Back in 2014, Open Stories CEO John Dehlin was asked to comment on the Church’s new series of essays that were designed to answer questions surrounding issues like Church history, race and the priesthood, polygamy, women and the priesthood and more.
In an essay, John outlined several concerns about the Church essays, namely that “these essays definitely have the feel to me of high-end apologetics…and they sometimes tend to downplay or dismiss the legitimate concerns that many have.”
Interestingly enough, I felt the same way after listening to the recent Mormon Stories episode in which John and OSF Board Member Craig Woodland attempted to answer questions relating to OSF finances and board structure that arose after Kristy Money’s now-infamous Facebook post in which she publicly aired grievances related to her time at OSF. After a public call for questions, I wrote a post last week asking several detailed questions about OSF board structure, executive compensation and conflict of interest.
While many Mormon Stories listeners seemed satisfied with the answers they heard, almost everything about how the episode was framed, how questions were answered and how issues were handled seemed only to raise more questions for me personally, or even exactly like an attempt to “downplay or dismiss the legitimate concerns that many have” about what’s going on behind closed doors within the Open Stories Foundation. Interesting, for example, how a podcast episode that was meant to answer criticism was titled “The OSF Celebrates and Reviews.” Take it from someone who makes a living in PR…that’s some really effective spin.
Overall, I applaud the recent Mormon Stories episode and the release of financial statements as a “baby step” by the Open Stories Foundation to be more open and transparent about its finances. However, just as with the Church’s essays, understanding the context behind why certain answers were given (and others weren’t) makes this feel like another game of apologetics and raises even more concerns and questions regarding the history of OSF finances.
But John and the Board have a long way to go to “come clean” about OSF finances. What he and they have not done is to answer specific questions about how John has potentially used his institutional power and position to influence not only how much he is compensated, but how others throughout the organization are compensated in comparison — including potential conflicts of interest with his wife and the compensation of people like Kristy Money…which is where this all started.
Conflict of Interest
Craig Woodfield, chair of the finance committee for the Open Stories Foundation, appeared on the podcast episode to address some of the questions swirling about concerning OSF finances. One of those areas has to do with the hiring of Margi Dehlin, John’s wife, to help run the Mormon Transitions podcast (which, coincidentally, was Kristy Money’s job). Craig did a decent job outlining what he felt were all the ways the OSF board avoided potential conflict of interest, including putting Margi through an unpaid “trial” period, not allowing John in on the discussions or decisions and paying Margi a slightly lower pay structure than the other podcasters.
Only problem is, none of this is what you actually are supposed do in order to show no conflict. Most conflict of interest policies include a mandate to “determine whether the Organization can obtain with reasonable efforts a more advantageous transaction or arrangement from a person or entity that would not give rise to a conflict of interest.” That means, is there a better way to address the organization need without creating the potential conflict? All due diligence must be done in order to satisfy that question, yet Craig never directly addressed how or what due diligence was performed.
A “Shoestring Budget”
One of the other concerns that Kristy aired in her recent Facebook post was that John has used as a defense for not compensating podcasters more, that OSF operates on a “shoestring budget.” (On the record, John has personally used this defense with me) The implicit allegation here is that John is taking home the lion’s share of OSF proceeds, not leaving much money on the table for other podcasters to cultivate and grow their podcasts.
Craig Woodfield used the pushback on this point as an opportunity during the episode to educate us on John’s current compensation and how it was derived, (but conveniently ignored the previous 5 years of OSF history during which John was compensated $375,000+ for his work.) Perhaps most curious was how Craig framed the Open Stories Foundation as “just really getting started” in 2016.
It seems odd to frame a 501(c)3 that has collected more than a half million dollars in donations over the last five years as “just getting started.”
To me, $375,000 over 5 years does not seem like “shoestring” finances. The question becomes, why would Craig, John and the board want to frame OSF as “just getting started”?
At one point during the episode, Craig also went to great lengths to described the difficulty in finding comparable examples of people doing the kind of work John does as the leader of an organization producing content relevant for post/ex/progressive Mormon audiences.
Bloggernacle 501(c)(3) Comparison
Luckily, we have a lot of examples we can turn to that also fill this need, none of which Craig mentioned during the episode.
Given the questions surrounding compensation and Board structure surrounding OSF, I thought it would be productive to do a simple search of other Mormon blogosphere-related 501(c)(3)s to see how their Boards are structured and their executives are compensated. To someone doing a reasonable examination, this could provide a glimpse into how other similar a 501(c)3s might fairly compensate their executive(s).
So I set out to do just that. I compiled information about board structures and compensation for the top Mormon blogosphere-related 501(c)(3)s. This information is publicly available thanks to websites like CharityNavigator.org, which compiles and archives federal tax forms for non-profits that make $50,000 or more per year (forms for non-profits under that threshold are not available).
I also researched the following 501(c)(3)s, but their 990s weren’t publicly available due to their annual income for 2015 being less than $50,000:
- Feminist Mormon Housewives
- Ordain Women
- Fern Foundation (Year of Polygamy Podcast)
- CES Letter Foundation
- Healthy Mormon Journeys
Information presented below is based on the most readily available tax year (2015 in most instances). I hope to provide another update when 2016 reports are released.
