Program Manager Confirms Dismissal Before Review Call

Failed to load video
Chapters
Transcript
[0:01] so I'm about to have a meeting with
[0:02] someone named Allison um over the phone
[0:05] she should be calling any moment
[0:08] now I'm a little bit nervous but I'll be
[0:12] fine I'm going to record the call so
[0:14] that I can transcribe it and share with
[0:17] AI um hopefully things go well hopefully
[0:20] that she's a little bit on my side I
[0:22] know that she's part of the
[0:26] system take a deep breath and be ready
[0:28] for this
[0:50] it's very
[0:54] stressful here we
[0:58] go hello samel
[1:00] here hi Samuel this is Alison call from
[1:03] oron Parks hi Alison thank you for
[1:06] taking the time to speak with me
[1:08] today yes so um first I wanted to
[1:11] clarify do you want me to refer to you
[1:13] as Samuel would that be your preference
[1:15] yeah I go by Sam my middle name Sam or
[1:17] Samuel's fine I just wanted to make sure
[1:20] that I'm calling you by what you would
[1:22] like to be called so okay so Sam um I
[1:25] read through your email that you sent me
[1:27] um I watched the video that you sent
[1:29] over um and I collected information
[1:32] regarding your dismissal from Honeyman
[1:34] State Park I just wanted to first ask
[1:36] like is there any additional information
[1:39] you believe is important to share with
[1:40] me regarding your experience um and then
[1:43] ultimate dismissal at Honeyman is there
[1:44] anything else that you'd like to be able
[1:46] to share or anything like that okay I
[1:49] appreciate the opportunity to do that um
[1:52] I feel like I did um outline everything
[1:55] that happened with the timeline that I
[1:56] shared on in that video um this is a
[2:00] stressful situation and I'm still
[2:01] processing it so I don't feel like I
[2:03] have full clarity yet um so if there is
[2:06] more that I wanted to share I feel like
[2:08] I need more time to process it before I
[2:10] could um okay that's totally
[2:14] fine and then I'll also um if there's
[2:17] anything that like while we're just like
[2:18] talking here you're like hey actually I
[2:19] want to provide like more context or
[2:21] this reminds me of something um feel
[2:24] free we can go ahead and do that as well
[2:25] okay I appreciate
[2:27] that so um
[2:30] I first wanted to talk about The
[2:32] Honeyman dismissal because I know that
[2:34] was kind of like your primary concern um
[2:37] which was so that dismissal I wanted to
[2:39] let you know that is still moving
[2:41] forward um as like in your volunteer
[2:44] service agreement like OPD can end a
[2:47] volunteer service agreement and a
[2:48] volunteer assignment once it's no longer
[2:50] mutually beneficial and so basically it
[2:54] was looking at the conversation that was
[2:58] had with Park Management on March 5th
[3:01] that was the one where you were talking
[3:02] with Katie and Ryan they had laid out
[3:04] some expectations um one of the
[3:07] expectations was that you were going to
[3:09] have a productive relationship with
[3:11] staff and volunteers and that if you had
[3:14] any concerns about Park Rangers that you
[3:16] were going to speak directly to park
[3:19] management um what happened was last
[3:23] week um both a park host and an OPD
[3:26] staff member had informed management
[3:29] that you had brought up that you were
[3:30] dissatisfied with Park St multiple times
[3:33] um and this was not brought up to Park
[3:35] management so they were going to discuss
[3:37] that with you and then it seems like the
[3:40] phone call that you had with Ryan
[3:42] yesterday to set up a time um wasn't
[3:44] able to resolve and setting up a time to
[3:46] have that discussion and so at that time
[3:48] Ryan made the decision as park manager
[3:50] to end that volunteer assignment um so
[3:53] that's what I have for the reason for
[3:56] the ultimate
[3:57] dismissal um and just wanted to confirm
[4:00] that like that's not going to be
[4:02] overturned that one is still moving
[4:04] forward okay I understand their
[4:07] position um I'm not sure what you would
[4:10] want me to say further than that because
[4:12] um it's a little bit vague um I don't
[4:16] necessarily agree with what they're how
[4:19] they're framing that um I'm not hearing
[4:21] any specifics so it's kind of really
[4:23] hard for me to comment actually
[4:26] um sure did you express dissatisfaction
[4:29] with St with a par host no like I can't
[4:34] like
[4:36] no um
[4:38] no so that was reported by two different
[4:41] sources last week that you one was um
[4:44] let me get to the details so I know one
[4:46] one was when you're returning it looks
[4:48] like maybe a Found book or a found item
[4:50] from so can I explain that because I
[4:52] feel like this is really misunderstood
[4:54] so I wasn't even talking about the
[4:56] Rangers here that was just a general
[4:57] comment I was just saying so it was
[5:00] important to me that this journal get
[5:01] back to to the um to the vet if it was
[5:04] possible and I know that not every
[5:07] Ranger is going to go the extra mile um
[5:10] to try to do that because they just go
[5:12] to the lost and found and they just sit
[5:14] there and I was only just trying to
[5:16] communicate to her that I really wanted
[5:18] somebody to try to do something about
[5:21] this instead of just letting it sit in
[5:22] the Box I was not saying anything about
[5:26] the Rangers here that's not what I was
[5:28] doing
[5:30] so which Rangers were you referring to
[5:32] just in general just um the
[5:35] [Music]
[5:36] um how would I word this
[5:39] so just the culture I mean it's not
[5:42] about any Rangers in particular it's
[5:44] just some Rangers are willing to go the
[5:46] extra mile and some aren't it's not even
[5:48] a judgment it's just an
[5:50] observation but isn't that mean that
[5:53] it's an observation about honeyman's
[5:55] staff I didn't say anything about it's a
[5:57] general thing but it's a dissatisfaction
[5:59] with no I wasn't dissatisfied I did not
[6:02] express any dissatisfaction and I was
[6:05] not talking about Honeyman in particular
[6:07] this was a general
[6:09] comment and that's it and I I'm very
[6:12] surprised that this is the reason that
[6:14] was being used for this because it was
[6:16] not meant as anything in particular it
[6:18] was
[6:19] just me trying to frame how important I
[6:23] thought it was that we tried to get this
[6:24] journal back to its honor yeah and I do
[6:27] want to be able to share from the parks
[6:29] perspective that wasn't the only reason
[6:31] for the dismissal it was also because
[6:33] they were unable to confirm with you at
[6:36] time to have a discussion with this it
[6:38] seems like that phone call did not go
[6:40] well with Ryan and at that time based on
[6:42] the other
[6:45] um um expectations that they had laid
[6:47] out with you earlier that they
[6:49] determined that the volunteer
[6:50] relationship wasn't going to be
[6:51] productive anymore so just that but
[6:54] that's what the discussion was going to
[6:55] can I comment on this as well yes okay
[6:58] so um I was not refusing to meet with
[7:01] him I simply asked him why and he didn't
[7:04] um he ended up dismissing me on the
[7:06] phone before before we had settled where
[7:09] we would meet or when we would meet that
[7:11] was on Ryan I did not refuse to see him
[7:14] at all that never happened as far as the
[7:17] meeting it was refusal I'll go ahead
[7:19] sorry as far as the meeting on the 5th
[7:22] they were not setting expectations they
[7:23] were setting a pretext to get rid of me
[7:26] they treated me really badly down there
[7:29] for over an hour he kept telling me I
[7:31] should eat glass he kept at the very end
[7:34] of thatly said for you to eat glass yes
[7:37] yes there is so much in that in that
[7:39] transcript that would you wouldn't you
[7:41] just would not be able it's it's
[7:43] shocking to me how bad it is he admitted
[7:46] also that he never gave me the benefit
[7:48] of the doubt from the first incident I
[7:50] had with Katie he outright admitted that
[7:52] and said that he never would and at the
[7:53] very end of that conversation for five
[7:55] minutes he told me that I could leave if
