Tuesday, May 18, 2010

Toronto Humane Society elections - updated

The melodrama over the Toronto Humane Society elections went into overdrive these last few days with a couple of communiques just sent out. One was an email written by Bob Hambley and the other was from someone or some people who obviously don't like Bob Hambley very much - at least they don't like the idea of him being on the THS board.

Bob really should change his name to Bobo the Clown-O because he makes people laugh so. If you don't know, Hambley is a cohort of Tim Trow who's already been on the Toronto Humane Society board for eons and he's running for re-election again because I guess he figures he hasn't done enough for the place. You'd think that someone who has been charged with animal cruelty (not proven in court yet) would take a step back, if not for his own good then at least for the good of the THS with respect to regaining the public trust.

I had this whole super snarky thing written up about the ludicrousness of Hambley's e-mail blast to the THS membership (though not quite as ludicrous as the innuendos spouted by another ex-board member hoping to get re-elected - won't get into that here) but I've nixed it because I was getting a stomache ache writing about it. Suffice it to say, Hambley basically takes personal credit for most everything positive that's happened at the THS recently - and it ain't much from what I hear - and disparages the hell out of the Faces of Change slate.

Anyway, whatever I write can't possibly outdo the other mail out I got. Much of this other mail out is a compiled list of allegations against the THS under the old regime's watch. Social Mange has got it up and you can read it here.

It reads like a horror show. Here are some excerpts:

THS Veterinary Technician Jessica Newall

"One person to do the feeding of approximately 200 baby squirrels and raccoons ... she states that animals were not getting fed ... and were constantly crying because of hunger and they were dying due to starvation"

"Animals are brought in that should be euthanized but are left to die in cages."

Dr. Vivian Ungar

"As a veterinarian at the THS, I have witnessed numerous animals ... that were in distress and suffered needlessly because they were cared for by veterinary assistants who lacked the proper professional qualifications and are improperly trained."

"In my expeience as a veterinarian at the THS, it is very common to find animsls suffering in cages and dying slow, agonizing deaths ..."

"... countless cases in which animals being housed at THS were found in extreme distress, and suffering from medical conditions that could have been prevented ..."

Former THS Veterinary Technician Lindsay Neilson

"When you're a 16 year old cat dying of renal failure, and you've lost patches of fur, and you can't get up, and you go to the bathroom all over yourself, and you're just lying in your cage, no one comes to see you for days ... you can't even lift your head into your bowl to eat, these are the times that you do need to euthanize. Unfortunately, a lot of these animals are not euthanized and they die slowly in their crates, and five days later they're found."

THS Senior Administrator Laura Hendy

"When referring to adoptions versus deaths in cages and the misrepresentation and concealment of facts the witness makes the following statements "He (Tim Trow) has told me himself to play with the numbers until it comes out the way it should""


And on and on. Not a worthy legacy for Hambley and his board if these allegations are proven true in court.

Hambley openly supports the Save the THS slate. If I were on the STHS slate, I'm not sure I'd want his support with allegations like that floating around. He's got this plan in his head where he's going to partner up with the Save the THS slate and ride their wave back onto his throne. I don't know what the STHS people think about that but last I heard and read, the STHS claims no affiliation with Hambley so someone's not getting their messaging correct. Either STHS isn't telling the truth about their non-affiliation with Hambley or Hambley is trying to cuddle up to a team that is publicly denying anything to do with him.

*******************

I haven't been writing about the upcoming THS elections because the drama for the last couple of weeks hasn't been over which side has got the best animal welfare platform but over who's got the best political machinery to win the election.

That's the problem with having slates which are basically political parties. Everything gets hyper politicized and instead of issues coming to the forefront, it's strategy that wins the day. I really wish that the politicos over at Save the THS had never come up with the slate idea in the first place but I guess being politicians and politcal strategists, that's what they're comfortable with. Because they decided to run a slate, it forced the other major candidates to form slates as well. Power in a group and all that.

