Granito Bites Back as Sheriff Offers to Run Dog Warden’s Office | Geauga County Maple Leaf

Hackles rose at the Dec. 17 Geauga County Commissioners meeting when dog warden Matt Granito was invited to partake in a public discussion regarding his office.

It turned out to be a nearly hour-long trial of his job performance — with Granito presenting a profanity-laced rebuttal mostly directed at Geauga County Prosecutor Jim Flaiz — along with a proposal that the Geauga County Sheriff’s Office assume oversight of his duties and the county dog shelter.

“I attended a meeting, I don’t know, five months ago, with Gerry (County Administrator Gerry Morgan), Sheriff (Scott) Hildenbrand and (Chief Deputy) Tom Rowan about some communication challenges,” Commissioner Jim Dvorak, who extended the invitation to Granito and added the item to the meeting agenda, said to begin the discussion. “And that’s why I asked you to come in and just give us an update and field questions from the sheriff and go from there.”

Morgan oversees the dog warden’s office and dog shelter.

Since COVID, Granito said his office has dealt with more dog cases, such as dog-car accidents and “dog DUIs” where a dog is in the car and the sheriff’s office needs it removed and brought to a facility. Rescue Village used to assist with that removal, he explained, but no longer offers the same degree of assistance. As a result, Grantio said his office has inherited the job.

“The problem that we run into right now is a dog is considered private property,” he explained.

Granito gave an example of a man who died several weeks ago and his dogs had been eating him for several days. Law enforcement called the dog warden and asked for help with removing the dogs from the scene so first responders could take the body from the home.

“As I explained, we can move that dog out of that location, have the deceased body removed, but we have no authority . . . to remove that dog out of their house because it’s private property,” he said, adding police officers removed the dogs from the room but his people had to leave them in the house.

However, a recent legal opinion would support the dog warden taking the dogs on behalf of law enforcement and house them in the dog shelter, he noted.

“This is obviously a whole new realm of things,” Granito said, with many questions such as who owns the dog while at the shelter, what type of care is required, how much time would an owner have to reclaim a dog left to be answered. “It’s a hard thing we’re going to have to discuss.”

Grantio said he would like to propose that Geauga County Auditor Chuck Walder request dog owners list a next of kin on their dog licenses so his office would know who to call to take care of their dog.

Dvorak asked Granito if his office responds to late night calls.

“Yes and no,” Granito said. “It depends on what the situation is.”

In general, Granito explained he would respond to any situation where a dog is being aggressive or attacking someone, regardless of time of day. He also said they have limited staffing to respond to calls and added dog-bite cases are up 100% from several years ago.

Granito acknowledged protocols need to be in place and admitted his office has failed to communicate with law enforcement when they have responded to calls.

Dvorak also said he had received calls several years ago asking why the dog warden’s office was bringing in dogs from out of state.

Granito said they take dogs from other rescues and other shelters, including Portage County kennels and the Ashtabula Animal Protection League. The dogs must already be fixed and vet checked.

He mentioned a recent rescue event where the dog shelter received 25 puppies from Tennessee that were going to be euthanized. Within two days, 12 of the dogs had been adopted.

“Those adoptions of $120 is, first of all, saving the dog from death, but number two is pure profit in revenue for the shelter,” Granito said. “So, when we take in these dogs, we take them in actually to increase revenue for the stray dogs that we keep at the shelter.”

He said revenues have doubled since the program was launched in 2021, from approximately $15,000 to $30,000.

“It’s a two-fold, everyone wins. The dogs don’t get killed, the rescue gets saved animals and we make a revenue off of it — and we bring a product (dogs) in . . . to adopt out to residents of our community,” said Granito.

Sheriff’s Office Pitch

Dvorak asked Hildenbrand to come forward to discuss any suggestions to make the “communication failure” better and other options.

Hildenbrand said the last several years law enforcement has not been satisfied with the dog warden and he has had conversations with Granito about that.

