Call for the firing of J. McHugh Smith and D. Villalon as the president and VP of SFSPCA

We are calling for the immediate resignation or firing of Jan McHugh Smith and Dori Villalon as the president and the vice president respectively of the San Francisco Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SFSPCA).
Since the hiring of Ms McHugh-Smith and Ms Villalon, extreme changes have been implemented that negatively impact the lives of dogs and cats under the care of the SFSPCA. Their inhuman treatment towards the long-term and experienced staff and volunteers led to a mass exodus of them.
Here is the link to the article in SFWeekly:
http://www.sfweekly.com/2008-06-11/news/a-time-to-kill/
Here is the link to the KTVU new report:http://www.ktvu.com/video/17294649/index.html

Here is the rebuttal to the response from SFSPCA on their website:

1) Exaggerated numbers: Directly from SPCA's own magazine, 'Our Animals', the total number of adoptions for 2006 is 3162; for 2007 it is 3602. In the recent rebuttal on SPCA's website, the YTD total adoption is 4056. The increases in percentage YTD is only 12.6%, NOT 25% as they claimed. If the SFSPA can not do a simple mathematics, how can we trust their reported total adoption numbers. In addition, the SPCA did not published the number of dogs and cats returned after adoption due to reasons like, mis-matching of animals and adopters, not-ready for an animal, etc. This is not transparency that SFSPCA touted about. 

2) The major difference between the program from the Hearing Dog Program and the Canine Companions for Independence (CCI) is: while the CCI breed dogs for the sole purpose of turning them into service dogs, the Hearing Dog Program brings in dogs from various shelters who otherwise would be killed, and who show talent in assisting hearing impaired individuals. Thats why, the Hearing Dog program fits into the life saving core mission of the SFSPCA.

3) If SFSPCA really is saving animals and reporting them as transparent as they claim, then why not openly stated it is a 'No-Kill' shelter???? Is it because for them to be a No-Kill shelter, it requires the SFSPCA adheres to the following requirements? i) High volume, low-cost spay and neuter, ii) work with rescue groups, iii) have a behavior rehabilitation program, iv)  and finally work with volunteers? Something the SFSPCA under Jan McHugh Smith no longer wanted to comply?
Below are the examples of what is going on at the SFSPCA and the results of their bad policies.

1) Misled about the public about the status of the SFSPCA.  In a town hall meeting with volunteers, Jan McHugh-Smith told the audience that the SFSPCA is now be a "Low-Kill" shelter instead of "no-kill" shelter. When asked by one of the volunteers what to tell the public if the public asked them if the SFSPCA is still a "no-kill' shelter, she told them to say 'Yes'. This was witnessed by numerous volunteers in the meeting. Soliciting donations under false pretense is a fraud!

2) Abolished well-respected Hearing Dog Program. Fired long-term and experienced employees Martha Hoffman, Glenn Martyn, and Robyn Woo (each with 10-20 years at the SFSPCA). Adopted out all 12 hearing dog candidates, of which 7 were fully trained as pets; left hearing-impaired clients waiting without their dogs, forcing some of them to sign up for possibly another 3-year wait list to receive a hearing dog from another organization.

3) Adaptation of the Felinality standard from the ASPCA, instead of adhering to the previously well-established and internationally acclaimed Cat Behavior program from within the SFSPCA. Continued undermining the work of experienced and well-regarded certified Cat Behavior experts Dilara Parry and Mikel Delgado, which led to their resignations. These changes eroded the involvement of Cat Behavior volunteers, caused undesirable results to behavior cats such as Tulane, the cat profiled in the SF Weekly article (June 11), 'A Time To Kill.'

4) Established new Open Door Adoption Policy and abolished previous stricter adoption guidelines. This has resulted in poor adoption choices, which has led to suffering of the animals. This is exemplified by the story of Isaac, the puppy mentioned in the SF Weekly article 'A Time To Kill.' There are also examples of dogs and cats being adopted out to inebriates who otherwise would not be qualified under the previous adoption guideline. These events were witnessed by several volunteers and staff. With the new guidelines, potential adopters will no longer need to provide proof to the adoption counselor that they are allowed by their landlords to keep a pet. This change in policy increases the number of returns and suffering of the animals.

5) Disregarded the welfare of animals. Kittens who had neutering or spaying surgery and were still under the effect of the anaesthesia were moved into cat condos with cat trees, instead of allowing them to recover in cages before being moved into a cat condo for adoption. This incident was witnessed by volunteers.

6) Disrespect experienced volunteers and treated them as disposable. In one of the regional volunteer managers' meeting, volunteer manager Norma Wood, from the SFSPCA, said "We don't want volunteers anymore. Most of them are useless. Only about 10 of them are useful. Most of them are retired people who just want to come in to pet cats."

7) Refuse to work with rescue groups such as Give Me Shelter, because of disagreement about the killing of suspected FeIV positive kittens.

It is time for these bad policies to stop and return our beloved SFSPCA to its former roots as the beacon for the 'No-Kill' shelter movement. Therefore we demand the immediate termination of Ms McHugh-Smith and Ms Villalon.