STAR-BULLETIN / 1999
Rusti sits in his cage at the Honolulu Zoo. Linda Vannatta filed suit in Circuit Court yesterday to halt the state Board of Agriculture's decision to move the orangutan to Kualoa Ranch.
Suit challenges
primate’s relocationA zookeeper opposes the state's
decision to find a Kualoa home
for Rusti the orangutan
A city zookeeper filed suit in Circuit Court yesterday, asking a judge to void the state Board of Agriculture's Feb. 20 decision to allow Rusti the orangutan to be transferred to Kualoa Ranch.
Linda Vannatta, who is acting as an individual and not in her capacity as city employee, said the board violated the state open meetings law by failing to consider her e-mail testimony opposing the transfer of Rusti.
Named as defendants in the suit are Sandra Kunimoto, board chairwoman, and Deputy Chairwoman Diane Ley.
While the board is considering a date to hear Vannatta's testimony, it has not agreed to do anything with the vote that was taken, said Jack Schweigert, her attorney.
"She's really got deep feelings about this," he said. "She feels the zoo has the responsibility to get Rusti to the right home."
Rusti was rescued from a private zoo in New Jersey in 1997 and placed at Honolulu Zoo. Since then, plans for a sanctuary to be built on the Big Island and Rusti's transfer to a conservation center in Florida have fallen through. Recently, Orangutan Foundation International obtained funding to develop a holding area for Rusti at Kualoa Ranch, but state approvals were needed.
Vannatta had e-mailed her opposition to Rusti's transfer on Feb. 17, two days before the board met and voted to approve a permit to move Rusti to Kualoa. Her e-mail was never given to the board.
According to the suit, Kunimoto said she did not believe e-mail constituted testimony and refused Vannatta's request to hold a new hearing so the board could consider the testimony. She later wrote Vannatta saying it didn't seem necessary for the board to revisit the issue.
Kunimoto was out of town and could not be reached for comment. Ley also could not be reached for comment.
The Office of Information Practices issued an opinion May 2 saying the board should have considered Vannatta's e-mail as testimony and violated Chapter 92 by not distributing copies of it to board members, Schweigert said.
