Behind Closed Doors: Unraveling the Humane Society of Southern Arizona’s Settlement Controversy
As questions mount over a secretive settlement and troubling animal welfare practices, advocates demand transparency from HSSA and its powerful allies.
When the Humane Society of Southern Arizona (HSSA) Board of Directors released a press statement earlier this week, they hoped to signal a turning point in their efforts to rebuild trust and stability after what they described as "the most painful chapter" in the organization's history. Instead, the announcement has raised more questions than it answered—questions that demand greater transparency from one of Arizona’s most prominent animal welfare organizations.
At the heart of the controversy is a settlement paid to former HSSA CEO Steve Farley, who led the organization during a period marked by troubling allegations surrounding a small animal transfer. The transfer involved hundreds of small pets, many of which were reportedly sold to a reptile breeder—a revelation that sparked outrage among animal advocates and led to Farley’s dismissal. While the Board assures the public that no donor or operational funds were used for the settlement, critics are left wondering why HSSA chose to settle rather than pursue legal action against a leader accused of negligence and fiduciary breaches.
A Settlement Shrouded in Mystery
The HSSA Board’s statement mentions that the settlement with the former CEO was made in consultation with 'representatives.' Could the Board clarify who these representatives were? Were they legal counsel, external advisors, or individuals affiliated with organizations like Best Friends Animal Society? Additionally, what stake or influence did these representatives have in shaping the decision to settle rather than pursue legal action?
Sources close to the situation suggest that Farley may have threatened a wrongful termination lawsuit, prompting HSSA to settle out of court. This decision has left many questioning whether the organization prioritized expediency over accountability.
Kelly Paolisso, an animal advocate whose investigative work has exposed systemic issues in animal welfare, is among those raising concerns. She references a transcript of a recorded conversation she and a colleague had with former CEO Steve Farley and COO Christian Gonzales. The transcript contradicts the board’s claim that Farley was unaware of the small animal transfer until after it occurred. In that meeting, “Christian [Gonzalez, CPO at HSSA] indicated that Steve spoke directly with Gary [Weitzman, CEO at SDHS] and he [Christian] spoke to Jessica [Des Lauriers Sales, COO at SDHS] about the transfer,” Paolisso explained. “The board makes it appear Steve learned after the fact, but that’s not what he and Christian told us.” These contradictions cast doubt on the board’s credibility and raise the unsettling possibility that key figures are being shielded from accountability.
A Battle for Transparency
Paolisso suspects that external pressures may have influenced HSSA’s decision, particularly from powerful organizations like Best Friends Animal Society. “They didn’t want a lawsuit because of what might come out—emails showing who knew what about the small animal transport,” she speculated. Her concerns are bolstered by HSSA’s refusal to release key emails from their internal investigation and delays in providing body camera footage from law enforcement related to the case.
Paolisso’s inquiry into the fate of 323 small pets transferred by San Diego Humane Society to HSSA quickly became a battle for transparency. Her attempts to obtain body camera footage and surveillance video from the Apache Junction Police Department (AJPD) were met with delays, conflicting explanations, and missing materials. “They sent me a blank USB drive after nine months of waiting” Paolisso said. “It’s hard not to wonder what they’re trying to hide.” Adding to these suspicions is a letter from AJPD stating that body camera footage had expired and surveillance footage never existed—contradicting earlier statements by officials who claimed to have reviewed it. “Too many things just don’t add up,” Paolisso said, voicing her frustration at the lack of transparency and consistency.
Paolisso also noted patterns of external influence during HSSA’s recruitment process for new leadership following Farley’s termination in the wake of the small animal transfer controversy. “Many qualified candidates for CEO and CPO positions without ties to Best Friends Animal Society were passed over,” she observed. Paolisso suspects that Best Friends-aligned leadership may have been installed to manage fallout from the small animal transfer controversy. Incriminating emails might reveal more about who knew what during the transfer process. However, she has been unable to obtain them despite 18 months of effort.
Adding to these suspicions is the reported involvement of a Best Friends-embedded employee in the decision-making process surrounding the small animal transfer. If true, this raises critical questions about whether external stakeholders influenced actions that ultimately led to public outrage and Farley’s dismissal.
These inconsistencies are emblematic of broader issues Paolisso has encountered in her years-long investigation into systemic patterns in animal welfare governance. “When evidence disappears or explanations change, it raises red flags about what organizations are trying to protect—and why,” she said.
A Pattern of Secrecy?
Paolisso’s suspicions are not without precedent. Her investigation into Maddie’s Fund—a philanthropic giant in animal welfare—has revealed what she describes as a “closed loop” of financial influence and research bias. Maddie’s Fund has poured millions into shelter medicine programs, advocacy campaigns, and initiatives like trap-neuter-return (TNR) programs for free-roaming cats. While these efforts may have helped reduce euthanasia rates, critics argue that they have also created an echo chamber where dissenting voices are marginalized.