Let’s take a look:
—————————————————————————-
Open Stories Foundation
Board makeup as of 2015 filing:
John Dehlin (Director and Vice President) – compensation $91,308
Natasha Parker (Director and President) – compensation $5,877
Dan Wotherspoon (Director) – compensation $35,344
Total organizational revenue in 2015: $198,136
Executive compensation as % of total revenue: 67%
Sunstone Education Foundation
Board makeup as of 2015 filing:
Directors (no compensation)
Laura Compton
Bill McGee
Kaimi Wenger
Kim McCall
Chris Briggs
Michael Stevens
Holly Alden
Kaimipono Wenger
Robin Linkhart
Chelsea Shields
Executives (ex-oficio — non-voting board members)*
Stephen Carter (Director of Publications) – compensation $54,384
Lindsey Hansen Park (Assistant Director) – compensation $42,000
Jim Murphy (Executive Director) – compensation $24,000
Total organizational revenue in 2015: $261,102
Executive compensation as % of total revenue: 46%
Dialogue Foundation
Board makeup as of 2014 filing (I put out a request to current Board Chair Patrick Mason requesting the 2015 filing and asking why it is not public yet…will update if/when I hear back)
Executive Compensation
Kristine Haglund (Editor) – $60,000*
Trustees (No compensation)
(1) MOLLY BENNION (CHAIR)
(2) KARLA STIRLING (TREASURER)
(3) MICHAEL AUSTIN
(4) JOANNA BROOKS
(5) FIONA GIVENS
(6) BOB GOLDBERG
(7) LAURIE MAFFLY-KIPP
(8) PATRICK MASON
(9) MICHAEL MCBRIDE
(10) GREG PRINCE
(11) ROBERT REES
(12) TOM ROGERS
(13) BRENT RUSHFORTH
(14) MORRIS THURSTON
(15) SUMER THURSTON EVANS
(16) JONATHAN THOMAS
(17) MARGARET BLAIR YOUNG
*Paid employee and board member
Total organization revenue in 2014: $226,137
Executive compensation as % of total revenue: 26.5%
Fair Mormon
Board makeup as of 2015 filing:
(all uncompensated)
SCOTT GORDON (PRESIDENT)
JOHN LYNCH (BOARD MEMBER)
JULIANN REYNOLDS (BOARD MEMBER)
KEVIN BARNEY (BOARD MEMBER)
DANIEL PETERSON (BOARD MEMBER)
Total organization revenue in 2015: $166,692
Executive compensation as % of revenue: 0%
Interpreter Foundation
Board makeup as of 2015 filing:
(all uncompensated)
Daniel Peterson (President)
Jeffrey Bradshaw (Vice President)
Daniel Oswald (Vice President)
Kent Flack (Treasurer)
Total organization revenue in 2015: $274,495
Executive compensation as % of revenue: 0%
In fairness, I also decided to disclose the same information for the Liahona Children’s Foundation. While not a “blogosphere” 501c3 per se, it is affiliated with the Rational Faiths blog, and for that reason I felt it necessary to include in good faith:
Liahona Children’s Foundation
Board makeup as of 2015 filing:
(1) Brad Walker, Director
(2) Alan Jones, President, Executive Director
(3) Robert Rees, Vice President
(4) Polly Sheffield, Vice -President
(5) Clayton_Avery_,Vice President
(6) Alberto Puertas, Vice President
(7) Tammy Reavis, Secretary (compensation $20,625)*
(8) David Ostler, Director, Chairman
(9)Ashley_ Raymond, Director
(10) – Josh -West, – Director ($4,200)
(11)Gary Heaton, Director
(12) HolyJones, Director
(13) Sean McClellan , Director
(14)-Sara- Walker,- Director
(15) Tim Heaton, Director
(16) Scott Rasmussen , CFO
(17) Natividad Samochuallpa-
(18) Gloria Perez de Rosales
(19) Maryloy Bello
*Could not ascertain from 990 form if this was a paid and Board position
Total organization revenue in 2015: $998,524
Executive compensation as % of revenue: 2.4%
———————————————————————————-
Overview
The results show that, as of the 2015 filings, the Open Stories Foundation had the:
- Highest paid executive (John Dehlin at $91,000+)
- Smallest board
- Highest % of executive pay to total revenue (67%)
- Strongest direct ties between paid executives and the board (paid executives constituted the entire board in 2015)
Kristine Haglund (as of 2014) is the only other example of a paid executive/employee serving as a voting member on a board of directors that I could find. In that example, Kristine is/was surrounded by 17 other independent board members to ensure no conflicts of interest.
New and Unanswered Questions
What’s clear from examining the readily available facts is that slight differences in board structure and compensation do exist throughout the Mormon blogosphere 501(c)3 community. But across the board, there is no other example I could find of one person financially benefiting from the proceeds of a non-profit or having as much direct access to Board decision-making the way John Dehlin has had and continues to have in many ways with the Open Stories Foundation.
Consider the fact that, in 2011, according to its 990 filing, OSF actually did have a full board structure that could appropriately address conflict of interest issues. At that time, John’s compensation was $40,000 per year (reasonable by comparable standards, if not perhaps even low).
However, by the time of the next 990 filing at the end of 2012, the entire OSF Board of Directors, with the exception of Natasha Parker and John Dehlin, had resigned. Dan Wotherspoon then became the third member of the board, meaning that the entire OSF board was comprised of “interested parties” with absolutely no independent Board oversight. The OSF Board remained in this state throughout the end of 2015.
Then, over the course of the next four years, John’s salary more than doubled, from $40,000 in 2011 to over $91,000 in 2015. All without independent board oversight. His total compensation from 2011 to 2015 was more than $375,000.
All of this raises several pertinent questions OSF should answer if it is truly interested in financial transparency:
- Did the OSF Board take into account the types of comparables I was able to find through simple 990 searches? (again, Craig Woodfield expressed difficulty in finding comparable executive pay for the kind of work OSF does) If not, why not?
- How could the OSF Board of Directors as constituted as recently as 2015 possibly be able to deal with conflicts of interest as it relates to compensation if the Board was entirely constituted of compensated executives?
- How/why did the “Board” justify doubling John’s annual compensation from $40,000 at the end of 2011 ($40,000) to $91,000 in 2015? The IRS requires minutes to be kept about major decisions like executive compensation. Are there minutes for this time period that outline how these decisions were made?
- How/why did the board justify a full (in fact, increased) salary for John in 2014 and 2015 as he entered a “50-hour-per-week internship” that required the hiring of additional staff to produce the podcast, update websites, manage fundraising and more?
- Would the current board consider the above mentioned financial decisions between 2012 and 2015 “personal inurement” by John, which is a violation not only of IRS tax code, but a violation of the OSF Board bylaws? If not, why not? And how do statements by John in the past expressly stating that he intended to use donations to put himself through his PhD program** not constitute not just inurement, but intent to receive inurement as well?
