Summary

Mickaboo leadership’s claim that Vincent and Melaine were removed for refusing to provide edits to the Basic Bird Care Class doesn’t hold up to the documented record. They developed the class openly, with broad volunteer input, and had it ready for rollout by December 2024. Delays came from leadership’s own inaction and added non-essential changes, not from withheld edits. Allegations of “dangerous” content and “unauthorized sharing” are unsupported by earlier feedback and misrepresent the facts. The timing, coupled with ongoing governance disputes and media interest, points to a retaliatory dismissal aimed at silencing respected advocates whose transparency conflicted with leadership’s narrative.

---

Full Article

On Jun 1st, five minutes before the second zoom meeting Leadership held in an attempt to justify their actions and policies, Pam Lee sent out a discuss email asserting that Vincent and Melaine were removed from Mickaboo because they refused to provide a fully edited copy of the Basic Bird Care Class (BBC) and to grant administrative access to Sarah Lemarie. This narrative does not align with the documented sequence of events, the nature of the volunteers’ contributions, or the organization’s own prior communications.

The Class Was Developed Transparently and with Broad Input

The timeline shows that from the end of October 2024 onward, Vincent and Melaine repeatedly sought feedback from current and former BBC teachers, coordinators and senior volunteers. They tested the course with multiple auditors and incorporated initial suggestions. By November 2024, several reviewers—including teachers—had completed the class and provided constructive comments, many of which were implemented immediately.

Importantly, leadership was directly involved in this process. Tammy and Michelle both had opportunities to review the course. Anyone who wanted access was given it. Feedback was coordinated through a shared Google folder, emails and Slack channels, with a clear, documented trail of collaboration. At no point were Vincent and Melaine developing the class in secret or without organizational awareness. The “unauthorized” label applied in Mickaboo’s later public statement is simply inaccurate.

Leadership Delayed Approval Despite Positive Reviews

By late December 2024 Michelle acknowledged that most reviewer feedback was positive and that changes would be minor. The class was essentially ready for a limited rollout, which Vincent and Melaine both supported as a way to reduce bottlenecks in the adoption process. Instead of moving forward, leadership stalled for months, citing the need to compile all feedback into one list before proceeding. Although Vincent planned to keep the first set of changes limited to the absolute necessities, they chose to include non-essential items, which made up about half their list.

These delays were not caused by Vincent or Melaine withholding edits—leadership specifically told auditors to share their feedback only with Tammy or Michelle. Rather, leadership repeatedly missed self-imposed deadlines for consolidating feedback and making a final decision on LearnWorlds licensing, despite having all necessary cost and subscription details since October.

The Claim of “Refusal” Ignores the Context

The key sticking point was not a refusal to make edits, it was Vincent’s and Melaine’s unwillingness to work directly with Michelle, citing repeated instances of disrespect, misrepresentation and unprofessional behavior during the process. They communicated this openly to the volunteer coordinating the class and Tammy, making clear they were happy to continue implementing edits if they were coordinated through someone else.

Leadership’s May 9 and May 15 emails demanded all requested changes and administrative access for Sarah—on a platform Vincent and Melaine were personally paying for—by a five-day deadline, but did not state what the outcome would be if they failed to do so. These demands came after months of leadership delays and with no discussion of a reasonable transition plan. The refusal to hand over full control of a privately funded project without safeguards is not equivalent to withholding the class itself.

Allegations of “Dangerous” Content Are Unsubstantiated

Mickaboo’s public claim that the course contained “dangerous advice” about food and medicine is directly contradicted by earlier documented feedback, which was overwhelmingly positive and focused mainly on stylistic refinements, formatting consistency and quiz clarity. None of the substantive feedback from November through January identified unsafe or harmful information. If genuine safety issues had existed, leadership could—and should—have identified and addressed them months earlier during the extensive review process.

The “Unauthorized Sharing” Accusation Misrepresents Reality

The assertion that Vincent and Melaine “shared this unfinished, unapproved class with the public” is misleading. While some previous adopters and retakers accessed the course, this was done in a controlled manner, consistent with Melaine’s role as approvals coordinator and in service of Mickaboo’s mission. It was never promoted to the general public as the official Mickaboo class before completion.

The Timeline Suggests Retaliation, Not Policy Enforcement

Melaine and Vincent’s abrupt termination on May 16, 2025 occurred against the backdrop of increased tension with leadership over unrelated governance and care issues, as well as ongoing media inquiries. The proximity of these events strongly suggests that the stated reason for dismissal was pretextual, used to remove respected volunteers whose advocacy and transparency efforts conflicted with leadership’s preferred narrative.

Conclusion

The evidence does not support Mickaboo’s claim that Vincent and Melaine were fired simply for refusing to provide class edits. The record shows they built the class collaboratively and transparently, incorporated initial feedback promptly, advocated for a timely rollout to improve adoption rates, and provided all necessary cost and platform details to leadership months in advance. They declined only to cede full control of a personally funded platform without proper agreement, not to provide the class itself.

Leadership’s shifting justifications, unsubstantiated safety claims and disregard for the documented history indicate that the stated reason was not the true cause of removal. The dismissal was retaliatory, undermining the organization’s commitment to openness, collaboration, and the best interests of the birds in its care.