The Cayman Islands Humane Society has requested that all its volunteers sign legal waivers in order to continue working at the agency, after the loss of its previous insurance policy that was brought on – according to the board of directors – by some of the actions of volunteers.
Some of the volunteers protested on social media over the weekend, saying it wasn’t their fault the insurance policy was lost and that members were simply trying to help the animals.
Humane Society board member Kevin Sedgwick said Saturday that the situation was “very difficult” and that he feared the nonprofit organisation’s building on North Sound Road in George Town would have to close its doors if the new insurance company were to drop the policy again.
“It’s a very difficult situation,” Mr. Sedgwick said. “We are so dependent on our volunteers; we just couldn’t operate without them. But the volunteers were not acting in accordance with our policies; we’ve tried to be as reasonable as possible.”
An “important announcement” sent out to Humane Society volunteers on Friday indicated that the board of directors had been approached by some volunteers regarding their concerns with signing the waivers.
“In short, a waiver from all volunteers is necessitated by our insurers,” the announcement read. “The society recently had its insurance coverage terminated due, for the most part, [to] actions of some volunteers. Without insurance we cannot remain open.”
The board noted it had been able to obtain insurance from another provider, but that the insurance was only available if every volunteer signed the waiver.
“We cannot function any longer in the way we have, with volunteers coming and going as they wish, without the approval of management,” the announcement continued. “It is insupportable for a volunteer to arbitrarily take an animal away for medical treatment and incur several hundreds of dollars in costs without the knowledge of management.
“We can no longer sustain the foodstuffs that are disappearing from our supplies on a regular basis.”
Sometimes the volunteers’ actions were as simple as taking shelter dogs for walks outside scheduled hours for doing so. If any volunteer was involved in an accident during one of these “outside hours” walks, the insurance policy wouldn’t cover it, Mr. Sedgwick said.
Mr. Sedgwick also noted the case referred to in the announcement involved a volunteer taking an animal to Island Veterinary Services for treatment of an illness and racking up $900 worth of bills on a condition that essentially could not be treated with the facilities available in the islands.
“Volunteers just can’t take matters into their own hands,” he said.
Some volunteers were not pleased by the board’s stance on the matter.
“I think there are two sides to every story and to say that this issue has been handled poorly is an understatement,” said one commenter on the Humane Society’s Facebook page. “To protect the shelter from liability is one thing, but to stop people from seeing the dogs or walking them benefits no one, especially the dogs we are trying to help.”
Another commenter wondered what the legal effect of the waiver might be on potential non-volunteer employment with the society. “Why does clause No. 3 state that a volunteer can never become ‘a principal (as in an officer or a director) or an employee’ of the Cayman Islands Humane Society? I am really struggling to understand what that clause has to do with an insurance waiver.”
One commenter even suggested that a recent report in the Caymanian Compass about the society needing a new building was responsible for the original insurer cancelling the Humane Society’s policy.
Other commenters were incensed at reports of food-stealing from the society’s shelves. Previously, there have been reports of clothes and books being stolen from donation bins on the society’s property as well.
“People who sent donations to what they believe to be a very noble cause really do not want to hear this,” a Facebook commenter said.
“It’s like stealing from the poor!” another wrote.
Mr. Sedgwick said it was understood that “threats” had been made against certain members of a board of directors by a small number of volunteers over the situation. According to the Humane Society’s announcement Friday, these had been made by “a very small minority … due to a narrow focus and without regard to the big picture.”
Related Videos
The volunteers are willing to sign the waivers – why should they want to undermine the shelter they have spend hundreds of hours and their own money to support? The objection is with clause #3 which has been inserted and does not appear to be insurance related at all. Its poor wording can be interpretted to mean that the signor waives their right to become an director or employee. The wording is ambiguous to say the least and the volunteers have asked if it could be reworded so ts intention is clear, The directors have not responded. A simple change to the wording would surely be in the best interests of the shelter?
Surely to better serve the animals and the facility as an officer/director, one’s knowledge as a volunteer is crucial to better understand the day to day workings of the shelter and the various areas in which they would ultimately be making decisions?