- How precisely is the Board dealing with current conflicts of interest? In the case of hiring Margi Dehlin, what specific alternatives were pursued? (For example, were other popular figures within ex/post/progressive Mormonism pursued before offering the job to Margi Dehlin? Did the board approach any other popular former guests? Were all efforts to resolve the situation with Kristy Money so she could continue the podcast exhausted? If so, how specifically were they exhausted?)
**See this post from as recently as 2015 where John stated “I made a deal with listeners back in 2010 that if they would support me with the podcast, I would use the money to help pay for groceries, health insurance and medical bills (both of which we pay out of pocket), clothes, tuition, etc.”
Let me offer a final piece of editorializing before I close. I don’t question anyone’s ability to or desire to make money by doing what they are good at. When I began asking questions in my last post, and continuing with this post, it has been in the context of Open Stories Foundation operating as a non-profit organization. Like it or not, 501(c)(3)s in the United States are subject to certain rules and regulations, and it is fair to ask serious and sometimes uncomfortable questions about if these types of organizations (which benefit from tax-exempt status) are operating within those regulations. Had John set up Mormon Stories as a for-profit enterprise, it’s obvious none of this would be an issue. But he did not, and the foundation has benefited financially a great deal from enjoying tax-exempt status. I am also uncompelled by arguments that because John could have made more money in the private sector, or because his salary is less than General Authorities this means he or OSF should not be subject to scrutiny.
Also, John is absolutely entitled to compensation as CEO of the foundation. I am not questioning the ability to draw a salary. He is not, however, entitled to an unreasonable salary, to set his own salary, or at any time past or present to manufacture a board structure that would allow him undue influence on how much compensation he would/could receive. I have stated repeatedly that, while not illegal, most non-profit advice I have found online makes it questionable to have the paid CEO of a non-profit sitting on the Board of Directors as a full voting member. If such a structure, or similar structure is in place (as with Dialogue and its editor, see above), then the board structure should be such that a considerable distance is placed between the CEO and those on the board deciding compensation (ie, constructing a board large enough to diminish the direct influence of the CEO over such matters). It is absolutely not clear that this was the case between 2012 and 2015, and I remain skeptical, especially after the recent episode, of the current Board’s makeup as it relates to its ability to judge conflict of interest.
James Patterson
James Patterson lives with his wife and two children in North Carolina. He makes no apologies for being an avid fan of both Duke basketball and Taylor Swift.
All posts by James Patterson
Thanks for this. I don’t have a problem with JD earning a salary for his work, but like you I left the recent podcast with more questions than answers. This may sound petty, but I think Margi’s contributions have been very inconsequential–lightweight. I don’t feel like she adds any value to the conversations, rather she she seems to agree with whatever’s being said and say “beautiful” a lot. So I don’t believe JD when he says that downloads have increased dramatically since she’s been on the podcast. In my mind the only significant reason why downloads of Mormon Transitions would have increased is because he’s tied them to his Mormon Stories podcast, giving everyone a 2 for 1, and effectively giving credit to Margo for doubling the downloads. Who cares if they decrease her comp per download when she gets to piggyback onto the success of Mormon Stories!?!?!? Not very upfront and transparent, IMHO.
Again, it’s his company. He has the right to make a salary, but I have the right to cry foul when he makes such silly assertions and tries to claim transparency.
Andy, I don’t have much to say about most of your comment, except that OSF is not John’s company. That’s what I’ve been trying to educate people about in this series of posts. The Open Stories Foundation belongs to the Board of Directors. John happens to be on the Board, but it is not his “company.” That’s not how non-profits work.
You don’t think it’s fishy that he’s paying his wife on a per download basis, and tying the downloads of her podcast to his own? If he pays her this way, he should offer everyone else (Colvin & Wotherspoon) the same favor in order to increase their downloads/compensation, too.
If he wants to be fair, he should let her podcast sink or swim on its own merits. The back-door treatment he’s giving her seems egregiously sneaky to me. Seems like he’s found a loophole to funnel more cash his way.
Yes, exactly. In the Mormon transitions podcasts I’ve seen, John speaks a majority of the time.
Based on the linked PDF in your post, I believe you have the 2015 Sunstone Education Foundation yearly income incorrectly stated.
Thanks very much, Dylan. I have revised.
You are ridiculous James. Seriously, get a life and move on.
I have to say that this is one of the most embarrassingly inappropriate posts on Rational Faiths. It seems quite beneath the quality of material I’ve seen here in the past — it’s more like a disgruntled former employee trying to exact vengeance against a former employer than an exploration of rational faith.
I guess I’ve seen a lot of non-profits operate — and startup non-profits often don’t get things right. As I understand it, OSF compensation policies are based upon number of downloads, not a fixed salary per se. I could get this wrong, but if that is their internal agreement, then it is what it is.
As well, it’s interesting to compare Sunstone to OSF. Given that Dan W is not technically and “executive” but rather, a podcaster who happens to also be on the board — and there is nothing illegal or unethical about that — the executive compensation is John plus Natasha, amounting to 49% of overall revenues, compared to 53% for Sunstone. So, what, again, is the concern here?
As for comparing OSF to Liahona Children’s fund, there is no comparison to the kind of non-profit business they are in, and all other non-profits mentioned here are significantly more established than OSF.
Overall, this is shoddy research, and embarrassingly bad form.
James, I’ve appreciated your posts in the past — you seem to have some very good ideas to share. Unfortunately, over the past week, you have demonstrated a kind of small-minded, revenge-seeking that seriously and perhaps irrecoverably taints what was a good reputation.
Shawn, there exists plenty of content in the non-profit world about how having paid executives on the board creates potential conflicts of interest and should be avoided. You’re free to go research it yourself.
I included Liahona Children’s Fund because it is the non-profit directly affiliated with Rational Faiths, and I wanted to include it in the interest of transparency, given the platform I’m writing on.
Also, when I wrote my last post, many people reached out to me directly and asked why I wasn’t looking into the finances of other bloggernacle non-profits, so this post (in part) is an attempt to address that specific concern.
