Animal Foundation Money

Carefully worded statements are the hallmark of any lawyer. What wasn't stated yesterday seems interesting and the fact that original intent on the part of certain parties is ignored interests me.

The original name of the Foundation was the Humane Foundation of Cascade County and their purpose was to get the McLean money in order to build the shelter for the HSCC (see here)

You will note in the side bar of that publication was Melanie Lattin, ex-President of the HSCC, grant writer for the City of Great Falls. That would be a handy skill if one wanted to present a group and their intent in order to get that money.

In yesterday's letter is the statement, "outlined in its very thorough proposal and elaborated upon by certain of its trustees." I would think this would be Mr. Bob James. Could it be that yesterday's letter is an example of lawyers calling in favors? (Just a personal question.)

From all documents I've been able to read, neighbors of McLean I have spoken to, and information from various individuals active during this period of which we are speaking, the currently named Foundation stepped up to the plate to ensure that McLean's money went to building the new shelter for the Humane Society of Cascade County.

We are back to square one. That money has been promoted from the beginning as funds for a shelter for the Humane Society of Cascade County. It's printed, it's been taken down in the form of statements by Mr James (and other representatives of the Foundation) at various times and places. The community was clearly led to believe that the donations they made were for a shelter for the HSCC.

The time line, the interconnectedness of the people and groups, and the FACT remains that the Animal Foundation publicly solicited funds for the HUMANE SOCIETY OF CASCADE COUNTY and its shelter.

The "trumped up" charges which were brought to the Tribune and NEVER substantiated last summer, between the questioned bid scenario and hostile take-over of the shelter, seems to be the final act of the combined groups to make a public, but not legal, split from the HSCC in order to keep the money for their exclusive use and control of all facets of companion animal affairs.

A non-profit which raises funds in the name of a specific purpose BUT then uses those funds for something else is engaged in duplicity and the IRS laws are very specific about this form of behavior. Common sense would lead us to believe that the IRS would be interested in investigating.

I wonder if Margaret would have allowed her legal representative to give that money to the Foundation had she known that the shelter was going to be ripped from beneath the HSCC. That the new shelter would be a monument to the exclusivity of the private club (as I call it) which would be the sole determiner in the future who, what, where, and when of our animals, while not responding to immediate needs of the shelter animals during the past 5+ years.