Dear Carol,

I wrote this letter some time ago and then sat on it. Now a month later my thoughts are the same.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: A Strategic Plan for the British Columbia Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals 2005 to 2008

Thank you for sending me a copy of this plan. I have had a chance to read it over the weekend and as you requested my opinions are as follows:

In general this plan is the same old same old from the same group that brought you the Community Consultation, the November 3, 2001 Bylaws, “New Eyes and New Directions”, the Restructuring Plan and CAMP. The “whereas”, the “therefore” and the tried and true pledge to the “five freedoms” are all wearing a little thin these days. At least they left out the Gandhi quote.

The Plan proposes a rationalization for advancing the Provincial Programs operated out of Vancouver and cutting resources from the Society’s traditional sheltering activities.

Specifically the Society will reduce its dependence on legacies for operating by $600,000, in order to grow reserves. There will be an increase in the budgets for Provincial programs of $491,000; there will be an increase in expenditures for branch staff of $362,000; there will be an increase in expenditures for direct animal welfare of $ 140,000; there will be a decrease in support for 20 branches of $ 432,600 and an increase in revenue of $995,000. I think there is an error in the arithmetic on page 26 and they have forgotten to accumulate the cost of the new branch manager so the bottom line is out $114,000 or the manager will be terminated after one year neither of which should surprise us.

The document or at least the copy I have does not contain any terms of reference, identify who wrote it; nor is it dated. I can tell by its content that the CEO’s ideas on the priorities of the SPCA dominate the agenda.

The plan does not appear to go into effect until 2006. It would be interesting to see what the plans are for 2005. The plan does not appear to account for inflation over the next 4 years. At 2% per year, which I believe is a low number, the Society will need about $800,000 in new income just to maintain its existing programs. Maybe there is another plan which addresses this problem.

Not withstanding, the Society has some grave financial problems and the job of solving those problems falls on the CEO and the Board. The most important question is will they work, will people support them, will revenue increase as a result? If there is no support for this plan from the donating public the Society will continue to contract. I am of the opinion that the “plan” falls short of what is needed and the Society will continue to flounder in the downward direction.

Specifically, my comments are as follows:

Part 1 – Enforcement

Enforcement of the Cruelty to Animals Act is the prime reason for the Society to exist. It is an area of work that has not been done as well as it should have been in the past. Building the ability to do this work properly should be the major thrust of the BC SPCA. The problem is that this work is costly and it generates only a tiny portion of its own costs. Money has to be found from other sources to pay the freight. Unfortunately, the Society’s income has not grown over the last few years, it has actually declined but that is a different discussion. This plan proposes to advance cruelty work at the expense of direct services to animals provided by shelters. I think that revenue will decline as a result of the branch cuts more than revenue will increase as a result of better enforcement. It would be smart to secure more direct revenues for this work that didn’t come from branch cuts.

I hope that there will be some money spent on staff training so that evidence is collected legally, is complete and stands up in court. There also needs to be training in professional conduct and due process in order to avoid bad PR. The department needs to find ways to do this work without offending so many people. I would also like to see some more definitive standards as to what constitutes distress, when does a cat rescuer become a cat hoarder, when is a legitimate dog breeder become a puppy miller? What is a humane kennel for dogs or cats? I never found any people in the SPCA that thought these issues were important.

Part 2. Awareness

This section contains a whole mishmash of Society programs each one good it its own right. How necessary they are depends on your point of view. Again the problem is not enough revenue. Unfortunately these programs have in my opinion failed to inspire an increase in the Society’s financial well being – so I would look to these programs for cuts to help balance the books. I see these types of programs as ideal for sponsorship from corporations, foundations and government and the Society should look for special purpose grants to initiate these types of programs and get the money first and spend it later. I see nothing in this plan that would strengthen the Society’s ability to access these sources of revenue.

Part 3. Sheltering Programs

A lot of the recommendations are good and should be supported. The recommendations I question are as follows:

How to improve levels of service by cutting the financial support to branches, threatening 6 with closure and 13 others with cuts – only at the SPCA!

I am surprised to see Victoria and the Wild ARC on this list. Obviously the drafters of this plan have no idea of the amount of legacy revenue the Society has received from its supporters in Victoria, nor of how much cash has been sucked from this community nor the level of resentment that exists as a result. I still meet people with no interest in animal welfare who comment on the loss of $4.5 million reserve fund.

Obviously they never thought to investigate the history of the financial support that Victoria at one time had from its community. If they had, they would have seen that when the Wild Arc opened donations to the SPCA ascended to a new benchmark, about $600,000 higher on an annualized basis, far in excess of the annual cost of operating Wild Arc. They would also have found that the last time the Society threatened to close this facility the revenue in Victoria dropped $1.5 million and this drop in revenue in Victoria was the principle reason the Society had a large operating deficit in 2001.

