EBR animal shelter director resigns

Kimberly Sherlaw Show caption
Kimberly Sherlaw

The Companion Animal Alliance, a nonprofit that took control of East Baton Rouge Parish’s animal shelter last year, lost its third executive director on Tuesday after only seven months at the helm.

Kimberly Sherlaw, who was selected for the CAA via a national search, resigned at about 1 p.m., CAA Board Chair Christel Slaughter said.

Slaughter initially said the decision was “mutual,” but later acknowledged that the board initiated the conversation. She said Sherlaw had implemented several improvements but was not meeting all of the board’s expectations.

“We feel very good about the fact that we’ve had people who have been able to improve the shelter,” Slaughter said. “We’re going to get it right, and we’ve learned a lot along the way.”

Sherlaw could not be reached for comment Tuesday.

Paula Schoen, a CAA board member and the president of Friends of the Animals adoption group, will step in temporarily to lead the agency while it searches for permanent leadership, Slaughter said.

Slaughter said one lesson the agency learned is that it needs two people in leadership positions — an executive director to focus on fundraising and adoptions, and an operations manager to oversee the shelter. She said the board has not yet set a deadline for hiring new leaders for the agency.

Sherlaw’s departure comes on the heels of highly publicized complaints made by former employees who alleged in a public letter and in front of the Metro Council that Sherlaw was a poor manager who allowed violations of state laws and veterinary regulations on her watch.

Sherlaw was investigated by the East Baton Rouge Parish Animal Control and Enforcement director, who described her management style to the Metro Council last month as “dictatorial.”

The agency’s veterinary practices are also being investigated by the state Board of Veterinary Medicine.

Slaughter said the allegations by employees “put pressure on the situation,” but stopped short of saying that Sherlaw’s resignation was directly related.

“It’s hard to say. There was so much polarization and hearsay. It’s hard to know where reality is,” she said. “We’re not perfect, but what we see are opportunities for the future, and some of those are related to the leader in place.”

Debbie Pearson, the agency’s second director who was fired in September, was one of the former employees who spoke out against Sherlaw.

“I’m happy for the animals of our community and for all the people who worked so hard for their benefit,” Pearson said in response to the news of Sherlaw’s departure. “I hope this means that saner minds have prevailed.”

The Companion Animal Alliance has had trouble securing a leader since it took control of animal shelter services in August 2011 in the hopes of becoming a no-kill shelter.

The agency’s first director Laura Hinze resigned after two months and was replaced by Pearson, who served as an interim director until Sherlaw was hired.

Pearson stayed on in other roles with the agency until she was fired in September.

Slaughter acknowledged that the high turnover for the position may leave the community with a negative perception of the CAA.

“But keeping somebody so we’ll be able to say we’re not turning over the position is not a good idea,” she said. “We don’t have any qualms about saying we know what we want based on the mission of this organization and we’re going to find leaders that agree with that mission.”


Please log in to comment on this story

Comments (17)


1) Comment by lcw - 06/12/2012

First of all, the "No Kill" movement that was the driving force behind the development of CAA in the first place revolves around the absurd notion (propagated by an equally absurd man, Nathan Winograd) that pet overpopulation is a myth. You simply cannot run an open intake shelter in South Louisiana responsibly and humanely if you subscribe to this irrational belief. That’s just common sense – you cannot properly address a problem if you do not first acknowledge that problem exists. Another problem with the NK philosophy is the definition of a No Kill animal shelter as a shelter with a 90% save rate. As we have seen happen at this shelter (and several others throughout the country – just last month, the Texas Health Department put Town Lake Animal Center in Austin on probation), when the primary focus shifts to trying to achieve a certain percentage, they lose focus other important aspects of properly maintaining an open intake animal shelter. Yes, spending money to ship animals elsewhere increases the “save rate” – and hopefully, these animals are going to good homes. But there has to be a balance – you also have to also provide proper care to the animals that are still at the shelter. If you can’t afford to maintain a proper ‘standard of care’ for the animals in your shelter because you’re spending a disproportionate amount of money in a race to achieve this 90% save rate goal (which, in my humble opinion is not even realistic for an open intake shelter in Baton Rouge), you are neglecting your moral and legal responsibilities as an animal shelter. CAA has failed miserably, financially, as a direct result of their zealous, irrational, and unbalanced focus on the “numbers game” that they have been playing. They have also failed the animals in their care. Step away from the NK spin and do some actual research on the state of shelters throughout the country that have been taken over with people of similar ideologies. In 2008, the Humane Society of Tacoma and Pierce County, in Tacoma, Washington, backed away from its no-kill commitment, acknowledging the difficulties encountered in trying to keep animals alive. In announcing their decision, the shelter president stated “that because we are an open shelter that will accept every animal that comes to us, regardless of its medical or behavior problems, true ‘no-kill’ status will never be a reality.” The shelter has now switched from no-kill to “Counting Down to Zero”, a coordinated effort to reduce euthanasia. Perhaps it’s finally time admit their mistakes, and to take a more realistic approach….