“It’s a problem throughout the county,” he said.

“Looking at the stats in the last 21 weeks, almost 60% of the dogs are ones that are imported — not ones from Geauga County — and the people in this county are not getting the service they deserve,” said Hildenbrand. “There’s a provision in the law that says that the commissioners can enter into a contract with the sheriff to run the dog warden’s office. Thirteen other sheriffs in the state of Ohio do that. I believe we can do it cheaper and I believe that we can provide a better service for our citizens, when we can go out there and have availability all the time.”

There are “bunch of examples” where the dog warden’s office has been unavailable or has refuse to respond, Hildenbrand said, directing his comment to Granito.

Hildenbrand, who also serves as Hambden Township fire chief, shared one recent example where a man having a heart attack came to the Hambden Township Fire Department. The man had a dog in his car. The man was transported to the hospital and the dog was left in the car. The dog warden was called to get the dog.

“They said just leave the dog in the car, we’ll be out. It was almost 24 hours before they came out and took that dog,” Hildenbrand said.

“It’s affected my office, it’s affected the prosecutor’s office,” he added, referring to Granito’s unavailability or refusal to respond.

The contract with the GCSO would be renewed every two years and would have to be approved the first meeting in January.

Hildenbrand reiterated his office could run the dog warden’s office “cheaper.”

“We would not import all these dogs from out of state and other places, and we would work much better the humane society and Rescue Village,” he added.

Hildenbrand said he has spoken with the director of Rescue Village who he said is “excited about it, he wants to do it.”

“The relationship between the dog warden’s office and Rescue Village right now is not good,” he said, adding Rescue Village has veterinarians on staff and is operationally and fiscally sound.

“The bottom line for me — I’m not looking for more work — but the bottom line for me is that I believe that we can do this cheaper and I believe that we can serve the public better and give them better service that they deserve,” said Hildenbrand. “It’s your (commissioners’) option.”

If commissioners decide to move forward, they will need to execute the contract at their first meeting in January.

Prosecutor’s Complaint

Flaiz said he also has had conversations with Granito and has told him they can take these dogs.

“He’s supposed to handle dogs at large. They’re not somebody else’s property . . . if the dog’s eating a guy in a house, the dog’s attack somebody, he needs to take custody and control of that dog, that’s his job,” Flaiz said, noting he has some terrible examples where that has not happened.

The most recent example, he cited, occurred in Russell Township in October when a man was attacked by his neighbor’s dog and part of his face was ripped off.

“The dog warden refused to go out. He did not call this poor woman back, the wife of the victim. She showed up in my lobby just hysterical,” Flaiz said. “She had nowhere else to go because the dog warden would not communicate with her, the dog warden wouldn’t communicate with Russell.”

The prosecutor encouraged commissioners to call every police chief in the county and ask their opinion about how the dog warden’s office serves the residents and their departments.

Flaiz said when his investigator called Granito to get information on the incident while the wife was in his office, Granito was confrontational and argumentative.

“I got on the phone with him and he admitted to me that he didn’t go out, he admitted to me that he didn’t do his job, he didn’t designate the dog a vicious dog,” Flaiz said. “He didn’t bother to go out and he didn’t lift a finger to do anything until after we called him and we’re trying to calm the lady down.”

Flaiz also recalled an instance where Granito’s office refused to remove a dog during execution of a search warrant at the scene of a suspected homicide.

“We couldn’t search the house because the dog was in there,” he said. “We were calling the dog warden, they refused to come out, they refused to take the dog, it was a dangerous situation for the officers. There’s just example after example.”

Added Flaiz, “And meanwhile, why are our taxpayers subsidizing him to import all these dogs from out of state and adopt them out? We just want him to answer the calls and keep our communities safe. If a dog attacks somebody, take custody of that dog. He refuses to even respond most of the time.”

Flaiz said he and Hildenbrand did not want to bring this before commissioners like this.

