PROGRESSIVE DISCIPLINARY ACTION ‘This is @ record of: (check one) Ist Waning Band Waring X Adverse Action Employee Name: Ben Thornhill Division: Animal Industry B-I¢- 00/7 Issuer Name: Marks Murrah, Dat EXPLANATION OF OFFENSE: (02-15-18, Ben accompanied by field supervisor Tommy Sheffield performed a routine inspection on a licensed pet dealer by the name of “Georgia Puppies”. This fuciity was a large facility with approximately 450 dogs on the premise. At the time of this inspection a violation was writen on the establishment for “struct ‘strength” due to some animals being permanently housed in temporary erates. Ben scheduled axe-inspeetion date of 3/15/18 to recheck. On 4-16-18 (30 days after the scheduled date) Ben dd the r-inspection on the facility andthe structural strength violation had not been corrected, Another violation for structural strength was ‘written at this time and a followup date of $/23/18 was noted, On 5/29/18 Ben and Tommy returned to the cstablshment, however, the report was labeled as a “miscellaneous inspection” rather than a re-inspection Supervisor Sheffield accompanied Ben on this inspection. The 5/29/18 inspection read as follows: Met today with pet dealer facility owner Craig Gray and Supervisor Tonmmy Sheffield. Todays inspection and a copy ofthis report will be sent to both pet dealer facility owner and supervisor. In today's meeting we talked ‘about plan of action for reducing number of dogs at this facility and how dogs here are housed. Owner has stated he plans to redice his number of animals a this location to 100 dogs. There is currently enough _permanent enclosures at this location to house this number within regulation, This task is o be completed by December 2018 as stated by owner. There was no inspection performed during today’s meeting. Iwill be returning every 30 days for an inventory of animals at this location.“The next inspection tht occured on this uty was on 2-28-19 (10 months ater, rahe han the 30 day Interval sited in the May inspection). This inspection was dane because Program Manager Mark Murrah ad istbtd ist of “high risk establishment" to Supervisors and directed them to assure the high risk cstablishmens had been recently inspected. At this inspection, i was found thatthe owner ad become unable to tend tothe needs ofthe animals, Many ofthe dogs and puppies onthe property were severely matted and ‘were in ned ofa veterinary assessment, The stuetural stength violations sil exited and the animals wore living in unsanitary conditons, Ihe Sheif’s Deparment was called since appeared tha anima rusty charges may apply. When the authorities and animal contol aived, the daunting ask of removing nproximately 700 animals began. This took the efforts of many individuals fom the reseue a law enforcement commnnities, with assistance fiom GDA Compan n Animal and Equine staff over a seven day peti ‘Ben vias interviewed extensively about the ease on March 7 by GDA Director of Operations, James Sutton; ‘Animal Industry Division Director, Adam Buuck; and Companion Animal/Equine Section Manager, Marie ‘Murrah, When asked why he documented that he would return every 30 days to take an inventory of the animals, but then did not tum for 19 months: Ben stated that he could not get together with his supervisor to seta date or time. Ben stated that he did not have any writen communication requesting his Supervisor's assistance with this case, He stated that he fel that his supervisor should be with him because ofthe “sheer ‘number of animals" and that he “knew it was going to become something”. He stated that he “needed a second setof opinions and eyes to keep this from happening”. ‘When asked it ever occurred to him to go back on his own when his Supervisor wasn’t available alr the “May inspection: Ben stated, "No sit, Is it asa team effort and 1 was waiting for that ooseur” When asked ‘why he didn’t ask someone else to conduct the inspection with hms, Ben stated that Tommy was his supervisor and that “you're supposed to answer othe Supervisor for things lke that”. Later inthe interview, e sated that his Supervisor is “the only one [work with. When en was asked ihe thought that the owner ofthis establishment was intimidating or hard to dal with he aden sated no that he the owner was just a “fast talker”, When Ben was asked ihe was avoiding rtuming to Georgia puppies Be stated “on my ov, yes". [Ben was then asked about the inspection that he performed on 4/16/18 and he admitted that he had indeed done this inspection on his ov.‘When asked about the 5/29/18 inspection it was diseavered that neither Ben, norhis Supervisor, actually went into the establishment to check onthe animals but stood out by the gate to tlk withthe owner. This expined why “vs (ot applicable) was checked onal ofthe premise requirements on the report. Ben adnited that no inspection took place during the mectng, despite the fact ha he and his Supervisor were both onthe premise at 9:20 inthe morning. When asked why they did not ener and inspect the faiity, Ben’s answer ‘was “no good reason T guess”. Dring the period from 5/29/18 to 2/28/19 Ben worked in Bertien County on 22 ovcasions, Duting those work days Ben inspected every other licensed establishment in Rerrien County (many on multiple occasions). Not ‘once during that period did he followup on the Georgia Puppies establishment. ACTION(S) NECESSARY FOR IMPROVEMENT: ‘Termination, The lack of timely action taken, inability to take personal responsibility, and the use of poor {judgment directly contributed to the fact that this licensed pet dealer was allowed to deteriorate fo such a gree. EMPLOYEE COMMENTS: Signature of Employes Signre of Supervise ZLZ/= “Zs = Ler Rev. 0518,