High Timber Times Update: Closed IMHS Criminal Investigation

Called and got voice mail on both phones.

I read both articles and I think the HT article was mostly based upon the interview the President of the boards wife (former employee)

The Flume article was based upon reading the investigation report.

I think both took different avenues to explain the story. Neither is wrong.

What is wrong:
The current board took 6 months to bring this issue to light
The former board had no controls and allowing people to use the credits cards was a recipe for abuse.

I actually think the DA was right to not file charges. If the process to manage the books was so sloppy, the board allowed people to make personal charges and didn't have a policy for repayment, the court would have a very difficult time applying the law and winning. A decent defense attorney could blast big holes through the case.

Morally it doesn't sit well, because money is missing and some took it and isn't being held accountable.

Morals and the laws are sometimes at conflict.

I have a couple of questions.......

I spoke with the author of the Times article.

1. She mentioned that she was waiting on the entire report. She explained that she had written the report based on summaries.
Who's summaries did she read?
She mentioned that she based her article on the fact that the DA had chosen not to bring charges....(Yet, she has not read the entire report yet)

2. What was Jenna Branch's position at the shelter?
3. How does a 20 something year old shelter employee have enough money socked away to give someone a 3-5000 dollar check?
If someone hands me a check that large....I would remember it.....especially if I was responsible in any way for collecting such a large debt on behalf of someone.
4. Did Ms Branch have access to the safe or place in which money was kept?

I personally just found it strange that the Times would write an article without the benefit of reading all of the facts. (The Investigative Report.)

I don't find it strange at all that the new board would lean towards caution and carefully weigh and take their time to try and understand what they were dealing with. These folks are just regular folks who don't have criminal or law degrees. They just simply loved animals enough to give up a lot of their free time to dedicate themselves to unwanted and unloved furry friends.

I just find the entire tone of the Times article odd.

I'd like to add that if you have the time, it's well worth making an appointment with IMHS to view the police report. And they not only have the police report, they also have the financial records showing the late fees, the credit card charges, and the 100+ adoption records where adoption money was never deposited in the bank (you need to be an IMHS member).

For most of the financial stuff it's not rocket science and you don't have to be a CPA to understand it. Much of it is in black and white on billing and bank statements. If you can read a bill, you have the skill to do your own audit of much of this stuff.

I'll start with the late fees which amounted to over $1200 ($1257 I believe). From March 2010 to May 2011 I counted 24 late fees in those 14 months. The most regular one was for late payments on a printer rental. For that 14 month period they were late in paying the bill 8 times and each time came to about $25 a pop. They were late in paying several of the infamous credit card bills, but the biggest late fees were for payroll taxes to the IRS and Colorado. I saw one over $100, one over $200, and one over $400.

Whoever was responsible for paying the bills should take responsibility for this. Donated money was being used for late fees, and not for the animals. So far as I know the former board of directors were in charge of paying the bills and they may of used some paid bookkeepers who worked for them. I thought many of the late fees might of been grouped around Jan 2011 when the ringworm incident occurred and the people may of been distracted but no, the late fees were pretty evenly spread out over that period. And again, the late fees are in black and white right on the bills.

The approx $5000 of unreimbursed personal credit card use is between the former board and the one employee who did not pay back what she owed. It appears the former board VP was the main board member who controlled all credit card use and reviewed the statement. It's easy for you to review the statement because each employee and the VP had their own credit card number so you can see the purchases each person made.

Looking at the statements for the suspect employee, it appears as though she was using the shelter's card as her own personal credit card based on the large number of personal purchases made. It was wrong to allow employees to use the credit card (edited to clarify for personal use), but it was much worse that this particular employee was allowed to go for many months without paying back what she owed. She was in effect getting shelter money as a personal loan at zero percent interest. And I agree with Becky, how could you expect a person with a low paying job in her early 20's could come up with the funds to write such a big check for thousands of dollars? This check would have been huge for such a small animal shelter like IMHS as well. It would have created a lot of attention. It baffles me how it didn't get deposited into the bank and nobody noticed. The bank records for that period of time can be reviewed as well to confirm no such deposit was made (I didn‘t check it). My understanding is the VP made most of the deposits, with some employees occasionally doing it too. In this case if you can't get the money back from the employee, it seems to me the former board should take responsibility. And once again, if you can read a credit card statement you can do an audit yourself if you wish.

