Sexual harassment and tax problems for dehlin or not?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

6 hours ago, juliann said:

The boss should be the first out the door. I'll ignore the trope about women sleeping their way to the glass ceiling while I decide if you are trolling. 

I get what you are saying and think Delhin is in general a scum bag. That said he ran a gig with two employees. He was critical to the continued existence of the “charity” and she was not. 
 

 I work for my wife. She started a very successful home business. Several years ago I quit my full time position as an engineer and work for her. If our relationship were to end, is it really your position that it is by definition sexual harassment if she told be to go find work elsewhere? What if she kept me on as an employee and I kept begging for sex?

Edited May 18, 2021 by SeekingUnderstanding

[AtlanticMike]

5 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

What if she kept me on as an employee and I kept begging for sex?

Well, if your begging for sex, try turning the lights off, it makes it easier for her to imagine you're someone else😁. 

[Teancum]

19 hours ago, Calm said:

Since the other thread this was posted on was to be focused on child abuse and this controversy has a chance Imo of turning into a legal case and mainly since I am wondering about the legal implications of Dehlin getting his mundane expenses taken care of through donations to the OS Foundation, I decided to devote a thread to the topic. 
 

Tax experts....what are the limitations for using donations for one’s mundane expenses, groceries and tuition for example?  Just to be clear, Dehlin didn’t hide he was going to use donations for these purposes, he was asking people to donate specifically for this.  The only issue in that area I see is if there were donations made prior to these requests or which were made to support an OSF project, perhaps a specific podcast for example.

But it appears even if open about the purpose, the IRS might feel differently about collecting for such.

____________

Sexual harassment issue:  summarizes imo as Dehlin tied RB’s future employment to his personal comfort level, she either volunteered and he accepted or he had her promise that if he asked her to leave, she would.  When the affair was over, he did require her to leave, but she refused at that point.  She was later fired.

Quote from Dehlin on this will be in a post below.

___________
 

I want the thread topics to focus on legal implications mostly, let’s avoid where possible the gossip side of things that can only be he said, she said at this point. And for those who wouldn’t appreciate it, please avoid any graphic details...I don’t believe they will be needed to discuss legal or even moral implications of the controversy. 
 

The Dear John Dehlin blog has the most detailed in one place information and most important, provides quotes and references, also avoids language issues. It is biased against Dehlin, strongly I am guessing given the content of the blog overtime, so be aware of that....but iirc I don’t remember it leaving out relevant information.  There are other places discussing the controversy, but no news articles that I am aware of. This appears to be a very in-house issue.
 

There are several of their blogs on this specific controversy.  I will post links to the most relevant.  If you are not familiar with the case, the blog should provide enough detail Imo, but if someone is aware of documented stuff they missed, please share. 
 

Please use “Rosebud” or RB and “Dehlin’s wife” or DW and other such substitutes in order to accommodate those who I am guessing don’t want to be linked forever to the controversy.  It is easy to find almost all the names involved (RB’s name is published by the blog I am linking to) or at least was before they removed the documents for better redacting, so this is not about hiding the names but limiting exposure. I am iffy on RB’s name given her previously vague accusations of Dehlin over the years, but let’s be generous for her family’s sake at least. If there is a non salacious  need to reference/quote something with her name on it, I am not going to ask mods to ban you...

summary of background:

https://dearjohndehlin.wordpress.com/2021/05/11/the-john-dehlin-papers-project/

https://dearjohndehlin.wordpress.com/2021/05/13/john-dehlins-interaction-with-rosebud-in-light-of-osf-harassment-policy/

https://dearjohndehlin.wordpress.com/2021/04/30/john-dehlins-rosebud-pruning-dividend/

https://dearjohndehlin.wordpress.com/2021/04/30/john-dehlin-doxxes-rosebud-via-bill-ree-confirming-her-relationship-allegations/

Background on prior money issues involving women:

https://dearjohndehlin.wordpress.com/2017/05/25/john-dehlin-and-the-women-problem/

I am a CPA and tax expert.  However tax law is a large area of practice and I have purposefully avoided working in the not for profit arena because it is painfully boring. I have never prepared or revewed a Form 990.  My firm does have NFP experts and I can perhaps ask about reasonable salaries, etc.

