Sexual harassment and tax problems for dehlin or not?

[smac97]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

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. 

It may be helpful to define "sexual harassment" which, like "fraud" or "racism" or "fascist," can be used in a loosy-goosy fashion, to the point where the usage becomes more about the term's pejorative value than its definitional value.

From the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission:

Quote

It is unlawful to harass a person (an applicant or employee) because of that person's sex. Harassment can include "sexual harassment" or unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical harassment of a sexual nature.

...

Although the law doesn't prohibit simple teasing, offhand comments, or isolated incidents that are not very serious, harassment is illegal when it is so frequent or severe that it creates a hostile or offensive work environment or when it results in an adverse employment decision (such as the victim being fired or demoted).

The harasser can be the victim's supervisor, a supervisor in another area, a co-worker, or someone who is not an employee of the employer, such as a client or customer.

Were Dehlin and Rosebud interacting in an employment context?  I think the pretty clear answer is yes.

Did Dehlin present "requests for sexual favors" to Rosebud?  It sounds like he did.

Did Rosebud present "requests for sexual favors" to Dehlin?  It sounds like she did.  

Did Dehlin's requests create or contribute or culminate in  "a hostile or offensive work environment?"  Apparently so.

Did Rosebud's requests create or contribute or culminate in "a hostile or offensive work environment?"  Apparently so.

Broadly and legally speaking, I think the mutuality of of sexual conduct between the two makes it more difficult to call their interactions "sexual harassment."  The defining element of harassment is that it is unwelcome.  I haven't reviewed all of the materials in this melodramatic dumpster fire, but I did read Dehlin's affidavit in which he quoted Rosebud's texts at length, and some of his own.  It seems pretty clear that the relationship was mutual and consensual.  There was a lot of give and take.  From LegalDictionary.com:

Quote

Sexual harassment is a form of Sex Discrimination that occurs in the workplace. Persons who are the victims of sexual harassment may sue under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e et seq.), which prohibits sex discrimination in the workplace.

The federal courts did not recognize sexual harassment as a form of sex discrimination until the 1970s, because the problem originally was perceived as isolated incidents of flirtation in the workplace. Employers are now aware that they can be sued by the victims of workplace sexual harassment. The accusations of sexual harassment made by anita f. hill against Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas during his 1991 confirmation hearings also raised societal consciousness about this issue.

Courts and employers generally use the definition of sexual harassment contained in the guidelines of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). This language has also formed the basis for most state laws prohibiting sexual harassment. The guidelines state:

Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature constitute sexual harassment when

1. submission to such conduct is made either explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of an individual's employment,
2. submission to or rejection of such conduct by an individual is used as the basis for employment decisions affecting such individuals, or
3. such conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual's work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment. (29 C.F.R. § 1604.11 [1980])

A key part of the definition is the use of the word unwelcome. Unwelcome or uninvited conduct or communication of a sexual nature is prohibited; welcome or invited actions or words are not unlawful. Sexual or romantic interaction between consenting people at work may be offensive to observers or may violate company policy, but it is not sexual harassment.

This last paragraph seems key.  "Unwelcome or uninvited conduct or communication of a sexual nature is prohibited; welcome or invited actions or words are not unlawful.  Sexual or romantic interaction between consenting people at work may be offensive to observers or may violate company policy, but it is not sexual harassment."

More (same link) :

Quote

The courts have generally concluded that a victim need not say or do a particular thing to indicate unwelcomeness. Instead, a court will review all of the circumstances to determine whether it was reasonably clear to the harasser that the conduct was unwelcome. 
...The law prohibits unwelcome "sexual" conduct and words or actions "of a sexual nature." Some conduct, such as hugging, may be sexual or nonsexual and must be evaluated in context. Sexual harassment may be physical, such as kissing, hugging, pinching, patting, grabbing, blocking the victim's path, leering or staring, or standing very close to the victim. It may also be verbal, which may be oral or written...

