Biscuit gave an equally erudite overview on Fred's blog
here.
The line wound from the front lobby, up the stairs and slid sinuously around, looping back upon itself as an unprecedented number of members turned out for last night’s Annual General Meeting at the Toronto Humane Society. Perhaps most striking were the number of young faces in the crowd – an encouraging sign of renewed interest in this venerable institution. There was also a respectable contingent of long-term donors, individuals who have unstintingly supported the THS through thick and thin for more years than I can count and provide the solid foundation of membership needed to keep this a viable and growing refuge for animals.
Overall, with a few exceptions, the meeting was far more professional and civil than I anticipated – a welcome relief. The numerous articles in the various media adequately cover the bare bones, I intend to make just a few salient points, garnered from various Board members through the evening and from the Strategic Plan provided by Board admin:
- Wildlife Rehabilitation: January 2012, THS is hoping to be reinstated by the Ministry of National Resources as a place certified to deal with wildlife (on a limited basis).
- CVO: The THS has currently passed four out of a needed five inspections by the College of Veterinarians of Ontario (“CVO”) which would give them a 5 year accreditation from that body; Mr. Downey speculated that they had not received it to date (having anticipated it would have arrived mid-May) due to the uncertainty respecting who would be spearheading the organization up to this point
- Future Plans: A Strategic Plan has been created which includes future plans for a low cost spay/neuter clinic, reinstallation of the right to take in strays, continued building of ties with rescues and other shelters and reopening the satellite office at Victoria Park
- Victoria Park Satellite: Hope to reopen in 2012
- Animal Investigations: Regain right to investigate animal investigations throughout GTA.
President Michael Downey exhorted all members to put aside their difference and concentrate on creating a healthy, viable THS. He pointed out that the dissonance and sniping “rattles the financial foundation of the animals that we are collectively trying to help.” Downey spearheaded a competent and professional team as the meeting moved forward. He provided figures and answers in response to the storm of accusations and insinuations which have been bandied about in the flurry of action leading up to the AGM.
Most notable at the start, was Mr. Downey’s report on the proxies submitted prior to last night: out of 704 valid proxies (there were a small number that were disallowed due, he indicated, primarily to individuals not signing them), 183 were Trow’s and the balance (504) were the current Board’s. To many who have worked tirelessly to reanimate the THS which teetered on the edge of dissolution for a while last year after the disastrous and horrific OSPCA raid last Spring, this was a welcome and hopeful signal that the current direction was being received positively. Interim CEO Christopher Barry gave a dry, but succinct report on the direction he feels the THS has been taking and why. He also lauded the efforts of the numerous committees and time and commitment from staff and volunteers.
After standard votes on passing meeting minutes, a concise auditor’s report and similar AGM business, the real reason most of us were there, arrived.
Candidates were grouped in contingents of 6 and listed alphabetically. Out of 18 candidates, one (Andrew Balodis) was ill but a speech from him was read out, several did not attend. The following are my own take on the ones who did talk:
Daniel Belanger: Daniel, who is a no-kill advocate based on Winograd’s equation (as outlined in Winograd’s book, Redemption) gave a passionate argument for making the THS into a shelter that reflects those values.
David Bronskill: Board-sanctioned candidate David Bronskill offered a balance of professional experience and what seemed genuine care for animals (he has 6 himself). While his election (with which I concur) brings the number of lawyers/legal persons on the Board to a curious high, my initial impression was that his slick presentation offered some possibilities and good ideas. Jury is out but cautiously hopeful on this.
Lisa Gibbens: This is where I digress from other reports – in that I thought her presentation unprofessional and at times, vindictive. Her comment “"They haven't been in the building since they were led away in handcuffs." was ill-advised, gratuitous and contemptible. It had no bearing on what she brings to the table as a candidate. {Note: it was this remark that agitated a member (the one with long blonde/gray hair quoted in some news stories) and resulted in his continued agitation and
subsequent departure from the building escorted by police officers. His reaction was also out of line but so was her remark}.[Thanks to Anonymous - this gentlement was NOT escorted out as I had been told.]
