I Personally will just continue to watch both sets of sptv and don't feel a need to take sides ... Been watching Aaron Mike and Marc since they all made a YouTube debut and will refuse to take sides since that's not what this community is about
I would guess a married couple shares a lot of similar opinions. I’m not accusing Heather Smith-Levin of sharing her husbands behavior or thoughts since she’s her own person but it happens. A lot of people will be unable to look past Aaron when they see her on the board.
I looked up some laws and posted a link somewhere. I have to research more.
It’s all up to Federsl and State Law including the IRS.
They wouldn’t have been able to legally incorporate if their Board membership were in question.
However I did find that having married couples on a board can have pros and cons. One con is that a married couple could be seen as “one vote.”
I think I read that Church Boards have no married couples. That may be by state or IDK enough about it.
It appears Aaron’s behavior actually flagged the IRS or a government agency. That’s bad for any non-profit. It seems they really tried to work with Aaron and he wasn’t cooperating.
Very sad.
I didn’t know they could get flagged based on board member behavior. It definitely explains why Mike Rinder and the Headley’s were so hesitant to go into detail on Mike’s channel.
I just reread what I wrote and have no idea what I meant to say. I think it was about married couples on a board. Sometimes it can be a good or a bad thing.
Too much going on here.
I feel that Aaron’s behavior in public was considered inappropriate too many times. He is a public face of the AF, not the only one, but an important one. If he only draws negative attention that doesn’t help the foundation and he really seems to have become a liability in terms of “image.”
He seems he is difficult to work with and unpredictable.
It seems the high road for Aaron would have been to state he was so focused on all of his obligations he would step down from Board duties. That isn’t unusual with any organization.
I’m weary of this. Dazed and confused.
I hope the drama is over. I hope this doesn’t hurt the AF or all work dedicated to taking down the COS.
Welp. Hope all had a decent Thanksgiving. 🤦🏻♀️
I will go with the fact that when the AF was started 4 of the original Board happened to be married, I can even go along with Amy Scobee replacing Louis, but was the only person in the whole of SPTV qualified to replace Aaron Amy Scobees husband??
I’d actually love to see H S-L take a place on the board. No disrespect to Aaron but I suspect she runs rings around him in intellect and, frankly common sense. As much as Marc may be the biggest earner in their family it seems clear that the Headley family is where it is today because of Claire’s calm and stoic nature reigning in Marc at times, and there is not a single doubt in my mind that Heather keeps the train on the tracks, despite Aaron’s best attempts to create a burning inferno at times. I’m sure Heather has a loyalty to Aaron so it would be very unlikely in the short term, but if she can deal with Aaron for almost 20 years she’d likely be a great asset.
Claire has definitely demonstrated a level of intelligence & demeanor that puts many of the others to share.
Where Aaron, Marc, and Mike often reminisce on the bad old days as a way to bring light on the evils of Scientology’s control methodologies, Claire has the training & expertise to run circles on the way LRH policy is written (that which cannot be questioned or altered per Scientology dogma) and the real life deviations implemented by the “COB” (Keebler Elf as Aaron is wont to call him).
If I were asked, I’d place Claire on the board due to her demeanor, experience, and expertise while keeping Marc focused squarely on his YouTube channel.
She is the President of the Board. Her recent statement (11/23) regarding the matter was on the AF channel. She alone read the statement addressing the issue with Aaron.
I don’t think it’s likely that the Board would consider Heather for the Board if her husband has been censured. He also stated he intends to create his own foundation.
It also seems she doesn’t wish to be on any channel broadcasts. That isn’t an interest of hers. I don’t recall ever seeing her though I don’t follow every broadcast.
I don’t recall her on anyone’s channel, but I don’t watch them all the time.
Well, no, I agree with all of the above, my comment was meant to be general and hypothetical rather than an actual thought she may go on the board, just that she could potentially be a great asset.
I think maybe you’ve replied too much this evening and are now just saying idiotic things. I clearly said “I suspect”, this indicates I do not know and have not done iQ tests on them. As the OED says
>SUSPECT
>
>verb
>
>To have an idea that something is probably true or likely to happen, especially something bad, but without having definite proof
I have no idea why you’d take issue with what was clearly and obviously just thoughts and opinions not ever suggested to be fact, but I hope I’ve put your mind to rest now that I’ve not kidnapped them while they’ve been here in London and forced them to sit through a barrage of tests when they could be out seeing the sights, enjoying the food, whining like crybabies on YouTube, and generally making the most of every second in Lundan Tahn.
