[Volunteer Services Lead],

I don’t trust you, and that’s because your actions have given me no reason to.

When I confided in you about the situation with [Park Supervisor], you escalated it instead of protecting me. Then you disappeared.

When I applied for a job here, you distanced yourself again. The moment I withdrew my application, you reappeared—spending ninety minutes talking about yourself.

When I finally opened up to you about why I’m here, what I sacrificed to be here, and why this matters to me, you responded by trying to manage my perception instead of actually listening.

And then? You distanced yourself again.

When I warned you—privately—to prevent a repeat of the [Park Supervisor] situation, you assured me [Park Ranger 1] would train me. That didn’t happen.

At every critical moment, you have failed to act with integrity.
At every opportunity to lead, you have instead chosen avoidance.

I will continue to do my job professionally for the next month.
You will ensure that my contributions are recognized appropriately in your system.

I will not allow the dysfunction here to interfere with my larger trajectory.
If there is any pushback on this, understand that I am fully prepared for it.

Sam

[Volunteer Services Lead],

This letter names the harm you caused through betrayal of supervisory trust and weaponization of vulnerability I shared with you in confidence.

You held authority over me as [Volunteer Services Lead]. That role requires integrity, discretion, and the protection of those under your supervision. You failed at every level.

THE DISCLOSURES

During our walk at Honeyman, I shared why I had moved into an RV and relocated to the coast—my analysis of systemic instability, my strategic thinking about resilience, and my concerns as a queer person about authoritarian targeting through institutional actors.

Before that conversation, I set a clear boundary: I told you explicitly this was not romantic for me.

You took what I shared in confidence and disclosed it to management. That information was then weaponized by [Program Manager] to pathologize my character during dismissal proceedings—reframing reasoned analysis as "apocalyptic thinking" and using my fears about identity-based targeting as evidence of instability.

By now you have seen the videos. You know how they used what I told you. You know the harm that followed.

THE DISTORTION

[Program Manager] claimed I told you "I was worried you would kill me." That is a deliberate distortion.

What I actually said was that in authoritarian contexts, people like you—institutional actors with authority—would be the mechanism through which targeting of queer people would occur.

You visibly recoiled when I said this.

At the time, I interpreted your reaction as discomfort with the subject matter. Later, I understood: you were already doing exactly what I had described—using your institutional position to target my identity.

And you did this after I explicitly told you the conversation was not romantic. You weaponized a boundary I set with you in good faith.

THE PATTERN

You elicited trust through reciprocal vulnerability. You spent 90 minutes talking about yourself—your background, your concerns, your perspectives. The following day, I reciprocated. That is how trust-building works.

But after I opened up, you distanced yourself. Then you disclosed what I shared to people who were already working to remove me.

That is not supervision. That is betrayal.

THE ENABLING

Your disclosures gave [Park Manager], [Park Supervisor], and [Program Manager] the ammunition they needed to justify what they had already decided to do.

[Park Manager] used it to mock me at the day-use meeting—suggesting I "thought I had a future with you"—weaponizing my sexuality and distorting ordinary human connection into something inappropriate.

I am certain that insinuation entered the narrative with your consent.

[Park Supervisor] and [Program Manager] used your disclosures to construct a psychological profile justifying my permanent dismissal—reframing vulnerability as instability, analysis as extremism, and identity-based fears as concerning behavior.

You enabled that. Actively. With full knowledge of what they were doing.

WHAT YOU SHOULD UNDERSTAND

I treated you with integrity you never had.

Despite your pattern of intimacy followed by distance, I continued to see the best in you. I made space for the tension between your depth and the institution you serve. I chose to believe you were capable of better.

I was wrong.

You had every opportunity to protect what I shared with you. Instead, you delivered it to people who used it to harm me.

That choice—to betray supervisory trust and weaponize queer vulnerability after I explicitly set a boundary with you—is now part of the permanent record.

THE RECORD

You are documented by full name in a public archive:

https://oprdvolunteerabuse.org/trust-broken
https://oprdvolunteerabuse.org/trust-broken/supplemental

This archive details:

  * Your disclosure of confidential personal information
  * Your participation in identity-based targeting
  * Your weaponization of a boundary I set with you
  * Your role in enabling institutional abuse

This is not a request for response.

This is a statement of record.

Your choices as [Volunteer Services Lead] are now permanently attached to your name.

—Sam White
https://oprdvolunteerabuse.org/

A copy of this letter is here:
https://oprdvolunteerabuse.org/naming-the-harm