So I understand that the Executive Director of the CCSCPA, Linda Van Kirk, showed up at the last Downtown Rotary Breakfast and displayed her usual disrespectful and disdainful behavior – with a few new twists.
First, she berated both the City and
the County (and of course the usual targets, the rescues and anyone who even thinks the words "no-kill"). Then, because some people from the City and the County
have supposedly "come back hat in hand to beg" the shelter
to continue doing the job, she informed everyone present at the
meeting it would cost them MORE should it happen. Finally, after
figuratively holding a gun to the heads of the City and County and
demanding more money, she had the gall to inform everyone at the breakfast that the CCSPCA
would actually be doing LESS too. Why? Because they are “becoming a
'No-Kill shelter'” and should they renew contracts with the City
and County it would now be the responsibility of the City and the
County to euthanize animals.
Still with me? Got your composure back? Let's continue then.
Get that? That's what these brilliant
and forward-thinking people consider being a “no kill shelter” –
trying to avoid responsibility for the deaths by making someone else
pull the trigger. Listen closely here, because it's important: It
does not matter who is “responsible” for euthanizing the animals.
If they're your responsibility because you've contracted to care for
them and you "truck" them somewhere else to be put down –
then you are NOT A “NO-KILL SHELTER,” you idiots. You've just
“outsourced” the killing. Besides, based upon something I've been slowly uncovering, it seems to me that the lack of a surfeit of animal bodies to "dispose" of would put a serious dent in the CCSPCA's revenue stream. (More on that when I've got it completely nailed down.)
(By the way, let's take a second to get
something straight that lots of people seem to be confused or just
plain misinformed about. An absolute zero “no-kill” rate is not a
realistic or attainable goal. There will always be animals it's
impossible to save for various reasons. And everyone – including
some of the animal rescue people – have to remember and/or
understand that “no-kill” is a GOAL to work toward. It is NOT
going to happen instantly, no matter who is running the shelter. Even
some of the most vocal animal rescues are not “no-kill” because
it's something that requires a multi-pronged approach and many people
working together to achieve it. Most rescues do not have those
resources – through no fault of their own, mind you. Many of them
work tirelessly, but they still struggle sometimes. And no, “no-kill”
is NOT radically more expensive and it's not going to cost “Fifty
billion dollars” or any of the absurd numbers that are tossed
around by “no-kill” critics.)
I'm not sure if the County has its own separate contract with the CCSPCA (they and the City split the check for the shelter's services 25/75), but I have reviewed the City's. One of the biggest issues I found is that the contract is very short on specifics (other than the money - THAT they seemed to have the time and the inclination to be specific about). That oversight needs to be better addressed in any new contract to prevent any other agency running the shelter in the future from being free to essentially run rampant because, “It's not in the contract.”
I also found some very curious things in the contract. Some merit further investigation. And some made it instantly clear that something is amiss here – possibly on both sides.
One thing that really leaped out at me is this: "All right, title and interest in and all data, materials, reports, compilations, documents, instruments and/or other information in any form/media generated by Society in pursuit of this Agreement and the Augmented services provided for herein shall be vested in the City and shall be transmitted to the City by Society upon termination of the Agreement. Society shall not permit the reproduction or use thereof by any other person except as otherwise expressly provided herein."
So, as I read that, all documents, reports, internal and external communications, emails and (here's the good part) BOARD MEETING MINUTES are the property of the City the minute the contract is ended. Interesting. VERY interesting...
I'm not sure if the County has its own separate contract with the CCSPCA (they and the City split the check for the shelter's services 25/75), but I have reviewed the City's. One of the biggest issues I found is that the contract is very short on specifics (other than the money - THAT they seemed to have the time and the inclination to be specific about). That oversight needs to be better addressed in any new contract to prevent any other agency running the shelter in the future from being free to essentially run rampant because, “It's not in the contract.”
I also found some very curious things in the contract. Some merit further investigation. And some made it instantly clear that something is amiss here – possibly on both sides.
