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.
Safety First (more on finances to follow in next post):
In today's (Feb. 18, 2009) Scranton Times-Tribune there is a letter from Beatrice Heveran, of Dalton, entitled "Safeguards needed at Nay Aug facility." Here's an excerpt from that letter:
"Editor: I visited the Genesis Wildlife Sanctuary facility at Nay Aug Park, intending to volunteer. However, the actions of Margie Miller, the sanctuary’s director, and the volunteers there during my visit were such that I felt physically unsafe and did not return.
Two very large young tigers and two older cougars were housed together in one pen. Ms. Miller entered the pen (I was behind her) and left the gate open. Arctic-native animals were housed in the same area as tropical monkeys, and birds with beaks capable of breaking bones were housed in cages where children (or adults) could reach in. An Asian bearcat was fed ham despite a digestive system evolved for a diet of vegetation and an occasional small bird. Large cats and monkeys alike were fed treats of marshmallows and cookies. The smell was awful.
Ms. Miller would not talk to me but her public relations director said that because these animals are 'hugged and kissed every day' this amounts to responsible care, and warned me that Genesis would stay open 'no matter what.'"
To read the full text of Ms. Heveran's letter, go to:
YOUR OPINION | Editorial | Letters | thetimes-tribune.com - The Times-Tribune (http://scrantontimes.com/articles/2009/02/18/editorial/letters/sc_times_trib.20090218.a.pg12.tt18letters_s1.23112 47_let.txt - broken link)
Obviously, nothing much has changed at the GWC in the time that has passed since our earlier discussions of this issue. (Although, I must admit that even I am a little bit shocked that Ms. Miller would leave the gate to the big cats' cage open—please, everyone, be aware that the GWC is NOT a safe place! And what's the deal with the "public relations director"?) Anyway, this is obviously still a very troubling situation, but, while there are a few new pieces of info, on balance, it's nothing we didn't already know.
However, I do have some new information (at least, I think it will be new to a lot of folks) about the GWC's finances. For that, please see my next post.
As many here may recall, Ms. Miller has said, in public, that she needs something like $120,000 to $150,000 per year to run the center, and that she provides a lot of that money out of her own pocket. See, for example, the link below (including the accompanying video):
‘It’s like I lost a part of me’ <font color = blue><i><font size = -2> with video and photos</font></i></font> | Top Local Stories | thetimes-tribune.com - The Times-Tribune (http://scrantontimes.com/articles/2008/05/08/top_local_stories/19670976.txt - broken link)
"We are always in need of donations for our animals, it costs approx. $150,000 yearly to run our facility. The city gives us $50,000 plus the buildling to house the animals. Ms. Miller has spent more than $100,000 on food, cleaning supplies, and some employees salaries yearly. The Center needs donations to compensate for the lack of money for other expenditures out of Ms.Miller's pocket."
I have here on my desk copies of the GWC's 2005 990-EZ, 2006 990, and 2007 990-EZ tax forms. (The 2008 forms are not yet available.) The Genesis Wildlife Center is a non-profit, 501(c)(3). As such, they are exempt from federal income tax. However, any 501(c)(3) organization with gross receipts of more than $25,000 has to file a Form 990 (or Form 990-EZ) with the IRS, and the Form 990's are a matter of public record. I got the forms for free, online at the non-profit site Guidestar.org. They can also be obtained from the IRS. Also, I think that the GWC is obligated to provide copies of their 3 most recent Form 990s to anyone who requests them.
Before I say anything about what I found in the GWC's 990s, I want to make it VERY clear that I am not an accountant or a tax expert, and that it is therefore entirely possible that I am not interpreting the IRS forms correctly. But, assuming I am interpreting the forms correctly, they do not exactly match what Ms. Miller has been telling the media and the general public (and, I think, her own volunteers) about the financial situation at her wildlife center.
Here's a very quick summary of what I'm seeing in the Form 990's:
In 2005, the GWC reported total revenue of $89,998 (including $60,000 from the city). The GWC's 2005 expenses totaled $55,942, leaving an excess of $34,056 in revenue collected in 2005. At the end of 2005, the GWC had total assets (in the form of "Cash, savings, and investments") of $50,507 (the $34,056 excess from 2005 plus $16,451 in net assets the GWC had left over at the end of 2004).
In 2006, the GWC reported total revenue of $173,916 (including $70,000 from the city and $89,459 that appears to be in the form of a "building" that someone donated—I don't know what or where this building is or who donated it). The GWC's 2006 total expenses were $61,045. At the end of 2006, the GWC's net assets were $163,378 ($89,459 of which was in the form of the building).
In 2007, on their Form 990-EZ, the GWC reported total revenue of $88,204 (including $64,854 from the city). Total expenses for 2007 were $64,854. Net assets at the end of 2007 were $186,728 ($89,460 of which is the value of the building and $3,521 of which was in the form of a donated 1998 Ford).
It is entirely possible that there is something I do not understand about the Form 990's—that I am misreading or misinterpreting them in some way. But, assuming that I am interpreting the forms correctly, it seems to me that for three years running, the amount the GWC actually spent on the animals was less than or equal to the amount of money they got from the city. Meanwhile, the GWC's net assets were growing ($16,451 at the end of 2004) and growing ($50,507 at the end of 2005) and growing ($163,378 at the end of 2006) and growing some more ($186,728 at the end of 2007). And in any case, Ms. Miller appears to be spending less than half of what the GWC website claims is being spent to run the center. In fact, when it comes to the actual cash being spent on running the center, it appears that from 2005-2007 the city paid the entire bill.
