ArchivesI’ve been reading about the Santa Cruz Humane Society in the Nogales International for the past several months; reports of “alleged” misdeeds, letters of people who jumped to premature conclusions that the “alleged” dirty deeds were true, and a report that the Santa Cruz County attorney did not find evidence of the “alleged” misdeeds and that charges would not be filed against the board members, but maybe the complainers.
|
|
I’ve been a member of the Santa Cruz Humane Society since it was started by Joan White. I was very active when Jackie Precious and Liz Collier were the directors. For many years, I helped with the rabies clinics and fund-raisers. Then suddenly, I was no longer called to help. The newsletters disappeared or were irregular, rabies clinics stopped, and the clinic had no vet. I heard the board was in disarray and board members kept quitting. I still kept up my yearly membership of $25 until a previous board charged $100, which I questioned.
The answer I got was a shock. The board did not have membership records. Why no records?
Both financial and organizational records have disappeared from the files at the society office during this time of chaos. The current board of directors, including the much-reviled Joan Jernigan, Barbara Hahn, and Linda Wilson, have been trying to rebuild the procedures for operating the shelter and the Humane Society.
As the board tried to set procedures, they were met with opposition from people who wanted to maintain the status quo. In the NI of Aug. 4, Cheryl Rennie questions who will pay for the “costly audit” and the retention of two law firms when charges were not filed. She is correct that charges were not filed because the reports made to the police were unsubstantiated and dismissed by the county attorney’s office. However, police reports were filed, police officers came to board members’ homes and investigated allegations of fraud. Who wouldn’t go out and hire a lawyer under such an attack?
Ms. Rennie questions the need for a costly audit, when the audit is a direct result of the complaints to the police. The SAS 99 audit was scheduled because of the police investigation. She also questions why a full-time operations manager was hired. What successful business survives and succeeds without a manager? Someone has to be in charge. Procedures have to be followed. Then supporters will have trust.
Now, because people have been fighting like cats and dogs, the auditor and one lawyer will have to be paid out of Humane Society funds. This is the way it works for all organizations. Board members are volunteers and are legally protected by the organization. The other lawyer was hired by individuals. But look on the bright side. The auditor will make suggestions to reorganize the financial accounting. The board is re-creating the bylaws, which lower membership fees. Progress is being made.
I urge all interested parties to forget personal animosity and start working together. This means that some people will have to put their egos aside and compromise to make the reorganization successful. If you cannot do that, then step aside and let others rebuild the Santa Cruz Humane Society.
To the board of the Santa Cruz Humane Society”hang in there! Keep working to reorganize the society and the shelter. Many people are behind you and will help.
(Editor’s note: Becker is a retired teacher from Rio Rico)
Popular Searches
Comments
Paul Reed wrote on Aug 26, 2009 1:57 PM:
Why dont you take some time and visit the Shelter and see for yourself what has happend to it and ask around and meet with some of this supporters and volunteers and then rewrite your article, you will be surprised that this people are not after the persons that operate the shelter but the way they are operating it. "
Nancy Cossitt wrote on Aug 17, 2009 5:29 PM:
The 4th paragraph addressing $100 membership fee should be replaced with:
*************************
The membership fee of $100 per year was instituted by a previous board shortly before that board mostly disbanded enmasse. - 17 months ago. Discussion of $100 being an unseemly amount remained as only occasional discussion by the current board until very recently.
*************************************
NOTHING ELSE NEEDED CORRECTION. MY APOLOGIES. WHAT I BELIEVED TO BE TRUE WAS NOT. I HOPE THIS CAUSES THE PAPER NO INCONVENIENCE.
Nancy Cossitt "
Nancy Cossitt wrote on Aug 17, 2009 12:12 PM:
I do hope you will resume your support of the Santa Cruz Humane Society. In the meantime, I offer explanation to comments made in your recent guest opinion which I believe to be in the realm of fact.
