I'd be curious to see what Open Stories Foundation was offering also. Given the multiple problems that are surfacing regarding their approach, lastly including the fact that their representative in the podcast has a problem with the truth, I'm sure it was fair and appropriate.
Don't get me wrong, I still think Rosebud has behaved very badly, but WOW. So has pretty much everyone else, including the Open Stories Foundation boards and JD, and the interviewee with her inability to be reliable with regard to the questions she was asked in the podcast. So much has come to light.
One wonders why they would invite Natasha as a witness if she cannot be relied upon?
This really made no sense. it seems Natasha didn't know what was going on, was only clued in afterward, and likely couldn't verify whether John mistreated Rosebud or not.
She should have carefully distinguished between what she knew at the time and what she later came to understand or surmise. She did contradict herself by not being careful in that regard. Of course, both Natasha and Nadine said they hadn’t refreshed their memories adequately by returning to the documents. Did they anticipate that everyone would try to make a big deal out of the differences? Probably not. After all, RFM provided the documents that are quite a bit more revealing and damning for Rosebud’s claims when examined carefully.
"I have learned with what evils tyranny infects a state. For it frustrates all the virtues, robs freedom of its lofty mood, and opens a school of fawning and terror, inasmuch as it leaves matters not to the wisdom of the laws, but to the angry whim of those who are in authority.”
As a rule, I will be guided by contemporary documentary evidence as much as possible. Anyone can tell you that memory is notoriously unreliable—everybody’s memory is. It is constantly being reshaped by rehearsal, refashioning, new perspectives, etc. To say that someone’s current recollection of what happened nearly a decade ago is less reliable than the documents of the time should be the standard, accepted view. I wasn’t seeking to impugn the accounts of Natasha or Nadine. They did well and were very honest about their level of preparation. I don’t think they deliberately misrepresented anything. But that does not mean what they had to say has greater or should have greater evidentiary value than the relevant documents of 2012.
"I have learned with what evils tyranny infects a state. For it frustrates all the virtues, robs freedom of its lofty mood, and opens a school of fawning and terror, inasmuch as it leaves matters not to the wisdom of the laws, but to the angry whim of those who are in authority.”
So, Consig, if I read that settlement offer correctly, she wanted access to John through multiple Facebook accounts, another 2k over her 3k attorneys fees, and the ability to hold stuff over his head permanently. Close?
As a rule, I will be guided by contemporary documentary evidence as much as possible. Anyone can tell you that memory is notoriously unreliable—everybody’s memory is. It is constantly being reshaped by rehearsal, refashioning, new perspectives, etc. To say that someone’s current recollection of what happened nearly a decade ago is less reliable than the documents of the time should be the standard, accepted view. I wasn’t seeking to impugn the accounts of Natasha or Nadine. They did well and were very honest about their level of preparation. I don’t think they deliberately misrepresented anything. But that does not mean what they had to say has greater or should have greater evidentiary value than the relevant documents of 2012.
I’ll take contemporary documents over 10-year old memories any day of the week.
he/him we all just have to live through it,
holding each other’s hands.
Maybe Rosebud should have used those contemporary documents to refresh her recollection?
It is apparent she has had them all this time.
Exactly.
“If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts. If the law and the facts are against you, pound the table and yell like hell”
"I have learned with what evils tyranny infects a state. For it frustrates all the virtues, robs freedom of its lofty mood, and opens a school of fawning and terror, inasmuch as it leaves matters not to the wisdom of the laws, but to the angry whim of those who are in authority.”
I am unclear on the current direction this thread is going. Regardless of rosebud’s credibility, is there any doubt that a superior had an extremely inappropriate relationship with a subordinate, which culminated in her losing her job?
According to Open Stories Foundation current policy, this is sexual harassment. Just because they didn’t have a policy in place at the time only means it is not possible to enforce the penalties, it in no way means the sexual harassment did not happen.
I have no more sympathy for the victim than anyone else here, but even without relying on Rosebud’s flaky texts, it is clear that this is a case of sexual harassment, and the board handled it in multiple ways that would today violate many parts of their policy.
Obviously, they have no legal obligation to fix it, but surely there is a moral obligation to stop denying that it was handled appropriately.
Rosebud states that before their firing, the board was paying both her and John the same salary: $5000 a month. She and John were the only two employees Open Stories Foundation hired. Isn't it a bit odd for your boss to get paid the same amount as you? Rosebud also mentions that the board was making the decisions about if they should hire her as executive director or not. The board was ultimately in charge of hiring and firing decision, not John Dehlin. Joanna says in the Mormonism Live interview that ultimately their decision to favor Dehlin was because he was the founder, the face of Mormon Stories, and Rosebud was a much more junior employee with less than a year of work history for them.
If she had taken the executive director position that the board offered her, it would be even harder for her to claim Dehlin was her superior. Maybe that's why she doesn't give a good explanation as to why she refused to sign the executive director position contract when Open Stories Foundation offered it to her? She had to make as strong a case as possible that John Dehlin was her boss to make the sexual harassment claim, and accepting the executive director position wouldn't accomplish that goal.
