By GAIL SJUBERG
Driftwood Editor
The much-anticipated annual general meeting of the Salt Spring and Southern Gulf Islands Community Services Society — aka Island Community Services (ICS) — took place on Nov. 14, and achieved its goal of being non-controversial — at least during the 35-minute meeting.
ICS held the meeting via Zoom and muted everyone except board members who were making and voting on basic motions or giving statements, and executive director Rob Grant when he gave his report, which was an abbreviated summary of the annual report contents. That report can be read on the saltspringcommunityservices.ca website, and it illuminates all of the important work done by ICS.
Approximately 40 little boxes appeared on the AGM Zoom meeting screen, many representing individuals who had applied to be society members in recent months but whose applications had not yet been accepted. A number of staff also attended.
ICS board chair Jennifer Lannan clarified near the beginning of the meeting that in addition to herself and four fellow directors — Jody Hawley, Gary McNutt and, to be confirmed at the AGM, Jenny McClean and Darryl Martin — the only other society members were Tisha Boulter and Cathy Patel. They are two past board members who resigned before their terms were up and whose membership renewals were accepted. As such they were the only two non-board members allowed to ask questions.
Boulter asked why the board chose to hold the meeting by Zoom, to which Lannan replied, “We felt that it was a great way to be inclusive to all types of participation . . . we thought we could actually see more people in their homes and on their devices, and we felt that was best practice. We thought it was as inclusive as we could be.”
I doubt the irony of citing inclusivity at a meeting where discussion is prohibited was lost on anyone.
One other bizarre moment saw a former board member, Margaret McKenzie, asked by Hawley to comment on the Commission on Accreditation of Rehabilitation Facilities process, undertaken every three years, which ICS points to as proving it does a good job. At the time it felt like McKenzie was a public relations plant in the meeting, but it turns out she was apparently not expecting the question. (As a side note, Hawley is the past ICS chair who left the board last year but was asked to return after director resignations this year resulted in only Lannan and McNutt remaining, with three directors being the minimum required by ICS bylaws.)
And then there was the visual of two people frantically waving their hands to be recognized, with Lannan having to reiterate that questions would only be taken from members. Maxine Leichter was one of those people. She later told me she wanted to ask when her membership would be approved. Here’s the answer provided to me by Lannan:
“The board has struck a committee and we will have the work done as soon as we can, allowing for best practice: proper research, consultation and legal review. Modifications and evolution of the society’s bylaws are only in the best interest of the organization. Changes that will be made are commonplace in our very own community already and in bigger societies in larger centres alike.”
Lannan did also say in her AGM remarks that the board would be “working on welcoming new members to the society in the coming weeks.”
Christian Tatonetti and Jennifer Campbell — two individuals who have publicly shared negative experiences with ICS in recent months, encouraged people to become ICS members and have applied themselves — said they were not provided with the Zoom link upon request, though received it from a third party and were allowed to join the meeting.
Most not-for-profit societies want members: for energy and ideas, to spread the good word about their group and its activities, and to give volunteers an extra stake in the organization. That ICS members have for years essentially been only the board of directors contributes to its image as a closed shop.
ICS has stated that it is responsible to the people it serves and to its funders, not the rest of us; and that workplace grievances can be handled by the employees’ union. But as an organization it touches so many aspects of Salt Spring life; other agencies rely on its cooperation and it has an enormous budget: $8.3 million in its 2023-24 fiscal year; almost identical to what Salt Spring ratepayers paid to the Capital Regional District in 2024. That’s up from $4.5 million in the 2019/20 fiscal year, and $1.7 million back in 2006. A small group of people are responsible for what is largely public money, even if most of it doesn’t come directly from Salt Spring pockets. The society owns eight properties worth approximately $20 million.
ICS board members and senior staff can tell themselves that the spotlight has hit them only because of a few disgruntled individuals or busybodies, or because former MLA Adam Olsen uttered some stinging words about ICS as he left his position. But that is not true, and on some level they must know it.
However, the coping strategy at this point seems to be to climb into the bunker with some extra provisions, wait for the storm to pass, and work on releasing some good news stories while finding legal ways to determine who can and cannot be a society member.
We all understand that ICS deals with vulnerable individuals, and that requires 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 erosion of frontline staff or volunteer morale.
But the controversy and desire for people to be society members or more involved with ICS needs to be accepted by the current board of directors, not as a public relations challenge but as a reality. The organization needs to step outside of itself to learn how it is perceived by others. Lannan did stress at the AGM that people can email agm@ssics.ca with questions or concerns and that the board does want to hear from people.
On Saturday, the Salt Spring Island Foundation marked its 40th anniversary at ArtSpring in what was a fantastic, fun, feel-good celebration. ICS marks its 50th anniversary next year. Will the organization truly be able to celebrate its successes and important role in the community, or will that milestone be celebrated with a few tepid words offered at another Zoom meeting with most of the participants muted?