John Dehlin's podcast and aftermath

[BlueDreams]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Good point- that is exactly it; at least it gives some basis for going after practitioners who have messed up either intentionally or unintentionally 

But in California, at least in Real Estate as one example, if one is in the business long enough, one actually becomes exempted from continuing education requirements and there are no license renewal requirements which seems to make your point perfectly.

http://www.dre.ca.gov/licensees/CEExemption.html

The demonstration of a track record and high experience level virtually takes away licensing requirements except for the reasons you have cited- consumer protection.

The idea that one should be competent in one's skills is no longer seen an issue.  But of course that differs in other states or other professional licenses.

But don't ask me how I know about this exemption though.

 

As far as I'm aware There is no CEU Exemption for therapy based on age. The field changes a lot more so there is a need to stay up to snuff. 

 

With luv,

bd 

[MiserereNobis]

18 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

I could say more....but I'm headed to a festival.

A music festival? Who's playing?

 

[BlueDreams]

26 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

A music festival? Who's playing?

 

No it was a Polynesian cultural festival. I couldn't stay for long. I'm still recuperating from a stomach bug. I slightly overdid it. But it was fun to get out .

 

with luv, 

BD

[probablyHagoth7]

19 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

I think you would have a point....However...If this fellow is the financial expert for the company....then it is very strange that they are not aware of these major cash outflows... 

His temporary gap on specifics isn't strange at all. The only thing unusual is your choice of words to bend light in order to make something innocent/understandable instead seem outlandish.

Context to corroborate my main point, stated earlier in this thread: "...the man is in charge of auditing for a CPA firm..." 

Back to your statement. I never suggested he wasn't *aware* of such cash flows, but rather that he shouldn't be expected to answer on the spot in a question-and-answer session precisely what was paid to whom in what month for any one specific client without being given a moment to consult records. That small organization is *not* his only client.

Again, as to how memory works:

The monthly transactions for the client in question are one of *several* he deals with. So it is not unreasonable to believe he doesn't remember the dollar value of *every* transaction each month, for every client, which likely amount to thousands of transactions each month. 

I know people are convinced they smell blood in the water, and want to let emotion/indignation run roughshod over reason/fairness in order to nail people they don't like to the wall. But a momentary pause for a deep breath please. Your assertion of "I think you would have a point..." was  dissembling. I *did* have a worthwhile point. And it is *still* valid. As are my comments above.

When something that simple gets trampled underfoot in the rush to condemnation, it's one of many reasons I follow very little of such string-'m-high threads. But perhaps I should follow them more deeply to comment on the instances where emotion and rash  judgment are running reason/mercy out the door. 

Can we please do better?

Edited May 28, 2017 by probablyHagoth7

[probablyHagoth7]

I was on summer drills with the National Guard one year, and the chaplain came over to me and mentioned something he had observed two other people doing. He explained in detail what they did, in a very doom-and-gloom tone of voice...which completely swayed/colored my perception of their actions, and their motives. I was *completely* convinced the two parties were up to all kinds of trouble...

Perhaps thirty minutes later, the chaplain came back to me and explained that he had learned what they had really been doing. And it was instead quite innocent and productive. And what they were working to accomplish explained and resolved every supposedly-suspicious act. And during that transition that took me perhaps 20 minutes to decompress, I felt like a jerk for rashly condemning others on innuendo-flavored appearances alone.

It was a humbling experience for me. And I believe the chaplain did it all, on purpose, for my benefit. (And likely with others there as well, to improve our judgment as a unit.) He was a good man.

Negative emotion hampers our judgment/compassion. Which is perhaps why we've recently been counseled not to leverage fear (and other such things) as motivation. 

Thoughts? Impressions?

Edited May 28, 2017 by probablyHagoth7

[Tacenda]

23 minutes ago, probablyHagoth7 said:

I was on summer drills with the National Guard one year, and the chaplain came over to me and mentioned something he had observed two other people doing. He explained in detail what they did, in a very doom-and-gloom tone of voice...which completely swayed/colored my perception of their actions, and their motives. I was *completely* convinced the two parties were up to all kinds of trouble...

