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

[Calm]

1 hour 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. 

 

Top of my list...who are the board members.

[Calm]

Link in opening post to the foundations info has a link to the tax returns:

https://missionandvision.org/nonprofit/272026793/open-stories-foundation-inc/tax-returns

[bluebell]

1 hour 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.

The only reason that i want to know about OSF finances is because they have been so judgmental about the church's finances.   Otherwise I couldn't care less.  

[Jeanne]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

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.

If this is true..I definitely don't like it. 

[Calm]

13 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

 

If only.

[Calm]

Just now, Jeanne said:

If this is true..I definitely don't like it. 

I know I posted it.  Are people skipping my posts with the actual info for some reason?  Is there a way I could make them more readable?

[HappyJackWagon]

23 minutes ago, Calm said:

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.

Is that how this works? You declare something off topic so no one can bring up comparisons. Is this thread that incredibly well-structured (unlike any other thread where there are myriad tangents) that you declare what is an isn't appropriate conversation. I find this very strange and a bit heavy handed, Calm.

[churchistrue]

11 minutes ago, Calm said:

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.

I think appropriate response to this kind of behavior, whether you hear it reported about John Dehlin, or your bishop, or a VP in your company, or the POTUS, or a prominent LDS apologist, or the author of the CES Letter, or your brother-in-law is...

hmm sounds strange, there must be more to the story.

[Jeanne]

Just now, Calm said:

I know I posted it.  Are people skipping my posts with the actual info for some reason?  Is there a way I could make them more readable?

No...I try to read everything...just one day off...and skipping around a lot.  I am sorry.  Running errands and checking in once in a while.  But I will refrain from now on unless I can read everything.

[Calm]

Apparently some people have missed this post, so posting a link.  The moderator dismissal is the second and third quote (Dehlin's dismissal is the third):

 

[bluebell]

39 minutes 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).

You might be misunderstanding the accusation.  

I haven't heard anyone say that Dehlin isn't being transparent enough.  The accusation is that he isn't being as transparent as he promised he would be while castigating the church for their lack of transparency.

I don't think there is a double standard in that accusation.

[cinepro]

1 minute ago, juliann said:

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

I am not convinced that there is "rampant sexism" going on in the OSF community.  Especially when it comes to compensation for the podcasts.

[bluebell]

18 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Is that how this works? You declare something off topic so no one can bring up comparisons. Is this thread that incredibly well-structured (unlike any other thread where there are myriad tangents) that you declare what is an isn't appropriate conversation. I find this very strange and a bit heavy handed, Calm.

For a long time now thread creators have had the power to ask any who derail the thread from their chosen topic to be banned from the thread.   

[Calm]

There were several criticisms in Draper's comments.  Dehlin's only explanation was:

Quote

 If I'm guilty of anything, it's trying to do too much with too little resources to manage

But several of the criticisms either won't have taken additional time or very little.

1) " I was very offended to not even be invited to the OSF Banquet. I was more offended when John later thought about it and opined we might be able to come next year if we would pay for our own dinners."

2) "John has, in the past, the next day or the next week, demanded a full accounting of what was done because the individual member involved will tattle directly to John. He will often promise the member who was sanctioned by the moderator group a different result without even knowing the situation. He makes us recount the entire situation in bullet points, rather than read the lengthy threads where the moderators spent all day discussing the issues."

While reading it takes time, it takes no time not to promise different results than the mods.  Either trust them or put in the time himself.  These are volunteers, not employees.

3) "John delegated the Administrator role to a new hire who knows nothing about how to run the group. That was nothing short of insulting to those of us who do actually run the group and have done so for years. "

Why not spend as much time looking for an admin among the moderators already familiar with the group rather than going outside?

4) "To the moderators who collectively spend thousands of hours each year moderating the group, John said nothing about this decision. We found out when when we could no longer change the group cover photo by ourselves anymore without asking John or his new hire."

How much time would an email have taken?

