Epic Mormonism Live on Rosebud Accusations

[drumdude]

He's the dude, playing the dude, disguised as another dude!

[SaturdaysVoyeur]

It's not objectively true that a subordinate lost their job. One of the two founding members of the start up was pushed out when the dynamic changed and the board exerted it's oversight role

This "founding member" bit has been bugging me as a data point that just doesn't add up.

First, there's no indication within Open Stories Foundation's founding documents that Rosebud was a "founding" member of the board of directors. The earliest her name shows up is on the 2010 990, as was pointed out several pages ago after John showed up and made the "founding" member claim.

That 990 form is the part that's really sticking in my craw. From Rosebud's timeline, it seems clear that she and John initiated online contact somewhere in the latter part of 2010. They didn't meet in person for several months after that, and the SLC conference in March of 2011 is when it seems she really began to volunteer in earnest.

So why does she show up as a board member for the year 2010? She wasn't even that active with Open Stories Foundation until three months into 2011.

Well, I thought to look at the date of when the 990 was signed and filed -- turns out it was all the way in August of 2011. By all indications, John and whoever helped him fill out the 990 "backdated" several board members who had come online in the first half of 2011 for some reason.

Rosebud clearly wasn't a founding board member, most likely didn't make it onto the board until some time in 2011, so why are John and posters like honorentheos so insistent that she was?

Or maybe I'm wrong and John can clarify when, exactly, Rosebud joined the Open Stories Foundation board of directors?

A "founding board member" doesn't necessarily mean the person was among the first generation of board members. Often they are among the first, but that's not the only way the term is used. Once incorporated (non-profit or for-profit), a company's board usually starts with the minimum allowed in that state and grows over time. So....when do you start counting who was "first"?

See what I mean? Is the "first board" exclusively comprised of people who were on the board up until the very first person quits that board? Usually not, but that would be literally the "first board." Anybody coming on after at least one person has quit is now a "second generation" board member. But the term isn't usually used like.

A "founding member" usually means the person had some significant influence on the bylaws or in developing the organizational mission. So they're usually around in the company's earliest days, but they may not actually be on the literal first generation of board members. They could have had a hand in the bylaws or mission, and then joined the board later and they would still be considered a "founding member."

"Founding member" can also refer to someone who was key when the organization sought formal incorporation. A loosely knit group may be operating for years before they apply for legal organizational status (often because they're a for-profit and they start making taxable money, or because they're a non-profit and want to start paying people taxable wages).

I have absolutely no idea if or how this might apply to Rosebud's position within Open Stories Foundation. But it passes a cursory smell test, because "founding member" is rarely anything more than an honorary title.

As far as the dates, I'd have to look at the documents, but I'm pretty sure you're talking about a common misreading of 990s. The 990 for 2010 wouldn't be due until 2011. If Open Stories Foundation was filing its taxes in the third quarter, then 2010's 990 would be filed in roughly August 2011. But both for-profits and non-profits can also ask for filing extensions, so even if, say Open Stories Foundation was filing in the first quarter, or filing quarterly (if that's allowed in their state of incorporation), it's pretty much just a rubberstamp to get an extension. At least up to a point that would certainly be a longer than a quarter or two.

I'm aware of a non-profit (and, no, it's not Open Stories Foundation, which I know absolutely nothing about) that hasn't filed anything but a short-form 990 in five years because their state of incorporation allows them to file a short form and then seek an extension for...well, at least five years anyway. The problem there is if the donors are going to put up with that. If the donors start demanding an annual report, then this not-Open Stories Foundation-non-profit is going to have some problems. But, so long as people are willing to give them money and work or volunteer for them, then they're fine. If their state of incorporation and their reputation will allow it, it's not illegal.

We would need additional information to really know if everything was kosher there. But at first glance, there's nothing eyebrow-raising about calling her a "founding member" (which doesn't usually have any real meaning anyway; it just suggests that she was instrumental in some way at some crucial point) and it's even less surprising that she would be on the board in 2010, but not show up until the 2011 990 was filed.

You can put anybody you want on your board. So long as you follow your own bylaws anyway, and can find people willing to sit through quarterly meetings. Often non-profit boards are comprised of family members and friends. If the organization has some clout, then some VIPs may want a seat on your board for the social cache. Often they are donors (in many cases, donating is a requirement for a board seat).

