Below is my response to the Letter from the San Francisco Zoological Society Board Chairman David Stanton. It includes much stuff I have detailed in previous posts but also stuff that I didn't post as I didn't want to make all the evidence that I had gathered public so that in the final stages Management could create more untruths to counter that information. It is long, detailed and honest. Some may say I'm long winded but you can't say I'm not passionate and I haven't fought this battle for justice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11.5.11
Mr. Stanton,
You are probably surprised to receive my reply at this time, as it has been a couple months since your correspondence. The anguish of these outrageous claims and the action taken, makes it something I don't want to deal with, but for the same reasons I must. I will not give up seeking justice for myself and my friend Lee.
When I received your response to my letter, I was frankly offended and appalled. There are many things to say in the matter and I formed a reply that was a mini novel. Unfortunately after sitting on it, it must remain that length. As well, in that time I have gotten yet more information that supports not only my theory of "why", but also the growing dissatisfaction of a majority of the Staff. It may seem the information you have been given makes us out to be menaces and unliked, when that is not true. Yes there are many small minded people among the Staff who are followers and cowards and will listen to heresay, but there are also smart ones who don't let here-say alter how they treat people. So, I still have the ear of many and vice-versa. After reading my reply in full you will see that there is much going on there that you are not aware of. I have heard that some of the treatment Staff has been subjected to is finally being brought to the Board by the six Staff Members who are City Employee's and safe from the firing squad. I think Tanya's firing of Roger Hoppes was a major catalyst.
September 8, 2011
Mr. Stanton,
I will start by thanking you for your correspondence. It will not be my intention to come off sarcastic, but as I counter some of the things you have written, you must understand that having to continually try to seek justice after being slandered, frustration does invoke, and a certain tone is unavoidable.
This situation has gone on for almost seven months. It has been mentally and emotionally time consuming to battle the lies. I have spent too much time and energy, on behalf of myself and my friend Lee (who also had her Membership revoked without reason given), documenting everything, writing letters, ect. Just to get justice. Its an insane thing to have to go through, when you did nothing wrong. No one should have such things said about them, that goes against the truth of their passion. I love the Zoo Animals, all animals, more than people, so to have my reputation slandered as it has been is simply, a very big problem.
This experience has been insulting and hurtful. Its shameful that the Zoo, a place that as a native San Franciscan I have loved my whole life and have supported more than anything else over the past few years, has treated me in such a way, that it is no longer my happy place. If I wasn't so attached to the Animals that live there, I would never go back. I have the Zoo Management team to thank for ruining a lifelong memory.
I apologize for the length this will surely turn out to be, but I must refute these accusations and there is no short answer. As well, I am a person of detail, and being clear can't not be blunted.
Your opening statement states that you do not understand why I requested a direct reason be given, is very condescending. I'm offended that you think the courtesy of expecting a reason to come with my refund check (or after, when I asked in writing) is too much to ask for. Not to give a reason is unprofessional. I do not believe my having to seek reasons, is neither professional or my responsibility. I do have “communications” with Staff, but the information given from someone who was not involved in making this decision, is not to me considered an official word of reason. As well it should not be. This decision was made with direct initiative by Director Peterson, who should have then been the person to remit to me directly in writing an official reason. I should not have to hear it via a third party, and by that I mean PR (Lora LaMarca or Gwendolyn Tornatorre) giving reason to the Media (KGO) and Supervisor Representatives (Adam Taylor for Supervisor Scott Weiner) that I got involved. I will also note that the above referenced “communications” that I am referring to are the ones I had with those who referenced the revoking, not other random Staffers. Other random Staffers that I continue to have a good rapport with, wouldn't have this information. As well they know the truth and our character. They continually apologize for the Zoo Management's behavior and accusations. One has even said point blank, "Tanya has treated you like shit."
I found the tone of your whole letter to border on rude, in an already been tried and been proven guilty way. For someone who doesn't know me, and who has not been directly involved in any of this alleged behavior, you have made some pretty serious accusations as the (now) face of the situation. From what I've read about you, you must be a good businessman to be in the position you are. That considering, it would seem like you might want to not take everything told to you as truth and give the accused equal opportunity to be heard officially, as well as do some investigating on your own.