5)  "I was offended that John was looking to hire a full time person who could work from home to manage OSF. That person would almost certainly be a woman. The pay was a paltry $30k a year to do the job of at least someone with Bachelors in some business field. Although non-profits don't pay the greatest, it was no excuse for paying yet another woman a really sad salary compared to what John draws from the OSF."

6)  "I offered you the free analysis of a qualified MBA, in an effort to grow and strengthen OSF, but you would never answer."

Time, but no resources needed in order to save much future time and resources in the future.  Apparently he couldn't even make the effort to say thanks,  but no thanks.

----

He did call her comments vicious:

"But the lack of understanding/empathy, and the viciousness of your attacks were incredibly saddening to me."

And then promptly told her she was no longer a friend.

"your comments crossed a line for anyone I could ever call a friend, or an OSF supporter."

[Calm]

26 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Is that how this works? You declare something off topic so no one can bring up comparisons. Is this thread that incredibly well-structured (unlike any other thread where there are myriad tangents) that you declare what is an isn't appropriate conversation. I find this very strange and a bit heavy handed, Calm.

The complaints being shared by Kristy Money, Alyson Draper, and others that I have posted about are about the inner workings of OSF and whether or not they are living up to the standards they have set themselves as declaring themselves open and transparent, a nonprofit charity, and pro feminism.

I don't see any need in this topic to refer to how the Church compares in their operation.  It would be a perfectly viable topic for another thread, but having watched the various discussions online about this I have already seen how it can dominate the discussion, so please create another thread to deal with that particular issue and leave this one to discuss the above.

Given that there has already been several examples of confusion over data shared, I think it is essential to keep the topic as focused as much as possible to provide useful conversation.  I didn't post this thread just to share info, but to get it as well and I appreciate anyone doing analysis along those lines (rockpond is the only one I can specifically remember, but there are probably others).

Edited May 22, 2017 by Calm

[Atheist Mormon]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

I want to know who are the board members for the past year and a half while this was going on in order to know the context better.

I would like to see documentation if possible that Kristy Money's claims are not accurate.

Of course this is mostly simple curiosity for me, I neither donate or am interested in podcasting in general, I prefer to read; but I am interested in others' POV and experiences.

Frankly I don't have the same curiosity about the minutia when the whole system looks like a MLM Pyramid system. It breaks my heart because I can imagine how hard those people under John work for Foundation to  succeed......, and especially it bugs me because I've heard those people in many occasions, how selflessly they were driven to help others.

To me this is not anymore Exmormon/Mormon, people helping people issue......It looks like a blatant exploitation of opportunity.

[Calm]

30 minutes ago, churchistrue said:

I think appropriate response to this kind of behavior, whether you hear it reported about John Dehlin, or your bishop, or a VP in your company, or the POTUS, or a prominent LDS apologist, or the author of the CES Letter, or your brother-in-law is...

hmm sounds strange, there must be more to the story.

Which is why in part I posted the thread.  I am requesting more info if anyone has it.

Gold star to anyone who has info on the current board.

Edited May 22, 2017 by Calm

[juliann]

14 minutes ago, cinepro said:

I am not convinced that there is "rampant sexism" going on in the OSF community.  Especially when it comes to compensation for the podcasts.

Are you reading the accounts? How many women's stories does it require? One? Ten? Fifty? It is a sad truth that a lone woman is still not considered a credible witness.

Edited to add that there is, for good or bad,  a higher standard when Dehlin has positioned himself as a feminist ally. 

Edited May 22, 2017 by juliann

[churchistrue]

5 minutes ago, juliann said:

Are you reading the accounts? How many women's stories does it require? One? Ten? Fifty? It is a sad truth that a lone woman is still not considered a credible witness.

Edited to add that there is, for good or bad,  a higher standard when Dehlin has positioned himself as a feminist ally. 

What's the basis of the charge of sexism? Compensation compared to Dehlin? Or compensation compared to another male in the system?

