From: Diane E.
To: BC SPCA Daniell
Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2009 7:03 PM
Subject: A third party acting as an Ombudsman would be in both the publics' and the SPCA's best interests

February 10, 2009

President Marguerite Vogel and Members of the Board of Directors
CEO Craig Daniell
BC SPCA
Vancouver, BC

Dear President Vogel and Mr. Daniell:

The public has been clamouring for accountability and transparency and action from the BC SPCA for many years - and we have rudely been ignored, evaded and dismissed with no acknowledgement from yourselves nor from your employees.

We (I say "we" because I have knowledge of years of many negative newspaper articles and of complaints and even anger by many small rescue groups and SPCA volunteers, who assume the financial burden of saving animals from SPCAs); we have become more aware of the inadequacies of the hierarchy and management at the BC SPCA, as well as that of the employees at the individual branches.

There recently have been numerous posts on the Animal Advocates Society�s public forum, The WatchDog, regarding the above issues, indicating the public�s willingness to become involved in the quest for the "openness, accountability, and transparency" your organization claims. Yet many, perhaps hundreds of complainants a year on many matters (rude uncaring staff, lack of response to complaints of suffering animals, lack of transparency about salaries, policies and euth statistics, and how much money is being spent to sue AAS, just to name a few), go unanswered or unresolved. I know of people, I am one, who feel defrauded of the donations I made to the SPCA because I was misinformed or uninformed by the SPCA about many of its secret policies and practices, especially around the reasons the SPCA euths animals for.

The subject of an impartial overseer such as an Ombudsman Office is eliciting many positive responses. Particularly in this age of enlightened consumers, there is more need for openness and accountability, especially where public funds are involved. Newspapers, TV and radio are becoming powerful tools for bringing contentious issues to light, and more people are making their concerns and anger known through these sources. But many people are afraid of being sued by the SPCA, and so keep quiet. And many rescuers are afraid of the SPCA's police powers, described by lawyers as far more powerful than any other police force's powers, and so they only tell their tales to other rescuers for fear of a sudden SPCA seizure.

A third party acting as an Ombudsman would be in both the publics' and the SPCA's best interests. There then would be no need to spend excessive amounts of money from the donations SPCA receives for defamation lawsuits. Criticisms and complaints would be handled by an unbiased person and resolved to everyone's satisfaction.

Here is a synopsis of a series of letters that I have written to you and your Board of Directors over the past several years. Numerous letters that I have not included here date back to May, 2003. Not one of my letters of complaints were addressed by you or your staff, despite my request for a reply each time. Needless to say, I was left with no recourse but to withdraw support that I have given SPCA for many years, and to relate my experiences to others; once again, this has been a no-win situation for all.

#1 - May, 2004 - Regarding the insulting treatment my handicapped son and I were subjected to when donating 30 new stuffed animals for the rummage sales held by Parksville/Qualicum office. Your employee reached over the counter, took the bag from my son�s hands without a word and retreated to the back office. She did not return.

#2 - 2004 - Another incident involving my same son and his social worker when they volunteered to walk dogs at the Parksville-Qualicum SPCA. Staff at the office rudely pointed to the leashes and told them to �pick a dog.� There was no concern for choosing an appropriate dog. The route they pointed out was along a steep and treacherous cliff with uneven terrain. Their walk was cut short because of these dangers. .

#3 - Oct. 06 - My son and his worker told by Parksville-Qualicum SPCA staff that feral cats were not accepted there and they were to take them back to where they found them, unaltered. This despite a recent article in the Parksville-Qualicum Newspaper which quotes Manager Nadine Durante as stating that SPCA will spay/neuter ferals and work with rescuers.

#4 - 1998 - Campbell River Shelter staff rude and dismissive when I reported a dog being kept on a chain that was so short it could not lie down.

#5 - 2004 - Adult dog relinquished to Parksville-Qualicum SPCA by dog-sitter who told SPCA staff that the dog had killed a cat when it was six months old. For that reason, the dog-sitter was told it would be deemed dangerous and would be put down according to the SPCA's assessment rules. After the dog-sitter phoned me in a panic I offered to the Parksville-Qualicum SPCA to adopt the dog and was told the dog could only be returned to her owner, as she was dangerous. They gave the owner until 8 a.m. the next morning or it would be killed. The owner was in Edmonton at the time. I was never informed as to the fate of this dog.