The consensual and mutual nature of the relationship seems to go against the idea that "the conduct was unwelcome."

This next bit is important:

Quote

The courts have recognized that victims may be afraid to express their discomfort if the harasser is their boss or is physically intimidating. Victims may be coerced into going along with sexual talk or activities because they believe they will be punished or fired if they protest. 

Is this implicated here?  Was Rosebud "coerced into going along with sexual talk or activities"?  Candidly, it appears she was not coerced, and was instead a willing participant in the romantic relationship with Dehlin.

There may be a temptation to infantilize Rosebud because A) she was the subordinate at OSF, and/or B) she is a woman and Dehlin is a man.  Her being a subordinate is a valid consideration, but her gender is not relevant.  She's an adult.  She is not mentally impaired.  She was not drugged.  AFAICS she was not threatened with violence or adverse action in her employment unless she engaged in the conduct.

That said, she did lose her job at OSF.  However, it looks like that was not retaliatory.  It's not like she refused to have a romantic relationship with Dehlin, and that he then orchestrated her firing as retaliation for not submitting to his demands.  Let's look at this comment (from Reddit) :

Quote

It's very clear from the documentation that Joanna Brooks unilaterally decided to fire Rosebud after she wouldn't resign and sign a non-disclosure agreement. 
...
Here's what's super clear from the documentation: John pursued an OSF volunteer romantically, then engaged with her sexually, then hired her as an employee, then got rid of her because he was too in love with her and felt they couldn't keep their hands off each other. There are super murky lines here, but there's no question this kind of behavior is at the very least super unethical.

Did Rosebud initially get hired because of her burgeoning romantic relationship with Dehlin?  

If Dehlin hired Rosebud as a romantic inducement, then firing her after the relationship went south starts to look more retaliatory.

See also this comment (from the same Reddit thread) :

Quote

If you also read the hundreds of pages of chats, you can see classic grooming behavior by John: 1) Identify vulnerable victim -- stay at home mom in a struggling marriage looking to be involved with Mormon Stories 2) Gain trust through by making them think they are special or part of something special "You are one of the wisest, most enlightened people I know," he says after talking to her online for a few months 3) Fill an emotional or physical need -- he knew she was in a broken marriage and continually probed for details about it 4) Isolate - continually went to her room/hotel room after being asked not to

He starts by asking innocent questions, like what's your favorite ice cream? Breakfast cereal? Movie? Book?

She answers, and then continually tries to re-direct him to work. He comes back with more intimate personal questions.

"I want to help you with what you're struggling with," he says. "I don't like to see you sad."

"I'd love to help you find some of the puzzle pieces" he says later.

"If you are comfortable, you can continue to lean on me as a confidant" he says a few messages later.

She opens up to him about her marriage and at one point says "I cannot believe I'm talking to you about this stuff" to which he replies "It sounds like you have been surpressing your wants/needs for a long time."

Fair points.  But again, I have a hard time with Rosebud being portrayed as a hapless, passive victim in all this.  She wasn't some starry-eyed college student mooning over a dashing young French Lit professor.  She is a mentally competent adult.  And she was not coerced.  She was not coerced.  She was, in all or most respects, a willing participant in the relationship with Dehlin.

Back to LegalDictionary.com:

Quote

Consent can be given to a relationship and then withdrawn when the relationship ends. Once it is withdrawn, continued romantic or sexual words or actions are not protected by the past relationship and may be sexual harassment.

The whole "messy break-up" part of this is unclear to me.  I don't know the timing of Rosebud's firing, but it appears that Joanna Brooks did it.  From Reddit:

Quote

1. It's very clear from the documentation that Joanna Brooks unilaterally decided to fire Rosebud after she wouldn't resign and sign a non-disclosure agreement. Why didn't Natasha bring that up on ML? That seems like a really key piece of information. She only said that Joanna and RB and JD had tried to "work it out." If you were a) pressured to resign by a lawyer and then b) fired without any investigation, wouldn't you be hesitant to cooperate further?
2. It's clear Natasha at the time was pretty upset with Joanna's actions. So much so that Joanna was placed on some type of board leave until the rest of the board could sort things out, then Joanna either resigned or was kicked off the board. Again, really important info that Natasha just doesn't even mention.

