One of John Dehlin’s signature lines on Mormon Stories is that “sunshine is the greatest antiseptic.”
Perhaps that’s why there’s so much interest surrounding issues relating to the Open Stories Foundation, such as compensation, transparency, allegations of sexism and nepotism and so on. There’s a certain amount of appropriate irony in shining a spotlight on the guy who has made his career out of shining a spotlight.
I have considered John a friend since 2014 when I first contacted him about my faith crisis. That friendship evolved into a working relationship later that year when I became an independent contractor for the Open Stories Foundation, serving as a podcast producer and helping out in general with the podcast and fundraising. I should note that I had an exceptional experience working with, and for, John. No complaints in that regard.
That working relationship mutually ended in early 2015 but, for the most part and despite never having met in person, John and I have remained friends. But sometimes being a friend means asking tough questions.
In light of all that has been discussed over the last several days, as someone who has both worked for and donated to the Open Stories Foundation, I still have several unanswered questions.
I’m personally not here to adjudicate personal issues and differences between John Dehlin and former Open Stories Foundation podcasters. I’m not here to referee who blocked whom on Facebook. But recent events have created a spotlight on the operations of OSF as a non-profit organization.
Much has been made by John about the Church acting as a for-profit and hiding behind a non-profit status. After looking into publicly available information regarding the operation of the Open Stories Foundation, I have to be honest. I have some of the same concerns about the organization he now leads.
Luckily, John announced today on his Facebook page that he would answer questions surrounding these very issues in an upcoming podcast. I hope he addresses the following issues:
1. Who comprises the Board of the Open Stories Foundation, and why is this information not listed on the Foundation’s website on a regular basis? Even the “statement” from the OSF Board from a few days ago didn’t actually name the Directors. Who actually wrote that document? Was it actually signed off on by the full Board? If so, why weren’t their names listed? And why aren’t any of them answering these questions?
Let’s back up for a moment…who is actually on the Board?
In its most current listing with the Arizona Corporate Commission, Amy Grubbs is listed as the Chairman of the Foundation. She is also listed on the website as the Foundation’s Director of Operations.
Currently registered Board members include:
Amy Grubbs (Chairman)
John Dehlin (President)
Craig Woodfield (Director)
Roger McOmber (Director)
Lee Stowell (Director)
Why is none of this information readily available? And why is information on who these Board Members are not available on the OSF website? Who are these people and what is their relationship to John and/or OSF?
Besides the lack of transparency, there’s also a bit of sloppiness going on with the 501(c)3 filings. For example, the mailing address for Lee Stowell is incorrect. There is no Millburn, Deleware as far as I have been able to find. There is, however, a Millburn, New Jersey. Is this merely sloppy bookkeeping? There’s also a discrepancy of who actually is on the Board of Directors, with John stating recently that Amy is not on the Board.
Lots of questions here, but the bottom line here is the sloppiness by which the Board is organized. If this is sloppy, where else has the Foundation been sloppy?
2. Understanding how the OSF Board of Directors is comprised brings up another issue: conflict of interest.
For those not familiar with 501(c)3 regulations, non-profits are in general governed by a Board of Directors. This is a governing body that makes all major decisions relating to the corporation.
While it is not unusual to have paid staff members on the Board of Directors, it is highly unusual (and even perhaps unethical) to have them involved in the decision making when it comes to compensation. Many Boards have in place a compensation committee, comprised of all non-employees, to mitigate any conflict of interest concerns.
(An earlier version of this post stated here that OSF Director Craig Woodfield is also the Foundation’s certified public accountant. This is incorrect. Craig is a CPA, but not for the Foundation)
All of these issues raise more questions than answers. Namely:
Does the Open Stories Foundation Board have compensation and hiring committees that can fairly make decisions about how much to pay John Dehlin and Amy Grubbs, whether or not to hire his wife as a podcaster, how the books are done and other decisions that may create obvious conflicts of interest?