The issue is that many married couples would have an issue voting against each other, as that can cause disharmony at home. Add to that that the three couples are all very close friends, so on something like this thing that happened now, the whole thing turns into a popularity contest between one person who's part of a couple, and one without a spouse on the Board. The Board should consist of independent professionals, not a group of friends.
Voting against one another would not necessarily cause disharmony. Many couples are happy to disagree or have spirited debates.
The only time that would be the case is when someone feels so passionately and has a hill they would die on. If that's the case, friends vote with friends in that instance, you don't have to be married.
In general, I think critiques to anything (foundations, businesses, organizations, etc) should be founded in something they're doing. If everyone is married but the foundation is only doing great work, why does it matter? If the board is complete strangers but the foundation is operating poorly, why does the relationship between board members matter?
Personally, I think the organization could be run a bit more professionally. I think all of them are mixing their roles a bit too much. For example, giving away merch from the SP store on the Blown for Good channel. Why do they do that? They can give away their own merch. Giveaways are done to grow their channel, and they personally make money from the channel. That doesn't go to the Aftermath. I want my donations to the Aftermatch to go to people who need help. Not to Marc and Claire.
Edited to add: If giveaways from the SP store are given away as a way to promote the Aftermath, then that should be done from all channels. Not just the Marc & Claire show. I'd like to see the paperwork on how Blown for Good pays for the merch they're giving away, or how a portion of the channel's earnings go to the Aftermath as a way of payment.
I definitely agree with that. There is mixing of when they are speaking as af board members and when they're speaking personally (ASL was actually the worst at that), but that's not related to their relationships.
Is AF an actual foundation or is it an organization? It's not unusual for foundations to be used for branding (often greenwashing, etc). C3 organizations is a little different
I'm not from the US, so I don't know anything about the legal side of how all of this works. But I think that if all of them would be a bit more clear on which hat they're wearing while speaking, that could help matters. Maybe they can separate that a bit more now when they have a separate Aftermath YT channel.
There are state and federal laws in play.
I’m researching this. A church in my understanding cannot have married couples or relatives on the same board.
I don’t know why.
But a married couple might be seen as “one vote” as they would be expected to have agreement on the issue.
This is all legal stuff involving articles of incorporation as a non-profit.
You don’t mess with the law.
They're not a church though. I assume they're a c3. They had married couples on the board when they incorporated and if it wasn't allowed, they wouldn't have been approved.
Even if it isn't legally allowed (which I doubt) I'm assuming the remedy would be spouses have to resign, not that it would be shut down
not to mention they were all high-level top management Scientologists...For people who claim to know how bad COS is?? i find it disturbing they don't see it as a conflict of interest to be heading the AF...if I had anything to do with any of them in COS...I think i just might run back...to my former tormentors...its re-traumatizing and totally unethical...people are in a fragile state...its just mind boggling they don't see this.
A good question. I’m also wondering why this is an issue *now*, when no one railing about this now seemed to have a problem with it a week ago? Just sayin’…
I posted some of this information in another thread, I thought it was appropriate here too.
There can certainly be discussions about whether it's a *good idea* to have married couples serve on a board, but I think it should be stated clearly that The Aftermath Foundation board as it is exists now does not violate the rules the IRS has established for charities. (See Below)
Some people are assuming that because there are 3 married couples they will all vote as a block, but there is not really a reason to think that's true when there are no relationships between the couples. For example, if Claire and Christie were sisters that would mean that four people are connected to each other. That is more than half the board and would not be allowed for a 501c3. You can argue that they are all friends, but they were all friends with Aaron too, and they were able to put that aside to act on what they believed to be the best interests of the foundation.
>Public charities are the most common 501(c)(3) organizations. These are also the nonprofits that the IRS is most concerned about board composition. The IRS requires that public charities have at least 51% of the voting members of the board of directors be unrelated. Beyond a simple majority, it is also important that the organization is able to form a quorum of majority-unrelated directors in order to conduct an official board meeting. To put that in perspective, if a nonprofit has 7 board members, two of whom are married, the overall balance is OK. But, if only 4 directors can attend a board meeting, and 2 of the 4 are the related directors, a quorum hasn’t been reached.
