Great Falls HAS a dog park

Interesting the information one finds that isn't public knowledge. Once found, one asks why ISN'T this public knowledge?

Great Falls HAS a dog park. It's Wadsworth Park, though it's not termed a "dog park".

It's owned by the City of Great Falls, and it is just outside the City limits. You may run your dog there off-leash. John Thompson, City Forester, run HIS dog there. The City even has a development plan for Wadsworth.

Here's what I find interesting. It's free. Tax dollars are already paying for it. So why did the City keep the information quiet?

Perhaps it's so the Animal Foundation could PR their way into a dog park which would make them look good, especially in light of the fact they've done nothing else with the money we've donated.

I can see another reason why Dona Stebbins and the Foundation haven't told people about the park. The people MOST interested in a Animal Foundation dog park have the LEAST control over the behavior of their dogs. (Lattes, cell phones and poorly behaved dogs, yep- really makes me want to take my dog there.) By creating a FENCED dog park, the Animal Foundation has simply created a big backyard for the owners that can't keep their dogs off-leash behavior in line in the real world.

A very good example of the type of dog and owner which one will find utilizing the Animal Foundation dog park is here. (Since many won't purchase this archived blog, let me quote it as I used it in my newsletter as a perfect example of WHY DOG PARKS ARE A BAD IDEA.)

"The first time we took Bailey to the dog park, we kept him on leash for awhile. Much like parents sending their kids off to kindergarten, we weren't sure if Bailey would make friends (or if he'd return when called)...Bailey can be aggressively playful, ready to wrestle whether other dogs like it or not. He seems to get along with dogs that either let him run the show or that like to wrestle as much as he does. Samba was neither...Within seconds of the initial sniff test she had Bailey pinned to the ground and her teeth were inches from Bailey's neck...After that, my husband wouldn't let Bailey play with other dogs--unless they were pocket pooches or labs (sic). I guess his logic is that all labs (sic) are nice and Bailey could squash even a really mean mini dog." (Kim Skornogoski, Aug 7, 2007, Dog Blog, Great Falls Tribune)

Let's recap:

The Animal Foundation, because they don't have enough money to erect their Taj Mahal of shelters and has pushed a dog park because it wants to have good PR.

Dona Stebbins, (Spay of the Falls, Mayor of Great Falls, and part of the Animal Foundation,) doesn't inform the public of this City park. Why? In order to continue funneling money to her personal projects? Because she's noted for not telling the citizens much? Because she & her dog can't correctly utilize this park's off-leash abilities?

City Parks & Rec isn't announcing this park, either. Could this be because they follow the orders of the Commission and the Commission has created a closed-door deal with the Animal Foundation?

Not the Mayor, the Commissioners, nor the Animal Foundation have done a single thing for the animals in the shelter, but they certainly have supported the idea of a dog park under the auspices of the Foundation, with the help of development by Melanie Lattin (city employee and Foundation board member).

If we have an off-leash park where dogs may run and play, why do we need the Animal Foundation's dog park? Why do we need them to waste ANY money on another playground for dogs while what is truly needed is a realistic, workable shelter?

Why are they trying to us sell political swill as bouillabaisse?

Animal Foundation Quotes of the Week

In a meeting between HSCC and the Animal Foundation on July 9, 2007, after the takeover of the shelter Bob James and John Gilbert suggested the HSCC merge with the Animal Foundation and the following quotes were taken down verbatim in that meeting:

"The Animal Foundation has worked for years to build equity with the City, County, police department and media, and would share some of their equity with the City to smooth things over for the HSCC and can make the MOU* go away, and the HSCC Board members would not have to resign" B. James

(Ed. - *MOU - memorandum of understanding proposed by John Lawton, which included the requirement that all current HSCC Board members resign, with new members to be appointed and overseen by the City.)

"We have a lot of equity with the Tribune, and if we merge, we could meet with the Tribune editorial board about a story on the new situation." B. James

"Negative PR has hurt fund raising so we are focusing on the dog park because it is good PR."
both B. James and J. Gilbert

Ed - My, my...Kind of makes one stop and consider all the statements from the Foundation about NOT knowing what's going on, what's happening, not being involved with the City, and reading the recent Tribune articles about the Foundation with a healthy bit of skepticism, doesn't it?

HSCC Steps Up

Since so much goes astray within the City halls, so many meetings go unreported, so many "dual purpose" employees seem unable to keep track of specific items and lead the public into the idea that "it never happened", I have taken the liberty of posting this (I have added a page I missed):

Animal Foundation Funding Stats

I read it. Yes, thank you for all the e-mails which started at zero-dark-thirty.