Here are my problems with slates:

1. Monothink - on the one hand this might be good for moving actionable items along but too often it also becomes a repressive force where dissenting voices are told to keep quiet and toe the party line.

2. It makes the process become more like a competitive sporting event. Individual egos are enough of a problem but group egos are titanic. People who have no reason being opponents (especially in this case where, for the most part, everyone is fighting for the same cause) find themselves on opposing sides of an artificially created fence. Too much energy goes into winning this team competition and not enough goes into deciding who are the best individual candidate suited for solving the problems of animal homelessness.

3. Weaker links on each slate get a free ride. There are strong candidates on both the Faces of Change slate and the Save the THS slate but there are also not so strong candidates. If members vote by slate, and many probably will, they will be ushering in the not-so-brilliant candidates along with the exceptional ones.

4. Individual candidates get shafted. Individuals who are not aligned with a slate generally won't have the same shared resources as the slates where candidates can pool their resources for campaigning. This is obviously the case in these elections with both FOC and STHS sending out mailings to members which would have cost thousands of dollars and days of work. I doubt most, if any, of the independents will be able to do this.

Be that as it may, we're stuck with slates so I'm just complaining to the wind here.

***********************

From what I understand, THS members don't necessarily have to pick a complete slate. They have the option to cast support behind individual candidates. That's what I would do. There are some amazing people on both slates who I think would be of huge benefit to the THS. Will the members have time enough to individually research each of the over thirty candidates? I doubt it. I suspect the majority will vote by slate.

If I had to pick a slate, hands down I would pick Faces of Change. Here are my reasons:

1. Most importantly Faces of Change has a well researched animal welfare policy (Faces of Change - Animal Welfare Plan). Save the THS has got a few points they've put up on their website but it's not nearly as comprehensive. I want to know that people on the slate care enough about animals at the THS to have put in the hours educating themselves and coming up with solutions to end animal homelessness.

2. There is a better balance between animal welfare oriented candidates and business oriented candidates on the Faces of Change slate, almost fifty/fifty. I believe you need both on a board. The business people bring in much needed funds and organizational skills. The animal welfare people ensure best practices are followed for helping homeless animals.

3. The combined THS experience the candidates on the Faces of Change slate bring to the table is very impressive. They've got on the ground experience and know what the problems and strengths are at the THS. I would never vote for anyone who bragged about their lack of THS experience and their lack of a plan and I think it's a mistake for STHS to be promoting this as a positive with regards to their slate. Would you vote, hire or entrust something important to a group who has less direct experience and barely a plan?

4. There are several members of the Faces of Change of slate who have spent much time and energy in helping the THS become a better place for animals and I know those people will continue to do so whether or not they get elected to the board. That shows real dedication to the cause. Most of the STHS slate aren't even members of the THS and I'm not so sure would contribute anything to the shelter if they are not elected to the board. I hope they prove me wrong.

5. It's possible that the STHS slate will say that since a board should be hands off the actual day to day running of a shelter, the directors don't actually need hands on experience. This is basically implying that any group of managers can manage anything equally well from a soap factory to an animal shelter. Sorry but I disagree. An animal shelter is not a soap factory. Experience and specific knowledge about the task at hand is always preferable. Faces of Change has got that experience and that knowledge. I can't say the same for STHS.

Also, it must be taken into consideration that the THS is not a well functioning agency. In fact, it needs a lot rebuilding. Sure any board can go out and hire someone to do the rebuilding but how are they going to know who to hire if they don't themselves understand the problems that need to be resolved and the way in which those problems need to be resolved.

It's like hiring a general contractor for the reno of your house. You may not be doing the work yourself but it's always advantageous to know how the work should be done properly before signing someone up to do the job.