As for your other comments, I’m not sure what I can tell you. I have no desire to get into my and John’s personal relationship other than to say that he and I parted ways in 2015 very amicably. Ask him and he’ll tell you the same.
You are clearly reaching James. I too used to believe you had something meaningful to contribute but your posts the past week are so unprofessional.
You’re embarrassing yourself and I’ve lost all respect for you as a person.
No decent human being does this to someone else publicly no matter what cause they try to attach to it.
I’m quite certain you won’t add this to your list of submitted comments but trust that no respectful person cares about this bizarre attempt to get attention.
Thanks for your comment, Bob.
This is such a bizarre comment. The author hasn’t “done” anything to someone else, they are reporting facts, and voicing a legitimate concern about a 501(c)3. How is listing facts interpreted as “doing” something to someone publicly?
I’m grateful to have reporting that follows up on charitable organizations.
I don’t recall who it was that linked out to rosebud’s MD post from MSPC, but I believe that the massive board departures and change in JD’s pay lines up with her story.
Which I find worrisome.
Good questions, I like this followup. I really disliked the way John Dehlin handled this situation and have decided to not support his podcast for now. I listened to this particular podcast on the day it was released and left a comment which has yet to be approved and posted on his site. I didn’t realize he moderated comments on his site so heavily. SUPER disappointed with him.
I think I remember John saying something about also getting back pay during the first years the 501(c)3 made money. In 2011, he may have taken 40K for 2011 plus more cash for 2006-2010.
That is not how non-profits work, unless there was some kind of written contract or formal loan. You can’t just give yourself money and retroactively decide you needed back pay.
THISSSSSSSS
Seriously James? I have lost all respect for you. Why do you care so much about this?? You are posting antagonistic posts all over the internet. How do you even have time for this? Don’t you have a real job? Even people over at mspc Facebook group have called you out. Move on.
I am guessing you think $300,000 is a lot in donations but it is NOT that much money for an organization that has been building for over a decade! How old are you? How many years did OSF bring in almost nothing? Seriously. Do you need to get a better job? It’s starting to feel like a lot of people are peanut butter and jealous. I would be delighted if OSF brought in a million plus bucks every year and the board can spend it however they want to further the mission. If that means that the main most popular podcaster gets paid more to continue the mission of Mormon stories then so be it. It’s their decision.
Now that former employees are seeing some $ come in it seems they all want a piece of it.
I have donated to OSF and when I do I have received a letter from OSF outlining expenses and salary for that calendar year. I certainly don’t get this from other non profits to which I have donated. I am satisfied with the OSF mission , its transparency and think they are aboveboard. From my perspective they try their best to follow rules and would never do anything intentionally illegal. OSF would not break rules and jeopardize the blood sweat and tears that has gone into it. OSF has earned my trust and I wouldn’t donate if I felt it was unscrupulous.
I recently went to a retreat by open stories hosted by OSF where John slept on the COUCH in the conference room each night to save money (which by the way was way too small for his large frame). It was a sorry sight. I have seen him be extremely careful and frugal with the money he raises through open stories foundation. I have followed johns story for years and he doesn’t drive fancy cars or live in fancy houses. His kids don’t go to fancy colleges. I don’t think OSF is about the salary for him. John thrives on helping people. I would like to see him get paid more and he should definitely start getting a 401k if possible. I trust the board will makes these decisions because frankly i don’t care how the money is spent as long as the podcasts continue to deliver the quality content that they do.
I am disappointed by Kristy money too. I used to have some interest in her podcasts and have felt bad about her family situation. I think John gave her an incredible opportunity by allowing her to attach her name to OSF and get her name out. I am sure she was told upfront the pay would be lousy but if she didn’t like the pay she didn’t have to do it! She has nowhere near the audience as john or dan who have been podcasting for years. She could find a different job. She has her degree. If I were expecting child number 5 and needed to work , I would not be looking for a big salary from OSF! Nobody forced her to work for lower wages. This is not a feminist issue. I am a a feminist. Perhaps after she puts over a decade worth of blood sweat and tears into her own podcast she will see some cash. According to her Facebook post this was getting resolved personally with john so why are we still blogging and posting about this? It should be a private matter to begin with and there are legal avenues to deal with her issues needed. Imam no longer interested in her podcasts or the James Peterson show. Kristy Money has really shot herself in the foot with these accusations. Let’s all move along. If you don’t like OSF you don’t need to work for them or donate or be affiliated or blog about it. There are way more interesting things going on in the world right now.
I applaud you for vetting before donating. So do I, and find that OSF is a very effective use of my money. I confess I would not take John’s workload at his pay, and I’m guessing neither would you.
It’s also not clear what standing you have to review OSF finances if you are not (or at least no longer) a donor though. How exactly are you being wronged? To be a stakeholder, don’t you actually need to have a stake?
Why do a people who ask for transparency from one organization protect another?
RB’s claims look legit. She was an important part of the community in 2011 and 2012. Then she disappeared. Why?
The attack of James makes no sense to me. The best explanation I have is that people want to protect John. Who was there to protect RB?
What happens at the OSF is important to all of us because John has become the face of exMos. Why would we want someone like him as our leader? This makes us worse than Fox News. At least Bill eventually got fired even if he did take a lot more cash with him than the women.
The Patriarchy is strong. There aren’t enough men who stand up to it.
I don’t know RB (Rosebud) nor do I care to know her nor do 99 percent of the OSF listeners. I have read a few of her posts on Mormon Discussion Forum where she gets very little empathy. This just feels like people digging up dirt (including James Patterson) for the National Enquirer. I don’t care if the entire board quit a few years ago or their reasons. I can’t name any of the current board members and I don’t care who is selected to be on the board or who is fired or who resigns. All I care about is that the PODCASTS keep streaming and I am willing to donate money for them and the mission of OSF. I am confident most of the OSF listeners feel the SAME WAY.
