Vetting Process And Contracts For New General Authorities?

[HappyJackWagon]

With the liklihood of 3 new aposltes being called during this next week prior to the general sessions of conference, I'm curious if anyone has any inside information about the vetting process for new apostles, other General Authorities, and General Auxiliary leaders.

 

With any large organization I'd expect a significant vetting process and in the church I'd expect the vetting to include financial reviews, legal background checks, church service history, tithing paid, marital history, church disciplinary history, as well as any public statements or controversial activities. I think this is reasonable, to an extent, since these leaders represent the church publicly.

 

I have a couple of specific questions-

 

1-Would anyone being vetted for consideration be aware of that vetting process before this in depth search into their life? Would it be an invasion of privacy to dig into someone's life without their knowledge or consent?

 

2-When an apostle is called, do they sign something akin to an employment contract outlining their duties and compensation, perhaps with specific requirements like a morality clause?

[Duncan]

and what does vetting mean?

[smac97]

I have a couple of specific questions-

 

1-Would anyone being vetted for consideration be aware of that vetting process before this in depth search into their life? Would it be an invasion of privacy to dig into someone's life without their knowledge or consent?

First, I don't think the Church would do a substantive background/vetting search without an individual's consent.

Second, there are all sorts of means whereby a person's background can be checked using public records. I do it all the time as an attorney. I don't think "invasion of privacy" is implicated in such searched.

2-When an apostle is called, do they sign something akin to an employment contract outlining their duties and compensation, perhaps with specific requirements like a morality clause?

I doubt it.

Thanks,

-Smac

[rockpond]

With the liklihood of 3 new aposltes being called during this next week prior to the general sessions of conference, I'm curious if anyone has any inside information about the vetting process for new apostles, other General Authorities, and General Auxiliary leaders.

 

With any large organization I'd expect a significant vetting process and in the church I'd expect the vetting to include financial reviews, legal background checks, church service history, tithing paid, marital history, church disciplinary history, as well as any public statements or controversial activities. I think this is reasonable, to an extent, since these leaders represent the church publicly.

 

I have a couple of specific questions-

 

1-Would anyone being vetted for consideration be aware of that vetting process before this in depth search into their life? Would it be an invasion of privacy to dig into someone's life without their knowledge or consent?

 

2-When an apostle is called, do they sign something akin to an employment contract outlining their duties and compensation, perhaps with specific requirements like a morality clause?

 

I think the "vetting" (not sure if that is the best word for it) has been done throughout the individual's lifetime of service to the church.  Assuming, of course, that they choose someone who is already a general authority.

 

If there are any types of contracts regarding employment & compensation, I think those would likely have to do with the positions that apostles may hold within business entities owned by the Church.

[CA Steve]

and what does vetting mean?

It means to check out a candidate for a position like say for vice president or supreme court justice. It is meant to help avoid nominating someone who may have had shady business dealings or other embarrassing past history, that shows up after the nomination. I would absolutely expect that the Church would conduct such a process on potential apostle nominations, even if they have done it before for other positions. Now, more than ever, with the availability of information on the internet, it is just too easy for anything to be made public to a vast audience.

[bluebell]

and what does vetting mean?

 

~"investigate (someone) thoroughly, especially in order to ensure that they are suitable for a job requiring secrecy, loyalty, or trustworthiness."

[Kenngo1969]

HappyJackWagon,

 

Who would know the answers to your questions, and how?

 

Just wonderin'!

 

P.S.: Isn't this one of those areas where those who know don't tell, and those who tell don't know?

Edited September 25, 2015 by Kenngo1969

[jkwilliams]

HappyJackWagon,

 

Who would know the answers to your questions, and how?

 

Just wonderin'!

 

P.S.: Isn't this one of those areas where those who know don't tell, and those who tell don't know?

 

I don't think anyone here would be in a position to answer the questions. I would be very surprised if the church didn't formally vet potential candidates, but who knows how they go about it?

[HappyJackWagon]

HappyJackWagon,

 

Who would know the answers to your questions, and how?

