KCSPCA  BOARD MEETING AND GENERAL MEMBERSHIP MEETING

OCTOBER 14, 2013

As usual, these are my notes, reviewed by several who were there, and NOT the official minutes.  Our comments are in italics.   Public attending:  2 spouses of board members, a man and his daughter (those 2 left early), myself (Catherine Samardza), Sherene Lindo, Doug Beatty, July Wilson, Crystal Sweeney and Diane Marks.

The meeting was called to order and Paul Davis, the newest member, was welcomed.  President Alex Moore announced the roll out of the new name and logo (previously discussed and voted on):  First State Animal Center and SPCA.  This does not change their legal and incorporated name of Kent County SPCA.  They are doing business as (“DBA”) First State and as DE Animal Care and Control for rabies, cruelty and dog control.  Mr. Moore stated that the name change was to demonstrate that they serve the entire state and are not connected to Kent County Government.  He also stated that Kent County asked them to change the name.

(We have been attending meetings since May 2012; never once when this name change was discussed has anyone said that Kent County gov’t asked them to change the name;  I contacted Commissioner Sweeney after the meeting, and he had no knowledge of any such request by Levy Court.)

The animal control branch and the shelter now have 2 separate phone numbers, but those numbers are good throughout the state.

The financial books are being reorganized to separate the shelter from animal control. 

 

(Funny, I’ve been asking for years how they know how much it costs to do animal control OR the shelter when they comingle funds.  And this has been mentioned at another board meeting, but must not have been done at that time.)

They have engaged new accountants for the next audit.

 (Have to wonder why they left Horty and Horty, whose rep just presented the highlights of their audit at the September meeting.  Lynn Nellius, former board member and treasurer, told us that they only stay with an accountant for about 2 years, and then change.  Then, when the organization fails to act on recommendations previously made, they can say they just heard about that from their new accountant.)

The minutes of the September meeting were accepted.

Treasurer’s Report

Mr. Newton reported that they ended the fiscal year with 97.9% of the projected income ($2.8M); however, expenses came in @ 94.6% ($2.76M), leaving them with a surplus of $94K.  Mr. Davis asked if there was a published copy of the report for board members; it was stated that it had been sent out via e-mail, but not yet to Mr. Davis.  Ms. Cooper gave him her copy.

The report was accepted.

Nominating Committee

The nominating committee distributed an updated board member list.  The three new members from last year have completed their 1 year period, and automatically were accepted for a 3-year term.  They also presented a slate of officers for the new fiscal year (same as last year), and voted to accept the nominated officers.

 Ms. Cooper asked what had happened to the person she recommended for the board; the committee chair said that she has not yet met with him, but would soon. 

 

Mr. Newton passed around the contact list for members to update their information before distribution.

 Fundraising Committee

Ms. Kisner reported on the November event at Dover Downs.  This event had to be moved when the Sheraton was leased by DE State University.  She is working on finding corporate sponsors. The hotel is guaranteed $5,500.00.  The board went around the table to see how many tickets (@ $100.00 per ticket) had been sold so far;  the total was 40 tickets.

 
There was a discussion concerning lists of people to call, there seemed to be two lists circulating, for different phone calls; board members were confused as to which list was being discussed.

There was discussion about the band (previously discussed @ a board meeting).  Mr. Davis didn’t understand why they were having a band, he said he didn’t believe they had ever had a band before.  It was explained that the board was trying something new, hoping to get more people involved.  Ms. Kisner said she had a list of events that used bands to bring in more people.  The band is expensive - $6,000.00 - and she is trying for a corporate sponsor to pay for them (Kristin and the Noise).  There was further discussion concerning the band (no one knew them, but Ms. Kisner assured them that it was a well-known band in the area).

 
There was discussion concerning items for the silent auction.  Board members were encouraged to contact restaurants, golf courses and other types of services for gift certificates.  All items must be received 11 days before the event.

Ms. Kisner also discussed the transitional ad introducing the new name and logo.  Staff will have shirts with the new logo as well.

Executive Director / Business Plan presentation

Mr. Usilton gave a PowerPoint presentation that included highlights of:

            New Name/Logo

            Key objectives
            How did we do?
            Animal Control
            Organizational overview
            Top Issues
            Budget
            Progress v. goals
            Wrap up

 During this presentation it was announced that Brian Whipple (animal control) had resigned and is moving to California.  Ruth Agnew is the new Director of Operations.  Beth Butts is no longer with the KCSPCA.  A human resources/accounting firm will come in three days a week.  Interviews for a Director of Development took place.

One slide was titled “Serious Issues Facing Us” and included the following:

            No Kill Advocates

            Faithful Friends
            Politics
            Animal Welfare Office
            Catherine, Carol and Doug

 (Yes, the slide had our names on it.  There was another item below, but I missed it.  But to cite Faithful Friends and the AWO as serious issues “facing” the KCSPCA? They have been complaining about the AWO from the moment is was suggested by the Animal Welfare Task Force.)

 
The budget was listed as $3.270M.

The executive director reported that a veterinarian called to say that animals being adopted are healthier now, or adopters are at least aware of health issues when they adopt.

