UPDATE: Via e-mail, Sarah Grau sends along some pertinent thoughts:
The most important point I want to make is: the Billings Police Foundation is NOT the Billings Police Department, nor is it the City of Billings.
The BPF is a 501c3 public charity established in 1999, recieved its IRS
ruling in 2001 (I think) You could check at guidestar.org
In my opinion, a small group of city employees (present and former)
started their own little company a few years ago and operated it on city
time, with city employees, at a city address and with city
publications. Their mission was to "provide assistance for programs and
equipment not included in the city budget." But they did so, by the
examples provided in the article:
1. Depositing checks that were not made payable to them
2. Telling donors the Shelter could not take their
donations, please reissue the check payable to the BPF
I would go further and opine: any revenues they've ever received belong
to the city, since they were sought after...on city time, by city
employees, at a city address and via city publications.
I would hope our State's Attorney General is interested in practices 1
and 2 listed above.
I understand that Deanna Anthony admitted the BPF only has 2 Board
members. On the last form 990 they filed, they listed 10, I believe.
This fact speaks volumes: did the other 8 bail? If so, why? With only
2 board members is the BPF in violation of its own bylaws? If so, the
state's SOS should be interested, as would the IRS.
Finally, why care? Because it was taxpayer money. They were an
unnecessary vehicle as operated. The city gets money, why would we give
it away to someone we would then have to ask for it back from?
Governmental bodies can accept donations.
The BPF is not accountable to taxpayers, it is not the city.
40 comments:
Looks ol' Evelyn has been out on a fishing expedition...the timing is curious too...
"the timing is curious, too"??
Look at the city council's agenda for tonight's meeting and you will see why the story came out now.
I did lose a little respect for Volek with her comments that appeared in the story. "Volek explained, "The city did not have a financial policy regarding donations, and the Police Foundation name was on the Animal Shelter newsletter," which she believes contributed to confusion."
There was no confusion on the donor's part, they wanted the money to go to the Animal Shelter, the check was made out to the Animal Shelter. The person or persons who made the decision to divert the Animal Shelter money to the Billings Police Department needs to be held accountable.
Ya gotta love the part about the money being deposited in the wrong account, as in "the money was supposed to have been deposited in the city's account at US Bank but was instead deposited in the Foundation's account at First Interstate Bank."
Dave, the title should be "Police foundation vs. animal shelter"
Perhaps the title is correct. It was the former chief who set up the foundation and is a former cop who chairs the board and it is police department employees who've been working for it on city time.
Can someone answer why it's necessary to set up these "foundations" in the first place? Even the school district has a foundation. And the hospitals. These outfits are already non-profs so what good does it do to set up another one?
Good point. If the city can set up an account for people to donate to and the money in that account can only be used for that purpose, then foundations are not needed. Tussing bragged about founding this group and how he saved the city money. He forgot to mention he did it with ill gotten gains. What's next with this guy?
Ouch. Either Ron was involved in this, or he was inept for allowing this to happen under his nose and on his watch.
OK, I'm getting a little tired of being blamed for stuff that happened at the police department after I left. You may remember that Bauer suspended me one day short of ten months ago.
The contributions in question (the ones the council voted on) were all received after that time.
I set up the police foundation in 1999 just like I had in NE with a mission statement of helping with PR, fundraising for things that the city refused to put in the budget but were still needed and providing a vehicle for public feedback and advice. It worked great. We bought K9s, a radar trailer, equipped the officers with digital cameras and tasers to name a few. We sponsored lunches for civic groups and high school students, had a presence at Celebrate 2000 and other community events. Tell me what is bad about that.
About a year and a half ago some folks who had donated or wanted to donate to the animial shelter asked if they could put the money in the police foundation because giving it to the city was like mailing it to the Burmuda Triangle of finance - it was never heard from again. Plus they were afraid big donations would only cause the city to reduce funding to the shelter as it had in the past.
The Foundation reluctantly agreed and spent its own money to buy a bulk mailing permit to send out the shelter newsletter. All the donations were kept separate and were never spent on anything other than shelter needs. I recall buying an incinerator to save staff time and money transporting dead animals to a motuary for creamation. I saw the most recent treasurer's report and the funds still seemed to be separated.
Why don't all you people just wait for the audit before you decide there was impropriety. It is difficult to respect your rambling without any evidence especially when you don't even have the guts to use your name.
