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.
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
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.
Bravo for your journalistic review of the AGM, Selkie!
ReplyDeleteI'm disappointed that the membership (nearly 300) who did show up and wait patiently in line were not able to switch up the selection due to the overwhelming number of proxies that supported the board-appointed slate.
But...it is what it is and the newcomers have a chance to make good on their promises. The honeymoon is over, and it's time to put feet to the fire and deliver on what I'm sure Mr. Barry would consider strategic direction or at least continuous improvement.
Fantastic review! Mine was much less journalistic and a lot snarkier (you didn't see a lot of the stuff I asked Fred to snip), and I was glad to see your thoughts on the candidates I left out (I was going from names that were on the proxy ballot I received in the mail).
ReplyDeleteIt's certainly going to be interesting to see what develops.
It's nice to read an account of the proceedings which, although does not reflect my personal feelings for the elected Board, nevertheless is a pretty accurate account of what went on. Your opinion on those who were elected however differs greatly from my impressions. I was going to vote for Ken Wood until I listened to his speech. In the end he repeated over and over "I am not a friend of Tim Trow, I am not a friend of Tim Trow, I am not a friend of Tim Trow to hysterical applause and cheers. He lost my vote then. Why is it so many of the candidtes seemed to feel in order to make themselves look good, it was necessary to make someone else look bad. Crystal Tomusiak was the only one whose speech did not do that and I voted for her. I would have preferred hearing what benefits candidates brought to the table instead of hearing over and over how bad someone else had been. They kept saying they want to move forward yet are stuck in the mud and mire of the past which they keep bringing up. Having said that however there is one error. The person who was shouting was not escorted out of the building. After he sat down, the police asked him to go out of the room, which he did. I guess they spoke to him in the hallway but he remained at the meeting. I would also like to add that I felt it was totally inappropriate and unprofessional for the THS to allow employees to stage a protest outside prior to the meeting and to act in such an uncivilized, infantile manner throughout the proceedings. It was not only disruptive but upsetting.
ReplyDeleteThanks Anonymous for the clarifications!!
ReplyDeleteThanks for your honesty!
ReplyDeleteRE: "In the end he repeated over and over "I am not a friend of Tim Trow, I am not a friend of Tim Trow, I am not a friend of Tim Trow"
ReplyDeleteConstantly being suprised that so much context has to be given when making public statements - maybe thats why our professional politicians speak so little and keep it simple.
The context is that I, like many other THS members, were upset and suprised to be receiving a barrage of letters from my 'freind' Tim Trow leading up to the election. Explained more here:
http://tinyurl.com/3mhdyaw
I do regret getting caught up in the anti-Tim Trow rhetoric, but in my heart I have felt bad for those who suffered under his watch as I know of many personal stories and objective evidence that bears out their mistreatment. Just a human with flaws myself, but thenks for the lesson. I'll try to do better.
Ken Wood
On the point of the THS being unprofessional and inappropriate in allowing employees to stage a protest outside the building - I absolutely cannot agree.
ReplyDeleteOur Canadian charter of rights and freedoms gives citizens the right of freedom of association and freedom of expression. Employees were not on work time (to my knowledge) and were not on THS property, so they were entitled to do so. I believe THS management and board had nothing to do with staging the protest.
As to behaviour during the meeting - yes, I wish it had been more toned down, but as meetings with emotional content go, it wasn't so bad. Just try going to a city councillor and public meeting and you will see the difference! (eg taxicab drivers at the licensing and standards committee last Monday)
Ken, overall, as I said, I liked your speech - you convinced me you were a good gamble for the Board. I have a distaste for drama in things like this - prefer that people take the high road- precisely BECAUSE TT seldom does. I have been witness to FAR too many tantrums, abuse and other issues (and at times been the focus of them) under his rule that I really wanted things more civilized. Having said that, I don't think it was the worst drama I heard that night so not to worry! Having spent many years covering these types of things, yes, I agree - I have been at far more raucous ones!! I'm sure we'll be talking at some point! and yes, I have no issue with the demonstration being a demonstrator extrodinaire myself (and taught my kids the same - the right to stand up and be heard is a right I cherish - and one reason I was so devestated last summer during the horrific G20 crap).
ReplyDeleteVery good account. I was also very turned off by a few of the candidates, particularly Lisa Gibbons for the reasons you stated. At last someone who can write (or talk) about Tim Trow in an unbiased or fairly neutral way. I would point out that the heckling and name-calling was done by staff members and this was totally unprofessional and damaging to the society. If members of the public wanted to demonstrate, that's ok but staff members should not be demonstrating. I hope this is addressed by management.
ReplyDeleteSusan, thank you .. while I concur about the name-calling and heckling, I actually had no issue with the demonstration. Having personally witnessed on MANY occasions how Tim treated his staff (I personally reported abuse to the Workers Board several times - without asking them as I was so appalled), I can even understand (if not agree with in the context of a formal AGM) their anger. I also feel that demonstration is a democratic right that should not be limited by anything other than the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Done appropriately, everyone is entitled to their opinion and to voice it -even publicly- with the emphasis on done appropriately.
ReplyDelete793 words that I couldn't deliver in 3 minutes that is why i rushed through half of it. I wanted to make 2 points: The need for the THS to work with rescue groups, mainly cat rescue at this time since we have an overwhelming feral cat population and the need for the membership to help built this much needed Spay/Neuter clinic: in the same line as JFK, don't ask what your THS can do for the animal but what you can do for them. The solution to stop the killing involve more than 15 people. If anyone care here the story:
ReplyDeleteAccording to the Humane Society of Canada, an estimated 400,000 healthy companion animals are killed every year in shelters across this country, of which almost 70% are cats. Shelter killing is the leading cause of death for healthy dogs and cats; this is the worst case of animal cruelty that is preventable and this is the one and only reason why I am here tonight: to prevent and stop the killing once and for all by beginning in our own community, in our own backyards.
