Zoo: Go for the Best
Pity the poor Los Angeles Zoo. While it is generally acknowledged to be one of the best in the nation, its reputation pales in comparison to the famous San Diego Zoo just a few miles south. Now its standing may be further weakened by the recent controversial firing of its former director, Warren Thomas.
It would be easier to comment on Thomas’ abrupt dismissal in June by James E. Hadaway, general manager of the city’s Department of Recreation and Parks, if more information had been made public on the matter. Unfortunately, Hadaway announced his decision with a bare minimum of detail, saying that it followed a disciplinary hearing and was the culmination of “continuous internal problems at the zoo” in recent years.
Thomas then sued, demanding to be reinstated in the zoo director’s job and asking the court to prevent the city from hiring another zoo director until the matter is settled. City attorneys have told Hadaway to say no more because of the pending litigation, so public discussion of Thomas’ firing has unfortunately become largely a matter of speculation and gossip.
Thomas’ detractors point to the criticism of his management of the zoo two years ago in an audit by the city’s chief administrative officer. They suggest that although Thomas, a veterinarian, might be a fine zoologist, he was a poor administrator. His supporters, on the other hand, play up his good reputation as a scientist. They say that he got into hot water precisely because he was not a bureaucrat.
In all fairness to Thomas, the last few years at the Los Angeles Zoo have not been marked only by trouble. There have been bright spots like the successful drive to build a new koala house in 1983, the special panda exhibit that coincided with the 1984 Olympic Games, and the recent construction of a new children’s zoo. The Los Angeles Zoo is making progress, and zoo experts nationally give Thomas credit for that. So does the Greater Los Angeles Zoo Assn., the nonprofit corporation whose members and volunteers help support and run the zoo.
Yet even the zoo’s biggest boosters admit that it’s not as good as it could be. As almost anyone who has visited the San Diego Zoo will tell you, the Los Angeles Zoo is not in the same league. The reason for that may be less poor management than outdated management. The chief administrative officer’s review in 1984 pointed out that the zoo could benefit if its management and control were transferred from the city to a private, non- profit zoo society. That is how virtually every well-known municipal zoo in the country, including San Diego’s and the Bronx Zoo in New York City, is run. City officials have not followed up on that suggestion.
In 1985 the zoo association studied the possibility of taking over the zoo, and submitted a discussion paper outlining a possible management plan. The paper was turned down by the city, however. The association plan envisioned the group’s managing the zoo, with the city providing personnel and paying most operating costs. The arrangement was clearly too one-sided and raised too many questions about personnel matters and liability to be readily accepted by the city. But the discussions should not have ended there. The zoo association and city officials should go back to the drawing board until they devise a mutually acceptable plan to begin getting the Los Angeles Zoo into step with other zoological parks around the nation.
Rather than lying low while the Thomas controversy plays itself out, Mayor Tom Bradley and other public officials who can affect the zoo’s future should use the public attention that they have right now to move forward with efforts to redefine that future. If they do, Thomas’ firing, however it is resolved, will have served a beneficial purpose--helping move the Los Angeles Zoo from being very good toward being the very best.