I have worked for many GOOD organizations and it’s NOT uncommon to have employees or volunteers fight, fall in love, have differing opinions, have a falling outs, feel dissatisfied, get fired or resign. I don’t need to know the details or OSF office gossip. I don’t know what the IRS codes are as it pertains to OSF nor do I care to look them up. I trust the board is doing their best to follow the rules. Donations are voluntary and I can stop donating if I feel my money is wasted or used unethically. I don’t care if the board hired Margi or how much she gets paid. If I like her podcasts, I will listen. I don’t care if FAIR MORMON doesn’t pay their podcasters or what other mormon bloggers make. OSF has built their own brand and the listeners will decided whether to support it of not. I trust OSF to manage the donations wisely although I wouldn’t care if the board took the money and went on a trip around the world. I am a happy consumer of the podcasts.
I believe OSF has tried to follow the rules in order to keep OSF alive and thriving and keep as many people happy as possible. If they have made mistakes regarding tax codes, ethics etc., I trust that they will fix it and learn from their mistakes. I don’t expect perfection from them. I am heavily involved with a non profit outside the USA and we have inadvertently made hundreds of mistakes with the country’s rules and tax codes but as we learn our mistakes we fix them. It’s not that uncommon.
If people have issues they should talk directly to OSF. I don’t understand why people like James Patterson, Kristy Money or Kate Kelly want to publicly shame an organization that has helped thousands of people.
OMG, John slept on a couch, people. A couch! No one, not even James, is stating he has made himself a millionaire from OSF. However, John only made that interminable podcast because people were tired of him not addressing troubling issues with OSF. All 501(3) orgs are required to be fully transparent, yet John refused. Until people like KM and James went public with their concerns. Why the need to hide? And he still hasn’t released pertinent info. Why? His defenders are starting to sound like rabid Trump supporters – JD can do no wrong! Stop picking on him! And the most embarrassing – attacking people for simply asking questions. This has turned into a case of hero worship gone way too far. JD made mistakes. Why did the entire board except one person resign at the same time in 2012? That is a massive red flag. Instead of simply being honest about troubling activities, he is relying on his fans to circle the wagons and fight off dissenters. Is he a figure you respect or is he your new prophet? The parallels are unavoidable.
Covfefe
Zander, my main question in all this is if it is ethical for the leader of a public non-profit to ask for donations to benefit himself personally, and then to (for all intents and purposes) set his own salary to make that happen. I have read the IRS tax code. Have you?
You seem to get so many of the basics of this dead wrong. John doesn’t set his own salary. That was one “Qs” that was pretty obviously answered by the podcast (not that it hadn’t already been answered before). The salary went through the board after a review and vote from which JD was recused. Moreover, it is very common to have a non-profit board staffed with people the founder knows. There is nothing untoward about that, and it is either ignorant or irresponsible (or both) to suggest otherwise. To demand otherwise would make starting a non-profit completely unworkable.
I can’t take anything you say seriously if you can’t even get the basic facts straight. You continue to make nefarious insinuations of a narrative that has already been falsified. You use the words “setting his own salary” multiple times, but we know that’s not true.
I have also read the tax code (my tax law class was taught by Prof. Alvin Warren who famously slams said tax code on the table every morning to begin class). But you can’t apply the tax law to facts that are fantasy.
I deal with corporate governance every day in my day job, and I can say that OSF seems to have a pristine governance set up. That’s no surprise given Craig’s role in the NACD. You seriously couldn’t ask for a better set up for OSF. It’s a real injustice that a start-up nonprofit with this caliber of BoD is getting this flak. No governance system is fool proof – that is why it is so important to put people in charge that you trust. If you don’t trust John, don’t donate. But don’t make false insinuations.
Please point out factual errors in what I have written about. You’re creating strawmen, by attacking arguments I have not made. I have not said it is inappropriate to put people on a board whom you know. But that’s not the only way to ensure you have an independent board. Having a very small board is problematic, and being a paid employee on that same board adds to that, because it condenses control by the interested parties.
Fact: the OSF board from 2012-2015 consisted of “interested parties.” There were ZERO independent board members.
Fact: during that same time period, John’s salary more than doubled, despite taking on a higher PhD workload/internship
Are you disputing the above?
Please respond to specific facts rather than creating strawman arguments.
Read my post again. I did point out the factual errors in your insinuated factual scenario. This is the anatomy of a smear – you may not specifically state that John set his own salary, but you clearly implied as much by posing the hypothetical “set his own salary” (your words) question. You earlier use those words in your main post as well. Why else would you pose the question of whether that is ethical or not if you were not willing to make that factual allegation? John emphatically did not set his own salary (nor was it unreasonable), so your entire question is irrelevant. Imagine if I asked in the comments, “Is it ethical if for James Patterson to make bald face lies with malicious intent in a public post?” Now, maybe you could say I never made any factual allegation that this is what occurred, but it is a strong insinuation (I don’t, to be clear, think you have lied or that you intend to malign. I do think you’re woefully (and probably willfully) ignorant as to the facts and the law.)
Speaking of strawmen, we are not discussing what happened in 2012-2015. We are discussing OSF today and going forward. I have no idea what OSF was doing in 2012-2015. That wasn’t the subject of the podcast nor the questions/allegations that had been made previously. In fact, Kristy Money specifically said that her issues began only in 2016 and it was the *change* in prior financial behavior that caused her concern, implying that prior practices were above board in her mind. I know you’re not Kristy, but that is what precipitated this whole thing. John can’t go back in time in the podcast and respond to questions you think should have been asked. But regardless, maybe they didn’t have perfect governance back then; that would be typical for a start-up. You have made no credible allegation, even assuming poor governance, that John set his own salary back then. We do know that John’s salary was much less then than it is now. If anything, the evidence suggests that John was severely underpaid, which you might expect in the infant stages of a nonprofit. The fact that we are even discussing this is the very reason why any of the nitty gritty details of deciding compensation are none of your business. People aren’t entitled to (and shouldn’t be entitled to) explanations of this type. It is a waste of everyone’s time. The amount of compensation stands by itself and what the organization did with their donations is disclosed.