But this much I do know. To qualify under IRC Section 501(c) you have to submit an extensive application for approval.  Form 1023 I believe.  If IRS approves you can be confident your corporation meets the requirements to be tax exempt.  IRS will also review your activity from time to time and indeed the Form 990 has extensive questions on activity, executives comp, board member issues, etc.  The form has grown over the years to a cumbersome many page document. Additionally the form is scrutinized and had reporting on what is termed unrelated business income (UBI) and such income is subject to tax.  UBI is any income that is not related to the stated purpose that qualifies the corporation and tax free.

There is nothing wrong with an executive of a NFP from taking a salary.  The  level of salary is a subjective issue and there is not specific tax law guidance on this.  My guess is there are tax law cases that could be reviewed to see what ideas IRS has on what is excessive and IRS may also look at the excessive compensation rules that have existed for a very long time for taxable corporations.  That areas of tax law is grey and subjective.  Looks of case law on that.

 

My guess is that Dehlin's salary is not unreasonable but I do not know what % it is of donations.  Ultimately, since the comp is disclose, donors can decide if it is excessive by voting with their charitable giving.

[pogi]

48 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I have purposefully avoided working in the not for profit arena because it is painfully boring.

If the tax expert says it is boring...dang!

[bluebell]

9 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I get what you are saying and think Delhin is in general a scum bag. That said he ran a gig with two employees. He was critical to the continued existence of the “charity” and she was not. 

Doesn’t this speak against the argument that they were equals so it can’t be sexual harassment?

[Rain]

16 hours ago, Harry T. Clark said:

Do you think consent is impossible in an unequal situation?  The law isn't there but company policy can be.

What of someone who throws themself at the boss in order to further their career and after a year, the boss relents. 

First if she is throwing herself at you then you go to HR/the board/partner.   If you have been smart you are keeping your wife updated all along which will increase her support of you getting a new job.

As the boss, Dehlin saying she threw herself at me till I relented is just making an excuse for an affair 

Quote

Then say she is a complete disaster at work and the boss' wife is upset having found out about the relationship, isn't the answer from the wife's perspective, to fire the woman? 

My perspective is that you have now made such a huge mess of it all you need to find a new job and I wouldn't trust you in that position.  

Quote

Sure, she might be entitled to some compensation, but she would have to go, right?

If he goes and they are actually on equal footing then she goes too.  If he is her boss, and I don't just mean organizationally, then she doesn't go, but it gets written into the bylaws that this kind of thing won't be tolerated and will be a reason to let you go.  This protects the company/nonprofit in the future.

 

Edited May 18, 2021 by Rain

[Rain]

14 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Doesn’t this speak against the argument that they were equals so it can’t be sexual harassment?

Just thinking the same thing myself when I said, "if he is her boss, and I don't mean just organizationally."

[SeekingUnderstanding]

11 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Doesn’t this speak against the argument that they were equals so it can’t be sexual harassment?

I don’t think they were in any way equals in the organization. OSF / MS is John Delhin and John Delhin is OSF / MS. Without JD the organization ceases to exist. I think JD and Rosebud both acted in really, let’s say “crappy”, ways. But describing it as sexual harassment seems overly simplistic. Their relationship pre-existed her employment. Their relationship was consensual. They had a very messy breakup. 
 

My wife is critical to our small business. I am completely replaceable. I work for her. I consented to our relationship - both personal and business. If our relationship ended and she fired me, your saying that would be sexual harassment by definition? I think that cheapens the word and insults those that have had their boss threaten their livelihood if they refused his/her sexual advances.  

[bluebell]

55 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I don’t think they were in any way equals in the organization. OSF / MS is John Delhin and John Delhin is OSF / MS. Without JD the organization ceases to exist. I think JD and Rosebud both acted in really, let’s say “crappy”, ways. But describing it as sexual harassment seems overly simplistic. Their relationship pre-existed her employment. Their relationship was consensual. They had a very messy breakup. 
 