Let's dissect what seems to be a great PR job for the Animal Foundation in the Trib, yet doesn't seem to add up.

BASIC MATH
(see article side bar)

If you add the Contributions = $1,145,995
plus, Fur Ball proceeds = 161,863
TOTAL =$1,307,858

Foundation says in the article that it has: $1,308,907
Minus TOTAL from above 1,307,858
MISSING =$ 1,049


Investments total = $97,352
Expenses total = 96,349
PROFIT = $ 1,003

Let's call the missing and the profit money shown above as an equal amount or a "wash", nothing lost, nothing gained.

Sheltering Skies
(pg 4) states Foundation has contributions in the amount of: $1, 426, 207
Subtract today's TOTAL (above from Trib) - 1, 308,858
Please account for the difference of = $ 117,349

Humane Society Checks Cashed by City of Great Falls

The City of Great Falls and the Police Department which operates the Animal Shelter admitted in their report (for download) that they accepted checks made out to the Humane Society of Cascade County and cashed them. The HSCC did NOT authorize this and it is unlike when Albertson's took over from Buttrey's, and there WAS authorization to accept checks and cash them, regardless of the name. In this case it is outright THEFT.

Ask yourselves...How could both entities, the City and Police, NOT know that was an illegal act? Yet, they did it. They didn't make the person alter the check. They didn't bother to hold the check and give it to the HSCC. They didn't contact the person who wrote the check and correct the endorsement.

I can only surmise that they did this deliberately, with malice and intent. They are the POLICE DEPARTMENT. The Fiscal Services Asst. Director HAD to know that the HSCC is NOT a City entity. Is incompetence so rampant within our City? Is corruption so ingrained that not an eye is batted? Looks like it to me.

Then, to top it off, I was looking for something else and came across this:

It seems in July 2006 at the Commission Work Session (minutes) in which they were discussing the Animal Control Ordinance, a citizen, Mr. Olson, was allowed to express concern for dogs off-leash. He was followed by Mr. "Bob James, citizen member, suggested that fines could be reduced for an unaltered animal if they had the animals altered within 30 days. He also requested that the Commission consider forwarding a percentage of the fines to the Animal Foundation to help pay for the new shelter."

I spent quite a bit of time running through EVERY meeting from Jan 2006 to Dec 2007. Mr. James was the ONLY citizen member to make ANY REQUEST OF THAT NATURE. In fact, there were very few incidents of "citizen members" speaking. Many consultants. Many reports.
Many updates. But, only 3 citizens, one of whom asked a question, one of whom made a statement about preparing a firework safety brochure, AND MR JAMES' REQUEST FOR MONEY FROM THE CITY COFFERS.

I would be interested to know if this request was honored. Particularly in light of the fact that in 2006 the HSCC was STILL operating the shelter. I don't know who was the designated recipient of fines collected on such things as unaltered animals. But, I intend to find out.

I then intend to find out if the City, did indeed, allocate a percentage to the Animal Foundation.

I expect the books of both the City and the Animal Foundation to be opened for public review. This kind of theft, from the HSCC and taxpayers should NOT be tolerated.

In light of all of this, I suggest the Animal Foundation reconsider putting in a bid to run the Animal Shelter until such time as they can produce proof that they are NOT connected to the City in any manner (which looks pretty difficult) and their books have been reviewed publicly by an independent audit/review chosen by a citizen's committee and pronounced clean.

Unless the Feds beat everyone to it.

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

The Animal Foundation - A Group that keeps on Taking

People get weary of being treated poorly. Insiders, normal people who are not in the self-determined upper echelons of groups, are often dismissed or treated as inconsequential and they become very tired of it. Once they reach that point, they speak or they act.

Tired of ill treatment, being "marginalized" (a VERY popular term used by this group for those whom they have no regard and wish to dismiss, put out of business, or nullify) these aggrieved people engage in a private boycott and may even offer up information they have been privy to while inside the organization. Such is the case with the following information from HSCC meeting minutes.

Interesting time line and note how the Animal Foundation repeatedly has taken money from the HSCC - but we don't see that acknowledged, do we?

10/22/02 - Melanie Lattin, City of Great Falls employee, voted liaison between the HSCC & Humane Society Foundation of Cascade County (now Animal Foundation of Great Falls)

02/03/2003 - Melanie Lattin, City of Great Falls employee, President of HSCC. At this point $125,000 of HSCC money was given to the Humane Society Foundation of Cascade County (later HSCC Board would demand this money returned, which it was)

05/19/2003 - Melanie Lattin, City of Great Falls employee, resigns from HSCC, its Board accepts resignation and enters it into minutes

07/02/2003 - Melanie Lattin, City of Great Falls employee, becomes listed on Humane Society Foundation Board (now Animal Foundation of GF)

04/10/04 - Power Point presentation by Animal Foundation (new name) to HSCC Board. HSCC gave the Animal Foundation $8,000 towards their total (as yet undetermined) pledge to help with architect costs. Foundation said that they would be providing and ESTIMATE OF DOG PARK FENCING, drawing and other proposals to the City & are asking City to donate land.

