In May this year, at its first Annual General Meeting for the year, the RSPCA announced the appointment of six new members; for positions that by the terms of its own Constitution, are elected positions.
As a concerned member of the public (and former president, subsequently expelled for allegedly ‘bringing the organisation into disrepute’) I wrote to this new board In June, following the May AGM, with a series of questions.
I asked how, under the Constitution, people could apparently virtually appoint themselves, and noted anomalies in the composition of the previous board, which contained just three people who had virtually self-appointed (apart from Treasurer Debbie McGrath, who was apparently elected in November 2010), resigned intermittently then again self-appointed throughout the immediately preceding years.
It was only a State government bailout of $400,000 that saved it. The RSPCA went before a very public, and very damning, investigation by the Parliamentary Standing Committee of Public Accounts, which, inter alia, found that it was not a fit and proper organisation to be receiving public money.
I also noted the Committee’s findings about the organisation’s expenditure, most specifically on legal fees and consulting. The Committee noted that it had paid just one of its lawyers $148,000, in just one year. Had the Committee also seen the full amount of expenditure on legal matters, it would have also included the barristers also employed in these matters, and ideally would have looked back over the three preceding years rather than just the immediately prior one, which I would estimate would have doubled or even tripled that amount given the board’s propensity for engaging in taking its legal battles to the courts rather than attempting to resolve them in a mature and more proper way using Alternative Dispute Resolution procedures available to it. This spending continued even after the withdrawal of support from the major benefactor. It came from funds donated by a caring Tasmanian community, given for the care and protection of animals.
The board had presided over the appointment of a CEO, Ben Sturges, who, in my view, did not meet a single one of the selection criteria for the position, but whose father was a Labor politician.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/state-politics/rspca-funds-threat-after-mps-son-fired/story-e6frgczx-1226929236641?nk=b150ef73b453119235f6ab8bf420664c#mm-premium
Ben Sturges’ position ended in November 2012. The board appointed now former CEO of the ACT branch of the RSPCA, Michael Linke, as the Acting CEO.
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/canberra-rspca-chief-executive-michael-linke-resigns-20131014-2vhy6.html
http://article.wn.com/view/2014/03/22/Glenn_Howie_sacked_RSPCA_manager_optimistic_of_unfair_dismis/
The costs of Mr Linke’s tenure have never been disclosed, but on the occasions he visited the state, I believe the costs included air fares, travel and accommodation for himself and an entourage of his staff and possibly a proportion of his salary.
A basic examination of the financial statements for the 2012-2013 financial year (and noting that the report by the PSC was released in 2012) reveals that spending on ‘Consultancy’ (including lawyers) actually increased by $99,700 from the 2011-2012 financial year. ’Professional’ fees’ increased by $26,550 and expenses for ‘Subscriptions’ increased by $3,692, amounting to $47,659 (over $900 PER WEEK) just for that item. ‘Accounting and audit’ fees increased by $8,908 and ‘Professional Fees’ (not specified) increased from $17,319 to $43,869, an increase of $26,500. These items are not adequately particularised, a fact that did not escape the Committee but it was again not remedied in the 2012-2013 financial statements.
My expulsion came about after I took my concerns about the organisation’s spending to the media in 2010, during Michael Linke’s period of control. Mr Linke had advertised numerous administrative positions, and I took the view that if the organisation had money to spend it should be on animals, not people, or corporate welfare. So if I was expelled for such a reason (‘bringing the organisation into disrepute’).
It is my belief that there can be no greater shame or disgrace than the very public and damning findings in the report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee for Public Account.
The Committee’s Report can be found by following this link:
http://www.parliament.tas.gov.au/ctee/Joint/pacc.htm
The response I have received from General Manager Peter West, above, on August 29, to my 8 page issues paper is:
‘The Board of the RSPCA discussed your letter dated 15.6.2014 at its Board meeting last night.
They thank you for taking the time to write to the Board, and for bringing the matters to their attention.
They have given due consideration to your thoughts and have discussed the matters raised appropriately’
It is indeed curious that it took 10 weeks to elicit even this minimal response.
When I asked for more detail, I was informed by Mr West that ‘that is the board’s response’. In its entirety
There is no response at all to any of the critical questions I asked, including whether or not the board is in fact legally constituted, far less an attempt to address the matter of expulsions and withdrawal of memberships or the matters of expenditure.
It is sad indeed that the board appears to consider itself as unaccountable to the public. This reinforces the opinion of many in the wider community that RSPCAs should be made to more accountable, they should end the culture of secrecy and the fact that RSPCAs generally are in my view ‘teflon coated’ and answerable to no-one. And this is also reflected in the case of other state branches, where animal advocacy groups have called for a Commission of Enquiry into RSPCAs and what are perceived as manifest failures to perform their core functions – the care and protection of animals.
Suzanne Cass, Stop Tasmanian Animal Cruelty www.stoptac.org www.liveexportshame.com
