Since our first email went out to Mickaboo’s Discuss list, Mickaboo leadership’s reaction to events such as the San Francisco Chronicle article has been predictably defensive, dismissive and combative—echoing the same patterns that prompted concerns about the organization in the first place. Instead of using the article or our report as an opportunity for reflection, transparency or reform, leadership has doubled down on its narrative of victimization, portraying the organization as under attack by misinformed outsiders and disgruntled former volunteers.

Rather than addressing the substantive issues raised—all of which were supported by data, invoices and internal communications—leadership has chosen to focus on discrediting those who speak up. They’ve attacked the credibility of the Chronicle’s reporters, complained about perceived bias and reiterated talking points that deflect from accountability. This response underscores a broader refusal to engage with facts or acknowledge systemic problems. Leadership continues to insist that everything is under control while long-term boarding, excessive spending and a lack of meaningful oversight persist.

There’s been no public indication of meaningful change. No policy reforms, no leadership restructuring, no attempt to engage in dialogue with critics or the broader volunteer base. Instead, their communications since the release of our report and the article’s subsequent publication have leaned into damage control and loyalty enforcement—urging volunteers to “unify” and avoid “divisiveness” while sidestepping the actual content of the concerns raised.

In short, leadership’s response to the article has reinforced the very dynamics we have been bringing to light: a top-down culture that suppresses scrutiny, evades transparency and treats internal dissent as a threat to be neutralized rather than a signal of problems to be addressed. The opportunity for change is still there—but so far, it’s being ignored.