He Said, She Said, And Other Authority Nonsense

In last night's post, I highlighted some of the statements from two news articles regarding the Mayor's surprising and long-awaited entry into the saga that is, Removing Tanya Peterson as Director of Our Zoo.

It was late so I just noted my immediate thoughts.  I woke-up this morning with more to add.  I also read the Lease Agreement, which was exhausting, so I watched a movie and took a nap.  Apologies for late posting once again.

I also had this graphic already made weeks ago, that I finally had some text to add to it.  I think I had a premonition there might be a showdown!  

It's curious there is even a question as to who said what.  Shouldn't calls to government offices be recorded?

While I would never trust anything Tanya said as truth in even the slightest way, would she be so careless as to completely change the dialog of a conversation with the Mayor?  I'm leaning towards Yes she would, but it would be pretty brazen.  But, that is the Peterson way.

That said, while I know nothing about Mayor Lurie's honesty, Why would he lie about what transpired?  What would the gain be?  

The outcome is the same as what could have happened if Tanya's side of the story is true.  That outcome is, Lurie has now reportedly requested the Zoological Society Board seek a replacement for Director Peterson.

In my opinion, if the Mayor continues to take the non-Authority role, Why would the Board even entertain his request?  The remaining Board Members have already rallied to support keeping Peterson in place.

It's also my opinion that a new Director may have a hard time with the Board as is, if they lose their favorite child.  I continue to maintain that the only road forward must see a complete management overhaul that includes not only Replacing the Director, but Restructuring Management to split into two components, Society Members and Animal Care Staff, with Members of the Animal Care Staff, also having a seat at the table.  The Society's bias and negligence, dictates change.  Also, the roles of the Society Board and the RecPark Dept, who has also been negligent in their oversight responsibility to Our Zoo, desperately need to be Redefined.

In my June 15th post, "Apparently It Seems No City Authority Will Take Action To Remove Zoo Director", I documented some efforts I made to further confirm what we all seemingly know to be accurate as to who has Authority over the Zoological Society Board.

I wrote...

>I then engaged with another source and during that exchange, it was revealed that there are questionable factors that have lead the Recreation and Park Department to believe that they do not have the Authority to Remove Tanya Peterson.< 

> I am continuing to investigate the validity of their disbelief.  Until I learn more, I'm choosing not to document further details. <

I responded to the above exchange, asking questions, that have gone unanswered.  Considering I've given it a reasonable amount of time, I will include that correspondence here.  I think it's important to document, questions to City sources that go unanswered, especially ones that are trying to clarify something this important.

Original inquiry...

"Considering yesterday's news regarding the supervisors moving forward with plan to withhold the zoo's funding, we are all wondering why Phil Ginsburg has not asserted his authority to remove Tanya."

"Are we all and all including many staffers who have worked there for over 20 years, wrong in who has authority over the Zoological Society? Because everyone has thought it is the Mayor and RecPark."

"And last year I confirmed that with Supervisor Peskin. ... Is that not still accurate?"

Response...

"It is a very unusual case. In our lease and management agreement with the Zoo, it is plainly written that way. However, it refers back to a portion of the City Charter that was since repealed (in 1996). I don’t necessarily think it was specifically repealed because of the zoo – it probably covered a number of different topics and this was an inadvertent result."

"As such, for example, I don’t have any records of the Commission hiring the current Zoo director. So, as we understand, the SFZS has ultimate authority over the decision to hire the director."

My first reply...

"Thanks for that information. But considering the Zoo is City owned regardless of who put her in position shouldn't the RecPark and or the Mayor still have the ultimate authority?  I mean seriously considering what is going on a Management entity should not have the ultimate authority."

"And maybe the RecPark is hands tied but the Mayor isn't right?"

"Do you have a copy of that City charter or can send me the portion that would apply? Otherwise what is in the lease agreement should stand?"

My added reply...

"I just have some questions in addition to the ones that I asked you in the last email."

"So is there a loophole being looked into?"

"So I'm assuming that every other director was approved by the commission? Why was Tanya not?" 

"And assuming that the Mayor has ultimate authority can't the Commission or Phil, whoever's in position, ask them for the Mayor's help in removing Tanya?" 

This exchange happened at the end of a business day before weekend. The reply I received was an auto out of office response for the duration of a full week.  

My last reply...

"I found a copy of that City Charter online.  Within the four Zoo references, I didn't see, or maybe understand?  How it relates to current issue?"

"If issue thought to be, whoever hired Tanya, has to fire her, and if RecPark should have, or had previously approved the hire of Directors, wouldn't that be a loophole?  Tanya was only interim, so maybe RecPark didn't approve, and then that approval fell through cracks when she stayed indefinitely?"

"After the Tiger event in 2007, wasn't RecPark who called for then Director Manuel Mollinedo's resignation?"

"Regardless of any of this, the Mayor should be the Authority to Remove her from a City Owned Facility.  A Management entity can not possibly have the final say over a "business" they do not own."

End of Correspondence

Again, I read the Charter available online and found no references to Authority.

In light of the Mayor's deflection of Authority, I screen-capped the related entries from the Lease Agreement.  Unless I am not interpreting the wording accurately, the Agreement seems to clearly state, that the Recreation and Park Department, and Mayor, have Authority over the Zoological Society Board.

Note mentions of "City" refers to San Francisco, "SFZS" refers to the SF Zoological Society, "General Manager" refer to the GM of the SF Recreation and Park Dept, and "Commission" refers to the SF Recreation and Park Commission.

The fact remains, the Zoological Society, and Tanya Peterson as it's Director, are Management Entities.  The Zoo is City Owned.  Owners have Authority over Managers.  It's seemingly that simple.

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

Blogger's Statement

"Personal Opinions and Facts presented publicly are Not against the law or any rules. ... Censorship and Retaliation Actions in an attempt at Suppression are frowned upon by Healthy Societies."

For Full Statement see this post:

https://iamnotananteater.blogspot.com/2018/09/my-zoo-status.html

*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

I used to use (search) labels, but too often forget.  I started noting "Hot Topic" in title, but fell lax on that.  Now I'm just going to add labels, keywords, etc., here at the bottom with hashtags.  Does it help in searches, who knows.

#SanFrancisco , #SanFranciscoZoo , #Zoos #SanFranciscoZoologicalSociety , #SanFranciscoZooDirectorTanyaPeterson , #SanFranciscoRecreationAndParksDept , #SanFranciscoMayorLondonBreed ,
#SanFranciscoMayorDanielLurie
#AssociationOfZoosAndAquariums , #AZA , #SpeciesSurvivalPlan , #SSP , #Animals , #Wildlife , #Nature , #AnimalWelfare , #AnimalCruelty , #AndeanBear , #KomodoDragon , #Chimpanzees ,  #PatasMonkey , #Fossa , #Orangutans , #Barriers , #PerimeterFence, #Pandas #Bison