But they may just be friends with the people who are starting it up. Or lovers. The board of a non-profit has a fiduciary duty to the taxpayers of the states in which they are incorporated and/or licensed to conduct business and seek donations (i.e., we don't make you pay business taxes, so long as you're fulfilling the mission for which you were granted tax-exempt status). So it doesn't really matter if they have personal relationships with one another (they quite often do), so long as organization follows its bylaws and fulfills that fiduciary duty.

tl;dr We would need quite a bit more information than this, most of which should be public for a 501(c)3 if you want to go digging, to know whether anything hinky was going on.

[Lem]

A "founding board member" doesn't necessarily mean the person was among the first generation of board members. Often they are among the first, but that's not the only way the term is used. Once incorporated (non-profit or for-profit), a company's board usually starts with the minimum allowed in that state and grows over time. So....when do you start counting who was "first"?

See what I mean? Is the "first board" exclusively comprised of people who were on the board up until the very first person quits that board? Usually not, but that would be literally the "first board." Anybody coming on after at least one person has quit is now a "second generation" board member. But the term isn't usually used like.

A "founding member" usually means the person had some significant influence on the bylaws or in developing the organizational mission. So they're usually around in the company's earliest days, but they may not actually be on the literal first generation of board members. They could have had a hand in the bylaws or mission, and then joined the board later and they would still be considered a "founding member."

"Founding member" can also refer to someone who was key when the organization sought formal incorporation. A loosely knit group may be operating for years before they apply for legal organizational status (often because they're a for-profit and they start making taxable money, or because they're a non-profit and want to start paying people taxable wages).

I appreciate that you may have some casual experience with boards, but no, your definitions here are unnecessarily convoluted. The "founding board members" of a board are the those who were members of the board when the board was initially formed. It's a straightforward definition.

You also seem to be arguing that a "founding member" and a "founding board member" are the same thing. That is an unnecessary complication. Defining someone as a founding board member is a specific definition related to the formation of a board; who was key in an organization seeking incorporation or part of a 'founding' group is irrelevant to the concept of a founding board member.

In that sense, the discussion of whether Rosebud was either a founding member or a founding board member is relevant. If I recall correctly, the podcast defined her as an 8 month recent volunteer/employee, and JD as a 6 year veteran of podcasting for the foundation.

[SaturdaysVoyeur]

A "founding board member" doesn't necessarily mean the person was among the first generation of board members. Often they are among the first, but that's not the only way the term is used. Once incorporated (non-profit or for-profit), a company's board usually starts with the minimum allowed in that state and grows over time. So....when do you start counting who was "first"?

See what I mean? Is the "first board" exclusively comprised of people who were on the board up until the very first person quits that board? Usually not, but that would be literally the "first board." Anybody coming on after at least one person has quit is now a "second generation" board member. But the term isn't usually used like.

A "founding member" usually means the person had some significant influence on the bylaws or in developing the organizational mission. So they're usually around in the company's earliest days, but they may not actually be on the literal first generation of board members. They could have had a hand in the bylaws or mission, and then joined the board later and they would still be considered a "founding member."

"Founding member" can also refer to someone who was key when the organization sought formal incorporation. A loosely knit group may be operating for years before they apply for legal organizational status (often because they're a for-profit and they start making taxable money, or because they're a non-profit and want to start paying people taxable wages).

I appreciate that you may have some casual experience with boards, but no, your definitions here are unnecessarily convoluted. The "founding board members" of a board are the those who were members of the board when the board was initially formed. It's a straightforward definition.

You also seem to be arguing that a "founding member" and a "founding board member" are the same thing. That is an unnecessary complication. Defining someone as a founding board member is a specific definition related to the formation of a board; who was key in an organization seeking incorporation or part of a 'founding' group is irrelevant to the concept of a founding board member.

In that sense, the discussion of whether Rosebud was either a founding member or a founding board member is relevant. If I recall correctly, the podcast defined her as an 8 month recent volunteer/employee, and John Dehlin as a 6 year veteran of podcasting for the foundation.