I'm not sure what "unilaterally" means here (without Dehlin's input/consent?  Without Rosebud's?).

Anyhoo, on balance I think that the "sexual harassment" accusation against Dehlin under the civil law seems pretty weak.  I am no fan of his, and I find his behavior morally and ethically repugnant.  But the mutual and consensual nature of the relationship makes a sexual harassment claim difficult.

That said, Dehlin's conduct under the private law at issue, OSF's harassment policy, seems cut and dried:

Quote

Sexual harassment doesn’t have one standard meaning. So since John is so adamant about his spotless character, let’s start by defining what sexual harassment or abuse means in the context of John’s own words. He set a standard for himself and asked us to hold him to it. So we will.

In the above post, John links to the “zero-tolerance” Open Stories Foundation anti-harassment and abuse policy, which reads:

Open Stories Foundation considers sexual or romantic advances or innuendos by persons in a supervisory or authoritative role toward subordinates within the same department or chain of command, or by persons having authority over staffing or salary decisions, to be harassment for which disciplinary action will be taken.

As the founder and Chief Executive Officer of the Open Stories Foundation, John finds himself every day in a supervisory or authoritative role towards anyone who is employed by or does work for the Open Stories Foundation.

In 2011, he found himself in a supervisory role with a subordinate and sent the following messages to her via Facebook:

July 4
John Dehlin
I gotta run to go help my Dad….but let me just say this:
It was helpful for me when we made the rule that we wouldn’t talk sexually over IM/chat. Given where we are, that was just making things harder for me (the 2 times or so that we (sort of….barely) talked that way).

Then, in an email dated August 10, 2012, John says:

I can’t be your lover anymore.

In the above messages, John clearly admits to engaging in “sexual or romantic advances or innuendo” on at least two occasions. He then admits to being a “lover” to the same subordinate. Even completely out of context, these messages prove that John participated in to behavior that violates his own foundation’s harassment policies.

No matter what other allegations exist (and there are many more), no matter what other standards there are and no matter what else John throws out into the abyss, this is the crucial point: John Dehlin, CEO of Open Stories Foundation, a person in a “supervisory or authoritative role,” clearly and unequivocally made “sexual or romantic advances or innuendos” toward a subordinate.

Well, yeah.  So even if Dehlin's conduct isn't actionable at law, it seems to undeniably be "harassment" as defined privately by the OSF (and, obviously, also very morally/ethically wrong).

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 18, 2021 by smac97

[Harry T. Clark]

48 minutes ago, juliann said:

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. 

Sometimes former paint huffers will do that.

[Tacenda]

27 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

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. 

Oh, yeah. If RB wasn't lying in the recorded interview, definitely.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

29 minutes ago, smac97 said:

as defined privately by the OSF

I will just note that OSF adopted that definition several years after the Delhin affair and likely in response to it. 

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I will just note that OSF adopted that definition several years after the Delhin affair and likely in response to it. 

So "sexual or romantic advances or innuendos by persons in a supervisory or authoritative role toward subordinates within the same department or chain of command, or by persons having authority over staffing or salary decisions" was acceptable at OSF prior to the implementation of a formal policy?  

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

This is from the index...

Quote

http://mormonrosebud.wikidot.com/contract

August 22, 2012 – My text messages with OSF Board Chair Joanna Brooks – reporting the sexual nature of my relationship with John...