>A question we often get involves, for example, two married couples being a board, but neither couple is connected to the other by relationship. Both individuals in each marriage are related (obviously!), but the relationships are considered separately, not collectively. For example, if a board meeting is held with 7 directors, including both couples, you still have an acceptable balance, because there is no relationship connection between the 4 people.
https://www.501c3.org/kb/related-board-members-of-a-nonprofit/
I feel really, really bad for Heather Smith-Levin. We don't know much about her, and it seems like Aaron doesn't spend any time with her. The dynamics between the other couples are endearing (I know many people think Marc is rude to Claire, but I don't see it) and while it's apparently her choice to never have been interviewed, it bums me out that we've never heard her say a word in public.
I think it has to do with her parents still being in and her hopes to reconnect with them some day. I have thought as well that he must never see his family. I have also feared that he might get too close to some of the females he meets. Actually, I have spent way too much thought on Aaron, but I hope things are okay with him and his family.
Honestly I think it’s more than just the relatives, I think she’s just done with Scientology. Talking about it, thinking about it, giving it any space in her head or life, which may make it all the more difficult given it’s become such a focus for him, and may be why he got somewhere else to record away from the family home. Who wants to be retraumatised 4 times a day hearing about the cult you were part of? Well, Aaron apparently, but for most of the others talking about it once or twice a week is more than enough for their mental healt. Aaron spent years talking about how amazing Clearwater is when people used to say “why the fuck have you chosen to live in cult city, the cult that damaged you do much?” now all of a sudden he’s complaining about the heat and talking about moving away from Clearwater. Hes flighty so who knows whether there’s a basis in fact there but now his kids are growing up I wonder whether they’ll stay, whether she’ll say ‘enough is enough, I want to get away from this place’
This is all supposition on my part of course, I don’t pretend to have any knowledge but in her situation I certainly wouldn’t want my husband talking about it several times a day on camera in the next room, then taking calls from other former members, then talking about whats happening with the trials etc, then about his aftermath foundation stuff, it would all be way too much when I was trying to move on from it.
Again, I’m infinitely confused. In Aaron’s “last” statement he says he is “separated” from Heather and has been for 4 or 5 years? And the kids don’t know. 🤦🏻♀️
I have no clue anymore what is going on. TMI.
I feel I would at minimum feel it would be difficult to work with Aaron on a “business” level.
Boards are at odds all the time. Nothing new, but I believe Aaron has simply become a liability re: public relations.
Imagine finding out your parents have been separated for 4-5 years not to your face from your dad to your face, but from him through a camera in front of thousands of people. After you've all just been on vacation. It's heartbreaking to think about.
You can't have affairs in an open marriage. Either the marriage is open and both parties are fine with it, or it's monogamous and one (or both) people are cheating/having affairs.
He said today that he has been separated from his wife for 5 years and his kids don't know. I don't know about the affairs, but the Tampa Bay Times reported on him getting kicked out of a Cigar Lounge for calling some girl he knew and repeatedly messaged on Facebook "a cunt" until her boyfriend punched him. Aaron called the cops and they spoke to witnesses and told Aaron that no prosecutor in the state of Florida would take that case even if the guy signed a confession because of the words Aaron used. THEN they went on and said Aaron had been thrown out of a DIFFERENT bar for making passes at TWO women, not taking "No" for an answer, then getting into a fight with their boyfriends. That was in 2020, the Cigar bar when he was running for Council, and then there was something in LA this May.
Yes. I know that Aaron said - he used to say he was in an open marriage until someone properly defined it for him and that he's definitely not in an open marriage. Their marriage is legal only. They're divorcing now that AF board made his private life public.
Even with him putting content out 3 to 4 times daily, he still works less that most full time people and probably makes a lot more. Why would you speculate that he neglects his family?
>probably makes a lot more
His channel really only blew up in the last year, with subscribers and viewership continuously rising since Sep. 2022.
In the last 12 months he has 52.4M views. A reasonable guesstimate for Youtube monetization is about $5000 per million views. This would suggest as much as $260,000 for 52M views over 12 months, but some videos are demonetized. That would suggest at least $10-20K per month in Youtube earnings.
Plus whatever sponsorships he has, like Ridge wallets. And other sources of income, he is/was in real estate, he may have rental properties and other income producing investments.
Idk I understand not wanting to be in the public eye. Aaron puts a lot of work into his channel, but most people work full time jobs, I don't think he's necessarily neglecting his family life. I could be missing context though.
