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

[rockpond]

21 minutes ago, rpn said:

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

 

I haven't seen "the 990".  But the $104k number I provided included a lot of things (expenses, etc) because I was asked what the total cost of MS was for OSF (not just Dehlin's salary).

[Meadowchik]

10 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.

As long as it's God, no need to be transparent. As long as it's God, no need to not be transparent.

Which one rings true?

[rockpond]

17 minutes ago, rpn said:

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.

Correct - in the income statement "Meals" is just listed as an expense, not as a payment to Dehlin.

[Meadowchik]

1 minute ago, juliann said:

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.

I completely welcome the scrutiny on an enemy of the church. I indeed said,

"Please, please, please pick apart an organisation based on the standards of its founding leader. "

So have at it.

Light is good!

[rockpond]

13 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. 

 

Adequate disclosure?  Wow - I wish you would apply this same requirement to the Church!

I'm confident that detailed 2016 financial statements will be published soon.  If they follow the pattern of the 2015 statement they will show both what Money brought in and what she was paid.  And, if it follows the same pattern as 2015, Money will have been paid more than the amount that the MT broadcast brought in through public support.

[rockpond]

10 minutes ago, juliann said:

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.

It seems quite fair to point out the double standard being applied here by so many who believe the Church is right for not sharing it finances.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

He said one day ago, "My salary is $82,500. The board sets it. I've been open about my salary since day one."

And this is what is driving my curiosity mostly.  Always "the board"...

And no clarification that he is one third of the board and likely the power member, being founder and all and the one to invite other two to join him, iirc.

A side note...

Iirc, he said his base salary was 74,000 the previous year.  The CommonConsent post I linked to earlier stated that his salary had gone up every year since he began to be paid even if income for the foundations had dropped.  I need to go check, but it seems like a significant increase in pay.  My memory of a chart on CC was a consistent climb in pay over the years. It is not the amount that triggers my interest, it is its relationship to the income of the Foundation.

It makes me wonder if the more expensive retreats and speaking venues are more to make this steady increase in pay over time possible than to reach out.  Actual reach out would surely be made in places where the majority of transitioning or exmormon s who are interested in getting together can reasonably get to, not in overnight stays at Park City or on cruise ships.  This is fundraising activities, not reach out.

Could someone who has been paying attention tell us if there has been comparable increase in generically available activities as opposed to activities appealing to the wealthy?

[Calm]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

I get it.  There might be something to this.  But I'm not so sure.  I guess we'll see. 

Here's the info I was referencing for cell phone and meals.  I don't think this is for him personally but is attributed to Mormonstories expenditures:

When I said the 2 grand and 5 grand, I was approximating. 

Thank you for providing details as I think I did the same thing (I remember wanting to at least, lol).

[Calm]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

Calm, you're late ont his correction.  Meadowchik already dinged me.  Oopsie.  my bad. 

Yeah, I was way behind.  Always am in the afternoons since I am sleeping past noon these days, sigh.

I provided interesting detail though..;)

Edited May 22, 2017 by Calm

[stemelbow]

8 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Adequate disclosure?  Wow - I wish you would apply this same requirement to the Church!

I'm confident that detailed 2016 financial statements will be published soon.  If they follow the pattern of the 2015 statement they will show both what Money brought in and what she was paid.  And, if it follows the same pattern as 2015, Money will have been paid more than the amount that the MT broadcast brought in through public support.

When 2016 is released I guess we'll see if the complaints go away, I guess. 

 

[juliann]

36 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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?

Are you referring to my question if anyone thinks his wife is making less than the creator of the podcast that she took over?  Do you? Do you disagree that if she is making more that it destroys the rationale that these women only got what they deserved for their work (which was of less value than the men's?)  I didn't get deeply involved with my own non-profit's reporting but I do know that spouses were not paid for on trips. I am guessing that adding her as an employee now makes it possible to write off her expenses.....or pay them. 

My interest is centered around the women who are claiming sexism. The money ties into that, of course, but it is only a symptom of the real problem, IMO. 

Edited May 22, 2017 by juliann

[juliann]

14 minutes ago, rockpond said:

It seems quite fair to point out the double standard being applied here by so many who believe the Church is right for not sharing it finances.

Odd, I don't recall speaking about church finances.  So CFR.

Again, does the church claim full transparency while attacking others for the lack of it? Hellllloooooooo???

[cinepro]

[rockpond]

5 minutes ago, juliann said:

Odd, I don't recall speaking about church finances.  So CFR.

Again, does the church claim full transparency while attacking others for the lack of it? Hellllloooooooo???

I didn't claim that you did speak of church finances.  But I believe it is a double standard to claim that Dehlin isn't being transparent enough if someone believes that it's fine for the church to have no transparency (regardless of what Dehlin asks for and especially since he lives us to the transparency he asks of others).

[juliann]

Cinepro, that is a discouraging response to so many women exposing rampant sexism in their post/exmo community. Sexism does not take sides. It is not entertaining. 