One thing that really leaped out at me is this: "All right, title and interest in and all data, materials, reports, compilations, documents, instruments and/or other information in any form/media generated by Society in pursuit of this Agreement and the Augmented services provided for herein shall be vested in the City and shall be transmitted to the City by Society upon termination of the Agreement. Society shall not permit the reproduction or use thereof by any other person except as otherwise expressly provided herein."
So, as I read that, all documents, reports, internal and external communications, emails and (here's the good part) BOARD MEETING MINUTES are the property of the City the minute the contract is ended. Interesting. VERY interesting...
I'll get to something else I found in the contract that I think many of you will be furious about in just a moment. Right now I have three points I'd like to make here to Ms. Van Kirk, the CCSPCA and the City and County.
One: I would like to remind Ms. Van
Kirk exactly who it is that pays her handsome salary at the CCSPCA.
It's me. It's me and the rest of the people who pay taxes in Fresno and
Fresno County. I don't give a DAMN if the CCSPCA is a "private
contractor." I pay YOUR salary. According to the CCSPCA's own tax returns, the "Public Support Percentage" of the shelter's income for 2008 and 2009 was more than 97 percent. How DARE you continue to act
like you are above the rest of us. And you can go to hell before you
get any more money from me. I don't care if I have to drive around in
a truck twenty-four hours a day collecting live and dead animals or if I have
to figure out where to keep them afterward. The gravy train is over
for you and the CCSPCA.
Two (Here's where that other discovery
in the City's contract comes in...): Ms. Van Kirk, you have SOME
nerve behaving like you hold all the cards and you can make everyone
bend to your will if you so choose. You see, I have discovered that
you appear to be personally in DIRECT VIOLATION of one of the terms
of the CCSPCA's contract with the City of Fresno.
How? It's right here: (From the
CCSPCA's 2001 contract with the City of Fresno) "Society
shall not enter into any proposed transaction or series of
transactions, if any person who is then one of its directors,
employees, or officers, would, directly or indirectly, receive any
income as the result of such a proposed transaction or series of
transactions."
That's so concisely and clearly written
that it doesn't even need to be rephrased into non-legalese for
everyone to get it. Isn't it? And I know that term is still
enforceable, because there is nothing about it being removed in
Renewal Addendum No. 10, which made minimal changes to the 2001
contract when it was renewed in the fall of 2011. With the exception
of those changes, “In all other regards, the Agreement shall remain
in full force and effect.”
Ms. Van Kirk, as of late April, the CCSPCA was paying you to keep horses that were confiscated from an abusive and/or neglectful home AT YOUR COMMERCIAL HORSE STABLE. I believe that's what's known as a “breach” of the above term. What's even worse is that since at least 2001, the CCSPCA has been violating that very specifically worded part of its contract with the City by doing business with its own board members as a regular matter of course. In light of that little revelation, I think I'd tread just a tad more carefully when making demands of the City of Fresno if I were you. It wouldn't do to make them angry enough to sue the CCSPCA (and/or you and other current and previous Board Members personally) for breach of contract – retroactively for at least a decade or so.
Ms. Van Kirk, as of late April, the CCSPCA was paying you to keep horses that were confiscated from an abusive and/or neglectful home AT YOUR COMMERCIAL HORSE STABLE. I believe that's what's known as a “breach” of the above term. What's even worse is that since at least 2001, the CCSPCA has been violating that very specifically worded part of its contract with the City by doing business with its own board members as a regular matter of course. In light of that little revelation, I think I'd tread just a tad more carefully when making demands of the City of Fresno if I were you. It wouldn't do to make them angry enough to sue the CCSPCA (and/or you and other current and previous Board Members personally) for breach of contract – retroactively for at least a decade or so.
Third (and this one is for the City of
Fresno and Fresno County too): I have conclusively proved that the
CCSPCA kept a man convicted of tax evasion (Leroy Combs) on its Board
of Directors (occasionally even making him President of it). They
also (again in breach of their contract with the City of Fresno) paid
him hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxpayer money for "printing
services." And most damning of all, I think it's clear that the
CCSPCA colluded with Combs to commit further tax evasion AFTER his
conviction in 2001.
