Pound Rounds

[Are You Serious Jo]

The only reason I can see for her to publicly claim they aren't a rescue is to knowingly avoid people making them take responsibility for eff ups. But the thing is they operate like a rescue so she can deny it all she likes, if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck it's a duck.

[k9angel]

I cannot believe these scammers are still getting away with this. I had a look at their FB page and OMG, the amount of people donating. One follower mentions her 'weekly payments' to PR. They'd have to be raking it in.

Then they had a plea for Louis, a staffy blend from BP. Someone asks "How would he go with 2 maltese terriers and an old timer male 15yrs?"

It's so wrong how they are guilting people into adopting these dogs and profiting from them.

Edited January 19, 2013 by k9angel

[Puppoochi]

Would I be right in assuming that MN could be saving donations for the purpose of accumulating land and property to have a Pound Rounds Rescue Facility?

[schnauzer]

Would I be right in assuming that MN could be saving donations for the purpose of accumulating land and property to have a Pound Rounds Rescue Facility?

As I see it, people donate to a specific dog and that money is supposed to go to the rescue that takes that specific dog?

Then again if you look at STAR, it does look like they are "warehousing" dogs in kennels. With their belief that you need to save every dog at all costs including DA and HA dogs, it is only a matter of time before they become hoarders

[minimax]

Would I be right in assuming that MN could be saving donations for the purpose of accumulating land and property to have a Pound Rounds Rescue Facility?

As I see it, people donate to a specific dog and that money is supposed to go to the rescue that takes that specific dog?

Then again if you look at STAR, it does look like they are "warehousing" dogs in kennels. With their belief that you need to save every dog at all costs including DA and HA dogs, it is only a matter of time before they become hoarders

How is having a dog in a PR kennel any better than having them in a pound? I mean, apart from being saved from death (and even then, if I was "saved" only to be put in another box, I'm not entirely sure how grateful I'd be :/

[Plan B]

Funds can be used however the group likes - it can be hoarded till their heart's content. So long as it's used for the dogs and not personal gain (unless they pay wages) then it's all good.

The trouble they will have is that they are fundraising for specific (and sometimes invisible) dogs. When fundraising for something specific, people are giving money for that specific thing. If the money is not being used for that dog, and being used for other things, then this could be counted as misleading and deceptive.

To fundraise for a rescue facility, they should only be allocating funds that have either come in as generic donations or donations specifically for that cause.

11 Fundraising through direct marketing

If a fundraising appeal involves solicitation by way of direct marketing (including by telephone,

electronic device such as a facsimile machine, the website or direct mailing), the authorised

fundraiser must ensure that:

(a) the content of all direct marketing communications is not misleading or deceptive or

likely to mislead or deceive

14 Advertisements, notices and information

(1) Any advertisement, notice or information provided as part of a fundraising appeal must:

(a) clearly and prominently disclose the name of the authorised fundraiser, and

(b) not be reasonably likely to cause offence to a person, and

© be based on fact and must not be false or misleading.

(2) A person conducting or participating in a fundraising appeal must use his or her best

endeavours, at all times, to answer honestly any question directed to the person in relation

to the purpose of the appeal or the details of the appeal, or to arrange to find answers to

questions that he or she is unable to answer. In particular, if it is requested, information is to be given as to how the gross income and any articles obtained from the appeal will be

distributed and on the other matters referred to in sub-paragraphs (3)(a) and (4).

Link: Authority Conditions.

Edited January 19, 2013 by Plan B

[Puppoochi]

Funds can be used however the group likes - it can be hoarded till their heart's content. So long as it's used for the dogs and not personal gain (unless they pay wages) then it's all good.

The trouble they will have is that they are fundraising for specific (and sometimes invisible) dogs. When fundraising for something specific, people are giving money for that specific thing. If the money is not being used for that dog, and being used for other things, then this could be counted as misleading and deceptive.

To fundraise for a rescue facility, they should only be allocating funds that have either come in as generic donations or donations specifically for that cause.

