Citizens Panel Backs Fired Zoo Chief, Urges His Reinstatement

Former Los Angeles Zoo Director Warren D. Thomas, fired last June from his $73,000-a-year job, should be reinstated because his superiors failed to show “just cause” in terminating him, a citizens panel recommended Friday.

The three-member panel, created by the city Department of Recreation and Parks to hear Thomas’ case under order of a federal judge, said that instead of being fired, Thomas should be suspended without pay for 20 days.

The panel, in effect, found Thomas guilty as charged by the city on five counts of improprieties, including appropriating for his personal use antihistamines and film purchased by the city, as well as using racial epithets in referring to minority employees.

But the panel declared unsustained seven other charges brought by the city, most of which also involved his alleged use of city property and personnel for personal gain.

Thomas’ superiors gave the zoo director only “a perfunctory hearing” June 3 before firing him, the tribunal ruled. It found that the hearing by department General Manager James E. Hadaway and two of his top assistants was “hasty” and “hostile.”

The panel, composed of former Police Commissioner Riva Tooley, retired businessman Jack Privett and lawyer James F. Vernon, praised Thomas’ performance over the years, citing his “considerable” accomplishments as zoo director and attributed his current problems to “a basic, fundamental personality conflict” with Hadaway.

‘Does Not Justify Discharge’

“A personality conflict does not justify discharge,” the panel concluded.

After the decision, which goes to the Recreation and Park Department Commission for approval, Thomas said he thought “justice has been done. The L.A. Zoo is back in the hands it should be in. The bottom line is that what I felt was an improper action has been rectified.”

However, Hadaway said he stood by his original decision to fire Thomas and is “disappointed that all of the charges . . . were not sustained.”

“If people steal in this department, we fire them,” Hadaway told reporters. “I feel those five charges that were sustained are sufficient grounds for dismissal.”

Hadaway said he will consult with the city attorney’s office next week and then meet with Mayor Tom Bradley, Personnel Department General Manager John J. Driscoll, and Recreation and Parks Department Commission Chairman William R. Robertson before deciding on whether to give Thomas his job back.

The problem, Hadaway said, is that the tribunal’s decision, if ratified by the commission, might set a precedent limiting the city’s rights to fire exempt employes, such as Thomas, who are not covered by Civil Service rules. Hadaway and the city attorney’s office have argued that exempt employees serve at the pleasure of department heads.

One of Thomas’ lawyers, Gloria Allred, said she would, if need be, return to federal court next week to ask U.S. District Judge William J. Rea to order the zoo director’s immediate reinstatement.

Rea on July 22 granted Thomas a preliminary injunction directing the department to provide the zoo director a full and fair hearing by an independent tribunal. A month later, the panel had yet to be named, and Rea found the city in contempt of court and imposed a $100-a-day fine for the delay. The total fine amounted to about $1,500, department officials said Friday.

Suit in Abeyance

Thomas originally went to federal court June 25, seeking reinstatement on the grounds that he had been denied due process of law because he was not given a meaningful opportunity to contest his discharge. He also sought unspecified compensatory and punitive damages. The suit has been in abeyance pending the tribunal’s findings.

Deputy city attorneys, representing Hadaway and the department, argued that Thomas served at Hadaway’s pleasure. They said that Hadaway, having lost confidence over the years in Thomas’ administrative abilities, was within his rights to fire him.

In three weeks of argument before the panel, the city successfully pressed five charges that Thomas:

- Failed to make sure subordinates properly complied with the paper work procedures for animal transfers. The panel found that Thomas tried, but not hard enough, to get subordinates to do their jobs properly.

- Obtained 23 bottles of Benadryl, an antihistamine, through the zoo veterinarian for his own personal use and did not adequately reimburse the city. The panel indicated that it thought that Thomas assumed he had paid for the antihistamine when he had not and thus had failed in his administrative responsibilities, though, in the words of the panel’s report, “a relatively small amount of money” was involved.

- Failed to properly oversee the return of an elephant named Samson to the original sellers after the animal proved to be unproductive at stud. The panel termed this “a management failure “ by Thomas.

- Used city-purchased film and film processing for his personal use. The panel concurred but said most of the pictures taken by Thomas were actually used to promote the interests of the zoo.

- Referred to one Asian woman employee as “the yellow peril” and a Latino male employee as the zoo’s “resident Puerto Rican.” The panel decided that Thomas actually had a good relationship with the two and employed the terms in a joking manner, but found the public use of the terms by a city administrator in violation of city policy.

The panel vindicated Thomas on seven other charges that he:

- Lied to Hadaway at the June 3 hearing about the number of animal transfers done without proper paper work. The tribunal thought it was understandable that, given the “hasty” and “hostile” nature of the hearing called by Hadaway, Thomas had not mentioned a large number of mishandled transfers.

- Instructed the zoo veterinary staff to treat pets of employees without charge. The panel decided that this was an on-going perquisite of zoo employees that had “the tacit approval” of Thomas’ superiors.

- Was insubordinate to Hadaway by failing to comply with a direct order that certain employees at the zoo work only those assignments described in their Civil Service classifications. The tribunal decided that it could not consider Thomas insubordinate since there was no written record of a complaint by his superiors over a period of four years.

- Ordered a zoo employee to cut the branches of a fallen tree into firewood and place them in the trunk of the director’s car for personal use. Judging from the evidence, the validity of this charge remained unproven, the panel ruled.

- Required excessive supervision by Hadaway and his top assistants. The panel said what it saw from the evidence was a personality clash between the two men due to Thomas’ “strong personality” and his occasional cutting of “administrative corners.”

- Told an employee to cut city-owned railroad ties for his personal use. The panel concluded that this charge was based on hearsay and had no validity.

- Had his secretary type two letters on zoo stationery seeking reimbursement for services and travel expenses in connection with a private consulting contract with a Taiwan zoo. The tribunal found the communications to be related to Thomas’ official responsibilities as zoo director.