A Charitable City
I don’t remember seeing the City Commission vote on this “contribution,” do you? I didn’t know that the City typically made large charitable contributions, especially when choosing between competing charities purporting to offer the same services.
Does anyone else know what this is all about?
UPDATE: I found it. This donation was approved as part of the Consent Agenda at the November 6, 2007, meeting. Now, it was apparently approved after the fact. What is not so clear, though, is how the initial decision to donate the amount of $5,000.00 was reached.
Supporting the spay/neuter clinic is a “priority” goal of the budget, but I am not sure where the $5,000.00 amount came from. As you can see, though, the animal control program is right up there with the coal plant and the golf courses. Good? Bad? I don’t know, but there it is.
Mystery solved.
It’s just one thing after another. I’ve started permanently shaking my head. I’m hoping this never-ending string of bad news and questionable practices will break soon. It’s like a roller coaster with no high parts. Granted $5,000 is, how did they say… de minimus… but 1 cent is more than the city should donate. What’s being done to combat all this? The pilot program and the animal shelter? Maybe it’s only scratching the surface. I guess the election was a decent start. So we just sit back and wait.
How large is John Lotton’s petty cash account?
By the way, Anonymous @ 9:47 pm — you should learn to spell. Our City Manager’s name is spelled LAWTON.
The same $5,000 was issued on august 21, 2007. Seems like a reasonable cause for the city to donate to but there certainly should be some transparency as to how the decision came about.
It is THIS and more irregularities extending to the current animal shelter and AC bid which caused me to speak in June. I cannot impress enough that the entire Animal Foundation/City symbiotic relationship is for ONE thing – money. In order to achieve this acquisition of funds via the city it was necessary to remove the HSCC from its position. This, then, allows the City and Foundation the ability to appropriate funds at taxpayers expense for a NON-PROFIT group and to form a monopoly and assign groups and individuals to specific key employment positions, whether they have knowledge or competency, and to continue to drain the coffers, all the while halting services to the county which the HSCC supplied.
The City donated land. Shut down a private non-profit organization. Cost the taxpayers approximately $300,000 more per year to offer fewer services than the HSCC. Has been continuously maintaining ANOTHER entity shall run the future shelter. Has donated City money to a non-profit group. Had such extreme irregularities or conflict of interest as regards this entire situation it should have been shut down.
Spay of the Falls – Donna Stebbins, Gloria LaMott.
Animals Foundation of GF – Bob James, et al.
AFGF now takes Spay of the Falls under its wing.
At least 7 City employees are directly tied to the Foundation.
Melanie Lattin, will in all probability, become the head trainer.
Spay of the Falls, will in all probability, become the group which runs the future shelter.
Hang on to your wallets and animals. Because these two groups, the Animal Foundation and the City, will take your money and the animals will pay with their lives. I believe if you follow this dirty little deal it will open the door to all the other dirty deals.
Susan, I don’t know if I agree that this is an irregularity. The City’s involvement with the Animal Foundation’s efforts to build a shelter doesn’t necessarily concern me, despite the fact that City employees are ‘tied’ to the Foundation.
Why is there a suggestion that the Animal Foundation and its goals are somehow in appropriate? Don’t we WANT our City employees to support and be involved with charities?
On a personal donation and involvement level, that is fine. On a taxpayer level, it is not.
David, I take offense to your uncivil yelling about the spelling of lotten aka lawton
Sounds the same and you clearly understood the question. Phonics and ebonics are common today amoung the less educated..
Answer the question if you know the answer..
You seemed to take offense when voters discussed the mayor dropping out of school. A legit question about someone seeking office.
Here you are now, the spelling police, attacking the under educated.
Why was the money that went to the HSCC any different as far as an appropriate city expenditure? Granted the method/openness of appropriation was different. They are both non-profits and work toward the same ends. The idea that the city and Foundation are nefariously operating against the interests of animals is goofy. These insulting and unsubstantiable accusations against city employee’s charity work killing animals might have something to do with only being allowed your 4 minutes and being asked to sit down.
I have to agree with Wolfpack on this. I can really see no reason to smear a legitimate charity based on what has happened here.
My only questions involve the allocation process. And even that looks like it is pretty well covered.
How are the two remotely the same, guys?
The HSCC had an Animal Control contract and received payment for services rendered in that capacity.
