Louie Amorim vs. Lowvelder

This ruling is based on the written submissions of Mr Louie Amorim and those of Irma Green, national group editor: Caxton Local Newspapers.

Amorim, a former chairman of Nelspruit SPCA, is complaining about two articles in Lowvelder of 21 June and 8 July 2016, headlined Groot uitdagings wag vir nuwe komitee (Big challenges for new committee), and Nelspruit SPCA in dire need of financial help.

Complaint

Amorim complains that the:

·         outgoing Nelspruit SPCA committee was unfairly accused of mismanagement and not doing enough fundraising; and

·         newspaper did not report comment either from him, or from any member of the committee, the bookkeeper or the auditors (notwithstanding two meetings with the reporter).

The text

The June 21 article, written by Elize Parker, said that a new era had begun for Nelspruit SPCA with the appointment of a committee of seven members.

The previous committee reportedly resigned under a cloud of allegations of mismanagement and insufficient fund-raising.

Parker quoted national SPCA (NSPCA) liaison officer Jaco Pieterse as saying that “serious misconduct” had nearly caused the Nelspruit branch to close. Poor fund-raising – despite the fact that someone had been paid to raise money – was reportedly also a serious factor.

The branch allegedly had debts of approximately R400 000.

The July 8 story, also written by Parker, said that the newly appointed committee of Nelspruit SPCA had clearly been making a real difference to the management and administration of the recently beleaguered organisation – amongst other things, more animals had been adopted, a more accountable salary budget had been formulated, and the animal charity shop had been relocated from an external site to premises at the SPCA.

The previous committee resigned earlier after more than eighty animals reportedly needed to be euthanised in one day “and mismanagement of the organisation was exposed”.

Parker wrote that the national office, under Pieterse’s leadership, came to the local SPCA’s rescue and was “helping the management committee to steer the boat through troubled waters”.

Despite the significant improvements, the organisation reportedly was still in danger of closing down, one of the reasons being debt in excess of R300 000 owed to local vets. This was incurred during the reign of the previous committee, the newly appointed chairperson, Ms Marcel Hoffman, reportedly said. “We are seriously working towards solving the problems one by one,” she said.

The arguments

Amorim is also concerned about the accusation that the committee was responsible for R300 000 in vet bills which could have been settled with an annual municipal grant.

He adds the story omitted to state that the committee took over a debt of R760 146 in 2014.  In the meantime, he says funds raised from outside sources increased by 74%, totalling R837 048 in 2016 – which was an all-time record, as was the municipal increase of 59% to R450 174 (which, he says, resulted from continuous negotiations between the council, treasurer Jessy Moodley and himself).

Amorim says that for a period of seven months committee members, together with Nelspruit kennel staff, the marketing division as well as volunteers, held fundraising events every weekend, including Sundays and public holidays – which made the positive results possible.

He blames the funding situation on the amalgamation of Nelspruit and White River kennels in 2009 to form the Lowveld SPCA – which was in financial difficulties from its inception. “[It] was our committee that turned the trend around and with the proposed fund raising events we had planned, we would show a healthy profit in the 2016 / 2017 year.”

Green replies that both the articles under contention formed part of a series of four articles, which should be read together for the proper context. She says that, when one takes all the articles into account, the following is clear:

·         The newspaper received information that 85 animals had to be put down at Nelspruit SPCA;

·         An enquiry was sent to the NSPCA on May 5 to clarify the process;

·         Parker visited Nelspruit SPCA for comment and Amorim gave her a statement about the euthanasia and reasons for it; he also supplied her with the same financial report submitted to the Ombudsman;

·         On May 9, Pieterse informed the newspaper that the NSPCA gave no instruction to euthanise the animals – yet, it still happened;

·         The newspaper asked Barberton SPCA – who had to help with the management of the kennel and euthanasia process – for comment; and

·         An investigation of the management of the Nelspruit SPCA was initiated by the head office of the NSPCA.

Green adds, “Amorim’s comment in reaction on the findings of the investigation by the head office was widely published in article 2 where it clearly states that we had an interview with him. This was when Amorim and his committee resigned.”