3. Then there is the issue of compensation itself. As I mentioned before, it is not unusual for non-profits to handsomely pay their CEOs and other
What is unusual, at least in my experience, is the ratio at which and the manner in which John is being compensated.
First, the ratio. The CEO of Planned Parenthood, for example, received approximately $754,000 in total compensation according to its last financial report. That’s roughly 0.0005% of the organization’s annual total revenue of $1.26 billion.
John Dehlin is paid roughly $85,000 plus “annual incentives” that are not outlined by the OSF Board of Directors. That amounts to 49.7% of the Open Stories Foundation’s total annual income in 2015.
In a compensation study conducted by non-profit magazine Blue Avocado, the median CEO salary for charities pulling in between $100,000 to $500,000 in revenue is about $42,600. Open Stories Foundation is on the very low end of that revenue scale.
Not only that, but nowhere in the OSF’s finance documents does it list John’s salary. Instead, there is a line for “Contract Services” in 2015 for a total amount of over $91,000.
So is John an independent contractor or a salaried employee? If the former, that seems highly unusual to me.
Is it ethical for a non-profit to be paying its CEO almost half of it total annual revenue? Non-profits are meant to be organizations that use donations to create public good, not primarily as sources of income for their Directors. That’s why non-profit designation was created.
The ratio of organization revenue to John’s compensation seems raises serious questions.
4. There’s also the issue of compensation as it relates to nepotism. As listeners are well aware, Margi Dehlin joined Mormon Stories late last year in a new project called “Mormon Transitions.” Is Margi paid in addition to John’s compensation? And how was that hiring decision made? By an independent Board committee? Or was John the decision-maker?
It’s clear that John has built something special in Mormon Stories and the rest of the Open Stories Foundation. Numbers don’t lie. John has a huge following, and he has done well to convert that following into an ability to support himself and his family. Many people in this situation would, rightfully so, use this as an opportunity to start a private, for-profit business.
But the decision to go the non-profit route, as John has with the Open Stories Foundation, comes with it lots of accountability. John has made it his career to hold the Church accountable, no matter the consequences.
As the face, Executive Director and member of the Board of Directors, John is accountable to everyone who has ever donated even a penny to his organization to make sure everything is done ethically and responsibly.
If there is nothing untoward going on with the Open Stories Foundation and its operation as a legitimate 501(c)3 non-profit organization, John will be able to answer the above with clarity, along with other questions that have been raised.
I look forward to him, and the rest of the Board of Directors, doing so.
I think you have that planned parenthood salary figure wrong. $754 million?
Yes, I’ve fixed. Thanks!
Also, when I go to look at PP annual budget, it looks like it’s just under $200 million. The point still stands obviously, the salary is around .5%. A $1.2 billion annual budget is outrageously high for a corporation, let alone a non-profit.
“First, the ratio. The CEO of Planned Parenthood, for example, received approximately $754 million in total compensation according to its last financial report. That’s roughly 0.0005% of the organization’s annual total revenue of $1.26 billion.”
Check dem #s & dat math mangz.
Typo. Should be $754,000. It has been fixed.
$754,000 is .06% of $1.26B, not .00005%.
(Yes it is .00059 as a decimal, but when made into a percentage you drop the first two decimal places.)
Pew! This smells like a witch hunt to me.
I wonder how many Church members have posted the same thing in response to certain MoSto episodes…
Yep.
Great post, thanks for the objective write up.
One correction on the salary for the Planned Parenthood CEO it’s in thousands not millions.
Thanks, Hope!
John was a W2 employee until 2012. He is now a contract employee. Why did that change?
It would be good to see a breakdown of “contract services.” Who were the contractors? Attorneys? Podcasters? Caterers?
What percentage of annual revenue has John made each year? Has it been higher in years’ past than it is now? What about other employees?
How is board voting performed?
How is the board selected?
How often does the board meet? Are minutes of meetings taken? Are they available for public review?
Are the by-laws available for public review?