“We have tried. I’ve talked to him. The sheriff tried to have this meeting five months ago. From the meeting five months ago, it’s only gotten worse. A lot of these things have happened since that meeting,” said Flaiz. “He’s not responsive. I don’t know what he does all day.”

Dog Warden’s Rebuttal

“You say we’ve had conversations. Jim, I’ve only talked to you once and you told me to do my f*cking job, you were going to bring me up here and you were going to get me fired,” Granito barked, standing and turning his back to the commissioners and confronting Flaiz.

Granito, who had met with Morgan and Assistant County Administrator Linda Burhenne for several hours the day before, on Dec. 16, brought a pile of documents and folders with him to the meeting.

He pulled out an April email exchange where he asked the prosecutor’s office for a legal opinion on taking custody of dogs the way the humane society used to for the sheriff’s office. Granito was told the prosecutor’s office would not be able to provide an opinion and to contact Flaiz directly.

Granito said he then texted Flaiz asking if something could be done to fix the issues with the sheriff’s office and taking custody of dogs. He said he did not hear anything back from Flaiz.

“That situation you just said about the dog that was in the car, you did contact our office and we said contact the humane officer which is out of Rescue Village,” he said. “The humane officer who we contacted said, ‘that’s not our job.’”

Granito added he legally was not allowed to take custody of the animal.

“But guess who could have went and took that dog out of the car, the humane officer,” he said.

But Flaiz pointed out Granito’s office went and removed the dog anyway.

Granito explained the humane officer is supposed to handle cases of animal neglect and abuse. He said they called the humane agent about the case where the dogs were eating their deceased owner.

“They did not do anything,” said Granito, adding he would be willing to take over “all of it and do 24 hour, and take over the humane society jobs and all that.”

“If you can make me humane agent — which I’ve done for 11 years — I will be more than glad to protect these animals and protect them from people who just want to take other people’s jobs because it’s a political stunt,” said Granito, pointing at Flaiz. “So, if you want to let me go, I understand that and I’m not going to argue that, but if you think that the community is going to be better off protecting the animals and saving the animals’ lives, just give it to Jim Flaiz and let him do what he wants.”

He then accused Flaiz of “digging” to find anything to get him fired.

“It doesn’t even really matter,” Granito said. “Do what you gotta do. I’ll go to another humane society, that I’ve been doing this for 30 years before you and you don’t care.”

Granito began to share documents and information regarding the October incident but got sidetracked.

“I want to make sure that you guys are all aware what this is,” he told commissioners. “And what this is, it’s a witch hunt.”

An agitated Grantio then apologized for being upset that “someone would tell me, after 22 years, that I’m not doing my job and that he’s now almighty and powerful.”

Flaiz made clear he is not asking commissioners to contract with his office to be the dog warden and that it is the sheriff’s office that is making the request.

“The sheriff asked me to come here because my office has had to deal with some of these issues,” Flaiz said.

“And you want to get my job because you said, do your f*cking job, I’m going to bring you up in front of the commissioners,” Granito said.

Regarding the October incident, Granito argued the prosecutor’s office misclassified the dog bite case — Russell police charged it as a fourth-degree misdemeanor. The case was downgraded and the perpetrator was charged “with a speeding ticket,” he said.

However, Granito also admitted they did things wrong.

He held up a printed photo of a mangled arm.

“Look at this case. Everyone seeing this?” he asked. “Jim, guess what this was classified under your office? A minor misdemeanor.”

Flaiz said his office does not classify dogs and told commissioners he was not going to get into a debate with Granito but would share all emails and communications with them.

“So dammit, it just pisses me off that this community is that way and this is how you want to treat,” Granito shouted. “So, if you want to fire me or give it to the sheriff, that’s fine. I’m just so sick of 22 years of working here, eating sh*t, my cages look like sh*t, please come to my kennels. Have you ever even been there? Have you ever even looked into my kennels. These dogs are in 4×4 cages. Fricking tiny. But you don’t care about that. All you care about is what your self-interest is or because you have a pissing match with other offices.”

