Open Questions To RSPCA Tasmania

These are the questions we would like to see answered by RSPCA Tasmania…

Acting CEO Michael Linke

Animal advocate Suzanne Cass has spoken out about comments made in the Sunday Tasmanian.

‘It is indeed a sad state of affairs that the Acting CEO of RSPCA Tasmania’s only defence to the reasonable questions asked of him is is a lengthy monologue of the usual vitriolic attacks upon animal ‘activists’, who in reality, want nothing more than some serious answers to the questions raised about the current administration of the RSPCA in Tasmania, the RSPCA’s performance in his home territory, and indeed the RSPCA nationally’, Ms Cass said. ‘We just cannot see any possible justification for an animal welfare charity to form itself into an expansive bureaucracy, with excessive CEO salaries and expensive administrative positions when so, so much more could be being done for animals – all animals, including all the sheep, cattle, pigs and chickens and others who are so terribly abused. This is especially true of Tasmania, which does not have the large investment accounts believed to be held by interstate branches nor the demographic characteristics to support such a structure.

‘Perhaps Mr Linke would care to comment on the following:
1. Of 912 complaints in the ACT, there were only 6 prosecutions and one conviction in the statistical period 2008-2009. Nationally, there were 50,765 complaints, with just 259 prosecutions and 202 convictions.

2. In the same statistical period neither RSPCA ACT nor RSPCA WA carried out a single ‘routine inspection’ (intensive farms, saleyards, feedlots, zoos, rodeos, transports, pet shops, breeders (see RSPCA National statistics for more detail on types of ‘regular inspections’).
3. The selective reporting of Tasmanian statistics – only dogs ‘homed’ in Hobart – what about the other shelters, and what about cats and other animals? In what reporting period was this? A week? A month? Furthermore, RSPCA ACT claims a euthanasia rate of about 9% of dogs, but fail sto reveal openly that approximately a further 12% are ‘transferred’ (to non-RSPCA facilities such as pounds where they may have been euthanased), and that close to 45% of cats and about 50% of wildlife are euthanased at the ACT shelter. Mr Linke perhaps could also comment on his reported support of large scale kangaroo culling in the ACT, particularly in the context of a report in the Canberra Times that, when community outrage saw donations to RSPCA ACT fall away, RSPCA ACT was promised a $100,000 donation by the Stanhope government for its support of the ‘culls’ if it was re-elected (source: http://www.kangaroo-protection-coalition.com/kangaroo-cull-shamefile.html)

4. Why Mr Linke allegedly released a highly defamatory statement to the media in President Paul Swiatkowski’s name without Paul even being made aware of its existence, much less its content, exposing Dr Paul to possible legal action . The same comment was later attributed to Mr Linke the following day.

5. His comments about a ‘stable board’ fail to recognise that only three of the original board from the last AGM remain; four have left in recent months

6. The ‘plans’ in place do not involve ‘looking backwards’ – are we to understand that means all those promises made over several months are ‘non-core promises’? We have seen 9 months of expansive promises with very little delivered.

7, Those promises included not having an expensive administrative bureaucracy as the other states/territories do and spending all available funds on direct animal welfare and care – FIVE administrative positions have recently been advertised or filled in recent months, and apparently nothing spent on shelter infrastructure, and two inspectors have quit and are yet to be replaced. This is in addition to Mr Linke’s undisclosed costs, and the costs of the staff he has brought with him when he has visited Tasmania.

8. We promised that the Society would be open, transparent and accountable – at Mr Linke’s insistence, confidentiality agreements have been re-introduced. The Society should be fully honest with its members about all these costs being incurred.
Ms Cass says she has nothing personal to gain from her criticisms, and that no-one has anything to be proud of in this debate. She added that she voluntarily stepped aside from the Acting President’s position in favour of Dr Swiatkoswki last November for the good of the organisation, and did not apply for the Chief Executive Officer’s position, despite having earlier expressed a ‘casual interest’ in it many months ago. The Prosecutions position which she briefly occupied was withdrawn on the insistence of DPIPWE, and never progressed since, despite undertakings that it would be, and she described it as ‘yet another broken promise’.

‘DPIPWE objected to the “acting” position on the grounds that no process had been undertaken, yet most State Service “acting” positions are filled in this manner’, Ms Cass added. ‘DPIPWE also objected to my being appointed under the Act because “I came with the baggage of being an animal activist”‘.

‘All I ever wanted was for the RSPCA to be the powerful, uncompromised animal advocacy organisation it should be’, she said. ‘I wanted to see some direct benefits for the animals before implementing what the new CEO described as a ‘lean, entrepreneurial machine’. I thought that the membership expected nothing less from us’, she concluded.

Suzanne Cass
PO Box 252
BRIDGEWATER TAS 7030

www.stoptac.org
www.liveexportshame.com