If the planners of the future of the SPCA don’t understand that there is a relationship between the services the Society provides in a community and the level of donation they receive the Society’s in big trouble. Recently, the Victoria branch received a $950,000 donation which they publicly announced would stay at the branch to pay for renovations and deficits – has this donation been taken into account?

If people start to believe that the demise of their shelter and programs is preordained and that no amount of support will help their branch move forward they will give up. Threatening is a bully tactic which I believe will backfire. Of the 19 branches so threatened I believe 8 are the home branches of Directors? How does this plan get by what is a majority on the Board? Maybe the people at the branch level who elected these directors will bring some pressure to adopt a contrary agenda.

Unfortunately, the Society cannot keep its provincial programs going without cutting resources to shelters. Most businesses faced with these kinds of financial problems close those branches where they cannot see any future and invest the savings in the winners and potential winners. I believe that closing branches is an unfortunate necessity – I would have closed 10 in the fall of 2003, but I am a ruthless businessman who learned a long time ago how to survive a recession. Cooler heads prevailed and the CEO developed plan that tried to save everyone. Cuts only work for a short period, the main problem – a shortage of income- has to be addressed quickly or new cuts will follow, it becomes a downward spiral. Without cash for new initiative that develop new support there is no future, just cuts. What’s important knowing which programs and branches generate income or have the potential to generate income. It is clear to me that over the last few years the investment in provincial programs and management has not paid off in increased revenue. It is also clear that cuts to local programs have cost the Society a lot of support.

Without successful branches in Vancouver, Victoria and Surrey in particular, the Society is in big trouble. I actually believe the Society could close all but these three branches and survive and prosper but to loose any one of these three would be a disaster. I understand Surrey is in trouble and if the Society continues to cannibalize Victoria its days are numbered. Unfortunately, the Board is dominated by members from small branches. The President comes from the Town of Nelson, if the Nelson Branch closed it wouldn’t get a one liner in the Vancouver Sun. (Does anyone remember Kitimat?)

If the Society is to be managed for financial success there needs to be major new initiatives in the big three to get money flowing. An initiative to build new state of art shelters and community support facilities in these branches would in my opinion be easily funded through capital campaigns and would result in a whole new level of financial support for the Society that would benefit everyone. I proposed this initiative in the fall of 2003 and at that time the Acting CEO acted very interested, we even met with and solicited a proposal from a Vancouver Architect to advance the idea.

The Vancouver Hospital –The Vancouver hospital is one of the key facilities that inspires the community to support the SPCA – it’s part of the show. I doubt facilities like this ever make money, the Society will always have to dedicate some of the donations from the Vancouver community including legacy donations to support this effort. No show no dough!

Feral Cats – If the Society intends to have any success with coalitions of other animal welfare organizations its going to have to put something substantial like money into the pot; it will also have to stop the legal action against AA and convert on Recommendations # 2 N,O,P,&Q. ( Remember the Society has been talking this talk for years, so long in fact that most of us have given up waiting) At the present time all the other organizations I know of or have heard from regard the SPCA with distain. The Society has some major fence building to do to be successful on this front.

Animal Assessment – No single program has caused the Society more grief and controversy than the way animal assessment and the accompanied euthanization have been handled. The loss to the Society in volunteers and donations have far exceeded any costs savings which may have been realized. The Society needs to find a better way to handle liability than killing to avoid risk. I am surprised that the current President has not advanced this agenda.

Animal Control - Complete conflict of interest with the Society’s mandate. Unless the Society can develop a no kill model of operating pounds, revenue from municipalities will never match the losses in donor support which will result from animal control mentality which tends to take over shelters where animal control is undertaken. The Society will continue to loose municipal shelters and contracts to other groups that profess to a higher animal welfare standard. ( Delta) I see little future for the Society in this endeavour.

Capital Improvements

Victoria Shelter - I understand from the presentation the Society made to Victoria City Council on October 21 last year that the noise abatement plan scheduled for this year was only an interim measure and that the City and community was promised a Capital Campaign and the real solution sometime in the 2006/7 time frame. There is no mention of that in this plan. I’m not surprised. I presume the plan has been changed. I wonder if the City knows this and has agreed?

Part 4. Organizational Strength

Improved Staffing and Customer Service – This is a key problem for the SPCA and one of the principle reasons donations have dropped off. Every person who comes to an SPCA shelter or meets an SPCA staff person for any reason is a customer, they are all potential donors if not today then in the future. No business can afford to alienate their customer base, not even the SPCA. The SPCA is a service industry and they need to understand what is meant by service. The Society has been talking around this issue for 4 years without any meaningful progress. In many important branches the Society’s staff have done little to help their own cause. Management/ union conflict has had a serious effect on the well being of the Society and contributes to its decline. I never saw any skilled HR work by management – confrontation remains the name of the game. Too many egos and too many chipped shoulders. Love that word intransigence.

