Zoo Chief’s Firing--Was It Samson? : Action Blasted, Legal Fight Is On

Warren D. Thomas, the deposed director of the Los Angeles Zoo, isn’t certain what did him in, but Samson, a handsome bull elephant who turned out to be a bust with the ladies, is as good a potential culprit as any.

Samson, who grew more and more ornery as his failures to sire offspring multiplied, has found peace, at last--buried beneath the plains of west Texas.

Now, Thomas fears that his career as one of the nation’s leading zoo directors might just as well be interred there, too.

The 55-year-old veterinarian, fired in June after 12 years in his $73,000-a-year post, is in the early stages of what may turn out to be a long legal battle to regain his job and salvage his professional reputation. He went to Los Angeles federal court last week to get a temporary restraining order to block the city’s plan to name a successor.

That request was turned down, but U.S. District Judge William J. Rea indicated that Thomas may have been improperly fired and scheduled another hearing on the suit for July 15.

City Hall Officials Warned

Rea warned City Hall officials that if they went ahead and hired a new director, they might find themselves with two zoo chiefs, both of them suing the city.

Meanwhile, Thomas’ firing angered officials of the Greater Los Angeles Zoo Assn., the nonprofit corporation whose members help finance and run the facility.

Association President Marcia Wilson Hobbs said last week that board members had unanimously voted to condemn the action.

“We feel the termination of Dr. Thomas was procedurally precipitous, substantially unwise, and not in the best interest of the zoo and people of Los Angeles,” she said.

And, in statements filed by Thomas’ attorneys in support of their legal actions, other leaders of the nation’s fraternity of zoo administrators have rushed to the former director’s defense.

‘Admirable Competence’

William Conway, director of New York’s Bronx Zoo, praised Thomas’ “admirable competence” as well as his “professionalism” in managing the loaning of animals for breeding purposes between the two zoos.

Warren Illif, director of the Dallas Zoo, said he was “shocked and disappointed” by the dismissal, adding: “It is well known throughout . . . professional circles . . . that the reputation of the Los Angeles Zoo has improved greatly under the leadership and guidance of Warren Thomas.”

Robert Wagner, executive director of the American Assn. of Zoological Parks and Aquariums (which represents more than 4,500 individuals and 150 zoos and aquariums), said that Thomas had improved what was once “a less than outstanding” zoo. It is now “one of the finest zoological parks in existence today.”

Why, then, was Thomas canned?

City Department of Parks and Recreation General Manager James E. Hadaway, citing Thomas’ legal action, has declined to comment on the dismissal beyond his original statement last month that the zoo director had failed to solve “a series of internal problems.”

Nor will Anton Calleia--a top aide to Mayor Tom Bradley, who sat in on Hadaway’s final meeting with Thomas--comment.

‘Set Things in Motion’

But Sheldon Jensen, department assistant general manager and Thomas’ immediate superior, has been reported as pointing to the Samson case as the incident that “set things in motion.” According to Thomas--who is talking to the news media, though guardedly--and court records, the Samson incident was just the latest in a series of run-ins with Hadaway, who, Thomas said, simply does not trust him.

Thomas, in court documents, pointed to a Dec. 19, 1985, meeting in which he and Hadaway discussed the acquisition of $750,000 worth of exotic animals from a South African Zoo, the government of Indonesia and the private stock of Mobutu Sese Seko, the president of Zaire.

The fired director claimed that Hadaway said “zoo directors are known to augment their salaries with side deals.”

Thomas said he immediately told Hadaway: “I have never taken a dime in terms of a side arrangement, or kickbacks, or anything else in my entire professional career and I am appalled that you should even suggest such a thing.”

Bothered by Statement

Hadaway then stated that he was not making a direct accusation, but insisted that kickbacks are “well known in the profession.”

That discussion, more than seven months ago, still bothers Thomas.

In an interview last week, he said: “In defense of myself and in defense of my colleagues, I don’t know of that condition (kickbacks) existing in the zoo world and I’ve certainly never done it myself. I’ve never taken a damn dime.”