First the IRS and then a Federal Court found that Combs and his wife "diverted income from their businesses to several trusts. These payments are ineffective assignments of income. Thus, the diverted income is taxable..." The CCSPCA reported on its Federal income tax returns for several years that Combs' non-profit "religious organization” – a church that does not exist – was contracted by the shelter and paid for "printing services." They did this despite the fact that Mr. Combs ALSO had a commercial printing business that existed as a different entity. How could the CCSPCA NOT KNOW that they were colluding in attempted tax evasion by filing their taxes with Combs' phony non-profit listed as a contractor? Especially since a Federal court had already ruled that money had been funneled by Combs in a similar fashion into improperly administrated and accessed “trusts” (the 21st Century answer to “tax shelters”) – in a transparent attempt to avoid paying his taxes. And it appears Mr. Combs has continued to do that, because the Federal government filed ANOTHER suit against him earlier this year in the Tax Court here in Fresno.
First the IRS and then a Federal Court found that Combs and his wife "diverted income from their businesses to several trusts. These payments are ineffective assignments of income. Thus, the diverted income is taxable..." The CCSPCA reported on its Federal income tax returns for several years that Combs' non-profit "religious organization” – a church that does not exist – was contracted by the shelter and paid for "printing services." They did this despite the fact that Mr. Combs ALSO had a commercial printing business that existed as a different entity. How could the CCSPCA NOT KNOW that they were colluding in attempted tax evasion by filing their taxes with Combs' phony non-profit listed as a contractor? Especially since a Federal court had already ruled that money had been funneled by Combs in a similar fashion into improperly administrated and accessed “trusts” (the 21st Century answer to “tax shelters”) – in a transparent attempt to avoid paying his taxes. And it appears Mr. Combs has continued to do that, because the Federal government filed ANOTHER suit against him earlier this year in the Tax Court here in Fresno.
Ms. Van Kirk was right about one thing.
I know there ARE some people in City and County government (and
indeed, on the Shelter Task Force itself) ready to throw up their
hands and go back into business with the CCSPCA. Are you kidding?
I've proved – at the very least – collusion with criminal
activity and breach of contract on the part of the CCSPCA. I've
proved they continued to allow a convicted tax evader to sit on their
board while they paid him hundreds of thousands of dollars in
taxpayer money. So tell me, what is it going to take before the City
and the County will see that they are dirtying their hands by
continuing to contract with the CCSPCA?
I am telling you right here and now: I
will do everything I can to make sure the City and the County do NOT
continue to do business with people committing crimes and using
taxpayer money to do whatever they damned well please. Because that's
what this comes down to – working with people who are blatantly
breaking laws and thumbing their noses at everyone while daring them
to do something about it. Enough. No more. That's it. Let the
CCSPCA's contract end. And then pursue them for breach of contract
and anything else you can find through a complete investigation. The
IRS is ALREADY investigating them. They're not at liberty to share
any information with the public about that, but I'm sure that they'd
be happy to share what they've learned with the proper local
authorities conducting their own investigation. So do it already. I'm
not shutting up or quitting until that happens. And I don't care how
long or how loudly I have to shout about it.
And before anyone thinks it might be a
smart idea to fire up their high-priced lawyers to come after me, you
should know that I can prove (indeed I have already proved)
everything I've said here with publicly available documentation.
That's not libel, slander or anything else. It's telling the truth
and backing it up with cold, hard facts. As far as I'm aware that's
still perfectly legal in this country.
“In a time of deceit telling the truth is a revolutionary act.” - George Orwell
“In a time of deceit telling the truth is a revolutionary act.” - George Orwell
Stay safe, hug somebody who looks like they need it - and make sure your animals have plenty of shade and fresh, clean, cool water in the hellish Fresno heat that's coming.
Jim
Jim
No comments:
Post a Comment
Dissenting opinions are always welcome and even encouraged because they help keep the author honest and can be a source of enlightenment. However, be advised that openly hostile and completely off topic comments or ad hominem attacks will be summarily dispatched to the Forbidden Zone.