Volunteer Development – another area where the talk continues to exceed the walk. I actually don’t think that the SPCA has any idea at all from top to bottom what it takes to recruit and keep volunteers. I have yet to meet a volunteer that was happy with the SPCA. Maybe we are just not cut out to help the SPCA, I guess that’s because we’re wing nuts, troublemakers and battle axes. Maybe a new group of volunteers with different aspirations and expectations will come along and save the day.

I have to comment on Recommendation #4 I which proposes to reduce the number of face to face Board meetings. This idea was put forward when I was involved with the Finance Committee and rejected out of hand by then Treasurer, Howard Grey. Board members have a fiduciary duty to oversee the Society’s affairs – 6 meeting are not enough – teleconferencing can handle a single issue but there is no substitute for face to face. The Board got a bunch of legal advice on this subject back in 2002 when Michael Steven was President which should be reviewed. Given the financial difficulties that the Society faces and the fact that the responsibility for all these problems lies with the Board of Directors, I think that the Board is making a most serious error in judgment if it acts on this recommendation.

Part 5. Revenue Generation

Paws for a Cause – Excellent program with great potential to raise a lot of money for animal welfare, a good opportunity to get the animal welfare message out and have a good time. What’s needed is consistency in organization one year over another. The rapid change over in volunteers and staff creates a continuous learning curve. Over time this is a winner which I would support. ( if I was a member)

Corporate sponsorship –There are thousands of corporations, foundations and government agencies that hand out money. Identifying opportunities and preparing applications is a science in itself. The Society should invest some money in a staff member or consultant and access these resources especially in the areas of communication, education and advocacy. The problem with this kind of money is that the donor will expect their money to be used for the purpose for which it was donated and to see some results – maybe this scares the SPCA.

Direct Marketing/PAWS – These programs may have some room to grow but I wouldn’t hold my breath. These are costly programs with a significant percentage of the revenue ( around 40%) going to paid staff and contractors. The plan doesn’t say whether the increased revenue in these areas is net of costs or includes the costs. A lot of the time these programs end up capturing cash that would otherwise come across the counter. The Society has some work to do to make these programs more cost effective. In Victoria for example in 2000 the branch received $292,733 in direct donations either by mail or across the counter. In 2004 the Society budgeted for 240,434 from these same sources (I never heard how it came out). However in 2000 costs consisted of 4 local newsletters per year and a mail in campaign with total expenses less than $40,000. In 2004 the cost of “professional” fund raising was budgeted to be $ 98,922. There was a substantial decrease in revenue for Society programs. I believe that many other branches have had a similar experience. The board should analyze the costs verses benefits in these areas compared to past experiences – the data exists.

The Society’s income continues to decline yet the cost of raising this income has made a quantum leap as the Society depends more on paid fundraisers and less on volunteer activities. Fund raising costs have risen from $ 934,008 in 2000 to $ 1,784,190 in 2004. Income on the other hand has gone down. The old double whammy! The Board should rethink its dependence on Professional Revenue Development because revenue is not developing. The numbers don’t lie despite the positive spin we hear from the administration.

I also believe that people outside the Lower Mainland are not as predisposed to send money to a Vancouver address. I believe the Society would do a lot better in areas outside Vancouver if they worked through the local branch receiving, banking and receipting money locally. If you’re a diehard centralist you don’t want to hear this so I would not expect any change in these areas.

Branch Fundraising – To do branch fund raising you need members and volunteers and the Society has failed to build these resources for a lot of reasons. Some of my favorites are:

1) The Society through its reorganization has alienated a significant number the Society’s former members and supporters, for example whole local boards have resigned in branches like Victoria, Vancouver, and Vernon, other branches have lost their former supporters in stages, including Prince Rupert, Kelowna, and Sunshine Coast. Victoria needs to recruit a new group of supporters every year to go along with their new manager. Most of these branches have not been able to replace these people with new people with similar skills. What’s worse, many of these disgruntled former members have organized or joined other animal welfare organizations which compete with the SPCA for the same donation dollar. Some of these former supporters have created new organizations that have ousted the SPCA from their communities (i.e. Delta and Kitimat).

2) The Society has failed to develop a culture that supports volunteers and respects their work. In many important markets like Victoria and the Lower Mainland too many staff are rude and unsupportive, management including head office is indifferent to these problems or simply incapable of solving them.

3) Many initiatives flounder for lack of seed money, or because they can’t get timely approvals from head office, or because bills don’t get paid.

