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