Open Stories Foundation---Dehlin, Money, and compensation

[Calm]

Stem, the financial claims of sexism need to wait for the 2016 documents from what I can see unless there is an explanation for Parker getting paid 1/7 as much for being President as Wotherspoon got paid as Director. (It is possible this was for podcasting, but as far as I can tell it is not itemized what they were paid for).  The links I am looking at are putting them both at 10 hours a week for 2015.

I am not sure how to document what may or may not be power dynamics based on sexism.

He is known to ban/block/push out men as well as women and reports of him attempting to not live up to agreed payments were reported by at least one man.

The best way to determine if he is sexist by an outsider would be to watch his podcasts and see if he tends to dominate conversations more, etc. with female guests, imo.

[rpn]

I get why John Dehlin would want to shut down critics including the woman who claimed she was mistreated and Kristy Money and the moderator.  And this isn't any different than what he has done  before in even bigger circles.    If the allegations are untrue, they do have the risk of causing great damage.    But generally when they are untrue, the person publishes all the facts.  They don't just get a bunch of friends who are also employees to say what a good guy he is and how they did everything right as a Board.    Many people would say what a good guy he is from their own interaction with him.  But he didn't release the Board minutes (which he must have around someplace if he is operating his business properly.    He didn't release the 2016 990, in draft form, if necessary  (which would address the financial issues).  Those are actions of someone who knows there is no fire behind the smoke. 

But the information on Kristy Money's facebook that Dehlin isn't licensed in Utah as a psychologist (I verified that he isn't under "john dehlin" at least), even though he claims his PhD (awarded 2015?) in various documents, claims to be a psychologist on his facebook page (using Dr. John Dehlin) and provides "coaching" is the most chilling given the information Rosebud alleges happened.  He claims to be doing personal counseling, when he is apparently not licensed to do so.    I hope she made a complaint to the Occupational Board, as that is the most  effective way of addressing the questions of misconduct of professionals.  

 

Edited May 23, 2017 by rpn

[Calm]

4 hours ago, stemelbow said:

If there was a lawsuit pulled out on John, then my goodness, this has far more bite than I've thought.  Are those listed all, or any of them for that matter, chiming in on Kate's thread? That might really be interesting.  If there is something to this, I'm actually really surprised John and his org is still running as it does.  Supporting this would be ridiculous. 

 

Apparently the lawsuit was threatened, but never filed.

still losing an entire board save one, then putting yourself on the board with two other paid podcasters...not a smart idea when it appears that 140,000 of the 180,000 donations are going into the pocket as salaries of these three people.

I may be wrong, but that is how I am reading the forms.

[stemelbow]

13 minutes ago, rongo said:

How does one contact a moderator? I've never needed to, but I'm curious because of the prominent, non-customer service-friendly reminder:

"It has come to our attention that the contact us feature on the site is broken.  Please do not use this feature to contact board admins.  Please go through normal channels.  If you are ignored there then assume your request was denied. Also if you try to email us that email address is pretty much ignored.  Also don't contact us to complain, ask for favors, donations, or any other thing that you may think would annoy us."

What are the "normal channels?" The email address "is pretty much ignored," and the contact us feature "is broken."

If a moderator wants to hear from you, you'll know how to contact them.  If they don't want to hear from you....well good luck

 😉

Edited May 23, 2017 by stemelbow

[Calm]

4 hours ago, probablyHagoth7 said:

If that direct response to your thread ends up assisting/strengthening his organization (whose teachings are contrary to those of the church), are the outer courts my home? 

 

I think you are okay as he apparently ignores all such suggestions.

[Calm]

14 minutes ago, rpn said:

I get why John Dehlin would want to shut down critics including the woman who claimed she was mistreated and Kristy Money and the moderator.  And this isn't any different than what he has done  before in even bigger circles.    If the allegations are untrue, they do have the risk of causing great damage.    But generally when they are untrue, the person publishes all the facts.  They don't just get a bunch of friends who are also employees to say what a good guy he is and how they did everything right as a Board.    Many people would say what a good guy he is from their own interaction with him.  But he didn't release the Board minutes (which he must have around someplace if he is operating his business properly.    He didn't release the 2016 990, in draft form, if necessary  (which would address the financial issues).  Those are actions of someone who knows there is no fire behind the smoke. 