Perhaps thirty minutes later, the chaplain came back to me and explained that he had learned what they had really been doing. And it was instead quite innocent and productive. And what they were working to accomplish explained and resolved every supposedly-suspicious act. And during that transition that took me perhaps 20 minutes to decompress, I felt like a jerk for rashly condemning others on innuendo-flavored appearances alone.

It was a humbling experience for me. And I believe the chaplain did it all, on purpose, for my benefit. (And likely with others there as well, to improve our judgment as a unit.) He was a good man.

Negative emotion hampers our judgment/compassion. Which is perhaps why we've recently been counseled not to leverage fear (and other such things) as motivation. 

Thoughts? Impressions?

Spot on, and I hope I haven't been guilty of this, but pretty sure that I have.

[Storm Rider]

6 hours ago, probablyHagoth7 said:

His temporary gap on specifics isn't strange at all. The only thing unusual is your choice of words to bend light in order to make something innocent/understandable instead seem outlandish.

Context to corroborate my main point, stated earlier in this thread: "...the man is in charge of auditing for a CPA firm..." 

Back to your statement. I never suggested he wasn't *aware* of such cash flows, but rather that he shouldn't be expected to answer on the spot in a question-and-answer session precisely what was paid to whom in what month for any one specific client without being given a moment to consult records. That small organization is *not* his only client.

Again, as to how memory works:

The monthly transactions for the client in question are one of *several* he deals with. So it is not unreasonable to believe he doesn't remember the dollar value of *every* transaction each month, for every client, which likely amount to thousands of transactions each month. 

I know people are convinced they smell blood in the water, and want to let emotion/indignation run roughshod over reason/fairness in order to nail people they don't like to the wall. But a momentary pause for a deep breath please. Your assertion of "I think you would have a point..." was  dissembling. I *did* have a worthwhile point. And it is *still* valid. As are my comments above.

When something that simple gets trampled underfoot in the rush to condemnation, it's one of many reasons I follow very little of such string-'m-high threads. But perhaps I should follow them more deeply to comment on the instances where emotion and rash  judgment are running reason/mercy out the door. 

Can we please do better?

There is a difference between an auditor and the CFO of the company.  It was my impression he was the CFO handling the monthly accounting.  You are saying he is not the accountant, but the auditor.  If your statement is accurate than you have a good point.

However, if it is the company accountant then it does not make sense.  We are talking about a very small company with a very limited number of individuals who are drawing a monthly paycheck.  If you have ever been a book keeper or an accountant for a small company you know these things because they are consistent payments on a monthly basis.  As I said in my earlier post, if you are talking about a much larger company with a large number of monthly salary payments then it would be understandable to no know or remember the amount of the check.  Yet, even then we are talking about CEO, the highest individual paid in the company.  Those kinds of figures stand out with financial people; I know because I am one.  Numbers come easy and are not easily forgotten.

I appreciate your desire for good thoughts and your encouragement to be more understanding of others.  Yet, I am speaking as one with experience without any desire to rush to judgment. As a career in portfolio management and as a CFO for small companies, yet larger than this one, I can still to this day tell you the salaries of all of the major positions in the firm.  

Again, my point only has a foundation if we are talking about a CFO or accountant.  If we are only talking about an auditor who audits the books once a year then it will not apply.

Edited May 28, 2017 by Storm Rider

[juliann]

6 hours ago, probablyHagoth7 said:

 

Again, as to how memory works:

The monthly transactions for the client in question are one of *several* he deals with. So it is not unreasonable to believe he doesn't remember the dollar value of *every* transaction each month, for every client, which likely amount to thousands of transactions each month. 

 

For accuracy's sake. The question was not how much she was paid, it was IF she had been paid. And yes, when you are writing checks for what is claimed to be a handful of employees, I would expect the accountant to know that. 

[rpn]

Quote

However, if it is the company accountant then it does not make sense.

