Dear Judy,

The word disastrous is a little strong to describe the advice I received and I don't believe that your representations with respect to the former CEO can be supported by me.

The advice that I received was that the best way to counteract defamation was to effectively communicate the true facts. The second best way to deal with the issue was to do nothing and the least effective way with the least likelihood of success and the most likely to backfire was to sue. I believe that most Directors in office in the fall of 2002 received the same advice. There is a difference between receiving advice and acting upon it. The current Board and CEO may not have received the same advice or they may have chosen to act on different advice or on no advice at all. It is a most difficult situation for Board members.

As you are aware, I have had personal experience defending a defamation law suit by the SPCA which I believe gives me a different perspective and a wealth of experience unavailable to most people.

The reasons that I would not recommend any legal action against AA are as follows:

First and foremost, lawsuits are expensive; and not just the lawyers fees and expenses, they also consume hours of management and staff time and cause considerable interference with the work you would otherwise do. It is simply not worth the effort.

I believe that a substantial amount of the information posted on your site is true or at least based on sufficient fact that it would be difficult to call defamation. Separating what is true from what is false would be a most complicated process requiring a lot of independent investigation. I have not read the statement of claim and have no idea what things the Society's lawyers believe are defamation but I would not want to be standing in court if evidence that the statement was true was presented.

Many people who work in animal welfare read the AA web page and many of us often do not agree with your position. However, AA has a reputation of doing good work with animals and is respected by many in the cause for this work. A lawsuit against AA including some AA supporters and posters offends too many people - the same people that the SPCA needs on side if it hopes to succeed in its mandate. For example, last year I was soliciting support for the new Victoria shelter from building suppliers and trade contractors. I received an offer from one contractor for goods valued at about $10,000, however, this person is involved in animal rescue work and is a personal friend of one of the people being sued, I can assure you that the offer is null and void. As you know the network of rescuers crosses the whole of North America which is just too big an audience to offend.

I never felt that AA's impact on the Society was all that great. Most people who read the postings have already made up their minds about the SPCA based on their personal experience. I doubt that a lot of regular older donors have e-mail. Any big adverse effect comes when controversial issues are carried by the major newspapers and television stations.

Finally, my experience with the average animal rescue person like AA tells me that a law suit would not shut them up, the law suit serves to rallying the troops, create new leaders and to inspire more aggressive attacks.

I presume that the CEO and the Board have considered all these issues and feel that they have made the right decision. Personally I believe that this law suit is one of four major policy mistakes the SPCA has made in the last year.

Sincerely,
Rick Sargent