Before this letter even came into play. The two previous correspondence's I sent you, provided all the details and a request for an in-person meeting. I think its curious that Director Peterson fails to be directly involved in defending her reasoning initiative in writing (prior to or within this correspondence) or in person. She is the one who knows me. You have not been witness to any of the behavior I am being accused of. Let my accusers face me. In the mean-time, I will continue to address each of your bullet points in an attempt to be clear on the actual truths of the situation, since the accusing side has portrayed certain things in a questionable manner. That question being Why would we (I)? One post in the (my) blog I have referred you to details this as follows.
Why would Kim?
Who has:
-Been a Lifelong Visitor
-Been a Member most of Adult Life
-Since 2008 Visiting 3/4 times a week
-Adoptive Parent to Bairds Tapir Goober.
-Part of a group who donated to the Tatiana Memorial Bench.
-Became friendly with a majority of the Keepers and Staff.
-Did extensive online research, including reading every article posted in the sfgate.com archive on the San Francisco Zoo. Dating back ten years. & Read every Joint Zoo Committee Meeting Agenda and Minutes posted online from the past ten years. More research than most Zoo Staff, paid and volunteer.
-Responded to sfgate.com and yelp.com reader comments, in effort to educate and endear people to the San Francisco Zoo and its Residents. More outreach at the time than the Zoo's own Staff.
-Has numerous websites sharing information and Photos on the Zoo and the Animals. More than official San Francisco Zoo websites.
-Constantly interacted in person with Visitors, sharing my knowledge of the Zoo Animals.
-During most of 2010 Made Enrichment Toys for Big Cats and on occasion Bears.
-Organized a Memorial in honor of Tony (Siberian Tiger), for his Keepers and Friends, that consisted of his favorite meal Meatballs, and handout photo mementos.
-Made and provided handout photo mementos for Animal Birthdays.
-Made poster sized Birthday cards for the Big Cat Birthdays, that are still displayed in the Lion House office.
-Lent Primate Department (via Keeper Jill) videos for the Animals to watch. I offered to loan in rotation my Disney Collection. Never received the first two back. Its been over a year.
-Worked at Photo Booth, just to be working on Zoo grounds.
-Got Guard Card after being there so often and seeing horrible harassing of the Animals. I never wanted to be a Security Guard, but I was unemployed and felt I may have to, in order to protect the Animals, since the Guards working there weren't, but after new Company was hired, I felt secure they were doing a good job. That feeling has since changed.
Why would Lee?
Who has:
-Been a Member of many years.
-Is a Former San Francisco Zoo Docent
-Is a Former SFZOO Animal Parent in Adoption Program. Adopting upwards of 6-10 Animals per year.
-Has both arms filled with tattoo's of the Big Cats.
-Made Animal Photo Magnets and donated to Members Morning event for visitor take home mementos.
-Constantly interacted in person with visitors, sharing knowledge of the Zoo Animals, even after being forced to resign from Docent Program, after being abused by a higher level Docent.
-During most of 2010 Made Enrichment Toys for Big Cats and on occasion Bears.
-Organized a Memorial in honor of Tony (Siberian Tiger), for his Keepers and Friends, that consisted of his favorite meal Meatballs, and handout photo mementos.
-Was asked by the Zoo Director Tanya Peterson to speak at a meeting about the Memorial.
-Was asked by the Zoo Director Tanya Peterson to submit her Resume for possible job opportunity within the Fundraising Department.
-In 2010 Renewed Membership at Guardian Level ($1000. per year)
Why would either of us, do what the San Francisco Zoo Management is claiming we have done?
*To quote my statement in my emails to both Corrine and Tanya, that stated I didn’t "want a response" from them, is void in this situation. That was in reference to what was detailed within that individual correspondence. I was not interested in anymore correspondence with them, regarding anything to date. That date was January 24. I think revoking someone’s Membership weeks later, requires correspondence of reason. ... I will also note that even though I did request no response in that January 24 email, Tanya still sent one, and there was no negative tone to it.