Let’s not lose sight of why the humane society exists here in Cayman, and for the sake of the animals, starting putting them first.
If all this conflict is caused by a simple confusion over the wording of a clause in the liability waiver why don’t the Directors just change the wording to take any ambiguity out of the clause? In my opinion to refuse to change a clause which has caused so much confusion and stopped badly needed volunteers from attending the shelter just shows the Directors are more concerned about their power and position then the welfare of the animals.
The clause which the volunteers are unhappy with is the following –
3. No Compensation – I agree to provide my services without compensation I agree that I am not and will not become an employee, agent, contractor or principal of CIHS upon execution of this agreement.
Lots of dedicated volunteers feel it is giving away their right to one day be a Director. I think it is very easy to see why.
The people not signing the form are the people who have tirelessly walked ten or twenty dogs every weekend for years. It is very likely dogs will now go unwalked and have to go without breaks from their confined kennels.
Animals are certainly not being put first in this debate. This seems of little concern to the current President.
Mmmm. Using emaotional blackmail to force volunteers to sign something that protects the position of the board of directors – Is that lawful? Why don’t they change the clause???
Something stinks about the accusation of theft! Why is it not locked away if they know they have a problem? Sounds negligent. And if they are so sure it is a specific volunteer, why didn’t they call the police instead of airing their dirty laundry in public?
When volunteers are alienated in this way the animals do suffer. A couple of years back when again volunteers were being alienated the dogs ears were so full of ticks they were spilling out of their ear canals. It was absolutely sickening to see the dogs suffer in this way. I will never forget seeing this sight and being disgusted. The President is refusing to be interviewed by local media and then hides behind this article. She ignores any comments she finds difficult to answer. How is this a democratically run Humane Society?
AHHHH the old saying there’s always a story behind a story is so true. The BBM’s are alight with this one. Just heard on the marl road that there is an allegation that this clause 3 is being used by the Directors to ‘get rid’ of some volunteers because they have been vocal about the way the shelter is being run or more to the point not being run!!! and in true dictatorship style rather than deal with the problems they are throwing out false accusations of their own. So so sad that the only ones suffering in this ridiculous power struggle is the animals.
After all the attention that the dolphinariums and the turtle farm gets it amazes me that no-one ever mentions the conditions at the humane society. it is blatant cruelty; overcrowded pens in the heat, the stench is unbelieavble, some of the poor dogs are there for years. It would be far less cruel to put them to sleep than to make them live like that. If you don’t believe me go and see for yourself, it’s truly upsetting.
Winston Smith: If the Board of Directors would just listen to some of the constructive comments raised by the volunteers/visitors and address them instead of focussing their energies to kick back in such a defensive,personal and unprofessional manner, then the conditions would improve and there would be no need to talk about putting to sleep these wonderful cats and digs. Its not their fault they are in this situation.
Interestingly the same way we treat our animals, it is looking like similar to how we treat our senior citizens and the helpless. We have become a money oriented society which has financially enslaved many people with loans and debt, and have turned others into vampires, cold and indifferent to their own kind. Cayman use to be a place where dogs and cats belonged to everyone; now, if you should be walking helpless on the street, needing a ride, see the people who will pass you by. Never was it like that when I was growing up. Bodden
This issue on clause 3 of the waiver is idiotic. I am a lawyer. The clause is intended to mean that by signing the waiver you are not becoming an employee of the Humaine society (and thus they have to cover you with insurance, etc.). It’s not saying you can never become an employee or director — just that the waiver is not an employment contract..
I used to volunteer at the Shelter and I have been following this drama on Facebook. I know some of the volunteers who are exercising their freedom of speech and action to simply question this waiver.These people are completely amazing! The Board of many charities would be begging for their help. They are totally dedicated to the animals and when they are not actually at the Shelter walking or assisting, they spend their waking hours planning how to get more animals adopted or fostered.They would rather cut off their right hand than do anything to harm the animals. The Board should be deeply ashamed of themselves.
