By Michael Howell
Eight members of the Bitter Root Humane Association (BRHA) Board of Directors met with the Ravalli County Commissioners last week to discuss the status of the group’s standing in the county’s budget considerations. The county has provided a significant amount of funds to the organization in the past for services rendered related to care of animals technically in the custody of the county for whatever reason.
Some bitter criticism of the BRHA facility and its methods of operation have been leveled in the past and demands for more transparency and more county oversight of taxpayer monies led the commissioners to warn the organization that further funding would not be considered until the organization’s books were audited. An old contract between the county and the Humane Shelter required an annual disclosure of finances and an audit, but none of those things were actually being required by the county as payments grew over the years.
BRHA President Kathy Good told the Commissioners that her organization was wondering if it was being considered in the county’s current budget considerations. She said that the group was aware that the consideration for a budget allotment was dependent upon an audit, but they wondered if it meant having a complete audit or simply having one in process. They also wondered if an audit would be an annual requirement.
Commissioner Matt Kanenwisher said that he saw the need for an audit right off the bat for further funding consideration, but he did not think one would be required every year. But in part, he said, it depends on what this audit turns up.
Commissioner Suzy Foss said that she thought the need for an audit was apparent and that the county was being reasonable and responsible to ask for one when it is facing such a tight budget situation. She said that $30,000 to $40,000 annually in county funding was a lot of taxpayer money and that a periodic audit was reasonable.
“Thirty years with no audit is not reasonable,” she said.
Commissioner Ron Stoltz said that without an audit he would not release any funds.
There was some discussion of complaints that the Commission had heard about the BRHA’s lack of transparency.
Jeannie McKinney said that she had been “dis-membered” by the group because they did not like her criticism and now she was unable to get documentation concerning the group’s finances.
The treasurer for BRHA said that the information was provided to McKinney, and McKinney agreed that it finally was.
Good said that BRHA was committed to the audit but it would not be getting results for a while and was simply hoping not to fall through the cracks in the early budgeting process.
Commission Chair J.R. Iman said that in his opinion the county had ongoing responsibilities with ongoing associated costs in terms of animal control laws and that the service being provided was really needed. He said those obligations and costs should be considered in the budgeting process. But actual release of any funds to BRHA would still depend on the results of the audit.
“The request for funds is legitimate,” said Iman, “since there is a need being met.” But to actually get the funds will depend upon some positive action on the part of BRHA, that is, provision of a completed audit.