Inquiry at Zoo Finds Training Irregularities

A preliminary investigation into a state-paid job retraining course at the San Diego Zoo and Wild Animal Park has uncovered enough evidence of fraud to warrant interviews with the rest of the zookeepers who took the classes to determine if they also falsified work assignments, a state report said Tuesday.

The report, issued by the state’s Employment Training Panel, states that no proof was found that zoo administrators encouraged or coerced employees to falsify the assignments, as some of the animal keepers have alleged.

But the report raised serious questions about whether the administrators adequately supervised the zookeeper retraining--questions that still may lead to the state demanding partial repayment of the $621,600 contract. The report also found that the zoo improperly billed the state for putting gardeners and maintenance personnel through the zookeeper courses.

Officials from the ETP, a state agency charged with reducing joblessness, said their report is just the first step in a thorough examination of the zoo program, which was authorized under a 1989 contract. In addition to interviews cited in the report, state auditors are also combing through documents and time sheets at the zoo pertaining to the retraining classes.

“This is just our first attempt,” Robert Nall, the ETP’s manager of monitoring, said about Tuesday’s report. “I think we need to get to some issues that we have uncovered and other issues that we have identified.”

However, the president of the union that represents the zookeepers said the state would find it difficult to continue its interviews of zoo employees unless it grants immunity from potential criminal prosecution.

“How can you go back to talk to people if you don’t grant immunity,” said Michael Nester, a 17-year-veteran keeper and president of Teamsters Local 481, which represents employees who went through the program. Nester warned zoo officials in a letter last year that more than half of the keepers were cutting corners on their homework assignments.

He said keepers are especially skittish now in light of a letter sent last month to each union member warning them that they faced possible prosecution if they told of fraud, even if it was done at the orders of their supervisors.

A spokesman for the zoo said he was “pleased” with the preliminary ETP findings, especially the finding absolving zoo administrators from having any hand in the falsified work assignments.

“I think the report points out that we have a problem with a few people, and not a problem with the program,” Jeff Jouett said. “It is encouraging in that respect, that it validates our faith in our keeper training program. There’s no hint of zoo misconduct, much less fraud.”

The report comes less than a month after the ETP announced it would suspend $132,275 in payments to the zoo and begin an investigation into the retraining program in response to inquiries from The Times about reports that zookeepers were encouraged--sometimes coerced--by their supervisors to falsify on-the-job assignments under the retraining contract.

The Zoological Society of San Diego sought the contract to establish a retraining program for the nonprofit organization’s 168 animal keepers, who work at the world-famous zoo in Balboa Park and the 1,800-acre Wild Animal Park near Escondido.

The society told the state that the retraining was necessary to prevent the layoff of its entire animal keeper force, and it proposed a 37-week course consisting of 142 hours of classroom instruction and 332 hours of on-the-job exercises. In turn, the ETP agreed to pay $3,700 for each of the 168 keepers who completed the retraining.

Tuesday’s report was based on interviews last month with 37 of the keepers and supervisors who participated in the retraining program. Those interviewed had zoo experience ranging from two to 29 years, and most were college graduates.

Only four said they were aware that they faced unemployment if they did not take the training course, the report said.

About half said they felt the retraining was good, but the report also documented many complaints about the zoo program, which was mandatory for all keepers.

“Many of the retrainees expressed serious concern about the caliber of and the need for the training they were receiving,” the report said. “Combined with a strong commitment to the care of their animals, these concerns caused the keepers to become frustrated.”

Five keepers were so frustrated that they admitted to falsifying on-the-job work assignments, the report said. Those who cheated on the assignments--called “homework” by the zookeepers--felt “justified in their actions” because they thought the exercises were of dubious value or cut into their normal working duties at the zoo, said the report.

One woman zookeeper confessed to falsifying 100 hours of the retraining homework after her supervisor handed her a computer printout of classes and asked her to “fit in” the required hours of accompanying homework by the next day.

“This retrainee concluded that, since there are only 24 hours in a day, that the (zoo) expected her to falsify the information and she did,” the report said. “However, from the statement made by this retrainee, it is still not clear if the supervisor was actually asking her to document incorrect hours, or if the supervisor believed that the trainee had already completed the exercises.”

The ETP report recommends no reimbursing of the zoo for the five employees--amounting to $18,500--and broadening the investigation to ascertain who among the remaining 131 keepers also falsified work assignments.

Peter DeMauro, the ETP’s general counsel, said such a step is likely.

The report “shows some verification that there was fraudulent documentations, but frankly not a lot,” DeMauro said. “But it is probably going to necessitate us talking to the rest of the trainees to determine the scope of that.”

Although the report also says zoo administrators “must have been aware that the possibility of falsification existed in view of the continual problems and questions regarding” the assignments, it concludes that there is no evidence that zoo administrators had actual knowledge of the falsified homework.

Instead, the report found that zoo supervisors spent as little as five minutes a week making sure that keepers completed their homework assignments. Such lax supervision fell short of state standards, but the ETP report still concluded that zoo administrators did an adequate job of monitoring the homework assignment. Despite that, the report suggests an audit to see if the money paid to the zoo for homework supervision can be “validated.”

DeMauro said Tuesday that the questions of lax supervision “continues to be an issue” in the probe and acknowledged that it could still lead to the zoo forfeiting about half of the $621,600 it is due under the contract.

The report also concluded that the zoo should not be paid for five other employees who went through the course even though they are not classified as zookeepers. Investigators found the zoo asked for payment for one gardener, two groundskeepers and two maintenance workers.

Zoo administrators said their training was justified because the non-keepers were part of employee “teams” assigned to bioclimatic zones such as Tiger River, where several species of animals roam in exotic climates. The training may have been helpful, ETP monitors concluded, but the non-keepers were ineligible for state reimbursement under the training program.