6. Faces of Change doesn't have old guard Bob Hambley rooting for them.

The one big criticism lobbed against the Faces of Change slate is their connection with the OSPCA. It's well known that several of the members supported the OSPCA's actions when that organization raided the THS late last year precipitating all that has happened there since, including these elections. Supporting the raid, though, does not equate with supporting the OSCPA's animal welfare policies in general. I supported the raid. I do not support their animal welfare policies. Several members of the Faces of Change slate have been and still are very vocal opponents of the animal welfare policies of the OSPCA.

It's also rather disingenuous for any candidate (well except for those old board members seeking re-election) or slate to wholly disparage the role the OSPCA played at the THS. Without them, there wouldn't even be any elections so all the candidates have benefited equally from the OSCPA forcing the old board out.

Whatever happens, whoever gets voted onto the new board can't but do a much better job than the old board. The quality of all the candidates is in general very high. These are pretty much all individuals who are successful, ambitious and have got reputations to maintain. I can't see them bowing to any of the old shenanigans the THS was known for regardless of whether or not any of the old board members get re-elected.

Whoever wins, the animals at the THS will be better off.

*****************

Updates:

1. The Save the THS has added as one of their priorities a demand that the OSPCA be separated into two agencies, an animal welfare agency and a separate policing agency, as there is a conflict of interest when it essentially polices itself. This is a great idea if the practicalities of setting up two agencies can be worked out. However, I'm not quite sure why this is a THS election issue. Shouldn't a new board be more concerned with getting their own house in order first considering what a mess it's in? Check out STHS' news headlines on their website:

Sun: Who Polices The Animal Cops?

Save the THS Calls on Province to Clean Up Problems with Animal Welfare Enforcement

Save the THS Slate To Province: Separate Regulator and Operator

‘Save The THS’ Saddened By Events At The York Region OSPCA

Save the THS – a new team for a new Toronto Humane Society


Four out of five attack the OSPCA with the one lone heading that actually talks about the STHS. This is obviously an attention grabber to get some political points and I certainly hope that starting a war right off the bat with another animal welfare agency isn't indicative of the STHS' priorities because that does smell too much like the old board's tactics.

And yes, there are other major headlines out there to grab if the STHS were actually in tune with animal welfare issues in Ontario and truly concerned about disseminating news regarding those issues, like the movement to improve animal cruelty laws, for example, after the recent discovery and later euthanasia of a dog tortured and dumped in Windsor.

2. Wednesday night, I'm told, there is going to be a live debate broadcast on CP24 at 9 (but check your listings to make sure about this) between an FOC candidate and an STHS candidate. While I enjoy a lively debate, I suspect that STHS is going to stick David Turnbull, their spokesperson, in front of the camera to rep their side because he's a seasoned pro, being a politician and all, and if he's a good politician, he'll be able to talk his way around anything and come out sounding good but saying nothing. Let's hope substance wins over style tomorrow night.

25 comments:

Social Mange said...

Yet another really good post.

Social Mange said...

The STTHS slate appears to be playing a shell game, trying to deflect attention from the THS mess and the fact that they have no concrete plan to deal with it, to the OSPCA. "See this hand? No, look at this hand."

That is utterly unacceptable, considering the state of the THS and the current board's approval of inviting HSUS, the animals' enemy.

I suggest that everyone call in CP24 tomorrow night and hammer the STTHS rep with questions about the slate's plans and processes for dealing with THS.

Don't let STTHS play a shell game with you, don't let 'em try to deflect you to the OSPCA. If they try it, then say "I guess you have absolutely no plan for dealing with THS, then."

redstarcafe said...

Fred, a brilliant summary. The members do have some talented candidates to choose from rather than feel boxed into a vote for a slate. In the final days before the election, I am trusting in their instincts to bring it back to the needs of the animals.

Anonymous said...

