It’s no surprise that on occasion, there are squabbles between city agencies and departments and the organizations responsible for their oversight.  

But rarely will you find as contentious a disagreement as the one that was revealed in a strongly worded letter to the San Francisco Zoo’s CEO Tanya Peterson from Dan Goncher, principal in the budget and legislative analyst’s office in early June.

A timeline included in the letter complained vociferously about the challenges confronted in getting requested information from the Zoo, including, early on, an outright refusal to help complete the audit altogether. 

The timelines, for delivery of documents have apparently been more fiction than fact, according to the letter. Some of the high points follow, taken verbatim from the letter:

• “The initial request for information was sent on January 29th, with a deadline extended from February 14 to February 20.”

• “A partial response was received on February 20, with additional documents arriving sporadically over the next several weeks.”

• “In mid-March, following continued delays and refusal to schedule interviews, we prepared a demand letter requesting a full response to our RFI and interview availability.”

• “During a discussion with you, the Zoo Chief Financial Officer, and the San Francisco Zoological Society’s pro bono legal counsel, we were assured full cooperation, including a commitment to respond to the RFI and schedule interviews by March.”

  
  

• “In late March, we provided a detailed status tracker and requested an update by April 4th which was not fulfilled.”

• “In the weeks that followed, we conducted a virtual meeting with you and a site visit to the Zoo. During that time, a few additional documents were sent, but many items remained incomplete or unaddressed.” 

• “In early May, we set a deadline of May 16th for eight priority items and a status update on the remaining items. That deadline was not met.”

On June 1 Zoo officials sent an e-mail responding to the analysts which only poured salt upon the wound. According to the analysts, a January 29th meeting was intended to “conduct the entrance conference where we were to introduce members of the audit team; provide an overview of the audit scope, process, and timeline; provide and discuss our initial request for information; and discuss points of contact, next steps, and answer questions. 

“As you may recall, you disregarded our meeting agenda and instead gave us a lengthy presentation on the history of the Zoo. After over 90 minutes, I interjected so that we could discuss our agenda items at which point you informed us that Zoo management would not be cooperating with the audit until further notice. After several weeks and discussions with the SFZS pro bono lawyer, Zoo management have provided some cooperation, including a tour of Zoo facilities on May 1.”

Apparently, Goncher’s patience has worn out, and in his note, he warns that “If zoo management continues to be uncooperative in fulfilling our requests, we will recommend that the Board of Supervisors take further action to compel you to do so, including by exercising subpoena power.” 

#StateandLocalGovernmentPerformanceAudit  #CityGovernmentPerformanceAudit #SanFranciscoZooAuditResistance #PublicSectorAuditResistance #StateandLocalAgencyAudit #StateandLocalGovernmentOversight #StateandLocalGovernmentAccountability #StateandLocalGovernmentTransparency #CityGovernmentAccountability #CityGovernmentOversight #SanFranciscoBudgetandLegislativeAnalystOffice #SanFranciscoZooPerformance #BandGWeeklyManagementSelection #StateandLocalManagementNews #CityManagementNew #StateandLocalPerformanceAuditNews #CityPerformanceAuditNews #BarrettandGreeneInc