[7:57] I felt uncomfortable that I could just
[7:59] go he was trying to push me out of here
[8:01] I knew what was happening and when he
[8:03] called me wanting to um schedule a time
[8:08] to see me 3 days before I'm supposed to
[8:09] leave here I knew I was being ambushed a
[8:11] third time by him so I asked him
[8:14] why that's what
[8:18] happened okay so I'm glad I got that
[8:20] from your perspective we do have that as
[8:22] well as a conversation from another Park
[8:25] host that came forward to park
[8:26] management that had to express some
[8:28] concerns over
[8:30] conversation um so if I'd like I'd like
[8:32] to be able to kind of navigate towards
[8:34] that um which was both staff and a
[8:36] volunteer um Express concern over the
[8:39] topics of conversation that you're
[8:40] bringing up with them specifically
[8:42] regarding the end of the world um and
[8:45] one case you shared that a staff member
[8:47] would be used to kill you when the end
[8:49] of the world occurs like can you explain
[8:51] what's going on with these topics and
[8:54] what the discussion I do not know what
[8:56] you're talking about now that um I I
[8:59] have no idea what you're talking about
[9:02] okay um one was with the staff member
[9:04] from Logan and one was brought forward
[9:06] to park management by a volunteer last
[9:08] week that you had brought up kind of
[9:10] talking about the end of the world that
[9:11] that was one of the reasons that you
[9:13] came to Honeyman um and those were the
[9:16] discussion points that you were bringing
[9:17] out so this sounds blown way out of
[9:20] proportion I have never said the world
[9:22] is ending uh what I see is instability
[9:25] in our system and um I think that
[9:30] that I think that we have the potential
[9:33] for um for greater instability I what
[9:37] you're saying is not what I said and
[9:40] this is just an example
[9:43] of
[9:45] um I I don't even know how to respond to
[9:48] that I truly
[9:50] don't yes um so I hear you so I'm just
[9:53] trying to go through with like what's
[9:54] been reported by multiple folks um with
[9:58] that it kind of lends into I know that
[10:00] um at least once ATA and then definitely
[10:02] at Honeyman there's kind of been
[10:04] informed that your communication is
[10:06] sometimes excessive and not only Prof
[10:08] not always um professional or directly
[10:11] related to the service I'm just like how
[10:13] do you see the difference between your
[10:15] personal experience outside the
[10:16] volunteer service and your professional
[10:18] experience as a park
[10:20] host so
[10:23] I
[10:27] okay I don't believe I'm ever I I've
[10:29] ever been unprofessional okay first of
[10:32] all because I I am a very direct and
[10:35] honest person I am a respectful person
[10:40] uh I
[10:42] have I have had a lot of good
[10:44] experiences here with guests with
[10:46] volunteers with the
[10:48] staff the only problems I had here were
[10:50] with the
[10:52] leadership
[10:53] and I have tried very hard to navigate
[10:56] that to the best of my ability and it's
[10:58] been difficult because I don't feel like
[11:00] I've been given the benefit of the doubt
[11:01] by them they have they even that meaning
[11:04] he told me that I should um assume
[11:08] positive intent but they never assume
[11:10] that with
[11:11] me and I have nothing but positive
[11:17] intent so with this I just kind of want
[11:19] a round back to it which is so I know
[11:22] that you so I was supported the email
[11:25] where you sent um a poem to Logan for
[11:28] him to review there was um some personal
[11:32] um I don't know narrative or maybe more
[11:35] poetry that was shared in like a book
[11:37] log there's also kind of reports of like
[11:39] so any type of
[11:42] noing that that's what I'm talking about
[11:44] as like personal versus professional so
[11:46] okay so there was context for that poem
[11:48] and I explained that during the meeting
[11:50] and I haven't done it since they told me
[11:53] not to email and I haven't I I followed
[11:57] yes so
[11:59] no I'm so that's why I'm asking you like
[12:01] do so what's the how do you see that
[12:03] separation between your personal
[12:04] experience and then volunteer Service as
[12:06] a professional experience as a park host
[12:09] well I mean I think it actually matters
[12:11] okay for one like Logan spent 90 minutes
[12:14] in the Welcome Center being very
[12:15] personal with me and uh you know I
[12:18] thought I was developing a friendship
[12:20] with him
[12:22] and because I'm so new at volunteering I
[12:25] didn't
[12:27] understand um
[12:30] some of the the risks that come with
[12:32] that and I I learned from that
[12:34] experience you know and I just I shared
[12:38] that poem with him because I was hoping
[12:40] he would help me to get some um I was
[12:43] trying to find different host positions
[12:45] working in welcome centers along the
[12:46] coast and I just wanted him to
[12:50] understand how important how much it
[12:53] meant to me to be on the coast and that
[12:55] was it I don't know why that felt like
[12:59] so inappropriate it's just a
[13:11] poem um so with this other information
[13:15] that I'm just trying to kind of grab and
[13:17] understand
[13:18] is what Communications look like as well
[13:22] as kind of like what expectations look
[13:24] like because I can look and I can see
[13:26] that there's a lot of communication
[13:28] between you and um specifically staff
[13:32] over at Honeyman like either emails and
[13:35] text almost daily I know that I have
[13:37] been also brought up as a discussion um
[13:40] with staff at um so I'm was kind of
[13:42] curious about like what's your thoughts
[13:44] on that communication um okay so I'll
[13:47] explain sure um okay so I've been a
[13:50] freelancer all of my life I'm a
[13:52] programmer by trade and I've been
[13:54] communicating by email all of my life so
[13:57] for me that is just a natural away for
[13:59] me to communicate uh I viewed Logan as
[14:02] my direct supervisor because that's what
[14:04] I thought he was until they told me at
[14:05] that meeting on the fifth that he wasn't
[14:08] and so anytime I had an issue or
[14:10] something that I needed to talk about I
[14:12] would email him he's the only person I
[14:14] emailed I didn't email other staff
[14:15] members just Logan because I thought he
[14:17] was my direct
[14:18] supervisor and when they told me not to
[14:21] do that I stopped there's only been like
[14:23] two times I had to email him one was to
[14:25] find out what to do with my stuff on my
[14:26] last day because it would be a Sunday
[14:28] and I knew he wasn't working and I
[14:30] didn't know how do you what do you do
[14:31] with the golf cart how do you return the
[14:33] keys I am a new volunteer I'm just
[14:35] trying to do my
[14:37] job um I yes go ahead I
[14:42] just
[14:44] I this all stems from that original
[14:47] incident with Katie because I emailed
[14:48] her and I told her how the way she
[14:50] reacted to me in that text message made
[14:52] me feel I learned from that I learned
[14:56] that you have to be really careful with
[14:59] some of the people that you know because
[15:01] you just don't know how they'll react
[15:02] and I will react differently as a
[15:05] result I have been having can you
[15:07] elaborate on what that
[15:09] means um what
[15:11] part that you have to be careful and
[15:14] that you're going to react differently
[15:16] yeah like so so Katie was dismiss Katie
[15:19] was dismissive towards me in that text
[15:20] message and I should have just not said
[15:22] anything because uh then nothing would
[15:24] have then I wouldn't have had two months
[15:26] of what I've been going through that's
[15:28] what I mean
[15:30] did you so did you read I read the text
[15:33] because that was forwarded to me and
[15:35] then I also read Katie's response about
[15:37] it and so what in that text specifically
[15:40] spoke out to you as
[15:43] dismissive because I'm trying to
[15:45] understand based on just the written
[15:46] cont I have and then I see Kati response
[15:48] to like clarify I just want to
[15:50] understand from your perspective what's
