Published: November 30, 2007 11:08 pm            

Court order was best way to end humane society controversy

It’s been more than a year since it became apparent that there has been quite a bit of discord between the Clinton Humane Society Board of Directors and some of the humane society’s membership.

Allegations against the board accusing it of not following the by-laws, not giving proper notice of meetings, and even mishandling money were made by members who, in turn, worked to get a new board elected.

It all culminated in a lawsuit and a recently signed court order that will bring to an end the controversy over the alleged impropriety by the board and the end of a civil lawsuit against the board filed by attorney Jim Bruhn on behalf of Humane Society member Tamara Olsen. Olsen filed a lawsuit to challenge the voting process carried out during the society’s annual meeting held May 2.

The order states that “the Directors, to the extent they have not already, desire to resign as directors of the Society,” and both parties agree that if the directors resign, it will be impossible or impracticable for the society to call a meeting of its members and a meeting is necessary to elect a new board. Under the order, the resignation of the directors will be effective immediately preceding the members’ meeting to elect 12 new board members on January 23. Until then, the current directors are being allowed to conduct general society business.”

The order compels the society to mail its members, who were members on or before Aug. 1 of this year, a notice of the time, date, location and purpose of the meeting. That notice also will inform the members that any eligible member may have their name placed on the ballot no later than Dec. 15. The order defines eligible members as those whose memberships are in good standing, are 18 years or older and who became a member on or before Aug. 1, 2007.

The order directs the society to prepare a ballot containing the names of the members who make a signed request to have their name placed on the ballot and says that eligible members will be entitled to vote in person or by proxy at the election meeting.

People whose memberships are designated as “pending” will be entitled to vote if a proxy or other documented evidence of their consent is received by Bruhn or CHS Attorney Stacey Hall no later than five days prior to the election. The society is to prepare a list of those eligible to vote in the election at least one day prior to the meeting. Attorneys from both sides will conduct the meeting, distribute and collect ballots, determine the validity of proxies from people not listed on the valid proxy list in accordance with Iowa Code and determine the number of votes cast for each person on the ballot. If the attorneys cannot agree on proxies or votes, the determination will be made by the court.

The 12 people receiving the most votes will be elected directors of the society, with the four members receiving the four highest number of votes elected as a director for a term to expire in May 2010. The members receiving the next four highest number of votes will be elected a director with a term to expire in May 2009 and those members receiving the next four highest number of votes will be elected a director with a term to expire in May 2008. In the event that more than four people fall into each category, the 12 members with the highest number of votes will be elected directors and determine whose terms will expire in May 2008, May 2009 and May 2010. The order stipulates that “all subsequent elections of directors shall be held in accordance with the society’s by-laws” and the next election of directors will take place in May 2008 at the annual meeting.

When it comes to the animals, it is obvious that everyone involved is very emotional. Oftentimes in that situation, it’s very hard for two opposing sides to reach a compromise.

This court order was the best way to establish that.

        

• Click to discuss this story with other readers on our forums.