BINGO
With ALL of the crap being raised about Ron Tussing very FEW have the guts to use their names when speaking about him. While I may have some differences with Ron this is NOT one of them :-) It is high time for the brow beaters to put this and the other stuff to bed and MOVE ON. Thanks for the input Ron
Mike Erickson
Deep Ron, and stinky.
Thanks for weighing in Mr. Tussing. the BPF has a great mission, but a lousy mechanism. Operated separately from the city, it can function as a great asset to the community.
The city has many departments. I would hope each department head considered it their fiduciary responsibility to wade the “Bermuda triangle of finance” to provide taxpayers with the revenue and spending details of their own departments.
I inquired how the Louise Hoback funds might be spent and was given a detailed list of all the “extras” the shelter supervisor would like to acquire for the shelter. I was also provided the verbiage that accompanies thank you letters for donations: “The thank you letter we send to people when receiving donations states, "Donations to the Animal Shelter are not used for general operation costs as that is provided by the City’s general fund. Building improvements, special needs for the animals’ comfort, spay and neuter assistance, educational materials and assistance with injuries are among the benefits obtained through donations."
Works for me. And isn’t it great the Shelter has the money now, and doesn’t have to apply for it from some foundation.
All I reported was the Hoback check, and that occurred after you left the department. However, since that information came out, many people have come forward with their stories of the deceptive solicitation practices of the BPF, and those occurred while you were still employed as Chief.
Sarah Grau
You need to understand, once the money goes to the city, the department head has absolutely no say in what happens to it. If you would do some research, you would see that department budgets were often cut on the whims of particular council members or the administrator and a windfall of donations could cause the budget for that agency to be decreased a similar amount and consequently worse off. If you would care to be specifc about donations during my tenure that were not used appropriately, Ms. Grau, I will research that and respond but I'm done defending myself against "some people said" or "I heard." It reminds me of the gender lawsuit by the one female officer who based her allegation on a sentence in the Reiter report that stated "a city employee said she heard third hand several years ago that" I had said something inappropriate. If the best you can do is a vague reference to "deceptive practices" then I'm not commenting on this matter again.
and yet when you (Ron?) use the statement "some folks who had donated or wanted to donate to the animial shelter asked if they could put the money in the police foundation because giving it to the city was like mailing it to the Burmuda Triangle of finance" which is just as generic, we are supposed to believe you.
Not sure what money you are referring to, if you are referring to donations, it has long been governmental accounting practice, and state law, that all donations are restricted for use as the donor intended.
Maybe it is just me, but if a donor wants to give my city money to help keep my animal shelter going, or support any other department, why would I say no? Even if those dollars were used to offset the “regular” budget, what is the worst thing that could happen? It would free up my tax dollars to be used elsewhere in the city? I just can’t figure how I’m not coming out ahead.
I do realize that if someone wanted to bequeath millions to the city, we would need to think how best to incorporate that into our city.
The budget process isn’t as whimsical as you make it seem, I would refer anyone interested in the process to start reading at Page 41 of the city’s 2004 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report. Item2, the heading: Stewardship, Compliance and Accountability.
I don’t believe I ever said donations weren’t used appropriately. Sorry if you misunderstood, I said the only “misdeposited”item I was aware of was the Hoback check and yes that did come in after you left. So on that one, technically, you are “off the hook.” But I do think you have been cavalier to leave your former employees holding the bag on that one. They have only continued operating in a system of your conception and design. I’ve already extended my apologies to them, it was not my intention to call attention to individuals but rather a faulty mechanism.
I see the minutes of the 12/19 city council meeting are still not posted, when they are, I would refer others to the minutes as one person did identify themselves and testify to the fact that Shelter volunteers (city volunteers) were told that if people want to donate to the shelter, direct their donations to the BPF instead.
Don’t mean to be vague at all. I use the phrase as defined in MCA30-14-103: “deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade.”
Sarah Grau
Ron, you want a specific, here it is. Look at the past 5 (at least)quarterly animal shelter newsletters. "Published by: Billings Police Department" Begs the question why the BPF is supposedly paying for postage. The return address? "Billings Police Foundation PO Box 1554" Now its the BPF and they are using the police department's address. The logo on the newsletter is the BPF's, not the police department's although the city assures us it is a city newsletter. Finally, and the most damning, is the donation page. Donate to the animal shelter but make checks payable to the BPF! (see below for actual text) "Your gift to the BILLINGS POLICE FOUNDATION will help reduce the number of unwanted animals in
our community and help provide for the animals in OUR care." The animals were in the care of the BPF? The BPF was so integrated into the animal shelter that it is impossible to see where one ends and the other begins. Is this how charities are to be run? These newletters go back to at least 2004 and happened on YOUR watch.