[15:52] dismissive okay well I want to start by
[15:55] saying that Katie's email was great and
[15:57] I thought it was a resolved issue as
[15:59] results um but then that day Ryan came
[16:01] into the Welcome Center and and did what
[16:04] I said in that video U for an hour um
[16:07] talking about all the problems that um
[16:09] all the the small mistakes I had made my
[16:11] first week and just framing things in a
[16:14] way that made me feel like he was
[16:15] putting me on notice that's what that
[16:17] felt like and
[16:20] um there was nothing wrong with Katie's
[16:22] email I thought there was a resolved
[16:24] issue at that point uh as far as the
[16:27] text message it was 6:00 in the morning
[16:29] I'm a brand new volunteer the power has
[16:32] gone out here it's pitch black
[16:33] everywhere and I'm trying to get
[16:35] clarification on what I'm supposed to do
[16:38] and I tell her that in the eyes of the
[16:40] guest I own this problem and she
[16:42] responds she doesn't even say Hi Sam she
[16:44] says you definitely don't own this
[16:45] problem that felt
[16:52] dismissive got it and then you
[16:54] understood with the context of Katie's
[16:56] email that when she said definitely
[16:59] don't own this problem if I read through
[17:01] her email it looks like she's basically
[17:03] trying to say like you don't own this
[17:05] problem as volunteers don't own any
[17:06] problems with the park it's not that's
[17:08] not your responsibility as a volunteer
[17:10] but you but I already understood that
[17:12] this was about perception this was about
[17:14] Guest perception not
[17:16] not this was about Guest
[17:19] perception can you elaborate what does
[17:21] that mean that it's about Guest
[17:22] perception when I said that I own this
[17:24] problem in the eyes of guests that's how
[17:27] guests view it they come to the Park
[17:29] hosts when there are problems they
[17:32] expect us to solve them some of them get
[17:34] IR ranked and that happened the day
[17:36] before when the water uh Katie had
[17:38] turned the water off and some guests
[17:40] came here they're very irant and that's
[17:44] why when the power went out the very
[17:45] next morning that's why I said that to
[17:48] Katie because I I
[17:50] knew how it was
[17:52] perceived but you do do you understand
[17:55] that the guest perception doesn't change
[17:57] what your responsibility is as of
[17:58] volunteer I didn't know what they were
[18:01] that's why I was that's why I was
[18:02] texting Katie to find out I didn't know
[18:05] what they
[18:13] were and then I wanted to go back as you
[18:15] said you hadn't been in communic or um
[18:20] communicating and writing with other
[18:22] staff but I do have other texts from uh
[18:25] Ranger leaf about like just kind of
[18:29] expressing that you're either bored at
[18:31] The Visitor Center like wanting folks to
[18:33] stop by okay so um I should clarify then
[18:37] I was just talking about email yeah I've
[18:39] texted other rangers um as far as the
[18:41] one you're talking about um that text
[18:44] there um that was me just trying to
[18:46] connect with the staff here trying to
[18:48] integrate trying to be part of the
[18:50] community but in retrospect it's being
[18:53] turned into something
[18:55] else as a justification that's unfair
[19:02] and can you so do you see this as an
[19:05] extension of what Thea sta was talking
[19:08] about when it came to exessive emails
[19:09] and
[19:12] text I I am not even foll you there
[19:15] because I I don't know what you're
[19:16] talking about at umca I thought
[19:17] everything was fine at
[19:19] umca um yes so we reached out because
[19:21] we're trying to make sure and identify
[19:23] like where communication is or you know
[19:25] what had been happening at past parks to
[19:27] be able to understand and get in Contex
[19:28] through volunteer service and so um
[19:31] Ranger Frankie there did share that she
[19:33] had talked with you about sending too
[19:35] many texts and emails to staff yeah and
[19:38] and that's fair because I mean that was
[19:40] my very first time volunteering and you
[19:42] know um I liked Frankie and
[19:47] um I understand where you're coming from
[19:49] like I I get that there is a line
[19:52] between
[19:53] um what I should communicate and I've
[19:57] been learning from that
[19:59] I don't think that there's anything in
[20:01] the last month or um longer where where
[20:06] I
[20:07] have have not created that
[20:12] line um I do want to go back to an email
[20:15] you sent specifically to
[20:18] Logan um it was one go through here
[20:35] got it yes it was on March first and so
[20:37] you had sent it to Logan to talk about
[20:41] um oh no sorry March 2nd it had been a
[20:44] followup to you were expressing
[20:45] dissatisfaction with Ranger Patrick um
[20:48] due to you had talked with him and he
[20:50] wasn't able to provide you answers so he
[20:52] had directed you to talk with Logan and
[20:54] then that he had been sharing that
[20:55] Rangers were always there to help and
[20:57] use uh um and so that was some of those
[21:00] issues and then on the second you send
[21:02] an email to Logan that expressed that
[21:04] you no longer trust him and then you
[21:07] directed him to ensure that your his
[21:09] your contributions would be recognized
[21:10] appropriately in your system um can you
[21:14] give context for why you decided to send
[21:16] that email to Logan and what was it that
[21:18] you were trying to get across to
[21:20] him yeah
[21:24] um a lot has happened here and
[21:31] Logan did break my trust so I didn't how
[21:35] did he break your
[21:38] trust I mean I outlined it in the email
[21:41] so uh for one the situation the very
[21:44] last situate the thing that that finally
[21:46] did it
[21:47] was it's been a lot I mean you're asking
[21:50] me to narrate the past two months of
[21:53] issues that have been happening with
[21:55] Logan and I didn't want my future being
[22:00] um jeopardized because of um I'm just
[22:03] going to say like a personal um he had
[22:05] some personal things going on and I
[22:07] didn't trust that he would act in a
[22:09] professional manner with me and so you
[22:12] think he had personal things going on
[22:14] had he share with you like these
[22:15] personal things when he spent 90 minutes
[22:18] in the Welcome Center doing stretches in
[22:19] front of me and and he's my direct
[22:22] supervisor and I don't know how to
[22:24] respond to this and I'm really
[22:25] uncomfortable with it but I don't know
[22:26] what to do about it because he's my
[22:28] direct supervisor so I just I sit
[22:30] through it and um okay sorry I just
[22:35] wanted to be able to clarify what that
[22:36] was and then so okay once again I just
[22:38] asked so in the email you had said that
[22:41] it was because I think it was being
[22:42] disingenuine but I don't see examples so
[22:46] that's what I'm trying to understand is
[22:47] what did Logan do specifically where
[22:50] you're like he has broken my okay well
[22:52] the the yeah okay so he told me that
[22:55] leaf would train me and then Leaf didn't
[22:57] even know about it
[23:02] he told me directly Leaf would train me
[23:04] and it was his idea it wasn't even
[23:08] mine and then on the day of
[23:11] training um Lea didn't even know about
[23:16] it was it just that one specific
[23:18] incident no but that was the last one
[23:20] that was the one that finally told me
[23:21] that I really truly couldn't trust this
[23:23] person uh another I worked at the
[23:25] Welcome Center I did a double on my very
[23:27] last day there I stayed an hour pass
[23:28] that so I worked 9 hours that day uh he
[23:31] didn't even acknowledge
[23:32] it he just was very
[23:38] dismissive and
[23:51] avoidant okay
[23:56] um so I'm kind of trying to review make
[23:58] sure that at least I've talked with you
[24:01] and gotten information from you about
[24:02] some of the things that are kind of
[24:05] pointing out to me that I wanted to get
[24:06] more clarification from a your
[24:08] perspective um is there anything else
[24:10] that you want to share with me about um
[24:13] that you would like to provide