Well....no, I used all real-life examples. I know of organizations that use "founding board member" in all of the ways that I mentioned. "Founding board member" is quite commonly conferred on someone who helped to write the bylaws or mission, but didn't actually join the board at the initial point of the board's formation.

There's no legal definition of the term, or any legal repercussions for its misuse, in any state as far as I'm aware. That's why I called it an honorary title. (I know of one non-profit that defined "founding board member" in their bylaws, and then gave those members certain perks, which was legal, but....oh, crap, do not do that. It epically blew up in their faces.)

Yes, I was using "founding board member" and "founding member" interchangeably, because I think the meaning is quite clear from context. But if that's somehow unclear to anyone, I'll be sure to use all three words. (Er..."members" in the second to the last sentence above refers to "founding board members"....I don't really need to spell this out, do I?)

In any case, I don't think we can either hang nor praise Dehlin based on either piece of information.

[jpatterson]

The only context that really matters for the sake of this discussion is the context in which John used the term:

He screwed around with a subordinate.

Period.

Full stop.

- Doc

Doc and Lem,

This is John.

How is it “that simple” if we were both board members from the beginning? Of course it was terrible judgement on both our parts. And of course I had more influence, as I had been doing Mormon Stories for 6 years previous. And of course extramarital affairs are bad. And of course co-workers should not get romantically involved.

But we were both board members from the beginning, and the only two employees. Rosebud even acknowledged this. She wasn’t my subordinate. We both worked for the board. And Rosebud worked directly with Joanna.

Messy? Yes. Dumb? Absolutely.

But a “simple” boss/subordinate role? That’s just not accurate.

We were both founding board members. And Rosebud was a FOUNDING board member BEFORE she came to work part time.

Clearly he's using "founding" board member it as a line of defense against the "subordinate" argument that gets in him ethical hot water.

If Rosebud was a "founding" member in the sense of her and John having started the organization together, on equal footing, he would have a point. But she wasn't a founding member in that sense. At best, she was an "early" board member who joined after Open Stories Foundation had been going for at least a year. It's still not entirely clear when exactly she joined the board, but there's no way it was before the March 2011 NYC conference, which was a solid year after Open Stories Foundation was incorporated (Feb of 2010, according to the Arizona Corporation Commission). From a purely technical standpoint, John was the founding, member, after which he was advised that he should have a few more board members if he wanted to be involved in tax-exempt transactions, which is when Jacqueline McArthur, Ryan Millecam, Elizabeth Calvert Smith and Ashley Merbeck were brought on (in Oct/Nov of 2010).

This all belies the fact that we have John multiple times talking about how he didn't give two craps about who was on the board anyway, because he called the shots. He says this in various ways and at various times.

So his argument is not only demonstrably false, it's obviously disingenuous. So we're left with the question: why would he want to go out of his way to make Rosebud's position into something it wasn't?

[SaturdaysVoyeur]

The only context that really matters for the sake of this discussion is the context in which John used the term:

Doc and Lem,

This is John.

How is it “that simple” if we were both board members from the beginning? Of course it was terrible judgement on both our parts. And of course I had more influence, as I had been doing Mormon Stories for 6 years previous. And of course extramarital affairs are bad. And of course co-workers should not get romantically involved.

But we were both board members from the beginning, and the only two employees. Rosebud even acknowledged this. She wasn’t my subordinate. We both worked for the board. And Rosebud worked directly with Joanna.

Messy? Yes. Dumb? Absolutely.

But a “simple” boss/subordinate role? That’s just not accurate.

We were both founding board members. And Rosebud was a FOUNDING board member BEFORE she came to work part time.

Clearly he's using "founding" board member it as a line of defense against the "subordinate" argument that gets in him ethical hot water.

If Rosebud was a "founding" member in the sense of her and John having started the organization together, on equal footing, he would have a point. But she wasn't a founding member in that sense. At best, she was an "early" board member who joined after Open Stories Foundation had been going for at least a year. It's still not entirely clear when exactly she joined the board, but there's no way it was before the March 2011 NYC conference, which was a solid year after Open Stories Foundation was incorporated (Feb of 2010, according to the Arizona Corporation Commission). From a purely technical standpoint, John was the founding, member, after which he was advised that he should have a few more board members if he wanted to be involved in tax-exempt transactions, which is when Jacqueline McArthur, Ryan Millecam, Elizabeth Calvert Smith and Ashley Merbeck were brought on (in Oct/Nov of 2010).