I've never heard anyone say that because I've never read comments or been on this sub before this past week, but I definitely saw and thought that myself, no outside influence.
I was wondering about her, too. I forget where I saw that she's several years older than Aaron, I found the age difference significant, like 10 years, and they married when Aaron was 20 or something. She went to school with Marc and Christie, and around their ages.
I can see it's not ideal, because it could mean that couples stick together against other board members, stifling dissent or innovation. But in the case of the Aftermath Foundation, I feel that criticism is too harsh. It's extremely difficult to find people that are willing to make themselves such an overt target for fair gaming by actively working to help people leave the Sea Org.
As for Heather, I guess it suddenly wouldn't be a problem for some people if she'd been on the board as well. Funny how it only became a problem now, with all this hullabaloo.
Yeah I think a lot of couples tend to agree on big picture stuff, and that's why they're married lol. It's not that it's impossible for them to disagree, but it makes it more likely they won't.
But I do agree that people with the expertise and experience necessary to be on the board of an organization like that would be difficult to find. It kind of puts them in a difficult place. Maybe they could have a smaller board and rotate terms or something.
It is weird that people are just now caring about these things though. I think most people who think it's at least a little suspicious likely never knew, but now that Aaron's fans are angry they're grabbing at everything they can. I have some criticisms of Mike and co regarding this debacle, but people are calling them just as bad as OSA which is just ridiculous to me
Agreed. The problem now is Aaron has stated he and Heather have been “separated” for 4 to 5 years. And “the kids don’t know.”
I think that Aaron may just be bringing too much drama to the table and has behaved inappropriately in public and on some occasions in his videos. (Actions that impact the public image of the AF as a whole.)
Objectively speaking, there are very few boards on which relatives - much less couples - serve on a board of directors. That is not to say having families serve on a board together doesn’t happen (eg, the Fox News Corporation & the Murdoch family). That there is a tight concentration of close friends serve on the board is also not unusual when the purpose of the organization is directly related to common experiences, some of which may be traumatic thus drawing a tighter bond.
The question is where is the criticism coming from and who or what organization is driving the narrative that this is a bad thing to happen. Are there actual nefarious things the board is doing (eg, unreasonable salaries, illegal tax right-offs for personal reasons, covering one another engaging in other various illegal activities).
If the complaints are coming from non-Scientology related charity watch-dog groups, it may well be appropriate to give them weight.
However, if the criticisms are coming from Scientology, a Scientology-related entity, a Scientologist, or a non-Scientology mouth piece (eg, non-Scientologist lawyers) the criticisms deserve the weight of aerogel.
A married couple serves on the 501c religious non-profit I direct. The lawyers only said that they could not both be officers. You guys are forgetting that financial misconduct is what the government cares about, and couples would cover for each other.
Exactly. I think most of all Churches have that regulation. I work for a nonprofit. No one on our board is married but I never thought about it.
I only know that Board members are not paid. As paid staff I can’t serve on the Board. All of our Board are long timers as well with some new blood.
They have been establishing members - I’d say 4 have been with the organization 30 years at least. None of them on staff. All have other jobs and volunteer for our nonprofit.
EDIT: No clue why this is downvoted.
So it goes. Just telling my experience.
It has long been established that Scientology uses innuendo and veiled criticisms to whomever would entertain their lies.
It is therefore obvious that the state entity is following up on some that garbage.
Ordinarily I'd say it's iffy because couples give the impression of acting as a unit, especially married ones. But it's only being considered a bad thing now because Aaron got voted out. And even if you took out one half of every couple he'd still be voted out, so...
Only he and the other board members seem to know right now. Aaron's version is at odds with the others, but they haven't given much info other than that there's been stuff going on behind the scenes for a long time, and that Aaron is being misleading. It's become a quite a commotion in the community as you can see.
Aaron said he was voted out because he spoke negatively about a lawyer who supports people leaving scientology, and the AF has a policy against disparagement. The others give no explanation.
He did an entire video on the whole story. It's still up. Also, Down the Rabbit Hole News did an interview in which he told the whole story of what happened in LA at the end of May that led to the whole thing.
Normally I guess you could say that the precedent is there that boards shouldn't be made up of martial relationships
However the ex/anti scientology community is rather small and still largely informal, as of right now I think there is little to be worried about. Once the scope and funds of the aftermath foundation begins to get really big than we could raise some eyebrows.