From the animal shelter newsletter:
"The reality is that the Billings Police Department
Animal Shelter, like so many shelters in the nation, is understaffed and functions on a low budget,
both facts that affect the number of animals the shelter can support.
Your gift to the Billing Police Foundation will help reduce the number of unwanted animals in
our community and help provide for the animals in our care. You can even specify where your funds
are used.
------
I am proud to help The Billings Animal Shelter with my tax deductible donation of:
$________. (Please make checks payable to the Billings Police Foundation.)
Distribute my Gift:
___As Needed – for emergency or when no other funds are available
___Spay/Neuter Fund – for all aspects regarding spaying/neutering of animals
___Medical Fund – for special medical needs, vaccinations and health testing of Shelter animals
___Building Fund – for building additions and improvements
___Education Fund – for adoption counseling, proper animal care and handling, and newsletter
___Animal Shelter Endowment Fund
___Billings Police Foundation
___My employer matches gifts! A matching gift form is enclosed.
Credit this gift to me as an individual
Name: ________________________________________________________________
Address: ______________________________________________________________
Credit this gift to my business
Business Name: ______________________________________
Business Address: ____________________________________
Share credit for this gift with my spouse
Spouse's name: ____________________________________
Make this gift in memory of: _______________________________________________
Make this gift in honor of: __________________________________________________
WE THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT
Please Mail to Billings Police Foundation, PO Box 1554 Billings, MT 59103
Remember charitable gifts are deductible on your tax return!
Established in 1999, the Billings Police Foundation is an independent, non-profit organization under IRS code 501(c) (3)
which makes your donation tax-deductible. A twenty member Board of Trustees guides the Foundation in achieving its
mission by serving the donors, and supporters of the Billings Police Department.
OK What am I missing? The donations solicited for the animal shelter went to the PBF and were kept seperate and always went to the shelter. What is it you think is deceptive about that? The newsletter says that too and was done by the BPF to help the shelter. Do you have any evidence that donations that were intended for the shelter were used for something else? I appreciate Ms. Grau identifying herself and I will help her ferret out misappropriation if she can give me something specific. There can be no debate that donations went to the BPF. If they used them for something other than the intended purpose, THEN you have an issue. If people don't care if their donation goes to help fill a pothole instead of for things needed at the shelter then they should feel free to donate to the city general fund instead of an entity that can document where the money went.
Hey Ron, Erickson says he has differences with you! :(
You still have some friends of the job, run a 10-31 on him. The next time he shows up at a City Council meeting 17 accusing the Mayor and Council of being "hoodlums" you know what to do...
What Ron is guilty of is the misuse of his position and power to direct donations that would have come even without his foundation, into his foundation so as to take credit for it. No one is saying the funds were misappropriated -- who would know that since there's been two years of no financial reporting? What Sarah isn't emphasizing is that he bragged about the foundation's success when it wasn't his to claim. Besides the city meshing with a private organization, which Ron surely knew was a no-no given that his wife was reprimanded for attempting to do the same thing in the Planning office, he used his clout to take money away from other non-profits at the open house so his non-profit would look good. And he used the Animal Shelter and the fact that animals are always a popular draw for donations so his police foundation which isn't quite as popular as a cause, would look good and he could claim credit, just as he did. As far as I am concerned that alone -- the misuse of power -- is more serious than the redirecting of contributions. The whole thing is not something a good administrator would do, because it sets up a situation with great potential for fraud, even if it hadn't yet happened, which is why these things have laws and regulations and recommended financial practices -- all of which in his position (as a police chief no less) he should have known and most certainly abided by. So what defense do you have for that, Ron? And, all of you who want to pooh pooh the whole thing as no big deal -- you make good government hard for people who want to do the right thing, and you enable those who are more concerned about their own personal ambitions, ego and pocketbooks. It's the desire to over look such "minor" things that leads to bigger problems -- no doubt about it, The City of Billings gets the kind of government it deserves.
Ron, you said: "If people don't care if their donation goes to help fill a pothole instead of for things needed at the shelter then they should feel free to donate to the city general fund"
You are misleading donors with that statement. If a donor donates to the city's Animal Shelter for the purpose of supporting the Animal Shelter, the money is used for the Animal Shelter and does not go into the city General Fund, it goes into the Nonmajor Special Revenue Fund titled: Animal Shelter Donation Fund.