This all belies the fact that we have John multiple times talking about how he didn't give two craps about who was on the board anyway, because he called the shots. He says this in various ways and at various times.

So his argument is not only demonstrably false, it's obviously disingenuous. So we're left with the question: why would he want to go out of his way to make Rosebud's position into something it wasn't?

I remember reading this post of Dehlin's and thinking the same thing I'm thinking in response to yours...yeah, and....so what? I think he was trying to get at the idea that Rosebud was instrumental to the organization around that time, and so therefore, she was not as powerless as she's being made out to be. But it doesn't really matter. Plain ol' non-founding board member is still above CEO within the organization; he still had far more soft power than she did; and it's still not illegal to screw your boss. I have no idea what point he was trying to make in that post. His attempts to defend himself are invariably a mess.

You know Rosebud; why not just ASK her when she joined the board? She ought to know, so why all the sleuthing? Just ask her. She would know better than anyone around here would. 501(c)3 board members are public information, so there shouldn't be any trouble corroborating her information. I don't find it at all hard to believe that she joined the board in 2010, and then she would appear on the 990s filed in 2011. Just because she wasn't otherwise very involved with operations yet doesn't mean anything. Board members often are not involved beyond (usually) being expected to donate financially. Ideally, they would know more about the organizational mission than that, but they don't necessarily.

Most or all of the information you're looking for should be public. If you want to pursue this, you don't need anonymous posts on this board from people who don't know anything about Open Stories Foundation's finances and operations. You need to gather up all the public information about Open Stories Foundation and have a tax attorney or an employment law attorney review it. You may be able to request an audit in one or more of the states where Open Stories Foundation is registered to engage in charitable activities and collect donations.

Is that really what's best for her though? You're possibly the only person among the usual cast of characters who actually cares more about Rosebud as a person than about using her as merely an object to take out John Dehlin. I certainly don't believe any of the others give a damn about her at all. Does she really need any more of being used and discarded? She is self-harming; get her some help!

There are avenues for investigating a non-profit if you really want to pursue that, far more than there are for investigating a private company. But at least make that secondary to being her friend first.

[Lem]

"Founding board member" is quite commonly conferred on someone who helped to write the bylaws or mission, but didn't actually join the board at the initial point of the board's formation.

No, it’s not.

There's no legal definition of the term, or any legal repercussions for its misuse, in any state as far as I'm aware. That's why I called it an honorary title. (I know of one non-profit that defined "founding board member" in their bylaws, and then gave those members certain perks, which was legal, but....oh, crap, do not do that. It epically blew up in their faces.)

Interesting. I’d be curious to read those bylaws and see what went wrong. But again, there is a straightforward definition of the term, maybe misusing it caused problems, or maybe the writing into the bylaws of “perks.”

Also...

Board members often are not involved beyond (usually) being expected to donate financially. Ideally, they would know more about the organizational mission than that, but they don't necessarily.

This is incorrect. I’m beginning to think you don’t really understand what being a board member for a 501c3 entails, as well as what is required to disclose about a board on 990s.

[jpatterson]

Board members often are not involved beyond (usually) being expected to donate financially. Ideally, they would know more about the organizational mission than that, but they don't necessarily.

This is incorrect. I’m beginning to think you don’t really understand what being a board member for a 501c3 entails, as well as what is required to disclose about a board on 990s.

Thank you for saying it before I had to. I've grown rather weary of people spouting off all sorts of nonsense about how non-profits do and should function.

I'm going on 17 years of experience working with and for non-profit organizations both small and as big as they come. What you're describing, Saturdays Voyeur, is absolutely not standard practice at successful, ethical non-profits. Board members understand the mission and are engaged in high-level discussions across all aspects of the organization, including finances, policies, development, governing, etc.

What has happened over the years at Open Stories Foundation is not normal. It's got all the hallmarks of dysfunction and an environment ripe for self-dealing, and I'm not just talking about the Rosebud drama. I've said it before and I'll repeat: JD has no business having access to tax-exempt donations.

