VOLUNTEER SERVICES LEAD

• My direct supervisor, reported to the park supervisor and the park manager.
• Spent 90 minutes eliciting trust through reciprocal vulnerability.
• Transmitted confidential disclosures to the park supervisor, the park manager, and the program manager.
• Escalated situation with the park supervisor instead of protecting me.
• Visibly recoiled when confronted with description of his own institutional role.
• Betrayed supervisory trust.

PARK SUPERVISOR

• February 9: responded dismissively to operational questions about power outage protocols, escalated after receiving feedback about her tone.
• Receiver of confidential disclosures the volunteer services lead transmitted from me.
• March 5: present during the park manager’s coercive meeting, remained silent, intervened only when he made damaging admissions.
• March 18: received report of unidentified man interrogating me, explained as photo documentation, no photos produced.
• Every institutional action taken against me originated from decisions made under her direct supervision.
• February 9 exchange weaponized repeatedly as justification in subsequent proceedings, in both written and recorded documentation.

PARK MANAGER

• February 9: confronted me alone same day as email exchange, an immediate escalation, catalogued first-week mistakes.
• March 5: told me to "chew glass and swallow it," admitted I was never given the benefit of the doubt, repeatedly suggested I leave — entire meeting recorded.
• Weaponized the volunteer services lead's disclosures to mock my sexuality at day-use meeting.
• March 24: dismissed me by phone six days before completion using fabricated pretext, arrived one hour later to collect keys, admitted on camera no formal documentation existed.

PROGRAM MANAGER

• March 10: first contact — called about March 5 recording, informed me I was "acting as an agent of the state," established notification requirements (recorded).
• Follow-up call: told me to "get through my time," dismissed documented abuse.
• Issued permanent removal letter explicitly stating removal was for speaking publicly about my experience.
• Used the volunteer services lead's disclosures to construct psychological profile, weaponized disclosures to frame me as paranoid and delusional.
• Named retaliation for protected speech in writing on agency letterhead.

LISA SUMPTION

• August: received comprehensive open letter with audio and video evidence.
• Responded within twelve hours with procedural language, no specific accountability measures.
• Directed documented misconduct into internal channels. No investigations announced, no protections implemented.
• December: closed communication using therapeutic language to neutralize a factual record — “deeply painful for you,” “healing” — without addressing a single piece of evidence. Stated further correspondence would not “lead to the resolution you’re seeking.”
• Closed communication one day before full scope of the volunteer services lead's betrayal and weaponization of queer identity was published.
• Chose institutional shielding over volunteer safety.
• Failed to protect a queer unpaid volunteer from the targeted abuse of her subordinates.

TINA KOTEK