11 Fundraising through direct marketing

If a fundraising appeal involves solicitation by way of direct marketing (including by telephone,

electronic device such as a facsimile machine, the website or direct mailing), the authorised

fundraiser must ensure that:

(a) the content of all direct marketing communications is not misleading or deceptive or

likely to mislead or deceive

14 Advertisements, notices and information

(1) Any advertisement, notice or information provided as part of a fundraising appeal must:

(a) clearly and prominently disclose the name of the authorised fundraiser, and

(b) not be reasonably likely to cause offence to a person, and

© be based on fact and must not be false or misleading.

(2) A person conducting or participating in a fundraising appeal must use his or her best

endeavours, at all times, to answer honestly any question directed to the person in relation

to the purpose of the appeal or the details of the appeal, or to arrange to find answers to

questions that he or she is unable to answer. In particular, if it is requested, information is to be given as to how the gross income and any articles obtained from the appeal will be

distributed and on the other matters referred to in sub-paragraphs (3)(a) and (4).

Link: Authority Conditions.

this looks kind of generic to me

https://www.facebook.com/PoundRoundsAustralia/app_168151469879028

[Are You Serious Jo]

Funds can be used however the group likes - it can be hoarded till their heart's content. So long as it's used for the dogs and not personal gain (unless they pay wages) then it's all good.

The trouble they will have is that they are fundraising for specific (and sometimes invisible) dogs. When fundraising for something specific, people are giving money for that specific thing. If the money is not being used for that dog, and being used for other things, then this could be counted as misleading and deceptive.

To fundraise for a rescue facility, they should only be allocating funds that have either come in as generic donations or donations specifically for that cause.

11 Fundraising through direct marketing

If a fundraising appeal involves solicitation by way of direct marketing (including by telephone,

electronic device such as a facsimile machine, the website or direct mailing), the authorised

fundraiser must ensure that:

(a) the content of all direct marketing communications is not misleading or deceptive or

likely to mislead or deceive

14 Advertisements, notices and information

(1) Any advertisement, notice or information provided as part of a fundraising appeal must:

(a) clearly and prominently disclose the name of the authorised fundraiser, and

(b) not be reasonably likely to cause offence to a person, and

© be based on fact and must not be false or misleading.

(2) A person conducting or participating in a fundraising appeal must use his or her best

endeavours, at all times, to answer honestly any question directed to the person in relation

to the purpose of the appeal or the details of the appeal, or to arrange to find answers to

questions that he or she is unable to answer. In particular, if it is requested, information is to be given as to how the gross income and any articles obtained from the appeal will be

distributed and on the other matters referred to in sub-paragraphs (3)(a) and (4).

Link: Authority Conditions.

That's what I asked her earlier, of course I won't get a response. It is deceptive.

[Plan B]

That does.

But there's also a number of people who do and have donated for specific dogs. If just $1 of that is not reaching the dog it was intended for, they are breaking the terms of conditions.

It's also worth noting that, if you haven't been answered anything in regards to their fundraising activities, they are also breaking the terms of conditions.

[Puppoochi]

so if it's for wages, she could be paying herself $100K a year?

[Plan B]

I don't know too much about the wage side of it, not something I've needed to look into. There's more you need to apply for though, obviously, but I'm not sure if there's a limit to how much a non-profit can pay staff.

[Are You Serious Jo]

Oh you better believe I'll be taking action if I don't get what I've asked for. I may have some questions Plan B, but I'll pm you when I do because there is only so much she should know at this stage.

[Steve]

Devils advocate - I think you are going to be disappointed. The audit doesn't have to be done until by March next year and prior to that there are no account to show you.In fact to show you accounts which are not audited would be pretty silly . Also unless someone specifically says Im Jo blow and Im donating this money to only be used for this dog and if you have change I want it back - its simply a donation to be used as they see fit. Usually its a donation paid without the desire for a tax invoice, often the person donating doesn't even properly identify themselves - all you will see is funds donated and how those funds were distributed.

Example 100 people donate 10 dollars each and some are specific they want their 10 dollars to be used soley for one purpose and say $150 is used for that purpose - it may even be to pay for advertising for the dog etc. Who is going to identify which person's ten dollars was used for this purpose when only two of them wanted a tax receipt. If you can find someone who has a tax receipt which specifically says that X amount was donated to be used soley for one dog and if its not required for that dog they want a refund and any X amount wasn't you might have a case but if you spot something which you think isn't right in the accounts how on earth will you prove it?