Then you can throw in Gloria LaMott and Dona Stebbins and the circle remains unbroken.

What do we have here in the way of donations by the HSCC to the Animal Foundation?

$125,000 HSCC (returned by demand of HSCC Board)
$8,000 HSCC
$20,000 HSCC

What do we have here in the way of real progress or actual achievement by the Animal Foundation?

Nov 13, 2002 - "Humane Society of Cascade County has formed a foundation to raise money for a new, bigger animal shelter...Foundation President Bob James described the current facility as a territiorial prison. "It's time we provide adequate housing for the animals," James said...The dream shelter could cost as much as $1 million, but a feasibility study is in the works to determine how big they can build...To donate to the foundation, send checks to the Humane Society." (Great Falls Tribune, section: Montana, page: 1M)

Dec 02, 2004 - "The Animal Foundation is currently working with the HSCC to determine the size, services, and fund raising budget for the new animal shelter. Once this decision is made, Mark will provide a preliminary design and revised cost estimates prior to the project being handed off to a local architectural firm." (Sheltering Skies Newsletter, Animal Foundation of Great Falls, Dec 2004/Winter 04, page 2)

April 2005 - Great Falls Neighborhood Council Meeting @ Meadowlark School - "Sally Cerny (Volunteer for the Animal foundation of Great Falls and Chuck Tourtillot Director of the Humane Society of Cascade County provided a Power Point presentation about the Capital Campaign and future plans...The purpose of the Foundation is to provide good care to all pets/animals within the county. Their plans are to build state of the art Animal Shelter and a dog Park. Also they will do on-going fund raising for the Humane Society...they have...identified potential sites for both the shelter and the dog park; consulted with an Architect who designs animal shelters. The are hoping to build a 12,000 sq ft shelter @ a cost of $160/sq ft. The total cost will be about, $2,000,000.00" (see Neighborhood reports online at City site as almost, if not all Councils were visited by Cerny promoting this information during this period.)

June 2005 - Foundation "Speakers Bureau - BOB JAMES, SALLY CERNY AND CHUCK TOURTILLOTT are serving as the Animal Foundation Speakers Bureau. Armed with an informative PowerPoint presentation, either Bob or Sally will accompany Chuck, as theHumane Society representative, to speak to any group that would like to hear more about the Foundation, the plans for the new animal shelter and dog park, and the fundraising campaign. They have already met with the numerous groups in town such as the Electric CityKennel Club, the Lion’s Club, the Realtors Group, the Uptown Optimists, and all the Neighborhood Councils.
If you belong to or are aware of a group that would like
to know more about the Animal Foundation and the animal shelter, call Executive Director Mary Willmarth at 727-6826 to schedule a presentation." (June 3, 2005, Sheltering Skies pg 7)

April 04, 2006 - Let's make this easy, just go to Sheltering Skies and read the same old, same old...We're raising funds. We're working with the architect. We're planning.....

Nov 05, 2006 - "Although the floor plan is not 100% finalized, it is close." Just go to Sheltering Skies - again (pg 1 & 2). Just HOW LONG does it take to PLAN the schematics for a building???

Dec 06, 2007 - "The Animal Foundation has continued to seek assistance from Mark Hafen,
the architect from Animal Arts/Gates Hafen Cochrane in Colorado, who we’ve been working with since we first began this project. Mr. Hafen will be coming to Great Falls in December 2007 to meet with a variety of people to obtain the necessary information to begin designing the actual construction drawings. L’Heureux Page Werner will be the local architect/engineering firm that will design the exterior of the new animal shelter." Ah, hell, here we go again...Sheltering Skies pg 2.... They NOW want 3 MILLION DOLLARS, up from 2.2, for the new shelter.

5 years and still planning. 5 years and animals are still housed in a sub-standard facility. 5 years so that an elitist group can party while our animals die.

I wonder if it's ego for a building that's all twisted steel and sex appeal?

I wonder how they can claim to be FOR animals when they've known for 5 years that we have a problem?

I wonder how they can demand the HSCC donate money to them when the HSCC was grossly underfunded and supposed to be the entity the Foundation was in business to help?

I wonder if the money is there. Is THAT why we experience all the delays?