I am sorry, but the information that you receive should not always be taken at face value. People spread untruths. There is injustice. Just because a peer says something, does not make it true. You are a businessman, I am sure you have a better checks and balance system in your business, than that of the Zoo. In fact, I approached you and Phil Ginsburg as outside parties, as I was under the impression that the Board and Park & Rec were the Zoo's checks and balance system so to speak, in that you were in the position to question curious things. Unfortunately it appears that is not true. That said and assumed, who are the ones to question what goes on there?
On September 23, 2010 I read an article in the Examiner titled, "Zoo Visitors Becoming an Endangered Species", in which then Park & Rec Committee Member Michael Sullivan was quoted "I don't know what it causing it." It prompted me to write an email to Mark Buell, as I could point out some things that are going on there that could be improved on and definitely make a difference in how the Zoo is perceived, which in turn boosts attendance. I got no reply. No response left me feeling like those words were then are just words and no one with the clout to make the Zoo be all it can be cares enough to really do anything beyond attend cocktail parties with their check books. I don't mean to be rude, but from the stand point of someone who is a member of the public and deeply cares about the Zoo thriving, so the Animals who call it home, have a home to live out their lives, this is how it appears.
Staffers won’t say things because they fear other Staffers and getting fired. If you work at the Zoo and want to keep your job, you must keep quiet. There are only so many facilities in the area for such a career. You might want to think about invoking a anonymous communication line between the Board and the Staff, because there is much that goes on that doesn't get past certain levels because of fear. What does get past, most times will not make it as far as the Board.
*I did hear via the third party Media and Government sources, that there were claims of "abusing" and your word “demeaning” Zoo Employees. Now you have added that my conduct was “disruptive and unsafe”. These are very serious accusations. You must provide details of who and what these individual accusations are, beyond calling Corrine a “fool”, which is neither abusive, demeaning, disruptive, or unsafe, in the sense that it was used.
I will go as far as apologizing for the use of the word "fool" in regard to the actions put forth towards us by Corrine. Your vocabulary may be farther reaching than mine, so please advise of a better word to describe someone who, not only has taken away an Enrichment option from the Animals (that Keepers expressed to her were necessary) and who in written correspondence gave us permission to make Enrichment Toys in a collective celebration for the Bears Birthdays, and then sent an email denying she ever gave such permission, after we spent approximately 30 hours each and our own money making these Toys. Keepers (four) under her who used our Enrichment toys all got a copy of the emails I have noted, so that it was proof that we did not go against what was agreed, as she was telling them we had. So yes, she did appear the "fool" to all involved. I just defended us and presented the proof. How it appeared, is in her actions of untruths.
I look forward to you remitting information regarding the other Staff Members who have made complaints against me. I hope as the face of this serious and as well slanderous statement you have been given these details. This will be interesting, because unless the place is laden with two-faced people, until we had our Memberships revoked, I had a good acquaintance relationship with all the Staff I knew, including Tanya, with the exception of Corrine. I will also note until a certain point, which I can only guess at, Corrine was even nice to me.
I have to say this is all started and appears is rooted with Corrine. There are even several Staffers that agree. She took some personal issue she had with us/me and made it reflective in the professional arena. In one conversation I had with her, it was clear she didn't like me questioning or stating my opinion (which I was told long ago by several Staffers that, Management didn’t like (opinions) and that they would try something), neither of which is a "Membership" offense. In that conversation, she went on to call (in front of witnesses) both Tanya and Dr Jackie, outright liars, and demean the professional status of Keeper Barb Palmer who works in her department and has years of experience in Animal Care above her. As well she has said that we made time demands regarding the Enrichment Toys, which are untrue. She said a Keeper complained to her, that is also untrue. With the Enrichment Toys, we dealt with four Keepers. All of whom never said such a thing. All of whom, rallied and begged for the Enrichments we made to continue. You can ask them personally. Barb Palmer, Debbie Marrin, Hilary, and Dave Carroll.
