Flagler Humane Society Board Members Brazenly Reproach City and County Officials’ Push for Accountability

Palm Coast and county government contract with the Flagler Humane Society for sheltering and, for the county, animal control services. The contracts are not a small part of the society’s $3 million budget–$300,000 from the county, and $40 to $95 per animal the city sends to the shelter. 

Palm Coast council members and county commissioners, meeting jointly earlier this week to discuss their long-frayed relationship with the society, have been dissatisfied with what they see as poor accountability and transparency at the non-profit, and not enough oversight by the governments. 




The governments are seeking stronger representation on the society’s board, whether voting or non-voting. They want more detailed intake and outcome reports from the society (what animals are coming in, what their disposition is). They want an anti-nepotism clause added to the bylaws, and an anti-conflict-of-interest clause added. And they want a capital improvement plan. 

The county and city officials agreed at last Monday’s meeting to extend their contracts with the society for a year. The extension amounts to a probation period. The officials want to see to what extent the society will abide by their demands. The county will also be exploring creating its own animal control department, or contracting jointly with Palm Coast for those services. Palm Coast has its own department. 

The society has been on the defensive. During a discussion with the council previously, the shelter’s director, Amy Carotenuto, startled officials when she said bylaws would not be made available to them, a position she attributed to legal advice. Faced with stunned officials, Carotenuto soon reversed and emailed the bylaws. 

At last Monday’s workshop, it was a pair opf society board members who took on the officials in startling terms. 




“I find it kind of ironic,” Society Board member Linda Lester told the officials, “that you want members of the city and the county on our board, and that doesn’t create a conflict of interest? According to our records and our handbook and our bylaws, a conflict of interest exists when a board member has a personal or professional interest that may influence him or her when deciding for the organization. Clearly, you’re representing the city and the county, and that will factor into any decision you make while you’re on our board. Humane Society will not be your priority. That’s what a conflict of interest is in my idea.”

She was wrong on every count. But she also disputed the official’s interpretation of “nepotism,”  a term she finds inapplicable on an all-volunteer board. “Also, it’s illegal for a government agency, any government agency, to ask the question about who’s married to whom,” she told the officials. “So you might want to check with your attorneys before you follow that path.”

City Council member Theresa Pontieri immediately rejected the conflict-of-interest suggestion, considering the hundreds of thousands of tax dollars at stake. Lester pressed on. 

“I’m sure you have contracts with builders and everybody else,” Lester said. “Are you on their boards? No, and you’re spending millions of dollars on those things. So I welcome your participation, but to have a vote, to me, when we have a contract with you,” that is clearly a conflict, she said.




Not quite, Dance said. “I’m a little more taken aback by the tone that it’s not permissible,” he told Lester, explaining that government officials routinely sit on nonprofit boards and when there are conflicts in votes, fill out a form and explain their abstention. 

Lester’s spouse, Richard, was none too gracious either when he lectured–if not hectored–the officials about doing their “due diligence” as he asked: “How many of you people have come to the shelter and seen things eye to eye? When I served a position and it came up in my city, I went and checked it out. I didn’t look at paperwork.” (Some of the council members have toured the facility.) 

The tone made Pennington’s point: “I’m a little taken aback,” the commissioner said. “It’s always just been a hostile relationship to where–I understand needing expansion and growth. I would like to help. But I don’t know if you’re always the right partner, because of the hostility and the lack of transparency. Your marketing director attacked me online when I shared Cracker Day, and accused all the ranchers of being animal abusers. I don’t know. I don’t know what’s going on.” She spoke of pragmatic improvements that could be carried out, but “I feel like we’re never going to get there because we lack transparency with each other and common courtesy. So that’s just how I get there every time in these meetings.”

There’s been a few such meetings over the past 18 months. “Every time we try to go down the right foot, we kind of get back here,” Pontieri said. 




Linda Lester returned to the lectern to walk back what she’d said about nepotism and conflicts of interest: she had learned, apparently from the same attorney she claimed had told her otherwise before, that her position had been inaccurate. But the misstep reflected the shoot-first, correct-later approach that has at times characterized the society’s relationship with the city and the county. 

“There’s always a fight,” Council member Ty Miller said, recalling how the society’s pushback on bylaws or nepotism proved inaccurate. “Then you turn around and say, we’ve always been an open book. And that doesn’t seem to be the case for me.” 

He later noted the contradictions in the shelter supporter’s approach: they want money, and they don’t want the contract with the city or its strictures. “There’s continually been this tone, and it was specific in the last city meeting that we had, that we’d be better off without this contract with Palm Coast,” Miller said. “And then the ask is more investment. And so that makes me sit back and pause. So what is the ask here? More investment, or not the contract? Or what? It’s confusing.”

A shelter supporter saw it differently: “You guys put the shelter on the defensive with your tone towards them,” he said, “and they act very defensive, which in turn fuels more, seems like,  hostility towards one another.” 




Several shelter supporters had kinder, less polemical words directed at Carotenuto and shelter operations, describing the breadth and quality of the work conducted there. Others had more critical perspectives. 

But County Commission Chair Andy Dance’s concerns framed the two-hour discussion. “There’s an expectation that things should have been operating a certain way. But over the past year, a lot of things have come to light,” Dance said. “Part of my concerns too, is under the current leadership, is there a vote of confidence moving forward in the current structure?” He was willing to hear the society’s case, but “I don’t know that I have that vote of confidence moving forward, and have to be convinced that existing leadership can carry out those goals.”

Those concerns were not quite addressed at the workshop, even as council and commission officials agreed that cooperation and transparency were essential. “What we do know is that we need to strengthen oversight of public funds,” Palm Coast Chief of Staff Jason DeLorenzo said. “Staff has heard that loud and clear over the last year or so, and we propose several contract changes.” 

Carotenuto offered yet another defense of the shelter. “There’s a lot of misinformation out there, and I feel like we’re playing whack-a-mole, trying to get the truth out there,” she said. For example, the money the society gets from the governments for per-animal care “doesn’t come anywhere close to what our actual costs are.” Some 75 percent of those costs are assumed by the society, not the government contracts, she said. 

As for in-house expertise (another concern by officials), Carotenuto said the society has a veterinarian on staff and three additional ones who work with the society, with five days a week coverage. Carotenuto has been doing the job since her 20s. She’s been with the society since 1990. All the society’s animal control officers are in continuing education, “getting more training, more expertise.” 

“As far as reporting: open book. Anything we’re asked to provide, we provide,” Carotenuto said, including the by-laws. If the officials want more details, they’re available, including outcomes–what happens to the animals after they’re brought to the shelter, like the 94 percent live-release rate. “I can give you the last 10-12 years, if you’d like that, but I’ll definitely start providing that with each month,” she said.