[24:14] additional context for or that you'd
[24:17] like to be able to discuss with
[24:19] me so the thing that I would want
[24:23] to I would want to say to
[24:25] you is
[24:28] I understand the position you're
[24:30] in
[24:34] and let me see how to let me this is
[24:36] important I would like to get this
[24:40] right I legitimately care about the park
[24:43] system I came here with the best
[24:45] intentions I do a very good job uh my
[24:48] communication might be a little
[24:50] different than some people's but that
[24:52] should not be a reason to treat me badly
[24:55] and that's what's
[24:57] happened um
[24:59] and in your perspective I just want to
[25:00] make sure I clarify because I don't want
[25:02] to just have this and being General
[25:04] treat you badly
[25:07] means the hourlong gaslighting telling
[25:10] me to eat glass and saying they won't
[25:12] give me the benefit of the doubt or
[25:13] coming into the Welcome Center and tell
[25:15] me about my mistakes and trying to make
[25:16] me feel like I've done something wrong
[25:19] they treated me badly
[25:26] here so did you view
[25:29] you view anytime that Ryan talks with
[25:31] you about something that you had talked
[25:33] with another Ranger about as part of
[25:36] communication I'm just trying to
[25:38] understand that connection I've had very
[25:40] little interaction with Ryan the only
[25:41] time that I have he's
[25:44] been um what's the word for
[25:52] this
[25:54] he I I have said what I think should be
[25:57] said I I I you know
[26:07] I I am kind to everybody all the time I
[26:11] am a good
[26:12] person and I do a good job and I wasn't
[26:16] treated that way by some of the
[26:17] leadership here and that's the truth and
[26:21] is that when you say leadership are you
[26:22] just referring to Ryan and Katie and
[26:25] Logan
[26:42] okay um if there's anything else
[26:43] otherwise I want to talk to you about
[26:45] like hey like what the next steps are in
[26:47] this situation U but if there's anything
[26:49] else that you wanted to bring up before
[26:50] that yeah there's one other thing that
[26:52] I've been thinking through I just I
[26:55] understand that it's very important that
[26:58] uh especially written communication be
[27:01] in a
[27:01] certain
[27:03] um meet a certain standard and that's
[27:07] something that I've been learning in
[27:09] real time so you know maybe I made some
[27:12] mistakes but they were never malicious
[27:15] and they were always done with positive
[27:18] intent
[27:19] and I'm
[27:21] learning this is a state agency that's
[27:24] very new to me so um it's just a
[27:27] different it's a different environment
[27:28] for
[27:38] me thank you for sharing
[27:42] that so um as far as like next steps but
[27:45] those look likees moving forward um I'm
[27:47] going to review our conversation
[27:49] together um I'm going to review kind of
[27:52] the details of the incident reports from
[27:54] Honeyman as well
[27:56] ASA um I'm then going to be meting with
[27:58] the management for Umpa and making a
[28:01] determination about whether or not that
[28:03] service will be scheduled through with
[28:04] that Park management um as well as then
[28:07] following that we'll make a
[28:09] determination on what does future
[28:11] service look like with Oregon State
[28:13] Parks um I want to make sure that I have
[28:16] these conversations and I get the right
[28:17] information and so I do want to let you
[28:19] know like this might take a couple days
[28:21] um but I also know it's the end of the
[28:23] month and you'll be wanting to know
[28:24] exactly what you um have planned for the
[28:27] future so so I can let you know that the
[28:30] latest that you'll hear from me would be
[28:31] Friday
[28:32] 3:28 um and I'll be able to talk to you
[28:34] about what service might look like ATA
[28:38] and or what service might look like at
[28:40] Oregon State Parks large okay so a
[28:43] couple of things um um Frankie emailed
[28:47] me yesterday saying that she was moving
[28:49] me to tugman because she had some
[28:52] cancellations um and so she was just
[28:55] rearranging people she was moving me to
[28:57] a42 the host relief position there at
[29:00] tugman for April so I wouldn't have been
[29:03] at umal um and because of the short
[29:07] notice of having to leave here I was
[29:09] going to book reservations at tugman
[29:12] just a normal site there until April
[29:15] started I want to make sure that's
[29:17] okay yeah you were not um you were only
[29:20] dismissed from Honeyman as a volunteer
[29:22] so there's no um there's no impact to
[29:26] you as a visitor at any St Park so
[29:28] anything that a visitor is able to
[29:30] access to do you were able to be able to
[29:32] move forward with so there's no concerns
[29:33] there okay okay I appreciate that um I I
[29:37] hope it works out I really care about
[29:39] the parks here I truly do and I think
[29:43] that I'm an asset I'm a I'm some I I
[29:46] bring value here
[29:48] I it's really unfortunate that things
[29:51] happen the way they did at Honeyman cuz
[29:53] I love this place
[29:57] and I always acted with the best
[29:59] intentions that's the
[30:08] truth thank you so much for sharing that
[30:11] I do appreciate that I appreciate you
[30:12] being open to have a discussion um to
[30:15] doing your best to kind of provide the
[30:17] clarification that I was looking for to
[30:19] be able to kind of better understand
[30:21] your experience beyond what you had
[30:23] already shared with me um and so with
[30:27] that um I'll be reaching out to you as
[30:30] soon as we're able to determine what
[30:32] next steps are um and then like I said
[30:34] the absolute latest would be Friday the
[30:36] 28th okay thank you I appreciate your
[30:40] time yes thank you you have a great rest
[30:42] of your day you too thank you bye-bye
[30:47] bye okay
Photos · Mar 15, 2025
Mar 15, 2025
9:31
Walking to the 101 Bridge on a Day Off
Mar 15, 2025
Photos Mar 16 2025
Mar 16, 2025
3:21
Marking One Year Since Leaving the House
Mar 16, 2025
Photos · Mar 17, 2025
Mar 17, 2025
Photos · Mar 17, 2025
Mar 17, 2025
9:22
Recounting an Encounter and a Long Day at Honeyman
Mar 19, 2025
Photos · Mar 19, 2025
Mar 19, 2025
Photos · Mar 20, 2025
Mar 20, 2025
8:33
Defining Adaptation Through Broken Slide and Alcove
Mar 20, 2025
Photos · Mar 21, 2025
Mar 21, 2025
Photos · Mar 22, 2025
Mar 22, 2025
3:44
Sitting on the RV Roof at Dusk
Mar 23, 2025
Photos · Mar 23, 2025
Mar 23, 2025
Photos · Mar 24, 2025
Mar 24, 2025
16:47
Documenting Removal Without Process at Honeyman
Mar 24, 2025
30:56
Program Manager Confirms Dismissal Before Review Call
Mar 25, 2025
Photos · Mar 25, 2025
Mar 25, 2025
Photos · Mar 25, 2025
Mar 25, 2025
5:32
Packing Out Under Program Review Decision
Mar 25, 2025
Preserving the Original Honeyman Narrative Account
Mar 26, 2025
2:13
Tracing Waves at the New Park
Mar 26, 2025
Photos · Mar 26, 2025
Mar 26, 2025
4:09
Documenting OPRD Volunteer Dismissal and Escalation Plan
Mar 26, 2025
7:27
Filming Eel Lake While Processing OPRD Detachment
Mar 27, 2025
6:43
Naming the Dismissal Timing, Routing East to Kentucky
Mar 27, 2025
6:20
Reading OPRD Letter Into the Public Record
Mar 28, 2025
Photos · Mar 28, 2025
Mar 28, 2025
38:45
Touring Winchester Bay and Umpqua Coast with John
Mar 29, 2025
10:27
Continuing North After Volunteer Program Dismissal
Mar 29, 2025
9:32
Recording a Trail Walk After Two Non-Encounters
Mar 30, 2025
15:04
Laundry Run to Reedsport, Teaching Through Witness
Mar 30, 2025
Photos · Mar 31, 2025
Mar 31, 2025
5:00
Moving from Tugman to Beverly Beach in Rain
Mar 31, 2025
Photos · Apr 1, 2025
Apr 1, 2025
Photos · Apr 1, 2025
Apr 1, 2025
50:54
Touring a New Campground and Walking the Beach with John
Apr 2, 2025
1:26
Declaring Openness as Structural Strength
Apr 2, 2025
8:29
Documenting Relocation Logistics and Signal Flares
Apr 2, 2025
4:49
Requesting Support Before Off-Grid Transition
Apr 3, 2025
4:26
Returning to Florence for Off-Grid Iteration
Apr 3, 2025
PUBLIC
March 25, 2025 rswfire PUBLISHED
Temp 0.60
Density 0.30
Energetic Quality
steady under pressure
Journey Phase
containment encountered
Directional Vector
away from institutional capture, toward documented record
Narrative