If anyone finds any errors in my interpretation of the Form 990s or in my arithmetic, I would appreciate it if they would let me know. If I've made a mistake, I will be happy to post the correction here. As far as I know, there is nothing illegal about a non-profit organization piling up excess cash for future use; however, unless I have made some error somewhere, it would appear that what the GWC tells the public and what it tells the IRS are not the same. It would also appear that at the end of 2007, the GWC had cash assets of approximately $94,000, at a time when many visitors to the GWC found the animals living in conditions that were far from optimal.
Anyone besides me think it's time for some accountability at the GWC?
Last edited by mbs7; 02-18-2009 at 09:16 PM..
Reason: had to fix a misspelled link; fixed small math error
None of this surprises me........The GWC profits while the taxpayers cover their tab, sounds right in line with a Doherty endorsed project.
They better hope that no one ever gets hurt by these animals...Look what happened with the pet chimp that the woman had since birth and had raised for the last 7 years.....It turned and almost killed her friend so what could we expect from a resuced animal if it was to get out thru an open door?
I am just wondering, but could they be trying to save in order to make improvements? I don't know much about them but if the conditions are what you say and improvements need to be made, possibly they are trying to save for the needed improvements to the facility.
Pure speculation, but the donated building that is mentioned..and taking in the fact that Nay Aug is a dedicated park, Could Doherty have "gifted" the zoo complex itself over to genesis???
I have here on my desk copies of the GWC's 2005 990-EZ, 2006 990, and 2007 990-EZ tax forms.
If anyone finds any errors in my interpretation of the Form 990s or in my arithmetic, I would appreciate it if they would let me know. If I've made a mistake, I will be happy to post the correction here. As far as I know, there is nothing illegal about a non-profit organization piling up excess cash for future use; however, unless I have made some error somewhere, it would appear that what the GWC tells the public and what it tells the IRS are not the same. It would also appear that at the end of 2007, the GWC had cash assets of approximately $94,000, at a time when many visitors to the GWC found the animals living in conditions that were far from optimal.
Anyone besides me think it's time for some accountability at the GWC?
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.
Pure speculation, but the donated building that is mentioned..and taking in the fact that Nay Aug is a dedicated park, Could Doherty have "gifted" the zoo complex itself over to genesis???
City owns the building. Maybe they are referring to work done to the building?
The building cannot be given away or sold if it was deeded a public trust....
SS Complex case in court right now over the same issue. The GWC is not responsible for improvements on city buildings, thats the city's job. The only way to improve those facilities is to tear them down.
The GWC serves a purpose but pretending to be a zoo in Nay Aug is not it and if what MBS7 says is true then we are paying for the bulk of their private operating expenses every year when it seems that they have enough equity to finance themselves for a little while.
They need move out and find their own location outisde of the city.
I am just wondering, but could they be trying to save in order to make improvements? I don't know much about them but if the conditions are what you say and improvements need to be made, possibly they are trying to save for the needed improvements to the facility.
Certainly that is one possibility and I think it's the best interpretation we can put on this. And that may, in fact, be what is going on.
However, as far as I have been able to tell (and I have read a LOT about the GWC on their websites and in the Scranton Times/Trib) when appealing for funds from the public, the GWC had NOT been representing their fund-raising as an effort to save for future improvements. Rather, it is represented as an effort to help the animals now. And when people point out needs that the animals have that are not being met, the usual excuse from the GWC is that they are doing the best they can with the resources they have. For example, for a while there was an appeal out for someone to donate a heating pad to keep one of the animals (I think it was the spider monkey) warm. Obviously, if you have tens of thousands of dollars in unspent donations lying around and the spider monkey is cold, you can afford to buy him a heating pad rather than letting him suffer while you wait around for someone to donate a heating pad (not that the heating pad is a good solution for keeping the spider monkey warm, but I'm not going to get into that right now). Also, there have been statements made that Ms. Miller has donated large amounts of money to the GWC, not to fund future investments, but to meet operating costs. Looking at the Form 990's, it seems possible to me that Ms. Miller has indeed made some donations, but it does not seem possible that those donations were anything like the amounts implied in the statement on the GWC's website (i.e. "Ms. Miller has spent more than $100,000 on food, cleaning supplies, and some employees salaries yearly").
Again, I want to remind everyone that I am not an expert on reading Form 990's, so it's possible I have made some error in interpreting the forms. But as far as I can tell at this point, there seem to be some very large discrepancies between what the GWC has been telling the public and what they have been telling the IRS.
One final thought: If the GWC has been saving for future improvements while letting their animals suffer, that was NOT a good way to go about generating more funds, because a lot of people interested in donating and/or volunteering were almost certainly turned off by the poor conditions at the center (as was Ms. Heveran, who wrote the recent letter to the Times/Trib). At the very least, the GWC's approach has not been very professional or very sensitive to the reactions of the members of the public who are providing support through their tax dollars and voluntary contributions.
Pure speculation, but the donated building that is mentioned..and taking in the fact that Nay Aug is a dedicated park, Could Doherty have "gifted" the zoo complex itself over to genesis???
I don't know anything about where or what the building is and I don't want to speculate. I did go to the Lackawanna Country Clerk's online site and search for deeds with the GWC as one party; I couldn't find anything. The site can be a little strange about how it handles the names you type in, so maybe I missed something in the search. If anyone else finds anything there, please let me know.
Here is all I know about the building. On the 1st page of the GWC's 2006 Form 990, they list their total revenue for the year as $84,457 in cash assets and $89,459 in noncash assets. There is a "Schedule A" with supplementary information attached to the 2006 Form 990. On p. 8 of the Schedule A, under "Line 57 - Land, Buildings, and Equipment," they list a "Building" valued at $89,460, which I assume is the same as the $89,459 noncash assets listed on p.1 (I think they probably rounded the $89,459 to $89,460). The total listed under line 57 is $89,460 (i.e. no other items are listed under land, equipment, or buildings--just that one building appears and nothing else).
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.
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.