The air of entitlement to ask “questions” you have is completely misplaced from a governance perspective. OSF has no obligation (not just legal, but moral or otherwise) to let you see board minutes, their due diligence in avoiding conflicts, etc.. That’s not how organizations should work. You don’t get to armchair QB the operation. Otherwise they would spend literally all their time responding to these inquiries rather than working to fulfill their purpose.
Finally, another factual insinuation you make is that there was some sort of attempt to “manufacture a board structure that would allow him undue influence on how much compensation”. So again, not a straw man – this was your insinuation, so my explanation of board formation was responsive to that. I repeat – the governance at OSF today is top notch.
“Is it ethical if for James Patterson to make bald face lies with malicious intent in a public post?”
I wouldn’t care two bits if you said that, because it’s not based in fact. You have no credibility for making that insinuation. You still haven’t shown me where my facts are wrong. You’ve shown me where you disagree with my opinions, you’ve told me my focus doesn’t have merit, but I think you know that’s not the same thing.
My insinuations are based in actual…you know…facts.
Facts you still have not disputed.
So I will repeat:
Fact: The OSF board from 2012-2015 consisted solely of “interested parties.” There were ZERO independent board members.
Fact: During that same time period, John’s salary more than doubled, despite taking on a higher PhD workload/internship
Are you disputing the above?
I don’t appear to be able to reply to your last message. You make my point for me in your first paragraphs. You’re literally doing the same thing. I’m saying that none of the facts you have stated support a conclusion that John set his own salary – we know he did not. You’re just totally misdirecting if you insist otherwise. Again, I must implore you to reread my initial comment. I was very clear that I was talking about your insinuations, which assume factual scenarios that are not supported. Nowhere did I claim to dispute any of the points you mention, and the fact that you keep trying to redirect to them is kind of ridiculous. We know John didn’t set his own salary factually, so why do you continue to assume that in your insinuations? It just simply doesn’t follow.
Even if I granted that John did set his own salary in 2012-2015 (which we factually know he did not, unless there is bald face lying and fraud occurring), you completely ignored what I stated – I have no idea what happened from 2012-2015 and don’t care. That’s not what’s at issue here. You’re making a totally new issue if you’re trying to say that OSF had poor governance then. That was then, this is now. Kristy was concerned about what is happening NOW at OSF, and that is what the podcast is about. You little factoids about 2012-2015 are totally irrelevant.
The “Kristy” situation opened the door to talking about how John uses his power and influence to get his way within OSF. My post was an extension of that theme. I don’t know how much more clearly to explain that to you.
How exactly do we know this?
Well that pretty much tells me all I need to know about how much you value the truth.
“The “Kristy” situation opened the door to talking about how John uses his power and influence to get his way within OSF. My post was an extension of that theme. I don’t know how much more clearly to explain that to you.”
No need; you’ve been very clear that your post has nothing to do with what everyone else talking about previously. Ergo, it is unfair to make a post suggesting that OSF should have answered these questions in their podcast when you admit that these were not the questions that were raised (i.e. Kristy’s questions). Kristy implied she thought the disclosure was great before 2016! With that, I would have made the same podcast. They can’t go back in time and answer your further questions about what happened in the past. And the podcast clearly said that as the OSF was getting on its feet they revamped the governance to be better. How does that imply in any way the malfeasance you have been insinuating. It’s simply irresponsible what you’re doing. It’s a smear. You see, at least Kristy had the decency to recognize that what matters is what OSF is now and going forward. It’s wrong to say “Well, their initial governance a couple years ago had x flaw, so John must have been setting his own salary.” One does not follow from the other.
“How exactly do we know this?”
Because JD and others have detailed how his salary was selected from the outset. Unless you think they are lying, but then you could literally not believe anything they say and just make up whatever narrative you see fit. This is why the first words in my first comment are that you get the basics so wrong. This stuff is not hard to find – JD has been open about the compensation from the outset. You have provided no evidence to the contrary.
“Well that pretty much tells me all I need to know about how much you value the truth.”
Wow. I am taken aback by this one. You succeed in insulting me and saying something that is such a nonsequitr as to call into question any further fruit of discussion. Saying something is irrelevant therefore means I don’t care about the truth? WTF? Of course I care about the truth – about things that matter and are relevant to the issues at hand! I don’t think the questions you are asking are fruitful, but that should have been obvious to you from the outset. Look, there is no evidence of malfeasance in OSF, especially after the podcast and release of financials. None. To insinuate JD was engaging in such malfeasance is irresponsible – and you certainly have no leg to stand on to suggest it is happening now, which is what was originally alleged. You seem to be grasping at straws. If a company does not have adequate internal controls, you can suggest fixing them. You do not, without evidence, say that the lack of such controls is itself evidence of malfeasance, especially when they already adopted them!
My wife, an avid listener, asked me to read this thread and to comment. Two or three times I’ve listened to his podcast. He’s talented and probably undercompensated.
I’ve owned for-profits and ran non-profits. Fortunately we became profitable quickly and were able to engage good lawyers, CPA and a company comptroller. Because it was my turn, I either chaired or was president of some nonprofits. Avoid this if you can, especially HOAs. Too much bickering on trivial matters. That said, three times I saw felonies committed. That’s when you get tough fast. This doesn’t appear to be the case here.
You are not a feminist. Saying you are doesn’t make it so, and your comments seem to fundamentally lack understanding of feminist perspectives in fair compensation. You don’t have to like Kristy Money, but don’t use “I’m a feminist but…” as a shield.
So when you will you, James Patterson provide full disclosure and publish your personal income and tax return? Or are you just a hypocrite looking for publicity?
I haven’t asked John to disclose his personal income taxes. Nor am I the head of a public charity. If I were, I would happily comply with federal laws and do so.
“I would happily comply with federal laws and do so.”
So has John and OSF, or do you have proof otherwise?
Exactly, Why does James Patterson request for petty information that he/she is not entitled to legally at all?
James, you could ask RB if she’ll do a podcast.
The problem is that me telling my story will elicit another retaliation from John. Next thing we all know, and he’ll put up a response podcast, but this time directly attacking me and using my IRL name.
