So which is it? John petitioned the board to hire her? Or they asked his permission to put it to a vote?
I trust you can read. I linked the email so you can do so for yourself.
John decided to hire her. Went to the board for the rubber stamp. He set her salary. Board chair got his okay to put it to a vote.
A) Feel free to quote the relevant text here if you want it read. I don't click on download links off message boards. Don't want your VD, bro.
B) Both John and Rosebud say contradictory, self-promoting things in their public and private communications. John said one thing, she said another. So you are left to answer why the board both had to be petitioned to hire her as well as ask John for permission to hold a vote.
Keep in mind, JP, Rosebud claims throughout that her value to Open Stories Foundation was recognized by the board and became a threat to John. She asserts her involvement at Open Stories Foundation included founding the conference and community programs. You assert an email from John is definitive information, then brush past Rosebud's statements and resume claims. You are her champ, so I get why. But it's BS, buddy.
According to Rosebud, the board hired her because she was doing all the work to make the conferences successful and they saw how valuable she was.
News flash for ya, buddy. None of the big corp organizational assumptions work here for a reason. They had an affair, it went bad, people got hurt, but it's not possible for it to be sexual harassment when they were consensually engaging in behaviors that were inappropriate but mutually engaging in a basically non-structured organization like a two-employee NFP.
Do you recall the incident in her interview where she describes the first time they met in a hotel room and he said they couldn't have sex? Where she agreed but said she needed some kind of physical affection from him? Why? Because she was in a bad marriage and saw in John a source for what she desired. He saw in her a source for what he desired. He was apparently conflicted, she wanted out of her marriage. Sorry, bro, but the facts are this wasn't her being groomed, her job wasn't given to her in a quid pro quo, she was a participant in carrying on the most stupid Mormon-y affair possible, and apparently believed the board should have favored her over John to the point she argued even the attempt at equal treatment that the board followed wasn't appropriate.
She asserts being so successful and essential to Open Stories Foundation that the board couldn't imagine Open Stories Foundation functioning without her in one statement, then turns around and argues the board favored John over her because he had all the power and influence.
Please. It was an affair. They were both idiots. But she wasn't mistreated by the board, nor was she sexually harassed.
Comparable salaries? John's salary in 2013 was 17% higher than the 90th percentile of executive salaries for non-profits of Open Stories Foundation's size at the time.
The raise came from Natasha and Dan Wotherspoon, the only other two board members who existed after the Rosebud fiasco. They were both getting paid by John, creating an inurement triangle in which they were all lining each other's pockets.
Do you have evidence that they performed a salary comp in 2013?
My disdain is for mismanagement of tax exempt donations. John's excessive salaries throughout the years are just one of the examples of such.
Okay so I guess that raise I have no evidence. I do know what podcasters with the audience were making at the time and it’s on the low end of the ballpark. I suppose I was mixing it up with the impeachable JP source here:
In terms of your tax law quip, I've spoken with several tax attorneys who confirm that what John has done does violate tax code, but at a level that is so low that the chances of anything ever being done about it are close to zero. If you know how to read between the lines of Open Stories Foundation's financial statements, balance sheets and 990s, you can easily see that somewhere in 2016/2017 someone finally convinced John he needed to get Open Stories Foundation's finances above board by FINALLY instituting an independent compensation committee to decide his salary. Because he was just winging it before.
So JD got a raise that was 17% more than an executive made closer to when Rosebud was out, but again not directly after. Also his raise was still lower than a podcaster makes and so later when a independent compensation committee looked into it they gave him even more salary. You take the same tack as Rosebud, JD is an evil mastermind genius or an idiot incapable of tying his shoes depending on what best fits the argument you are making at the time.
I’ll ask again what does John’s salary have to do one way or the other if he sexually harassed Rosebud?
JP you have stated you work for non-profits. That you live in the DC area. That isn’t cheap living. Are you working for poverty wages or are you a hypocrite?
Also his raise was still lower than a podcaster makes and so later when a independent compensation committee looked into it they gave him even more salary.
What a podcaster makes is irrelevant. John's podcast efforts are done within the context of his non-profit organization, which owns the intellectual property he creates.
John is the ED/CEO of a non-profit. In a non-profit, you can't give away all the profits of the organization to any individual who has either a controlling interest or significant influence over the operations. That's called inurement.
Instead, you must determine a reasonably salary for the executive in question, comparable to salaries of executives of non-profits of similar size and nature.
John wants his cake and to eat it too. He wants to personally financially profit off his podcast's success AND he wants to collect tax exempt donations. You don't get to do both.
I’ll ask again what does John’s salary have to do one way or the other if he sexually harassed Rosebud?
He personally profited off the fallout of the Rosebud affair. He got rid of the large board structure he loathed and brought on two self-interested employees who could all scratch each others' backs financially.
Look at how Open Stories Foundation revenue contracts the same year John gives himself a 60% raise.
Year JD salary Open Stories Foundation revenue
2012 $56,200 $201,694
2013 $89,573 $134,109
2014 $98,813 $152,905
2015 $91,308 $198,136
How exactly does one do that? By getting rid of financial oversight.
That would be a great argument for a for-profit podcast and not for a non-profit that is providing a podcast as a service to society.
If John wanted to do a for-profit podcast, he was welcome to do so and he could have paid himself whatever he wanted and nobody would have cared.
But he chose to create a non-profit and house his podcast within it. He chose to pursue tax-exempt donations. That was his choice.
By making that choice, he has to follow the rules, which include no private inurement. All profits must be poured back into the development of the non-profit. He could have used that money to hold more conferences, hire more podcasters, pay his notoriously underpaid female podcasters more.
But instead, he put a bunch of it back in his own pocket. This is not the way normal non-profits work.
If John wanted to do a for-profit podcast, he was welcome to do so and he could have paid himself whatever he wanted and nobody would have cared.
But he chose to create a non-profit and house his podcast within it. He chose to pursue tax-exempt donations. That was his choice.
By making that choice, he has to follow the rules, which include no private inurement. All profits must be poured back into the development of the non-profit. He could have used that money to hold more conferences, hire more podcasters, pay his notoriously underpaid female podcasters more.
But instead, he put a bunch of it back in his own pocket. This is not the way normal non-profits work.
Can you point to one time that John took from the profits and paid himself from that? Salary is not the same thing as paying out a dividend on profits. If donations increased and they were able to raise his salary that isn't necessarily him just milking Open Stories Foundation for all it is worth. That isn't how accounting or the law works. It's even possible to get a per-download fee as many podcasters in the industry have terms like that. You may find it distasteful, but the law isn't based on your personal preferences.
Can you point to one time that John took from the profits and paid himself from that? Salary is not the same thing as paying out a dividend on profits. If donations increased and they were able to raise his salary that isn't necessarily him just milking Open Stories Foundation for all it is worth. That isn't how accounting or the law works.
The IRS considers excess compensation by interested parties to be personally benefiting off the profits of a non-profit organization.
Any compensation over and above a reasonable salary would be considered excess compensation. John's compensation has regularly exceeded the 90th percentile of executives of his kind, sometimes his salary has been even double that. Double the 90th percentile!
He even got a raise in 2018, the same year the Open Stories Foundation posted a loss.
It's even possible to get a per-download fee as many podcasters in the industry have terms like that. You may find it distasteful, but the law isn't based on your personal preferences.
Again, you're comparing for-profit apples to non-profit oranges.
