SedonaEye.com columnist Eddie Maddock with a commentary on the Sedona Humane Society service contract situation
Sedona AZ (July 5, 2014) – Someone approached me about writing a story covering the Humane Society of Sedona fiasco, explaining the e-blast from the HSS was obviously one-sided and the city should have equal opportunity. My initial response was “no” because of my love of animals, support for the HSS, and resentment towards the city for spending amounts for other “alleged” non-profits which vastly exceed what the HSS was requesting in their contract negotiations.
At this time, however, and at the risk of making people on both sides of the HSS issue very angry towards me, I feel compelled to address what I believe as being the missing link . . . the animals.
According to the city, the HSS notified them on June 30, 2014, the last day of the previous contract, they did not intend to continue the contractual relationship. It, therefore, was the decision of the HSS not to accept funding from the City and not the city’s decision to discontinue funding their operations. Negotiations occurred with the HSS and City Contract Review Committee at lengthy meetings on March 28 and April 14, 2014, and it was decided by the Committee HSS could not justify the increase they were asking nor were they willing to enter into a three-year contract.
If those terms were presented back in April, why didn’t the HSS announce the decision made by the CCRC was unacceptable and make known their intent to cancel the contract at that time instead of waiting until the 11th hour, June 30, 2014? Was this a mere ploy or scare tactic thinking they were the only game in town? True, they may be the only game in the City of Sedona but as they soon learned not the only game in the immediate area.
Where was the concern for future lost, stray, or abandoned animals that the very next day, July 1st, under a temporary agreement with the Police Department and Verde Valley Humane Society they would be carted off to Cottonwood where their chances for survival will most likely be minimized due to less rigid policies for euthanasia?
Did the HSS cut off their nose to spite their face, thinking the City of Sedona could not function without them and their demands for more money and a one-year contract instead of the city’s current policy to write contracts for three years?
Humane Society of Sedona on Shelby Drive
Was the city unfair in demanding stringent compliancy with their lengthy formula for justifying financial support based on norms and practices of other communities and municipalities?
Why so stringent with the Humane Society of Sedona when at other times they permit requests for money with a wink of an eye and frequently the excuse that “$12,500 is such a small amount” referring to one of many examples on the recent additional funding for the Sedona Arts Collaboration after the initial contingency fund allocation of $20,000 last year. Then wasn’t it an additional $45,000 for Holiday Central and $13,000 for the non-ice skating rink? Those “small amounts” add up and most often without benefit of accountability..
The city boasts that although the negotiation with the Verde Valley Humane Society to shelter animals collected through the city’s animal control was done as a temporary emergency measure, it has (or will) result in more than a 50% savings to our taxpayers over what the city was paying for services with the HSS. Why isn’t the city as prudent to comparison shop with other contractual services, in particular the Chamber of Commerce?
How’s this for a novel idea? How about cutting to the chase and using non-essential give-away money to finance necessary infrastructure such as the $20 million storm water plan instead of proposed options on the table for means of funding, one being a secondary property tax?
Would the easiest solution to this ongoing feud be to simply cease and desist funding to ALL non profits. Separate the men from the boys, the women from the girls (by all means let us be politically correct) and find out just who it is that has the right stuff?
My bet will be on the Humane Society of Sedona and the Sedona Public Library. Both functioned and grew based on support from the community prior to having a city to beg from. Will the others boast that claim? It’s doubtful. But the only way to find out is to cut the cord and allow them . . . ALL OF THEM . . . to grow up.
For the best Arizona news and views, read www.SedonaEye.com daily!
there’s a city council meeting on July 8 — the HSS isn’t on the agenda for contract approval but it’s circulating that the director and others will be at meeting to speak on behalf of HSS !! Be there !!
According to the Humane Society of Sedona, Asst. City Mgr. Karen Daines wrote “…that the majority of funding for humane societies comes from contributions, fund-raising and other private sources (July 4th Red Rock News).”
What? Isn’t this the case with the so-called ‘Sedona’ Chamber of Commerce, already approved by Council to receive a $1,148,500 subsidy this fiscal year? Many municipalities with populations as small as Sedona’s don’t financially support their local Chamber, nor do they have a long list of non-profits receiving taxpayer hand-outs.
I’m in favor of the solution that the City “cease and desist funding to ALL non-profits.”
Second Jean on funding solution.
