Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Pennsylvania > Northeastern Pennsylvania
 [Register]
Northeastern Pennsylvania Scranton, Wilkes-Barre, Pocono area
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 02-19-2009, 12:43 PM
 
Location: Scranton native, now in upstate NY
325 posts, read 804,049 times
Reputation: 94

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by lialleycat View Post
I do the 990's for a non-profit organization. If Ms. Miller states that she regularly donates nearly 100K to run the place, it will be on the 990. Also, net assets and cash assets are not the same thing, as you noted. My organization has large net assets, but very little in the way of cash. I haven't had a chance to look at the 990's for GWC myself - I'm kinda tired of them having been working on the one for the nonprofit I volunteer for for the past week! The 2008 won't be available for some time, as nonprofits have longer to file than you and I do. And it's simple to get an extension too. However, from your information, it does look like things are fishy and that they are misrepresenting the amount of support they receive on their website.

If you get a chance to look at these 990's some time, I would really appreciate it. They are all available online at Guidestar.org. They are filed under the name "Genesis Wildlife Center, Inc." with a Tobyhanna address (which is, I believe, the address that Ms. Miller uses for business related to the GWC).

I think that Ms. Miller usually files in November, so I imagine the GWC's 2008 Form 990 will not be available until some time in 2010.

 
Old 02-19-2009, 12:49 PM
 
1,429 posts, read 3,628,902 times
Reputation: 574
Miller and her husband, who is/was a vet (now divorced), did have a facility prior to the Nay Aug location, somewhere in the Poconos. Following the divorce, she lost control of the facility, which obviously did include a few buildings. I do not know if this is the building in question, or if there is another we do not know about.
 
Old 02-19-2009, 12:53 PM
 
Location: Drama Central
4,083 posts, read 9,063,335 times
Reputation: 1893
Can we all agree that this place probably isn't the best thing for Scranton and that the animals would be better served in a private facility somewhere a little less urban.
 
Old 02-19-2009, 01:15 PM
 
1,429 posts, read 3,628,902 times
Reputation: 574
Quote:
Originally Posted by weluvpa View Post
Can we all agree that this place probably isn't the best thing for Scranton and that the animals would be better served in a private facility somewhere a little less urban.

Even though the building is very antiquated, it could probably hold a small number of animals in a comfortable and conscientious fashion. Exhibits focusing on birds and small mamals, or as has been suggested, strictly local wildlife, would make better use of the available space. You could get maybe four or five good sized enclosures out of the place as it stands, with enough room to mimic at least a little natural habitat.

To make the center 'less urban' would not improve conditions, and it would certainly draw less public attention. The best thing for those animals may be that they are in the public spotlight; do you think that there would be as much public demand for change if they were in a rural area?
 
Old 02-19-2009, 01:22 PM
 
Location: Drama Central
4,083 posts, read 9,063,335 times
Reputation: 1893
Quote:
Originally Posted by scrantonluna View Post
do you think that there would be as much public demand for change if they were in a rural area?

If they were in a facility of the right size outside of the city(which is what I meant by Urban) I doubt that people would have any reason to demand change. The conditions at the current GWC are a direct product of the city and its antiquated facility. The issues at the GWC seem to be a direct product or their realtionship with Doherty and the city.

Take the GWC out of the city and you might just help take away their problems or at least some of them.

Why the constant need to feel like we have to HAVE A ZOO or ANIMAL EXHIBIT. The city COULDN'T AFFORD the original zoo so why do people think we could afford another one?
 
Old 02-19-2009, 01:40 PM
 
1,429 posts, read 3,628,902 times
Reputation: 574
Quote:
Originally Posted by weluvpa View Post
If they were in a facility of the right size outside of the city(which is what I meant by Urban) I doubt that people would have any reason to demand change. The conditions at the current GWC are a direct product of the city and its antiquated facility. The issues at the GWC seem to be a direct product or their realtionship with Doherty and the city.

