.bmp)
I learned the USDA/APHIS received a letter from the pseudo-sanctuary requesting cancellation of the administrative hearing and the “sanctuary” wanted the fines associated with the Settlement Agreement dropped. Instead, the pseudo-sanctuary said they would apply the "fines" towards the cost of a perimeter fence for the unlicensed, unregulated property. This fence should have been built 10 years ago for the protection of the animals and the housing subdivisions that surrounds the property.It is also my understanding the pseudo-sanctuary refused to accept guilt or responsibility for its past actions and believed that "making a deal" to eliminate the fines would be in the best interest of all parties. In the best interest of the directors perhaps—but not for the animals that died under their “tender mercy.” I pray the USDA/APHIS will not accept this "deal" for it would not in the best interest of all parties concerned. In order for the directors to take the USDA/APHIS charges seriously, fines must be assessed and the charges must not be dropped for expediency’s sake—there must be justice for the animals.
It is also my understanding the pseudo-sanctuary made a similar request from the Texas Office of the Attorney General/Charitable Trust Division regarding the finalization of the AVC or MOU.
I learned the pseudo-sanctuary's attorney made certain "demands" about its upcoming meeting, including no discussions pertaining to the pseudo-sanctuary's guilt of its past actions or possible fines levied against the organization.
Needless to say, I find the pseudo-sanctuary’s refusal to accept responsibility appalling in light of the evidence showing misappropriation of funds and violations of the Animal Welfare Act.
To make matters worse, I recently learned the pseudo-sanctuary’s board of directors agreed to pay the female director and her husband $100,000 each per year. I have reason to believe this salary increase was approved during the April 2007 board meeting minutes:
Last month, the Board met to discuss, among other things, the additional funds owed to directors. In this meeting, the directors claimed the pseudo-sanctuary owed them the following amounts:
Female Director
Year -1999
Amount Owed - $36,000*
Reason - Claimed she did not “take” her salary that year
Year - 2007
Amount - $21,786
Reason - Claimed she did not receive her full salary of $100k
Reason - Claimed she did not receive her full salary of $100k
Year - 2008
Amount - $32,192
Reason - Claimed she did not receive her full salary of $100k
Amount - $32,192
Reason - Claimed she did not receive her full salary of $100k
Total - $89,978
* According to the 1999 990, the director claimed earning $36,747 that year.
Husband
* According to the 1999 990, the director claimed earning $36,747 that year.
Husband
Year - 1995 – 1997*
Amount - $70,000
Reason - Due to low funds
Year - 2007
Amount - $20,283
Reason - Claimed he did not receive his full salary of $100k
Amount - $20,283
Reason - Claimed he did not receive his full salary of $100k
Year - 2008
Amount - $26,653
Reason - Claimed he did not receive his full salary of $100k
Amount - $26,653
Reason - Claimed he did not receive his full salary of $100k
Total - $116,936
*During this period, the director owned and operated his own business.
According to past 990’s
Husband
*During this period, the director owned and operated his own business.
According to past 990’s
Husband
Earnings Reported on 990
1994
8 hours per week
$0
1995
8 hours per week
$0
8 hours per week
$0
1996
I do not have this return
I do not have this return
1997
20 hours per week
$0
20 hours per week
$0
1998
80 hours per week
$26,547
Female Director
Earnings Reported on 990
1994
50 hours per week
$0
80 hours per week
$26,547
Female Director
Earnings Reported on 990
1994
50 hours per week
$0
1995
50 hours per week
$0
50 hours per week
$0
1996
I do not have this return
1997*
50 hours per week
$1,000
I do not have this return
1997*
50 hours per week
$1,000
1998*
60 hours per week
$33,303
1999*
60+ hours per week
$36,747
60+ hours per week
$36,747
2000*
60+ hours per week
$39,122
60+ hours per week
$39,122
2001*
60+ hours per week
$39,122
60+ hours per week
$39,122
2002*
50+ hours per week
$47,200
50+ hours per week
$47,200
2003*
50+ hours per week
$47,800
50+ hours per week
$47,800
2004*
50+ hours per week
$47,765
50+ hours per week
$47,765
2005*
50+ hours per week
$48,293
50+ hours per week
$48,293
2006
50+ hours per week
$51,953
50+ hours per week
$51,953
2007
50+ hours per week
$76,214
*Actual salary reported to the IRS on the director’s personal income tax return is unknown.
The "directors" also claimed the pseudo-sanctuary owed them 2-week vacation pay that was never taken totaled $55,600. There was no clarification regarding the time period of the unused vacation time.
The "directors" took vacations regularly each year, normally to a nearby lake or the Texas coast. It was also well known the female director vacationed with her adult daughters in Las Vegas annually (on her or her children’s birth dates). The female director was frequently absent from the pseudo-sanctuary office due to her numerous “illnesses” and male director was absent frequently on “personal business.” In 2008, the husband was hospitalized due to heart surgery and was unable to work for approximately one month.