The recording starts before the phone rings. rswfire is alone on camera at his host site at Honeyman, three days from a departure that has already been decided for him, and he says the thing plainly: he is nervous, he is going to record this, he is going to transcribe it, he knows the woman about to call is part of the system. Then he takes a breath. That breath and that red light are the whole story of the next thirty-one minutes, because everything that follows on the line is a procedure that was closed before it opened, and the only thing that remains genuinely open in the room is the file he is building on his own side of it.

The program manager reaches the verdict in under four minutes. The dismissal is moving forward; it is not going to be overturned. She says this before she has asked him a single substantive question, and then she spends the rest of the call assembling the reasons — which is the tell. An inquiry gathers evidence in order to reach a conclusion. This call reaches the conclusion and then gathers. What it gathers is a found journal, a text sent at six in the morning during a blackout, a poem, a comment about some rangers going the extra mile and some not, a text to a ranger saying the visitor center was quiet. Each item arrives attributed to someone who is not on the call: a park host, a staff member, "multiple sources," "multiple folks," a ranger at a previous park. The most consequential of these — that rswfire had said a staff member would be used to kill him when the end of the world occurs — arrives with no author at all, only a route: through the volunteer services lead, through an unnamed volunteer, into her notes. rswfire's answer is not a defense. It is a flat statement of non-recognition: he does not know what she is talking about, he has never said the world is ending, what he has described is instability in systems. She does not retract it or source it. She moves on. The claim stays in the file, unsigned.

