Zoo society sues San Joaquin County
County, Zoological Society find themselves at odds after 20-year-old deal shelved
A group of volunteers dedicated to the maintenance and preservation of the Micke Grove Zoo has sued the county, claiming its access to the decades-old attraction has been cut off.
Last month, Lodi attorney Peter Rausch filed a lawsuit against San Joaquin County in superior court on behalf of the Micke Grove Zoological Society, which claims the volunteer group was locked out of the zoo after it terminated a 20-year-old agreement with the county in an effort to create an updated document.
The suit alleges the county has done nothing to implement a new formal agreement with the MGZS, as recommended by a 2019 San Joaquin County Civil Grand Jury report that found the zoo lacked a vision and master plan, as well as lacked an itemized budget.
The grand jury gave the county and the zoo a deadline of June 30, 2020 to resolve the issues.
Rausch was unavailable for comment, but Linda Jimenez, MGZS president, said the society simply wants the court to have the county come back to the table and come up with a new contract both parties can agree on.
“Our goal is to continue having a working relationship with the county that benefits both parties,” she said. “There were several attempts made to reach an agreement, which did not become fruitful, so we took legal action.”
The zoo sits on five acres of land inside Micke Grove Regional Park and opened in 1958, featuring a variety of native, exotic and endangered animals.
The MGZS was founded in 1978, and since that time has raised more than $2 million to improve and upgrade the zoo with no formal agreement in place with the county.
Since its establishment, the MGZS worked closely with the county to raise funds through membership, program fees, grants and gifts; create a program of educational services, finance promotional events; manage capital fundraising campaigns; and assist with the development of a master plan for the zoo.
In 1999, the county entered into a formal agreement with the MGZS that was required for zoo accreditation through the Association of Zoos and Aquariums.
Since that time, the MGZS said the county’s interest and support had declined, resulting in the Grand Jury’s investigation
The MGZS said it has continued to provide educational services and accept donations, but has claimed county leaders have been unable or unwilling to provide qualified leadership and direction to deliver a quality zoo, which has hampered its fundraising efforts.
According to Rausch’s lawsuit, the county on Aug. 4 responded with a demand the MGZS enter into a one-year interim agreement with non-negotiable terms that included it would not be permitted to hire staff, secure new office space or incur any new financial liabilities.
Jimenez said the county’s offer would not have allowed the MGZS to continue its efforts to support the zoo.
Judy Vasbinder, county parks director, could not speak to specifics of the lawsuit because it is pending in superior court.
However, she said the MGZS presented a revised agreement to the county, but officials could not agree to terms. The county countered with its own revised agreement, which Vasbinder said the MGZS did not seem to like.
The 1999 agreement stipulates that termination takes effect 45 days after notice is made to the other party, and Vasbinder said MGZS voted to terminate the agreement on July 21. According to the contract, actual termination of the agreement would take effect Sept. 5.
“Within that time frame, the society initiated litigation before the agreement was actually done,” she said. “Unfortunately, the way (litigation) was presented, I don’t agree with it. The county did not initiate the termination, nor did it initiate the lawsuit.”
According to the suit filed by Rausch, the county on Aug. 11 contended the agreement provided it with the contractual interest in the charitable assets of the MGZS, and demanded the group turn over $666,908.
Vasbinder could not speak to the county’s contention that MGZS owes that money to the county.
However, language in the 1999 Agreement attached to Rausch’s claim, presents an indemnification clause that states the MGZS agrees to “indemnify, defend and hold harmless the county, its officers, agents or employees from any and all liabilities, claims, demands, actions, losses, damages or costs” caused by the MGZS.
Indemnity is the contractual obligation of one party to compensate the loss incurred to another party due to acts of the first party.
Rausch’s lawsuit further claims the county cut off MGZS access to the zoo on Sept. 4, to which Vasbinder replied was not true.
Because the MGZS terminated its agreement with the county, members lost the benefits that would be provided to a nonprofit organization, including providing educational activities or hosting events on site.
Since terminating the contract effectively ended the existence of the MGZS, Vasbinder said the county felt there was no benefit to having people on site providing services for free.
County counsel J. Mark Myles was unavailable for further comment.
“We want a positive working relationship with the county that allows the society to do what it does best,” Jimenez said. “We’re all volunteers, we’re seniors, retired, and our passion is the zoo. We would like nothing more than to see it restored to its former state.”
The San Joaquin County Parks Commission is scheduled to receive an MGZS update at today’s meeting at 5:30 p.m., and according to the superior court’s website, the next hearing on the matter is scheduled for February.
A complete copy of the MGZS complaint can be found online at mgzs.org/complaint.