That said, at a time in mid 2010, when the Carnivore Curator switch went from Ingrid Russell-White to Corinne, Ingrid was moved into a head position in the newly formed Enrichment Committee. A full year and a half later, this Committee has yet to produce. I know for fact that while Lee and I were making weekly Enrichment toys for the Big Cats, that Carnivore Keepers continually requested items and never got them. So much so that I personally received a call on my cell phone from two Keepers (Deb Cano and Debbie Marrin) requesting to place an "emergency Enrichment order", to supplement what little they had for the Zoo sanctioned Teddy Bear Festival event. So, yes, after working 30 hours on Big Cat toys for our regular Saturday event, both Lee and I made enough Bear themed Enrichment Toys in less than 48 hours, so that there would be enough for each Bear (seven at the time) to have two items for both days of the Zoo's event. We're such horrible people. I will also note that aside from the four Keepers we dealt with, not one other person on Staff ever thanked us for the weekly Enrichments OR for helping with a Zoo event.
I was told by several people, that the Zoo doesn't like when people not on the payroll do jobs that Staff can do. Maybe this is part of the problem as well. Lee and I were actually doing something that someone was getting paid to do and not doing. We did it because we loved it and the joy it brought to not only the Animals, but the Keepers and Visitors.
Lee and I were asked to be an official part of both the Enrichment Committee (Summer 2010) and the Enrichment Program that was formed in October 2010 and facilitated through the Education Department in conjunction with Operations and Renew the Zoo. We declined because of politics.
*You state “often” I have stated that “I want no response”, I think I covered that earlier in noting that was in reference to a specific communication. Please remit more instances, as “often” twice does not make.
*You quote my words in an email to Tanya, “Nothing can be said to alter how I view and how I feel,...” In that correspondence I did not express dissatisfaction with my Membership, I expressed instances regarding treatment, which had nothing to do with my Membership (which only serves as an economical perk), but with my communicative relationship level with Tanya.
*OK, the big one. The incident at the Bear Grotto on February 5, is detailed very clearly in my blog. There is nothing in the Zoo version of the story that is accurate beyond, me detailing to several Staffers the timeline and reason for the call made by me and the one made by Lee. There was most certainly a visitor OVER the barrier. That is why Lee called. Just because the person obviously jumped back, they say there never was? That does not even make sense. We most certainly DID NOT say or “admit” to that call or any other, as being a false/prank call.
The only reason I even had a conversation with anyone about the calls is because (once again) they were obviously taken and dispatched wrong. I felt that this error needed to be identified to avoid future errors which could be true dire situations. I spoke out to help the Zoo and got crucified for it.
Please remit to me the name of the person who I used any words in the realm of "admit" or "false".
WHY would we make a false/prank call?
Also note that when the Bear Grotto offense was called in, we were wearing party hats! (In honor of Jahari the Lion's Birthday). Why would we call in a false call and stand in the middle of it all wearing party hats?
Also, WHY would we admit to it if we had? Isn't the nature of a prank call to be anonymous? If we wanted to do something like this, why do it on a day we were there? Why not call it in from home?
The accusation is ridiculous. This never happened.
There is obviously something else going on, that this untruth was formulated. I have two theories. Corinne complained to Tanya that she didn’t like us and so, this was formulated to make it so we were not able to economically visit as often, therefore not be in the mix of what’s going on there as much (because obviously from things I've stated, I do know what's going on there and have a rapport with many) OR (and most likely) because with the upcoming AZA certification in Safety (I believe within a couple weeks following), with the major faults that fell within the dispatch of those calls, saying there was no one over the barrier was better than the actual dispatch system faults being documented and coming to light. I document these faults in detail on my blog.
Additionally, I have been told on many occasions, by the head of Operations Deb Howe, that after that incident there was a major change in the way the ER line is handled. Some changes even one's I suggested to her. Who answers it, the information that is taken and how the information is taken and dispatched. So, if there were no faults (to invoke a need to blame someone) WHY would there be an immediate need to change the dispatch system? There wouldn't be. That is proof right there that our call was not the issue, the way it was dispatched was. ... Also, there was another call beside ours that is not being recognized, because documentation was not taken and they would be liable for that. They know us and know we made two of the calls, so we became the scapegoats. ... Recently while going over the incident again, something clicked and another point became an additional clear in our defense. When the Bear Keeper (Justin) that day came out, he went by us and I heard the Code Red go out over his radio, in a male voice. WHY would I have heard that, if the Code Red was called on Lee's call? For it to be on Lee's call it would have had to be BEFORE any of the Staff appeared on the scene. ... I was even told by a Staff member (upon hearing of our Membership revoking) who was at one of the post incident meetings that "It had nothing to do with the calls you made. The calls were dispatched wrong, went out on wrong channels and didn't even get to the appropriate people in time." This explains why I saw the target team with Dr Graham, enroute after we had left the Bear Grotto's and were already back near the Lion House. Its all sketchy and made-up to cover-up, because bottom line, a call was made reporting misbehavior, per the signage wording. Whether or not the offence was still in action when it was responded to, doesn't matter. It happened, it was reported and the problem fell and failed with how it was dispatched.