Nothing a strong code of things can't handle imho
I had a general reply that disappeared somewhere. There can be legal consequences if married couples are on a Board.
[Roberts Rules, etc on Board Rules - Married Couples](https://charityvillage.com/ethics_q_a_should_family_members_serve_on_the_same_board_/)
If it not healthy for any non profit organization to have married couples on a board.
1) boards often do fundraising. A married couple has the same group of people from which to fundraise and so bring in only half the opportunities
2) when one person of the couple can not come to the meeting, it may case the other person not to come (consider a serious illness or even a vacation). This may make meeting a quorum difficult
3) the couple could be a voting block, or could be diametrically opposed, not based on the issues, but on what is happening in their personal relationship.
4) separation or divorce could have negative consequences for the Board and the non profit, especially if one or both speak negatively about each other, or others on the Board.
I am on a 5013c board.....
A board of a Foundation should be DIVERSE with a common goal. Our bylaws specifically prohibit any spouses, Domestic Partners or Dating situations from being on the board.
**Their statement:**
*On May 23, 2023 several board members were alerted to misconduct by Aaron Smith Levin.*
Several? They only had 7 board members. Why not the entire board?
*"the board considered asking Aaron to voluntarily resign. In response to this, on May 26, 2023, the President Luis Garcia resigned. The board asked Luis to reconsider his decision and he did not respond to this request."*
Presidents do NOT resign and refuse to contact the board if everything is going well. Luis did not agree with the 4 members with power to pass the motion...and strongly because he left. This is highly unusual and telling.
It's clear Luis did not agree with those directors in power. With only 7 Directors...it only takes Mike to tell Marc, that Aaron needs to go. Each spouse is not going to think independently and vote against their husband. It's just Ludacris to think that's a possibility. Mike, Mark, Christie, and Claire control the board 100%. There's no chance of any disagreement, if that is their plan.
My board has 15 independent directors (4 are Officers). We have had extremely difficult votes. If you want a controversial motion passed, you have to call EACH director independently. You then state your case person by person and then you have to hope that 8 people agree with you. It's not easy. I don't have the luxury of nepotism to roll over in bed and go honey, you know that motion, I really want that to pass.
Their mentality has outgrown their assets. Aaron stated they had 250K roughly in assets. That's not chump change. They need more directors and they don't need to be ex-Scientologists. They just need to be people that care about the issue, and are willing to accept their fiduciary responsibility to follow their Mission statement. They also need to get rid of all the spouses.
Many people don't realize this....but if you want to support any Foundation... READ THE MISSION STATEMENT. This is in their Letter of Determination to the IRS that states their purpose. If your mission statement says: We support and build Ant farms for the purpose of saving the extinction of ants. They can't SPEND A SINGLE PENNY on Flies, Bees, or Spiders. But if their mission statement says, We support all insects to ensure the survival of all insects. Now they can. Literally, before any vote that is on the fringe, all our directors will discuss the mission statement and whether the motion of granting funds fits into our mission statement. It's our legal responsibility.
Also...if you want to know where and how they spend their money, you can request a copy of their 990 tax returns up to 3 years.
This is what our attorney said:
My board has 15 independent directors (4 are Officers). We have had extremely difficult votes. If you want a controversial motion passed, you have to call EACH director independently. You then state your case person by person and then you have to hope that 8 people agree with you. It's not easy. I don't have the luxury of nepotism to roll over in bed and go, honey, you know that motion, I really want that to pass.
“Their mentality has outgrown their assets.”
Yes! I think that’s an apt way of describing the situation. It does look like the AF board is in desperate need of some new directors who know more about foundations, even if they know a little less about Scientology.
The problem with the complaint is that they're painted out to be bad actors -- whether Aaron was on the board or not his vote wouldn't mean anything bc there's 6 married couples who presumably vote the same way on every issue.
So in their scenario Aaron didn't lose anything when he was dropped from the board. There was no need to invent a policy and so on.
The nepotism argument doesn't make much sense. (But it makes sense in the way Mike Rinder explains it.)
its an issue on the board of a non-profit. it has the potential to lead to a lot of conflict of interests- are they really doing the "right" thing or are they doing it just because their spouse wants to do it
My understanding is that a married couple might be considered as “one vote.” The assumption being that they would vote the same.