But the information on Kristy Money's facebook that Dehlin isn't licensed in Utah as a psychologist (I verified that he isn't under "john dehlin" at least), even though he claims his PhD (awarded 2015?) in various documents, claims to be a psychologist on his facebook page (using Dr. John Dehlin) and provides "coaching" is the most chilling given the information Rosebud alleges happened.  He claims to be doing personal counseling, when he is apparently not licensed to do so.    I hope she made a complaint to the Occupational Board, as that is the most  effective way of addressing the questions of misconduct of professionals.  

 

Kelly's page goes into more detail on what he lacks in certification and what is and isn't allowed by law to be said.

My husband can claim to be a psychologist because of his Ph.D in social psych.  What he and Dehlin can't do is claim to be a "psychotherapist" or do therapy.

Anyone can set up as a "coach" and do "counseling", no degree needed.

The little I have read he is careful not to cross the line, but comes close.  According to Kelly's page, it may be claimed for him by others on his website, but I didn't look and no quote was provided.

Edited May 23, 2017 by Calm

[Calm]

11 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

If a moderator wants to hear from you, you'll know how to contact them.  If they don't want to hear from you....well good luck

 😉

Use the report button.  Or at least that is what I do.  Not just to chat of course.

PM might or might not work.

[cinepro]

13 minutes ago, rpn said:

But the information on Kristy Money's facebook that Dehlin isn't licensed in Utah as a psychologist (I verified that he isn't under "john dehlin" at least), even though he claims his PhD (awarded 2015?) in various documents, claims to be a psychologist on his facebook page (using Dr. John Dehlin) and provides "coaching" is the most chilling given the information Rosebud alleges happened.  He claims to be doing personal counseling, when he is apparently not licensed to do so.    I hope she made a complaint to the Occupational Board, as that is the most  effective way of addressing the questions of misconduct of professionals.  

 

He's a "coach", not a "psychiatrist":

Quote

Note: Coaching is NOT the same thing as psychotherapy.  Before reaching out, please read this document to understand the main differences between psychotherapy and coaching.

http://www.johndehlin.com/privatepractice/

 

[Calm]

1 minute ago, cinepro said:

He's a "coach", not a "psychiatrist":

http://www.johndehlin.com/privatepractice/

 

Not a "psychotherapist" either.

But he can say he is a psychologist.

[bluebell]

38 minutes ago, rongo said:

How does one contact a moderator? I've never needed to, but I'm curious because of the prominent, non-customer service-friendly reminder:

"It has come to our attention that the contact us feature on the site is broken.  Please do not use this feature to contact board admins.  Please go through normal channels.  If you are ignored there then assume your request was denied. Also if you try to email us that email address is pretty much ignored.  Also don't contact us to complain, ask for favors, donations, or any other thing that you may think would annoy us."

What are the "normal channels?" The email address "is pretty much ignored," and the contact us feature "is broken."

Most people probably use the report button.

[mfbukowski]

38 minutes ago, Calm said:

The red in my post was not me, but a moderator.  I am not enforcing it myself if that is your confusion.  I send in reports to the moderators just like anyone else on the thread can do.  So if someone is banned, it is the moderators' decision, not mine. 

And no, this is not me being coy.  I am not a moderator no matter how determined some people are to believe that.

I have been paying attention for years when opening posters have called for a narrow discussion without going off in whatever direction.  Mods have always backed up the OP though that I can remember sometimes it can be slow.   There have been a number of them.  I think this may be my third time.

It might be worth it to go back and clean up the OP because at this point it is quite confusing for those who are unaware of the names of the people involved and what happened.

There are insertions, edits and sidebars with references to events which are unexplained etc.

Just an attempt to be constructive- you know I love you!  

Just a clear explanation of what the thread is about and what the limitations are would be useful.  I had no clue I was even off topic- I had a lengthy explanation I guess leading up to the punch line

And to the mods- how long will you continue to advertise that the board is broken and you cannot be contacted?  That may be true but we would not even notice if you had not emblazoned what appears to be a failure across the top of the board- it is not very wise PR.