Why does the board have to sign non-disclosure documents? Why do podcasters have to sign them?
Does John also have an LLC for his personal clients? What is it called? Where is it incorporated? Are the retreats part of the LLC (if it exists) or the 501(c)3?
What do the 501(c)3 employee/podcaster contracts look like?
John did not build the OSF by himself. Does he have a record of volunteer hours?
Why does John ban people who question him?
Why does John have so many roles?
Does the OSF have a public figure policy of any sort?
There are tax advantages to being a contract employee… I’m guessing John formed an LLC of his own and elected to be taxed as an S-Corp. He can then take part of the earnings as distributions and part as wage, saving 15% in SE tax on the distribution portion. This is a good tax strategy… but I’ve never heard of it being used in conjunction with a non-profit of which the taxpayer is also the CEO and founder. Sounds somewhat odd, but it’s been a long time since I’ve practiced tax.
I have some additional questions.
1) Is OSF / Mormon Stories used as a vehicle to generate additional revenue for John Dehlin, or any other podcasters or board members, in the form of counseling clients?
Is John’s only income from OSF or other sources as well, like clients he charges an hourly rate to? Not asking to see a copy of his tax return, but I believe this is a fair question to ask. I think this goes hand in hand with the “nonprofit” image that John puts out.
Imagine, for instance, if the Bishop of a ward was a psychologist (or anything) and was advertising his services to members of the ward. That would be a clear conflict of interest. Such is the same for Mormon Stories. If it’s being leveraged as an advertising vehicle for John or anybody else, that would seem quite underhanded. At a minimum that it something which should be public information and not happening in secret.
2) Is John a licensed psychologist in Utah or any state? Disaffected members of OSF are claiming that John is NOT a licensed therapist. And then further claim that despite this, he is signing up counseling clients. However, to skirt the law, this is done under the guise of “coaching” instead. This seems particularly troubling if true.
According to the Utah Department of Public Licenses public data base that lists every licensed person, there is no one named John Dehlin licensed for anything in Utah. You can check it yourself here.
https://secure.utah.gov/llv/search/index.html
With the pay structure, does John make ANY money from OSF above his stated base salary and discretionary bonus? Is that money added to the reported amount in his financial reports?
Why has he only advertised his base salary on OSF website and other forums until this ordeal when he admitted he gets a bonus? Does he vote on his bonus?
Does John make ANY money from activities that fall outside OSF? Is so, are they related enough to the mission of OSF that the average person might be confused about whether or not it’s him acting for OSF or for his own unreported profit?
Does John and other board members sign a no conflict of interest agreement? That is standard for non profits. If not, why not? Will all board members put their name behind that answer?
I wanted to give my thoughts on point 3 and the ratio at which John is compensated. You are citing averages for non-profits on total revenue vs. CEO compensation and are wondering if it is ethical for John to be taking around 50% of what OSF makes.
I would be curious what that ratio looks like for non-profits that offer a digital service, like John’s podcast.
For example, if I started a non-profit to give socks to the homeless, my revenue might be $1M. Of that $1M, maybe I’m going to spend $700,000 on producing the socks that will go to the homeless. So I am left with $300,000 to pay myself and to pay other admin fees, warehousing and shipping of the socks, fund raising, etc. Maybe I take a salary of $100,000 for my time. That’s only 10%. Should we compare my 10% to someone’s 50% where the cost of providing their good/service is substantially lower than mine?
I am a graphic designer. I keep over 70% of what I make because my overhead is minimal. My brother-in-law is a turkey farmer. His revenue is substantially larger than mine, but at the end of the day, he’s probably taking home less than 10% of it. It has nothing to do with how good a business person I am vs. how good a business person he is. It has everything to do with the product/good we provide.
When there is a digital good vs. a physical good, overhead and costs of providing the good/service will be wildly different. It seems unfair to compare these and assume that there is a red flag. (I know you are using averages, but it would be more helpful to see an average of non-profits that offer a similar product/service to John Dehlin’s.)