Also in any charity they are able to legally take out admin costs up to 40% without question higher if they can justify it. As long as it goes through a meeting and no one on the board takes part of any profit they can pay as much as they want in wages, insurances, phone, rent etc.

I understand what you are trying to do but you are going to need something to back up what you may think you see when you eventually get the books. You cant seriously expect they would pay for an audit @ around $3000 plus every time someone wants to challenge what they do with their money and I would be very surprised if anyone gets to look at the books until after their first audit which is due after the 30th June 2013 and they have until march 2014 to get it done.

Can you imagine anyone demanding mid year to see the RSPCA or cancer council accounts of the current year before the accounts are properly prepared for an accountant and auditor ?

Have you heard from anyone who has evidence they made a donation for a specific dog and that they told them that if it wasnt needed for that dog they wanted it back? If you do How do you know that these specific people wont receive a refund when the accounts are done and all expenses calculated ? If not most people assume/normal convention is if more than is needed it will go toward helping any dog and do not ask they receive a refund if more than enough for that dog is donated or that those taking the dog would receive any excess. When tens of thousands of donations were received for a burned kitten by the RSPCA I'm pretty confident they never expected to have to refund it if they got too much and that they didn't hand over the change to the people who gave it a home.

You cant say they had funds donated which they should have handed over to a rescue group for funds to cover the dog when the dog goes to them because you have no idea which funds were donated or how the funds have had to be used including to pay someone wages for the time they put in on it etc or if the donor will receive a refund in due course.

[Plan B]

Example 100 people donate 10 dollars each and some are specific they want their 10 dollars to be used soley for one purpose and say $150 is used for that purpose - it may even be to pay for advertising for the dog etc. Who is going to identify which person's ten dollars was used for this purpose when only two of them wanted a tax receipt.

It doesn't really matter who wants a tax receipt, with DGR status. Receipts must be sent out to everyone when possible and donations are over $2.

If you can find someone who has a tax receipt which specifically says that X amount was donated to be used soley for one dog and if its not required for that dog they want a refund and any X amount wasn't you might have a case but if you spot something which you think isn't right in the accounts how on earth will you prove it?

I'm not talking about proving it. I'm merely stating what the conditions are. However, many dogs they raise money for, the funds incoming for a specific dog (or, appeal, as OLGR would put it) would far outweigh the outgoing costs of that dog's rescue. I think this is a reason they do not use chip-ins anymore, because the amount raised was transparent and there for people to see.

Have you heard from anyone who has evidence they made a donation for a specific dog and that they told them that if it wasnt needed for that dog they wanted it back? If you do How do you know that these specific people wont receive a refund when the accounts are done and all expenses calculated ?

Like I said, I was stating the conditions. If anyone did want their donation back because it was not used for the intended cause, then they would be well within their rights.

I don't think this avenue can be pursued, personally. Although it should be pointed out that Pound Rounds were operating as a group long before they incorporated, got authority to fundraise, or become DGR endorsed. One has to wonder what happened to all that money that is seemingly unaccounted for. And from those volunteers who saw the accounts before they left, at that time, that's a lot of money that nobody is asking about.

[Steve]

Example 100 people donate 10 dollars each and some are specific they want their 10 dollars to be used soley for one purpose and say $150 is used for that purpose - it may even be to pay for advertising for the dog etc. Who is going to identify which person's ten dollars was used for this purpose when only two of them wanted a tax receipt.

It doesn't really matter who wants a tax receipt, with DGR status. Receipts must be sent out to everyone when possible and donations are over $2.

Correct but many [most times] when funds are going in via bank deposits who put them in isnt obvious and trying to track them down and issue receipts is more often than not impossible - maybe they are issuing receipts with every donation - Ive no idea but unless the receipts are endorsed with "funds only to be used for toto and if excess funds are raised I request a refund of my donation" there is nothing to be done. Who is to say whether the funds were all used for advertising the dog etc - its still funds used for the dog.

If you can find someone who has a tax receipt which specifically says that X amount was donated to be used soley for one dog and if its not required for that dog they want a refund and any X amount wasn't you might have a case but if you spot something which you think isn't right in the accounts how on earth will you prove it?

