Unsettled:
Town, Guilderhaven still fighting over funds


GUILDERLAND — Will the $41,000 that Guilderhaven has spent a year raising be used to renovate the Guilderland Animal Shelter after all"

Guilderhaven treasurer Susan Green and Town Supervisor Kenneth Runion both say they hope so and want to work on a resolution.

Last month, Runion said the town would move ahead with improving the shelter, without the funds raised by the not-for-profit organization, and Green said the money may be returned to the many donors.

After the squabble, Guilderhaven sent a check to the town.

But, the check came with a list of conditions saying that the town can cash it if Guilderhaven has control over decisions for the project. Right now, Runion says, the town is locked into a position where it can’t accept the money because of the conditions.

Meanwhile, Guilderhaven’s involvement with the shelter is being filtered out.

Volunteers who, several years ago formally created the not-for-profit Guilderhaven, had for decades helped care for lost and stray animals in Guilderland. Once the town built a shelter, on Frenches Hollow Road, the volunteers continued to help, both with animal care and placement and with fund-raising.

The renovation at the shelter is continuing. Runion said he hopes it will be complete in August or September. Then, he said, the town will appoint a committee to take charge of evaluating volunteers at the shelter. The committee will determine if the volunteers are adequately prepared to handle the shelter’s cats and dogs, he said.

And, a January agreement that Guilderhaven will help hard-to-adopt dogs get training has been changed. Guilderhaven was taken out of the equation, Runion said, because the law says only licensed humane societies or other municipalities can have that kind of control.

Fund fight

Last month, one of many conflicts between Green and Runion unfolded. Green told The Enterprise that Runion refused to take the funds that Guilderhaven raised for the shelter. Green said that Runion wanted to put the donations in the town’s general fund. Then, when she said that’s not acceptable, Runion said he didn’t want her money, Green claimed.

Runion argued that he would never put donations in the general fund. Green didn’t trust the town and refused to hand over the funds, he said. He told The Enterprise then that the town is not prepared to beg Green for the funds she promised; the town would renovate the shelter itself, he said.

Last week, Green decided to work things out with Runion. Green told The Enterprise last Wednesday that, on the advice of an attorney and a certified public accountant, Guilderhaven decided to send the town a check for $41,338.50.
Green paraphrased a letter Guilderhaven sent to the town: "It said something to the effect that we’re hoping to get back on track and become partners."

However, a copy of the letter, given to The Enterprise by Runion, lists several conditions with which the town must comply before cashing the check. The stipulations basically say that Guilderhaven must approve any changes to the project and have control over decisions.

When Runion received Guilderhaven’s letter and check, on July 12, the day of the last town board meeting, he decided right away to bring the issue to the board, he said.
"I wasn’t just going to send a check back," Runion told The Enterprise this week. "The letter said cashing the check is an agreement to these terms....That day, I had the town attorney do research on what we could or could not agree to."

In executive session last Tuesday, the town board agreed to send the check back to Guilderhaven.

The last condition — that Guilderhaven be given control of project changes — is what bothered the town the most, Councilman Bruce Sherwin told The Enterprise. The town obtained a ruling from the state comptroller’s office that says, when a not-for-profit organization gives a municipality money, there must be no strings attached, Sherwin said.

It is against the law to put stipulations on charity funds, he said.

Wednesday, Green told The Enterprise that Guilderhaven has taken the town board’s concerns into consideration and has revised its conditions. It will send the check back to the town with the new stipulations next week, she said. She declined further comment.
"The only condition that we can accept is that the town follow through on the 25 percent," Runion told The Enterprise. He was referring to an agreement the town had with Guilderhaven that it would pay for a quarter of the renovation costs. Any new or changed conditions drafted by Guilderhaven will not be accepted, he said.

Harrowing history

This is not the first time Runion and Green have clashed.

In November, Runion decided to change the policy at the town-owned shelter, so that dogs who are not adopted in a certain period of time would have been sent to another shelter, where they could have been killed.

Guilderhaven volunteers were angry, Green said in January after negotiations broke down, because they spent months raising $100,000 — in cash and donated services — for renovations to the shelter on the premise that Guilderland runs a no-kill shelter.

Runion responded that the new policy would save taxpayers money and would be more fair to the abandoned animals at the shelter. Dogs would have had 90 days under Runion’s policy to be adopted before they were sent to a kill shelter. This, Runion said, was more humane then having an animal live alone in a cage for years.

A week after the Enterprise story ran, residents packed a town board meeting, speaking out against the policy. But Runion began the meeting by saying he had rescinded the kill policy. He was trying to do what was best for the town’s dogs, he said.

Under the town’s new policy, if a dog’s owner can’t be located and a rescue organization does not want the animal, the dog will be evaluated by an animal behaviorist and possibly trained.

Guilderhaven was supposed to help with this, but, Runion said this week, now it will not.
"We took the Guilderhaven portion out of it the day after it was decided because someone from Ag and Markets came in and said you have to be a licensed humane society or organization that is another municipality to do that," Runion said. He was referring to the New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets.

The Guilderland Animal Shelter is owned by the town, but was largely built by volunteers. Members of Guilderhaven have for decades donated supplies to the shelter and helped its animals, Green said earlier. About five years ago, she said, Guilderhaven became a formal not-for-profit organization with a name.

In April of 2004, the Guilderland Town Board voted to give about $40,000 to the Guilderland Animal Shelter. The money was to cover a quarter of the cost of renovating the shelter; Guilderhaven was to raise the rest of the money.