Most similar organizations function as a for-profit business…that’s the problem. I’m not convinced that, based on the types of activities OSF is involved in, that a non-profit structure is really the right model.
I understand the argument that maybe OSF should be “for profit.” But, John is damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t. Given the mission of OSF, helping Mormons whose beliefs are evolving, if he runs it as a “for profit,” his detractors accuse him of “anti-Mormon priestcraft” – particularly if OSF revenues, and his income climb significantly. If he stays non-profit, the reality of OSF’s revenue sources likely require, at least for now, that he take a substantial portion of OSF revenue in order to continue the viability of OSF. Thus, I think he has a difficult balancing act. If mainstream religions qualify for non-profit status, particularly given the assets of the LDS Church, I don’t see why OSF doesn’t qualify. It’s not a Church, but it offers what is almost pastoral care to it’s listeners and participants who CHOOSE to listen.
Interesting viewpoint, Mark. But I think a good way to approach this so-called “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” decision is to choose the moral, ethical option, not the option that will bring you less criticism from the Mormons.
As a human adult who styles himself a counselor (but who is not licensed), John should know adults shouldn’t make decisions based on what other people will think of them, including the Mormons.
“My business model would look greedy if it had a for-profit designation on paper” is perhaps the WORST possible reason to have a non-profit designation on paper with the exact same business model.
I think most of the offended people have a misguided and uninformed notion of what a non-profit is. It is a corporation, generally with a stated societal objective. But it doesn’t pay dividends to shareholders. Seriously, that’s the gist of it. If it takes in donations – grants or otherwise – it must put them directly toward the goals and objectives of the foundation as stated in its articles of incorporation. (Grant monies are usually earmarked for particular purposes, like purchasing textbooks or planting a community garden.)
Note: It’s not that the employees and founders are prohibited from taking home a decent salary. It’s that investors and donors are prohibited from making money off their investment. That’s really what the “NON” part of non-profit means.
This is a very well reasoned post with maybe one exception. I’ve worked closely, as a money manager, with several non-profits managing their liquid assets. They are all so very different it’s very hard to generalize about them. Some have to do very extensive fund-raising which seems to be a never ending task, while others are funded by one or two individuals making very large donations that essentially “endow” the non-profit.
My understanding of OSF is that the last year or so, John Dehlin was the CEO, the lead fundraiser, the main “podcast talent,” the person who was most responsible for the production and podcast content and behind the scenes work, along with wearing many other hats.
The mission of OSF is also somewhat unique compared to many non-profits. Of the non-profit CEO’s I’ve worked with, most could run other non-profits effectively with a fairly short learning curve, none could step into John’s role at OSF and Mormon Stories and be successful.
I agree that accountability is always a good thing though some would turn accountability into a bit of a witch hunt. But were I on the board of OSF, I would also recognize that if John Dehlin walks away tomorrow, OSF is likely out of operation within in a year and the work of the other podcasters is lost along with John’s podcasts. I respect the work of all OSF podcasters but if OSF doesn’t allow John to make a reasonable living, OSF’s future is very seriously in question.
So, recognizing the many hats he has had to wear historically, and continues to wear and the “product” (podcasts, retreats, etc), if I can use that term loosely, is it unrealistic for the Board to compensate John in a way that assures the continuance of OSF whether that’s 25% or 50% or 75% of revenues? I think as time goes on, John’s compensation will likley decrease as a percentage of revenues but without John Dehlin, OSF ceases to exit.
I think that while your article was very accurate about non-profits in general, it failed to recognize some things that make OSF very unique compared to other non-profits.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts.
To use a Mormon phrase, this feels very letter of the law versus spirit of the law… I’d leave the overall biz structure to OSF tax attorney and focus on the “fruits” man (which for me for me and his large fan base are sweet). And i have no problem with people paid for what they do. John offers a ton of value for what he is paid. If john was all about $, I think he’d still be working at Microsoft.