So far as the missing check goes, I don’t see how an audit would help find the check. The main person who could solve the mystery would be the former employee. She could simply produce the cancelled check or a bank statement showing the check was cashed (and by who). When the new board discovered the check was missing, they withheld the employee’s last paycheck and tried to contact her by phone and by two certified letters. The letters were received but never replied to. The last paycheck was never picked up (it didn’t come close to covering what was owed).

Next is the missing adoption money (I don’t have the total handy, but I recall it’s around $14K). The 100+ adoption folders with missing money are there for review. All the ones I looked at had paperwork with handwriting which should be able to be traced to who created the file (not that they had anything to do with the theft, I’m just saying those files can be shown to be originals and not later creations).

If you want to do an audit of this, there are various choices. The most complete one would be to review all animal files and compare them to the books and the bank deposits. This is what the new board has already done and it took several months. If you had a paid accountant do it, it would probably also take several months and cost thousands of dollars (guessing $10K+). Or you could just review the 100+ files already pulled, but that too would take a long time. If you wanted to do your own audit you could just select 5 or 10 files at random and compare them to the books and bank deposits.

I’m curious to know if any former board members will drop by IMHS to review the records (or maybe they have already?). If they don’t feel comfortable doing that, they could always send a representative, but that person needs to be an IMHS member.

I believe I read that some of the "old" board members are on the "new" board. Is this correct?

And the audit only goes from March 2010 to May 2011. Is this correct?

The audit was done internally. Is this correct?

I don't care what the Sheriff's office did. I would like answers to these questions, because, if the answers are yes, then all of this was done improperly.

2wlady wrote: I believe I read that some of the "old" board members are on the "new" board. Is this correct?

No. It is not correct.

2wlady wrote: And the audit only goes from March 2010 to May 2011. Is this correct?

No. The review was done from January 2010 to current day and continues on a regular basis.

2wlady wrote: The audit was done internally. Is this correct?

The review was done utilizing current board members and volunteers that were not a part of the board.

We are also recruiting additional people to continue doing random checks of the books. Our fairly new Audit Committee Policy states, in part, "Intermountain Humane Society shall at all times maintain an Audit Committee which is responsible for weekly and monthly audits on income and expense transactions. This committee shall be chaired by the Treasurer of Intermountain Humane Society and shall have a minimum of one committee member who does not serve on the Board of Directors and is unrelated to the Treasurer."

Steve Kelsey

Becky wrote: ....These folks are just regular folks who don't have criminal or law degrees. They just simply loved animals enough to give up a lot of their free time to dedicate themselves to unwanted and unloved furry friends....

This (edited) statement applies to many, many others who have been involved with IMHS, past & present.

Cheap Yankee wrote:

Becky wrote: ....These folks are just regular folks who don't have criminal or law degrees. They just simply loved animals enough to give up a lot of their free time to dedicate themselves to unwanted and unloved furry friends....

This (edited) statement applies to many, many others who have been involved with IMHS, past & present.

Probably true but with one BIG difference.......

It is my opinion that the old board had a COMMON SENSE fiduciary responsibility to IMHS, the animals and the public to safe guard the money that was given to them to care for these animals and they failed in that responsibility miserably.
The statement above was directed at the new board who is trying to do everything they can to right this wrong. JMO.

Becky wrote:

Cheap Yankee wrote:

Becky wrote: ....These folks are just regular folks who don't have criminal or law degrees. They just simply loved animals enough to give up a lot of their free time to dedicate themselves to unwanted and unloved furry friends....

This (edited) statement applies to many, many others who have been involved with IMHS, past & present.

Probably true but with one BIG difference.......

It is my opinion that the old board had a COMMON SENSE fiduciary responsibility to IMHS, the animals and the public to safe guard the money that was given to them to care for these animals and they failed in that responsibility miserably.
The statement above was directed at the new board who is trying to do everything they can to right this wrong. JMO.

I fully realized who you meant it for as it was abundantly clear in your unedited post.
I edited this particular point to expand the coverage of the sentiment to include many, many, MANY other deserving folks.

I think a lot of really good people have stood up to volunteer and support IMHS.

It does not excuse the person who took this money without paying it back nor does it excuse the people who were in charge and allowed such a thing to happen.
The buck....ultimately stops with them.