I'm not talking about proving it. I'm merely stating what the conditions are. However, many dogs they raise money for, the funds incoming for a specific dog (or, appeal, as OLGR would put it) would far outweigh the outgoing costs of that dog's rescue. I think this is a reason they do not use chip-ins anymore, because the amount raised was transparent and there for people to see.

I understand you're not talking about proving it but if people are wanting to look at the accounts whats the point if what they think is happening cant be proven? We all may think they are getting in more than they need for a specific dog but no one can know if they are breaching the conditions or not.

Have you heard from anyone who has evidence they made a donation for a specific dog and that they told them that if it wasnt needed for that dog they wanted it back? If you do How do you know that these specific people wont receive a refund when the accounts are done and all expenses calculated ?

Like I said, I was stating the conditions. If anyone did want their donation back because it was not used for the intended cause, then they would be well within their rights.

I agree they would have every right to ask for it back if they could prove that THEIR donation wasnt used for the dog but how is that possible ? How could they identify what was their ten dollars or someone else's?

I don't think this avenue can be pursued, personally. Although it should be pointed out that Pound Rounds were operating as a group long before they incorporated, got authority to fundraise, or become DGR endorsed. One has to wonder what happened to all that money that is seemingly unaccounted for. And from those volunteers who saw the accounts before they left, at that time, that's a lot of money that nobody is asking about.

Agreed but whether its auditored or not a donation is a donation and if someone had evidence that they took a donation under false pretenses they have the same ability to go after them whether they have DGR status or not - the same could be said for numerous rescue groups which have not incorporated or which have opted not to have DGR status which never even keep books.But its even harder to prove because its a no paper trail.

[Plan B]

I agree with you, Steve, on most points.

Sadly, it's an incredibly hard thing to pursue and, even if successful in narrowing down anything, it would take an incredibly long time. This avenue is the hardest one to go down.

But considering recent events involving the head honcho, it looks like they will at least either face the music or have to buck up their ideas. Either one is fine with me.

Edited January 19, 2013 by Plan B

[Steve]

I agree with you, Steve, on most points.

Sadly, it's an incredibly hard thing to pursue and, even if successful in narrowing down anything, it would take an incredibly long time. This avenue is the hardest one to go down.

But considering recent events involving the head honcho, it looks like they will at least either face the music or have to buck up their ideas. Either one is fine with me.

Yep but I still think that they are simply working within a system which makes it possible and while what PR are doing may have put a greater focus on it - its still the pound who are allowing dogs out to anyone who puts their hand up without proper assessment and without screening those taking them.

[Plan B]

Yep but I still think that they are simply working within a system which makes it possible and while what PR are doing may have put a greater focus on it - its still the pound who are allowing dogs out to anyone who puts their hand up without proper assessment and without screening those taking them.

Oh definitely. I wouldn't dispute that. I do think that just because a system allows for it, it doesn't mean it should happen (as I know you would too).

And the pounds didn't make them do anything that the RSPCA are currently investigating them for.

[tdierikx]

Does anyone know how many dogs their kennel facility actually has... or how many it has the space for?

T.

[Steve]

Yep but I still think that they are simply working within a system which makes it possible and while what PR are doing may have put a greater focus on it - its still the pound who are allowing dogs out to anyone who puts their hand up without proper assessment and without screening those taking them.

Oh definitely. I wouldn't dispute that. I do think that just because a system allows for it, it doesn't mean it should happen (as I know you would too).

And the pounds didn't make them do anything that the RSPCA are currently investigating them for.

I believe if rescue in general is to have a future and be the growth industry which it could be and really bring down euthanasia rates forever, across the board for the future its going to take in part a deliberate strategy plan and third party accountability.

Im very reluctant to push for law changes for several reasons mainly because I dont believe its what is best for the dogs and without law changes there will always be people or groups like PR with their philosophy who believe what they are doing is a good thing and what is an acceptable model to save dogs even though they are aware that there are greater risk factors involved.

These are discussions we are having in a different place to this forum where all people with an interest in the future of canine rescue are welcome to participate and work on some real strategy plans. Happy to direct you there if you have anything you would like to contribute.