Doing a press conference in the wake of the OSCPA animal killings in Newmarket is an obvious political strategy to get attention and it pisses me off that this STTHS slate of supposedly fresh and nonpolitical members are using the deaths of over a hundred animals to try to win votes. If they're already resorting to this kind of pathetic obfuscation and deflection, I can't imagine how their going to behave if they ever get into power. This is what happens when politicians get involved.

Michelle said...

Fred,

Announcing that you support the Faces of Change/OSPCA slate is somewhat old news (or not really news at all) given that you opening told me that you have assisted them in “preparing their platform along with other aspects of their campaign.”

With regards to your comment below concerning the endorsement, although it came as a surprise to us, it is not at all shocking that that Bob Hambley would publically support our team. Knowing the animal world as you do, you should also not be shocked that Mr. Hambley would be critical of a group that he views worked with the OSPCA on the raid of THS last year. No reasonable person would expect Bob to endorse a slate that has attacked him throughout the campaign as the Faces of Change slate has done. As well, no reasonable person would expect Bob to endorse a slate that has no room for him on it should they be elected.

With regards to endorsements, Save the THS is actively working to secure the support of a majority of THS members. Along with this, we would hope too that upon reflection, the Faces of Change members would also endorse our slate as the most qualified professional group representing the best opportunity to break with the old politics that has hampered the THS.

As you know from our recent conversation, Save the THS represents the only opportunity to vote for the skills and experience required to turn around the organization as well as avoid the old politics of groups that have had a long-standing agenda to take over the THS. Our team will continue building its case with members as a new team of professionally skilled and dynamic people dedicated to the best animal care practices in the country.

Regards,

Michelle

Robert Abbott said...

How is this obfuscation? Only last week, everyone was talking about the insanity going on in Newmarket. How is this not an issue?

Good for Klees and the STTHS folks for at least suggesting how to ensure that the next Newmarket can be avoided.

I agree with them: I think a lot of folks who donate to the OSPCA would be surprised to find out how much of their money goes towards policing, as opposed to the welfare of animals. Would be good to get some clarity on this.

Good for Turnbull and Klees to push on this.

Fred said...

Thanks Michelle for clarifying your slate's position with regards to Hambley. I'd like to ask you then, do you support Hambley as much as he supports you? And what's your opinion on the legacy his board has left behind at the THS? I know in our conversation - since you brought it up - you said you don't want to wade into the politics but apparently you don't mind wading into the politics when it comes to the OSCPA so now I consider it fair game to ask you to please clarify your slate's position with regards to the conditions of the THS under Hambley's watch.

Also, is it true that you or someone on your slate is referring to Faces of Change as Faces of the OSPCA in your email out to members?

As for my position supporting Faces of Change, you're right, it's not news and any regular reader of this blog wouldn't think so either since I have already stated in this blog that I helped draft the FOC animal welfare platform. Were you implying some sort of lack of transparency on my part with your quotation marks?

And since you brought up our meeting, I'd like to mention to the readers as I mentioned to you that one reason I contacted you was in hopes of starting some sort of dialogue between the candidates of the two slates to try to get over all this stupid politicking. Unfortunately, the politicking has taken over - and that's coming and going from both sides - as we get closer to the Special General Meeting so I doubt any dialogue is going to happen which is truly a shame.

selkie said...

wow, Michelle- allow me to jump in here (well I'm going to regardless). Would this be the same THS you are talking about where I volunteered for 3 years? Because it sure does not sound like it! I'm not sure where you've been, but Mr. Hambley wasn't seen for dust during the past many years when the THS was going to hell in a handbasket.

I DESPISE the OSPCA and think they DESTROYED what was left of the THS, but it was already a shell of what it was meant to be. And you really expect people to trust individuals who are closely aligned with those took a wonderful vision and twisted it into perdition? I am talking STHS incidentally – as it is common knowledge of the links between many of the former board members and the “new” candidates. Mr. Hambley’s connection to the OLD THS (you know, the one where all sorts of atrocities were discovered) is irrefutable.

