In response to a question previously asked, John Dehlin did not ask me to use Rosebud’s real name. Quite the reverse.
John Dehlin has been very concerned that Rosebud may harm herself if the texts and emails were made public.
In fact, only an hour before show time it was John Dehlin who pointed out the texts had Rosebud’s phone number on each one from her and was concerned about this.
This was in the context of my making sure it was okay to link the full documents in the show notes.
I told him it was a good catch and he got busy redacting all of them, getting us the finished document less than half an hour before we went live.
I thought carefully about whether we should use Rosebud’s real name, finally concluding that inasmuch as she had doxxed herself publicly on her own Facebook page for months, there could be no harm in doing so.
It was important to use her real name because of the links to the documents containing her name, but I would have not done so has she not done so first.
I don't think there was anything wrong with you using her name. Everyone else involved was identified by name, and this was essentially a news report on events where the basics had already been publicly reported. Even Rosebud herself has made numerous public Facebook comments about this under her real name.
Dr. Shades made a request here we not use her name, and while it was a polite and kind response to her that of course we will follow given his rules, her identity is certainly not unknown.
This probably Rosebud’s best day, and it’s ask downhill from here. She’s dropped bits and pieces all over the internet. I wonder what the odds are that those bits and pieces are all consistent. It’s clear she didn’t go over the e-mails and texts before she made the recording, so there are going to be inconsistencies there.
And then she got sued over an unrelated franchise agreement and tried to make it about Dehlin? Sounds a little odd. I’m sure the internet sleuth squad will be digging into that one.
And whatever John’s held back on will likely come out, cuz what’s he got to lose now that she’s gone nuclear.
She has a very black and white view of the board members at the time, as if she thinks that anyone who doesn’t associate with John any more is on her side. Or maybe they’re just sick of them both and publicly spill their guts on what a pain in the ass they both were.
Anyway, enjoy your day, Rosebud. You’ve landed on a story that you’re stuck with.
You mean like Russell M. Nelson's aviation story? Are you sure you've checked every relevant database?
(Joke, RI, joke. After the literally hundreds of posts in the Russell M. Nelson thread about assumptions like this, I could NOT resist. Peace. )
She explained at the end. She was counting independent contractors as employees.
OK. So she claims. Where was Open Stories Foundation incorporated? What was the law in that state? Does an independent contractor count toward the number of employees for the purpose of sexual harassment claims?
I mean, ugh, what is the deal with the ever shifting claims stories, dropped claims, revived claims . . . .
The whole thing is frankly exhausting and annoying. Rosebud has worn out so many people's good will along the way. This has all the appearance of a snipe hunt.
I don’t think independent contractors count. I don’t think the state of incorporation matters. She says AZ, but I haven’t looked.
She says she filed this long document in the NH investigation, but she hasn’t been able to find her signed copy. But it should be on her computer. One can file a records request, but under NH law, all the agency has to do is make the records available for inspection and copying. They don’t have to mail them to the requesting party.
So the mystery document is in NH. Not clear whether the NHHRC would treat it as a public record. Even if it did, one would have to go to NH to look at it.
ETA: Open Stories Foundation is an AZ Corp, registered to do business in UT.
Last edited by Res Ipsa on Tue May 04, 2021 7:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.
he/him When I go to sea, don’t fear for me. Fear for the storm.
Jessica Best, Fear for the Storm. From The Strange Case of the Starship Iris.
Although cognitive interviews aim to increase the amount of information reported from an eyewitness, implementing this method of memory-enhancement does not necessarily guarantee accurate information. During the interview process it is not uncommon for an interviewee to succumb to a social desirability bias. This means that the witness alters their story or response in a way that they feel makes their answer more acceptable in the eyes of the interviewer as well as society. A meta-analysis indicates that accuracy is almost identical to standard interviews
I guess I can see why they thought this "cognitive interview" would be persuasive, and maybe they managed to persuade themselves further by employing this tool, but this looks to me to be a much better investigative tool than it is a tool for establishing guilt. In other words, what I want my witnesses and victims of actual crimes to give me is more information, more detail. Sometimes that can be challenging to achieve. The technique looks really helpful for jogging a person's memory. What it does not provide is further accuracy if a witness is motivated to lie for some reason.