There have been no recent rabies clinics in the county sponsored by SCHS. There has been no serious discussion on rabies clinics by the current board (minus recent new members). Rabies clinics would provide an important service within the county.
For the past year there has been an excellent newsletter provided to members. Two board members assumed the responsibility of production of the newsletters with contributions from staff and board members. Those two board members, along with a third, are no longer with the board - because of areas of serious disagreement over policies and practices advocated by the majority of board members.
The membership fee of $100 per year was agreed upon by the current board (minus recent new members) , not a previous board. There was discussion that $100 was an unseemly amount considering members had few privileges - no vote, etc. but the $100 fee was instituted. That fee was recently rescinded and replaced with a more moderate fee.
Records did not disappear. Great effort went into preserving any records that were thought to be of value prior to the current board. Those records were kept in a file cabinet in the shelter office.
There was a second file cabinet that contained historical and personnel documents. There was never any discussion about missing records, although one could sense the prevailing sentiment on the board was “out with the old, on with the new”. There was discussion about researching records and creating new ones. Currently, there is no procedure manual for staff, no standard operating manual for the shelter, no quality assurance records. Records that are required to be available to members and to the public for review have been less than forthcoming. There is a membership list. It was used for mailings and newsletter sendouts and is current. Unless recently, there has been an inadequate system of identifying and keeping track of animals. What did disappear was the file cabinet in the office. It was removed, without prior notice, to have locks placed on the cabinet, wheeled right out of the shelter to a truck and driven off. It has since returned - complete with locks.
Concerns arose about expenses at the shelter. Inquiries were made. Answers were not provided.
The scenario was repeated many times - inquiry, no answers. Finally, the decision was made, reluctantly, to file a police report in order to obtain the answers. Asked for were receipts and explanations for expenditures that were undocumented or written out to cash. There was also a procedural concern about the newly created Executive Director position, whereby the person occupying that position and salaried, would remain on the board as a voting member occupying the position of treasurer. This anomaly has since been addressed and corrected.,
We live in a society that is very quick to retain attorneys and initiate legal suits. Perhaps the reality of the situation should have been examined more carefully. There is a public asking for receipts and transparency regarding a humble animal shelter in a border town. Funds at the shelter are dwindling. A police report is filed. An audit and attorneys’ services are undertaken by the board at the probable cost of thousands of dollars. For what? Maybe, just answering the queries would have been more than enough - certainly less expensive.
Egos. One would have to question the egos of those who knowingly went ahead and spent precious shelter funds on what could be interpreted as willful pride. Supporters practically pleaded that funds not be spent excessively when effective communication would suffice and be preferable. Did those expenditures do anything to improve the quality of life of the animals? No. Suggested would be that everybody wanting to help the shelter and the animals leave their egos at home. Everybody
The outcome: An animal shelter that may have to close its doors in the near future - mentioned was 30 days. So, Ms Beck, Board of Directors - Santa Cruz Humane Society, members, volunteers, residents of the county of Santa Cruz - we now do have our work cut out for us, don’t we? All because of the non-existence of transparency and unwillingness to communicate effectively about the needs, concerns and future of the shelter. The fighting should stop, but first there should be truth and the ability to move forward. This was never about us, was it? And yet it really was, wasn’t it? Maybe the animals ought to run the place.
Nancy Cossitt
Former SCHS board member - always supporter "
R. Morris wrote on Aug 17, 2009 9:17 AM:
At the last board meeting it was announced that the shelter only has enough money to stay open for 30 days.
No viable plan was presented on how they plan to fix the problems.
Citizens were videotaped and recorded, given only 3 minutes to comment then rudely cut off and dismissed. There was no opportunity to have two way discussion. The board was so hostile that the Vice Mayor stood up and intervened on behalf of the citizens.
Judy Becker calls this progress and tells the board to hang in there.
Maybe she should just stick to her knitting. "
Dedi Hoeck wrote on Aug 16, 2009 9:39 AM: