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

[rongo]

Just now, Calm said:

Only because OSF and Dehlin are calling for others to be more transparent than they are at this point.  I wouldn't be half as interested if they hadn't been doing this.

This kind of hamstrings him, going forward, as far as guests/topics berating the Church for lack of transparency, doesn't it? And maybe also with women's issues/sexism? I think that the peanut galley will freak out in full force on social media, and that will be in the back of his mind. 

[Calm]

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

Yes, people keep tossing out "charges" just like you did in the post that I responded to.  Your charge was demonstrably false.  Nobody else seems to be able to provide any evidence that OSF has failed to be transparent, just allegations.

The tax forms are not showing what people were actually paid for what they did.

They show the amounts the three board members got paid.  Was this in addition to their podcasting?  Were they paid for their board duties?  How in the world could Parker only work 5ish hours for a whole year (.1 hour per week on average) or work the same amount as Wotherspoon (10 hours) and get 1/7 in pay?

Why would Dehlin work 5 times as much as Wotherspoon, but only get 2.5 in pay?

The problem is, imo  the tax forms are not giving the info wanted.  

For example, Money was very upset that she was never told who donated to her podcast and how much because she couldn't thank them.  That really horrified her.  She was never told this and only found out when they contacted her.

Edited May 22, 2017 by Calm

[Meadowchik]

1 hour ago, juliann said:

So that is all that is required of an org that promises total transparency? Pick another org who never claimed that and isn't required to produce it and claim superiority?

How about we stick with the claim of transparency instead of red herrings.

Juliann, I was responding to a post comparing OSF to the church...stay on point.

Edited May 22, 2017 by Meadowchik

[Calm]

2 hours ago, blueglass said:

One way to analyze is to compare the JD salary at 92k, with the services and benefits you receive from your paid local general authority seventy. 

If anyone had complained that JD was being paid or the amount he got, you might have a point.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

How is it demonstrably false?  Dehlin has not disclosed anything other than his base pay, has he?  And he admits that he gets bonuses and benefits.  What am i not understanding?

He stated the bonus has been 15% in the past.  I don't know if he stated that was it for 2016, can't remember.  His health insurance in the past has been $12,000.

My problem with him is he keeps saying the Board decides all that, without including the context that at least for up through 2015 he was one third of that board and as founder, his influence would like have made him the dominant one.

Edited May 22, 2017 by Calm

[Meadowchik]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

I was talking about sexism, not transparency. 

And that's even more ridiculous. The Church is explicitly sexist in doctrine and practice.

[rpn]

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

For 2015, it is shown as $104,614.43 including all of the benefits and expense reimbursement.

So why isn't that the number on the 990 for 2015?

 

[Meadowchik]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

That’s what we call a testimony.

They work both ways because we are emotional creatures

Sad that one would choose to make his living from negative testimonies about anything.   Very sad.

Enlightenment is a good thing.  Sometimes the truth hurts, but every exMo podcast I've heard is from someone grateful and happier for that truth.

[rongo]

1 minute ago, Meadowchik said:

And that's even more ridiculous. The Church is explicitly sexist in doctrine and practice.

As you say . . . stay on point . . .  

This is often claimed by those disaffected by the Church (like you). Setting that aside, the Dehlinites portray themselves as enlightened, sophisticated "post-Mormons" or "transitional Mormons." 

So, when female former staffers/podcasters complain loudly and publicly about Dehlin's sexism and misogynism, it gives the appearance of hypocrisy. Regardless of the truth or untruth of either the claims against the LDS Church, or against him and his organization. Perception is reality to many, and this headache is a real pain in the neck to Dehlin, even if he's right and his detractors are wrong. 

Something the Church can sympathize with . . .  

[Calm]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

There's vagueness here.  What pro services?  I haven't seen anyone else step up and confirm this--at least no names.  

Another poster on Reddit iirc stated her husband had done editing where Dehlin kept cutting what he promised to pay him and in the end the guy decided to just look on it as a donation to OSF to avoid further hassle.

I will try and find the reference.

There were some other comments, but my brain is fuzzing on the details.

[rpn]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

 $100 per week on meals isn't much if you take people out to eat as part of your work (I do)

I presume that reimbursement for his entertainment would not be considered payment to him for meals ---- at least in business accounting that would generally be true.  And unfortunately, a $150 per month phone bill is pretty common in business per person:  it gets less when the enterprise grows and the fixed costs are shared with more users.

[stemelbow]

28 minutes ago, Calm said:

I don't find her claims vague (she did post more so perhaps that is why; if  no one else posts it by the time I catch up with the thread, if I have time I will find it and post it).  They are undocumented though, which is imo a big thing.  If I went public with such accusations I would try and provide documentation.

One of her complaints was well documented by Dehlin himself in his response to the moderator by dismissing and blocking her after years of unrecognized free service to the Foundation.

I very much agree with your first paragraph.  I don't get the public accusations without any documentation.  But then again..

Your second paragraph is intriguing.  I didn't know about this. 

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

Another poster on Reddit iirc stated her husband had done editing where Dehlin kept cutting what he promised to pay him and in the end the guy decided to just look on it as a donation to OSF to avoid further hassle.

I will try and find the reference.

There were some other comments, but my brain is fuzzing on the details.

Interesting addition.  Thanks.

[HappyJackWagon]

It strikes me that we seem to know an awful lot about JD and the OSF finances. It is a relatively new organization. It's small and has minimal finances that impacts a relatively small population.

On the other hand we have the church, which is much older, impacts far more people, and has billions of dollars in assets, income, and expenditures annually, yet we know far less about its finances.

I don't fault anyone for wanting to understand the OSF finances. Especially amongst those who have donated to the organization. I simply wish the same level of interest existed for understanding the church's finances. Let's look at OSF but let's also look at the church's finances. That seems to be a consistent position.

We may not like everything we see in the OSF financials but at least we're seeing something. We see NOTHING from the church. Transparency is a value that will only become more important as the information age continues.

[juliann]

21 minutes ago, rockpond said:

He stated this his current salary is $82,500 plus a performance bonus (of not more than 15%) and health insurance.

 

I'm curious how long this is going to be considered adequate disclosure in this discussion. As for 15%, that means $94,800.  There is still stuff to add to that. Why not give the full amount instead of dancing around it? I think what everyone wants to know is what his wife is being paid to take over Money's podcast. Is there anyone who thinks that she as a newcomer is paid less than Money?  There goes the rationale that the women were only getting what they deserved or earned. 

 

[Meadowchik]

1 hour ago, juliann said:

 

 

I have said this before, I think there is a maturation process going on on all sides (aside from the always present zealots and perpetual haters.) Church supporters, for the most part, have had to admit the discriminatory practices against women. It is easier to point it out in others, of course, what we are seeing now is the need to recognize it everywhere. So like I said, kudos to those (mostly women) demanding a single standard. 

Everyone is on a path, hopefully one of growth. But the nature of the "camps"  is one of partisanship on one side, church supporters, and ambivalance on the other.

It is good to see recognition of bad mindsets anywhere, but the church's sexism is explicit in its doctrine, practice, and foundations. That's why it is so stuck in sexism, and homophobia, arguably, for that matter. We're all siblings, all connected, all alike unto God...but not to the Church.

Edited May 22, 2017 by Meadowchik

[Calm]

1 hour ago, juliann said:

It's called whistleblowing. 

And you are still, I think, missing the important part. She claimed that money has not been accounted for. The idea that these delayed financials (which he blamed on their accountant being "backlogged", i.e., too busy with his other stuff) are going to disclose everything is a tad hopeful, I think, when he has never disclosed how much money goes his direction beyond a "base salary."  I think that is obvious with the neatly rounded $2000 phone bill and $5000 meal tab. It seems more likely that he is getting an automatic check rather than reimbursed by receipts. 

When you are, as he claims, a not-for-profit on a shoe string budget,  it does matter how much you are paid. That has nothing to do with how much he deserves it or how hard he works. 

The neatly rounding was me, iirc.  Sorry if that was confusing.  I think it is to the cent in the forms. 

Please everyone, while I try to be precise most of the time, I do get bored with trying to copy paste on my iPad, so check the links I give before assuming precision.  I will try and remember to be better in the future when it comes to money.

There is a professional accountant doing the forms, I don't think they will be found to be problematic in and of themselves.

It is the information of how decisions are made, what part is pay to the podcasters (contract services...does that go to their own equipment or is it straight salary as it appears to be for Dehlin since he, unlike other podcasters, gets at least cell phone expenses paid for and if I understand it correctly other operating costs not appearing on the other podcasters' expense details (iirc Mormon Matters and Gay Matters? Had some operating expenses as well but not in such detail).  

I still would love to see how the IRS views a nonprofit that was established for the sole support of one man and even now, more than half of the donations go to that one man and if I am reading the 2015 forms right, another quarter goes to the two other board members, Parker (5600ish) and Wotherspoon (35,000ish).  Over the years, that is what I have always wondered.

The "shoe string budget" is an interesting report, I need to track that down, half seen several people report that, but it may be part of conversations he had with them justifying his behaviour so secondhand reports may be the only thing out there.