> it failed to recognize some things that make OSF very unique compared to other non-profits
You’re not wrong, but there’s a reason it’s unique among non-profits and that reason is exactly why a lot of people think it doesn’t meet the legal standards to count as a non-profit.
Look into the OSF “Director of Operations” position. John doesn’t do all the work.
Working at Microsoft do not bring all the hero worshipping he’s receiving.
It seems to me that the main problem that OSF faces is that it was very clearly created to solve the problem “John Dehlin is doing this thing and it’s good and we [his fans] love it, but he needs to make it a business so he can afford to do it full time and still feed his kids etc.” In other words, it’s whole purpose for existing is to be a vehicle to funnel money to Dehlin. There’s nothing inherently crass or craven about that–as has been pointed out many times, a lot of people feel helped by him and he also can’t work a full-time job for free.
The problem is that being a vehicle to funnel money to one person stands in complete opposition to an important legal principle of non-profits that they not be vehicles to funnel money to one person. So something like OSF can ethically exist to support the work of a person its supporters believe is doing worthwhile things, but I don’t see how it can ethically/legally exist **as a registered non-profit** (caveat: IANAL).
I know the financials matter to a lot of people. Especially those who feel they paid tithing to a fraudulent and deceitful organization for so many years.
You often hear, “but they do so much good with that money.” Many of us know the numbers. That the amount of good they (the church) do with our money is minuscule compared to how much good they actually could do.
Having said that, John has done exponentially more good by creating a platform where we (the Mormons) can tell our stories and touch the lives of individuals for change.
If he took 90% of the revenue for his time and efforts, I wouldn’t care.
How much was he making in the early days? Nada!
So if he becomes rich off of this while lives are still being saved, eyes opened, and relationships mended, I say more power to him.
And if he’s not being as transparent as people claim, I don’t blame him with how much aggression is out there.
I just can’t imagine a world without Mormon Stories and that will be the indirect result of all of this gossip.
I also have no qualms with John becoming rich off Mormon Stories. But you don’t do that by going the non-profit route.
Many heads of non-profits become rich from their work. You just said in your article that the head of Planned Parenthood makes over $700K. Have you looked at the salary of the head of the BSA? Employees within a non-profit can have large salaries. People don’t understand what a non-profit is.
What year did John start podcasting?
What year did John incorporate?
What year did John get 501(c)3 status?
I remember John saying he paid himself “back wages” for years he worked before he started making money. Did he personally take much closer to 100% of gross revenue during those years?
Does the OSF have a non-discrimination statement?
Do podcasters like Gina Colvin know of some of the human rights abuses of which John has been accused? Do the board members know? Do they protect him? If so, what is their reasoning for the protection they offer? Does this align with their ideals or do they justify it because John exerts leverage over the church?
The federal statute protects businesses with less than 15 employees from discrimination claims. Does the large number of volunteers helping the business because it’s a 501(c)3 relative to the small number of actual employees help John dodge accountability when legal claims are made against him?
Many make the claim that John wears all the hats, but is this true? Who has worn the hats for him? Have they been adequately compensated? Do they volunteer their time because they think the OSF is a true 501(c)3 rather than a business funnel? If so, what kind of disclosures do they deserve to receive before giving their time?
You can see the most recent IRS tax filing for Open Stories Foundation (called a 990) here:
http://990s.foundationcenter.org/990_pdf_archive/272/272026793/272026793_201512_990EZ.pdf
John’s compensation for that year is listed at $91,308. Other compensated individuals include Natasha Parker at $5,877 and Dan Wotherspoon at $35,344 for total compensation to individuals of $132,529 (part 4 of the form). Total salaries and benefits are listed on line 12 at $140,859 with the delta very likely being benefits.
Hope this helps with some of the questions posted above.