Take the GWC out of the city and you might just help take away their problems or at least some of them.

Why the constant need to feel like we have to HAVE A ZOO or ANIMAL EXHIBIT. The city COULDN'T AFFORD the original zoo so why do people think we could afford another one?
I don't think that's a very good argument. First off, the city is nothing less than an ENORMOUS help to the center. Between the stipend for operating costs, the insurance on the building (which has to be carried since it is still city owned) plus whatever other aid is provided by the parks department, they have a substantial chunk of change being invested yearly down there. I would have to think that someone at city hall would be very interested in seeing the forms MBS has mentioned. Some of their regular donors might as well. There is no known political connection between Miller and Doherty or any local Dems for that matter, so you can drop the conspiracy theory.

You can't expect city leaders to be animal experts, and that's undoubtedly why they are not running a zoo, but rather allowing one to operate under what should be adequate direction of Margaret Miller. From the information so far, it would seem as though Genesis should have no problem meeting operating costs and making small improvements.

You can't blame the Mayor if your wife tries to park four cars in a two car garage, and it's the same with Genesis. They have direct control over how many animals are under their care, and overcrowding is squarely on their shoulders, not the administration. You don't just stop cleaning your home because it's only 1500 sf and you're waiting for a 3500sf McMansion, you make the best of what you have, so you can't say they are a victim of the structure.

Lastly, what actions could the city even take at this point? On what authority could they determine what is and is not healthy for exotic animals? What kind of liability would they expose themselves to by getting further involved with the operations at Genesis? There's more to it than just going down there and demanding changes.
 
Old 02-19-2009, 02:35 PM
 
Location: Scranton native, now in upstate NY
325 posts, read 804,049 times
Reputation: 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by scrantonluna View Post
Miller and her husband, who is/was a vet (now divorced), did have a facility prior to the Nay Aug location, somewhere in the Poconos. Following the divorce, she lost control of the facility, which obviously did include a few buildings. I do not know if this is the building in question, or if there is another we do not know about.

This is the most likely theory I've heard so far, but again, I don't know what or where the building is.

At any rate, even without the building, it appears, from their 2007 Form 990-EZ, that at the end of 2007 the GWC had about $94,000 in assets in the form of "cash, savings, and investments."

Here's a summary of what it says at the bottom of the 1st page of the 990-EZ about the GWC's financial situation at the end of 2007:

Cash, savings, and investments: $94,491
Land and buildings: 89,460
Other assets (the 1998 Ford): 3,521
----------
Total assets: $187,472

Total liabilities (payroll
taxes payable): $744

Net assets or fund
balances: $186,728

If we subtract the noncash assets (i.e. the building and the Ford) from the net assets, we still have $93,747 in assets in the form of "cash, savings, and investments."

This is not the picture that was presented to the general public. So even without the building, there's still a problem.
 
Old 02-19-2009, 03:07 PM
 
Location: Scranton native, now in upstate NY
325 posts, read 804,049 times
Reputation: 94
Re the Doherty administration, the city of Scranton and the question of whether or not there should be an animal facility at Nay Aug: I think we could debate these issues for a long time without ever coming to a conclusion that everyone here would be happy with. But I also think that there are a lot of people here with varying points of view on many issues who DO agree that the current situation at the Genesis Wildlife Center is unacceptable. (The very fact that so many of us here seem to agree on this is a pretty strong indication that something is very wrong at the GWC.)