 

Just wonderin'!

 

P.S.: Isn't this one of those areas where those who know don't tell, and those who tell don't know?

I don't know what people may know or what restrictions they may have in sharing. That's why I'm asking.

 

But the vetting must be done by someone, right? Someone or some group/division at the COB would have this responsibility, even if they didn't know precisely what position they were vetting for (though after the fact I'm sure they could piece that together). I don't know that divulging the mere fact that vetting happens and some of the processes associated would be a breach. Maybe it would but then again, how would I know?

 

Just yesterday Elder Christofferson spoke about the process of the prophet calling the apostles by revelation but didn't expound on it beyond that. But surely a vetting process would be part of due dilligence and "studying it out in your mind" before seeking revelation.

 

Would it bother anyone if the church vetted people without their knowledge, doing criminal background checks, social media reviews, financial reviews etc at levels like Bishop or Stake President? It seems like the candidate would be brought into the loop at the level of making financial disclosures but I'm pretty certain that at least criminal background checks are performed without knowledge. I'm not suggesting it's illegal to do so, but I'm not sure how comfortable I am with it.

[Mars]

you're not sure you're comfortable with them doing things you're not even sure they're doing?

[ALarson]

I don't think anyone here would be in a position to answer the questions. I would be very surprised if the church didn't formally vet potential candidates, but who knows how they go about it?

I think someone made a post about this several months ago, but I'd need to search for it.  IIRC, it was also posted on John Dehlin's facebook page.  I'm not a member of his group, so I can't verify that of course.  I think the person gave 3 names that had been "vetted" (for the new apostles) and he supposedly worked in that department for the church and was involved in the vetting process. I can't remember now where I saw it posted.

 

I don't know if "vet" is the correct term to use, but I'd imagine some type of background check or something may be done just for legal purposes.  The church is a corporation, after all.

Edited September 25, 2015 by ALarson

[HappyJackWagon]

I think someone made a post about this several months ago, but I'd need to search for it.  IIRC, it was also posted on John Dehlin's facebook page.  I'm not a member of his group, so I can't verify that of course.  I think the person gave 3 names that had been "vetted" and he supposedly worked in that department for the church and was involved in the vetting process. I can't remember now where I saw it posted.

 

I don't know if "vet" is the correct term to use, but I'd imagine some type of background check or something may be done just for legal purposes.  The church is a corporation, after all.

What term would be better?

[jkwilliams]

I think someone made a post about this several months ago, but I'd need to search for it.  IIRC, it was also posted on John Dehlin's facebook page.  I'm not a member of his group, so I can't verify that of course.  I think the person gave 3 names that had been "vetted" (for the new apostles) and he supposedly worked in that department for the church and was involved in the vetting process. I can't remember now where I saw it posted.

 

I don't know if "vet" is the correct term to use, but I'd imagine some type of background check or something may be done just for legal purposes.  The church is a corporation, after all.

 

A friend of mine sent me the post, which was, I believe, from Dehlin's Facebook group (I am not a member of that group, either). As with all unsubstantiated rumors, I'm quite skeptical. 

[ALarson]

What term would be better?

I guess you're right, it all comes down to the same process whether you call it a " background check", an "investigation", or an "evaluation". 

Edited September 25, 2015 by ALarson

[pogi]

I think someone made a post about this several months ago, but I'd need to search for it. 

 

http://forum.newordermormon.org/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=44660

 

What I can't understand, Happy, is why you suppose that the vetting of background checks etc. is done without their knowledge, when this alleged leak that you are obviously privy to clearly states that they get "information consents from the candidate" prior to vetting. 

Edited September 25, 2015 by pogi

[ALarson]

A friend of mine sent me the post, which was, I believe, from Dehlin's Facebook group (I am not a member of that group, either). As with all unsubstantiated rumors, I'm quite skeptical. 

Me too.  I just did a search and found it again.  The names he gave that were supposedly vetted were:  Ronald A. Rasband, L. Whitney Clayton and James J. Hamula.  He also stated that there were "red flags" regarding L. Whitney Clayton, so he'd be surprised if he was called.  Anyone can do a search for this and find it themselves if they're interested, but I'm not posting a link to it.