I’ve got no dog in this fight, but I will add that the smaller the 501(c)3, the higher the percentage of the revenues that will go toward salaries. For instance, I am the co-founder of a small, non-profit company. We provide after-school math classes and charge well below the market rate for math tutoring. It is as cheap or cheaper than after-school art, and it’s far cheaper than private tutoring. Because we only have four part-time employees, and because we bring in so little money, I’d estimate about 90% of our net intake goes toward salaries after paying other operating expenses like books, insurance, website fees, etc., with the remainder rolling forward during the summer as a buffer to start up services the next fall. Maybe spending 90% of net revenue on salaries looks bad to an outsider. Still, no employee is earning more than $7k per year to keep this project going. (We are super tiny!) If we were larger, we might have educational outreach programs; we might provide free services to urban students; etc. But our current Board members don’t have the time or inclination to expand, so we stay small and pay ourselves a modest income. I can’t speak to the personal fallings-out at OSF, but the overall percent spent on salaries isn’t necessarily a red flag to me.
P.S. As to personality differences not really addressed in the article, the best analogy I can think of is a new guitarist or drummer or singer joining Van Halen and not getting along with Eddie Van Halen. It’s always going to be Eddie’s band. (It has his name on it!) So if there are personality issues that prevent someone from getting along with Eddie, then that person ought to go start his/her own band. It seems that this is already happening in the Mormon podcasting community.
P.P.S. My non-profit has often paid people as independent contractors who then became employees, and some of these people were even doing much of the day-to-day work at the company. There are pros and cons of either classification. Software companies are notorious for hiring contractors that later become employees and hiring back former employees as contractors, for a variety of reasons.
Re: Van Halen.
Problem is, that’s not how non-profits work. John Dehlin, while he may be the “brand” of OSF, does not own OSF. That’s why this is all so convoluted and problematic. OSF has created an entity that is centered around a person first rather than a mission first. When you start pumping money back to one person under the guise that this one person “is the mission” you’ve now entered some pretty weird non-profit territory.
I know the Van Halen comparison is not perfect. I’m saying that the personality conflicts seem to be more about the personalities involved than the mission or any fiscal malfeasance, from what I can see. Replace Van Halen with Bill Gates and the Gates Foundation. If you really don’t get along with Bill or Melinda and need to interact with them regularly, then perhaps don’t work at the Foundation. That’s all I’m saying.
Your questions are valid, but I think there is a bit of misunderstanding about non-profit operations, as well.
1. Adding and removing Board members is completely normal for non-profit organizations, and the information is available in their Form 990’s, which are available online. However, your suggestion to identify Board members on the website is a good idea and one they should adopt.
2. A conflict of interest policy with regards to the Board and employee compensation is a valid concern. This is generally addressed in a non-profits bylaws, and Directors with a potential conflict will recuse themselves from such votes. Given how small OSF is, it’s probably less of a problem, but still a valid question to ask.
3. I don’t think your compensation comparisons here are…comparable. Even apart from the radical scale difference involved (1.26b vs 150k), Dehlin is not just a manager overseeing work done by other people. Dehlin does a large portion of the work himself, including the most widely known/listened to products that OSF produces. It seems very unlikely that OSF could simply plug-and-play another CEO/Host without losing substantially more than his salary. OSF is not just paying for a CEO. They are paying for a CEO and a top producer.
Further, this comment represents a substantial misunderstanding of the purposes and finances of non-profits: “Is it ethical for a non-profit to be paying its CEO almost half of it total annual revenue? Non-profits are meant to be organizations that use donations to create public good, not primarily as sources of income for their Directors. ”
Obviously, there are circumstances where disproportionate executive pay can be illegal and unethical (inurement is the legal term here). This is not one of them. The “public good” created by OSF is the product that John Dehlin produces. Paying him to create that product is no more inappropriate than it would be to pay doctors to deliver health care to needy people. When the public good is the product created by the directors, it is completely ethical and appropriate for a non-profit to pay incomes to those directors.