JimmyCrackCorn: So why don’t they change it to simply say, this waiver is not an employment contract? and then everybody’s happy!
BTW, several lawyers have looked at it and all agree it is ambiguaous in its present form
Winston Smith: I completely agree the shelter is over crowded and the conditions are awful, and why is that? completely 100% down to poor Management by the Directors. I visit fairly regularly and to be perfectly honest every time I go in the afternoon I see staff stood outside laughing and fooling around, sat at the reception desk on their blackberries and when we go to look at the poor animals there are cages and cages of the poor dogs sat in cages covered in excrement and often with no water. While we are on the subject of the staff, maybe one of our esteemed friends in Immigration could explain why we keep hearing there is high levels of unemployment among my fellow young Camanians, yet every staff member appeares to be an expat on a work permit? Sorry don’t want to offend the existing staff but what qualifications to you need to clean out cages and care for the animals other than a love of cats and dogs, being pleasant, physically fit and honest? surely there must be many unemployed Camanians to fill these positions?
ChasingShadows — there’s a reason they don’t change it. They’re not going to negotiate the language of the waiver with every single volunteer. SOmeone else might not like the way like 2 of clause 7 is worded, but tough [expletive] for them. It’s a waiver. The Huamne SOciety doesn’t need to hire a full time lawyer so someone is on hand to negotiate with their volunteers.
If you go out on a boat to stingray city, the watersports operator will have you sign a waiver, and guess what — it’s not subject to negotiation. That’s how waivers go. Time to grow up and stop crying.
I see language like that clause 3 all the time — it’s not controversial, except when people want to act like babies and complain about things.
If you want to help out, sign the waiver. If you don’t, then don’t sign, and just shut up about it.
Jimmycrackcorn: read my previous comments. it seems the issue of clause 3 is being used against the volunteers. It does not matter what the clause says. if several people have found it ambiguous (including LAWYERS) why not just change it to something that is unequivocal in it’s intentions. Unfortunately for the poor animals the refusal of the board to change the wording is: a) proving the rumours about wanting to get read of people that complain about the conditions are true and b) proves the board would rather put their own over inflated egos above the welfare of the animals.
JimmyCrackCorn: I am not a volunteer BTW but I am a member who is very concerned about the way our fabulous volunteers are being treated by the directors, who are supposed to be the members’ agents (not the other way round). I have a right to voice an opinion. I find your annoyance very unlawyer-like and if you are going to speak up for the board, then I suggest you first learn how to spell Humane.
The professional view is that the clause is poorly written.
I am extremely shocked that all negative comments from the shelter’s volunteers associated to the recent ‘Important Annoucement re the volunteer form’ from the Humane Society’s facebook site have been deleted (presumably by one of the Board members or on their instruction). Also the link to this article which doesn’t put them in the best light let’s face it has also been deleted. It concerns me greatly how undemocratically the shelter is being run. It is not right and the animals will be the ones to suffer. Please CayCompass cover this mismanagement further.
This is now about so much more than the waiver. From peoples’ comments here and on Facebook (which as noted below have been removed by the directors in yet another act of censureship), the Board are showing themselves up to be incompetent, unprofessional and arrogant. They are publicly putting the shelter into disrepute and should do the honorable thing and step down.
Whoops! My comment below should read censorship, not censureship!! (Hope you enjoyed that JimmyCrackCorn!)
There seems to be a lot of people who think the Directors of the CIHS have handled this very poorly (an understatement) as Mr. Sedgwick admits in the article. So in the absence of a proper opinion poll (Caycompass maybe you could oblige) why don’t we use this forum for an indication of the feeling of the Cayman public.
If you think the Board of Directors should resign over this insult to the volunteers agree with this comment.
If you think they have handled it well and only have the best interest of the animals at heart disagree.
Reading this, there seems to be some bigger underlying issues at the shelter.
With regards the waiver issue why aren’t the animals being put first and the waiver just amended if the wording is ambiguous. Volunteers are a valuable asset to any charity so if a minor amendment to a waiver gets the dogs and cats better care why not just do it ?
