Exposing the Fault Lines: When Leadership Prioritizes Optics Over Mission

What happens when optics overshadow ethics? A closer look at animal shelter leadership and the systemic forces shaping their decisions.

When the Humane Society of Southern Arizona (HSSA) fired CEO Steve Farley over a controversial small animal transfer—where hundreds of pets were reportedly sold to a reptile breeder as food—it appeared to signal a commitment to accountability. However, Farley’s termination raised more questions than it answered, exposing systemic lapses in oversight that point to deeper governance issues in the animal welfare community.

Among those investigating these concerns is Kelly Paolisso, whose inquiry into the fate of 323 small pets transferred from the San Diego Humane Society (SDHS) to HSSA has evolved into a broader examination of financial and ethical forces shaping modern shelter policies. Her findings reveal a troubling pattern: interconnected organizations, donors, and leadership decisions that prioritize optics over transparency and accountability.

Balancing Optics with Mission - Too often organizations focus on revenue generating optics at the expense of animal welfare.

Case Study 1: Accountability at HSSA

Farley’s termination was presented as a decisive response to public backlash over the small animal transfer. Critics, however, argue that the decision served more as a distraction than a resolution. Local activists point out that HSSA lacked both the capacity to care for hundreds of small animals and partnerships with local rescues capable of accommodating them. Suggesting their fate was sealed before they arrived.

“There is no way Farley didn’t know these animals were destined for Colton Jones,” said one HSSA volunteer, referencing the reptile breeder who ultimately received them. “The board’s narrative that he was unaware simply doesn’t hold up.”

The decision to settle with Farley rather than pursue legal action has further fueled speculation about what HSSA may be trying to protect. Critics contend that Farley’s dismissal was less about accountability and more about shielding other systemic failures from scrutiny. Was Farley acting independently, or was his decision shaped by board directives or external pressures? These unresolved questions loom large as HSSA seeks to rebuild trust.

Case Study 2: SDHS and Uneven Accountability

While HSSA faced intense public scrutiny over Farley’s leadership, SDHS—which transferred the animals to HSSA—has largely avoided similar backlash. SDHS CEO Gary Weitzman remains in his role despite the organization’s pivotal role in the transfer scandal and mounting criticism over its community cat programs, recently ruled unlawful by a California court.

SDHS’s involvement in questionable animal transports is not isolated. For example, the organization has faced criticism for other transfers involving Cochise County, where animals were reportedly sent under unclear circumstances. These incidents suggest a troubling pattern of operational opacity and raise questions about the oversight processes in place. What measures has SDHS taken to ensure transparency in its animal transfers following these controversies?

Observers argue that larger organizations like SDHS, with greater financial resources and political clout, are often insulated from the accountability smaller organizations face. For instance, despite its pivotal role in the small animal transfer to HSSA, SDHS has largely avoided repercussions, leveraging its considerable PR apparatus to shift focus away from its actions and maintain donor confidence. This disparity highlights systemic issues in how leadership accountability is applied within the animal welfare community.

The Systemic Influence of Funding and Optics

Paolisso’s investigation has uncovered the significant influence of external forces—such as funding relationships with Maddie’s Fund and Best Friends Animal Society—on shelter policies. Maddie’s Fund’s financial contributions, for example, have created what Paolisso describes as a “closed loop” of aligned research and policy advocacy, where funding and influence cycle between the same organizations and individuals. This cycle shapes shelter policies by elevating certain metrics, such as live release rates, as benchmarks of success while discouraging critical examination of unintended consequences or alternative approaches. This dynamic discourages dissent and prioritizes metrics and reputation management over transparency.

Through their financial contributions to academic institutions like UC Davis Koret Shelter Medicine Program and advocacy groups like Best Friends, Maddie’s Fund has heavily influenced the promotion of community cat programs as a humane alternative to euthanasia. SDHS has also embraced these practices, further cementing their place in mainstream shelter policies. However, critics argue that these programs often prioritize optics without adequately addressing long-term animal welfare outcomes or public safety concerns—a concern underscored by a recent California court ruling that deemed certain community cat programs unlawful.

At HSSA, these influences appear to extend beyond funding. Critics have pointed to the reported involvement of a Best Friends-embedded employee in HSSA’s executive team during the fallout from the small animal transfer controversy. This employee allegedly approved practices that prioritized live release rates over animal welfare, including advising the Douglas shelter to reclassify adoptable cats as "return-to-field community cats" and release them into the harsh Arizona desert—an environment where their survival was highly unlikely.

Best Friends' policy influence is evident in the reclassification of adoptable cats as “return-to-field community cats,” leading to their release into unsuitable environments like Arizona’s desert—a practice critics label as inhumane and counterproductive.

These pressures have driven trends like managed intake and community animal programs that often emphasize optics without addressing broader public safety impacts or ecological and animal welfare consequences. Critics argue that the animals impacted by these policies frequently face starvation, predation, or extreme weather conditions. These practices reveal a misalignment between organizational priorities and the true mission of animal welfare.

A Call for Reform

The contrasting outcomes for Farley and Weitzman underscore the need for consistent accountability across animal welfare organizations—regardless of size or financial clout. For HSSA, rebuilding trust will require addressing unresolved questions: Why settle with Farley? What role did external pressures play in shaping this decision and why? Similarly, SDHS must confront its involvement in questionable animal transfers and reassess controversial programs like community cat initiatives.

Broader reform will also require addressing the systemic issues Paolisso has highlighted. Independent audits, transparent governance structures, and stricter accountability measures are necessary to address these persistent issues and restore faith in the system.

Conclusion

The road ahead for HSSA, SDHS, and the broader animal welfare community is fraught with challenges but ripe with opportunities for reform. By prioritizing transparency, ethical consistency, and accountability, these organizations can rebuild trust while refocusing on their core mission: ensuring the welfare of animals.

This article follows Behind Closed Doors: Unraveling the Humane Society of Southern Arizona’s Settlement Controversy (January 16, 2024)

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.