My wife is critical to our small business. I am completely replaceable. I work for her. I consented to our relationship - both personal and business. If our relationship ended and she fired me, your saying that would be sexual harassment by definition? I think that cheapens the word and insults those that have had their boss threaten their livelihood if they refused his/her sexual advances.  

Wasn’t RB’s employment threatened (and eventually terminated against her will) because of the sexual relationship?

I agree both of them are at fault for this mess.  But the board ruled that the relationship was not sexual harassment because John and RB were equals.

 

Edited May 18, 2021 by bluebell

[Tacenda]

Wow, I'm flabbergasted by all this. Listened to bits of the interview with Rosebud, slept through some. I listen in bed to podcasts to help me sleep, lol.

Then this morning I listened to some of the end and she speaks of a Mormonstories group with the Bushmen's speaking. Pretty sure I was there if it's the one I'm thinking. It was held at a non LDS church in Salt Lake. Bright eyed and bushy tailed with my two daughters.

I remember thinking John Dehlin was full of himself when observing him when he was wondering around before it all began. I was too bashful to introduce myself and my daughters.

Funnily, I bet my daughters thought I'd lost it when listening to all the speakers. They were mostly clueless about my faith struggles. It was my way to introduce them to my struggles. I'll bet I saw Rosebud there. 

After listening to her side I know both are at fault. She was vulnerable but still at fault too. I've lost the little bit of respect I had for him. What he did to his wife and family is awful. 

 

Edited May 18, 2021 by Tacenda

[Harry T. Clark]

3 minutes ago, Rain said:

First if she is throwing herself at you then you go to HR/the board.   If you have been smart you are keeping your wife updated all along which will increase her support of you getting a new job.

 

I agree that this is the right way to handle it.

Quote

As the boss, Dehlin saying she threw herself at me till I relented is just making an excuse for an affair 

Dehlin never said that Rosebud threw herself at him, as far as I know.  I was just putting forth a hypothetical to make the point that the relationship was originally consensual and that factors into analyzing this.

Quote

My perspective is that you have now made such a huge mess of it all you need to find a new job and I wouldn't trust you in that position.  

Yes, and this is why, imo, that companies have a no tolerance policy for relationships.

Quote

If he goes and they are actually on equal footing then she goes too.  If he is her boss, and I don't just mean organizationally, then she doesn't go, but it gets written into the bylaws that this kind of thing won't be tolerated and will be a reason to let you go.  This protects the company/nonprofit in the future.

Yes.  I think what happened here, from what I have read, is that there was a sort of an affair and Dehlin told the board about it when he was done with the relationship.  Rosebud still wanted to continue but Dehlin didn't.  I believe that the board then decided, probably on advice of counsel, that both should quit the board and ask to be rehired as independent contractors.  That would have protected the company from any future problems having independent contractors instead of employees.  Rosebud didn't want to resign (I think because she wanted to gain control of OSF with Dehlin by her side) and so the board fired her. 

Of course, the board's actions have to be taken as probably Dehlin's actions.  He was the OSF and regardless of what his title was, he was in control.  I think this is also why Rosebud refused to ask to be rehired because she probably thought it was pointless and that the actions were done to push her out.

[Amulek]

42 minutes ago, pogi said:

If the tax expert says it is boring...dang!

For those in the accounting realm who could do with a bit of levity...

 

[juliann]

22 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I don’t think they were in any way equals in the organization. OSF / MS is John Delhin and John Delhin is OSF / MS. Without JD the organization ceases to exist. I think JD and Rosebud both acted in really, let’s say “crappy”, ways. But describing it as sexual harassment seems overly simplistic. Their relationship pre-existed her employment. Their relationship was consensual. They had a very messy breakup. 
 

My wife is critical to our small business. I am completely replaceable. I work for her. I consented to our relationship - both personal and business. If our relationship ended and she fired me, your saying that would be sexual harassment by definition? I think that cheapens the word and insults those that have had their boss threaten their livelihood if they refused his/her sexual advances.  

Why do you think an extramarital affair between a boss and subordinate is comparable to a married couple who created a business? For starters, you likely own half the business if you divorce. 