[bluebell]

 

Would it bother anyone if the church vetted people without their knowledge, doing criminal background checks, social media reviews, financial reviews etc at levels like Bishop or Stake President? It seems like the candidate would be brought into the loop at the level of making financial disclosures but I'm pretty certain that at least criminal background checks are performed without knowledge. I'm not suggesting it's illegal to do so, but I'm not sure how comfortable I am with it.

 

It really wouldn't bother me any.  It's all public information basically, right?

[HappyJackWagon]

http://forum.newordermormon.org/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=44660

 

What I can't understand, Happy, is why you suppose that the vetting of background checks etc. is done without their knowledge, when this alleged leak that you are obviously privy to clearly states that they get "information consents from the candidate" prior to vetting. 

 

I must have missed the part  where it clearly states they get consent from the candidate. Where are you reading that?

 

I'm torn on this because in a lot of ways the vetting process seems like a responsible thing to do but IF it's digging into background without consent, I find that creepy.

[bluebell]

Me too.  I just did a search and found it again.  The names he gave that were supposedly vetted were:  Ronald A. Rasband, L. Whitney Clayton and James J. Hamula.  He also stated that there were "red flags" regarding L. Whitney Clayton, so he'd be surprised if he was called.  Anyone can do a search for this and find it themselves if they're interested, but I'm not posting a link to it.

 

Sounds like someone should have vetted your source.  He doesn't seem very trustworthy, considering the job he is claiming that he has with the church.  

[pogi]

I must have missed the part  where it clearly states they get consent from the candidate. Where are you reading that?

 

 

Basically, whenever new General Authorities are being proposed, the names are submitted to our department to do a final "background check"--you can think of it as a kind of "vetting" that is done in politics when Presidential candidates select a VP running mate. We get information consents from the candidate and check everything imaginable: financial, employment, educational, resumes, church callings, political involvement, criminal (never had an issue with this one!), disciplinary councils the candidate has been involved in as a leader. We write up a report flagging any possible areas of concern. For the most part, there are no issues, except for occasional ones that might "look bad" from a secular media perspective.

[HappyJackWagon]

Sounds like someone should have vetted your source.  He doesn't seem very trustworthy, considering the job he is claiming that he has with the church.  

Yeah, the source is questionable and unverifiable but it is an interesting concept.

[jkwilliams]

Me too.  I just did a search and found it again.  The names he gave that were supposedly vetted were:  Ronald A. Rasband, L. Whitney Clayton and James J. Hamula.  He also stated that there were "red flags" regarding L. Whitney Clayton, so he'd be surprised if he was called.  Anyone can do a search for this and find it themselves if they're interested, but I'm not posting a link to it.

 

Yeah, those were the names. How many times have we seen someone claim inside information that turns out to be completely wrong? Remember when the guy said that the church had definitely decided to leave the Boy Scouts? 

[HappyJackWagon]

Basically, whenever new General Authorities are being proposed, the names are submitted to our department to do a final "background check"--you can think of it as a kind of "vetting" that is done in politics when Presidential candidates select a VP running mate. We get information consents from the candidate and check everything imaginable: financial, employment, educational, resumes, church callings, political involvement, criminal (never had an issue with this one!), disciplinary councils the candidate has been involved in as a leader. We write up a report flagging any possible areas of concern. For the most part, there are no issues, except for occasional ones that might "look bad" from a secular media perspective.

Thanks. I DID miss that.

 

So if you believe that part of the post do you also believe the rest about vetting the candidates?

[bluebell]

Yeah, the source is questionable and unverifiable but it is an interesting concept.

 

My point is that, if it's true, then he's probably breaking some trust in sharing this information.  The church should have vetted the vetter much better.  

[jkwilliams]

My point is that, if it's true, then he's probably breaking some trust in sharing this information.  The church should have vetted the vetter much better.  

 

I don't put too much stock in the church's vetting of employees. They hired me, after all.