The KCSPCA should support their loyal employees – 5 years in a non-profit is a long time.  Many times a non-profit spends a lot of time training an employee, and they then leave for another job.

Kent County Levy Court has offered customer service training; the animal control officers have already attended.

It was reported that HSUS (Humane Society of the United States) is doing a study on TNR.  The executive director said that "people don't want to see cats on the side of the road. They don't want to see cats killed."

(I haven't checked with HSUS on this.  If it's true, we don’t really understand WHY HSUS is doing this; not only does Alley Cat Allies have 20 years of field work and research on this, Professor Smith (Widener College) reported at one of the Animal Welfare Task Force meetings that 2 universities have also done independent studies of TNR.)

 (Also, the “cats on the side of the road” comment is one that has been made several times before by the executive director.  While we agree that cats (not all of them homeless) sometimes end up dead on the side of the road, we don’t see nearly as many as Mr. Usilton says there are – and some of us live on backroads in the country.)

(And last, nowhere in this presentation or synopsis of “how we are doing” mentioned that, within bare weeks of taking over the Kent County contract, there were already two complaints filed with the County Administrator.)

Mr. Usilton finished by saying with animal control “we protect people from animals” and with the SPCA “we protect animals from people.”  He said that it is a conflict, but that they manage to be in the middle.

There was discussion concerning microchips; Mr. Usilton stated that they had picked up a dog that had a microchip that was from Faithful Friends, but that they didn’t register the owner.  This led to an explanation of how the microchip process works, and that it costs money for the adopter to register.  It was stated that the KCSPCA has records identifying adopters with the chips, even if the adopter doesn’t register with the service. 

(KCSPCA posted about this on their FB page, stating that Faithful Friends could not be reached and then couldn’t identify the adopter.  This subject was also discussed at the Animal Welfare Task Force meetings.  DESPCA stated that they have records concerning adopters as well; I checked with Faithful Friends, and they also keep records of adopters/microchips.)

Ms. Hamilton asked if the other organizations take in the animals that the KCSPCA does – alligators, boa constrictors, racoons, coyotes, bats…..Mr. Usilton stated that the KCSPCA contacts the appropriate wildlife rehabilitation experts and the animals are transferred.

Mr. Usilton said he is working with a Business English class at the University of Delaware, developing projects on how to expand the KCSPCA reach.

Programs are being modelled – how to work with dogs that don’t walk on a leash, haven’t been in a home, behavior modifications.  These are programs that they don’t have time for at the shelter.

(There was more, including statistics, but since most of us – including the outside auditor contracted by NCC - cannot reconcile those statistics, I won’t bother listing them here. The quarterly statistics are posted on their website, for those who want to try to figure it out.  If you can tell us what “documented in field but not in shelter” means, PLEASE contact us.)

It was announced that there are about 75 spots for spay/neuter through Project Purr, and that the KCSPCA has applied for another, similar grant to target another zipcode area.

Old Business – NONE

New Business – NONE

President Moore suddenly asked Mr. Newton if they had a quorum for business at this meeting; Mr. Newton said there was a quorum, and it would be reflected in the minutes.

(Just being snarky, here, but most organizations determine the quorum BEFORE they reach the end of the agenda….)

Motion to adjourn made and carried.

FOLLOW UP INFORMATION: 

A) Since this board meeting, there have been two news articles that should be noted for the errors:  Delawareonline stated that Kevin Usilton wrote the original grant for Harrington’s Community Cats program.  This is not true (and I checked with Harrington).  We don’t know where DEonline got this info, but the KCSPCA was not involved in the Harrington Community Cats program.  And in a recent Cape Gazette article, it states that KCSPCA provides barking-dog enforcement for NC and Kent Counties.  Again, not true.  KC Levy Court specified that barking dog, which comes under the KC noise ordinance and NOT Title 9, should be reported to KC Planning. 

B) Regarding the two complaints – as expected, in one case the complainant was described as a known problem, and the other was just wrong (he asserts his dog was picked up from his 54 acre property, they say it was from the neighbor's property - but he also says the address portion on the ticket was crossed out).

 C) The Attorney General’s Office did NOT agree with the KCSPCA arguments - 8 pages and 22 exhibits - that Doug, Carol and I create a disturbance at their meetings just by being there. 

 Among the accusations made to the AG’s office, and also in the news media, is that we attend the board meetings to get information and then “make up lies.”  If we were just going to “make up lies” we  wouldn’t need to spend the evening listening to these meetings, would we?  We are accused of harming their reputation.  Quite frankly, if we actually made a recording and transcript of these meetings, it would be MORE illustrative of problems with the KCSPCA – in particular, the confusion that some of the board members have concerning motions made and information that is discussed.

 D) Barbei Williams went to court on October 22 after KCSPCA had her arrested for trespassing when she complained to the Town of Camden about their open dumpsters and the trash on her property.  When Mr. Usilton admitted he wasn’t present at the time he accuses her of trespassing, and the employee who reported the incident recanted, saying she couldn’t be sure where the property line was, the judge dismissed the case for lack of evidence.