Animal Foundation and Shelter Postings

Greg, over at Electric City Weblog sent me this e-mail the other day:

Susan,

I went after you pretty hard. Do you care to comment?

http://electriccityweblog.com/?p=200

Hey, Greg:

No, you didn't go after me hard. You did what you thought best and asked

for what you felt was the best confirmation or documentation of what I've

been saying. That's fair. That's all I've been doing with the Foundation,

City and Spay of the Falls issue.

Where possible, I've cited/linked. If it's handwritten, I've quoted. If it's

from individuals who have worked closely, I've indicated that. I can lead

people to the information, but I cannot make them think.

I must ask though, if you are requesting of me to furnish verification, why

not Mr. James, the City, or others? I suggest where people may go to read

what I'm stating. Lowe/Dern produced papers. The HSCC has produced letters

about the bid process back in June 2007. Today's blog was linked more than

a golf course. But, what have those who are being questioned about their

behavior, connectivity and business practices produced to refute any of

this?

As an indication of the interconnectedness I have attached a copy of a

letter (with portions omitted as they are personal to Ms. Lowe) from the law

firm of Ugrin, Alexander, Zadick & Higgins. And WHO is a partner/lawyer in

the firm? Mr. Bob James. And WHO have we been discussing these many months

as pertains to the City and its close ties with the Animal Foundation?

You will note the line which reads, "I find nothing...". I have a problem

with that in two areas.

First, there is City Employee Handbook, Section 15; 15.4.2b. (in this case I

will save everyone the trouble of finding it for themselves) which states

that immediate suspensions are used in situations where it is necessary to

remove the employee immediately from the work environment and/or when time

to conduct an investigation of the situation to determine the appropriate

course of action."

I take that to mean that A) the lawyer who wrote the letter did NOT know his

job, B) said what the city wanted to hear, C) Could care less about this

issue, or D) is working on a predetermined outcome. In any case, I find it

interesting the City hired this law firm (in which Mr. James works and he is

the President of Animal Foundation) to review the Animal Shelter Cruelty

allegations, especially when the City has admitted that the Foundation, Spay

of the Falls (see second attachment) "is involved in the reorganization of

the Animal Shelter."

This brings us to my second problem: The Animal Foundation (plus the other

two groups which supports my statements of their very cozy intertwined

relationship) is headed by Bob James. If the Foundation is involved in the

reorganization then A) how is it they don't know what's happening at the

Shelter, B) how is it they went from ONLY fund raising, per Mr. James'

statements about involvement, to reorganization of a "City operated facility

(note the quotes as I don't believe it to be City oriented at all), C) be

so unaware of the conditions (and this can't be true as we have documented

statements by Mr. James going back to 2002) for the animals that they can

continue to promote how they care while letting animals be killed in

inhumane fashion and, D) did NOT have the Staton Report in hand.

"C" brings up another issue. If they ARE that unaware, then the Foundation

has NO business running anything to do with animals.

This leaves us with Occam's razor (the maxim that assumptions introduced to

explain a thing must not be multiplied beyond necessity) does it not?

As for innuendo, I see nothing wrong with posing a question. You do it all

the time. Are you told that you're promoting innuendo when you question

things about the coal plant? I believe you to be merely questioning and

letting the reader follow that as they wish.

Mr. James, the city representatives, the Police representatives, the Spay of

the Falls representatives chose not to attend the town hall meeting. Much

of this came out and documents were there for review. Why did they not come

and address these questions? What is it they fear? Why are they not

opening books? Why? Why? Why?

Hearsay? It isn't hearsay when the Trib prints it and I refer to it (anyone

may look it up, anyone may purchase the article). It isn't hearsay when the

City has posted rules for bids and they were categorically ignored. It isn't
hearsay when YOU tell me that these groups want me/others marginalized so

they can continue on their merry way. Nor when Cindy James makes statements

to volunteers that if a person can only donate less than $50 "we don't want

that type of person." (Especially if it's heard by more than two people).

It's not hearsay when the people involved make their comments public in the

hearing of more than one person.

Speculation. IRS. Laws. Call them, ask your question. I asked mine. IF

a non-profit promotes their fund raising for a specific entity, then what,

if any, laws have been broken should that non-profit suddenly chose to

ignore their intended recipient in favor of someone/something else? What

about all the money they raised in the name of the original recipient? To

whom does that money belong?

Negotiation and compromise? Look at it this way - your daughter has been

sexually abused by your once-trusted, but now revealed as a pedophile,

babysitter. Will you negotiate and compromise? I wouldn't. I'd get rid of

the babysitter, get help for my daughter and then find a new babysitter, but

be much more careful in my review of that person before letting them near my

child.

I, and many others, will no longer negotiate or compromise with a

group/groups which allow animals to die for no reason while sitting on vast

amounts of money. We once supported these groups. They failed to do as

they promised. WE didn't destroy their credibility. WE didn't sell a bill

of goods to the public. WE didn't make their choices, they did. WE don't

trust them.

This is NOT my way. I'm not getting a job, or money, or retirement, or an

ego, or a paving stone, or anything else out of this. Neither is anyone

else who is fighting this fight against exclusivity and corruption and

disregard for the animals that wait for help. The PEOPLE of this community

are incensed. The PEOPLE, who have stepped forward because they see what is

happening and will not tolerate any more, are making consensus decisions.

Some people are going in the opposite direction. That's fine. They may.

That is one of things we are addressing here - the right to have choices

made by oneself. NOT handed-down decisions that are expected to be accepted

without murmur.

It is the PEOPLE you are hearing. It is THEIR will you are hearing. It's

their decision to fight, run, negotiate or compromise. Within the people's

group there IS common ground.

Susan