It isn't clear from the podcast or documents how much the guy  [Craig who is a Board member who was on the podcast] does.  He was introduced as the person who could address OSF's finance issues.   And he IS head of the Board Finance Committee, and a CPA.    JD does identify him as the one who did the financial statements also released the same day as the podcast.   That statement says in 2016, OSF spent $4300 in accounting and legal fees.   I would think that wouldn't cover much more than a bookkeeper's standard $200 retainer for monthly billpaying and bank statement reconciliation.   Nor is there anyone on the OSF webpage  identified as in change of accounting or bookkeeping.

Edited May 28, 2017 by rpn

[Tacenda]

42 minutes ago, rpn said:

It isn't clear from the podcast or documents how much the guy does.  He was introduced as the person who could address OSF's finance issues.   And he IS head of the Board Finance Committee, and a CPA.    JD does identify him as the one who did the financial statements also released the same day as the podcast.   That statement says in 2016, OSF spent $4300 in accounting and legal fees.   I would think that wouldn't cover much more than a bookkeeper's standard $200 retainer for monthly billpaying and bank statement reconciliation.   Nor is there anyone on the OSF webpage  identified as in change of accounting or bookkeeping.

I heard John say that the pocasts are a small part of what keeps him busy, that suprised me. 

[mfbukowski]

18 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I heard John say that the pocasts are a small part of what keeps him busy, that suprised me. 

Considering his lack of prep, I find it very believable.   He invites someone and they arrive and he jumps behind the mike.   Pretty obviousl.

[Calm]

34 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I heard John say that the pocasts are a small part of what keeps him busy, that suprised me. 

Did he mention if he counts his time on social media related to OF.s stuff as part of his work?...not going to be able to listen to podcast till Wednesday, just can't concentrate due to family visitors, having to drive to airport couple of times, getting lost in SL valley a couple of times, etc. etc.

[probablyHagoth7]

2 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

...You are saying he is not the accountant, but the auditor.  If your statement is accurate than you have a good point.

From what little I quickly scanned here earlier, he's both.

2 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

I appreciate your desire for good thoughts and your encouragement to be more understanding of others.  Yet, I am...without any desire to rush to judgment.

:0) thumbs up

2 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

...Those kinds of figures stand out with financial people; I know because I am one.  Numbers come easy and are not easily forgotten.

...I am speaking as one with experience...As a career in portfolio management and as a CFO for small companies, yet larger than this one, I can still to this day tell you the salaries of all of the major positions in the firm. .. 

You and others here have impressive memories. 

I won't claim to have functioned as a CFO, but I have slept at a Holiday Inn Express, and have advised and microtrained a broad range of CFO's, accounting teams, and bookkeepers on payroll software setup and processing. A good number of CFOs needed a refresher to locate the level of detail that you opt to commit to memory.  I approach data their same way. I intentionally gloss over details that are gonna shift relatively soon, or that are the job of computer systems to remember.

If the fella mentioned in this thread is anything *at all* like hamster-powered-brain me, especially with that org being only one of several that he serves, he would have had to consult the data to provide the level of detail that some were demanding he have committed to memory.

We're all wired differently. So I think we can afford to simply cut that fella a wee bit of slack. The guilt-by-association, judge-by-appearances, and the trammel-our-neighbor-for-being a-supposed-apostate-Samaritan thing doesn't speak too well of our professed walk/faith. I really think we can do better.

Fair 'nuf?

Edited May 28, 2017 by probablyHagoth7

[Tacenda]

9 minutes ago, Calm said:

Did he mention if he counts his time on social media related to OF.s stuff as part of his work?...not going to be able to listen to podcast till Wednesday, just can't concentrate due to family visitors, having to drive to airport couple of times, getting lost in SL valley a couple of times, etc. etc.

He didn't clarify that as far as I remember. He may have. I know in the past that he spent time on Oasis, seminars, and meets up with countless people that developed faith crises. 

Here is is upcoming schedule: http://www.mormonstories.org/events/

[probablyHagoth7]

2 hours ago, juliann said:

For accuracy's sake. The question was not how much she was paid, it was IF she had been paid. And yes, when you are writing checks for what is claimed to be a handful of employees, I would expect the accountant to know that. 