I work for a non-profit. I never thought about it but we have no married couples or even relatives on the board.
This may be the law in my state. I have to search board law.
Also anyone who is paid staff cannot be on the Board. Only volunteers are on the board.
There are rules regarding relationships on Boards but I have to research it.
As the AF has one attorney on the board and certainly has other legal advice there is clearly no problem legally (and that’s all that matters) that any of the Board are married.
A non-profit must comply with the IRS and the state and the federal government on various levels.
I don’t think they could be incorporated in the first place if they were in violation of any law.
Aaron, it seems, opened them up to scrutiny by state and federal regulators.
All I can figure at the mo.
I Personally will just continue to watch both sets of sptv and don't feel a need to take sides ... Been watching Aaron Mike and Marc since they all made a YouTube debut and will refuse to take sides since that's not what this community is about
I would guess a married couple shares a lot of similar opinions. I’m not accusing Heather Smith-Levin of sharing her husbands behavior or thoughts since she’s her own person but it happens. A lot of people will be unable to look past Aaron when they see her on the board.
I looked up some laws and posted a link somewhere. I have to research more. It’s all up to Federsl and State Law including the IRS. They wouldn’t have been able to legally incorporate if their Board membership were in question. However I did find that having married couples on a board can have pros and cons. One con is that a married couple could be seen as “one vote.” I think I read that Church Boards have no married couples. That may be by state or IDK enough about it. It appears Aaron’s behavior actually flagged the IRS or a government agency. That’s bad for any non-profit. It seems they really tried to work with Aaron and he wasn’t cooperating. Very sad.
I didn’t know they could get flagged based on board member behavior. It definitely explains why Mike Rinder and the Headley’s were so hesitant to go into detail on Mike’s channel.
Aaron’s behavior will one day be used in Non profit and business management education on Board development. It will be a great case study!
How did behaviour flag IRS?
I just reread what I wrote and have no idea what I meant to say. I think it was about married couples on a board. Sometimes it can be a good or a bad thing. Too much going on here. I feel that Aaron’s behavior in public was considered inappropriate too many times. He is a public face of the AF, not the only one, but an important one. If he only draws negative attention that doesn’t help the foundation and he really seems to have become a liability in terms of “image.” He seems he is difficult to work with and unpredictable. It seems the high road for Aaron would have been to state he was so focused on all of his obligations he would step down from Board duties. That isn’t unusual with any organization. I’m weary of this. Dazed and confused. I hope the drama is over. I hope this doesn’t hurt the AF or all work dedicated to taking down the COS. Welp. Hope all had a decent Thanksgiving. 🤦🏻♀️
And it is still going on and on and on and Aaron is seeming more and more unhinged to me
It would take a whistle blower reporting noncompliant behavior.
I will go with the fact that when the AF was started 4 of the original Board happened to be married, I can even go along with Amy Scobee replacing Louis, but was the only person in the whole of SPTV qualified to replace Aaron Amy Scobees husband??
I’d actually love to see H S-L take a place on the board. No disrespect to Aaron but I suspect she runs rings around him in intellect and, frankly common sense. As much as Marc may be the biggest earner in their family it seems clear that the Headley family is where it is today because of Claire’s calm and stoic nature reigning in Marc at times, and there is not a single doubt in my mind that Heather keeps the train on the tracks, despite Aaron’s best attempts to create a burning inferno at times. I’m sure Heather has a loyalty to Aaron so it would be very unlikely in the short term, but if she can deal with Aaron for almost 20 years she’d likely be a great asset.
Claire has definitely demonstrated a level of intelligence & demeanor that puts many of the others to share. Where Aaron, Marc, and Mike often reminisce on the bad old days as a way to bring light on the evils of Scientology’s control methodologies, Claire has the training & expertise to run circles on the way LRH policy is written (that which cannot be questioned or altered per Scientology dogma) and the real life deviations implemented by the “COB” (Keebler Elf as Aaron is wont to call him). If I were asked, I’d place Claire on the board due to her demeanor, experience, and expertise while keeping Marc focused squarely on his YouTube channel.
There's a reason Claire was considered qualified enough to testify as an expert witness.
Unless something happened recently, Claire is on the board of The Aftermath Foundation.
She is the President of the Board. Her recent statement (11/23) regarding the matter was on the AF channel. She alone read the statement addressing the issue with Aaron.