[rpn]

To the average lay person, saying he's a psychologist and identifying what he does as a  "private practice" would mean he is licensed.   When he does that it is at least misleading.  Instead of saying he isn't doing psychotherapy, he should take off the word psychologist and quit identifying himself as Dr. (though I realize that is legit because he has the degree --- the public sees that as being licensed too) and/or specifically say he is not licensed as a psychologist if he is not intentionally trying to mislead.

And I compared the OSF 2015 Financial statement http://www.openstoriesfoundation.org/finances/which claims revenue of $170.866 with the OSF 2015 990 which says gross receipts was $198,136 (which is later in the same document $198,036) http://990finder.foundationcenter.org/990results.aspx?action=Find&fn=Open+stories+foundation+&st=&ei=   and wonder where the $28K unaccounted for went (and why it doesn't show up in the OSF financial statement)?

Edited May 23, 2017 by rpn

[SeekingUnderstanding]

14 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

And to the mods- how long will you continue to advertise that the board is broken and you cannot be contacted?  That may be true but we would not even notice if you had not emblazoned what appears to be a failure across the top of the board- it is not very wise PR.

I've always seen this as a joke on the part of the moderators. That is, don't bother us...

[Calm]

1 hour ago, JulieM said:

I think this is odd too since Calm introduced that topic in one of her opening posts (I think in a quote stating something about Dehlin's criticism of the church for not being more financially transparent).  I understand if she didn't want to only focus on that, but why can't it be at least a part of the discussion?

If we can't discuss this relating to Mormonism, why is it in this forum rather than "in the news" forum?  I thought this one is for LDS Doctrine and history, or topics related to Mormonism or the gospel, etc. 

My point in commenting on Dehlin's commentary was merely to present the standard he was claiming, not to begin a comparison of the two.

Seriously, I don't get the problem with a limited topic given you can just start another thread, link or quote anything here.  It is not an undesirable topic in and of itself, I have just seen it dominate in threads almost everywhere else I have read about this topic and I don't want it to happen here, preventing thoughtful and informative discussion on actual claims.  I am not preventing any discussion by asking it to be narrowed down only here.  I am not going to try and shut down anything elsewhere.

As far as malicious gossip...claims of sexism in the work place by women willing to put their name to it should be examined in my opinion, including for credibility.  Since payment for services is part of those claims, an examination of the pay structure of OSF seems to be on topic to me, including who exactly is making the decisions (thus one of my focus is on the board).  I have posted the original criticisms and any financial claims  has been documented where possible as well as board information.  There are posted in order to be challenged or supported more than I have been able to do.

If I had been awake when the information was shared about the alleged affair, I would have asked it be taken to another thread as I do not believe it can be discussed in terms of "can this be demonstrated to be true or false" which is what I would like to see happen with any criticism of Dehlin or his critics offered in my thread.  I am sorry if I didn't make this clear.

I really appreciate when survivors are willing to share their stories.  I think that a very important topic and so I am glad to see that willingness to be open about it here by Stem.  It is both heartbreaking to read and comforting that he trusts us enough to share.  I don't in the least want to devalued that kind of personal sharing.  It is important enough it can take over any thread topic I post.  That is different though then discussing the experiences of someone who isn't here themselves and if that limitation could be included as far as possible, I would appreciate that.  She is not here to defend challenges to her claims nor can any of us provide information.  She appears from what I have read yesterday not to discuss it further. (This was in part what I was referring to yesterday in asking people not to view this thread as the end all in info, there are other claims and defenses out there I have not posted as well though)

Now all the information on the alleged affair has been shared, I am thinking it would be best to move on  and let us focus on other claims that might be able to be substantiated or determined to be false in the here and now or soon to be now...some has to wait obviously until the 2016 info comes out.  Bluebell's post is what I am hoping the direction of the thread goes to.

[juliann]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

I think that one of the accusations against Dehlin is that he's in it for the celebrity and as such he focuses more of his efforts/interviews on famous people than on regular people.  This at least seems like an accusation that would be easy to prove because all one has to do is go back through the people he's interviewed and compare the numbers.