Brenda Grant: From my perspective, Brenda had a sincere, well thought out presentation with solid animal experience to back her up. I think she would have made a terrific and solid Board member.
Bob Hambley: This was probably the most agitated candidate; Bob forcibly expressed his disgust with the manner in which the THS is being managed and yelled at members of the audience who disagreed. My biggest issue with his address is his description of Toronto Animal Services as a “killing machine”. He also asserted the THS routinely handed over animals to be “murdered” – which is simply not true. Further, I know from my own research, TAS while not perfect, has made HUGE positive changes and has an increasingly close and positive relationship with THS wherein they figure out which animals would thrive in which environment.
Carol Hroncek: Carol, although somewhat nervous, acquitted herself well.
Margaret Ann Johnson: My own impression of Ms. Johnson was her address was somewhat rambling and disjointed. Through justifiably proud of her history (going back to her own mother) in animal welfare – I found her focus was somewhat uncertain and her points unsubstantiated and unclear.
Dean Maher: Dean gave a passionate if somewhat “off-the-cuff” speech which was backed up by his current efforts at City Hall to ban the sale of dogs and cats at pet store. Someone to keep an eye on for future elections.
Tony Marner: Tony, who presents himself as a “long-time” dog walker (which many long-term dog walkers I know would dispute), trotted out the same tired “truths” and accusations that other Trow slate members spouted. As I already dealt with his assertions in a former blog, will leave it there.
Ian McConachie: Same old, same old – remarkably similar remarks from many of the Trow slate.
Crystal Tomusiak: To my mind, Crystal gave the best speech of the evening. Taking the high road, she refrained from Trow bashing and gave a passionate and honest talk about the direction she envisions the THS to take. Backed up with some real research, Crystal’s talk struck a chord with most of the audience.
Tim Trow: Tim appeared fragile and somewhat nervous. There was a part of me that felt bad for him (how the mighty are fallen). His plea for the “animals that aren’t here” struck a chord (and has an element of truth to it), which was undermined by his promise to bring back the “right” to take in strays and wildlife. The reality is that these privileges were lost under his aegis due to mismanagement and a gross dereliction of duty and an indisputable betrayal of the animals he purported to “save”. My own feeling about Tim is that his vision is quite wonderful (which I’ve asserted before) but ego, a hoarder mentality and a determined and stubborn refusal to see realities end up derailing any possibility of bringing that vision to fruition.
Thomas G. Ungar: Mr. Ungar, who served on the Board for the past year, presented a decent argument for re-election, but to no avail.
Ken Wood: Mr. Wood was a pleasant, quirky surprise to me as I went in ambivalent about his candidacy, knowing nothing about him. But he has the type of fanaticism I can live with so found him quite charming and sincere. If he can bring the same determination to animal welfare as he does to his defence of trees, we have a good Board member there. [UPDATE: Re: Anonymous below - didn't realize he said that at the end - we on the patio missed a bit and while some could be heard clearly, others not so much - thanks for that - I think it might have changed my mind too]
Needless to say, these are my opinion only on the speeches and based on the response from the audience, not everyone was in agreement. I will say I was disgusted by the occasional lapse in civility – a democratic process must allow for ALL viewpoints to be considered. Heckling and name-calling were unprofessional and ultimately, detracted from the validity of the proceedings.
Finally, during a Question and Answer session, one individual (unfortunately didn't catch her name) brought up a valid point respecting voting. There was some confusion as there were individuals who had tendered proxies who then turned up - and were entitled to vote on various motions (if not on the candidates). This individual pointed out that in the confusion it was entirely possible that someone could have voted TWICE on candidates. She tendered a motion to look carefully at the voting protocol and fix this potentially problematic form of procedure.
Finally, as a member of the THS, a very BIG thank you to the Scrutineers Wendy Lopez, J.D. and Grant Bowers, LLB who generously donated their time and considerable expertise to scrutinize the AGM, thus saving (as CEO Barry indicated) upwards of $10,000 of donor money which can now be used for the animals.
