Of the declared candidates for Toronto mayor, I have believed all along that the only one fully competent to run this diverse and complex city is George Smitherman.  I’ve told many people that in person, and with the election so close it’s time I posted my opinion online.

I worked 21 years in the provincial government, in six ministries.  For a number of those years I dealt closely with a succession of political staff in Ministers’ offices.  George was fairly young and inexperienced then, but definitely the sharpest mind of those I dealt with.  Unlike many others, he was demanding but reasonable about what he needed for the Minister.  He listened. His demands made sense.  He didn’t waste time with polite chitchat, but he also was not rude or abusive (some were very abusive).  I’ll take an intelligent listener who speaks his mind bluntly over an unreasonable one with more social graces anytime.  And I found him unfailing pleasant to deal with; I guess maybe it helped that I was reasonable back.

Since then, I watched him rise through progressively more responsible positions, and be one of the strongest members of Cabinet.  Has he made mistakes?  Sure, and from what I saw of him, he won’t make them twice.  I know in part he listened to the wrong people – we don’t expect our Cabinet Ministers to be IT experts, and the journals of software development show that many top business and public sector leaders have been misled by IT people. The only people who don’t make mistakes are those who don’t do anything, and Toronto needs a mayor who will do a lot to restore the health of this city.

I wish he hadn’t let untendered contracts, but I can tell you from considerable first hand knowledge that the ministers in EVERY provincial party have done this, and a lot of it, in the past.  The world had changed; the public is not tolerant now and George will know this.  I also wish he would release his list of donors in advance, but I know that is more work for a newcomer to municipal politics than an incumbent as his two main rivals are. I expect he is trying to get out the vote. I meant to help but have been overloaded with work, so am taking a few minutes to write this instead.

So is George Smitherman perfect?  I don’t know anyone who is.  I believe he is intelligent, competent, caring and fair. I believe he will care about the whole city, not give undue preference to either business or city staff. I believe he will seek to operate with integrity, not repeatedly violate the integrity code or knowingly and repeatedly misrepresent financial information. I believe he is the only real choice of thinking voters for Toronto mayor on Monday.

On May 30, Toronto Humane Society members present at a Special General Meeting and those who had mailed in their ballots (no proxies were allowed) elected a slate of candidates known as the Faces of Change as the new board.

Collaboration opportunities

Some independent candidates who spoke seemed excellent candidates for future board positions, and I was assured by several members of Faces of Change that they would be immediately approached for committee or task force work. Another seemed particularly passionate and knowledgeable about a particular operational area, and while much too “one-issue” for a board, should quickly be leading an operational group to address his concerns.

Using my governance knowledge, thick file on the THS, email exchanges and advance conversations with a spokesperson for each slate, I went into the meeting with five reasons for supporting Faces of Change over another slate, Save the THS. My thinking was strengthened by remarks at the meeting.

Focus

Faces of Change seemed focused on creating a better THS, not on advocacy actions against the OSPCA and the current (Liberal) government of Ontario.  Given the history of problems and the loss of many good staff members, volunteers and donors over the last few years, I believe the new board should concentrate on governing and rebuilding, not attacking others.

Vision

Save the THS appears to have an inappropriate vision for the organization, and I believe this would have led to inappropriate priorities and programs aimed at perpetuating the organization rather than working to end cruelty. A spokesperson told me she was sure I shared her vision of “a strong THS a hundred years from now.”

Well, of course, I don’t and no reasonable person would who thought about it would. Surely a hundred years from now we would want there to be responsible pet ownership or partnership, and loving homes for all pets. Surely we would want animal cruelty to have ceased to be an issue, due to strong societal pressures for kindness and serious penalties for cruelty.  The outdated Save the THS thinking is similar to the awful “the poor will always be with us” musings versus the more progressive “end poverty forever” approach.  Both can be self-fulfilling prophecies, and the latter is much more likely to lead to a world with considerably reduced poverty and eventually an end to it.

Team

Faces of Change had built a team during its lengthy efforts to reform the THS, with time to ensure the right mix of skills and knowledge and to confirm their willingness to work hard for their passion. They were also able to point to specific fundraising successes.  In contrast, the Save the THS spokesperson told me she had just reached out to her friends and her political contacts in the Conservative party to build a slate on short notice.

Independence

While it is normal for organizations to have some continuity in leadership, the outgoing THS leadership was highly contentious and both slates claimed to have no ties.  There were allegations in advance that this was not true for Save the THS, and in fact the outgoing President, who was running as an independent, urged the members to vote for Save the THS.