The amounts mentioned ($12,500; $20,000; $45,000; $13,000) total $90,500!! (and there was no mention of the rent the city paid for the “Y” property warming station) How much more to the Chamber for the Marathon? $14,000? Oh, that was a “grant.” (forgot)
And $75,000 for Art in Public Places? Why oh why wouldn’t artists be clamoring for the privilege of having their “donations” selected for prominent places? Wasn’t that the case of the Susan Kliewer statue of Sedona Schnebly at the library?
The list of trivial pork and perks is endless. The outrageous amount given to the Film Festival is shameful. City loses bed tax and sales tax due to the amount of “freebies” given during that event. Once again our parking lots and roads are clogged with traffic without benefit of accountability: profit or loss? Ask that question when in a week or so the matter of new sources of revenue is again on the table. Rest assured this council will push that through if possible prior to the departure of four of them in November.
Then the “double dippers” have created quite a scam. Individually and collectively they manage to stack the deck. City Council has allowed the control of Sedona to fall into the hands of a select few who will continue to bludgeon the rest of us as long as we allow it. ENOUGH!
About the council meeting today, did anyone else find it interesting that council members didn’t grill how the increase to Main Street was to be spent? They certainly put the HSS through the mill. Amazing that they criticized the number of animals “outside city limits” that were taken to the HSS but think it’s perfectly OK for the Chamber of Commerce to advertise their members outside city limits, those not contributing to the the city tax base. What’s wrong with this cockeyed scenario with a blatant display of discrimination? Kudos to John Martinez for voting no on the three contract approvals. Kudos to Mike Ward for your suggestion to discontinue funding to non-profits and revert to community events as fund raisers. And HSS, you can be needy but don’t be greedy. Consider the offer to reconnect that’s back on the table. You’ve already alienated a lot of us by the misleading e-mail you circulated.
Re HSS volunteer: Of course no one questions the amount “given” to Main Street. Consider who is on the City Contract Review Committee. With council members Barbara Litrell and Mark Dinunzio, what would you expect? Their connection with the groupies uptown that they NEVER say no to is curious but obvious.
And then you have Sandy Moriarty. Who is she besides a candidate for mayor? Well, constantly present at council meetings that one is. And she spoke on behalf of the increase in funding to the Chamber. And of course let’s not forget her involvement with the Wine Festival yet another in the growing line-up for “entitlements.” Indeed a very busy woman among the controlling movers and shakers who are always ready and available to give away public money to the U-NO-WHO! Ain’t no grass growin’ under that girl’s feet and, of course, no conflict of interest in the self-proclaimed elitists who are controlling Sedona’s purse strings.
Agreeing w/HSS volunteer, Humane Society may as well take the money if for no other reason than to prevent it going to the overly greedy who will be waiting in the wings if the offer is declined.
Remember it’s the displaced animals that matter. Isn’t it too bad Sedona doesn’t have a place to incarcerate displaced people with nothing better to do than hang out at City Hall?
Disgusting abuse of authority City Council. You cannot support abused animals but you’ll support each other abusing animal’s funding? I will vote against every single candidate by not voting for one of you until one or some stand above this reprehensible crowd.
It’s pretty amazing that of the four service contracts approved (Library, Recycles, Sedona Community Center, Sedona Main Street) it was ONLY Main Street who received a 10% increase for the next three year contract. Yes, Folks, that’s 10%! From $68,000 to $75,000! The others shared a total of a reported 5.5% overall fiscal budget increase. (And the HSS receives $47,500)
It was wrong for the HSS to send out the misleading e-blast. No doubt about that. And I hope for the sake of all the animals the wound has been bandaged and will heal without too much damage. However, for the City to continue pandering to uptown (Chamber, Tourism, Main Street) under so many different funding flags is worse.
There was absolutely no rational justification or detailed substantiation for the $7,000 increase to Main Street for the next three years. But then with Councilwoman Barbara Litrell and Vice Mayor Mark DiNunzio on the “deciding” committee, who would have expected otherwise? Add to the mix Mayor Candidate Sandy Moriarty, a solid supporter and frequent public speaker on behalf of the Chamber of Commerce, head honcho for the Wine Festival, and also a member of the “committee,” who would have expected anything else?
Blatantly biased individuals should have no place as elected officials on a City Council. They would better serve in closed doors on their favorite committees, manipulating city funds. But, silly me, they already are doing that.