The Animal Foundation has what contract? Their original sales pitch and printed statement was “to raise funds to build a new shelter for THE HUMANE SOCIETY OF CASCADE COUNTY.” Would we like to review the campaign against that organization by these SAME people now involved in this mess? What about services now NOT available in the county? The fact that the HSCC, the organization which offered full-county services, now has no shelter, even though many of us donated time, money and services to the Foundation fund-raiser with that intent as the understood outcome.
Please explain to me how it is NOT acceptable to have a small, select group of individuals receiving reduced utility bills, but acceptable for a small, select group of individuals to receive land, city funds, hand-picked, future employment and more? How it is NOT acceptable for confidentiality as pertains to the behavior of one group, but acceptable when evidenced by another? How it is NOT acceptable to have insider deals which will cost the taxpayers as relates to SME, but totally acceptable when viewed on an issue in which you have no interest?
While the City continuously spins the improvements, please don’t forget that the numbers being compared are City-only vs County service numbers offered by the HSCC.
And the City and Foundation are not caring one way or the other about the animals. Merely about their display and the money. If the animals were of concern, they certainly wouldn’t be allowing a dog to sit in the shelter for two days with a fractured pelvis and no veterinary care, as the most recent example.
Spin this as you will Wolfpack, but the reality is it’s all being handled much the same as the coal plant and other issues. I pointed out in June that the bid showed clear conflict of interest with the same people sitting on the review and award committees AND submitting a bid, the lack of open discussion with the public and the pre-approved deals and that there was a decidedly limited number of individuals with special interests involved in every aspect of the situation.
If all of that is not sufficient cause to have askance as to what these people are doing, then why have participatory government at all? Throw the process out and declare Great Falls a fiefdom.
I’m only going to respond to a couple points. First, the fact that the payments to the Animal Foundation were not made pursuant to a contract is a red herring. Support for the Foundation is a stated goal of the Commission. Agree or not, it’s one of their goals. My question is how we got from a goal to a stated dollar amount.
“Please explain to me how it is NOT acceptable to have a small, select group of individuals receiving reduced utility bills, but acceptable for a small, select group of individuals to receive land, city funds, hand-picked, future employment and more?” Because even if the Foundation is a pet cause (no pun intended), it’s not a personal benefit. They’re not living in the shelter personally. As far as future employment, that’s conjecture right now.
“How it is NOT acceptable for confidentiality as pertains to the behavior of one group, but acceptable when evidenced by another?” What confidentiality are you talking about?
“How it is NOT acceptable to have insider deals which will cost the taxpayers as relates to SME, but totally acceptable when viewed on an issue in which you have no interest?” It’s not.
But I see a distinction here. What I say can be demonstrated with reference to specific documents linked off the blog, can be sourced to an individual, or else I tell the readers I am speculating. I am only talking about the $5,000.00 donation. I was able to source the money, and trace back at least a form of authorization.
And you’re right: This isn’t as important to me as it is to you. You’re going to have to run with this one. I have enough irons in the fire.
Just my Two Cents. . .
The City Counsel extends the contract with HSCC and then a few days later John Lawton fires HSCC and hires the Police Department. Now I must say I thought John worked for the City Counsel not the other way around. So we have no input from anyone other than John for an extra 300K per year expenditure.
Susan is arrested for asking what is going on.
The HSCC has financial troubles because of the City refusing to pay or paying late. Did the City ever give HSCC any 5K grant?
Now we have the City giving 5K to the new people on August 21 but have no record that said payment was authorized by anyone until November 6.
Seems to me something is going on here and no one seems to care except Susan.
Saying that no one cares is not accurate. I simply said that I am not inclined to agree that it is a giant conspiracy based on what I know now. While there might be disagreement about the Foundation vis-a-vis the HSCC, I am not prepared to think that all of the Foundation’s volunteers (or even a big bunch of them) are up to something.
And please, don’t forget, that the HSCC agreed to the change of management. Once they acquiesced, I found it hard to keep up the fight.
I don’t have time to research every issue that comes up. Susan, or you for that matter, are welcome to go after this one. I certainly gave y’all the lead in with the letter to Mr. Lawton.
My plate’s full.
My response is at http://overfieldkennel.blogspot.com/
No one has ever said it better that government ” … has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity … ” than the Honorable Colonel David Crockett, Member of Congress in “Not Yours To Give”:
http://www.fee.org/library/books/notyours.asp
Walter,
Thank you for the link to the Davey Crockett story. I have been looking for the text for some time.