4. No objection to issue number 4. It’s a valid question to ask.
Jon, solid points all around. A couple of minor pushbacks:
I’m not moved by the arguments similar to your #3. John being the “face” of Mormon Stories does not preclude having a more realistic disbursement of foundation funds. I was just yesterday looking up non-profit podcasts and found out that On Being is actually a non-profit. Krista Tippetts is the “everything” of that podcast. She’s the host, she produces it, she is the “brand” aside from the name.
Her salary, relative to foundation revenue, is still just 5%. (Roughly $200k out of a $4 million budget)
So I think the real problem here actually is that John has done a poor job of doing what most foundation CEOs are paid to do: raise money.
He has been so focused on content and creative that he has neglected the lifeblood of what makes foundations thrive. If he really wants to be the CEO, he should be getting paid to grow the OSF and help it prosper long term, not getting paid because he gets lots of downloads. If he doesn’t want to be focused on growth, he should get paid as the other podcasters do and let someone else be the CEO.
Also, I find the overall tenor of “the OSF is John Dehlin and John Dehlin is OSF” is precisely why turning a personal creative pursuit into a non-profit is so problematic.
I think it is up to the Board to determine whether fundraising growth is a key goal of the organization. It doesn’t have to be, and being fundraising growth-oriented may well be inappropriate or counterproductive for OSF.
I don’t think the On Being organization is really quite comparable, either. That show is syndicated to about 400 radio stations, so the financial operation would be substantially different than a podcast.
It certainly is possible that a non-profit orientation may be the wrong path for Dehlin — he would probably be making more money, with fewer headaches, if he incorporated as a for-profit — but there is nothing remotely unethical about OSF paying Dehlin a large portion of its relatively small revenue to serve as CEO and as the host of the primary product of OSF. If he was making 50% of a 4 million budget, that would probably be substantially different.
I also want to point out that another one of Kate Kelly’s grievances was his treatment of women in regards to compensation. I saw the recent job posting when they were hiring for Amy Grubb’s position; the starting salary for that position was, I believe, around $31,000. For a “director of operations,” who stands on equal footing with the CEO–NOT an executive assistant, office manager, or other lower skilled position–to be salaried at that much less than the CEO is ridiculous and not okay. $80,000 is a livable wage. $31,000 is not.
It could have just as easily been a man that took that job… When John posted it on reddit in the first place he was clear about the job, title, and salary. You are making quite as jump in logic by claiming sexism is driving this.
And to say that anyone at OSF would be John’s equal is laughable. He built the foundation, and is the face and voice. The vast majority of people tune into the podcasts and donate money because of John. I guarantee most people have no clue who Amy Grubb is.
Hate to tell you but that’s not how non-profits work. He may be the face to the world, but from a legal standpoint he doesn’t own anything. The Board does.
Who cares about legally? The legal entity of OSF is irrelevant compared to the brand of John Dehlin.
He is Mormon Stories. If the board fired him, he would pick up and create a new version of OSF and take 90% of listeners and donors with him.
So how does the healthy Mormon journeys foundation manage these issues? Do they have a board? Is there a compensation committee? Is Dr. Money the only person drawing a salary? Does the foundation only exist to funnel money to Dr. Money? I understand the need for scrutiny. It just seems like it should equally apply to all foundations like this.
Did you guys actually look at that blue avocado analysis?
The standard deviation is over $50,000.
Yeah John’s on the higher end for the bracket but with that standard deviation it’s still well within the norm (<1 sd). It's clear that a sizable portion of those surveyed are volunteering (probably on the side), which skews down the average. This compensation argument is baseless.
And let's get real, comparing OSF to Planned Parenthood? Not relevant.
Fair enough, then let’s compare OSF to another NP podcast: On Being.
Krista Tippetts is the main podcaster, and also the President. She pulls in $225,000 including benefits on a total organizational revenue of more than $4 million. That’s still around 5%.
You know what they use all that extra money for? To produce better content. That’s what a NP is supposed to do.
That’s fair, and perhaps a more relevant comparison.