During my tenure with the pseudo-sanctuary, I was not aware of any policy regarding the sale of “unused vacation time” for the director and/or her husband, including limitations to the accumulation of any “accrued leave” on the books. It is my opinion; the pseudo-sanctuary only tracked paid time-off for the non-family workers and not for the "directors’" family members. The "directors" took time off whenever they wanted to and left the office staff and animal caretakers in charge of the office and animals.
This “vacation payout” liability, along with the claims for back pay owed, was not listed on past pseudo-sanctuary’s 990’s as a liability to the organization or the pseudo-sanctuary’s profit and loss statements.
In the September 6, 2008 Board Meeting Minutes, the "directors’" came up with an estimated report on the cost for storage and animal care at their personal residence. Instead of asking the Board for permission to store sanctuary property and animals on their personal site in advance for a fee, the "directors" took it upon themselves to take the pseudo-sanctuary’s property, used it, and kept it on their personal property (i.e. directors’ personal use of the sanctuary’s vehicles). Then several months and/or years later the "directors" demanded retroactive storage payments for the animals and equipment.
The "directors" claimed in 2008 they had to vacant their personal residence from March to July 2008, so “Hurricane Katrina” cats could be stored in their house, forcing them to live in the daughter’s apartment loft located on their property. The directors wanted reimbursement of their mortgage payments and they wanted heat and air conditioning bills paid during this same period.
From 2005-2006 “Katrina” cats were temporally housed in the main building (now known as the main office) until such time they were either released to roam free at the unregulated, non-inspected property; euthanized as the result of contracting a highly virulent and contagious upper respiratory infections; or placed in other animal shelters throughout the local area.
During this same period, the "directors" supposedly communicated with each other via emails and cellular phones because they could not get along with each other. Divorce paperwork was filed with the courthouse and the couple lived apart; the male director lived in the couple’s homestead and the female director rented houses for her personal use. According to public records, the adult children still live at the director’s homestead and the apartment loft, so I have a real hard time visioning four people crammed into one living room, a loft, and a bathroom for four months. Especially two people who were clearly not getting along and were seeking a divorce. Also, the "mortgage" was paid off in April 2008, so why were they claiming three (3) months worth of home mortgage payments?
In June 2004, the directors tried to collect money for storing sanctuary property on their land. It was tabled for future consideration, just as the September 2008 board request was tabled for future consideration, while the Board pondered a reasonable payment to give the directors for the so-called personal storage use.
50+ hours per week
$76,214
*Actual salary reported to the IRS on the director’s personal income tax return is unknown.
The "directors" also claimed the pseudo-sanctuary owed them 2-week vacation pay that was never taken totaled $55,600. There was no clarification regarding the time period of the unused vacation time.
The "directors" took vacations regularly each year, normally to a nearby lake or the Texas coast. It was also well known the female director vacationed with her adult daughters in Las Vegas annually (on her or her children’s birth dates). The female director was frequently absent from the pseudo-sanctuary office due to her numerous “illnesses” and male director was absent frequently on “personal business.” In 2008, the husband was hospitalized due to heart surgery and was unable to work for approximately one month.
During my tenure with the pseudo-sanctuary, I was not aware of any policy regarding the sale of “unused vacation time” for the director and/or her husband, including limitations to the accumulation of any “accrued leave” on the books. It is my opinion; the pseudo-sanctuary only tracked paid time-off for the non-family workers and not for the "directors’" family members. The "directors" took time off whenever they wanted to and left the office staff and animal caretakers in charge of the office and animals.
This “vacation payout” liability, along with the claims for back pay owed, was not listed on past pseudo-sanctuary’s 990’s as a liability to the organization or the pseudo-sanctuary’s profit and loss statements.
In the September 6, 2008 Board Meeting Minutes, the "directors’" came up with an estimated report on the cost for storage and animal care at their personal residence. Instead of asking the Board for permission to store sanctuary property and animals on their personal site in advance for a fee, the "directors" took it upon themselves to take the pseudo-sanctuary’s property, used it, and kept it on their personal property (i.e. directors’ personal use of the sanctuary’s vehicles). Then several months and/or years later the "directors" demanded retroactive storage payments for the animals and equipment.
The "directors" claimed in 2008 they had to vacant their personal residence from March to July 2008, so “Hurricane Katrina” cats could be stored in their house, forcing them to live in the daughter’s apartment loft located on their property. The directors wanted reimbursement of their mortgage payments and they wanted heat and air conditioning bills paid during this same period.
From 2005-2006 “Katrina” cats were temporally housed in the main building (now known as the main office) until such time they were either released to roam free at the unregulated, non-inspected property; euthanized as the result of contracting a highly virulent and contagious upper respiratory infections; or placed in other animal shelters throughout the local area.