Edited May 22, 2017 by Calm

[HappyJackWagon]

2 minutes ago, juliann said:

I'm curious how long this is going to be considered adequate disclosure in this discussion. As for 15%, that means $94,800.  There is still stuff to add to that. Why not give the full amount instead of dancing around it? I think what everyone wants to know is what his wife is being paid to take over Money's podcast. Is there anyone who thinks that she as a newcomer is paid less than Money?  There goes the rationale that the women were only getting what they deserved or earned. 

 

That is a fair question for the OSF board.

But at this point you are certainly making an assumption, if not an accusation. You may be right but do you have any evidence to back up this kind of accusation?

[juliann]

22 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Juliann, I was responding to a post comparing OSF to the church...stay on point.

By perpetuating a red herring. Stay on point, indeed.

[Meadowchik]

10 minutes ago, rongo said:

As you say . . . stay on point . . .  

This is often claimed by those disaffected by the Church (like you). Setting that aside, the Dehlinites portray themselves as enlightened, sophisticated "post-Mormons" or "transitional Mormons." 

So, when female former staffers/podcasters complain loudly and publicly about Dehlin's sexism and misogynism, it gives the appearance of hypocrisy. Regardless of the truth or untruth of either the claims against the LDS Church, or against him and his organization. Perception is reality to many, and this headache is a real pain in the neck to Dehlin, even if he's right and his detractors are wrong. 

Something the Church can sympathize with . . .  

You make a mistake in your assumptions.  Church members are covenanted to an organisation. People who listen to Dehlin are fellow travellers in life. Please, please, please pick apart an organisation based on the standards of its founding leader. Then turn that scrutiny to your own.

[stemelbow]

44 minutes ago, rockpond said:

He stated this his current salary is $82,500 plus a performance bonus (of not more than 15%) and health insurance.

The numbers I cited (for the $104k) are from 2015 with that $91k presumably all going to Dehlin as the podcaster.  I don't think that is the basis of Money's complaint as $91k for 2015 makes sense given everything he's said about his compensation.

I think that's what she's saying.  The difference is not enumerated...and that bothers her.  But again, that doesn't seem like much to complain about.  I'm not sure what she or another would expect. 

[rockpond]

30 minutes ago, Calm said:

The tax forms are not showing what people were actually paid for what they did.

They show the amounts the three board members got paid.  Was this in addition to their podcasting?  Were they paid for their board duties?  How in the world could Parker only work 5ish hours for a whole year (.1 hour per week on average) or work the same amount as Wotherspoon (10 hours) and get 1/7 in pay?

Why would Dehlin work 5 times as much as Wotherspoon, but only get 2.5 in pay?

The problem is, imo  the tax forms are not giving the info wanted.  

For example, Money was very upset that she was never told who donated to her podcast and how much because she couldn't thank them.  That really horrified her.  She was never told this and only found out when they contacted her.

Where are the tax forms?  I'm only aware of the income statement and balance sheet on the OSF site.  And those financial statements show how much was donated to each podcast and how much was paid to each podcast.

[Meadowchik]

1 minute ago, juliann said:

By perpetuating a red herring. Stay on point, indeed.

Transparency and comparing to the church is predominant theme in this thread.

[juliann]

9 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

It strikes me that we seem to know an awful lot about JD and the OSF finances. It is a relatively new organization. It's small and has minimal finances that impacts a relatively small population.

On the other hand we have the church, which is much older, impacts far more people, and has billions of dollars in assets, income, and expenditures annually, yet we know far less about its finances.

I don't fault anyone for wanting to understand the OSF finances. Especially amongst those who have donated to the organization. I simply wish the same level of interest existed for understanding the church's finances. Let's look at OSF but let's also look at the church's finances. That seems to be a consistent position.

We may not like everything we see in the OSF financials but at least we're seeing something. We see NOTHING from the church. Transparency is a value that will only become more important as the information age continues.

Come on, this is tired and off topic. Churches are under a different set of rules. And the church is not targeting OSF for nondisclosure. 

How about everybody who wants to rag on the church start a thread, or join the many already open,  and go at it while we discuss OSF in this one?

[juliann]

2 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

You make a mistake in your assumptions.  Church members are covenanted to an organisation. People who listen to Dehlin are fellow travellers in life. Please, please, please pick apart an organisation based on the standards of its founding leader. Then turn that scrutiny to your own.

Can't even tolerate one thread where scrutiny is turned to your own? It is those "fellow travelers" who are complaining. Do you not understand that?

Go start another thread and make it about whatever you want.