She also notes that:

·         Amorim admitted that the local SPCA’s bank balance was unhealthy;

·         the newspaper asked White River SPCA to react to Amorim’s claims that their branch contributed to the dire financial situation. Emails and enquiries were sent to Ms Estelle de Villiers;

·         it was Pieterse, and not Lowvelder, who said that Amorim and his team failed to raise sufficient funds;

·         the third article dealt with the new leadership and the challenges they faced; and

·         the fourth story was aimed at obtaining support from the community.

Green says the newspaper did not contact Amorim for comment on the stories in dispute as he had nothing to do with the SPCA at that time.

Also, the first two articles included:

·         the finding by the head office of the NSPCA (which was public knowledge);

·         the views of a previous chairman of the SPCA, Mr Hughie Lyle, who came to the defence of Amorim and his committee;

·         Amorim’s comment on NSPCA; and

·         the content and an explanation of his financials, his comment and explanation on the putting down of animals, as well as his explanation of the financial statements.

Green concludes that Lowvelder has:

·         exhausted all possible avenues and double-checked with multiple sources before printing any of the four articles; and

·         included Amorim’s comments extensively in the first two articles.

Analysis

In line with a recent judgment by Constitutional Court Judge Edwin Cameron, I believe that stories should be read in context if they have been published within a reasonable space of time – meaning that a publication does not have to repeat comments by concerned parties in an ongoing case (such as this one).

I therefore take Green’s point seriously, namely that both the articles under contention should be read with the first two, to obtain the proper context.

Prior to the two stories in dispute, the newspaper published an article headlined, DBV se sake nie in orde (SPCA’s affairs not in order, May 10, Irma Green) and DBV-komitee en inspekteur bedank (SPCA committee and inspector resign (Elize Parker, May 20).

The May 10 story reported that all was not well at the local SPCA branch, mentioning several examples to this effect. The journalist quoted Amorim as saying that he did not take disciplinary action against his personnel as they were not responsible for the situation. Apart from this quote, nothing else was reported from Amorim’s point of view in this rather lengthy report.

The article published on May 20 did report Amorim’s views quite extensively. He was inter alia quoted as saying that:

·         the Nelspruit branch had not received any assistance from national office; and

·         fundraising had indeed been done, as a deficit of R500 000 had been brought down to just over R12 000 since 2014.

I am satisfied that the newspaper has adequately reported Amorim’s views at a time when it was necessary to do so (with reference to the May 20 article). Moreover, during the time when the two articles in dispute were written, he was no longer chairman (as Green correctly points out).

I also need to take into account the minutes of the special general meeting that took place on June 15 (with the purpose of electing a new management committee).

The relevant part reads as follows:

“Mr Pieterse informed the meeting that the previous Management Committee resigned in its entirety with immediate effect, leaving the Society without a Management Committee to oversee the running of the Society. The Society is in debt exceeding R390 000. The lack of fundraising by the previous Management Committee resulted in the Society’s financial trouble. Staff members have not received their salaries in full, resulting in the Society’s Inspector resigning. The NSPCA paid the staff their salaries for the month of May 2016. Mr Pieterse emphasised the fact that it is vital for the community of Nelspruit to work together in order to save the Nelspruit SPCA from closure.”

It was indeed Pieterse, representing the national office, and not the newspaper, who blamed the situation in Nelspruit on the lack of fundraising. Clearly, Amorim finds this blame inappropriate – but he should take up this matter with the source(s) of the allegations and not with the messenger (Lowvelder).

In other documentation brought to my attention, Amorim mentions several issues which Pieterse should have brought to the attention of the meeting. Several matters that had transpired between various parties were also mentioned.

These matters are not my concern – I have no mandate over what Pieterse said or did not say at the meeting, and indeed also not over any event that had transpired, or not transpired, between the concerned people.

Finding

There is nothing untoward in the newspaper’s reportage, and accordingly the complaint is dismissed.

Appeal

Our Complaints Procedures lay down that within seven working days of receipt of this decision, either party may apply for leave to appeal to the Chairperson of the SA Press Appeals Panel, Judge Bernard Ngoepe, fully setting out the grounds of appeal. He can be contacted at [email protected].

Johan Retief

Press Ombud