There has been a troubling number of resignations by members of the Board of Directors of the BC SPCA

THE RESIGNATION OF RICK SARGENT, PRESIDENT OF THE BC SPCA

Richard Sargent
Victoria, B.C.
August 27, 2004

BC SPCA Board of Directors and CEO
1205 East 7th Avenue
Vancouver, B.C.
 
Attention: Mary Lou Troman, President
Dear Ms Troman;
Although I have not received any formal notice, there is sufficient evidence that the Society is not planning to honor the Agreement with the City of Victoria as set out in the Consent Order in the Supreme Court of British Columbia on January 16, 2004. I find this decision most unfortunate for the future of the BC SPCA in Victoria and fear that the Society will now experience a public relations catastrophe from which it may not recover.
Personally I am most disappointed that all the efforts over the last two years will come to nothing and I am placed in an untenable position. I cannot continue to support an organization that refuses to honor an agreement negotiated in good faith and properly approved by the Board of Directors. Our community has been betrayed. It has become very clear to me that the Victoria Branch of the SPCA will never meet the aspirations of this community as long as it is controlled and run by the Provincial Society in Vancouver.
I am therefore resigning my membership in the BC SPCA effective immediately.
I will allow a short period of reflection before making a public statement to my community.
Yours truly,
Rick Sargent, Past President

PAST PRESIDENT ADVISES ALL BOARD MEMBERS TO GET INDEPENDENT LEGAL ADVICE ON SUING AAS

Dear Animal Advocates,

I find this issue rather interesting. I am surprised that Board members allow their mail to be screened.

Directors have Duties of Good Faith and Care, a duty to manage, "Representative" duties, fiduciary duties and a whole pile of personal liabilities. How they discharge these duties and avoid these liabilities by isolating themselves from the membership and the public is beyond this reasonable person's understanding.

I presume that new Directors have not received a copy of Lawson Lundell's Memorandum to Michael Steven, Vice President, dated December 2, 1999, Re: Duties and Liabilities of Directors of the BC SPCA. At one time this document was available on the internal web page. If there are any Directors out there that need a copy, they can phone me.

I also recommend that they do as I did and get independent legal advice - at their own expense- worth every penny.

I sent a letter to board@spca.bc.ca once. I was told that the address was reserved for members and supporters! I guess that the donations I made last year don't count as support! In any event I presume that this web site is being monitored by Lawson Lundell and they will advise the board that their renegade Past President suggests that they read the advice provided by Lawson Lundell in 1999.

Rick Sargent
 

 

The resignation of Phyllis Gregg, the BC SPCA director for Kitimat, November 2004

I resigned from the BCSPCA Board of Directors for numerous reasons. Howard Gray (also resigned)
outlined some of the reasons which are very valid and good reasons, but there are several and I am trying to be very careful with all that I say. I can't give you word for word what my resignation to the Board was because some of my reasons were directed at certain people, who I cannot name.

I was on the Board of Directors for almost 2 years and was highly disgusted in the manner that things were handled at the Board Level. But after Rick Sargent
was voted in things seem to have improved for the better. Fellow Board Members treated other Members with respect and valued their opinions on Board decisions.

After Rick resigned I saw a change in the direction of the Board once again and not for the better. I feel that the Board of Directors should take their jobs seriously and take control of the Society. When they were voted in, they took on the responsibility of being accountable to the Public, Donators and most of all, the number one priority, the Animals.

Due to cutbacks at Shelter levels the staff has been trying to deal with the overflow of animals and substantial duties to the best of their ability. I feel this Society is too top heavy and the cutbacks should be at the top not at the Shelter level where real animal welfare is happening. We have gone from a Society that consisted of 9 people at the Head Office to 35 plus. With that large of a staff at the Admin Office things should be going alot more smoother and there should not be any discussion of closing shelters. But once again why
have we got a Board of Directors when the Administration Staff is running the show and not the Directors.

I know that we need the input but when a Board decision is made and then staff don't comply and do what they want without repercussions and are then permitted to
do as they please, then the Board should be disbursed and the Admin staff should all be terminated and get people involved who want to do a good job and the animals are number one, not people who only concerned with making large amounts of money which, by the way, is supported by the public and Government grants.

The BCSPCA's slogan is WE SPEAK FOR THE ANIMALS and now its time that the Board of Directors and Admin staff started doing just that. People donate because they want to help animals not to pay for an over staffed Admin Office.