August 27, 2012 – Correspondence with the attorney Joanna Brooks hired to pressure me to resign

August 28, 2012 – Letter from OSF attorney pressuring me to resign
http://mormonrosebud.wikidot.com/attorney-resignation

August 31, 2012 – Letter from OSF attorney terminating my employment and removing me from board of directors after no investigation conducted and full board not informed

August 31, 2012 – Separation agreement from board lawyer, including boilerplate language for me to resign (I did not)
http://mormonrosebud.wikidot.com/separation-agreement

September 3, 2012 – John Dehlin’s pro-forma application to be re-instated to OSF and receive 100% of Mormon Stories donations past, present and future

September 4, 2012 – Email correspondence from Board Chair Joanna Brooks to the full board of directors covering up my termination, reasons for my departure and unilaterally closing down my work (after Joanna sent this email and it was clear a coverup was occurring, I reached out to board members, who had been kept in the dark, and individually informed each of them of my accusation of sexual harassment).

September 5, 2012 – Joanna announces major organizational changes to conference organizers without board approval

September 9, 2012 – My decision to rescind my right to an investigation. At the time what I wanted was for the board to protect me from John and to allow me to continue doing my work. I was very sensitive and raw at the time and did not want to get into details about the sexual harassment. All I wanted was for John to calm down so I could move on and continue building the organization and doing the work I loved.

September 17, 2012 – Email of my resignation. I received a phone call from Natasha and another board member again asking me to resign. At that point, I gave up. I had received no help, it was clear they were protecting John at all costs and I realized that no help was going to be available to me.
http://mormonrosebud.wikidot.com/resignation

 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

So "sexual or romantic advances or innuendos by persons in a supervisory or authoritative role toward subordinates within the same department or chain of command, or by persons having authority over staffing or salary decisions" was acceptable at OSF prior to the implementation of a formal policy?  

Thanks,

-Smac

Within the same “department” or “chain of command”? OSF had a non functioning unpaid board (no meetings for months at a time) and two employees pulling in a combined 60k. Are we talking about the same place? I think it’s safe to say that they had no policy in place and that it’s founder (JD) was too busy with work school and his extra marital affair to be bothered by formal policies. 

[Calm]

48 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I'm not sure what "unilaterally" means here (without Dehlin's input/consent? 

Pretty sure it means without the board. 

[smac97]

9 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Quote

So "sexual or romantic advances or innuendos by persons in a supervisory or authoritative role toward subordinates within the same department or chain of command, or by persons having authority over staffing or salary decisions" was acceptable at OSF prior to the implementation of a formal policy?  

Within the same “department” or “chain of command”?

I'm not sure what you mean here.

By way of example: I was previously employed at a law firm for about four years.  About mid-way through my employment the firm came out with a new policy that prohibited employees from using cell phones and visiting social media websites on the firm's computers.  As I understand it, the firm had previously taken a sort of laissez faire approach to such things, but then too many people started spending too much time on their phones and Facebook, so the rule change came into effect.

Now, prior to the rule change there was nothing really morally/ethically "wrong" about a person using her cell or checking Facebook.  Nor even after the rule change.  Cell phones and social media are fine, just not on company time.  The rule moved these behaviors from the "acceptable" to "unacceptable" category.

In contrast, Dehlin engaged in conduct that can be aptly characterized as "sexual or romantic advances or innuendos by persons in a supervisory or authoritative role toward subordinates within the same department or chain of command, or by persons having authority over staffing or salary decisions."  My question is: What made the Dehlin's conduct inappropriate?  Was it merely OSF drafting and publishing a rule?  Is that what moved his behavior from the "acceptable" to "unacceptable" category?  Or was his behavior inappropriate and unacceptable both after and before the rule was implemented?

9 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

OSF had a non functioning unpaid board (no meetings for months at a time) and two employees pulling in a combined 60k. Are we talking about the same place?

Again, I don't understand what you are saying.  We are speaking of OSF.

9 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I think it’s safe to say that they had no policy in place and that it’s founder (JD) was too busy with work school and his extra marital affair to be bothered by formal policies. 

I agree.  My question, howevrer, is whether Dehlin's conduct was acceptable at OSF before it had a "policy in place."

Thanks,

-Smac

[SeekingUnderstanding]

27 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I'm not sure what you mean here.