(added 11.5.11 ... The other two other calls that came in stating people over the barrier, were yet again confirmed by another Staffer. I was also told the reason the call was taken so severe was because a kid had gone over the barrier very recent prior to that.)
*This last bullet point makes no sense at all. It amazes me that no one within the Zoo organization can see that these accusations regarding this Bear Grotto incident do not even make sense.
The last thing I will say regarding this accusation is, I spoke with Head of Operations, Deb Howe (and Keeper Dave Carroll was with me as witness to what was said) after the third Party reasoning's came in. She point blank said, “I do not consider that call a prank call. But, no one listens to what I say.” I invite you to (as stated in an earlier paragraph) not take everything you (the Board) is told at face value and go to the Zoo on your own (without Management knowledge) and ask Deb Howe her opinion. Security is her department. Why is her opinion invalid? I had an in-depth conversation with her two days after the Bear Grotto incident, in which the calls being labeled prank/false never even came up. We discussed many things, including how the calls are handled and the faults in that system. She thanked me for always being "the eyes", since there isn't enough Staff/Security out there. AND since, as recent as a couple weeks ago, Deb has encouraged both Lee and I to continue calling and reporting misbehavior.
The story of this event changed from Monday Feb 7, when I talked to Deb to the following Monday the 14th when our refund checks were written. The "story" came not from the Departments directly involved, but from Management. The "story" is just that, a story.
That said, in the past, we have not only reported misbehavior but also observations we have seen regarding Animal behavior, one such to note was a major balance slip that Tony (male Siberian Tiger) had that I caught on video and alerted Keeper Barb Palmer to, who in turn alerted Dr Jackie, who was thankful to have that piece of footage. This noted a definite turn in the events of Tony's health, just a few months before his passing.
I must add that I also questioned the Security gal named Gisella, after the Media rep went to the Zoo to validate my side and said she (along with Deb Howe) wouldn't tell him anything. She was the first person that Bear day that we talked to about the calls. She is the one who initially told me there was a call after ours reporting "a male and a couple, three people over the barrier." She point blank said to me, "I just say what I'm told to. I need this job. I have bills to pay." That there is an admit of being involved in untruths.
I do not mean to insult, but your Society Bylaw quote, really carries no weight as not only is it not made public to all Members (at least as of our revocation 2.14.11), but the California State Non-Profit Code trumps that in that we received no warning or the opportunity of due process, according to the States guidelines. I requested a due process meeting almost two months ago and was ignored till now of any correspondence or acknowledgement. This Bylaw could very well have even been added after the fact as a defense for accusations made, just like the update to the Membership portion of the FAQ was added to the Zoo website after the fact and tailored directly at accusations against us.
Zoo PR LaMarca had Marketing gal Amy Frankel send me the Zoo's policy, which contained nothing applicable. A few days later a paragraph was added to the Membership FAQ on the website. That's fine, but is not valid in retrospect.
Neither myself or Lee has done anything that can be construed as “detrimental to the best interest of the corporation”.
To note that my conduct has been increasingly disruptive to Employee’s for two years is unfounded and I invite you be specific. I had an open communication with Tanya about many things Zoo-wide until January (which by my count is 8 months), when I ceased that relationship. I have all her emails, thanking me for my care, support, concern, suggestions, … If I was so disruptive for the past two years, why was I allowed to make Enrichment Toys for almost the whole year of 2010? To the appreciation and gratefulness of all (Keepers, Vets and Visitors) who got joy from watching the Animals have some fun on a weekly basis. Why was I begged to help with the Teddy Bear Festival in 2010? Why was I asked to be a part of both the Enrichment programs formed in 2010? Why was I allowed to go behind the scenes (in 2010) several times to meet and feed Animals? There is an obvious forgery in the painting of the picture you have received.