However, as the MAJORITY of the Faces of Change slate had NOTHING to do with the OSPCA being given entry- I find myself confused as to WHY the STHS continues to assert it DOES. In actual fact, several of the FOC were actively, loudly and physically there fighting the OSPCA intrusion tooth, claw and nail – and were instrumental in saving the lives of many of the animals – animals left to the mercy of the OSPCA by people like Bob Hambley and the old board who were NOWHERE to be seen during this awful occupation.

I also find it questionable why you challenge the experience offered by FOC; if you take a look at their biographies, not ONLY do MOST of them have hands-on animal experience (unlike the STHS group – many of whom have never set foot in an animal shelter and know nothing about the dynamics), but MANY also have DIRECT THS experience – and that in addition to their impressive business experience.

What I don’t think you and the STHS GET is we are uninterested in “professionals” who are good at crunching numbers or hand-clasping – and want instead, people who are actively, historically, emotionally and passionately familiar with, interested in and willing to fight at the grassroots level for a THS that reflects what it was meant to be – a shelter, a refuge and a place where EVERY animal is given a chance.

Anonymous said...

Robert Abbott said...

How is this obfuscation? Only last week, everyone was talking about the insanity going on in Newmarket. How is this not an issue?



This is obviously obfuscation to hide the fact that the Save people have got no real plans for the THS but they seem to have a plan for the OSPCA. Which board are they running for? If it's not obfscation, then it's definitely payback on behalf of Hambley and Trow.

THS Member said...

Michelle,

What you fail to understand is that a fancy resume and political connections are not going to be enough to Save the Toronto Humane Society.

What is your plan for the THS? What programs and services are you going to create at the THS? How are you going to fix and expand current programming at the THS? Do you understand what issues the animals face at the THS on a daily basis? How are you going to fix those issues?

There was an article in the Toronto Star a few weeks ago about both the FOC slate and the STHS slate. Both groups were asked the same questions. Here is an excerpt from that article. Pollock represented STHS and Laking represented FOC. http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/807445--q-and-a-humane-society-election-candidates

Q Would your slate support the creation of any new programs or services? Would it cut anything?

A Pollock: Many of our team members have extensive experience in animal care and welfare. As such we will have many possible ideas that could alter or expand current services. We believe it would be irresponsible for any slate to make definitive statements about what it would add or cut until a full review of operations can be completed. Any position taken today would be based on hearsay, media reports or old agendas of the past.

Laking: We support a low-cost, high-volume spay and neuter clinic. We believe in a trap-neuter-release program to tackle feral cat overpopulation; support programs to keep pets in loving homes; a food bank so lower-income families can come and get food for their pets we can keep in homes that may have otherwise had to surrender them. We want to work with rescues, we want to work with animal welfare agencies, we’re going to use social media. As far as cutting anything, I think cutting anything that helps animals as a starting point is a terrible idea.

The Faces of Change group has a plan. What is yours?

Carol said...

No surprise - Fred covers it all and calls it like it is. And the comments that followed his posting, especially his response to Michelle Wasylyshen's (organizer of "Save the THS" ) attempt to imply some lack of transparency on his part, clearly demonstrates his integrity. The politicking IS a ridiculous process and should not have been needed. Sadly the moment Bob Hambley and the Save the THS slate made their appearance out of nowhere (their presence was exactly "where"? when the animals were suffering at the THS) politics entered the forum. Heck, look at the photo op of Michelle, Turnbull and MP Frank Klees. If that's not politicking I don't know what is. I also ask Mr Klees exactly where HE was when the animals were suffering at the THS? Lord knows people wrote him letters begging for help. And yet nothing. I only wish Bob Hambley had spent half the energy he's using right now to mud sling to have prevented the THS from falling apart in the first place. Had he we wouldn't be here today dealing with this issue. Bob's attempt to rectify things, Save the THS's attempts to jump in in the 11th hour to take glory, it's all way too little too late.