By way of example: I was previously employed at a law firm for about four years.  About mid-way through my employment the firm came out with a new policy that prohibited employees from using cell phones and visiting social media websites on the firm's computers.  As I understand it, the firm had previously taken a sort of laissez faire approach to such things, but then too many people started spending too much time on their phones and Facebook, so the rule change came into effect.

Now, prior to the rule change there was nothing really morally/ethically "wrong" about a person using her cell or checking Facebook.  Nor even after the rule change.  Cell phones and social media are fine, just not on company time.  The rule moved these behaviors from the "acceptable" to "unacceptable" category.

In contrast, Dehlin engaged in conduct that can be aptly characterized as "sexual or romantic advances or innuendos by persons in a supervisory or authoritative role toward subordinates within the same department or chain of command, or by persons having authority over staffing or salary decisions."  My question is: What made the Dehlin's conduct inappropriate?  Was it merely OSF drafting and publishing a rule?  Is that what moved his behavior from the "acceptable" to "unacceptable" category?  Or was his behavior inappropriate and unacceptable both after and before the rule was implemented?

Again, I don't understand what you are saying.  We are speaking of OSF.

I agree.  My question, howevrer, is whether Dehlin's conduct was acceptable at OSF before it had a "policy in place."

Thanks,

-Smac

I'm not entirely sure then what you are getting at, but if you are asking whether the board would have approved of having its only two employees involved in a messy extra-marital affair before the policy, I'm going to say no. That seems like it could ruin a small organization like OSF and anyone with a modicum of good sense would have to know that. As it was I believe the entire board (less Ms Helfer) resigned afterwards (not positive on the details). 

[smac97]

1 minute ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I'm not entirely sure then what you are getting at, but if you are asking whether the board would have approved of having its only two employees involved in a messy extra-marital affair before the policy, I'm going to say no.

I agree.  So the fact that Dehlin and Rosebud did these things before the implementation of a formal policy becomes rather less important.  The problem is not that the conduct violated a policy, it was the that the conduct happened at all.

1 minute ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

That seems like it could ruin a small organization like OSF and anyone with a modicum of good sense would have to know that.  As it was I believe the entire board (less Ms Helfer) resigned afterwards (not positive on the details). 

Concur.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Meadowchik]

Disclosure: I posted this elsewhere first and with it some implicit criticisms of the LDS-church. I have removed those criticisms with this posting, because my intent here is not to criticize the church. I appreciate the fact that many of us, believers and non-believers, can agree on many things, and for the sake of this discussion I am happy to leave out my complaints about the church. 

This is response to request (on another board) for an elaboration on my claims that Dehlin tends to problematic behaviors, regarding:

1) Open Stories Foundation impropriety and his responses since: including the Rosebud drama, the disagreements with Amy Grubbs (under NDA) and Kristy Money. Much of that seems to be a pattern of seeking free or underpaid labor, and then running into trouble when people don't like how they're treated. Dehlin seems to have a habit of needing to get rid of all or most everyone at Open Stories Foundation, refilling the positions, then having to purge again.

https://dearjohndehlin.wordpress.com/tag/kate-kelly/
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1385 ... 21729.html
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1335 ... 87272.html

2) Professional grey area in representing himself. Dehlin touts his Phd in clinical and counselling psychology yet to this day remains unlicensed to practice therapy in Utah. He gets around this by calling his services “coaching.” What he is doing might be technically legal in Utah, but I think we can say it is ethically questionable.

https://www.johndehlin.com/coaching/

3) Pretending to be anti-misogynist then silencing women who hold him to account. He explicitly asks for feedback and ends up deleting, muting, or blocking dozens of women who raise legitimate concerns about his own behavior. He and his friends do this in several groups in response to criticism of him.

4) Centering himself continually, like when Michael Quinn passed away, he was one of the earliest to post the news, and he did it before Quinn’s family.

