The explanations that leadership provides in this meeting are similar to those they gave the journalist in response to our questions. Why won’t leadership answer the points in our “rebuttal” to their response? We are happy to post their response here.

Taking Things Out of Context

We’re not sure what they mean when they say we’ve taken things out of context–-Mickaboo is the context. We’ve backed up all our claims with documentation: internal records, emails, slack conversations, invoices, etc. We didn’t just pick and chose a sentence here and there, we provide entire emails, entire conversations. We’ve posted the basic questions the journalist asked them, their entire follow up, and our entire response to their followup–which they have not addressed, and declined to address with the journalist.

Melaine, Vincent and Leadership’s Refusal to Talk About their Departure

Melaine and Vincent were 100% expelled for whistleblowing, despite leadership’s laughable excuse. See the story here. We completely understand that personnel matters can’t be discussed.  However, in this case, the released individuals have made their dismissal letter public and available on the website.

Anonymous Emails

No, Mark Riverside is not a real person. However, Melaine and Vincent are. The rest of us remain anonymous for a reason: we’ve seen what happens to volunteers who speak up. Melaine and Vincent were expelled for raising concerns, which is why they couldn’t post to the Discuss list directly. The rest of us used the alias to avoid the same fate. But it’s clear we’re not alone—several of us were on the 5/24 Zoom meeting.

Respected journalists from reputable publications not do stories from anonymous sources.  Nor do they question organizations if there isn’t solid evidence to suggest a problem.

If leadership has nothing to hide, why won’t they respond to our counterargument, either to the journalist, or in a semi-public sphere such as discuss? Why did they cut off communication with the journalist after she sent them our response, and why did they then terminate Vincent and Melaine’s involvement with Mickaboo? In document, we explain how activities are not consistent with bylaws, articles of incorporation or policies.

They’ve already answered the anonymous concerns shared by volunteers. What do they have to review?

Tammy as Tech at FTB

As we’ve acknowledged elsewhere on the website, the claim that this showed a conflict of interest was a misunderstanding. Though Tammy did work briefly there, that was not the conflict of interest we were referring to.

Mickaboo Not Paying for Routine Vet Care for Fosters

Leadership claims there are not enough funds to provide preventive vet care to foster birds. However, if hundreds of thousands of dollars weren’t being spent on boarding, there would be enough. Furthermore, any bird that goes to FTB for any reason gets a full workup, which is not something that occurs at other vet clinics.

How Mickaboo Started

This is irrelevant to the matter at hand. However, as this was brought up, and because Tammy references it in the letter she sent to discuss, we’ll provide a response.

The story of Mickaboo’s origin is a heartwarming one. Tammy’s early work and sacrifice created something lasting, and she should be proud of the organization she helped build. None of us question her compassion or experience. But founding an organization is not the same as leading it through growth, change and challenge. While the origin story matters, it doesn’t address the serious problems we face today. The birds in our care—and the people giving their time and energy to help them—deserve more than nostalgia. They deserve accountability, responsiveness and a structure that supports their needs now, not the one that existed in 1996.

Tammy’s comment in her letter to discuss that “no one else cared about bird welfare” as much as she and her co-founder speaks volumes. That mindset—exclusive, dismissive and self-congratulatory—has shaped Mickaboo’s internal culture for decades and has contributed directly to the crisis we now face. What about the board-certified avian vets who dedicated years of study to treating birds? Did they not care? What about people like us—longtime volunteers who were well aware of the issues even in the early days, and who stayed because we cared deeply? A lot of people have cared, and still care, about the welfare of these birds. To suggest otherwise is not only inaccurate, it’s profoundly disrespectful.

Tammy also keeps saying that she does this because she loves birds. We ALL love birds here. Tammy loves rescuing birds. Once they’re rescued, she tends to lose sight of them.

Euthanasia

Again, the sole person to determine which birds get euthanasia is Tammy. She decides what constitutes quality of life. She is in charge of every medical decision, even when a foster knows the bird better than she does. In the adoption contract, there’s a clause that says adopters are not to euthanize birds without Mickaboo’s (ie Tammy’s) permission.