Kitten Feeder said...

The Toronto Humane Society has just cancelled the kitten feeding program.

They are trying to cover it up by announcing a new and improved kitten foster program. How are they going to find foster parents that are able to syringe feed kittens every two hours? This decision is going to cost thousands of lives.

Bob Hambley and his supporters are a disgrace.

Joanne said...

Question to Michelle Wasylyshen: So, if you are not elected on May 30th, are you and the rest of the members of the STHS slate willing to volunteer at THS? Are you willing to back up your claims that you truly care for the welfare of the animals by routinely and regularly volunteering at THS to clean cages, feed animals, walk dogs, groom cats, feed kittens (oops maybe not in light of the cancellation of that program) etc. I would really like a clearcut yes or no answer to this question. No pussyfooting around..a failure to respond unequivocably for yourself (you can put the question to the rest of the candidates and return with their responses prior to the May 30the elections) will be taken as a "no".

Jack said...

Joanne,

There are many ways contribute to improving animal welfare. One way is volunteer at the THS to clean cages as you suggest. I'd like to suggest there are others as well - raising money for animal shelters, volunteering for animal rescue groups, adopting animals, running for the THS board, etc.

It's just crazy to suggest there is only one way to truly care for the welfare of animals.

This is not a contest to see who can clean the most cages or feed the most dogs. It's about choosing the most qualified candidates to lead the THS into the future. Personally, I want a group of diverse professionals with a track record in finance, operations and governance.

Anonymous said...

Up until a month or so ago the FOC website still had information links to the OSPCA. Everyone knows they were encouraging, in fact, recruiting people to help OSPCA. I sent an email to them back in January, alerting them to the killing going on by OSPCA at the THS facility. Their email response told me to contact Kate Macdonald!!!! I couldn't believe it!!!

Joanne said...

Well then Jack, despite the fact that my question was directed at Michelle Wasylyshen and you decided to respond on her behalf, your response elicits even more questions.

So, then how many members of the STHS slate have independently raised funds for animal rescue prior to running for the board? How many have adopted animals from THS or another rescue? How many volunteer for animal rescue groups. On a quick count of the STHS slate I only see five candidates who make mention of having a pet.

I never suggested that there was only one way to care for the welfare of animals and I resent your assertion that "it's just crazy". No, it is "crazy" to leave animals to die abject and painful deaths in their cages in order to keep your euthanasia stats down and donations coming in. It is "crazy" to waste donor funds on pointless litigation. It is "crazy" to scream at volunteers and employees. It is "crazy" to think that an animal in pain, hungry or dying gives a rat's ass about "diverse professionals with a track record in finance, operations and governance". It is "crazy" to seek counsel from HSUS…..does any organization (excepting PETA) having a worse track record for killing animals or soliciting funds for animals NOT in their care.

I never once said this was a contest about who can clean the most cages. I would question if they have ever cleaned even one, feed one dog, groomed one cat, walked one dog, raised one dollar. Have no fear Jack, the most qualified and compassionate and empathetic candidates will win this election, even if they have been temporarily handicapped by playing by the rules. Co-incidentally, a lot them were the ones who walked the dogs, groomed the cats, etc. I am sure you get the picture.

Social Mange said...

Why does anything written by Michelle or the trolls remind me of Macbeth...."sound and fury, signifying nothing."

Social Mange said...

Hey, Fred, you have trolls! You're famous!

Good responses from many people on the blog to Michelle's nonsense and innuendo...which has marked the campaigns of her slate and its running mates from the start.

Rachelle said...

To Michelle's comment:

"Mr. Hambley would be critical of a group that he views worked with the OSPCA on the raid of THS last year. No reasonable person would expect Bob to endorse a slate that has attacked him throughout the campaign as the Faces of Change slate has done."