2) Comment by CountryBoysCanSurvive - 06/12/2012

@brumzoo I would love to go back to the 50's, thanks for suggesting it. Back then the husband worked and the wife stayed at home and took care of the kids. It was a much better place and time. I remember our house never go locked unless we were going out of town for a time. The worst crime problem we ever had were the neighbors dogs turning over our garbage cans. We could safely walk at at night to the movie theaters and had no fear of being molested by a stranger while playing at night. Wouldn't you like to try some of that?

3) Comment by brumzoo - 06/12/2012

CBCS and Ivy, Really?! A man needs to take over? Let's just go back to the 1950s. There are plenty of highly educated compassionate women who can and would do an excellent job at CAA and they are also local. I seriously hope you both were being facetious.

4) Comment by Woody - 05/12/2012

shouldn't the animals have a say so in this?

5) Comment by phil - 05/12/2012

I was against the establishment of a nonprofit group for this to begin with for many reasons, one being that the overall costs for taxpayers would increase with no real benefits. I am 100 percent for the "no kill" concept and hate the idea that any pet has to be put to death. However, I think it is time to face the reality that this method and this organization are not working for the benefit of the animals or taxpayers, and this entire situation needs to be looked at again by the metro council, and this organization should be ended.

6) Comment by BacknBR - 05/12/2012

Slaughter acknowledged that the high turnover for the position may leave the community with a negative perception of the CAA. Umm, not really. The negative perception is squarely on the Board and its Chair - where it should be. How long has Slaughter been serving as Chair of this Board anyway? Again, this silly little town run by the SAME handful of un-elected people who serve on all of the SAME boards, getting the SAME poor results. Little if anything gets accomplished with this mentality. Baton Rouge has not changed in the past 5 years since I moved back. And it looks like this small power base is not capable of making even the slightest improvements anytime in the near future.

7) Comment by Duckyluve - 05/12/2012

It cant be that hard to run an animal shelter

8) Comment by Ivy - 05/12/2012

It seems there is a problem with the staff. She fired the wrong people, or, if she did fire the right people they still exercised what informal power they had over the people still working there. But I agree with CBCS - they'll need a male in place to get that ship straight.

9) Comment by CountryBoysCanSurvive - 05/12/2012

I think the root of the problem is simple, Christel Slaughter! This woman is a tyrant. Secondly it seems like a cat fight (no pun intended) going on over there. It seems as though you cannot have a successful business that is run exclusively by women the hormones take over and the cat fight starts. Back stabbing and sides are picked and the trouble begins. And YES I like women, if not for them I would have to eat at Burger King and sleep alone and oh I almost forgot get my own beer.

10) Comment by LawyerDan65 - 05/12/2012

At some point we as a community will realize that you cannot run a "no kill" shelter. I am the owner of two adopted pets and love them almost like family, but there are some dogs and cats that will not be adopted and at some point they need to be put down. For those that wale and wring their hands at that suggestion I say,"Go adopt a pet"!

11) Comment by Chucky - 05/12/2012

Nation wide Search A world Wide search ? You can't find someone in Baton Rouge to run a dog pound ? Is the Board from out-of-state ? Or just out of their mind.

12) Comment by Being_Stupid - 05/12/2012

Agree with brumzoo's comment, why a nationwide search? when there are people here who know what it takes to run the shelter.

13) Comment by lcw - 05/12/2012

In all of this hoopla about these directors "resigning", remember who hired them in the first place, and at what point they were fired... umm... resigned.

14) Comment by lcw - 04/12/2012

It's interesting how every time they get into hot water they fire a director. Seems to me the problems are a bit deeper than the director(s)......... how about focusing on the board, on on how they spend their money? hmmmmmmmm now there's an idea.....

15) Comment by brumzoo - 04/12/2012

I do not understand why nationwide searches are conducted when there are competent people here who know what it takes to run the shelter, have worked at the shelter and want the job! Sorry, but bringing in people from other states who do not understand that going No Kill is possible but does not happen overnight is not acceptable. Education, free/low cost spay/neuter, low cost vaccination clinics and helping the lower socio-economic groups with not only the above but with a food bank and lower cost medications will help EBRPACC become No Kill. This will probably take at least a couple of years but it can be done! It sounds to me like CAA has made matters worse over there than it was ten years ago and that is pathetic. Find local people who are qualified and WANT the job and KNOW what is needed!

16) Comment by Costanza - 04/12/2012

Another director bites the dust... What the hell is going on over there?

17) Comment by care4pets - 04/12/2012

It's about time CAA realized that Sherlaw should be terminated. Due to her dictator type management, she either fired or was responsible for many excellent and caring staff to leave their positions because they could no longer tolerate seeing healthy adoptable animals being euthanized per Sherlaws orders. I hope the CAA board will contact these caring people and ask that they return to CAA. Especially now, when good people are so desparately needed by the animals.