This is the last on this issue from me until JS is willing to use her name in her posts and back up her claims. Did the BPF help raise money for the shelter in addition to the police department? Guilty. Did anyone see the city mailing out newsletters for the shelter and soliciting donations to help the animals - go ahead speak up if you saw the city doing something specific to help. If anyone ever told anyone they couldn't donate to the shelter except thru the foundation, I was unaware of that. We merely provided a vehicle since the shelter was part of the police department.
Some people just can't seem to get the taste out of their mouths from all those sour grapes so they're trying to make something positive sound evil.
Ms. Grau you are the one who said it didn't matter to you if your money went to another agency because we all came out ahead. It is your perogative to feel that way but you should realize that some people were concerned about the shelter's budget being reduced if the city got the money so we were guilty of helping them out.
I did not have a vote on the board by the way. And yes, I am very proud of starting the foundation and the many board members and citizens, including the kids with the lemonade stand, who donated their time and money to help make the city safer for people and animals.
I appreciate all of Mr. Tussing's comments. The more perspective the better. His philosophy regarding the BPF doesn't obfuscate the truth of its mechanism. It was not appropriate as administered, (the separateness issue)thus leading to the deposit of checks not made payable to the BPF. And, while not known by its founder, deceptive solicitation practices were used to garner revenue that would otherwise have gone to the the animal shelter's donation fund, a city fund. Both of these activities demonstrate that a revenue stream of donations directed to the city got diverted.
Nothing about this is funny, but I did laugh at this comment: so we were guilty of helping them out" Yes, I thought, helping them out of their money.
Joyce - come on out, babe! You’re not hard to spot. Or do you prefer hiding in the dark
manipulating unsuspecting people to use as your personal pawns. Midol is still on the market as
far as I know and herbal supplements are supposed to help. Could be you just need to be fitted
with a radio collar to enable people to know whose direction you’re headed. You are nothing
more than a self-aggrandizing wannabe that sucks energy from other people that you hold in
front of you as a shield while whispering in their ear “Come on, we can get this S.O.B” This
isn’t about lost funds although I do feel that Sara is honorable, I think, and it needs to be dug
into. It’s about Tussing and you damn well know it. Would love to see who your mentors are on
the council. You’re gonna’ fit right in, Sweety. Have you, in your primitive brain, ever asked
yourself why you keep going after Tussing and yet you never come up with anything? Jeeeeze
that must be exhausting. And for the life of me, I don’t see how any of this is what’s best for
this city. We need a strong mayor form of city government. That must scare the hell out of
you. Apparently the majority vote means nothing to you and your minions. It’s kind of like the
Supreme Court on the last Presidential election. He isn’t my President but Tussing IS my mayor
so shut up and sit down, for the good of the people of course. Isn’t that why you ran for office in
the first place?
Defending your actions by saying that donations solicited for the animal shelter and deposited into the BPF accounts was not deceptive because the funds were (allegedly) used for the animal shelter is like a thief saying he used the money to buy Christmas gifts for orphans just as the owners of the purloined accounts had intended. The problem is, it wasn't his money to begin with, regardless of the outcome.
I have helped raise millions of dollars for non profit organizations for more than 20 years. The largest of those foundations raise money separately from the organizations actually performing the charitable work. No one has ever accused these foundations of "purloining" funds. It would be a sad day for these charities if Ms. Grau fixed her attention on them without justification.
It shows a tremendous amount of inexperience with non profit fund raising to make the serious allegations being made without any proof. As has been said before, unless funds were misdirected or misused for purposes other than the Animal Shelter, then Ms. Grau and Co., are playing fast and loose with the facts and with other people's reputations.
Those foundations I've worked with that are separate from the actual charitable work organizations have millions in endowment. It would be truly unfortunate and unwarranted if Ms. Grau suddenly decided to accuse these foundations of misbehavior with funds. She could even claim the endowment funds are being "horded." Yet, that's exactly right. The funds are raised and, to some extent, horded, for the benefit of the charitable work, now, and in the future. This is good business and good charity.
Unless someone can demonstrate these funds were misspent, there is no problem with the Police Foundation raising funds on behalf of the Animal Shelter. The City Administrator should have left the funds in the foundation unless misappropriation of funds was discovered. Since the police department is responsible for the Animal Shelter, there should be absolutely no problem with contributions going to the Police Foundation as long as those funds are eventually spent where intended.