Edited May 22, 2017 by juliann

[Calm]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

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. 

There was at least one poster claiming he interrupted women more on his podcasts, spent more time talking in their podcasts than in the men's.  It would be interesting to find out if this was so.

I listed to the first 15 minutes of one interview with a woman born in Belgian, iirc.  He was constantly talking and asking some uninformed questions about her background so that was as far as I got.  I had watched it looking for other information and haven't had that need for any other of his podcasts, so besides a few I tried to endure early where he spent more time talking than his guest, I don't have anything to compare it to.

It is obvious though that he favors the celebrity/in the news now/so-called Church royalty as his guests.  These tend to be well educated, well off white men, but that is not surprising and probably why he gets the listeners that he does.  A poster was very harsh about how these guests could not compare to the many of those who were disowned and kicked out of their homes for leaving the faith and that Dehlin was ignoring the real needy in his work and not actually doing anything to help them with the celebrity podcast style and the posh retreats.

Anyone know if OSF has done any fundraising for other causes?  There is promotion through interviews, but have they given donations from the Foundation itself?

[juliann]

1 minute ago, rockpond said:

I didn't claim that you did speak of church finances.  But I believe it is a double standard to claim that Dehlin isn't being transparent enough if someone believes that it's fine for the church to have no transparency (regardless of what Dehlin asks for and especially since he lives us to the transparency he asks of others).

So go complain in a thread about church finances and people who do what you claim. I'm reporting the derails now.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

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. 

There was at least one poster claiming he interrupted women more on his podcasts, spent more time talking in their podcasts than in the men's.  It would be interesting to find out if this was so.

I listed to the first 15 minutes of one interview with a woman born in Belgian, iirc.  He was constantly talking and asking some uninformed questions about her background so that was as far as I got.  I had watched it looking for other information and haven't had that need for any other of his podcasts, so besides a few I tried to endure early where he spent more time talking than his guest, I don't have anything to compare it to.

It is obvious though that he favors the celebrity/in the news now/so-called Church royalty as his guests.  These tend to be well educated, well off white men, but that is not surprising and probably why he gets the listeners that he does.  A poster was very harsh about how these guests could not compare to the many of those who were disowned and kicked out of their homes for leaving the faith and that Dehlin was ignoring the real needy in his work and not actually doing anything to help them with the celebrity podcast style and the posh retreats.

Anyone know if OSF has done any fundraising for other causes?  There is promotion through interviews, but have they given donations from the Foundation itself?

[Calm]

17 minutes ago, juliann said:

So go complain in a thread about church finances and people who do what you claim. I'm reporting the derails now.

And I am officially declaring it off topic.

Again it is not living up to the standard of transparency they are claiming for themselves, not that they aren't being transparent that is at issue.  There is therefore no need to compare them to anyone else, just their own standard.

Serial violators will be removed.

[churchistrue]

Strange thread.  I'm glad none of you know my company's financials.  I'm sure you'd think I was sexist or greedy or something bad.

 

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, churchistrue said:

Strange thread.  I'm glad none of you know my company's financials.  I'm sure you'd think I was sexist or greedy or something bad.

 

Post them.  We'll be the judge of that!  

[MiserereNobis]

9 minutes ago, Calm said:

And I am officially declaring it off topic.

 

Edited May 22, 2017 by MiserereNobis

[Jeanne]

I am/was a fellow traveler..point being that when I see a mall with Dehlin's name on it..I will be traveling elsewhere..  Settle down everybody even if it is same difference.

[stemelbow]

17 minutes ago, juliann said:

Cinepro, that is a discouraging response to so many women exposing rampant sexism in their post/exmo community. Sexism does not take sides. It is not entertaining. 

What if in the end it turns out to not be sexism?  Can we chomp our popcorn then?  Just wondering cause I'm not sure I see the sexism in this whole affair quite like others do.  

Let me add, sexism is definitely possible on this affair though.  Don't mean to say it's not.  

Edited May 22, 2017 by stemelbow

[Calm]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

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. 

I think it is in one of my posts on the first page.  I posted both the moderator and Dehlin's comments.  The moderator posted a lengthy and civil criticism of Dehlin's practices including her attempts to resolve this in private on Money's FB page.  Within the hour, iirc, Dehlin had sent her a response telling her he could not tolerate such comments (my memory says he called them "vicious" and condemned her for her disloyalty, but that may be others' interpretation confusing me, so I suggest you read them for yourself).

Alyson Draper had been a moderator for years, hundreds of hours freely given.  He had immediately removed her as moderator and blocked her access from the forum so she wasn't even allowed to say goodbye to any of those she had served or the many friends she had probably found there.  I find that to be cruel.  Sure, remove her as a moderator.  Even put her comments on moderation.  Complete blocking without warning or the courtesy of one goodbye post...just wrong and totally egotistical and selfish.

It was this interaction that made me decide to post about the controversy.

Edited May 22, 2017 by Calm