 

[juliann]

I'm going to take this opportunity to say that MormonMatters is my favorite podcast. I listen to podcasts to go to sleep so I have contributed greatly to downloads since it takes me a week to get all the way through. I have great respect for Dan W. He is even tempered, fair, and beyond respectful, regardless of point of view. I got to know him a little when he ran the local Sunstone events that I attended a long time ago. 

[HappyJackWagon]

4 minutes ago, juliann said:

Are you reading the accounts? How many women's stories does it require? One? Ten? Fifty? It is a sad truth that a lone woman is still not considered a credible witness.

Edited to add that there is, for good or bad,  a higher standard when Dehlin has positioned himself as a feminist ally. 

One woman's story is a credible witness, but it's not the only witness. Does two or three women's claims make a behavior rampant? Maybe. But your suggestion that one is sufficient seems very similar to something Kate Kelly was claiming on the Kristy Money FB thread. KK essentially said that one must start with the assumption that Kristy's accusations are all true because she's a woman. Yet KK then dismissed other women with a different POV.

One person's claims represent a credible witness, but that doesn't mean she is correct. I don't doubt Kristy Money believes the perceived injustices. She may be right but one person's story is not the only story. I've listened to KM on various occasions and find her to be honest and sincere. I cannot say the same for KK.

[Calm]

PS to Happy Jack.

I am the one who made the effort to post the thread and a significant amount of info that I put in a dozen or more hours into collecting and researching.  I wanted to do so in order to get new and greater understanding of the events and mechanics, not to go into a discussion about what the Church does and does not do that has been repeated numerous times already on the board.  I am just not interesting in hearing repeats.  I am sharing information and hoping someone shares other info with me.  I want to hear opinions on that information itself so I and others can gain understanding.

Rehashing of old arguments about sexism in the Church and its lack of transparency does not further my purpose in any way.  People have had the chance to make those observations quite a few times already in the thread, so I would appreciate moving on from that and focusing on the thread's actual purpose.

Thank you to those who listen, I will also be reporting those who do not.

Edited May 22, 2017 by Calm

[Calm]

15 minutes ago, Atheist Mormon said:

Frankly I don't have the same curiosity about the minutia when the whole system looks like a MLM Pyramid system. It breaks my heart because I can imagine how hard those people under John work for Foundation to  succeed......, and especially it bugs me because I've heard those people in many occasions, how selflessly they were driven to help others.

To me this is not anymore Exmormon/Mormon, people helping people issue......It looks like a blatant exploitation of opportunity.

I don't like to make accusations based on inaccurate info.  It is major imo if Dehlin is a board member.  I don't want to keep harping on his appeal to the board if it actually independent of paid employees.

[Calm]

46 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

No...I try to read everything...just one day off...and skipping around a lot.  I am sorry.  Running errands and checking in once in a while.  But I will refrain from now on unless I can read everything.

I didn't mean to come off as criticizing.  I often miss posts.  This was on the first page though and I referred to meaning to post it in the opening post, so I was thinking perhaps my style is too cluttered to absorb info effectively and thus I am looking for suggestions how to be better at it.

[juliann]

14 minutes ago, churchistrue said:

What's the basis of the charge of sexism? Compensation compared to Dehlin? Or compensation compared to another male in the system?

 

The stories coming from women, like I said the money stuff is merely a symptom. I gave the Kate Kelly public FB thread awhile back. Take the time to read what the contributors are saying. (I have to admit I am distrustful of Kelly given past events, which is why the confirmations are important.) I do admit that men who are refusing to take the word of these women are in a tough spot given the accusation is sexism. But I think you will be taken aback by the persistence of the fear of speaking out stories. There are more on Money's public FB page as well. 

It wasn't that long ago, BTW, when FMH's website went ballistic on predatory exmo men, even finally naming one. That is what makes the refusal to take these women at their word especially troubling. 

edit: Take out "rampant" in my former description if it is more palatable. When one of the complaints given to him over a year ago was to stop mentioning female body parts, I personally think rampant is appropriate.)

Edited May 22, 2017 by juliann