I’m an exMo, finally enjoying a good life without Mormonism. As soon as I lose my doxxing protection, I lose the privacy of my new, happy exMormon life. John has been wanting to dox me from day 1 and I fight for “Rosebud” so I have the opportunity to get away from all of this.
There’s something very off about a public figure who takes advantage of a woman and then tries to dox her. I had a hard time explaining the dynamics of what I was trying to protect myself from to my attorney, but it does make sense. It probably happens all the time: ban the less powerful person and control the narrative. John is doing this constantly.
I don’t have enough SEO strength to live John down in my lifetime, but he’s got so much that he’d be able to push the story to the bottom of his results fairly quickly. He wouldn’t portray me or the situation honestly. Rather, he’d play to his sales narrative and publicly shame me. This experience has been terrifying.
I’ve left bread crumbs in the MD group (almost 500 posts now) because I think my story is an important and a very much missing piece of the record. It sheds new light on a lot of what has occurred over the last 5 years. MD is a rough place, but it has offered me doxxing protection and free speech. I appreciate Dr. Shades allowing me to speak when others have been too afraid of John and the situation to do so. I don’t stress too much about the negative responses there. That’s just the way it is when women speak up about issues like these on an avatar message boards. It honestly could have been a lot worse. So, many thanks to those who have been kind and supportive. It means a lot.
My recommendation would be for women to be self-aware of any tendency they have to take care of John. He doesn’t need it. Back away and live your own lives: safer, healthier.
And I recommend everyone do what they can to avoid Mormon transition communities until John is no longer sitting at the top of the system and running things through dishonesty, fear and loyalty. The communities may be valuable someday, but right now the never-Mo world is much healthier.
OSF is definitely not a good place to waste donation dollars until John is removed. You never know who you might be hurting instead of helping. I tried to do good, but ultimately ended up wasting time and energy and hurting myself and my family. John has too much power in the transition world and he doesn’t treat people respectfully or honestly.
It’s fine to discuss my story in MSPC or anywhere else as long as you use the name “Rosebud.” Please only share my IRL identity privately. I do have an exMormon life to lead and this story is nothing but over-the-top drama. It’s not the first thing I’d like everyone to know about me if I can at all help it. I’m sure I’ll share it more publicly at some point, but I’d rather do that when John doesn’t have as much power to retaliate. A delayed release is the only way I know to keep myself safe from him.
Plus, a delayed release allows him to expose himself and self-exposure is a much more convincing argument than exposure by a “disgruntled” former employee (regardless of merit of complaints).
But do you or do you not identify your IRL name on MD???
I believe she deleted that post and has since asked not to be doxxed. So let’s not even go there.
James, I deleted the bio link. As I posted the link I was thinking, “Search engines shouldn’t find this long string.”
I also deleted the link 1) so people unfamiliar with my position about doxxing related to John wouldn’t misunderstand and 2) so John would be less able to try to use me posting the link as an excuse to justify his desire to get my name out online against my will.
This is about search engines and preventing John’s further retaliations, not anonymity.
The first person to dox me on MD was John even though he knew doxxing was against the rules. The mods deleted, but the regular posters knew. I filled in Craig and new readers as a courtesy last week and did not post my name, but a link to a bio. Different.
I don’t mind people knowing, but I do want to do what I can to protect future employability. That seems more than fair under the circumstances. Do you disagree? John’s retaliations are far-reaching.
John also pseudo-doxxed me in 2012 in the “faith reconstruction” podcast. I got plenty of phone calls.
I responded by getting an attorney.
Please let me know if you have any more questions.
*2013 (late February, IIRC)
I also felt uneasy about the explanation OSF provided. Specifically my question was about the purpose of the idividual “tip jars” for the OSF podcasters if it is inappropriate to use tip jar donations to compensate the podcasters. I only listen to Gina Colvin but I was donating to Mormon Stories until recently. If I started donating to Gina’s Podcast directly she would still have the same compensation. And part of the justification for paying Gina less was that OSF “makes up the difference” between her direct donations and what she is paid. Don’t the podcasters deserve at least a % of what they bring in in addition to their contracted salary? And if not what exactly is fhe purpose of the individual buttons? It feels vaguely reminiscent of the tithing slips that have line items but then say at the bottom once you hand the money over “we get to do whatever we want with it”.
They can’t compensate them as a % of donations because that would jeopardize their non-profit status. They are providing the service as a public service, not to maximize donations. It’s still possible to structure it so that you earmark your donations to a specific podcast, I presume. If they don’t already do that, they could. Or you could send Gina a gift directly, that would not be taxable to her, but would not be tax deductible to you. I’ve never heard of these buttons as tip jars.
Well I’m sorry if “tip jars” is not the appropriate term for a non-profit but what else are they there for? I don’t listen to the other podcasts but I know MS and ATF ask for donations in front of every episode. And they specifically ask for donations for the podcast. Donate to Mormon Stories or donate to A Thoughtful Faith. But then it turns out you aren’t supporting that particular podcast. It all goes to the same pot. It feels dishonest. The impression is given that each podcast is its own entity at least monitarily. I don’t know how they could earmark my donations for Gina if the way they are structured doesn’t allow for even a % to go to her?
James, if you are going to compare non-profits, why not use Healthy Mojo? You state that you were originally defending John until you started digging into Kristy’s claims and that has led you to spend countless hours researching and documenting your concerns. So in the spirit of transparency and openness, why don’t you do a comparison to how Kristy’s non-profit is setup. She has opened this door deserves the same level of scrutiny as does OSF. She is seeking donations and making claims about where the money is going but I see no documentation anywhere on her site that offers transparency into where the money really goes. How much is she taking for herself? Does she have a board as is required in these situations to ensure ethical treatment of donations? I think it is totally reasonable to ask these questions of OSF but why not ask them of the person who led you down this path? I have seen others ask this question of you but you have avoided a response every time. You frankly come off as a KM apologist seeking to destroy John personally than someone honestly seeking truth. Your tone betrays what is coming across as a persona and biased attack.
If I understand correctly, HMJ was incorporated late last year in Georgia. Not much info exists on it yet as it’s so new, so it’s virtually impossible to have the same level of scrutiny, but I will continue to look into it.
