Who owns the shelter?
Someone raised the question of the ownership of the Animal Shelter. According to what I can find, the real property is owned by the Animal Foundation of Great Falls. This is an entity separate from Humane Society of Cascade County. I am not sure how the City can 'evict' the HSCC from property owned by the Animal Foundation. Doesn't HSCC have a lease?
And why do we have two separate non-profits doing essentially the same leadership? Aren't they competing for limited resources?
Who will step up as the true leader to bring these two groups together to solve the problems? Wouldn't that be preferable to internecine squabbling?
13 comments:
Geeguy, I thought the building where the hscc is located was deeded to the hscc, when Linda Hughes was director.
I thought the property adjacent to the hscc was given to the foundation as a site to build the new building, for the hscc.
I am stunned at this whole fiasco. How did this situation get so bad, so fast?
Apparently the problems stem from alleged internal controls and accountability procedures that cannot be independantly certified.
Some critics suggest it is a cutural problem within the current form of city government.
According to Jim Donahue, the Humane Society "passed" the audit mandated by the City.
Was the audit just financials? From the Tribune article it sounded like there were management problems. When their last director quit they didn't hire a new one. Who's watching the store for non-financial considerations and fundraising. This isn't a normal city vendor situation. It's more a partnership with both parties paying costs to further somewhat shared goals.
"When their last director quit they didn't hire a new one." Maybe that's why their bid went up, to hire a new one?
"This isn't a normal city vendor situation. It's more a partnership with both parties paying costs to further somewhat shared goals."
What do you base that on, Wolfpack? Do you have the contract? Are you suggesting that the City has an annual obligation to them but then pays additional funds too? I will need to see the support for that before I can consider it.
"When their last director quit they didn't hire a new one."
I am beginning to see through the smoke. The Board has been running things and I can bet a few Board members started thinking they had a vested interest, then they start exercising authority they dont have, probably have zero management experience and suddenly all you have is chaos. I have seen it many times before.
Geeguy- The HSCC runs the shelter at a loss with donations making up the difference. Most city vendors do not operate this way. The HSCC and it’s benefactors do this because of a concern for animal treatment and running the shelter gives them an outlet to put into action their concerns. The blend of public and private in this situation should be a win-win. As with many groups people come and go. It seems that the mix of talent on the HSCC board currently is not healthy and has led to the situation they are in. I don’t know the current board members so I can’t say they are all bad or need to go, they may simply need the infusion of talent with a different prospective. This would be in line with what the city tried to propose even though the specific terms proffered were not viable.
Wolfpack, you indicated that both parties were paying costs. If the City were, in fact, advancing costs in addition to the contractual payments, I might agree that this is something different than a normal independent contractor.
Your second post, though, seems to back up on this. How is this somehow different from any other contract vendor?
"then they start exercising authority they dont have, probably have zero management experience and suddenly all you have is chaos."
Sounds like the mayor?
Geeguy- I'm not following your questions. I was just trying to point out that this isn't a normal business relationship because it is run at a loss by design. Because of this there are elements in evaluating an applicant that may not come into play with most city/vendor relationships, like the ability to fundraise and maintain an adequate volunteer force. A weak and ineffectual board would hinder both of these elements.
You said: "It's more a partnership with both parties paying costs to further somewhat shared goals."
I am wondering whether you contend the City pays expenses of HSCC in addition to the contract payments?
Geeguy- No I didn't intend to imply that the city was providing anything other than the contracted amounts. That’s a problem I have discussing things with lawyers, the whole discussion can hinge on the precise use of one word and I’m not very precise.
Post a Comment