TJ is one of the many kids that benefited from the gift of having a skilled companion dog. While the dogs removed (due to "allergy problems") from the Carmel-Clay school system were facility dogs rather than personal companions, one teacher (who chooses to remain anonymous) said that she noticed immediate changes in the behavior of her students when the school year began.

"All of the students have been asking me 'where is (name of dog ommitted)'?" she said. "There is not much I can tell them besides he/she is not coming back."

In the last article, I failed to mention a key point-that it is not illegal for Carmel-Clay Superintendent Dr. Barbara Underwood to remove the dogs from the schools. While service dogs are protected under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the Rehabilitaion Act of 1973, facility dogs, like Christa from Smoky Row Elementary and Kishon from Woodbrook Elementary, in Carmel are not.

However, Jeanine Komopelski, CCI national public relations director, said that in all her past experiences, she has never been aware of a CCI dog being asked to be removed from a facility where it was trained to work.

"If allergies were an issue, accommodations could have been made, such as locating the dogs in other places at the school, or assuring there was no physical contact," she said. "The loophole found by the school system is a result of the fact that the Carmel-Clay School System dogs are facility dogs, not personal assistance dogs.

"We wish we would have found out their plans beforehand, because so much training goes into facility training."

While Dr. Underwood did not break any legal guidelines by removing the facility dogs, she did when she did not allow Nancy Acree and her personal service dog into a school board meeting on April 23, 2007. Underwood's strict orders were to keep dogs out, period.

She later gave Acree an apology in person, but refused to give a public apologybecause she felt it would confuse people who did not know the entire story.

Well, no one knows the entire story, so how would it hurt anything by giving a public apology for not allowing a physically disabled person whose dog was legally allowed in a building?

Dr. Underwood stated that she made an adminstrative decision. Komopelski said that CCI was initially hopeful and willing to work with the school in any way possible.

"We were hoping they would explain their decision in more detail," she said.

That hope was never granted, or seemed to even be given a second thought.

"The opportunity to have dogs is wonderful," Komopelski continued. "These dogs do great things for the students."

While CCI workers and volunteers seem bleek on any changes until the next school board election, one reader mentioned contacting Indiana State Representatives and Senators for a possible change in the state constitution.

However, most can only wonder why this is needed in the first place.