Shelter volunteers then worked all summer and raised over $100,000, in both monetary and labor donations. In November, Green said, as Guilderhaven was about to announce it had raised the 75 percent, it was informed by Runion that the town had eliminated the shelter’s no-kill policy.
"His timing was right before we exceeded our goal," Green said at the time. "After we predicated our entire fund-raiser on that. It’s a breach of trust."

Before Runion rescinded the kill policy, Guilderhaven said it would have to give back all the money it raised and forget the renovation project, because it couldn’t support a kill shelter.

If that were to happen, Runion said then, the town planned to spend about $40,000 to make improvements to the shelter this year. The town had planned to do this all along, he said, until Guilderhaven stepped in and offered to raise money for a more extravagant project.

Then, a compromise was reached with Runion’s new no-kill policy. Things seemed to be going well, until it came time to begin the project.

Control conflict
"Our primary objective was to follow through on our promise to the community that generously donated that money to the rehabilitation of the Guilderland Animal Shelter," Green said of trying to work things out now. "That was our responsibility."

Guilderhaven gave the town a check for the donations with five conditions.

The stipulations include:
— That the funds be used only for construction at the shelter as agreed upon in an attached "scope of work" document;

— That the town obtain approval from Guilderhaven for any changes on the scope of the work;

— That any remaining funds after a year be returned to Guilderhaven;

— That the town agrees to pay for 25 percent of the construction costs; and

— That a detailed cost list be provided to Guilderhaven, including a list of payments with the names of vendors, description of work completed, date of invoice, and date and amount of payment.

Sherwin told The Enterprise that, in the executive session last Tuesday, "We encouraged the supervisor to be positive about the donations and to work with Guilderhaven."
The board decided to send the check back to Guilderhaven with a letter saying that, "While we would love to have the money, we can’t accept it under these guidelines restricting how the money will be used," Sherwin said.
"It will say that, we’d like the money, but we can’t accept it. We’re not able to by law," he said. "We have no choice at this point."

Sherwin, who served as the board’s liaison to the project, had told The Enterprise in January that, although changing the shelter’s no-kill policy was unpopular, the town had to take control. Many people didn’t know the town owned the shelter; Guilderhaven volunteers had keys to the facilities, he said.

This was irresponsible of the town, Sherwin said, and the town board agreed that the shelter policies and decisions had to be reestablished by the town.

Now, both Sherwin and Runion said, the town can’t agree to take Guilderhaven’s money in exchange for control of the shelter project.

This week, Runion spoke again about Guilderhaven volunteers having keys prior to six months ago.
"That was out of control," he said. "I don’t know how they ever got keys...That happened before I became supervisor."

This is a big liability issue, he said. The town cannot allow people who aren’t employees access to town facilities, he said.
"The only reason I learned of the keys is apparently we almost had an incident where an animal-control officer got hurt," Runion said. A cat placed at the shelter by a volunteer was feral and the animal-control officer didn’t know it, he said.

Runion then requested that those who have keys to the shelter but do not work for the town, turn over the keys to him, he said.

Runion said almost all of the conditions for taking the money are unacceptable, such as for agreeing to give Guilderhaven control of approving the work at the shelter.
"We do make changes as we find out that certain things don’t work," Runion said.

For example, at the start of the project, doors that separate the dog kennels from the yard were going to be removed, he said. But, animal-control director Rich Savage later told Runion that he thought the shelter should keep the doors. It’s safer for workers to clean the stalls of aggressive dogs if the dogs can be shut out, Runion said.
"We can’t turn over those types of decisions to an outside group," he said.

Another issue was plumbing, Runion said. Originally, the project’s architect planned on having water lines in one area. Later, he decided it would be better to move the lines elsewhere, Runion said.

Donald Cropsey Jr., the town’s chief building inspector and zoning administrator, also found minor areas of the plan that need to be tweaked, Runion said.

Guilderhaven wants to approve any changes like this that the town makes. But, Runion said, this could result in conflicts that would hold up the project, costing more money.

Runion, too, said the town board won’t accept the condition that any remaining funds after a year be returned to Guilderhaven. With its letter, Guilderhaven included a detailed computation of how all the money will be spent. No money will be left over, Runion said.
"If somebody felt that distrusting of the town, they’d make the donations in increments," he said.

The Schoolcraft House committee, for example, gives the town money periodically for different restoration projects at the historic house, he said.
Runion added that, if Guilderhaven did get some of the money back, it would be a "nightmare" trying to figure out how to return it to the donors.
But, he said, the town board’s main problem is in Guilderhaven having "veto power over changes and trying to tie us into not making any changes."
Of the condition where Guilderhaven wants a detailed accounting of costs charged, Runion said, "We normally don’t provide detailed accounting." Of the project’s budget, he said, "A lot of people come in to see it. It’s open to the public anyway, in the comptroller’s office here."

What’s next"

Green spoke little this week about what will happen next with the Guilderhaven funds. The group is in the process of working things out, she said.
"It is our hope that we’ve put all our differences behind us to work together again for the welfare of the animals in our community," Green said.
Asked if he would consider working with Guilderhaven on another project in the future, Runion said, "I don’t think so. We’ve been through too much difficult times...But, it’s not my decision alone. It’s up to the town board. I’d have to vote no, though."

In the past, Guilderhaven volunteers have walked dogs at the shelter or helped take care of cats. The new committee, to be appointed in August or September, will evaluate anyone who wants to volunteer at the shelter to make sure they have training to deal with difficult animals, Runion said. This way, he said, the town will be responsible for any problems.
"Usually we get extremely difficult dogs," he said. "We don’t get household cats; we get feral cats. Generally, all the animals have some sort of behavioral problem."

Runion added that, with attorneys’ fees and the town’s building inspector overseeing much of the project, the town is already paying more than 25 percent to renovate the shelter.