October Incident Report

The Geauga County Maple Leaf obtained a copy of the incident report for the Oct. 12 dog bite.

Following the victim’s transportation to the hospital, his wife did not have any additional contact with law enforcement, the report said. The dog warden did not call, show up to the scene, to the hospital or to her home, despite contact from the Russell Township Police Department. Rather, a dog warden employee stated they would not come out and requested a copy of the report. The dog was listed as dangerous rather than vicious.

The wife visited the dog warden’s office on Oct. 30 inquiring about the case and was told he would contact her that evening, the report stated. When she had not heard from him, she filed a complaint at the prosecutor’s office.

Per the report, Granito was unaware of the severity of the attack prior to Oct. 30 and had started the process to change the dog’s classification after seeing photos of the victim.

“Melanie expressed frustration and was tremendously emotional that no one, including the dog warden prior to 10/30/2024, had not directly contacted her at all,” the report stated.

Enclosed in the report are emails in which Granito apologizes for the handling of the case, including the original classification of dangerous.

Spidalieri & Lennon Speak Out

 Approximately 10 minutes after the dog warden discussion ended, Dvorak, Flaiz and Hildenbrand left the meeting to attend their swearing-in ceremony in Burton.

Then, following discussion of agenda items and prior to adjournment, Commissioners Tim Lennon and Ralph Spidalieri apologized profusely for what had transpired earlier.

“What transpired today with the dog warden is somewhat disappointing to me because I don’t think this was the venue this should have been listened to,” Spidalieri said. “If this was such a big problem, we should have been given a heads up on this.”

Dvorak had asked for the topic to be put on the agenda, he said and neither he nor Lennon were aware of what was about to happen.

“I had absolutely no knowledge of any of this,” said Spidalieri. “I’m disappointed in Jim Dvorak for trying to put this in a public position like this.”

Lennon echoed Spidalieri and said he was caught by surprise by the suggestion the sheriff take over the dog warden’s office.

“This 100% felt like a set-up,” he said.

County Administrator Statement

The Maple Leaf reached to Morgan via email for details on the April meeting. He responded as follows:

“During that meeting it was discussed that the sheriff was upset that the dog warden’s staff was not picking up dogs when the deputies were arresting someone for DUI and there was a dog in the car or when they were taking someone from a house and there was a dog in the house that would be left alone. The sheriff also wanted help from the dog warden’s office when serving search warrants when a dog was present in the house to have the warden restrain the dog during the search.

“The sheriff also was not happy that when dispatch received a call after hours that someone had found a dog that the direction dispatch received from the dog warden was to give the caller the dog warden’s office number to call and someone form the dog warden’s office would get back to the caller first thing the next day, the sheriff believed the dog warden staff should respond immediately and go out and pick up the dog. During this time the sheriff’s dispatch was calling the dog warden staff about animal calls other than dogs also.

“It was further discussed during that meeting that the humane officer from the humane society previously had been the one to come and get a dog during an arrest/traffic stop if it was needed but that had stopped. Further we discussed what the dog warden was legally allowed to do under the ORC which is dealing with dog bites and dogs running at large or unlicensed (ORC 955.12), they did not have the unilateral authority to take owner pets.

“The outcome of the meeting was that the dog warden would seek ways to help the sheriff in dealing with dogs during arrests and search warrants.

“The dog warden has been in the process of developing policies and procedures to allow them to perform the requested actions without putting the county in a legal or financial detriment if something happened to the dog while it was in the custody of the dog warden. This process included discussions with private kennels, pet taxi services, trying to come up with waiver forms that could be signed off by the owner, attempting to set up a meeting with the humane society director and other necessary forms and written procedures. This process was hampered by the prosecutor’s office failure to provide legal services.