LOL this is a joke! Chasing Shadows is calling for the board to step down because he (she?) doesn’t like the waiver? It’s not about the board’s ego at all — it appears to be all about your ego. They have their legal advice they are relying on, and they have their reasons for keeping the wording as is. They are not obligated to listen to every suggested change of wording from every volunteer or member. They have to do what is best for the humane society, not the cry-baby volunteers who are upset because their posts are deleted on facebook.
As for your claim of censorship, what right do you have to post on their facebook page? It is their page, not yours or anyone else’s. They are under no obligation to let their page be a public forum for you to complain. If I went on your facebook page and posted about what an idiot you are, I’m sure you’d delete it, even if the comments were true. It’s a falsehood that it is somehow censorship because you can’t express your views anywhere, at any time. You have no right to post on their page.
I don’t speak for the board, but I know that when the best argument you can make against me is that I made a typo, you really don’t have much to say at all.
You should get a lawyer and sue the board to change the wording in the waiver — that would be the best thing for all the animals, for sure. Or, here’s a wild thought — maybe people could just stop being babies about the wording in a waiver that allows them to walk dogs.
That is a great picture!
This situation is so incredibly sad and so easily corrected. I am an animal lover and an attorney, and I have read the new waiver. Sadly, it looks like a cut and paste job that was put together without being cohesively tailored to achieve the very protection it seeks to provide. Some clauses are not clearly drafted while others seem totally disconnected from an insurance requirement. For instance, I too am struggling to understand the connection between video and audio recordings and how they relate to insurance liability in respect of the daily chores a volunteer would carry out. Would this not be a simple matter of asking volunteers for permission in the appropriate circumstances? Also would it really be such a burden to redraft the controversial clause 3 so that its meaning is clear? Seriously??? Is the welfare of these poor animals worth this mess and the loss of volunteers just to be in control? Everyone makes mistakes, but it takes a great deal of courage and character to admit being wrong and to correct the error. That is all that is needed here.
JimmyCrackCorn:
LOL you seem like a very angry individual, you must watch that blood pressure dear 🙂
I bet you’re just a bundle of fun 😉
JimmyCrackCorn you are hilarious. What a rant. For a lawyer you don’t read the posts very thoroughly do you? I, and many others on this site (check out the ‘Agrees’)are not calling for the board to resign because of the waivers. FORGET ABOUT THE WAIVERS! Your ranting tone sounds like one of the posters on the Facebook page – but of course that wouldn’t be you because he is not a lawyer.
Now that’s it for me on the subject. Say what you want. I was just voicing an opinion. Calm down.
Wow JimmyCrackCorn is a very angry man eh? And definitely NOT a lawyer!
It has only been a matter of time before the situation at the Humane Society caused an implosion.
It seems that people are more concerned with commanding their own personal kingdoms than showing true concern for the animals at the shelter.
Obviously the biggest issue is the condition of the shelter. There are too many animals in such a small space. For historic reasons people have not been forthcoming in spaying and neutering pets, causing litters of puppies and kittens to be signed over to the shelter with concerning frequency. The shelter is unsustainable in its current form and I think that they will be waiting a long time for Dart or the like to cough up an acre or two and build something.
The elephant in the room is that the shelter rarely (if ever) takes the incredibly difficult decision to euthanise animals. It is frankly irresponsible to encourage the adoption or fostering of pitbull-mixes and the like. Also, dogs and cats which have been at the shelter for a number of years are going to be difficult to socialise back into a home. A great fanfare is given to the animals which are adopted after three years at the shelter, but the HS is being cruel for allowing these animals to live there for three years in the first place.
The shelter staff do a great job (in particular Jason – the shelter’s unsung hero), but unfortunately there is much interference from people who I am sure mean well. This is undermining the permanent staff and needs to stop. It is intimidating for a member of the public to go to the shelter on a Saturday and be greeted by people shouting and yelling. The shelter staff need to be given clear, concise instructions on how the shelter should be run on a day-to-day basis from the Board and management rather than weekend volunteers. The reality is that the Society and the Shelter are poorly organised.