If anything, Ms. Grau has probably damaged the fund raising ability of the Animal Shelter AND the Police Foundation with the negative publicity she's attracting. Donors usually shy away from donating to charities where even a hint of scandal is suggested. Instead of waiting for facts, it appears Ms. Grau is throwing bombs. The stray animals are the losers and so are the many volunteers who work with them every day.
M Fox
Thanks M. Fox for your input. And thanks for all the charitable work you do. But let's not stray from some important facts. Namely, the city of Billings can accept donations. By law and by Governmental accounting standards all donations are restricted to use as the donor intended. In fact, that ability long predates the conception of the Billings Police Foundation. I have stated I applaud the Foundation's mission. However, it is not the city of Billings, nor is it the Billings Police Department. If the Foundation wants to raise money for the Billings Animal Shelter it should be free to do so. But, it must find its own address, and its own workers, it can't use city employees, on city time, at a city location.
Also, it is not correct for any of the Foundation's representatives to tell donors that the Billings Animal Shelter cannot accept donations, therefore please make your donations for the Shelter, payable to the BPF instead. And of course it is not okay for the foundation to deposit checks that are made payable to the Billings Animal Shelter. The BAS is a city facility, so checks payable to it belong to the city, not a separate nonprofit.
I have never commented on how the BPF's spends its money. My concern has been how it gets its money. From that perspective, I would rather it didn't take money that belongs to taxpayers.
I have looked at the BPF's forms 990 for 2002 and 2003 and I do not see an M. Fox listed as a board member.
I have been a volunteer at the Shelter for just over a year. I spend about 4 hours a week there. I care very much about the animals that go through the facility, and how the facility can function in our community. The Shelter has good points and bad points. The fact that a nonprofit could divert direct donations was one of the bad points.
Please specify which facts Ms. Grau is playing fast and loose with. As she stated, she is concentrating on the donations, not the expenditures.
I'd be glad to specify for you, anonymous, but please affix your name as a common courtesy so I know to whom I am replying.
M Fox
This blog has no requirement to post a name. If that is important to you, then I suggest you visit blogs that require a name and stop frequenting this one. Now, as a common courtesy to Ms. Grau, specify the facts with which you claim she is playing fast and loose.
It's amusing to me that "anonymous" feels she is owed a dialogue with someone while lying in the weeds, not owning what she says. It's also interesting that "anonymous" feels it her duty to ask questions on behalf of Ms. Grau, who appears well able to represent herself. It's also interesting that "anonymous" feels self important enough to tell people who should read and participate in this blog, and under what criteria.
It seems a simple request to learn who is asking me a question before answering. It's like answering a phone call from an unidentified voice and receiving a demand for an answer to a question without the caller identifying him or herself.
M Fox
Are you avoiding the question because you can't support your position? Your criteria is "tell me your name or I won't answer." So who exactly is setting criteria for this blog? If you can't answer the question, why don't you take your ball and go home?
So we have the mayor elect trying to dodge his record – claiming “it wasn’t me it was somebody else” – his usual defense. He tries to intimidate Sarah – when she sticks to the facts and her honest and fair questions, he gets huffy and fumes about anonymous posters. Then Sandra enters the fray – with the usual Tussing groupie attack on Joyce??? And finally, M Fox brings comes in with her experience and vast knowledge about the way the world works. She throws out some broad accusations of Sarah being reckless with people’s reputations, then tries to change the subject when she’s called on it. I have read a lot of posts by Ron’s ladies (harem??) and it reminds me of high school girls defending the captain of the football team. The high emotion and vitriol that they spew appears to be driven more out of infatuation than facts. Hang in there Sarah, you are doing the right thing.
If Sarah has a question of me, she can ask it herself. My remarks about playing fast and loose with facts referred to Ms. Grau and Co. I'm pretty sure "anonymous" wouldn't throw grenades the way she does if her name were attached. At least she could have the courage to own what she says. Name calling must be more fun as an anonymous entity.
She can anonymously call people thieves, accusing them of "purloining" (stealing) while at the same time claiming she isn't accusing anyone of misspending money. She accuses people of being in a harem? What's that about? I haven't said one word about the mayor-elect. I'm speaking about the animal shelter and BPF.
Two errors Sarah has made were
1. Saying these were "taxpayer monies." No. They are donations made by individuals--they were not taxes paid.
2. That there is no government oversight of the foundation. If that were true, there wouldn't be an effort underway directed by City Administrator Volek to address policies with regard to the BPF. I can guarantee that the City has never audited the private charities I've worked with nor has it ever amended our charity's policies. The fact that Ms. Volek is even looking at doing so shows there is City oversight of its foundation.