#6 - 2007 - My letter to you and every Board Member regarding the SPCA having turned a blind eye to the desperate plight of the tigers, kept in tiny, unsafe cages, one kept under a porch in Abbotsford, by the owner of Siberian Magic zoo for years. Only after the death of a woman were the conditions investigated. My request for an explanation from your office was once again ignored.

#7- 2003 - My report of dog chained in mud without shelter because the dog house was full of mouldy wood and debris was summarily dismissed by your officer. He claimed the dog was O.K. without shelter because �it is an Akita�. Your officer also reported to me that there would be no follow up because he had suggested that a tarp be placed over the dog house, and that the owner was �a good guy�. This in spite of the fact that this person was a back-yard breeder and had been selling pups for years.

#8 - 2006 - My article printed in local newspaper, Parksville-Qualicum News, stating the SPCA claimed to help and support feral colonies - in spite of my story #3 earlier.

#9 - May, 2007 - I sent a letter to your office re: man whose dogs were missing, reported to Comox SPCA. The owner was not informed by your shelter that one dog had been captured by them 5 days earlier, despite his repeated calls to that office to enquire about his dogs. He was also never told by the officer that his 2nd dog had been seen by staff at the time they captured the 1st one.

#10 - 2007 - Sent you a copy of an e-mail that I sent to Kim Carter, BC Ombudsman, asking that she examine your legal actions against AAS. Requested also that she rule BC SPCA a public body so it is required to be answerable through Freedom of Information Act.

#11 - April 2007 - My letter to you and the Board Members regarding some of the above issues as well as these additional concerns I hoped you would address:

a) why it is necessary for small volunteer animal groups to rescue animals and pay for their health costs out of their own pockets, when SPCA is funded and mandated for same.

b) asked if SPCA would be willing to be open and accepting to work with other animal organizations in order to ensure the best possible outcome for animals in need.

c) inquired as to the policy the SPCA has regarding dogs that are listed on their cage as �not good with cats�, and whether or not this means the dog has harmed or killed a cat. If so, I asked you why those dogs were not deemed dangerous, as had the dog in #5.

d) my concerns and fears that BC SPCA donations from the public are being mismanaged when used to sue critics or in litigation to suppress information that could be damaging to the SPCA's reputation.

e) what I believe to be exorbitant salaries of executives and management of a charitable organization.

AAS has proposed a comprehensive solution that could surely meet the needs of the critics and restore the tarnished reputation of the BC SPCA, thus ensuring future support and donations. Here is the proposal, as put forth on The WatchDog forum:

Critics of the SPCA have been saying for years that the animals and donors in this province need an independent third party to investigate complaints into the SPCA's policies and practices, including seizure and animal-welfare practices. Complaining to the SPCA about the SPCA has failed dismally to correct what are clear conflicts between what the SPCA says and claims and what it does. The most recent clear example of this is "The 56 Reasons" conflict between the SPCA's CEO's words and SPCA actions which can be read at http://animaladvocateswatchdog.com/cgi-bin/watchdog.pl/read/1500

It's my belief that if the SPCA honestly means its claims to 'openness, accountability, transparency, and ethical behaviour', that it should welcome a forum where its critics are heard, its side is heard, and the results posted on a website so that members of the BC public who have an interest in the welfare of animals can be kept informed.

AAS has performed that public service since 2000 when it created its website. In other words, the AAS has tried to keep the public informed of relevant information pertaining to the operation and policies of the SPCA through its website. It has tried to encourage the SPCA to be transparent and forthcoming with the public on its own. Unfortunately, the AAS had the threat of being sued for defamation hanging over its head beginning in 2001 and was finally sued by the SPCA for defamation in 2004. I believe that the lawsuit's purpose was to silence the AAS and the other defendants who have criticized it. It has threatened many others critic with defamation suits as well. There is clearly an unwillingness on the part of the SPCA to take criticism from animal welfarists. This may be because it perceives us as being bias and unable to be objective.

I believe that there is a solution that would be acceptable to the SPCA and its critics and that would ensure the SPCA is fulfilling its mandate to the best of its ability while being open, accountable, and transparent. The solution is the appointment of a neutral third party, by the Law Society or some other body, to the newly created position of "Complaints Officer". The Complaints Officer's job would be to receive complaints pertaining to the SPCA from employees, volunteers and management of the SPCA, from other animal welfarists and from the general public. When a complaint is submitted, the Complaints Officer would investigate the complaint and submit it to the SPCA for its response. Oral hearings may or may not be necessary. The Complaints Officer would then consider the evidence of the complainant and the SPCA (which evidence may or may not include supporting documentation such as vet letters or photos) and would then provide written reasons that would describe the nature of the complaint and the SPCA's response and make a conclusion as to whether or not, based on the evidence, there was merit in the complaint. The written reasons may include any steps taken by the SPCA to remedy the problem set out in the complaint and the Complaints Officer may also include recommendations to the complainant and the SPCA with respect to remedial measures. All written decisions would be posted on the internet so as to make the SPCA accountable and transparent, to provide important information to the public on a matter of public interest and to provide guidelines to the SPCA and others as to acceptable conduct and remedial measures to be taken in a variety of situations.

Read the SPCA's Mission, Vision, Guiding Principles and Charter
http://www.spca.bc.ca/about/default.asp

Principled behaviour:
We are open, honest and transparent in our relationships with our staff, volunteers, members, donors and the public. We treat each other and those we serve, including the animals, with integrity, respect and compassionate caring.

And the BC SPCA's Code of Ethics:
http://www.spca.bc.ca/about/BCSPCA_CodeOfEthics_July2005.PDF

Excerpts from THE DAUM REPORT: Prepared for the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act Review Committee by Kimberly Daum; February 27, 2004

"The BC Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA) is best known as a charity. But, it is also a business holding contracts and providing services for municipalities. And, it is a statutory law enforcement body that investigates animal cruelty complaints under the provincial Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. It is an enigma among societies, as it does not fall under the more demanding and democratic Society Act. The BC SPCA is for all intents and purposes a monopoly with a $20 million annual budget, a very sizable animal welfare �portfolio.� Of that between $2.5 and $4 million comes from municipal contracts under which the society provides animal control services.

"That BC citizens donate so many funds to the SPCA indicates a substantial interest in animal welfare in BC. Yet, societies such as the Variety Club with lesser funds and even humble, little animal rescue, volunteer groups are governed under the more stringent Society Act, while its own exclusive PCA Act, which has few requirements by comparison, governs the wealthier SPCA.

"What the SPCA does and what the provincial government allows it to do affects provincial and civic taxpayers, municipal governments, communities and neighbourhoods, employees, donors, members, other animal groups and of course B.C.�s abandoned, homeless and/or abused animals, but we have no means to review how the SPCA carries out its operations. The SPCA itself is not subject to FOI search; therefore, the only direct access to its records is through the SPCA itself. My experience as a freelance journalist is that leaks, not SPCA releases, of information are the most common course by which important information and documentation, as opposed to rhetoric, gets from the society to the public. Asking for important information is a futile exercise.

Additionally, the SPCA does not fall under the auspices of the Ombudsman; complaints to the government about the SPCA have traditionally been met with one of two responses:

1) Government advice to take the complaint back to the SPCA, the very government sanctioned and authorized institution about which one is complaining, or

2) A defense of the SPCA�s 100-plus year record, regardless of whether the complaint is about the veracity of the SPCA�s record as stated in the media, its website, news releases or other publications.

The inconsistency in government oversight of BC charities compared to the BC SPCA is a key reason that the SPCA should fall under the provincial Freedom of Information and Privacy Act. If the government is incompetent, unwilling and/or unable to oversee the BC SPCA, the public must be allowed to.

Why Transparency?
An editorial by Rich Avanzino

Transparency is one of the cornerstones of the Maddie's Fund philosophy.

Although transparency in the non-profit world generally refers to financial information, when Maddie's Fund talks about transparency, we are referring to shelter data. Transparency to us means tracking and publicly reporting the outcome of every live dog or cat who crosses the shelter threshold.

To achieve transparency, I think shelters should start by collecting and publishing the kind of information contained in the Asilomar Accords Animal Statistics Table. By publish, I don't mean share internally with staff, I mean promote on websites and in newsletters so the whole world can see what you're doing.

Many shelters say they don't want to publish their statistics because the organization will look bad. If an agency fears looking bad, something is going on -- perhaps it's not getting enough funding to do the job well, or it's not properly supported by other animal welfare groups or the community. But if the organization isn't getting the resources or backing it needs and large numbers of dogs and cats are dying as a result, shouldn't the public know that? Don't we owe it to the animals to tell the community what's happening in the shelter system, especially in public animal control facilities?

Not only does the public have the right to know what's going on, but once the information is exposed, there is greater opportunity for solutions to be found to reduce the killing. If the community doesn't know what's happening, it can't help.

There was a huge flap in San Antonio awhile back when the local newspaper revealed a 91% euthanasia rate at Animal Care Services. Angry and embarrassed at their city being labeled one of the worst in the nation for animals, politicians and government officials took immediate action. Among other things, the city bolstered its resource commitment to the animals with a $900,000 budget increase for 2006, and then invited animal welfare groups to participate in the lifesaving effort. As a result, impounds have gone down, adoptions have gone up, and euthanasia has dropped to 82%.

While some shelters worry that publishing statistics will tarnish their image, other shelters and communities that are leading the way in lifesaving aren't publishing their statistics either. Isn't it time for the leaders of our movement to step forward and set an example? By publishing good statistics, they will spur lifesaving efforts nationwide as shelters across the country strive to reach the bar they have established.

In my opinion, real transparency means no fudging allowed. If an organization saved all of its healthy animals except for 25 friendly, healthy pit bulls that were killed because of a local mandate, those animals have to be accounted for and listed as healthy deaths. They can be asterisked (e.g., "the Humane Society saved all of its healthy shelter dogs and cats except for 25 pit bulls who were killed because of a local ordinance prohibiting pit bull placement"). But the organization has to be transparent and account for those deaths.

Another situation that tends to go unreported is owner/guardian requested euthanasia. It's not uncommon for shelters to euthanize animals at a guardian's request then exclude them from overall shelter intakes and deaths. In other words, the animals simply don't show up in public records. I expressed my opinion on this topic a few months ago in one of my editorials.

Rather than fearing or fighting transparency, animal welfare organizations should embrace it.

When an organization is forthcoming and demonstrates it has nothing to hide, its vulnerability to expos�s and allegations is substantially reduced.

If there is a problem, the best way to address it is to talk about it. Cover-ups cause people to loose faith and question an organization's honesty. Refusals to disclose information only make people assume the worst.

Transparency is a big plus even if an organization is less than perfect, because it allows the community to monitor improvement. Going back to San Antonio, 82% euthanasia is not good, but at least the public can see the agency moving in the right direction.

When the public can see that an agency is saving an increasing number of dog and cat lives, it enhances the organization's reputation, which builds community trust, which increases financial support, which saves even more lives -- and the positive momentum keeps building for the animals.

I have always held, that the SPCA must be accountable, not only to its members, but also to a Provincial government agency, which must hold overall powers to oversee the actions of the SPCA and how donated funds are used.

Every SPCA shelter has to submit detailed accounts of all its actions to SPCA head office, including financial details. It would only be right, that the board of directors should also be accountable to a public agency to which all complaints could be directed.

An independent third party would only be effective, if it had the power to act under its own legal means and that could only be within the Provincial government.

It is high time for taxpayers to fund a separate agency to oversee the SPCA, as it is the only animal welfare society with certain legal powers, funded by finances donated by the general public.

No, I am not holding my breath.

�If there is a problem, the best way to address it is to talk about it. Cover-ups cause people to lose faith and question an organization's honesty. Refusals to disclose information only make people assume the worst.� I said this to the BCSPCA years ago. It�s simple, self-evident common sense! So what�s up with the BCSPCA? I can only assume the worst.

Some years ago I was invited to join a small group of people in campaigning for SPCA accountability. The group called itself CYA (Citizens Yell for Accountability). Most of the group had volunteered for the SPCA and become disillusioned. They were bright and dedicated people. Coincidentally, after coming together as a group, they learned that they had all been recognized by the SPCA with awards for exceptional effort. It was too funny. Even the SPCA recognized their dedication.

CYA had a web site, the hub of which was a message board where insiders could post what they knew about the SPCA without fear of retribution, i.e. anonymously. While a good idea in concept, it failed to account for human nature. The privilege of anonymity was abused and people posted frivolous and inflammatory postings. The CYA people dealt with this as well as they could for as long as they could, pulling postings and pleading with posters to be reasonable and adult. Information was being revealed by insiders that could have led to change and we didn�t want to lose this opportunity for the truth to come out. But nobody had time to moderate the message board sufficiently. Nobody had time to research and verify all information such that it could stand up in a court. Inevitably, CYA received a letter from the SPCA lawyers threatening a libel suit over some trivial, irrelevant scrap of gossip that was posted ill-advisedly.