During this same period, the "directors" supposedly communicated with each other via emails and cellular phones because they could not get along with each other. Divorce paperwork was filed with the courthouse and the couple lived apart; the male director lived in the couple’s homestead and the female director rented houses for her personal use. According to public records, the adult children still live at the director’s homestead and the apartment loft, so I have a real hard time visioning four people crammed into one living room, a loft, and a bathroom for four months. Especially two people who were clearly not getting along and were seeking a divorce. Also, the "mortgage" was paid off in April 2008, so why were they claiming three (3) months worth of home mortgage payments?
In June 2004, the directors tried to collect money for storing sanctuary property on their land. It was tabled for future consideration, just as the September 2008 board request was tabled for future consideration, while the Board pondered a reasonable payment to give the directors for the so-called personal storage use.
The pseudo-sanctuary’s board members may not be aware that there was a large warehouse located at the non-inspected, unregulated facility which could have been used to store equipment or vehicles. It is my opinion the board members have not toured this property; otherwise a board member would have questioned why the “animals” and equipment could not have been stored at this much larger facility.
Today, the vehicles are stored at the touring facility and can be seen from the street through the locked chain linked fence, with the exemption of the pseudo-sanctuary vehicles used by the directors. This land was not previously used for vehicle storage until 2007, yet it could have been an excellent site to store vehicles and equipment in past years. It is my opinion; the directors voluntarily kept the sanctuary's property for their personal use, and are now trying to acquire extra monies from the pseudo-sanctuary.
So, a couple of months ago, the board approved unanimously the motion to pay past monies owed to "directors" for past salaries and vacation pay they “never received” as well as the boarding of the Katrina cats rental, totaling $158,764—without researching past 990’s, financial statements, or board meeting minutes. However, when I calculated the total amount approved by the board of directors, it appears the board actually approved the award of $262,514. If the pseudo-sanctuary does not pay the directors $100k each this year, then the pseudo-sanctuary will again owe thousands of additional dollars in past pay due—this dollar amount will exponentially grow year after year unless capped.
It is my understanding the "directors" desires to purchase the pseudo-sanctuary vehicles currently in their possession (Toyota 4-Runner [daughter’s SUV], Expedition [unlicensed female director's vehicle], and a 2-ton truck [male director's vehicle]). I do not believe the Board approved this motion, but no doubt will consider the directors’ "request" at the next 'in-name only' board meeting.
The "directors" also claimed they used their own funds to purchase the pseudo-sanctuary's land and want to be reimbursed $20,000 in the event the touring facility closes. Based on the directors' past practices, I have doubts the directors actually paid for the land, rather I believe the pseudo-sanctuary made the land payments. It remains to be seen if this so-called board approves this "request."
So, a couple of months ago, the board approved unanimously the motion to pay past monies owed to "directors" for past salaries and vacation pay they “never received” as well as the boarding of the Katrina cats rental, totaling $158,764—without researching past 990’s, financial statements, or board meeting minutes. However, when I calculated the total amount approved by the board of directors, it appears the board actually approved the award of $262,514. If the pseudo-sanctuary does not pay the directors $100k each this year, then the pseudo-sanctuary will again owe thousands of additional dollars in past pay due—this dollar amount will exponentially grow year after year unless capped.
It is my understanding the "directors" desires to purchase the pseudo-sanctuary vehicles currently in their possession (Toyota 4-Runner [daughter’s SUV], Expedition [unlicensed female director's vehicle], and a 2-ton truck [male director's vehicle]). I do not believe the Board approved this motion, but no doubt will consider the directors’ "request" at the next 'in-name only' board meeting.
The "directors" also claimed they used their own funds to purchase the pseudo-sanctuary's land and want to be reimbursed $20,000 in the event the touring facility closes. Based on the directors' past practices, I have doubts the directors actually paid for the land, rather I believe the pseudo-sanctuary made the land payments. It remains to be seen if this so-called board approves this "request."
I am absolutely stunned the Board of directors approved a 100% pay increase in light of the allegations made against the pseudo-sanctuary. No doubt the directors claimed they earned the salary increase because of the increased administrative workload for 2007 and 2008. However, the 2007 990 does not show any increased work hours at the facility over the previous years.
Finally, I learned the "directors"plan to turn the pseudo-sanctuary over to their adult children in the event they become incapacitated or no longer desires to operate the facility. A very scary though since the children appear to be unable to hold down any job outside the pseudo-sanctuary!
This case is absolutely unbelievable and in my opinion the "directors" should be ashamed of their actions. And shame on the USDA/APHIS and/or the Texas OAG if they let the "directors" get away with their “alleged” crimes by settling the cases for expediency’s sake!