We are not public enemy number one as has been led to believe. We have both supported the Zoo more than some Staff Members and Docents. The treatment we have received has been disgusting and has at times, made me physically sick. This is literal and not for dramatic purpose. When I read this letter I felt like I was kicked in the chest. I still feel that way, with tears added.
It is most offensive to me as I am probably the most truthful person I have ever come across. I am proud to live my life honestly. Unfortunately honesty has become a novelty. Not many people do and that is the problem. Truth, so many don't apply it to their lives, therefore when they come up against it, it is often viewed as abrasive, rude, sarcastic, ect. I am not afraid of my truth. I tell it like it is, and that is not always welcomed. That does not make my truth "illegal".
Having an opinion, comment or suggestion is not against any rule, in the Zoo or out of it. As a Resident of the City of San Francisco, as well a Citizen of the United States, it is in my Fifth Amendment right to voice my opinion, when there is something I find questionable, eg. not right. When I am secure in my position, as I am in this disgraceful injustice, I invoke that right. I do not let myself be pushed around by a gang of bullies, who make-up stuff to suit their own personal agenda's against people they don't like for whatever reason, and this is exactly what is going on here. And, it appears that those removed from the immediate situation, eg. yourself, other Board Members, Phil Ginsburg,... believe whatever you are told rather than look at the facts I have presented in detail (within the blog I previously requested you read). When you should be saying to yourselves, "Huh, maybe there is other things going on here." I can't believe you can read all that I have detailed and not see that there is a question about the validity of all these accusations.
Also, it begs curious that I am viewed as such a "detriment", making the "Zoo unsafe", why is it I'm allowed there at all? How does my being there as a Visitor differ from that of a Member? Taking away my Membership was just an act of meanness, plain and simple.
Regarding the use of the word “unsafe”, I will also note that the day I found out my Membership had been revoked, I was trying to enter the Zoo an hour prior to arriving for that evenings Joint Zoo Committee Meeting, which as a passionate Zoo Member I attended anytime it was held at the Zoo. Curiously (although not really), a Security Staffer (Eddie) was present. The following month, March, I did not attend, as I did not feel I would be welcome. I read the Meeting Minutes online. New Security measures had been installed.
“Advisor Stephens asked what prompted possible changes in security measures. Director Peterson answered that as far as she understood, persons had contacted various city entities, which resulted in broader discussions about security and other measures present for public meetings at the Zoo.”
“Persons had contacted various city entities”, interesting on the heels of my first correspondence to City entities. This most certainly implies that I am dangerous. And that, is a serious implication.
A couple months ago I witnessed an adult Visitor throw something at a Chimp. Security basically did nothing, but after I called them on it, they gave the family a warning! A warning for physically abusing one of the Animals in their home. AND I make the place unsafe? Even this past weekend, a Visitor was standing up on the cement barrier belly to the (10 ft) glass at Tatiana's old enclosure, waving his arms over the top and nothing was done. At the very least why weren't either of these families asked if they were Members and have their Membership revoked? Why, because that's not how things are done there to actual offenders faces, yet it was done to us and we did nothing to warrant it. The difference in how our situation was handled, we have not been accused by our accusers to our faces, because there is no truth to the accusations. I bet if the Dhaliwals wanted a Membership, even now after its been proven that they indeed taunted Tatiana, I bet they could have one.
What happened to us is just not right, plain and simple.
So, YES I do think my Membership should be reinstated.
I apologize for the length of this as it has exceeded even what I thought it might when I started writing. There is so much to say on this subject and I condensed as much as I could, given that this seems to be the only opportunity in which you are giving me/us to be heard. So, all pertinent information must be included.
Thank you for your time in reading this.