But I cannot achieve this No-Kill community by myself; for more than 20 years, one man tried to do it by himself and during that period, dozens of rescue groups have emerged to try to reduce the number of abandoned dogs and cats as well as strays and feral cats that has grown to an estimated 20,000 to 100,000 in the GTA.
3-Rescue groups like the Toronto Cat Rescue, with its past president Ferne Sinkins who was at the helm for 15 years, and the Annex Cat Rescue, are 2 examples of what No-Kill organizations are about. They embraced the No-Kill equation at approximately the same time as San Francisco became the first city in the US to embark on this bold and revolutionary approach in the mid 90’s.
ReplyDeleteThey built an “army of compassion”, 9 - volunteers, also referred to as angels, disguised as ordinary people, living ordinary lives, but doing extraordinary deeds. This army is now a combined force of more than 700 people. Last year, they rescued more than 1800 cats from high kill shelters and feral colonies where abandoned cats, tame strays and kittens were taken to a 4- foster program to get ready for their 5- comprehensive adoption program that has a 6- return rate of 1 to 2%. Year-to-date, they have more than 500 cats in the program. They have embraced 1- Trap, Neuter, Return programs (TNR) to improve animal welfare, reduce death rates 7- with those in need of medical attention and behavior rehabilitation are cared for, and also meet obligations to 8- public welfare and neighborhood tranquility. Every week, dozens of volunteers are out and about trapping feral cats, bringing them to clinics where they are spayed and neutered, then placed in recovery homes for up to 7 days and finally returned to their colony where hundreds of colony caretakers are feeding and sheltering them until complete attrition of theses colonies is achieved; more than 160 of these colonies have been registered through the Toronto Feral Cat Project in just over a year.
It is important to know this story for it is a story about believing in the community and trusting in the power of compassion.
It is important that every current and in-coming director knows this story, for it is imperative that the new THS works in collaboration with these rescue groups as they have acquired through the years, the knowledge and the expertise of the No-Kill equation.
It is important for us, members, to know this story, for our engagement is a key factor in helping these rescue groups and the implementation of the No-Kill equation here at the Toronto Humane Society as one of the cornerstone of successful lifesaving efforts is having access to a 2- High-Volume, Low-Cost Spay and Neuter Clinic and we, the members, can build this clinic; we, the members, can rebuild the relationship with the community; we, the members, can get the public to buy-in and believe in this great institution again as it is crucial for its long term improvement. And here is how we can do it. I want you to be just like these trappers, out and about catching new members, 5000 of them, telling them that story of compassion that is happening here in our community. By getting a copy of Cat City and getting together with your family, friends, neighbors, and co-workers and letting them know that they have the means to turn this sad story into a happy ending. Then, with these 5,000 new members and the plan, we can go and knock on some philanthropist door and build this much needed clinic.
The final element of the No-Kill Equation is the most important of all, without which all the other elements are thwarted – a hard working, 10- compassionate shelter director, not content to regurgitate tired clichés or hide behind the myth of “too many animals, not enough homes”. This is going to be the biggest challenge that this new board will have to face.
The No-Kill Equation
ReplyDelete1- Feral Cat TNR Program
2- High-Volume, Low-Cost Spay/Neuter Clinic
3- Rescue Groups
4- Foster Care
5- Comprehensive Adoption Programs
6- Pet Retention
7- Medical and Behavior Rehabilitation
8- Public Relations/Community Involvement
9- Volunteers
10- A Compassionate Director
Daniel, I too want to see the THS become Toronto's first Winograd "no-kill" facility and hopefully we can all work together towards that end.
ReplyDeleteSelkie,
ReplyDeleteI will give you a little of room on your response about the right to demonstrate (which occurred before the meeting). However, I will emphasize that this was supposed to be a meeting for the Society, not a personal platform for a group of abusive, unprofessional and immature employees. Many members who normally never go to the facility wanted to hear all the candidates speak and they were prevented or hindered from doing so.
We'll have to agree to disagree on this Susan - I was there too - and it was a small contingent who were on the side of River primarly near Queen Street - no one was impeded from getting in or out of the door or were there any intimidation tactics. I do not in any way consider a peaceful demostration abusive, unprofessional and/or immature. I concur, again, that i found the heckling INSIDE the meeting distasteful (but by no mean the worst i have ever heard at an AGM - and not just a THS AGM). I found it, overall, not difficul to hear the candidates give their 3 minutes worth.
ReplyDeleteAgain, I reiterate while I do not in any way support the right to heckle and be rude at democratic meetings, I have some sympathy for where these staff members were coming from - having personally witnessed the abuse that many suffered under the former management's hand. That is not hearsey or second-hand information, that is my own personal experience. Having said, that, I again say, i feel the demonstration was handled quite well with no intimidation or bullying tactics, and yes, I agree the heckling inside the actual meeting was unfortunate.
and intimidation was what occurred when the OSPCA raided last year and we dog walkers were literally shadowed and physically intimidated by security guards hired by the OSPCA.
ReplyDeleteActually, abusive, unprofessional and/or immature are adjectives that perfectly dsecribe a session of Parliament!
ReplyDeleteSelkie,
ReplyDeleteMy first sentence was about the DEMONSTRATION. My remarks starting with "However, I will emphasize......" were about the MEETING.