 

The list seems evenly divided with men/women. I suspect she was referring to "Mormon" celebrities, i.e., those who had made a name for themselves in that small circle. I do tire of the "white male" insults though.  I think the observation was about earlier times, however. I recall someone saying that he was interviewing allies of people rather than the people themselves and that it took a long time to get a gay person on rather than just talk about them. 

What I would like to see....and it would go for all male Mormonish podcasters...is how often they interrupt or change topic with women as opposed to men. What this is demonstrating, to me at least, is what I have said for years now. This is a male to female problem that doesn't belong to any one particular group or situation. I would give best podcaster award to Blair Hodges of Maxwell Institute. He is prepared, he leads the discussion by summarizing what the interviewee has said or written rather than trying to maneuver him/her. And he lets the interviewee do all the talking. 

 

[HappyJackWagon]

9 minutes ago, rpn said:

To the average lay person, saying he's a psychologist and identifying what he does as a  "private practice" would mean he is licensed.   When he does that it is at least misleading.  Instead of saying he isn't doing psychotherapy, he should take off the word psychologist and quit identifying himself as Dr. (though I realize that is legit because he has the degree --- the public sees that as being licensed too) and/or specifically say he is not licensed as a psychologist if he is not intentionally trying to mislead.

And I compared the OSF 2015 Financial statement http://www.openstoriesfoundation.org/finances/which claims revenue of $170.866 with the OSF 2015 990 which says gross receipts was $198,136 (which is later in the same document $198,036) http://990finder.foundationcenter.org/990results.aspx?action=Find&fn=Open+stories+foundation+&st=&ei=   and wonder where the $28K unaccounted for went (and why it doesn't show up in the OSF financial statement)?

No. You're reading into it what you want to and actually making a false accusation. To my knowledge he identifies himself in a legal and ethical way. It's not misleading, whether you like it or not. He is a Doctor. He has a PhD. Anyone with a PhD is a doctor, whether or not they are licensed in a particular field. I think you are making a ridiculous claim and then defending it by suggesting that the public is too stupid to understand the difference.

 

 

[juliann]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

My point in commenting on Dehlin's commentary was merely to present the standard he was claiming, not to begin a comparison of the two.

Seriously, I don't get the problem with a limited topic given you can just start another thread, link or quote anything here.  It is not an undesirable topic in and of itself, I have just seen it dominate in threads almost everywhere else I have read about this topic and I don't want it to happen here, preventing thoughtful and informative discussion on actual claims.  I am not preventing any discussion by asking it to be narrowed down only here.  I am not going to try and shut down anything elsewhere.

 

 

This has been a really, really odd derail attempt. There is a wide open board with infinite capacity to open any discussion possible under board rules but there are still those who demand to turn this one topic into a discussion of the church instead of OSF.  Like...what? No one has opened a thread to talk about what they are demanding to talk about, but they continue to derail this one with complaints that it won't be done in this thread. We need a face plant emoticon.

[Calm]

29 minutes ago, rpn said:

To the average lay person, saying he's a psychologist and identifying what he does as a  "private practice" would mean he is licensed.   When he does that it is at least misleading.  Instead of saying he isn't doing psychotherapy, he should take off the word psychologist and quit identifying himself as Dr. (though I realize that is legit because he has the degree --- the public sees that as being licensed too) and/or specifically say he is not licensed as a psychologist if he is not intentionally trying to mislead.

And I compared the OSF 2015 Financial statement http://www.openstoriesfoundation.org/finances/which claims revenue of $170.866 with the OSF 2015 990 which says gross receipts was $198,136 (which is later in the same document $198,036) http://990finder.foundationcenter.org/990results.aspx?action=Find&fn=Open+stories+foundation+&st=&ei=   and wonder where the $28K unaccounted for went (and why it doesn't show up in the OSF financial statement)?

I agree that most read it as the same as psychotherapist.  I probably caught it because I had decided to go into research myself when I realized I would never be able to leave the work in the office, so I am sensitive to that difference.  I checked it out shortly after he graduated and started the coaching line, iirc.  Though I wasn't aware that this was only amounting to 1-2 hours a week.