Just wait. Should Home Rule miraculously be voted down, with the likes of DiNunzio, Williamson, and Moriarty (should she become Mayor) on the City Council, rest assured it will NOT be funding to their “pet” give-away special interests that will be cut. B. Litrell, of course, being off Council can devote all of her time working for the Chamber. (maybe as a paid employee if she can’t get a job selling time shares)
For the record, John Martinez was the only one who challenged the increased funding to Main Street and also the only one of a council of seven who voted against renewal of the service contracts based on unknown revenue sustainability for the next three years.
Martinez votes against everything just to keep it from being unanimous. Ask him.
Re Lynn, Sedona
Not true. Martinez voted not only for percentage increase in bed tax “rebate” to Chamber of Commerce but approval for the actual contract: $one million plus. Didn’t need to ask him. Watched council meeting video.
This was in response to Betsy Kleins Humane Society article in the Red Rock News Aug, 1 2014
BB says:
August 6, 2014 at 4:06 pm
Ms. Klein, it is hard to believe that the Humane Society is continuing with self-serving propaganda. You say that the HSS are in financial stress but the HSS has $1 million in reserve and choose to utilize 40% of its income to salaries. (How can a non-profit animal rescue organization be able to have the monies to expend over $430,000 on salaries per annum and then state they are in financial stress? One is not in animal rescue to get rich, so if anyone at the HSS is only at the HSS to earn up to $85K a year, than they are not at the HSS for the right reasons).
You are still complaining that the City only gave the HSS $47,500 and your explanation really does not cut it. This is not a grant, this is not for the HSS to use toward its running costs, this is a service contract for the HSS to take in the 40 dogs that the City bring to you and the costs the HSS expend on that (which at the moment is double than any other humane society), plus additional monies. You decided to say yes to do this service for the City, the Community and to the dogs, so if you are going to continue to harp on the fact that you only got $150,000 over 3 years and criticize the City then you should have not accepted it and let another shelter in the area do this service that would be thrilled with $47,500 for the first year with increases in year 2 and year 3. You should be happy to do this service and the fact that you are still complaining implies that you only are interested in the amount of the money of the contract and not about the 40 dogs that need to receive shelter and help. This certainly is not putting the animals first especially since, I reiterate, you have enough money to meet $430,000 in payroll so the HSS in fact does have the money (in addition to the $47,500 p.a.) to help these dogs but just chooses to put the money in their pockets instead.
As the City Council stated at the Council Meeting, the HSS cannot expect the City Council to give you more money simply because you cannot manage your own finances with regard to your income and expenditure. The Humane Society lost its credibility when a statement was released that was filled with blatant lies and inaccuracies so there is no reason I can think of why I should believe anything the HSS says. It is astounding that the person who did this – whether it was you Ms. Klein or another Director – had no compunction in doing so – with the aim of manipulating the community by pulling on their heartstrings and urging them to tell the City Council to give you $95,000 – is still working at the HSS. (The City was bombarded with emails as a consequence of your erroneous facts in your statement and many people were irate when they discovered the truth. Also many people on Facebook were aware that you removed comments that stated the truth). This indicates that the HSS approve of this behavior and the decision to do so shows a lack of respect to the dogs, community – who they rely on for donations – and the City! The City Council rightly stated that this was a very bad decision made by the HSS, as do lots of other people, and they “threw the City under the bus”. The Council were wondering if the HSS were “man enough” to apologize to the City and the community and the fact the HSS has not issued an apology speaks volumes!
A lot of things about the HSS have been exposed Ms. Klein and these certainly are not myths but facts. The HSS can only blame themselves for their own mismanagement and for the reason why people have misgivings on the HSS due to these facts, and who do not want to support a non-profit that feels it is justifiable to use 40% of income for salaries and who charge $125 for fund raising tickets when only $60 goes to the animals! I am an animal lover and, I along with many other people, are giving the animals a voice by saying that in their best interests, in-house changes need to be made and due to the above decision by the HSS to issue that statement (and for other things that they HSS does (or does not do) that have come to light), many of us feel strongly that the current Executive Director, yourself and the other Directors and the Board need to resign. To improve things for the animals, procedures, policies, reputation and credibility, the HSS needs to have people run it who care about the animals and make them their number 1 priority as it is apparent that the existing group make it more about the money, their egos, and less about the animals. People are even suggesting that the current management are running the HSS into the ground, along with its credibility and reputation, and are losing support left, right and center whether it be from people or local businesses, as they would rather support non-profit organizations who work hard for no salary to do the utmost to save animals lives and find them homes.