The Flagler Humane Society on Tuesday presented at a Palm Coast City Council workshop, facing concerns about their operations and transparency. The FHS, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, had several of its board members speak before the Council, answering a variety of concerns from residents and Council members alike.
The primary presenter for the Humane Society was Amy Carotenuto, the executive director. She stated she is not a voting member of the board of directors. Carotenuto presented a brief history of the organization, and a series of statistics on animal intake by species and region within Flagler County.
The Human Society services Palm Coast by contract, an arrangement in which the city pays the Humane Society a set fee that varies based on the type of animal. According to Carotenuto, this contract, which has been in place for multiple decades at different fee structures, is actually a financial liability for the organization which is maintained in order to help the maximum number of animals in the county.
An undercurrent of the discussion, with most Council members making a conscious point to avoid anecdotal matters, was allegations levied against the Humane Society of shelter areas well over-capacity plus unnecessary euthanizations and unacceptable treatment of animals. Carotenuto chalked most of these up to disgruntled former employees and volunteers, though Vice Mayor Theresa Carli Pontieri was adamant that overcrowding issues were established and present. The FHS is, as it happens, the only full-service animal shelter in Flagler County.
One issue raised against the group by Mayor Mike Norris was the appearance of nepotism. The board consists of six voting members, four of which are made up of two married couples. Linda and Rick Lester and John and Becky Reynolds amount to two thirds of the members, a controlling vote which Norris felt compromised the integrity of the board. The other two members are Laurie Haag and Vincent Lyon.
Another issue was the lack of access to the Humane Society’s nonprofit bylaws. Unlike with public entities and publicly traded corporations, the bylaws of nonprofits are not legally required to be posted publicly, though – as pointed out by Councilman Ty Miller – it’s generally agreed that the best practice is to make these bylaws available for transparency. This drew the ire of several Council members, who discussed not renewing the city’s contract with the Humane Society in the absence of the information. Carotenuto, likely not smoothing tensions over, reminded the Council that the arrangement was not financially beneficial to the FHS.
“We’re probably the most transparent organization around,” Lyon said, citing the availability of other documents pertaining to the administration of the Humane Society. He stated, as did Carotenuto, that the board wasn’t inherently opposed to revealing their bylaws to the City Council and to the public, but that they simply hadn’t had the opportunity to discuss it as a group since a request was made on Monday. “It had never come up [before Monday],” Lyon continued. “No one’s ever asked me for them before.” He stopped short of assuring that the group would release their bylaws, but said he wasn’t aware of any reason not to. “We just need time to decide,” Carotenuto added. “We’re definitely an open book. We have nothing to hide.”
Councilman Miller understood the board’s position, but still placed emphasis on the Council accessing the Humane Society’s bylaws. “For an organization that should be operating with transparency, why aren’t those always available?” he mused. “The process should be that they’re regularly updated so that when someone says ‘hey, I’d like to see your bylaws’, they’re accurate because they’re more recently updated.”
I have had a chance to review what the council called “nepotism”.
It turns out, not only is there no prohibition against married couples serving together on a board, but the city is not allowed to ask about marital status or require board members not be married to each other.
Here are the relevant statute excerpts:
” A charitable organization . . . may not be required by a state agency or a local government to disclose the . . . marital status . . . of its employees, officers, directors, trustees, members, or owners, without the prior written consent of the individual or individuals in question.” § 736.1211(1) Florida Statutes
“a state agency or a local government may not prohibit service as a board member or officer by an individual or individuals based upon their familial relationship to each other or to a donor or require that the governing board or officers include one or more individuals who do not share a familial relationship with each other or with a donor.” § 736.1211(3) Florida Statutes