I have no clue if this is a problem in his podcasts or presentations.

From the dismay of the posters on Kelly's board, no one was saying 'of course you should have realized he wasn't licensed/certified to practice therapy'.

I am proud of my husband and am happy to point out he should be called Dr. Robinson, but he prefers not in most cases (perhaps because that is his dad, who was a psychotherapist, or his older brother who is an MD in his head).  I think those who have put in the time and effort to get a doctorate deserve the title and I would be using the one I planned to get if life hadn't delayed getting it until my eighties in all probability.

So Dehlin deserves the title "Dr." in my opinion, though he needs to be clear in all contexts where his not being a therapist could impact how people view what he is saying, imo.  There is a difference between research into the topic and personal experience in therapy.

Edited May 23, 2017 by Calm

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, juliann said:

This has been a really, really odd derail attempt. There is a wide open board with infinite capacity to open any discussion possible under board rules but there are still those who demand to turn this one topic into a discussion of the church instead of OSF.  Like...what? No one has opened a thread to talk about what they are demanding to talk about, but they continue to derail this one with complaints that it won't be done in this thread. We need a face plant emoticon.

The "light" thread is about transparency, I believe, though last time I read it, it was generic in treatment.

[rongo]

32 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Most people probably use the report button.

I've never needed it, but I assumed from the pinned message that even the report button was a bridge to nowhere.

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, rongo said:

I've never needed it, but I assumed from the pinned message that even the report button was a bridge to nowhere.

No, the report button is usually how Mods become aware of issues with posters or posts. They've mentioned before that they don't typically browse through threads, they just respond to reports of bad behavior.  

If you see someone censured/banned/thread banned/put on limited i think it's almost always because of reports the mods have gotten about the poster.  I think the same goes for when the mods post reminders or whatever in actual threads.

[Calm]

39 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

It might be worth it to go back and clean up the OP because at this point it is quite confusing for those who are unaware of the names of the people involved and what happened.

There are insertions, edits and sidebars with references to events which are unexplained etc.

Just an attempt to be constructive- you know I love you!  

Just a clear explanation of what the thread is about and what the limitations are would be useful.  I had no clue I was even off topic- I had a lengthy explanation I guess leading up to the punch line

And to the mods- how long will you continue to advertise that the board is broken and you cannot be contacted?  That may be true but we would not even notice if you had not emblazoned what appears to be a failure across the top of the board- it is not very wise PR.

Is the current OP still problematic?  I added a request to stay on topic there yesterday since people were responding to earlier posts and shouldn't get in trouble if they hadn't hit the request yet.

[Calm]

12 minutes ago, rongo said:

I've never needed it, but I assumed from the pinned message that even the report button was a bridge to nowhere.

Works great.

[Calm]

8 minutes ago, bluebell said:

No, the report button is usually how Mods become aware of issues with posters or posts. They've mentioned before that they don't typically browse through threads, they just respond to reports of bad behavior.  

If you see someone censured/banned/thread banned/put on limited i think it's almost always because of reports the mods have gotten about the poster.  I think the same goes for when the mods post reminders or whatever in actual threads.

which is in red.  I never use red by itself at the end of a post (just on rare occasions for highlighting in a paragraph) because of this.  It would be nice if mods added "Mod:..." to any comments.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

What do we do?  Ignore it?  I feel less good about ignoring it at this point, then I do about furthering the messages.  If they are wrong or lying, so be it.  They would have done something completely terrible too--attacking someone unfairly.  But this does not sound good. 

This was somewhat my process...what do you do with he said, she said?  I tend to not pass them on when I come across them.  In this case though, I eventually decided to pass on what I felt could be discussed and possibly supported...both now and eventually with the 2016 documentation.  I just came to the 'not ignore' position earlier than you when I saw the treatment claimed by the now former moderator partially confirmed by Dehlin terminating and blocking her without warning.

And him doing this rather than addressing her specific claims without much more than stating 'I am too busy to deal with this stuff' as well as Money's stuff with 'wait and see' and 'the board decides' without info on who the board was (he was asked to provide it at least once where he was posting, though he may not have seen it).