As a public figure has a personal problem which ends up hurting people by virtue of his social status: he has built his livelihood around this while not being competent enough to de-center himself. He therefore invites (not just attacks from believers or smears) legitimate criticisms. But instead of really responding to consumer feedback like a competent professional, he reacts in authoritarian fashion. His media reach amplifies that and the damage such behavior causes, both the potential for damage and the actual harm.

Ideally, Dehlin would be more responsive to criticism. But at the very least, hopefully more of us can continue to be aware of the unhealthy patterns of someone many in our communities look up to for guidance.  

As an atheist who was a believing Mormon for most of my life, I am forever connected with my LDS heritage, friends, and family, and I still believe in repentance, and when repentance is not chosen I believe in caution and awareness. I believe that all of our communities can be better, and have better relationships with each other.

Thanks,

Meadowchik

[Teancum]

2 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

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. 

Ok I agree.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

48 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I agree.  So the fact that Dehlin and Rosebud did these things before the implementation of a formal policy becomes rather less important.  The problem is not that the conduct violated a policy, it was the that the conduct happened at all.

Concur.

Thanks,

-Smac

Right, but lets say that Rosebud was replaced with John Dehlin's wife. I doubt the board would have had a problem with a "supervisor" having a relationship with a "subordinate". If John Dehlin was single and rosebud were single, I'm not sure that the board would have objected. The biggest problem is not that Dehlin was involved with someone in his organization (I'd say this is very common in very small entities which tend to hire spouses, and family members more than other entities. As I stated earlier in this thread I am employed by my wife.) The primary problem was that Dehlin was involved in a secret immoral affair with someone without the knowledge of the board. So it's not the fact that he was in a relationship, but it was the nature of the relationship (secret, non-consenting spouses, board not informed etc) that is problematic. 

Edited May 18, 2021 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Disclosure: I posted this elsewhere first and with it some implicit criticisms of the LDS-church. I have removed those criticisms with this posting, because my intent here is not to criticize the church. I appreciate the fact that many of us, believers and non-believers, can agree on many things, and for the sake of this discussion I am happy to leave out my complaints about the church. 

How very magnanimous: 
 

I had some nasty but relevantly questionable things to say about the church, but to show what a standup person I am, I want you all to know I have chosen to leave them out of this post. 
 

Or something like that. 

Edited May 18, 2021 by Scott Lloyd

[bluebell]

19 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

How very magnanimous: 
 

I had some nasty but relevantly questionable things to say about the church, but to show what a standup person I am, I want you all to know I have chosen to leave them out of this post. 
 

Or something like that. 

Or, maybe she thought it would be useful to explain why she posted the same thing on two different sites, but left out parts on one site while including them on the other.

Nothing wrong with assuming the best.

(If it helps you feel better can always save this post and hold it against her if she ever tries to argue that JS's differing accounts of the First Vision prove he made the story up. )

Edited May 18, 2021 by bluebell

[smac97]

3 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Quote

I agree.  So the fact that Dehlin and Rosebud did these things before the implementation of a formal policy becomes rather less important.  The problem is not that the conduct violated a policy, it was the that the conduct happened at all.

Right, but lets say that Rosebud was replaced with John Dehlin's wife. I doubt the board would have had a problem with a "supervisor" having a relationship with a "subordinate".

Are you sure?  Nepotism/favoritism/cronyism would not be a concern?

3 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

If John Dehlin was single and rosebud were single, I'm not sure that the board would have objected.

Again, are you sure?  Why, then, does OSF have a policy that categorically prohibits what Dehlin did?  Take a look:

Quote

Open Stories Foundation considers sexual or romantic advances or innuendos by persons in a supervisory or authoritative role toward subordinates within the same department or chain of command, or by persons having authority over staffing or salary decisions, to be harassment for which disciplinary action will be taken.

Dehlin's and Rosebud's marital status is irrelevant under this rule, right?  

Why would the board not object to "sexual or romantic advances or innuendos by {UNMARRIED} persons in a supervisory or authoritative role toward subordinates within the same department or chain of command, or by {UNMARRIED} persons having authority over staffing or salary decisions, to be harassment for which disciplinary action will be taken"?