Her statement that she “defers to vets 99% of the time” is ludicrous.

The Bird Hotel

The bird hotel is fine for short term boarding. It is not a place for birds to live for months or years. See our discussion here. Furthermore, Mickaboo claims it is not a shelter. However, paying for long term boarding makes it into one. If we are going to be a shelter, we need to have our own facility and make clear to donors that their funds are going to one.

The Wild Flock

One participant asked if there will be a change in policy to limit the number of wild conures taken into care, or a change to make sure we’re not spending a disproportionate amount on them. Tammy doesn’t answer the questions, just says that wildlife centers won’t take them. This is why we recommend creating a spin off organization, which is what happened with Palomacy. See here.

When she says “they are no more wild than the parrots we have in our homes,” this makes no sense. The parrots we have in our homes cannot live in the wild. They need humans to care for them. The wild parrots do not need humans to care for them. There is a substantial difference.

One participant questions whether there is a decision making process that has lead to a dispraportionate amount of money being spent on wild conures, or whether the board is simply approving decisions without much input from members. Pam says she’ll take it under advisement. Also she can’t think of any policy changes. There haven’t been any. They’ve been operating this way for decades. THat’s part of the problem. Sarah says that if more transparency is helpful, they can do that. She said she put pictures of board members up on the website to facilitate that. There are a lot more issues with transparency, as we’ve laid out here.

Another participant said that there’s a disconnect between what the board has decided and what the members want. Pam cautions against a vocal minority, and the participant suggests surveying members of the organization. And says we could potentially reduce cost and create policy around care for the wild conures.

Matt says, “what else are we going to spend money on?” (if not vet care). See our recommendations here.

Leadership thinks it’s great that they spend as little as possible. See why this isn’t true here.

Matt also says that we only spend $70 a month because the work he does. This is not only not a great endorsement, it is insulting to Vincent, who is the daily tech guy and has put in far, far more hours over the years than Matt.

Sarah said that they’ve worked hard to reduce the costs and that not all the wild conures go to FTB. This is almost more problematic, since another vet is involved who is problematic. See our discussion here.

Another volunteer asks about what other orgs have been approached about taking the wild conures. The volunteer agrees that unless there’s a substantial change in fundraising, Mickaboo can’t afford the wild conures.

About Concerns Being Raised Before Now

A participant asked whether any of these concerns have been brought to the board or whether there was any effort to address them internally. Leadership said no. However, the reason we didn’t go to leadership, the whole reason for this report and our anonymity, is because these problems have been addressed a number of times by various people over the years, and they’ve all been driven out. See here.

Board Meetings

Board meetings are not public. They are not announced. Notes are not published anywhere that is easily accessible. Michelle’s claim that no one has been interested in meetings before is ludicrous. Even if it were true, disinterest is not a reason for lack of access.

Sarah says board meetings have been reduced to three a year the last two years, which is against policy for non-profit organizations. She also said the main thing they discussed at their last meeting was spending on the server. However, the server was budgeted for nearly a year ago, there was fundraising for it, and as recently as September there was talk about installing it.

If you don’t mind making the meeting minutes public–do it.

Criticizing Keyboard Warriors

Tammy laments that she wishes more energy was focused on finding a solution, because this report isn’t helpful at all. Yet, no solution has been found, and these are problems that are nearly two decades old–or more. We have also spent a great deal of time and energy on our report and on offering solutions.

Third Party Audit

This was suggested by a participant, and we full-heartedly agree with it. A third-party audit must be conducted. Leadership completely ignored the suggestion. Leadership will say that it’s too expensive, but it would likely be less than a quarter of what Mickaboo spends on vet bills each month.

The Claim that FTB is Less Expensive Than Other Vets

Again, Tammy keeps changing her explanation for why we use FTB. Costs are higher per bird at FTB than they are at other vets (see here). Furthermore, boarding costs