Exactly what about Dehlin do you think makes him irreplaceable? Especially now when he has burnt so many bridges and is no longer sought after as a "Mormon" spokesperson? One of the more interesting behaviors when watching his defenders is that it is de rigueur to include a declaration of his faults, sometimes accompanied by "I don't like him." 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

10 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Wasn’t RB’s employment threatened (and eventually terminated against her will) because of the sexual relationship?

Which is no different than the situation between my wife and me. Separating after a messy breakup of a consensual relationship that predated the work relationship. Especially at a very small company (she . You think this is by definition sexual harassment? 

10 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I agree both of them are at fault for this mess.  But the board rules that the relationship was not sexual harassment because John and RB were equals.

 

I’m not familiar with the board’s statement here. I do know they were both released from their board positions, and they were both let go as employees. John was retained as an independent contractor and Rosebud was offered the same opportunity though from the documents I’ve seen it’s unclear what if any role would have been available. 
 

But yeah I don’t buy anything that says they were “equals” at the organization. Maybe on paper, but not in importance. That said Rosebud is an adult with a Harvard education (iirc). She entered an extra-marital affair and then started working for her lover. It’s entirely way too simplistic to call this simply sexual harassment in my opinion. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

22 minutes ago, juliann said:

Why do you think an extramarital affair between a boss and subordinate is comparable to a married couple who created a business? For starters, you likely own half the business if you divorce. 
 

I’d be no less unemployed. Let’s say she was just my long term girlfriend. Does that change anything?

Quote

Exactly what about Dehlin do you think makes him irreplaceable?
 

It seems to me that people donate to MS because of JD, his advocacy and podcast. Who exactly would fill that role? If OSF fired him, and replaced him, he’d launch another podcast. Who would get the continued donations do you think?

Quote

Especially now when he has burnt so many bridges and is no longer sought after as a "Mormon" spokesperson? One of the more interesting behaviors when watching his defenders is that it is de rigueur to include a declaration of his faults, sometimes accompanied by "I don't like him." 

I think John Delhin is a disingenuous liar. He’s a lazy interviewer. He’s a crappy representative for the post Mormon community. He carefully curates his own image while tearing down the image of those that threaten him. Instead of owning his extramarital affair when he discontinued his Mormon stories groups, he said he stopped them due to rampant swinging and drug use. He shuts down honest discussion on his website. When he left the church he lied about his own feelings and tried to force his own excommunication as a spectacle for his own notoriety. 
 

I can think he’s a really crappy human being while at the same time think that calling his affair with Rosebud “sexual harassment” is overly simplistic. 

Edited May 18, 2021 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Harry T. Clark]

10 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I get what you are saying and think Delhin is in general a scum bag. That said he ran a gig with two employees. He was critical to the continued existence of the “charity” and she was not. 
 

 I work for my wife. She started a very successful home business. Several years ago I quit my full time position as an engineer and work for her. If our relationship were to end, is it really your position that it is by definition sexual harassment if she told be to go find work elsewhere? What if she kept me on as an employee and I kept begging for sex?

In the sexual harassment arena, assuming your business has more than 15 employees, consensual relationships that end and then the employee party to the relationship is fired, doesn't automatically arise to a sexual harassment cause of action.  It could, however, depending on the circumstances.  Even so, it then goes to damages as in how much severance would you be entitled to in order to have you leave.  This might be small or large depending on how much you were making and how hard it would be to find other employment and what emotional damages you could show.  Also, in reality, your scenario would probably be decided in family court, an entirely different arena.

[Harry T. Clark]

30 minutes ago, juliann said:

 One of the more interesting behaviors when watching his defenders is that it is de rigueur to include a declaration of his faults, sometimes accompanied by "I don't like him." 

How do you define a "defender" of Dehlin?  Someone who thinks he shouldn't be forever burned at the stake?  Anyone who pushes back on those who want his blood?