The Board is split, and the members need to do something to change this. People fighting each other from opposite corners rather than working together to provide a better life for the animals does not achieve anything.
How much human suffering could be eliminated if animal lovers supported a woman or man in need just equally as much as they supported animals?
I think you all should just stop fighting like cats and dogs.
what a sad story, at the end of the day the animals are the one to suffer the most. DOA is aware of the situation and turn a blind eye, you needs to step in and take control of the shelter. the conditions are far from humane, due to overcrowding the cages the situation is out of control. clearly the Board of Directors have no idea how to run the shelter and therefore they need to be removed now and stop the animal cruelty and abuse of the animal at the shelter.
How many of you have actually read this waiver??? Anyone in the insurance industry, perhaps? As I said earlier, I am an attorney (who has been practicing for over 17 years) and I am having a very difficult time believing that any sensible lawyer would have drafted this document as it is right now. I am also having a lot of trouble understanding why an insurance company would require a confidentiality clause from a volunteer, and worse, one that deals with sleepovers???? Any insurance people out there who would care to comment on this? To me it looks more like a bowl of alphabet soup…an opportunity to try and cure a number of issues that have arisen at the Shelter, but this waiver is not the place to do it. These are VOLUNTEERS. Is it not better instead, to implement policies for the safe and proper running of the Shelter and have the existing staff enforce them?
The shelter staff allow the volunteers to take over because they are so overwhelmed with the amount of animals in their care and the inconsistent guidance from a disorganised board.
The clause about volunteers not being able to be on the board is ridiculous. Many of the volunteers have a better understanding about the shelter’s needs than most of the board members. It should be mandatory that board members volunteer at the shelter for a certain amount of hours before they are allowed to be on the board. Many of the board members never spend any time at the shelter but they think they know whats best for the animals.
The board should consider amending the waiver instead of upsetting the volunteers that are crucial to the shelter.
What an unbelievable dialogue and situation. I am (as my name suggests) new to Cayman and new to the CIHS. However I have volunteered many times before and signed many waivers and this one offends me – not only because of the controversial clause #3 but also because it is not about insurance or protecting the shelter-it IS clearly about a Board of Directors that only wants control and not anything to do with animal care. This is SO easily rectified. Just look at the Agrees and Disagrees and you get the picture clearly. Jimmycrackcorn – you must on crack to think that calling good-hearted volunteers babies is going to help this situation. I somehow doubt that you come out there for hours of every weekend to walk dogs. I am a volunteer there because of the recruitment of an amazing volunteer that I have watched the Board crucify in this situation. It is sad to think that these folks consider themselves Directors. To say that they have managed this situation poorly is such an understatement. And you are right, waivers are everywhere – yet somehow none of the others I have been presented with were offensive and so objectionable as this one. This is easy to fix – why haven’t they done it? A simple rewording and simplification of the waiver plus a document that lays out the rules of proper volunteering…I could do it in an hour…less time than it took me to ready through these comments. And I am NOT an attorney but even I can see that this document was not written or reviewed by one!
AND thank you CayCompass for keeping this issue in the public eye and in a forum that the Board of CIHS cannot delete because of their dislike of the way it was looking.
I set up the current Humane Society Facebook page and I have now been deleted of my admin status and banned from the page due to daring to speak out after dedicating at least a couple of hours a day to the shelter for 2 years. I dared speak out and this is the thanks they give their volunteers. How sad for the animals!
CarpeDiem1: Its disgusting the way they are treating you.
They are clumsily trying to contain anything negative said about them so the members and public think everything is hunky-dorey.
Let’s not forget that they brought this to the public’s attention with their accusatory Important Notice telling people that voluteers were refusing to sign the waivers. They arrogantly thought that no-one would question it. The volunteers in question expressed their concerns privately until then and apart from these forum sites, the voluteers they are insulting have kept a dignified silence.
Is this article going to break any records for the most commented on article ???
Chasingshadows: hunky-dory
The 1970’s just called they want there phrase back 😉