Save the THS alleged ties between the OSPCA and Faces of Change but provided no evidence.  Note that everyone at the meeting spoke against the OSPCA’s handling of the ringworm situation and its euthanasia policy.

Legal

The Save the THS slate had been given a judicial rebuke for misuse of the membership list. They exhibited a too-cavalier attitude to privacy and due process. And one of its candidates is facing numerous criminal charges stemming from his actions as a member of the outgoing board.

Some of the candidates on that slate are highly skilled, highly knowledgeable and likely good-hearted animal lovers. They put forward some excellent governance ideas that Faces of Change should strongly consider, and all sides spoke to the critical need to rebuild good relationships with staff and volunteers.

The results were not announced at the meeting but were posted quickly. In hindsight, this was likely wise, as it meant the meeting ended with the same politeness and decorum that had existed  throughout, except sometimes at the mike.    The Honourable Sydney L. Robins, who had been appointed to supervise the election, and the lawyers assisting him, ran a well-organized meeting that made excellent use of time.

Will Faces of Change govern effectively? I am optimistic but of course will be keeping a watch. Of course, they will have to find out the true financial situation now that they have direct access, and I am sure they will be much more open to sharing such information with members.

I truly congratulate the THS members for caring enough to vote, to attend if they could, to ask good questions, and to have followed the issue well enough to make great choices.  I urge Toronto residents to join and support the THS, and hope that good service volunteers from the past will return.  I urge all local animal rescue groups to be open to working with the new THS on behalf of the animals.

Members of the Toronto Humane Society:  Please vote on May 30^th, and please make a wise choice!  The Special General Meeting will be at 1 p.m. at the Best Western Primrose, 111 Carleton St.  I am supporting the Faces of Change slate.

I have a thick and sad file on this organization, and you can find some of my earlier thoughts at http://www.canadianfundraiser.com/newsletter/article.asp?ArticleID=3148 and http://www.canadianfundraiser.com/newsletter/article.asp?ArticleID=3155.  That two-part article was cautious as very few facts were available; the organization would not speak to me or provide even such basic documents as bylaws.  However, it should be easy to tell that I believed the organization was being very poorly governed, and as more facts have come to light my opinion of the outgoing board got worse and worse.

So I believe it is critical that no one with personal or business ties to that board, and particularly to the former executive director, get elected.  If you care about animal welfare, and want future animals treated in accordance with veterinarian decisions not management whims, vote for the Faces of Change slate.  If you care about volunteers not being bullied, vote for the Faces of Change slate.  If you’d like your donations spent on the mission and not on legal bills and capital projects that are not properly funded, vote for Faces of Change.  Will they be wonderful governors?  That remains to be seen, but they’d have to try awfully, awfully hard to be worse.  Information on its candidates can be found at http://www.reformths.com/candidates.html).

If you had planned to support a third slate, Representing Animals in Need, note that it withdrew as a slate and some of the people who were on that slate are now running for Faces of Change.

Why do I not support Save the THS, the other slate?  Because I find the reports credible that Bob Hambley, the current President of the inactive board attended at least one of its meetings, even though he is running as an independent.  Bob has strong ties to Tim Trow, the person alleged to have caused many of the THS problems as chair and Executive Director, and during earlier involvement with the THS dating back to the early 1980s.   I am a cat person, not a dog person, but I would vote for an all-dog slate over one connected in any way to Bob Hambley, who by the way is still facing cruelty charges.  Yes, he is presumed innocent but I do not think he should be standing for reelection until the charges are dealt with.  If he or his supporters get back in, I will be very worried that the door will soon be reopened for Tim Trow to come back too.

The long-time THS lawyer who worked for this former board is also said to be attending Save the THS meetings, and that is also a black mark in my opinion.  A former consultant to the THS board has acknowledged involvement with the Save the THS slate, increasing the connections.

No doubt some of the people involved in the second slate are just as concerned for the animals as those on the slate I support, but I believe they may have allied themselves with those who are not.  As well, I think Faces of Change has a better plan and focus for the THS in the medium term, and a slate developed by an organization that had been in place for a while, instead of one put together by a single individual.

If you had not applied for membership by November 26^th, a legal decision now prevents you from voting. I urge you to join or rejoin after May 30th, make donations, and generally support efforts to get this organization back to serving its mission.

ADDENDUM:  Michelle Wasylyshen of Save the THS contacted me after seeing this blog, and asserts that her team has no ties to the former board or executive director.  She stated that prior to forming a slate, her group asked the THS for more information about finances and more, and Bob Hambley and Pell Capone turned up to provide that information.  That was the only time they came and there has been no continued contact whatever.  You can find more information about this slate’s candidates at http://www.savetheths.ca.