For example, my wife worked hard on Victoria’s first Paws for a Cause Walk in October 2003. She was one of the volunteers that made arrangements to purchase items required to put on the event. The walk raised $44,000 the costs were approximately $4000. For 3 months my wife was hounded by the Society’s creditors for unpaid bills. When I tried to intercede as President of the Society to expedite these payments I was treated rudely and with indifference by the Manager of Finance. My wife decided shortly afterwards that the SPCA was not an organization she could support anymore.

4) Failure of the staff and management to respond to volunteer and members complaints. Too many times sincere people with good suggestions and real issues that needed to be reconciled are simply ignored until they go away. The ones that don’t go away are labelled as trouble makers and wing nuts (like me.) I know of one volunteer and former donor (with deep pockets) that has been waiting more than a year for the CEO to return her call (it’s become a running joke between us.)

5) CAMP in it various forms and assessment tools. No program has generated more controversy and alienated more members and supporters than this program. Too many of the Societies natural supporters are advocates of “no kill”- simply speaking too many people reject killing as the solution to peoples problems with animals, better solutions must be found and as long as killing is accepted no action takes place on the alternate solutions - there will be no compromise, you can’t stand with one foot in each camp. The Society’s management remains intransigent and bullheaded on this matter, over and over strong supporters leave as a result of disagreements over killing. I always remember Nadine Gourkow’s speech to the Victoria branch in April of 2003 where she claimed she could design a no kill program for the SPCA but the Board had instructed her differently. I don’t recall the Board giving any instructions on CAMP, to my knowledge it was a staff driven program. There is probably no right or wrong here it is just reality - the Society needs to embrace the future or perish and the future if you need donations is “no kill”.

6) Lack of local control of the money raised discourages many people from contributing. My experience fund raising at our local elementary school taught me that if you want people to raise money you need to address the issues that the active fund raisers think are important. There are a lot of people with great ideas on what to spend money on, but if you don’t please your workers they stop working. In the SPCA people raise money to support animal welfare programs not to support head office salaries and programs that they never see any results from year in and year out.

7) Gaming revenue - There is a lot of resentment throughout the Society on the loss of this income to branches – what gaming revenue the Society still gets goes to head office. Many branches including some on the hit list were promised replacement funds from the Society if they supported the November 3, 2001 bylaws. Were these promises lies?

Finally, every alienated or disgruntled former volunteer and member has a family, friends and associates. Bad news travels fast.

Biscuit Fund – The fund is modelled after Victoria’s Friendly Neighbor Fund and other such local fund raisers that have taken place for years in many of the Society’s Branches. I think it’s more about PR and head office control of the money than anything else. I believe these programs should be locally run with decisions made by the shelter manager. In most cases time is of the essence, besides surely the CEO can trust branch managers to use this money wisely. If the head office meddles too much in this program the money will stop coming in.

Memberships – The Society has been talking about increasing membership as long as I can remember. Membership is the best way to measure support for the Society and its policies and programs. The most financially successful SPCA I know is San Francisco. A number of years ago they represented that they had 25,000 members from a population of less than 900,000 – that’s the equivalent of the BC SPCA having 100,000 members.

I am aware of one branch that has seen its membership decline from 278 to 25 in 3 years – not a good sign. At one time Victoria had 3000 members maybe someone can advise us where it stands today. People simply don’t join organizations whose policies and practices they don’t support. It is the Society’s leadership who are responsible to design policies and programs that attract new members.

There is a recommendation to renew lapse memberships and to increase memberships. Well. I am a lapse member, so is my wife, so is everyone I know. I was not able to find anyone I knew who went or even knew somebody who went to the Victoria AGM this year. I have not yet met anyone who knows or has met the Regional Director for our area. Did you renew your membership Carol? Know anyone who did?

If the Society is planning to restore membership it’s going to have to change direction and mend some fences. I see no indication in this strategic plan of this happening. I think that the chance of making membership an income source will not succeed.

Provincial Government - Convincing the Provincial Government to contribute a reasonable percentage of the cost of enforcing the Cruelty of Animals Act is an important initiative and one I strongly support. This idea was discussed when I was on the Board so it’s nice to see some action being taken in this area. Unfortunately, the Provincial election is over and the opportunity for a pre election promise from either side has been lost for another 4 years. A little more diplomacy in enforcement policy would also help.

In conclusion, there has been a lot of serious effort gone into trying to solve the problem of great expectations and declining income. Until the Society addresses the problem of alienation from its membership, its volunteers and other animal welfare organizations it cannot move forward.

A very successful wealthy man I know recently told me “ you never have enough friends”. What the SPCA needs is friends and to get friends you need to be a friend.

That’s what I think of the “new” strategic plan. Sorry to be so long winded. Feel free to forward this letter to anyone you think may be interested.

Sincerely,

Rick Sargent