[Teancum]

17 hours ago, juliann said:

What Calm said. The problem with this, and it has been one of the reasons MeToo was so needed, is that everything is thrown in but the kitchen sink to dilute the act that created the situation. It doesn't matter how long ago it was (other than legally and laws are being adjusted), it doesn't matter how "crazy" the victim was anymore than it matters what she wore. It doesn't matter how good of a business woman she was. Or if she "deserved" to be fired. Or that she hasn't "handled" the whole thing well or appropriately.

The fact is that a superior had a subordinate fired for his convenience after a sexual liason. Start of story. End of story. 

According the the Bill Reel/RFM podcast on this with Natasha Helfer and another board member-I think Maxine Hanks it was the board decision to fire Rosebud.  Not Dehlin. They both were fired than allowed to reapply initially as a 1099 contractor.  Dehlin agreed. Rosebud did not.  Thus the board fired her.  

[Teancum]

17 hours ago, Calm said:

It comes across like his claims of being a temple worthy member at the time of his excommunication council...when he had committed adultery which even if it didn’t get him excommunicated, it would have lost him a temple recommend.

Where do you get the idea he committed adultery?

[juliann]

5 minutes ago, Harry T. Clark said:

How do you define a "defender" of Dehlin?  Someone who thinks he shouldn't be forever burned at the stake?  Anyone who pushes back on those who want his blood?

Those who are full attack mode against any person with an objection to him or his product, even while claiming to not be his supporter. It is quite evident on the board that can't be named. 

[juliann]

8 minutes ago, Teancum said:

According the the Bill Reel/RFM podcast on this with Natasha Helfer and another board member-I think Maxine Hanks it was the board decision to fire Rosebud.  Not Dehlin. They both were fired than allowed to reapply initially as a 1099 contractor.  Dehlin agreed. Rosebud did not.  Thus the board fired her.  

There would have to be much better disclosure to know. I see a lot of paradoxical defenses. Was he in control of the board? Well, if he was indispensable, yes. Also, if his own acknowledgment that the board was inactive is correct, yes. Was he the executive director? I know how 501c3's can operate, I was part of one for a long time. 

[Teancum]

17 hours ago, Calm said:

Brooks and Dehlin come up with the independent contractor idea and intend to terminate both and then rehire...with Dehlin getting the much more lucrative income producing podcasts package while RB gets what is claimed to be a money pit of conferences and communities (the public explanation for discontinuing them).

Not seeing equal punishment there. 

How do you know this was Dehlin's idea and not just the board?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

25 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Where do you get the idea he committed adultery?

This is getting into the Bill Clinton defense here. In every sense that mattered he committed adultery. They had an emotional and sexual relationship even it didn’t include intercourse. 

[Calm]

34 minutes ago, Teancum said:

According the the Bill Reel/RFM podcast on this with Natasha Helfer and another board member-I think Maxine Hanks it was the board decision to fire Rosebud.  Not Dehlin. They both were fired than allowed to reapply initially as a 1099 contractor.  Dehlin agreed. Rosebud did not.  Thus the board fired her.  

RB claims she was told to resign and possible terminated before the board was aware of the affair iirc. She was the one who contacted the board and told them. She claims to have the emails that prove it...one from Helfer showing she was not aware of it and one freezing Brooks’ authority once the board found out about it. They later confirmed it, so I don’t know if the delay in knowledge makes any difference.   I will see if I can pinpoint the emails. They were among many others I read when the docs were first up. 

[Calm]

12 minutes ago, Teancum said:

How do you know this was Dehlin's idea and not just the board?

Emails RB posted.  Could have been Brooks...Will try and find them again. 

But elsewhere Dehlin says he found the solution iirc, so I assume it was him. 

Dehlin...

Quote

After Rosebud propositioned me for sex, but before I brought this up to Joanna, I tried to split things up with Rosebud where she would take the events and community, and I would take the podcast. And we would no longer work together. In the Open Stories Foundation response to the NH complain an email is provided that shows this. Rosebud refused this option because she wanted to keep working with me. She actually wanted me to have sex with her and leave Margi. But I did not want that, and I made this clear to her from the beginning. But I didn’t want to leave her with nothing. So this was the best solution I could come up with. But she declined because she didn’t want to let me go.

 

Edited May 18, 2021 by Calm