Could similar dynamics be at play within HSSA? Paolisso believes so. She points to recent leadership changes at HSSA as evidence of growing external influence. “The interim Chief Program Officer presents at Maddie’s Fund conferences, and other key leaders have longstanding ties to Best Friends Animal Society,” she said. “It raises questions about whether these appointments were made to ensure control over the narrative surrounding the small animal transfer.”
Paolisso also noted that HSSA’s new operational priorities—such as fast-tracking adoptions—align closely with Maddie’s Fund-supported initiatives like Pathway Planning and Managed Intake. While these strategies may improve live-release rates, critics argue they often prioritize optics over animal welfare.
The Board’s lack of transparency during its investigation into the small animal transfer has only fueled speculation. In their statement, the Board acknowledged that their inability to share information with staff, donors, and the public led to “understandable discontent and anger.” Yet their assurances that they acted in the organization’s best interest ring hollow without concrete evidence to support their claims, leaving donors and advocates to question who truly benefits from these decisions.
The Bigger Picture: Follow the Money
The controversy surrounding HSSA is part of a broader challenge within animal welfare: the outsized influence of organizations like Maddie’s Fund and Best Friends Animal Society. These entities shape shelter policies and funding decisions nationwide, often prioritizing optics over outcomes. For instance, Shelter Animals Count—a database funded by Maddie’s Fund—is frequently cited to promote the success of community cat programs, despite limited data on post-release outcomes. Critics argue that this selective use of data reflects the 'closed loop' of financial influence and research bias that Paolisso has uncovered, raising serious questions about accountability and transparency.
Perhaps most troubling is how financial clout shapes research and policy priorities across the sector. Maddie’s Fund has funded academic programs at UC Davis and the University of Florida and supported groups like Best Friends, creating an ecosystem where research often aligns with the funder’s preferred narratives. This environment stifles dissent and perpetuates policies—such as managed intake and community animal programs—that can have significant ecological, ethical, and legal consequences.
HSSA’s own ties to these influential organizations further fuel skepticism. The organization recently received a grant from Best Friends, and its leadership includes individuals with longstanding connections to Best Friends. Critics like Paolisso argue these relationships may have influenced decisions surrounding the small animal transfer and other operational priorities, including fast-tracking adoptions.
“These partnerships often put reputation management ahead of transparency,” Paolisso observed, adding that reforms within HSSA—and the broader sector—are long overdue. Until financial influence and narrative control are addressed, concerns about the ethical and practical implications of these policies will persist.
As the controversy surrounding HSSA unfolds, it serves as a microcosm of the challenges facing animal welfare—a sector where financial clout and reputation management often overshadow transparency and ethical accountability.
A Call for Transparency
If HSSA hopes to rebuild trust with its community, it must address these lingering questions head-on. Why settle with Farley? The Board owes stakeholders a detailed explanation of why they chose not to pursue legal action against their former CEO if there was evidence of negligence. Paolisso has long questioned why Robert Garcia, then-chair of HSSA’s board, stayed on despite publicly admitting failure and accusing Farley of lying.
“His firm reportedly pressured him over how bad this made them look,” she said. “So why stick around unless there was something—or someone—he was trying to protect?” Garcia later resigned after new leadership tied to Best Friends was installed, further fueling speculation.
Moving Forward
The Humane Society of Southern Arizona has taken steps to rebuild its organization, including hiring new leadership and revising operational procedures. These efforts are commendable but insufficient without full transparency about past failures.
As Paolisso puts it: “Only with full transparency can we make informed decisions about the future of animal welfare.” The public deserves answers—not just assurances—as HSSA seeks to turn the page on this dark chapter in its history. Until those answers are provided, doubts about their commitment to accountability will persist.
As debates over community animal programs and managed intake continue, one thing remains clear: rigorous research and open dialogue are essential if we are to ensure humane outcomes for animals. For advocates like Kelly Paolisso, who has spent years uncovering patterns of secrecy and influence in animal welfare governance, these reforms are long overdue.
These challenges extend beyond HSSA, reflecting broader systemic issues in shelters nationwide where financial influence often shapes policies at the expense of transparency.
For now, one thing is clear: The road to rebuilding trust is paved with transparency—and HSSA still has miles to go. It’s up to the public, donors, and advocates to demand the transparency needed to ensure animal welfare organizations truly serve the animals and communities they pledge to protect.
Ed Boks is a former Executive Director of the New York City, Los Angeles, and Maricopa County Animal Care & Control Departments, and a former Board Director of the National Animal Control Association. His work has been published in the LA Times, New York Times, Newsweek, Real Clear Policy, Sentient Media, and now on Animal Politics with Ed Boks.
Kelly Paolisso is a hero doing impactful work in animal welfare!
HSSA is not doing a good job to rebuild trust. I do want to comment on a minor point in the article: Shelter Animals Count (SAC). I'm a retired career data scientist. SAC does a great job of collecting as much data as they can, and they are careful in their statistical reporting. Any mis-use (intentional or unintentional) of their statistics is entirely out of their control. Keep in mind that SAC doesn't generate raw data. They don't have the resources for that. They collect and aggregate data reported by the shelters. We need to press the shelters (with legislation, if needed) to be accurate and transparent.