As an attorney recently said to me, the most reliable tool for determining the truth is cross examination....
This is an extremely meaningful point, especially here on this board. Rosebud has spent years here, 'documenting her story for future historians', and many of us have first hand knowledge of her extreme unwillingness to answer any questions, provide any details, or elaborate on anything when people brought up inconsistencies. Most of us were willing to listen to her at first, but over time, she lost a lot of credibility.
Of course, that's just a personal response to Rosebud's story, relevant only to us here I would imagine. Based on the documents and the overall story told by all, I still think there was sexual harassment that the Open Stories Foundation board severely mishandled.
IANAL, but I've never seen 1099 people ever counted or considered to be employees in any way by any company I have worked for. An independent contractor can't really be involved in a quid pro quo sexual harassment situation, they have nothing to trade as they have no access to the power structures in an organization. I guess they could be involved in a hostile work environment accusation of sexual harassment, but I have no idea why they would try nor why any employer would put up with that at all, 1099 workers are easily fired.
I suspect this is why the board wanted them to become independent contractors, sexual harassment really becomes an impossiblity, at least as far as Open Stories Foundation would be concerned. I guess they could harass each other all day, but there's no possibility of quid pro quo. Also no real possibility of hostile work environment because independent contractors would define their own work environments and can easily separate themselves from any environment perceived to be hostile.
Good point. This makes the request from Open Stories Foundation that they both quit look even worse, since it was apparently offered as a way of dealing with some type of harassment claim from one of them.
Problem is . . . There was no harassment claim until after the termination letter was issued at the end of August. The harassment claim does not exist as a motive to ask for resignations or to motivate a termination. Rather, it was a consensual affair—by Rosebud’s own account in a text written at the time—that led to the solution of mutual resignation.
We cannot assume there was a sexual harassment claim. A more careful person might have assumed the situation should be dealt with as a technical case of sexual harassment. However, Rosebud and John Dehlin did not approach Joanna Brooks with a claim that there was sexual harassment. It is Rosebud who introduces the counter-argument that there was no wrong done that should lead to resignations in her text exchange with John Dehlin.
We can only really judge what the Joanna and the board did with the understanding that no sexual harassment claim was made until some time after the events of August.
“If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don’t have to worry about the answers.”~Thomas Pynchon, Gravity’s Rainbow
I will add that John Dehlin had absolutely no control over the content of the show, except for the redaction of the phone numbers.
1)Why didn't the podcast announce the theme beforehand? By making the topic a surprised, it reduced the opportunity for interested listeners to listen live and call in.
2) Can you confirm, who prepared the texts between Dehlin and Rosebud? Did you have eyes on the source (phone, etc...) or did Dehlin prepare them for you?
In response to a question previously asked, John Dehlin did not ask me to use Rosebud’s real name. Quite the reverse.
John Dehlin has been very concerned that Rosebud may harm herself if the texts and emails were made public.
In fact, only an hour before show time it was John Dehlin who pointed out the texts had Rosebud’s phone number on each one from her and was concerned about this.
This was in the context of my making sure it was okay to link the full documents in the show notes.
I told him it was a good catch and he got busy redacting all of them, getting us the finished document less than half an hour before we went live.
I thought carefully about whether we should use Rosebud’s real name, finally concluding that inasmuch as she had doxxed herself publicly on her own Facebook page for months, there could be no harm in doing so.
It was important to use her real name because of the links to the documents containing her name, but I would have not done so has she not done so first.
She used a link to her own name on MDB. Didn't anyone see that? Notice it? That's when I first saw her real name.
We only get stronger when we are lifting something that is heavier than what we are used to. ~ KF
)