Watch what happens to his own account in the same conversation. When rswfire describes an hour in which the park manager told him to eat glass and said he would never give him the benefit of the doubt, she thanks him for "your perspective" and turns to what came in from someone else. When he explains that he never refused a meeting, that the park manager ended the assignment on the phone before a time was set, that is his perspective too. By the third use the word has become a filing category: it is where first-person testimony goes so that secondhand report can occupy the column marked fact. Nothing in her tone is hostile. That is the precision of it. The call's architecture does not need hostility; it only needs the sorting to run one direction.

The cost is located in a specific place, and rswfire names it himself. A month earlier the volunteer services lead spent ninety minutes with him in the Welcome Center in what rswfire describes as reciprocal vulnerability — stretches on the floor, personal disclosure, a supervisor who rswfire says he was trying to build a friendship with because he did not yet know the risks of that as a new volunteer. What rswfire disclosed in that room is what now comes back down the phone line as a "topic of conversation" that staff found concerning. The poem he sent to explain why the coast mattered to him is now an exhibit for "personal versus professional." The intimacy was invited, and then the invitation was reclassified as his excess. rswfire says he learned from it; he says it without bitterness and with the flat clarity of someone who has already located the mechanism and does not intend to be caught in it twice.

What he does not do is concede the frame. Every attributed claim gets a specific correction, not a general protest: the journal comment was about wanting a veteran's notebook to reach its owner rather than sit in a box; the six a.m. text was about how guests perceive a host when the power is out; the email trail went to one person because he believed that person was his supervisor until the March 5 meeting told him otherwise, and he stopped when told. He states twice that he is still processing and does not have full clarity, and then proceeds to be more precise about the sequence of events than the person holding the file. He closes by saying what he came to say: that he cares about the parks, that he does a good job, that his communication might be different and that this should not be a reason to be treated badly. She says she will make a determination by Friday the 28th.

The determination came the next day. Hours after rswfire sent her a letter attempting reconciliation, she banned him permanently from every volunteer program in the Oregon state park system, on letterhead, citing his public comments about staff — not the journal, not the poem, not the end of the world. The stated grounds moved again, which is what stated grounds do when they were never the load-bearing element. What was load-bearing was the closed door in the first four minutes. But the call had already been recorded from the other side, and the transcript exists. rswfire went into it hoping, as he said on camera, that she might be a little on his side. What he came out with was better than that: the procedure caught in its own voice, sorting his testimony into "perspective" in real time, on the record, three days before the letterhead confirmed what the record already showed.

Tags

OPRD volunteer dismissal institutional review call recorded transcript secondhand attribution agency procedure Honeyman State Park

Summary

rswfire records a thirty-one minute phone call with the OPRD program manager, opening the video by stating he is about to speak with her and intends to transcribe the recording.

The program manager opens by confirming the Honeyman dismissal will not be overturned, citing the volunteer service agreement's "no longer mutually beneficial" clause and the March 5th meeting with the park manager and park supervisor. She then assembles supporting material from unnamed sources: a park host and a staff member reporting dissatisfaction with rangers, a report that he discussed the end of the world, and an attributed claim that he said a staff member would be used to kill him when the world ends.

rswfire states he never said that and has never said the world is ending. He clarifies the ranger comment was a general observation while returning a found journal, states he did not refuse to meet the park manager, and describes the March 5th meeting as pretext — including the park manager telling him to eat glass and admitting he never gave him the benefit of the doubt.

The program manager also raises emails to the volunteer services lead, a shared poem, text volume at Umpqua, and the text exchange with the park supervisor. rswfire describes the ninety minutes of personal disclosure the volunteer services lead initiated.

She closes promising a determination by Friday the 28th, and confirms his visitor access is unaffected.