I’m looking at some options of how to track/present some of this info over the long term, as I think continuing to emphasize transparency for Bloggernacle 501(c)(3)s is important, but it’s impractical to expect to do a blog post every time I find new info.
The good news about all this is that people are starting to pay more attention to transparency and potential conflicts of interest.
I am not sure I get why you would say that it is virtually impossible to get information on HMJ? Why not publicly demand transparency from Kristy as you have from OSF? It’s not like you have no idea who to ask… she was just featured on the podcast associated with this blog so you guys obviously have her contact info. If your intent is to seek for transparency in non-profits, then you owe it to your audience to do the same for MHJ, especially as Kristy was directly linked to you getting involved to begin with. Not holding her to the same standards is a serious conflict of interest for this blog/podcast as well as you personally.
If you’ll notice from my post, I used only publicly available information. HMJ is so new that this information is not yet available. If you’re really interested in me being fair, it’s fair to wait for Kristy’s public documents to come out before commenting on them.
You didn’t wait for OSF’s documents to come out before going after them in a very publicly shaming way. They still had plenty of time to legally file this year’s docs but that didn’t slow your criticism. And they have published every year previous as well. Also, part of what you are criticizing is their lack of clearly visible documentation. If Kristy had the resources to build a very professional website that includes an aggressive strategy for seeking donations in multiple locations on every page, then certainly one would expect that she would easily be able to provide clear transparency into how donation dollars are being allocated. At a minimum, what percentage of the money is she paying herself… and in the case of HMJ, she is the only one making those decisions as there is no board (something you have made the point to painstakingly criticize OSF for). Where is your outrage at her? Why is it okay to give her time to produce this transparency? And at the same time you can’t stop focusing on how OSF handled things in their infancy… things they have rectified as a more mature organization. I am not suggesting you go after every non-profit in the bloggernacle as I frankly don’t understand why you view it as your personal obligation to do what you are doing to begin with. But, since you launched the attack on OSF, clearly in response to Kristy’s unfounded accusations, then I believe you have an obligation to scrutinize her with equal vigor!
Check your facts. I posted virtually the same info for all orgs. 2015 filings, when publicly available Charity Navigator.
Why won’t you post my questions concerning Kristy Money’s transparency? So convenient of to selectively ignore them.
Sigh…guess it’s time to rant and reveal my very relevant questions and James part in the cover up on more well known social media.
These questions aren’t going away and you’re right…people are paying attention to the many missing pieces with HMJ. The shit storm is just beginning my friend.
I didn’t post your other comment because it contained gender-based hate speech.
“Check my facts…?” Are you seriously taking the position that your posts have been unbiased and objective? James, seriously… you cannot avoid the obvious disparity in your treatment of Kristy/HMJ vs. OSF by trying to hide behind a facade of objectivity. You absolutely did not solely rely on public filings as a basis for your condemnation of OSF. Your “questions/accusations” were just as much about what you consider acceptable standards for a non-profit and not simply what is both the legal and common practice reality for normal 501(c)(3)s. And that is why I am calling on you to apply your same scrutiny and judgement to Kristy. If your aim is to benefit the overall postmo non-profit community, then your sense of urgency around “helping” Kristy/HMJ should be even more intense since she clearly isn’t complying with any of the things for which you are raking OSF over the coals. Why not help her become a legitimate non-profit which is something OSF has already accomplished?
Well researched, well balanced, and well written. It’s unfortunate that the tone and content of some of the responses you’ve received falls far below that. I think there’s a lot of misinformation and lack of information about nonprofits and their regulations out there, and that’s causing some of the undue defensiveness (i.e., because people think it’s a personal attack rather than simply looking at alignment with nonprofit regulations).
And your professional basis for making these judgements is what exactly? You do realize that the OSF board are all really professional people who hired a non-profit experts to help develop all of their policies and procedures. They are following appropriate non-profit protocols across the board. That may not have been the case years ago when they were still a fledgling organization but it certainly is now.
The reason people (me included) perceive James’s posts as personal attacks is due to their tone (ie. starting comments with statements like, “I am so disappointed…”) and the framing of questions as accusations. It is one thing to ask a sincere question seeking an honest response. It is an entirely different thing to hide an accusation behind a question where the point isn’t to get an honest answer but to instead prove a point/score a hit.
This. Could not agree more. People point at the reactions as if it’s a sign they are right, and it’s such a delusion. Maybe, just maybe, people are reacting as if something is not fair because something is indeed not fair! How do you expect people to react when you post a smear? Now, we can argue whether or not it’s a smear, but don’t point to “defensiveness” as some kind of argument that it’s not a smear. It presupposes the premise that is being attacked.
I would like the same research done on Healthy Mormon Journeys. As Kristy Money started this social media rant.
I would like to know what kind of oversight she has in her 501c3.
Why is there no board of directors.
Why no financial transparency.
Is she collecting donations to pay for her to give free therapy.
Did she lie about not getting paid by the OSF
Did she lie about contacting anyone on the OSF board/John dehlin.
Why does she keep blocking people and deleting comments on social media when they try and ask sincere questions.
Why is James only exposing one side of this story?
Also, did she lie about being forced out of OSF?
Did she plan to leave OSFin the fall and ask numerous key post Mormons to help her with her HMJ site/non-profit.
Is she really getting threats or just frustrated now that sincere questions are being asked about her non-profit so she’s shutting down all posts?
Just to irritate you, Glen.
James, can you please put a real picture of yourself that includes the additional 75 lbs you’ve gained?
This fake news is exhausting.
Why ARE you only exposing one side of the story James? So far, you have clearly identified yourself not as an honest seeker of truth but as someone who either has a personal axe to grind with JD/OSF or who has a connection to KM and has decided to become her personal apologist.
Once again, OSF has already provided full disclosure required by law. I would like James Patterson to also proved any additional disclosure (not required by law) that he is clearly requesting from OSF and JD here in this article. Are you a hypocrite? For instance, I would like to know how much you make from this blog?
Stick to your guns, James. Good job.