With the exception of an incident in Detroit a few years ago in which, said Thomas, a zoo official was fired for allegedly taking a kickback on an animal transaction, “. . . the zoo world is pretty clean. However, where there is an awful lot of animals worth an awful lot of money and the zoo director is a high-profile public figure, it is easy to say there’s something going on there.”

Thomas termed that kind of talk about him and other zoo chiefs “gossip.”

Elephant Transaction

The Samson transaction took place around the time of the Thomas-Hadaway discussion of kickbacks.

Samson, an African elephant, was acquired in 1981 at the age of 15 as a breeding animal. He was a failure; not one female mated to Samson conceived.

When Samson became progressively more cantankerous and difficult to handle, Thomas and other zoo officials decided that he should go.

They worked out an agreement with a Florida-based animal dealer, wherein the zoo was to trade Samson and a 16-year-old female Asian elephant named Joyce for two other elephants and $20,000 in cash.

Thomas says now that the paper work on the deal was mishandled by a subordinate who failed to include a disclaimer that the transaction was contingent on approval by the commissioners of the Department of Parks and Recreation.

Reason for Dismissal

Samson was transferred before board approval was given and without the disclaimer, a mistake that Hadaway later gave Thomas as one of the reasons for his dismissal.

Samson was sedated by a zoo vet and loaded into the animal dealer’s truck on March 31. There were problems with the sedation, according to court documents, and a veterinarian had to give the elephant a drug to partially counter the sedative. Samson died en route to his new home.

Thomas, angered by the animal dealer’s failure to perform a necropsy to find the cause of death, refused to hand over Joyce. The dealer’s lawyer wrote city officials, threatening to sue unless Joyce was surrendered as called for in the contract.

Asked last week if the death of Samson and the bungled contract clause could have been the main reason for his dismissal, Thomas declined to comment, saying: “I can’t answer that because I’ve got a court case pending. . . . My lawyers will threaten me with great bodily harm.”

Zoo Had an Obligation

However, Thomas stressed that though Samson “was essentially out of our hands and out of our control” when he died, the zoo had an obligation to protect Joyce.

“Every zoo has not only an obligation to the animals in its care, but an obligation that when they leave they go into responsible hands,” he said. The zoo must make sure the animal dealer is “a responsible individual.”

Mark E. Goodfriend, a Century City attorney representing Melbourne, Fla., animal dealer Gary Jacobson, said last week that he could not comment because he is now negotiating Joyce’s status with the city attorney’s office. Thomas said that at last report, Joyce remains at the Los Angeles Zoo.

There may have been another point of contention between Thomas and Hadaway. Thomas has been generally supportive of a proposal that would transfer control of the zoo from the city’s Parks and Recreation Department to the zoo association.

Proposal Made 2 Years Ago

Hobbs, the association president, said the proposal was first made by the city’s chief administrative officer two years ago. She said Thomas “seems supportive of the concept.”

Asked if that could be a source of Thomas’ problems with Hadaway, she replied, “That’s an interesting question.”

When Thomas was asked if his support of the proposal could have caused some of his difficulties, he would only say that he had “discussed that at length with all of my superiors. . . . You’ll have to ask them.”

Thomas, however, was more than willing to talk about the idea of the association taking over control of the zoo:

“If you look at almost every major zoo in the United States, the largest, more successful zoos like San Diego and the Bronx Zoo . . . generally start out as a municipal entity until the time comes when the zoo is so big and complex that it is difficult for the city to fund and operate.

Career Hangs in Balance

“They reach a point where an agreement is negotiated between the city and a zoo society. The city continues to provide a certain level of financial support, but it becomes the responsibility of the society to continue improvement of the zoo. That happened in San Diego 70 years ago.”

Hobbs argued that the time may have come in Los Angeles.

“They (Parks and Recreation) have over 300 facilities and the zoo, itself, is kind of like a small city that has become a very complicated and difficult operation.”

Whether the question of control of the zoo has anything to do with Thomas’ firing remains unclear. As does Thomas’ fate.

He said the legal battle, now in its early stages, is crucial.

“My professional career hangs in the balance,” Thomas said. “I’ve got to clear my name.”