I would like to know whom "anonymous" is accusing of stealing. The word purloin means to steal. Those are strong words and deserve specifics, even from an anonymous accuser.
M Fox
"The fact that Ms. Volek is even looking at doing so shows there is City oversight of its foundation." So now M Fox, you are saying that just because the city administrator acts on a issue, you accept that the city has the right do to so. Somewhat different than your position during the last year and a half. I believe Ms. Volek and the city have no authority to audit the Billings Police Foundation. I do believe the city does have the right to inquire as to whether checks written to the Billings Animal Shelter were deposited into the Billings Police Foundation. But the city would have to ask a different entity (possibly the Attorney General) to perform an actual audit.
M. Fox, in response to your 2 comments:
1. When I refer to taxpayer monies, my definition may be considered broad: I refer to any monies payable to the city, whether by taxes, donations, grants, fees, etc. Money that goes into the city coffers is in my mind taxpayer dollars. Maybe it would be better to say, citizens of the city's dollars.
2. Government oversight of the BPF: Oversight in this sense is governed by the IRS at the federal level, and both the SOS and the DOR at the state level. If I had a complaint about a nonprofit I wouldn't take it to my city. The only reason I went to the city with this nonprofit was because the BPF is operating out of city offices and taking city money. I felt the city needed to address this.
M Fox, you stated Ms. Grau was "playing fast and loose with the facts and with other people's reputations". The best you could come up with was a strict definition of "taxpayer" and a vague reference that a city audit of the BPF indicates city oversight. Perhaps the BPF voluntarily agreed to allow the city to audit its books? Perhaps the oversight is on your part?
As for "purloining", you are indeed correct. It does mean to steal. A synonym for "steal" is "theft". One definition of theft under the MCA 45-6-301 is: (7) A person commits the offense of theft of property by embezzlement when, with the purpose to deprive the owner of the property, the person:
(a) purposely or knowingly obtains or exerts unauthorized control over property of the person's employer or over property entrusted to the person; or
(b) purposely or knowingly obtains by deception control over property of the person's employer or over property entrusted to the person.
Checks were written to the city, then endorsed by the BPF and deposited into their account, possibly by a city employee. A check was written to the city - someone from the shelter called back and asked them to reissue the check to the BPF. Donors intending to donate to the city shelter were instructed (by an employee?) to make checks payable to the BPF.
Please don't try to make the argument that the BPF didn't deprive the city of its money because they are holding the money for the city. The BPF is under no obligation to grant the money to the city. They could hold on to it indefinitely. Furthermore, the funds were not immediately available to the animals as the donors intended. Instead, the city was placed in the position of having to ask for its money back and under the risk the request might be denied. Or worse, the money would be granted for a purpose different from what the donors intended, like maybe for an incinerator?
One more thing, not all the employees involved in this knew what they were doing was wrong, thus no theft on their part. But someone did.
The lack of understanding with regard to charitable foundations and the way donations are applied is as laughable. No wonder some remain anonymous. Who would want to claim such ridiculous allegations?
Please name the person or persons being accused of stealing. Throw in some evidence,too. I'm still waiting for specifics. Please share the proof you have that this unnamed person was criminally motivated--and a felony, too since the dollar amount exceeds the threshold. If you're going to stretch the truth, please share evidence to go with it. So far, all we get is general, anonymous accusations.
There are hundreds of charitable foundations set up by cities across this country, and donations, not tax dollars, are directed to them by public officials for the benefit of public endeavors. Check out Portland, Chicago, New York, Las Angeles, Phoenix and Seattle.
And isn't it so last millenium to marginalize, trivialize and minimize the involvement of women in public events by sexualizing whatever they do? Wouldn't it be ironic if this slur actually came from a woman elected to public office in Billings?
How sad.
M Fox
I am puzzled, if the whole deal is legitimate and that there is no basis for the questions then why all of the shrieking and arguing? I agree with Ron Tussing, lets wait on the audit (by whomever has the authority) to see what the facts are and then deal with them. Although the pro Tussing camp doesn’t seem to want the scrutiny, I would think the mayor elect would welcome it. And finally, M Fox, your speculation of who posted the infatuation remarks is way off base. I just call it like I see it.
Ah, don't be too hard on m focks. I see that her hero, marky, is back in the state. She can't THINK clearly when He's around! M fox has a thing for strong, silly types!
Was sind die car donation san diego Wahlen, die jemand haben konnte?Good Wishes, Desirae car donation san diego
Post a Comment