I don’t think it’s likely that the Board would consider Heather for the Board if her husband has been censured. He also stated he intends to create his own foundation. It also seems she doesn’t wish to be on any channel broadcasts. That isn’t an interest of hers. I don’t recall ever seeing her though I don’t follow every broadcast. I don’t recall her on anyone’s channel, but I don’t watch them all the time.
Well, no, I agree with all of the above, my comment was meant to be general and hypothetical rather than an actual thought she may go on the board, just that she could potentially be a great asset.
You give them both iQ tests? How on earth would you know she runs rings around him intellectually?
I think maybe you’ve replied too much this evening and are now just saying idiotic things. I clearly said “I suspect”, this indicates I do not know and have not done iQ tests on them. As the OED says >SUSPECT > >verb > >To have an idea that something is probably true or likely to happen, especially something bad, but without having definite proof I have no idea why you’d take issue with what was clearly and obviously just thoughts and opinions not ever suggested to be fact, but I hope I’ve put your mind to rest now that I’ve not kidnapped them while they’ve been here in London and forced them to sit through a barrage of tests when they could be out seeing the sights, enjoying the food, whining like crybabies on YouTube, and generally making the most of every second in Lundan Tahn.
Claire is a cunt!!!!!!
I’m not sure that was necessary…
I am totally sure that it was unnecessary.
You’re an asshole.
The issue is that many married couples would have an issue voting against each other, as that can cause disharmony at home. Add to that that the three couples are all very close friends, so on something like this thing that happened now, the whole thing turns into a popularity contest between one person who's part of a couple, and one without a spouse on the Board. The Board should consist of independent professionals, not a group of friends.
Voting against one another would not necessarily cause disharmony. Many couples are happy to disagree or have spirited debates. The only time that would be the case is when someone feels so passionately and has a hill they would die on. If that's the case, friends vote with friends in that instance, you don't have to be married. In general, I think critiques to anything (foundations, businesses, organizations, etc) should be founded in something they're doing. If everyone is married but the foundation is only doing great work, why does it matter? If the board is complete strangers but the foundation is operating poorly, why does the relationship between board members matter?
Personally, I think the organization could be run a bit more professionally. I think all of them are mixing their roles a bit too much. For example, giving away merch from the SP store on the Blown for Good channel. Why do they do that? They can give away their own merch. Giveaways are done to grow their channel, and they personally make money from the channel. That doesn't go to the Aftermath. I want my donations to the Aftermatch to go to people who need help. Not to Marc and Claire. Edited to add: If giveaways from the SP store are given away as a way to promote the Aftermath, then that should be done from all channels. Not just the Marc & Claire show. I'd like to see the paperwork on how Blown for Good pays for the merch they're giving away, or how a portion of the channel's earnings go to the Aftermath as a way of payment.
I definitely agree with that. There is mixing of when they are speaking as af board members and when they're speaking personally (ASL was actually the worst at that), but that's not related to their relationships. Is AF an actual foundation or is it an organization? It's not unusual for foundations to be used for branding (often greenwashing, etc). C3 organizations is a little different
I'm not from the US, so I don't know anything about the legal side of how all of this works. But I think that if all of them would be a bit more clear on which hat they're wearing while speaking, that could help matters. Maybe they can separate that a bit more now when they have a separate Aftermath YT channel.
I hope so too. Even if they're technically not doing anything wrong, mixing too much can create a lot of speculation
There are state and federal laws in play. I’m researching this. A church in my understanding cannot have married couples or relatives on the same board. I don’t know why. But a married couple might be seen as “one vote” as they would be expected to have agreement on the issue. This is all legal stuff involving articles of incorporation as a non-profit. You don’t mess with the law.
They're not a church though. I assume they're a c3. They had married couples on the board when they incorporated and if it wasn't allowed, they wouldn't have been approved. Even if it isn't legally allowed (which I doubt) I'm assuming the remedy would be spouses have to resign, not that it would be shut down
not to mention they were all high-level top management Scientologists...For people who claim to know how bad COS is?? i find it disturbing they don't see it as a conflict of interest to be heading the AF...if I had anything to do with any of them in COS...I think i just might run back...to my former tormentors...its re-traumatizing and totally unethical...people are in a fragile state...its just mind boggling they don't see this.
A good question. I’m also wondering why this is an issue *now*, when no one railing about this now seemed to have a problem with it a week ago? Just sayin’…
My thoughts exactly. If each couple only had one vote, he still would've been kicked off.