I don’t have a private investigator to help determine the truth of allegations.  I would much rather you carefully looked at all the candidates and selected those you think will govern best, than not care enough to vote.  Members will have information on the independent candidates as well.

Note that the allegation about improper use of the member list is now a legal ruling; see comment below.

Note that both groups have spoken out against the mass euthanasia plans of the OSPCA with regard to ringworm and its Newmarket centre, so that will not help you decide.

Wow, proxy votes are a hot topic!  I had more feedback on my monthly ethics column than usual.  Apparently many organizations worry about the potential misuse of proxies at annual general meetings, and many people in the community benefit sector have had bad experiences with proxies.

You’ll find my column at http://www.charityvillage.com/cv/archive/aeth/aeth10/aeth1002.asp.  It is published on the first Monday of each month, and you will find online archives dating back to 2003.  While you are on that site, sign up free for the weekly Village Vibes e-newsletter!  It’s a great source of news for Canadian organizations, and helpful advice and ideas for organizations anywhere.

Here’s what the anonymous questioner (I get the questions relayed through Charity Village, without any identifying data) said after seeing the column:

“Thanks very much, the answer was thorough and very much appreciated by the Board.”

I love getting feedback from the originator!  Your comments and column ideas are welcome too.  I hope to get even more comments once Charity Village carries out its plan to allow comments to be directly posted on the site.

By the way, the column dealt only with proxy voting at members’ meetings.  I simply don’t see any ethical dilemma about using proxies at board meetings.  The answer should always be no. That makes for a rather short column.

It is sometimes illegal (for example, if your organization is incorporated under the Canada Corporations Act), the lawyers tell me. And if there was a lawsuit, have you checked how your provider of your Directors and Officers insurance would react to covering a voter who wasn’t on the D&O insurance list as a director and officer?  Or to covering others if that non-director swayed a critical vote?

And generally, anyone who is not a regular participant at board meetings, and fully informed about the issues and the organization’s status, simply cannot properly carry out a director’s duty of care.  Most issues that come to a board require an understanding of the Vision, Values and Mission statements, the strategic plan and its status, the financial situation, the risk management approach and current issues, the relationship with stakeholders, and more.  A quick briefing isn’t going to be anywhere close to adequate, and bringing someone up to speed at a board meeting is a poor use of group time.

Letting another director carry a proxy isn’t a good alternative either, in my opinion, as that concentrates more power in one individual than a nonprofit director should have.  But if you feel differently, let me know!

Yes!!!  If, from all the material posted on the Internet daily, you have picked this blog to read, then we share a common interest.  We likely, in fact, share many common interests with each other and with many humans we haven’t met yet, even virtually.  For example, do we not all want a healthy environment, now and for those will follow us?

To borrow from Wikidictionary:  “Traditionally a ‘community’ has been defined as a group of interacting people living in a common location. The word is often used to refer to a group that is organized around common values and social cohesion within a shared geographical location, generally in social units larger than a household. The word can also refer to the national or global community.  Since the advent of the Internet, the concept of community no longer has geographical limitations, as people can now virtually gather in an online community and share common interests regardless of physical location.”

Once we free our thinking about communities to go beyond proximity, it becomes much easier to see that every organization working to improve the world is a community benefit organization.  Charities are founded for that explicit purpose, and surely it is what we wish from our government.  Many businesses have adopted corporate responsibility measures, and act in socially responsible ways, understanding that, in the long run, loyalty to shareholders and the greater good of all stakeholders are inextricably linked.

This blog will address matters of interest to people involved with community benefit organizations, particularly the organizations more commonly referred to as charities, nonprofits, NGO (non-governmental organization), CSO (civil society organization) associations and other such terms for organizations that are not part of the government or business.  Many of the concepts will apply directly to government agencies, and somewhat to government departments and businesses that see themselves as having a public benefit purpose.

Canadian law uses the term public benefit, as well as charity, not-for-profit, nonprofit.  In US law, a common term is “exempt organization.”  I used to primarily call them nonprofits, but realized the term led to many misunderstandings and negative impressions.  My wonderful colleague Hildy Gottlieb convinced me to try Community Benefit Organization instead, and it feels so right!  Check our the No More Nonprofits video at http://hildygottlieb.com/multimedia/.

Many trade and professional associations, as well as recreational groups, think in terms of mutual benefit – they exist to serve their members.  However, many progressive associations have realized the value of thinking beyond their own members to the impact those members have in the world.  How far might the term “mutual” stretch?

Please follow this blog to read periodic thoughts about how communities and community benefit organizations can make our world MUCH better, interspersed with my comments on current leadership and ethics issues as they occur.