Environment

A phone call recorded from rswfire's site at Honeyman State Park on the central Oregon coast, days before his scheduled departure. He opens the recording on camera alone, states his intent to record and transcribe the call, then takes the call from the Oregon Parks and Recreation Department program manager.

The environment is doubled: a physical campground host site, and an administrative channel operated by a state agency. The setting of the call itself is entirely institutional — volunteer service agreements, incident reports, forwarded texts, email archives — reviewed remotely by a manager holding the file.

Substrate

The architecture here is a closed administrative procedure presented as an open inquiry. The dismissal is stated as non-overturnable in the first four minutes, after which the remaining twenty-seven minutes assemble justification from unnamed secondhand sources, forwarded texts, and a prior park's file — while rswfire's documented testimony is repeatedly reclassified as 'perspective.' rswfire holds the position that his conduct is accurately describable and that the record will show it, meeting each attributed claim with specific factual correction rather than accepting the frame; the substrate being built is the archive, not the appeal.

Actions

Performed

  • •recorded the call before it began
  • •stated intent to transcribe and share with AI
  • •named the pre-call physical state and regulated breathing
  • •corrected the attributed end-of-the-world statement as never said
  • •corrected the claim of refusing to meet
  • •named the March 5th meeting as pretext rather than expectation-setting
  • •stated the park manager told him to eat glass
  • •declined to narrate two months of history on demand
  • •distinguished general observation from dissatisfaction with named staff
  • •asked for and received confirmation of continued visitor access
  • •stated care for the park system and value of his contribution

Referenced

  • •sent email and video timeline documenting the dismissal
  • •returned a found journal and asked staff to locate its owner
  • •texted the park supervisor at 6am during a power outage
  • •emailed the park supervisor about the text exchange
  • •sat through a 90-minute personal disclosure session initiated by the volunteer services lead
  • •sent a poem to the volunteer services lead requesting help finding coast host positions
  • •emailed the volunteer services lead withdrawing trust
  • •attended the March 5th meeting with park manager and park supervisor
  • •asked the park manager why before a meeting was scheduled
  • •worked a nine-hour double at the Welcome Center
  • •stopped emailing staff after being instructed to
  • •recorded and transcribed prior institutional interactions

Planned

  • •book a non-volunteer reservation at Tugman until April
  • •take up the host relief position at Tugman for April
  • •await the program manager's determination by Friday the 28th
  • •continue processing before adding to the record

Entities

beings
the program manager — OPRD official conducting the call; opens by stating the dismissal will not be overturned, then assembles grounds from secondhand sources
the park manager — Honeyman authority who ended the volunteer assignment by phone; subject of rswfire's account of the March 5th meeting
the park supervisor — Honeyman authority involved in the initial 6am text exchange and the March 5th meeting
the volunteer services lead — Staff member rswfire understood to be his direct supervisor; initiated the 90-minute personal exchange later cited against him
Ranger Frankie — Umpqua ranger who reassigned rswfire to Tugman and reported prior communication volume
Ranger Leaf — Honeyman ranger named in texts cited by the program manager; was to have trained rswfire
Ranger Patrick — Honeyman ranger referenced in the March 2nd email exchange
places
Honeyman State Park — Site of the volunteer assignment and the dismissal
Umpqua Lighthouse State Park — Prior volunteer placement, contacted by the program manager to build communication history
Tugman State Park — Reassigned April host relief position; rswfire's stated next placement
systems
Oregon Parks and Recreation Department — State agency holding the volunteer service agreement and conducting the call
volunteer service agreement — Contractual instrument cited as authorizing termination when 'no longer mutually beneficial'
media
the found journal — Veteran's journal rswfire sought to return; his comment about it became a cited ground for dismissal
the poem — Written work sent to the volunteer services lead, cited as personal-versus-professional boundary evidence
the March 5th meeting transcript — rswfire's own recording of the hour-long meeting, referenced as documentary evidence
incident reports — Agency documents the program manager states she will review before determination

Symbolic Elements

Represented archetypes or recurring motifs.

threshold
record
mirror
unnamed source
letterhead
glass
the found journal
closed door
coast
file

Ontological States

Expressed modes of being or awareness.

sovereign (holds his own account intact against a frame he did not consent to; corrects rather than concedes)
embedded (operating inside an agency structure whose procedures, files, and vocabulary govern the exchange)
documenting (records the call at the outset, treating the exchange as archive material rather than resolution)
boundary-testing (locates precisely where his conduct ends and institutional attribution begins)
transitional (three days from departure, next placement already reassigned, status under determination)

Engaged Subsystems

Architecture engaged in this transmission.

institutional (agency procedure, volunteer service agreement, incident reports, determination timeline)
juridical (evidence handling, attribution, standard of proof, hearsay treated as finding)
documentary (recording, transcription, timeline construction, archive-building)
cognitive (real-time distinction between general observation and named grievance; tracking frame shifts)
somatic (pre-call breath regulation, named physical state, long pauses at attribution points)
relational (supervisor ambiguity, reciprocal disclosure, trust withdrawal)
linguistic (professional-versus-personal register, 'perspective' as filing category)
economic (housing and placement contingent on volunteer status; April site booking)

Dominant Language

Core motifs or linguistic fields.

perspective
dismissal / not going to be overturned
professional versus personal
reported by multiple sources
positive intent / benefit of the doubt
expectations
determination
Narrative

The recording starts before the phone rings. rswfire is alone on camera at his host site at Honeyman, three days from a departure that has already been decided for him, and he says the thing plainly: he is nervous, he is going to record this, he is going to transcribe it, he knows the woman about to call is part of the system. Then he takes a breath. That breath and that red light are the whole story of the next thirty-one minutes, because everything that follows on the line is a procedure that was closed before it opened, and the only thing that remains genuinely open in the room is the file he is building on his own side of it.