I say that 'no reasonable person' who has been charged with animal cruelty would run again for a board position of an animal shelter. Bob Hambley was on the board that turned a blind eye to animal neglect and suffering for years at the THS. I guess pointing out the obvious means that Bob is being 'attacked'... ? I think it's pretty understandable that they simply (like myself) do not want him to continue to sit on the board to prevent the same thing from happening again.

And as for the OSPCA, seeing as they were the only organization that could actually do something at the time to stop the insanity that occurred at the THS for years, yes, many people helped, ie. they provided credible testimony as to what they witnessed at the THS.

I personally support the FOC candidates and some of them I know personally; they are completely dedicated and have been working tirelessly for a very long time to improve conditions at the THS.
The alleged 'tie' between the OSPCA & FOC is nothing more than propaganda, plain and simple.

And as for this comment by Michelle:

"As well, no reasonable person would expect Bob to endorse a slate that has no room for him on it should they be elected."

So does this mean that the STTHS slate will welcome Bob Hambley on board if elected...? Was it really and truly a surprise when he threw his support your way and is encouraging people to vote for your slate PLUS he and Margaret Johnson...? Listen I don't doubt that there are very good candidates on both slates. What really bothers me is that this all seems so contrived. I am not convinced that two people just happened to drop off the STTHS slate and lo and behold, Bob and Margaret are suddenly sending an email blast telling everyone to vote for them and the slate. I just don't buy it.I also feel that Michelle is defending Bob which makes me question again the relationship between he and the STTHS slate.
Bottom line, I just don't feel I can trust the slate as a whole. Just my two cents....

Anonymous said...

I watched LeDrew live on CP24. During the debate Michelle stated that no-kill was an unattainable goal. That was enough for me.

Lesly said...

I read this on facebook 7 thought I would share:

STTHS Spokes person Katherine Pollock said to the media" "We are not connected to the old guard," she said. "There's no one on our slate who has any connection to the former board of directors or the old management." Michelle Whatsherface admitted tonight on CP24 live that her slate has had Bob Hambley & long time THS council Pell Capone at their slate meetings. Interesting how they lied about this for so long until they were called out on it on live TV. The old board lied to the membership on the regular, I hope this isn't something that STTHS thinks is acceptable.

Social Mange said...

Lesly, I really question STTHS's ethics. With a "senior communicator" who claims to deal in government issues, at least one lawyer and two claimed corporate governance "experts" who should be well-versed in ethics and law, improperly obtaining a list of members' e-mail addresses and then using it IMHO clearly breached federal privacy law and is absolutely unacceptable. Michelle whassername's apology to the Election Supervisor was not enough. The entire slate should be disqualified along with their running mates (for other reasons).

Kylie said...

The "Save Bob Hambleys board seat" slate is starting to resemble the old board more & more by the day. Michelle speaks & digs a hole deeper & deeper every time she opens her mouth. It sure is nice to see that there is room on her slate for Bob *Barf! *

This vile woman throws out insults about people she doesn’t know on the regular, because they happened to have no other choice but to call on the OSPCA for help does not make them OSPCA supporters. Would Michelle prefer everyone continued to turn a blind eye to the abuse? Is that what she would do in this situation?

Shitting on the people who brought about much needed change is something she should be thanking people for, not disrespecting them. I see clearly who is in it for the animals & who is in it for a board seat.

Faces of Change gets my vote because any hope I had for STTHS was lost when I saw Michelle on TV last night.

Thε Countεss said...

I hope Michelle learns to avoid arrogance if they want any votes.

I think she fails to see that it is NOT about politics for FOC, but the animals - something she seems to forget.

What makes her think that FOC are not able to turn the THS around? These people have shown with actions how dedicated they are to the WELFARE OF THE ANIMALS.

Shame on you, Michelle. You keep showing how winning this is far more important to you than doing right by the animals.

Goddamn shame!

GoLightly said...

To The THS, who said
"EVERY animal is given a chance"

Like Bandit?