Refused and Redacted: Inside the SF Zoo’s Audit Stonewall
Letter for City Auditor Confirms Longstanding Pattern of Secrecy at SF Zoo
Earlier today, the San Francisco Chronicle published a report based on a letter from San Francisco’s Budget and Legislative Analyst (BLA), revealing that the San Francisco Zoo has refused to cooperate with a months-long audit ordered by the Board of Supervisors.
The audit was launched after months of advocacy and massive resistance from the zoo in response to growing concerns about the Zoo’s financial transparency, governance practices, and compliance with its city contract. Over the course of four months, the BLA submitted a series of formal information requests to the San Francisco Zoological Society.
Instead of full cooperation, the Zoo stalled, deflected, and withheld critical information.
The letter from the BLA published today by the Chronicle includes a detailed matrix showing exactly what the City asked for, what the Zoo provided, and what it failed to turn over. The result is a scathing account of missing budgets, redacted inspection reports, outdated policies, and an apparent breakdown in oversight.
What the City Asked For
Back in January, the BLA submitted 25 separate requests to the San Francisco Zoological Society—the nonprofit that runs the Zoo under contract with the City.
These requests were standard for a financial and governance audit, including:
Detailed budget data
Third-party contract records
USDA and AZA inspection reports
Strategic plans and staffing structure
Animal safety and welfare logs
The goal: to assess how the Zoo is managing public funds, fulfilling its mission, and complying with oversight agreements.
What the Zoo Provided (and Didn’t)
Instead of transparency, the City got evasions and omissions:
Only 6 of 25 requests were fully satisfied
13 were only partially fulfilled—missing key data, heavily redacted, or incomplete
4 were ignored entirely
2 were claimed to “not exist” (a claim the BLA disputed)
Five Major Red Flags
1. Mismatched Financial Records
The Zoo submitted internal spreadsheets that didn’t align with its IRS Form 990s or audited financial statements. When asked to explain? Nothing. In fact, Zoo executives told auditors not to rely on the numbers they submitted.
2. Contract Lists with No Context
A list of 96 vendor contracts was provided—but most were missing amounts, dates, or purpose descriptions.
3. Missing Government Inspection Reports
Auditors requested full USDA and AZA inspection documents. The Zoo failed to provide reports tied to known violations and submitted only redacted or partial versions.
4. No Strategic Plan
The most recent strategic document was a PowerPoint draft from 2016. There is no current plan, no roadmap for the Zoo’s future, and no accountability to any long-term vision.
5. Outdated Operating Policies
The Zoo pointed to a 2002 Employee Handbook in place of modern safety, welfare, or animal care procedures. No updated protocols were shared.
Why It Matters
The San Francisco Zoo is operated by a private nonprofit—but it sits on public land, receives millions in taxpayer funding, and is bound by a city lease that requires compliance with California’s Public Records Act and other transparency laws.
By refusing to cooperate with this audit, the San Francisco Zoological Society isn’t just being difficult—it’s actively undermining public accountability. And it’s doing so while continuing to solicit donations, fast-track multimillion-dollar projects, and push high-profile plans like the panda exhibit without public oversight.
The BLA’s warning is explicit: if the Zoo continues to obstruct, they will recommend that the Board of Supervisors invoke subpoena power to force compliance.
This isn’t an isolated incident—it’s part of a long, well-documented pattern of secrecy and resistance.
For the past six years, I’ve been fighting for access to public records from the Zoo—filing requests, raising red flags, and showing up to hearing after hearing. Tomorrow, I’ll attend what may be my 20th Sunshine Ordinance Task Force meeting in pursuit of the truth.
This audit may be the most damning evidence yet. But it’s also an opportunity—finally—for the City to act.