Hi Juliann,

I may not respond to your first assertion, but as to writing checks, such a thing that you describe doesn't happen with most orgs that leverage inexpensive payroll systems. Few orgs use manual checks for payroll.

Software does 98% of it for you. It knows what amounts to crank out for each person each pay period. Someone simply clicks OK to run that period's payroll batch, and the printer spits out the checks.

Edited May 28, 2017 by probablyHagoth7

[Calm]

9 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

He didn't clarify that as far as I remember. He may have. I know in the past that he spent time on Oasis, seminars, and meets up with countless people that developed faith crises. 

Here is is upcoming schedule: http://www.mormonstories.org/events/

Thanks for the info.

[rockpond]

On 5/27/2017 at 3:38 PM, Storm Rider said:

I think you would have a point if the organization was large with many employees on the payroll.  However, we are talking about the CEO and his wife.  If this fellow is the financial expert for the company - the CFO - then it is very strange that they are not aware of these major cash outflows in a non-profit on a stringent budget. 

The board member over finances knew the salary was approximately $85k. 

The podcast was a "year in review" for the  donors.  Since the exact salary is available on the OSF website, there isn't a need for the board member to remember exact amounts. 

[rockpond]

2 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

There is a difference between an auditor and the CFO of the company.  It was my impression he was the CFO handling the monthly accounting.  You are saying he is not the accountant, but the auditor.  If your statement is accurate than you have a good point.

However, if it is the company accountant then it does not make sense.  We are talking about a very small company with a very limited number of individuals who are drawing a monthly paycheck.  If you have ever been a book keeper or an accountant for a small company you know these things because they are consistent payments on a monthly basis.  As I said in my earlier post, if you are talking about a much larger company with a large number of monthly salary payments then it would be understandable to no know or remember the amount of the check.  Yet, even then we are talking about CEO, the highest individual paid in the company.  Those kinds of figures stand out with financial people; I know because I am one.  Numbers come easy and are not easily forgotten.

I appreciate your desire for good thoughts and your encouragement to be more understanding of others.  Yet, I am speaking as one with experience without any desire to rush to judgment. As a career in portfolio management and as a CFO for small companies, yet larger than this one, I can still to this day tell you the salaries of all of the major positions in the firm.  

Again, my point only has a foundation if we are talking about a CFO or accountant.  If we are only talking about an auditor who audits the books once a year then it will not apply.

The guy on the podcast was a board member who is not the accountant nor the auditor for OSF.  He is the board member with oversight of OSF financials. 

[Calm]

Just now, rockpond said:

The guy on the podcast was a board member who is not the accountant nor the auditor for OSF.  He is the board member with oversight of OSF financials. 

If so, then wouldn't he know who was being paid, if not how much?  

Seems like this guy should be on the compensation committee at least.

 

[juliann]

28 minutes ago, probablyHagoth7 said:

Hi Juliann,

I may not respond to your first assertion, but as to writing checks, such a thing that you describe doesn't happen with most orgs that leverage inexpensive payroll systems. Few orgs use manual checks.

Software does 98% of it for you. It knows what amounts to crank out for each person each pay period. Someone simply clicks OK to run that period's payroll batch, and the printer spits out the checks.

Come on, Hagoth. Somebody still has to do it. I sat on a non-profit board with a lot of similarities for two decades. 

 

11 minutes ago, rockpond said:

The board member over finances knew the salary was approximately $85k. 

 

Except he didn't. John had to correct him there, too. Whenever it came to the Dehlin family income, the finance guy had memory lapses. This seems a small point, I'm curious why you guys are picking this for your hill to die on. So to speak. 

 

Edited May 28, 2017 by juliann

[Calm]

I read it as Hagoth is just trying to be accurate.  As someone who can get obsessed with the correct portrayal of trivial points , I don't see the effort as much more than that.  He or you can correct me if I am wrong, of course, if the reasoning is part of a greater argument I am not remembering.