3 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

The biggest problem is not that Dehlin was involved with someone in his organization (I'd say this is very common in very small entities which tend to hire spouses, and family members more than other entities. As I stated earlier in this thread I am employed by my wife.) The primary problem was that Dehlin was involved in a secret immoral affair with someone without the knowledge of the board. So it's not the fact that he was in a relationship, but it was the nature of the relationship (secret, non-consenting spouses, board not informed etc) that is problematic. 

Hmm.  I wonder if that is so.  Again, the policy OSF adopted is not keyed on marital status.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Scott Lloyd]

17 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Or, maybe she thought it would be useful to explain why she posted the same thing on two different sites, but left out parts on one site while including them on the other.

Nothing wrong with assuming the best.

(If it helps you feel better can always save this post and hold it against her if she ever tries to argue that JS's differing accounts of the First Vision prove he made the story up. )

Do you really think anyone, assuming he or she happened upon the earlier version of the post, wherever it is, would be astonished to see that it contained some characteristically negative commentary about the Church? I don’t. Meadowchick, from what I’ve seen, has never been guarded about expressing her disapproval of the Church of Jesus Christ, not here, anyway. 

[bluebell]

18 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Do you really think anyone, assuming he or she happened upon the earlier version of the post, wherever it is, would be astonished to see that it contained some characteristically negative commentary about the Church? I don’t. Meadowchick, from what I’ve seen, has never been guarded about expressing her disapproval of the Church of Jesus Christ, not here, anyway. 

But really, so what?  What does it cost any of us to give her the benefit of the doubt?

It just seemed like an uncharitable response to her post. 

Edited May 18, 2021 by bluebell

[juliann]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

How very magnanimous: 
 

I had some nasty but relevantly questionable things to say about the church, but to show what a standup person I am, I want you all to know I have chosen to leave them out of this post. 
 

Or something like that. 

Cross posting is against board rules...or it was. Surely you remember the board war days. So it makes sense for her to explain what she did to avoid having to revise a helpful post. I thought it was thoughtful to exclude the criticism. 

[juliann]

3 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:So it's not the fact that he was in a relationship, but it was the nature of the relationship (secret, non-consenting spouses, board not informed etc) that is problematic. 

A bit of question begging, don’t you think? You are desiring a what about situation then concluding a board would condone sexual harassment if it had merely known about it previous to the firing. 

[Teancum]

26 minutes ago, bluebell said:

But really, so what?  What does it cost any of us to give her the benefit of the doubt?

It just seemed like an uncharitable response to her post. 

If I posted something like what Scott just did it would likely get me locked out of the thread.  Such is the way of things.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Are you sure?

 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Again, are you sure?

I use words like “I doubt” and literally “I’m not sure” and yet you ask this twice. When your interpretation / reading comprehension is this poor I’m not sure a productive conversation is possible. Thanks -John

Edited May 19, 2021 by SeekingUnderstanding

[SeekingUnderstanding]

33 minutes ago, juliann said:

A bit of question begging, don’t you think? You are desiring a what about situation then concluding a board would condone sexual harassment if it had merely known about it previous to the firing. 

I’m not sure what post you are referring to, but it seems yours seems to be doing more than a bit of question begging itself. The board is on record that they don’t consider the Delhin affair sexual harassment. 

[Scott Lloyd]

On 5/18/2021 at 5:35 PM, juliann said:

Cross posting is against board rules...or it was. Surely you remember the board war days. So it makes sense for her to explain what she did to avoid having to revise a helpful post. I thought it was thoughtful to exclude the criticism. 

The thoughtful thing would have been to exclude any mention of there having been criticism. I don’t see that it added anything of substance to the post (or this version thereof). It just struck me as gratuitous. YMMV. 
 

Added later: It would have been sufficient to the moment to have introduced it with the simple statement: “The following is a shortened version of something I posted elsewhere.”

Edited May 20, 2021 by Scott Lloyd