This statement addresses two emails sent by Mickaboo leadership to the Discuss list regarding the June 1 Zoom meeting—the second such meeting convened to address concerns raised by volunteers. The first email, dated May 29, 2025, reflected on the previous meeting held May 24 and outlined expectations for the upcoming session. The second email was sent on June 1, just five minutes before the meeting began, and included a series of serious allegations against the volunteers who were recently dismissed.

In the interest of transparency and accountability, we have also included a response from a concerned volunteer addressing the May 29 message. The concerns raised here reflect broader frustrations within the volunteer community about leadership’s continued unwillingness to engage directly with the substantive issues at hand. Instead of fostering open dialogue, these communications attempt to restrict information sharing and shift focus toward discrediting individuals who have spoken out.

Our response below addresses both emails, the zoom meetings, and the ongoing pattern of deflection and retaliation they represent.

Re: Discuss Email 5/29

In this email, Pamela Lee invites volunteers to a June 1 Mickaboo Zoom meeting to discuss the recent “discomforting” Discuss list email sent by the fictional “Mark Riverside.” The agenda included statements from leadership, a recap of the 5/24 zoom meeting, discussion of the dismissed volunteers and a segment on “debunking myths.” Attendees were required to register due to alleged “unlawful recording” and “inaccurate transcription” of the previous session. While personal note-taking was permitted, Leadership explicitly asks that volunteers not share their notes with anyone outside the Discuss community, stating that the conversation is not public and should remain confidential to foster open dialogue.

Leadership has made it clear that they wish for volunteers not to share notes or discussions from the June 1 Zoom meeting with others, stating that the conversation is not public and should remain internal to the Discuss list. We believe this request runs counter to the principles of transparency, openness and accountability that should guide any nonprofit, especially one supported and operated primarily by volunteers.

Mickaboo is not a private corporation. It is a public-benefit organization, and the people who keep it functioning—volunteers, adopters, fosters and donors—deserve to know what is said in meetings that affect the entire community. This is especially true when these meetings involve accusations, dismissals and attempts to “debunk” concerns that many long-term volunteers share.

Attempts to control the narrative by discouraging note-sharing, requiring registration and framing public discussion as dangerous or unlawful are tactics designed to suppress dissent. Volunteers should not be asked to participate in secretive conversations under the guise of “safe spaces” while others are maligned without the opportunity to respond.

If leadership truly wants a community conversation, it must begin with respect for the community’s right to information. Open dialogue cannot happen behind closed doors.

Re: Discuss Email 6/1

In the June 1 letter, Leadership accuses two former volunteers of downloading and manipulating internal data to support personal grievances, then using a Mickaboo email list to circulate misleading interpretations of that information. They claim these volunteers escalated the situation by publishing a website containing what she describes as sensitive internal content and false statements. According to leadership, they attempted to resolve the matter privately but were forced to act after the former volunteers allegedly broke multiple state and federal laws. The letter makes further claims about violations of Mickaboo policy, such as removing a bird prematurely from veterinary care (resulting in disability), placing birds in inappropriate foster homes without proper oversight, and making unauthorized updates to Mickaboo’s internal database. Additionally, it again emphasizes the mishandling of Mickaboo’s Bird Care Class as the primary reason for dismissal and alleges that the former volunteers deleted work done by other instructors.

We are disappointed, but not surprised, to see Mickaboo leadership continuing to repeat the same broad accusations without addressing the concerns raised by dozens of volunteers over the years. While most of the points raised in the June 1 message simply rehash prior claims, we would like to respond briefly to a few items that appear to be newly emphasized.

First, the allegation that our website shares “sensitive internal information” is vague and unsubstantiated. The information presented on thetroublewithmickaboo.com comes from vet records, financial statements and internal communications available to many volunteers as part of our coordination roles. We have redacted identifying details as appropriate. If there are specific claims of inaccuracy or risk, we invite leadership to identify them. So far, no such evidence has been provided.

Leadership’s claim that the “ultimate issue” requiring dismissal of Melaine and Vincent was mishandling of the Bird Care Class has been addressed elsewhere. We remain proud of our work on the Bird Care Class, which was professionalized, updated with current veterinary standards and improved with input from medical professionals. This course has long been critical to Mickaboo’s mission, and we are saddened that its continued improvement appears to have become a point of internal contention rather than collaboration.

The accusation that we “deleted work” done by other teachers is false. All revisions made to Bird Care Class materials were saved in Google Drive, version-controlled and fully transparent to anyone with access. If specific edits were removed without consent, we invite leadership to demonstrate what was lost and when. In truth, what has been “deleted” is not material, but opportunity: the opportunity to modernize training, improve outcomes for birds and collaborate across teams without fear of retaliation.

Additional allegations are then cited as justification for Vincent and Melaine’s dismissal, including the premature removal of a bird from a veterinary hospital, resulting in disability; the placement of birds in unsuitable foster homes in violation of established protocols; and the unauthorized modification of records in ASM.

Once again, leadership offers no evidence to support these claims, nor do they clarify the specific incidents to which they refer. In contrast, we have provided detailed documentation to support every assertion we’ve made. To date, Mickaboo leadership has produced no such evidence in return.

We urge leadership once again to stop deflecting attention through personal attacks and vague accusations. The questions remain: Why are so many birds spending years boarded at FTB without clear plans for adoption? Why are vet costs spiraling with little transparency? Why are dissenting voices silenced instead of engaged?

We are not trying to destroy Mickaboo. We are trying to save it—from a leadership team that refuses to engage in honest dialogue about how to improve.

As always, our door remains open.

Some comments on the 6/1/25 Zoom Meeting, which contains more of what we’ve seen before:

Leadership appears increasingly defensive, focusing on attacking the volunteers they dismissed rather than addressing the serious and well-documented concerns raised about the organization’s operations. No evidence has been provided to support the new allegations made against these individuals—allegations that were conspicuously absent from the original dismissal letter. Leadership had previously stated during the May 24 Zoom meeting that personnel matters would not be discussed. Their decision to reverse that position and launch personal attacks suggests an unwillingness to engage with the substantive issues facing Mickaboo.

Notably, an inflammatory email targeting the dismissed volunteers was sent to the Discuss list just five minutes before the June 1 Zoom meeting—leaving participants little time to read or reflect before joining. Although the meeting was promoted as an opportunity for openness and volunteer dialogue, the discussion quickly devolved into criticism of the former volunteers. When two attendees raised legitimate questions, they were publicly admonished by Sarah Lemarie as being “inappropriate” and “offensive.”

During the same meeting, Tammy Azzaro stated she was open to suggestions regarding the wild conures—provided they did not involve “killing them.” This conflation of euthanasia with killing disregards the widely accepted understanding that, when appropriate, euthanasia is an act of compassion to relieve suffering. Tammy closed the meeting with remarks that echoed her longstanding “my way or the highway” approach, reinforcing the impression that leadership is not open to change or meaningful dialogue.

This latest meeting and the accompanying discuss emails continue a troubling pattern of retaliation and defensiveness, prioritizing the protection of leadership over the mission of the organization. These personal attacks and internal power struggles do nothing to help the birds. It is the volunteers—largely excluded from key decisions—who carry out the vital work of rescue, rehabilitation, and rehoming. The most important question remains: Why are we not focusing on what is best for the birds?