In fact, the situation at the center is more than unacceptable--it's dangerous. When I first started looking into the operation of the center, my primary concern was for the animals housed there. I am a total animal lover and I am still very upset about the poor animals at the GWC. However, at this point, my primary concern is for the safety of human beings both inside the center and in the vicinity of the center. We have heard accounts from several different people confirming my worst fears not just about the way the animals at the center are being treated, but about the lack of adequate safety procedures at the center. To speak plainly, I think there is a very real chance that sooner or later a human being is going to be seriously injured or killed at the center, or in the park or nearby neighborhoods if an animal escapes. If there is something fishy (or maybe just incompetent) about the center's financial records, perhaps that could be used to convince the city that the GWC "experiment" really has not worked out very well and should be dropped. Unfortunately, the animals belong to the GWC, not the city, and that means that the public and the city have limited influence over how the animals are treated and what their fate will be if the city's funding is dropped. But the public does (or should) have some say on how tax dollars are spent, and as long as the city is helping Miller out, that makes it easier for her to acquire still more animals. And again, right now I think public safety is the main issue, and the GWC is just not safe.

I posted the financial info I found on the Form 990's hoping that someone here with appropriate expertise could look over the Form 990's and see if my conclusions are correct. If that happens, then maybe we could all write the mayor and the papers and the GWC and ask for an explanation of the discrepancy between the numbers that were reported to the public and the numbers that were reported to the IRS. I (and many others) have already tried writing the mayor and writing letters to the editor and writing Margaret Miller about the substandard conditions at the GWC and very little has changed. But maybe if money enters the picture we will see some changes?????
 
Old 02-19-2009, 03:30 PM
 
Location: Drama Central
4,083 posts, read 9,063,335 times
Reputation: 1893
Quote:
Originally Posted by scrantonluna View Post
what actions could the city even take at this point? On what authority could they determine what is and is not healthy for exotic animals? What kind of liability would they expose themselves to by getting further involved with the operations at Genesis? There's more to it than just going down there and demanding changes.

They could simply tell the GWC to hit the road. Doherty should have NEVER asked them to come to Nay Aug. HE used those animals as a PR photo op for Nay Aug and his campaign. Don't shift this off the Doherty admin and try and lead people to believe that the city has no play in this.

They could easily force the GWC to scale down and get some of the animals into other facilities by withholding their funding until they make the needed changes.

THE CITY SHOULD HAVE NEVER ALOUD MS. MILLER TO SEARCH OUT AND OBTAIN TWO NEW LARGE CATS. BUT you cannot put a price on that PR but it backlashed on Doherty because the public outcry was not supportive of the new cats. Notice how we have heard NOTHING about them at all since they came home.

Move the GWC OUT of Nay Aug and out of Scranton I say.
 
Old 02-19-2009, 03:50 PM
 
1,815 posts, read 5,384,291 times
Reputation: 789
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbs7 View Post
If you get a chance to look at these 990's some time, I would really appreciate it. They are all available online at Guidestar.org. They are filed under the name "Genesis Wildlife Center, Inc." with a Tobyhanna address (which is, I believe, the address that Ms. Miller uses for business related to the GWC).

I think that Ms. Miller usually files in November, so I imagine the GWC's 2008 Form 990 will not be available until some time in 2010.
Ok, I have a bit of a quiet time. First thing I noticed is that they use the cash basis of accounting. That means that money isn't noted until it is actually received - there is no grants receivable (think accounts receivable - or money they are owed)

That being said for the year 2007, they did receive $88,204 in donations (cash and otherwise) and spent $64,854 in expenses leaving a balance of $23,350 to be added to existing reserves going into 2008.

$9,917 of the contributions were cash. $18,287 were in noncash donations. Then there is $60,000 that is not noted as to it's origin, though it should be. I cannot say if this is cash, non-cash or where it originated from from this 990.

From what I see from their 990, this organization has paid all it's bills and has money or assets in reserve. If there are care issues of the animals, that should be raised, since this money is somewhere and should be used for the care of the animals.

If the safety of the animals and people volunteering is at risk, perhaps the ASPCA or other humane society should be asked to investigate? They have the funds and the interest in the animals well being over the politics that will rear their ugly head. For worker safety, there is OSHA or similar in PA. Being a 501(c)(3) does not allow people to be put in dangerous situations.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Pennsylvania > Northeastern Pennsylvania
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top