Kim
PS I am including a letter from Lee , as she is as much involved in this as I am. This has been upsetting to her so much so, that in addition to her working full-time, she has allowed me to be the voice of the situation to date. I showed her your letter, as well my reply to you and she wanted to add to what I’ve written.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(As well I sent a letter from Lee along with mine.....)
September 13, 2011
Mr. David Stanton
Chair, SF Zoological Society
1 Zoo Rd.
San Francisco, CA 94132
Dear Mr. Stanton:
I am writing to you to request that my membership be reinstated for the following reasons in which I will make very brief.
I am responding to a letter that my friend Kim received from you recently. I would like to touch on that for a moment. I met Kim a few years ago when I was a docent there at the zoo. She and I had both lost our cats recently and found solace in speaking of our grief and enjoying the wonderful zoo animals to take away some of that pain. I have always known Kim to be most of all, straight forward, exact, and extremely honest with a magnificent love of animals. I have read her letter and I am witness to what has gone on and it is fact. (maybe slightly more blunt than you would prefer, but it’s straight forward and true). Also because of how upsetting this has been to me and that I do work full-time, I have let Kim speak on my behalf in all previous correspondence regarding this.
Now, a little about me:
I have worked in major hospital in the bay area in Financial Counseling since 1975. I have been a Bay Area native my entire life and the zoo has always been a wonderful place for me. I raised every kind of animal you can think of as a child and have a great passion for animals. (you should see how I spoil my cats). I, also, am extremely honest and pride myself in my honesty also. I am, even after almost six months, still in shock at my membership being taken away for untruths. I never even got a chance to state my case so to speak.
In a nutshell, I only received an email from Tanya stating that my membership would be refunded and a quick note stating that I was involved in a false alarm causing animals and keepers to be in danger. NOT TRUE. I made a call that day because I witnessed a man climbing over the barrier to Pike’s grotto and made a call immediately. When the office answered I hardly gave info because the person on the other end stated that security was already on its way. I then noticed keeper Justin coming from the back of the bear area and walking towards a very rowdy crowd and after he passed Kim and I, I heard the code red alert go out over the radio, in a male voice. After that, everyone was in a panic and asked to leave. I did NOT call a false alarm. I saw someone going over the barrier and when I tried to tell the lady on the phone, she hung up on me. The code red came when the keeper apparently must have seen something. I heard the crowd yelling that and saw a couple people acting strange and yelling code red.
Kim and I then stopped at the Lion House and spoke to security and she (Gisella) said that she had heard our calls and a third one stating 3 people went over the barrier, a male/female couple and a solo male. We were still in shock but she assured us that it was the third call that clinched it. Kim and I were still upset over this and Kim went that following Monday, I believe, and spoke with Deb Howe, to let her know how the calls were taken. Deb Howe assured her that it was dispatched wrong. Since then Deb has told us to please continue to call if we see things happen.
So, I would like my membership back right away. I have always gotten along well with zoo staff, have been a docent 2008, spent 2010 making BigCat and Bear enrichments (on my own time and keep in mind I work full time), put together a memorial service for Tony the Tiger and supplied food for special keepers as a remembrance plus had orange roses in the Lion House for two weeks in honor of Tony the Tiger. I have been a multiple animal adoptive parent. I would also like to state that I am almost 60 yrs old and extremely handicapped with arthritis. Why would I make a false phone call? I believe in Kim’s letter she has mentioned my strengths.
I will close now because I could just go on and on and know you are probably quite busy. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. I hope that you will reconsider reinstating me without further delay. I am a great asset to the zoo, enjoy the keepers there and have formed powerful bonds with all the very special animals there at the zoo. Thanking you in advance.
Sincerely,
Lee
PS:
I am having Kim enclose this letter with hers to save time and make it easier for you to compare notes. Please feel free to read her blog on the animals there and see the photos of all the enrichments we worked on for the animals there. For almost a year, Kim and I saw that there was a animal show at Big Cats every Saturday with themes!!! The BigCat Keepers were awesome with that and loved it, we loved it, the visitors loved it and mostly the Big Cats did. There is no way we would put an animal in danger. We have been slandered for some unknown reason that I hope comes to light.
---------------------------------
Please read all 4 posts in this series for the full saga.
No comments:
Post a Comment