Edited May 29, 2017 by Calm

[probablyHagoth7]

On 5/27/2017 at 0:24 PM, Calm said:

...it makes it look like there was a lack of preparation...

Could be.

From the little I've read on this topic, Dehlin's from-the-hip approach to podcasts was a default setting, *and* was common knowledge.   

On 5/27/2017 at 0:24 PM, Calm said:

There should have been notes on important points, amounts, etc. in front of him to avoid error, imo.

Lack of notes seems to be a recurring theme, and a pretty serious offense around here. There may have been notes. We simply don't know. Or perhaps they were in the wrong key. (Hoping some don't mind that I lighten the tone a wee bit.) That said, from the brief synopsis I read awhile back, Dehlin jumped in with the details so quickly that a turbo-charged CFO wouldn't have had time to consult such notes. (Minor exaggeration.) Is that a fair assessment?

To cut to the quick, what the forum is apparently saying:
1. Dehlin goes into interviews less prepared/organized than we might. 

2. And his finance guy seems to have followed suit.

3. And there are allegations of him and his board being unjust to others.

4. So they don't merit their pay.

Does that accurately sum up the Dehln threads?

Edited May 29, 2017 by probablyHagoth7

[Calm]

"Dehlin's from-the-hip approach"

I would tend to expect more from a financial person though.  It is entirely possible, however, from my 'not having watched it' POV that Dehlin interrupted before the person had a chance to check his prepared notes.  Dehlin is known for interrupting, so that seems quite feasible to me.

"4. So they don't merit their pay.

Does that accurately sum up the Dehln threads?"

Definitely not in my view.  It was not my purpose in beginning the one I started nor do I think anyone can reasonably conclude that from the thread alone.

----

Given your choice to summarize the threads in such a way (it is much more than just a simple defense of a possibly simple mistake), I am now wondering the same thing Juliann did earlier:

"This seems a small point, I'm curious why you guys are picking this for your hill to die on"

Edited May 29, 2017 by Calm

[Calm]

Hagoth,

The reason why the apparent lack of notes is a serious consideration for me is because the sole reason of this podcast was presented was for answering the questions and controversies that had arisen around the OSF financials.  This question of if and what .Dehlin's wife was being paid is a pretty major part of the discussion.  If this was not prepared for and prechecked for accuracy, why should I assume the individual knew anything he was talking about for sure?

I am not a fan of the rambling, unprepared talk show hosts, which is why I never watched Larry King and preferred Bill Moyers and others who could have informed, educational discussions.  **** Cavett was my favorite with his sense of humor and delivery.  (If anyone knows someone who comes close these days, let me know) However, I don't consider those who are popular as not deserving their pay as it is their audiences who pay them and it appears that is the style they like.

Edited May 29, 2017 by Calm

[probablyHagoth7]

6 hours ago, Calm said:

I read it as Hagoth is just trying to be accurate...I don't see the effort as much more than that.  He or you can correct me if I am wrong, of course, if the reasoning is part of a greater argument I am not remembering.

Trying to be fair, actually....  

...and the attempts at better accuracy are merely stepping stones to getting closer to fair.

That's the tip....

6 hours ago, Calm said:

if the reasoning is part of a greater argument I am not remembering.

1. That people want to put down what they deem to be priestcraft, I understand. If you deem him to be doing that, I simply believe the ends don't justify the those means.  I believe/hope there are ways to get from here to there that are more in line with a gospel of peace. 

2. When we skew facts (?unintentionally?) in the rush to skewer someone, a surprisingly common theme in Dehlin threads, it reflects poorly on this community. Hoping to trim our lamp a wee bit...

Last but *not* least:

3. A bit of kindness/fairness might just be what John and a fair number of those who gravitate towards his stream need to start seeing, if we genuinely hope/wish to fellowship with them again.

4. As an important part of that, to strengthen/retain fellowship with those among us who are hurting and quietly listen to him, and who may assume from our treatment of him that we can't relate to those who doubt, or don't know how to give a damn for those who struggle. 

 And *that's* the iceberg.

Edited May 29, 2017 by probablyHagoth7