“In the meantime of this, the dog warden has helped out with the serving of search warrants when dogs are present, they restrain the dog during the serving of the search warrant and then release the dog back into the house.

“To reiterate, the dog warden’s statutory duty is dealing with dogs that have bitten and dogs running free. They do not have legal authority to unilaterally take dogs (personnel property, ORC 955.03). Dogs left alone or being treated inhumanely can be taken by the dog warden after the dog warden makes application to the court of common pleas and court finds probable cause to believe the dog is treated inhumanely and issues a court order for the dog to seized (ORC 955.12).”

As for the Dec. 16 meeting, Morgan said it was a follow-up meeting from Granito’s annual review that was held the week before.

“A point of interest, the dog warden’s expenditures for 2023 was $352,114.56 with a revenue of $378,337.72, of which $195,272.50 was from dog licenses, $30,915.00 from dog sales, $6,883.00 from fines and impounding charges, and $145,227.22 from donations,” Morgan said in his email reply. “No money for operation of dog warden department comes from the general fund.”

He added, “Based on the sheriff and prosecutor’s statements during session yesterday, it would appear that if the dog warden responsibilities were turned over to the sheriff almost half of the revenue for the department will disappear. Not to mention the expense that Rescue Village will charge to house and care for the dogs which is currently handled by the operation of the dog shelter.”

Meeting Aftermath

In the aftermath of the Dec. 17 commissioners meeting, friends and followers of the Friends of the Geauga County Dog Shelter & Dog Warden’s Office Facebook page expressed overwhelming support for both Granito and the dog shelter. It was argued if the sheriff’s office was contracted to run the dog warden’s office and dog shelter, the shelter would close.

The page administrator also asked no donations be made to the shelter at this time, “IT WILL NOT GO TO THE DOGS!!!!!!”

Supporters also were encouraged to attend the commissioners’ Dec. 27 meeting.

Granito posted to the dog warden’s Facebook page that the animal shelter is in danger of being shut down and to call the officials, like Hildenbrand and Dvorak, who he said support the closure.

He later posted a nearly five-minute video on the dog warden’s official Facebook page at 2:30 a.m. Dec. 19 from Mexico, where he was on a family vacation. He accused Dvorak, Hildenbrand and Flaiz for wanting to fire him and doing it in a “public spectacle of political government.” He apologized for his action during the meeting and explained again his actions with respect to responding or not responding to calls.

“There’s a lot of misinformation that the dog warden is putting out there, that we want to close the shelter and permanently close it. That’s not true. We’re not going to close the shelter,” Hildenbrand told the Maple Leaf. “People need to know the whole truth and they’re not being told the whole truth. This is not a snap decision. It’s not even my decision. It’s the commissioners’ decision, but I offered it. They need to know the true facts of why this is happening. It’s not just because we don’t like the dog warden.”

If commissioners end up contracting with his office, Hildenbrand told the Maple Leaf he intends to proceed slowly, beginning with halting the taking dogs from other rescues and from out of state. He also explained a deputy would be assigned to the shelter and they would work with Rescue Village to handle adoptions.

As for the three-day hold, the sheriff said three days is the minimum a dog must be held. If there is room at the shelter, dogs may stay longer. If there is not, Rescue Village has agreed to take in the dogs.

Not all supporters of the dog shelter backed Granito, however. A person familiar with goings-on at the dog shelter was following the story on social media and emailed the Maple Leaf to share thoughts on the current situation at the dog shelter. The person asked that their identity to remain anonymous and after verifying the person’s identity, the Maple Leaf agreed to protect their identity.

“Why not just replace Matt? I must admit, he is rarely seen at the shelter and no one seems to know where he is, tends to favor euthanasia for breeds he is fearful of even with no signs of aggression from the dog, and runs a very loose ship,” the person wrote. “In fact, it is somewhat of a standard joke . . . where is Matt and what does he do? It also seems he looks for reasons (waiting for email replies, etc.) to justify his lack of response.”