But again, is it really valid to compare to one or two other non-profits in isolation? I used the study you brought up to make my point, which is that the standard deviation of the compensation is so high that John’s pay is still within “the norm” among the 30k+ surveyed.
We could find examples to support anything we want to say. But the holistic data shows that his compensation is within 1 standard deviation.
That doesn’t mean he shouldn’t improve his compensation structure, or focus more on raising funds. But I do not see anything unethical with his compensation, either in terms of the amount or portion of revenue.
Hope I was more clear. Best regards.
I think this post is comparing apples to oranges- large non-profit organizations to small ones. There is a difference. The IRS recognizes several such family-run and small non-profit organizations and it seems that if the IRS accepted their application knowing that there are limited persons involved, a small board, relatives, etc. some of the criticisms here which apply to larger NPS and boards (say to the AHA or Red Cross) don’t apply.
That being said, it appears that the bloggernacle is pointing out that Mormon Stories Foundation is growing into a larger organization that requires higher transparency, a broader board, and a more equitable budget.
I find that my comments are quickly deleted from Mormon Stories if they are even remotely questioning or critical, so I don’t have much sympathy for John when he criticizes the church for doing the same thing. It seems to me that Mormon Stories and Open Stories Foundation need to pin down policies on censorship, diverse voices, and commenting, and then be much more transparent about when they delete a post. There are several threads that seem to glow with praise . . . with ne’er a hint of anything else. He controls public perception carefully.
John Dehlin supports himself and family through the foundation. It is obvious from the 990’s.
IF you don’t like it, contribute your time and money someplace else. It’s not as though this is the “one true podcast” and John Dehlin has been ordained by God.
You can walk away.
http://990finder.foundationcenter.org/990results.aspx?action=Find&fn=Open+stories+foundation+&st=&ei=
At the end of the day, the donors dictate if Open Foundations will get their money. Is the podcast still free and does it still meet the quality and standards the donors expect? Has Dehlin done something to alienate his donors?
I take it there have been some additional podcasts featuring Dehlin’s wife, and this is the crux of people’s speculations. Was there a job opening, or an opportunity for a podcast pitch? Was Dehlin’s wife the only one ever considered? Is she getting compensated and how much?
Legally it will boil down to the foundation’s articles of incorporation, i.e. who has the authority to make these decisions?
Practically it will boil down to whether the donors walk away.
For all I know most of the donations come from patrons who attend retreats and want to go on a cruise.
When I click on the PP financial link, it says their total revenue is just under $200 million, not $1.2 billion. That makes sense because $1.2 billion is an outrageously high number, even for a for-profit company.
$1.2 billion is the total revenue between affiliates and national office (similar to Mormon Stories vs. all the other offshoot podcasts).
$754,000 is .06% (=.0006) of $1.26 billion. If you’re going to compare percentages, it’s important to get it right.
This witch hunt has left what is rational!
Is it a witch hunt? James, you brought up some excellent questions about current financial transparency and the current board. But now, JD has come forward answering these questions and everyone is quiet about 2016 transparency. It was 2016 transparency that was the original accusation by KM!
But, instead of address financial transparency, you have moved the target to 2012. This target has moved time after time this past week.
– JD didn’t invite me to dinner… so evil!
– JD didn’t pay for my dinner… so evil!
– JD is calling himself a life coach… so evil!
– JD is mean… so evil!
– JD has a sexual harassment complaint against him… no, JD had a lawsuit against him… no, JD had a settlement… no, JD had something happen and we don’t know.
– JD talks for too long.
– JD is a bad public speaker.
– JD unfriended me.
You should be embarrassed. This public conversation and digging is far from professional.
Address the question that you asked! Did JD answer your questions about financial transparency and the current board? We need a follow on article addressing this!!
Stop moving the target and digging up dirt. How many of our lives would be clear from scrutiny. James, have you ever been mean to an associate? Should we put you under a magnifying glass. Should we boycott Rational Faiths until you come publically clean with every mistake you have ever made.
Makes less money than a Mormon Apostle.