I could go on but I would be ranting and I have tried to step back and watch and I am seeing that over 100 years of service the BCSPCA has given is going down the tube due to a political scam called organizational renewal.

Phyllis Gregg

Capital Region (Victoria) Director Resigns from BC SPCA Board of Directors

September 15, 2004

Board of Directors, SPCA:

Please accept this letter as my formal notification of the resignation of my position on the Board of the SPCA.

This decision was not made lightly but I find I am unable to support behaviors and decisions I believe are contrary to the good of animals and disrespectful of the people who are the backbone of the SPCA. With each email and encounter, I find my concerns validated and believe my only option is resignation. My reasons for this decision include:

1) The move by a few individuals to shift this Board to a corporate model of governance at the expense of public accountability and community involvement / consultation.

The consolidation of control and decision making in the hands of a few is, I believe, contrary to the good of the Society. I am concerned with the attempts by some, to disenfranchise any one who disagrees with a few key members; for example, anyone falling outside the 'group think' mentally that has emerged, are shut out with comments such as “their shelters are not self supporting”; as though this justifies the belittling or ignoring of concerns, believes and ideas. Other methods I have seen or been subjected to include verbal attacks, ignoring agenda decisions and ignoring agenda submissions.

2) Group intimidation under the guise of animal welfare.

For anyone who holds a view different from a few individuals, criticism and personal attacks are made. Whether it is a member of the general public or someone volunteering on behalf of the SPCA, the internal discussions and emails are becoming increasingly critical and negative. For example, the following comment, while written by one Board member, was supported by many:
"the others who have written the Board directly with their support/advocacy for a new Victoria shelter would show the same willingness to "fight" for the welfare of all the animals of this province. In fact, it would be really refreshing to hear them even MENTION animal welfare in their arguments...."
I find it comments such as this, unacceptable and I am unable to support such unjustified criticisms. Board and SPCA staff members must accept there are other opinions that while they may differ, are equally valid; no one person holds the moral high ground in terms of knowing what is or isn't 'animal welfare'. While this comment may be around the Victoria shelter issue, this type of negative commentary seems to have become the norm as evidenced by the numerous emails sent out.

3) Money being spent on defending staff from comments made by the public.

Given this money could otherwise be spent on animal welfare, I find the above comment especially troubling. Understanding how and why public consultation is important to the SPCA would likely reduce the number of negative comments aimed at the SPCA and would be significantly cheaper in the long run.

4) Withholding information sought by Board members.

In spite of assurances that information will be forth coming, staff ignore Board requests for information. That requests must be made repeatedly is unacceptable, especially as it is the Board who shoulders responsibility for the actions of the SPCA staff.

5) the continued failure to step up to the plate in terms public accountability.

I believe the Board is accountable to the public; that they oversee an organization on behalf of the public and communities members represent. To me, this means that each Board member is responsible for ensuring the staff of the SPCA, through the CEO, act in ways that are transparent to the public; where decisions are defensible and where the rationale and supporting processes are easily available to any member of the public. That this principle of public accountability is not widely held can be seen in the reaction to the Cheech incident and by the failure to respond to those people who write to the Board in good faith yet whose concerns are dismissed without due consideration.

6) The failure to honor the agreement with the City of Victoria.

I believe there are downstream ramifications that will substantially and negatively impact the SPCA if this legal commitment continues to be viewed as something that can be re-negotiate at the Board table. This agreement was negotiated in good faith by a duly authorized member of the Board; that there is a desire to revisit options for redesign at this stage is too late.

Without a major shift in philosophy on the value of public consultation and involvement, I believe the current executive is presiding over an organization that is doomed to fail - slowly but inexorably. My concern is that there will be a slow but constant shrinking of community shelters, staff and volunteers until even the current well staffed and funded central office will shrink in response to failing revenues.
My experience leads me to believe the only way to change this is to shift from the current ‘fortress mentality’, where the public are excluded from effective input and decisions / processes are hidden, to an organization that embraces the idea that the public are critical stakeholders and essential to the success of the SPCA. The past successes of the SPCA are because of a strong backbone of dedicated members of the public who are a part of the process and any future success will occur because of involvement of the public as critical stakeholders.

Gail Peterson
Victoria, BC