The person noted volunteers “pickup up much of the slack and take on a lot of responsibility which alleviates staff’s workload” and, as such, deputies should be able to respond to calls more promptly. But only one deputy does.

The person also noted volunteers often handle tasks that paid staff should be doing and are the target of rude and disrespectful treatment.

“It’s a wonder why the volunteers return, but the answer is always the same, ‘It’s about the dogs,’” the person wrote.

“Matt continues to brag about his 33 and 22 years of service,” the person continued. “Well, people can get pretty lazy being in a job that long. One of the deputies has also been around too long and it shows.”

The person advocated for replacing shelter staff before turning it over to the sheriff’s office.

“We, the people, do not want this shelter turned into holding cells for these sweet souls who have already been let down by humans once,” the person said.

Official Press Releases

On Dec. 18, Geauga County Commissioners issues the following statement addressing the meeting.

“During yesterday’s Geauga County Board of Commissioners meeting, an item placed on the agenda by Commissioner Dvorak to discuss of the work of county Dog Warden Matt Granito turned into a lengthy and heated debate when County Sheriff Scott Hildenbrand came forward with criticisms of the Dog Warden and suggested the Sheriff’s office take over his duties. County Prosecutor James Flaiz added his own remarks about the Dog Warden in support of the Sheriff. Board President Ralph Spidalieri allowed the meeting to continue in order to give the Dog Warden the opportunity to respond. In addition, Comm. Spidalieri wishes the public to know that neither he, Comm. Lennon nor office administrators had any idea that the purpose of this item on the agenda was to suggest the Dog Warden’s duties be taken over by the Sheriff. At the end of the meeting, both Commissioner Soidalieri (sic) and Commissioner Lennon expressed apologies to the public for the heated exchanges and reiterated that such discussions should not have been handled in a public setting. Comm. Spidalieri also wants the public to know that the Geauga County Board of Commissioners strives to maintain transparency and that concerns raised on both sides will receive due consideration.”

That afternoon, Flaiz issued a press release addressing rumors and accusations.

“Recent social media posts have spread misinformation regarding the future of the Geauga County Dog Shelter. I want to assure the public that the shelter is not closing. Our Sheriff is committed to providing a safe and caring environment for Geauga’s dogs.

“In a proactive effort to enhance the quality of dog care and ensure a higher standard of service, the Geauga County Sheriff has offered to assume responsibility for overseeing the dog warden duties, as permitted under Ohio law. I fully support this initiative, believing that the Sheriff’s direct supervision will strengthen service delivery and improve responsiveness.

“There have been concerns about the current level of service, particularly regarding responsiveness to calls from law enforcement agencies. Timely response is critical for ensuring the safety of both officers and the public, as well as safeguarding the welfare of the dogs. The proposed change aims to enhance accountability, streamline operations, and ensure that every call receives the prompt attention it deserves.

“The Geauga County Dog Shelter plays a vital role in our community by providing care and shelter to dogs in need, facilitating adoptions, and supporting public safety through animal control services. I recognize the importance of this mission and know that the Sheriff dedicated to upholding it with integrity and compassion.

“Additionally, transitioning dog warden oversight to the Sheriff’s Office will create a safer and more secure working environment for sheriff’s deputies. Deputies frequently encounter difficult and potentially dangerous situations involving aggressive or stray dogs. Immediate support from responsive dog control services is essential to managing these incidents safely. Under the current dog warden, delays (or a complete failure) in dog warden response has placed deputies in unnecessary harm’s way, jeopardizing their safety and that of the public. This change is designed to eliminate such risks by ensuring deputies receive timely assistance when confronting dangerous animals.

It is important to clarify that discussions have never included closing the dog shelter. The focus has always been on improving service levels, ensuring animal welfare, and fostering a safe community. Transitioning oversight of dog warden duties to the Sheriff’s Office is intended solely to enhance these critical services, not to reduce or eliminate them.”

John Karlovec contributed to this story.