Also, if I were you, SV, I wouldn't waste my time making all sorts of assumptions about what do and don't discuss with Rosebud. Plenty of others have made the same mistake here. Stick to the issues presented and avoid going off on tangents about things you have no clue about.

[SaturdaysVoyeur]

**studiously ignores Tavares like a person who's screeching in the library**

"Founding board member" is quite commonly conferred on someone who helped to write the bylaws or mission, but didn't actually join the board at the initial point of the board's formation.
No, it’s not.

Ok, so point me to the legal definition then. Where is it? Who enforces it? What are the repercussions for misapplying it? I'm all ears.

Interesting. I’d be curious to read those bylaws and see what went wrong. But again, there is a straightforward definition of the term, maybe misusing it caused problems, or maybe the writing into the bylaws of “perks.”

Oh, yes...you really would enjoy that very much...it is a total shitshow in the most hilarious way....

Don't read too much into the word "perks," though. I'm being intentionally vague because I'm not at liberty to identify this organization, and this might (possibly?) be something that could identify them. They weren't giving the board hookers and blow or anything.

The point is that the organization wrote its own definition of "founding board member" into their bylaws. This was fully accepted by their chartering state. So, again, there's no a standard definition of "founding board member;" they were allowed to define it themselves.

And there's really nothing wrong with their definition, per se. It's just that they....oh, how should I phrase this?....they added some additional functions to the role of "founding board member" as defined in their bylaws. And, oh, I do wish I could tell you what happened. That part is not particularly relevant to the point. It's just hilarious.

The point is that they wrote their own definition. Their chartering state accepted both that they could do so, and accepted their definition of what constituted a "founding board member."

The "perks"----or a better phrase would really be "additional functions"----that accompanied the role of founding of board member? Well.....just imagine, say, Tavares and James P being locked in a room together forever.... The result was kinda like that for everyone involved.

This is incorrect. I’m beginning to think you don’t really understand what being a board member for a 501c3 entails, as well as what is required to disclose about a board on 990s.

Gotta say I'm feeling the same way here....so, you don't think that CEOs typically have a non-voting seat on the board, or that board members are routinely expected to donate to the organization? These are pretty standard things. They're not laws. But they are quite common.

[Lem]

**studiously ignores Tavares like a person who's screeching in the library**

"Founding board member" is quite commonly conferred on someone who helped to write the bylaws or mission, but didn't actually join the board at the initial point of the board's formation.

No, it’s not.

Ok, so point me to the legal definition then. Where is it? Who enforces it? What are the repercussions for misapplying it? I'm all ears.

Interesting. I’d be curious to read those bylaws and see what went wrong. But again, there is a straightforward definition of the term, maybe misusing it caused problems, or maybe the writing into the bylaws of “perks.”

Oh, yes...you really would enjoy that very much...it is a total shitshow in the most hilarious way....

Don't read too much into the word "perks," though. I'm being intentionally vague because I'm not at liberty to identify this organization, and this might (possibly?) be something that could identify them. They weren't giving the board hookers and blow or anything.

The point is that the organization wrote its own definition of "founding board member" into their bylaws. This was fully accepted by their chartering state. So, again, there's no a standard definition of "founding board member;" they were allowed to define it themselves.

And there's really nothing wrong with their definition, per se. It's just that they....oh, how should I phrase this?....they added some additional functions to the role of "founding board member" as defined in their bylaws. And, oh, I do wish I could tell you what happened. That part is not particularly relevant to the point. It's just hilarious.

The point is that they wrote their own definition. Their chartering state accepted both that they could do so, and accepted their definition of what constituted a "founding board member."

The "perks"----or a better phrase would really be "additional functions"----that accompanied the role of founding of board member? Well.....just imagine, say, Tavares and James P being locked in a room together forever.... The result was kinda like that for everyone involved.

This is incorrect. I’m beginning to think you don’t really understand what being a board member for a 501c3 entails, as well as what is required to disclose about a board on 990s.

Gotta say I'm feeling the same way here....so, you don't think that CEOs typically have a non-voting seat on the board, or that board members are routinely expected to donate to the organization? These are pretty standard things. They're not laws. But they are quite common.

Your anecdotes are very .... interesting.