I always thought that if the SPCA threatened CYA with a law suit, it would be for the information coming out about the SPCA. I thought, bring it on! The allegations can be proved and problems can then be addressed. I�ve always thought that there�s nothing to fear from the truth. If CYA was wrong about the SPCA, then it would be a relief to know that the very best was in fact being done for the animals. I could rest easy. If CYA was right, let it come out in the open and get fixed. (Okay, maybe I�m simple-minded.) Anyway, the scrap of information that the SPCA finally latched onto for threatening CYA was so trivial, so irrelevant to animal welfare, so pointless to post that it felt like a punch to my gut. Legally, they had us. We all opened our wallets and paid a lawyer to respond. We did what we legally had to do to make things right. Then I suggested changing the message board to a �bulletin board� where relevant information could still be posted without the willy nilly free-for-all that the message board had become. Unfortunately, none of the core of posters who had inside information, who were intelligent, informed, committed, and reliable, came forward with more information. CYA died. It seems the SPCA had succeeded in shutting the group down. And the SPCA itself barreled on as it always has. The law doesn�t protect the innocent, it protects the powerful. (Simple-minded volunteer is now jaded volunteer.)

Go AAS! Your courage and commitment take my breath away.

Most people don't sue because somebody makes inaccurate posts on the internet. A correction should have sufficed. People or groups don't instigate lawsuits unless they have hundreds of thousands of available assets. Many posts on the CYA board were about Hooper's $200 000 + salary, financial accountability, animal assessments, and the usual animal discussion stuff.

The AAS case has gone on way too long and there seems to be no end in sight. It may never end up in court. I am very sorry that Canada permits these interminable cases to continue. It doesn't speak well for our judicial system.

This must be a horrendous experience for you all. Using your own funds must mean a lot of personal sacrifice. I appreciate the fact that you use no donor funds on litigation.

Brigitta McMillan wrote: "Unfortunately, none of the core of posters who had inside information, who were intelligent, informed, committed, and reliable, came forward with more information. CYA died. It seems the SPCA had succeeded in shutting the group down. And the SPCA itself barreled on as it always has. The law doesn�t protect the innocent, it protects the powerful." Actually, it is the expense of the law, not its statutes, that favours the more wealthy.

In BC, where AAS is being sued by the enormously wealthy BC SPCA (possibly as much as $24 million in revenue in 2008), the costs are the highest in Canada, perhaps almost the highest in the world. Government charges for rental of courts, filing fees, taxes, lawyer's fees, all these add up to defeat of the less wealthy by the more wealthy.

Fortunately, I have a valuable home, and I will spend every penny of its value to defend myself from the SPCA's allegations of my untruthfulness. It is all I have, but I can't save my house for myself while betraying the principle of the right to tell the truth. Or not to speak for the animals who I know suffered cruelly at the hands of the SPCA for so long, and for those many animals who are still being killed by the SPCA.

The wealthy SPCA has chosen the expensive court system to silence accurate critics many times. The SPCA usually wins those quietly crushing wars against those little people who feel they must say what they have seen. But not always. Read how it lost the lawsuit against the wife of Rick Sargent, who went on to become President of the Board of Directors of the BC SPCA because he hoped to reform the SPCA from within. http://www.animaladvocates.com/spca/victoria.htm

Reform from within is very seldom (if ever) successful if the way the business or agency runs itself, works for it. Rick Sargent found that out and had to quit. So did other BC SPCA Directors.

The big brave SPCA did not attempt to sue the deep pockets and top libel lawyers of the Vancouver Sun or Sun columnist Barbara Yaffe for calling SPCAs Auschwitzes or the BC SPCA employee or volunteer who were quoted in the article saying things like, "there is an alarming insensitivity around the practice of euthanasia," and "sick or injured animals too often suffer for days without getting access to veterinary care. (Read full article: BC SPCA - A Prison Camp For Animals http://www.animaladvocates.com/top-stories/PrisonCampForAnimals.htm

This is from the BCSPCA's Policies, Procedures, & Guidelines, section 3.2 Guiding Beliefs & Principles, Policy A1: Code of Ethics, Pg.2:

" Accountability:
We strive to be accountable in order to deserve the trust of those we serve. We measure , track and report regularly on what we have achieved as well as on what we have not."

Who is making sure that the SPCA is living up to their own statement of accountability ?

Quote: "Who is making sure that the SPCA is living up to their own statement of accountability?"

No one, Ms. Cosgrove, except AAS, and it has been sued for its trouble.

Thus the battles that are costing Judy Stone and the co-defendants and the SPCA exorbitant amounts of money. One can only imagine how much kibble, how many blankets, how much health care, how many animals could be saved from unnecessary killing this money could provide.

It is my fervent hope that BC SPCA will be at last open to change. As I mentioned in one of my previous letters to your office, if we all work together, we could be a formidable force for animal welfare and rights.

Sincerely, Diane Esther.
Coombs, BC