By Rob Wiltzen, ICS operations and communications manager, AND
Jennifer Lannan, chairperson, ICS board of directors
Island Community Services (ICS) is compelled to address inaccuracies and misperceptions in the Nov. 20 Editor’s View piece headlined “With Community Services AGM in the books, it’s time to open up.”
The first states that for years, members have essentially only been the board of directors contributing to its image as a closed shop. It is untrue that only directors are members, and the closed shop comment may be the opinion of some but that does not make it “its image.”
Some organizations have large memberships. Many social service organizations do not. In the end, a non-profit society exists for a specific purpose and is legally obligated to observe that first and foremost. With a call to shift ICS to a wide membership for the first time in 50 years, and with this call coming from individuals with personal interests and agendas, a thoughtful and careful review is required.
It is interesting to see that the Driftwood editor presumes to know what ICS board members and senior staff tell themselves about the reasons for being in the spotlight. This can, however, be traced largely to the Driftwood itself, as in the Oct. 16 headline “Island Community Services in the spotlight” with a two-page spread giving voice to accusations from toxic social media platforms as if they were credible and corroborated.
For the record, the “issues” originated with a director who resigned immediately following a bylaw revision proposal regarding conflict of interest, and who has since carried on a campaign to malign the agency and its leadership.
Moving on to the inaccuracies:
• The executive director report was not just an abbreviated summary of the annual report but addressed board governance directly.
• There were no membership renewals accepted by past board members.
• A director did not resign and then rejoin after being asked to return when others resigned.
• Discussion at the AGM was not “prohibited.” It was restricted to members as described earlier in the piece and although the Driftwood seems to use the two terms interchangeably, they have quite different meanings.
• With regard to the two individuals who claimed to have requested the link and not gotten it. One did not request it and the other was sent it along with all others who requested it.
• ICS has stated for clarity where its formal accountability relationships are but has never stated “not responsible to the rest of you.”
The purpose of the editor resurfacing Adam Olsen comments characterized as “uttering some stinging words” has to be questioned, when the very same editor reported on Oct. 16: “Olsen recently told the Driftwood he is concerned that his words may have been expanded upon and some inferences made that he did not intend . . . .”
ICS is a non-governmental, non-profit society (NGO) with a portion of revenue being public funds. This is different than a public organization such as the CRD and it is bizarre to make comparisons between the two. Elements such as governance, finances, decision making and accountability structures are fundamentally different. NGO societies secure public funds with specific conditions and budgets. Neither directors nor members decide where $8 million is spent in the way that the CRD determines expenditures.
The Driftwood editor criticizes the society by speculating that “the coping strategy at this point seems to be to climb into the bunker . . . .” This “bunker” reference seems to be with regard to muting non-member attendees to the AGM. ICS staff and board members have endured vitriolic assaults and personal attacks by individuals both grandstanding in public and on social media. Disrespectful treatment of staff and board members is not something to be tolerated. It is unfortunate consequences for the majority who were only seeking respectful dialogue about the services of the agency.
The dismissive nature and the minimization of concerns outlined by the editor in this article are noteworthy: “We all understand that ICS deals with vulnerable individuals that require special consideration and extreme discretion. We get that there’s a certain amount of interpersonal conflict and personnel matters that can’t be discussed publicly. We get that a ‘takeover’ of the society by angry people would not be a good thing; nor is the erosion of frontline staff or volunteer morale. But . . . .”
It seems the Driftwood doesn’t, in fact, get it. These are not details taking a back seat to the greater good. They are issues of the utmost importance to the agency and take priority above anything else, including the wish to feel included by some by being unmuted at the AGM or becoming a member of the society on demand.
The society is entering the 50th year of providing important social services to Salt Spring and the Southern Gulf Islands. If there are legitimate complaints about service delivery, then there are avenues to file complaints and have them investigated properly. The fact that the detractors are limiting themselves to social media, where anyone can say anything with no accountability or corroboration required, speaks volumes. The society invites anyone to engage in the processes available to them to file legitimate complaints in a proper and respectful manner.
We look forward to an open celebration of the 50th anniversary without the need to mute disrespectful grandstanding, and to focusing our attention on the important work at hand.