzski, who initiated and continue to support this travesty, to exit stage left. You have violated the public trust repeatedly, and in an extreme manner. Do you seriously think Sister Seraphim, the Hermitage founder, a nun who founded a sanctuary, would want this secrecy, this paranoia?
2009-06-19: Val-Pak Kittens
I've received a number of comments from people about what appears to be the Hermitage's latest fundraiser, which is including coupons for cats in the Val-Pak mailers. I know that a lot of organizations have specials to encourage people to adopt, and I don't think is a good idea. My philosophy is that if getting a 15% discount (about $4.50, with their new pricing format) will make a difference in your decision to adopt an animal, then you probably should not be adopting. You either are not making enough money to properly care for an animal, or you don't understand the kind of commitment having a companion animal involves. Frankly, when adopting from a rescue group, I would encourage people to pay OVER the adoption fee, to assist in the group's efforts to care for more animals.
The Hermitage says in its mission statement that one of its goals is:
Educating the public about responsible companion animal guardianship
And their vision statement contains this:
Our vision for the future is...People treat animals as the sentient beings they are, ensuring that they are neither exploited nor harmed. The Hermitage Cat Shelter is a world-class organization,...promoting the innate value of all animals
Placing coupons for cats in the Val-Pac encourages the view that cats are a disposable commodity, not sentient beings with innate value. I think a "world-class organization" can do a better job educating the public.
The Hermitage says in its mission statement that one of its goals is:
Educating the public about responsible companion animal guardianship
And their vision statement contains this:
Our vision for the future is...People treat animals as the sentient beings they are, ensuring that they are neither exploited nor harmed. The Hermitage Cat Shelter is a world-class organization,...promoting the innate value of all animals
Placing coupons for cats in the Val-Pac encourages the view that cats are a disposable commodity, not sentient beings with innate value. I think a "world-class organization" can do a better job educating the public.
2009-06-08: What We Have Here Is a Failure to Communicate
The Hermitage is having communication problems.
They removed the written link to their official blog, then later their icon link, and then later still removed the blog itself.
They revamped their MySpace Page, after criticisms from me about the incorrect information on their old one, but the MySpace site is still not linked to or advertised on their official website.
They started an account on Twitter in April, but have only 2 total tweets, both on the same day, one of which is "Meow!", not terribly informative.
They started another new blog, in a different location, billed on their Myspace page as The Hermitage Experience (Employee Blog), but again fail to link to it from their official site, and it is mostly just photos and descriptions of their Cat of the Week, no true news, not a series of personal musings from an employee, and the last posting there was May 20.
They created a new content-free Facebook page.
There are no upcoming events on the official Hermitage website listed between now and November.
Poor Monica was tasked with making phone calls to volunteers asking for donations; unfortunately for her, the list she was given included volunteers that had been banned. I can only imagine how it felt to be making those calls. Letters to banned volunteers were also sent out, asking for money.
They started an "eMewsletter", and as they explain in the April issue of their online newlsetter:
The Hermitage made the decision to send out a monthly eMewsletter for 2 reasons:
1) to keep our donors informed
2) to increase donations
The Hermitage wants to keep you informed about what is going on at the shelter, what events are coming up, and interesting cat information you can use. Staying in touch on a monthly basis is our way of saying thank you for your support.
But there have been no further issues of the eMewsletter.
They removed the written link to their official blog, then later their icon link, and then later still removed the blog itself.
They revamped their MySpace Page, after criticisms from me about the incorrect information on their old one, but the MySpace site is still not linked to or advertised on their official website.
They started an account on Twitter in April, but have only 2 total tweets, both on the same day, one of which is "Meow!", not terribly informative.
They started another new blog, in a different location, billed on their Myspace page as The Hermitage Experience (Employee Blog), but again fail to link to it from their official site, and it is mostly just photos and descriptions of their Cat of the Week, no true news, not a series of personal musings from an employee, and the last posting there was May 20.
They created a new content-free Facebook page.
There are no upcoming events on the official Hermitage website listed between now and November.
Poor Monica was tasked with making phone calls to volunteers asking for donations; unfortunately for her, the list she was given included volunteers that had been banned. I can only imagine how it felt to be making those calls. Letters to banned volunteers were also sent out, asking for money.
They started an "eMewsletter", and as they explain in the April issue of their online newlsetter:
The Hermitage made the decision to send out a monthly eMewsletter for 2 reasons:
1) to keep our donors informed
2) to increase donations
The Hermitage wants to keep you informed about what is going on at the shelter, what events are coming up, and interesting cat information you can use. Staying in touch on a monthly basis is our way of saying thank you for your support.
But there have been no further issues of the eMewsletter.
2009-06-04: Hermitage Continues to Publish False Information
The Hermitage continues to publish false information which makes it appear they are helping more cats than they truly are. On their Petfinder.com information page, they state the following:
The Hermitage Cat Shelter is Tucson's only no-kill, no-cage adoption center and sanctuary. We are currently caring for about 375 cats, half are permanent residents, and half are adoptable.
The Hermitage has not been the only no-kill, no-cage facility for several years. And they do not have 375 cats; in fact, they have less than half that number. In fact, they have only 48 cats listed as adoptable on their Petfinder listings.
While the information is on Petfinder.com's website, the info on the organization is written and maintained by the Hermitage itself, not Petfinder.com. This is true for all the organizations that list their animals on Petfinder.com. I know, because when I worked for the Hermitage, doing so was part of my job. And Petfinder.com is not some obscure website the Hermitage once put information on and then forgot about. Petfinder.com is THE place on the web for animal rescue groups to show stray and adoptable animals. In fact, if you click on the Hermitage's adoptable cat photos or links on any of their own pages, you are in fact taken to a Hermitage webpage that shows you their Petfinder.com listings, with an inset that says "powered by Petfinder.com".
Because I know they will set yet another land-speed record changing the incorrect information once they get a few pointed phone calls, here is a copy of the source code of the page, and here is a screen shot.
The Hermitage Cat Shelter is Tucson's only no-kill, no-cage adoption center and sanctuary. We are currently caring for about 375 cats, half are permanent residents, and half are adoptable.
The Hermitage has not been the only no-kill, no-cage facility for several years. And they do not have 375 cats; in fact, they have less than half that number. In fact, they have only 48 cats listed as adoptable on their Petfinder listings.
While the information is on Petfinder.com's website, the info on the organization is written and maintained by the Hermitage itself, not Petfinder.com. This is true for all the organizations that list their animals on Petfinder.com. I know, because when I worked for the Hermitage, doing so was part of my job. And Petfinder.com is not some obscure website the Hermitage once put information on and then forgot about. Petfinder.com is THE place on the web for animal rescue groups to show stray and adoptable animals. In fact, if you click on the Hermitage's adoptable cat photos or links on any of their own pages, you are in fact taken to a Hermitage webpage that shows you their Petfinder.com listings, with an inset that says "powered by Petfinder.com".
Because I know they will set yet another land-speed record changing the incorrect information once they get a few pointed phone calls, here is a copy of the source code of the page, and here is a screen shot.