The program manager reaches the verdict in under four minutes. The dismissal is moving forward; it is not going to be overturned. She says this before she has asked him a single substantive question, and then she spends the rest of the call assembling the reasons — which is the tell. An inquiry gathers evidence in order to reach a conclusion. This call reaches the conclusion and then gathers. What it gathers is a found journal, a text sent at six in the morning during a blackout, a poem, a comment about some rangers going the extra mile and some not, a text to a ranger saying the visitor center was quiet. Each item arrives attributed to someone who is not on the call: a park host, a staff member, "multiple sources," "multiple folks," a ranger at a previous park. The most consequential of these — that rswfire had said a staff member would be used to kill him when the end of the world occurs — arrives with no author at all, only a route: through the volunteer services lead, through an unnamed volunteer, into her notes. rswfire's answer is not a defense. It is a flat statement of non-recognition: he does not know what she is talking about, he has never said the world is ending, what he has described is instability in systems. She does not retract it or source it. She moves on. The claim stays in the file, unsigned.

Watch what happens to his own account in the same conversation. When rswfire describes an hour in which the park manager told him to eat glass and said he would never give him the benefit of the doubt, she thanks him for "your perspective" and turns to what came in from someone else. When he explains that he never refused a meeting, that the park manager ended the assignment on the phone before a time was set, that is his perspective too. By the third use the word has become a filing category: it is where first-person testimony goes so that secondhand report can occupy the column marked fact. Nothing in her tone is hostile. That is the precision of it. The call's architecture does not need hostility; it only needs the sorting to run one direction.

The cost is located in a specific place, and rswfire names it himself. A month earlier the volunteer services lead spent ninety minutes with him in the Welcome Center in what rswfire describes as reciprocal vulnerability — stretches on the floor, personal disclosure, a supervisor who rswfire says he was trying to build a friendship with because he did not yet know the risks of that as a new volunteer. What rswfire disclosed in that room is what now comes back down the phone line as a "topic of conversation" that staff found concerning. The poem he sent to explain why the coast mattered to him is now an exhibit for "personal versus professional." The intimacy was invited, and then the invitation was reclassified as his excess. rswfire says he learned from it; he says it without bitterness and with the flat clarity of someone who has already located the mechanism and does not intend to be caught in it twice.

What he does not do is concede the frame. Every attributed claim gets a specific correction, not a general protest: the journal comment was about wanting a veteran's notebook to reach its owner rather than sit in a box; the six a.m. text was about how guests perceive a host when the power is out; the email trail went to one person because he believed that person was his supervisor until the March 5 meeting told him otherwise, and he stopped when told. He states twice that he is still processing and does not have full clarity, and then proceeds to be more precise about the sequence of events than the person holding the file. He closes by saying what he came to say: that he cares about the parks, that he does a good job, that his communication might be different and that this should not be a reason to be treated badly. She says she will make a determination by Friday the 28th.

The determination came the next day. Hours after rswfire sent her a letter attempting reconciliation, she banned him permanently from every volunteer program in the Oregon state park system, on letterhead, citing his public comments about staff — not the journal, not the poem, not the end of the world. The stated grounds moved again, which is what stated grounds do when they were never the load-bearing element. What was load-bearing was the closed door in the first four minutes. But the call had already been recorded from the other side, and the transcript exists. rswfire went into it hoping, as he said on camera, that she might be a little on his side. What he came out with was better than that: the procedure caught in its own voice, sorting his testimony into "perspective" in real time, on the record, three days before the letterhead confirmed what the record already showed.

Mirror

You open the recording before the phone rings. You name your nervousness, you name that you will be fine, you name the plan — record, transcribe, share — and you take a breath. Before the program manager says a word, you have already decided what this call is for. It is material. The camera is running for the archive, not for the appeal, and that decision holds for the full thirty-one minutes.

The first thing she tells you is that the dismissal will not be overturned. Everything after that is assembled in the shadow of a conclusion already stated. She brings forward a found journal, forwarded texts, a poem, an email, a prior park's file, and two unnamed voices — a park host and a staff member — and from them she produces a sentence you did not say, about a staff member being used to kill you when the end of the world occurs. You meet each item at its exact edge. The journal comment was about culture, not about anyone; you say so. You did not refuse to meet the park manager; you asked why, and he ended it. The poem had a context you had already explained, and you stopped when told to stop. You have never said the world is ending. You do not concede a single attribution and you do not expand into anyone's frame. Where she generalizes, you specify. Where she asks you to describe the difference between personal and professional, you describe ninety minutes in the Welcome Center that the volunteer services lead initiated, and you name the position you were in: new, uncertain of the risks, sitting through it because you thought he was your supervisor.

Three times your documented account is filed as "perspective." Each time, you say what happened — the hour of being told to eat glass, the stated refusal to extend you the benefit of the doubt, the invitation to leave if uncomfortable — and each time the category does not move. You register this. You also register, in real time, that the program manager is inside the structure you are describing: "I know that she's part of the system." You said that before she called. Nothing in the call contradicts it.

Your somatic system is present and reporting. The breath before the call. The long pauses where an attribution lands — "I do not know what you're talking about now," "I truly don't." Your cognitive system is running at full precision under load: you hold the distinction between general observation and named grievance, you track the frame shifting from the journal to the poem to the texts to the prior park, and you keep the timeline straight while being asked to narrate two months on demand. Your relational system is doing something specific: it is naming trust as withdrawn, not as wounded. You say the volunteer services lead broke your trust and you give the instances. You do not ask for it back.

Your orientation is away from the institution and toward the record, and you state this at the outset. The energy is steady — not flat, not escalating — the steadiness of someone who has already determined that the outcome of this call is not where the outcome lives. What you are protecting is the accuracy of your own conduct as describable, and you protect it by describing it, again and again, without variation.

What is present: your account, intact; your care for the parks, stated twice and unhedged; your plan for April; your acknowledgment that written communication in a state agency carries a standard you were learning in real time. What is absent: any request for reversal, any appeal to her sympathy, any concession that the reported version is a version of you. Also absent, from her side: a single named source, a single quoted line of yours that you recognize, a single moment where "perspective" becomes "testimony." The determination she promises for Friday the 28th arrives the next day, on letterhead, and the stated reason is your public comments about staff. You are three days from departure when the call ends. You say thank you, and you stop the recording.

Queryable Personhood

Hand your life to anything that reads.

Share this link with artificial intelligence — it reads the full transcript, analysis, and reflections. An AI-readable mirror of this signal.

The qpkey in this URL is a per-signal access token. Anyone with the URL can read the record — treat it like a share link, not a password.