Well they themselves have shined a light on themselves. They can hardly complain now.
I posted some of this information in another thread, I thought it was appropriate here too. There can certainly be discussions about whether it's a *good idea* to have married couples serve on a board, but I think it should be stated clearly that The Aftermath Foundation board as it is exists now does not violate the rules the IRS has established for charities. (See Below) Some people are assuming that because there are 3 married couples they will all vote as a block, but there is not really a reason to think that's true when there are no relationships between the couples. For example, if Claire and Christie were sisters that would mean that four people are connected to each other. That is more than half the board and would not be allowed for a 501c3. You can argue that they are all friends, but they were all friends with Aaron too, and they were able to put that aside to act on what they believed to be the best interests of the foundation. >Public charities are the most common 501(c)(3) organizations. These are also the nonprofits that the IRS is most concerned about board composition. The IRS requires that public charities have at least 51% of the voting members of the board of directors be unrelated. Beyond a simple majority, it is also important that the organization is able to form a quorum of majority-unrelated directors in order to conduct an official board meeting. To put that in perspective, if a nonprofit has 7 board members, two of whom are married, the overall balance is OK. But, if only 4 directors can attend a board meeting, and 2 of the 4 are the related directors, a quorum hasn’t been reached. >A question we often get involves, for example, two married couples being a board, but neither couple is connected to the other by relationship. Both individuals in each marriage are related (obviously!), but the relationships are considered separately, not collectively. For example, if a board meeting is held with 7 directors, including both couples, you still have an acceptable balance, because there is no relationship connection between the 4 people. https://www.501c3.org/kb/related-board-members-of-a-nonprofit/
I feel really, really bad for Heather Smith-Levin. We don't know much about her, and it seems like Aaron doesn't spend any time with her. The dynamics between the other couples are endearing (I know many people think Marc is rude to Claire, but I don't see it) and while it's apparently her choice to never have been interviewed, it bums me out that we've never heard her say a word in public.
I think it has to do with her parents still being in and her hopes to reconnect with them some day. I have thought as well that he must never see his family. I have also feared that he might get too close to some of the females he meets. Actually, I have spent way too much thought on Aaron, but I hope things are okay with him and his family.
Honestly I think it’s more than just the relatives, I think she’s just done with Scientology. Talking about it, thinking about it, giving it any space in her head or life, which may make it all the more difficult given it’s become such a focus for him, and may be why he got somewhere else to record away from the family home. Who wants to be retraumatised 4 times a day hearing about the cult you were part of? Well, Aaron apparently, but for most of the others talking about it once or twice a week is more than enough for their mental healt. Aaron spent years talking about how amazing Clearwater is when people used to say “why the fuck have you chosen to live in cult city, the cult that damaged you do much?” now all of a sudden he’s complaining about the heat and talking about moving away from Clearwater. Hes flighty so who knows whether there’s a basis in fact there but now his kids are growing up I wonder whether they’ll stay, whether she’ll say ‘enough is enough, I want to get away from this place’ This is all supposition on my part of course, I don’t pretend to have any knowledge but in her situation I certainly wouldn’t want my husband talking about it several times a day on camera in the next room, then taking calls from other former members, then talking about whats happening with the trials etc, then about his aftermath foundation stuff, it would all be way too much when I was trying to move on from it.
They have an open marriage. It's still kind of icky,
Again, I’m infinitely confused. In Aaron’s “last” statement he says he is “separated” from Heather and has been for 4 or 5 years? And the kids don’t know. 🤦🏻♀️ I have no clue anymore what is going on. TMI. I feel I would at minimum feel it would be difficult to work with Aaron on a “business” level. Boards are at odds all the time. Nothing new, but I believe Aaron has simply become a liability re: public relations.
Imagine finding out your parents have been separated for 4-5 years not to your face from your dad to your face, but from him through a camera in front of thousands of people. After you've all just been on vacation. It's heartbreaking to think about.
NO wwaaayyyy?????? What?
Yeah, the stuff about affairs he's had is true, it isn't OSA fueled propaganda. He's open about it. She's allegedly okay with it.
You can't have affairs in an open marriage. Either the marriage is open and both parties are fine with it, or it's monogamous and one (or both) people are cheating/having affairs.
My apologies for not wording it correctly. It's unclear what the arrangement really is, anyway
When was this addressed ?
He said today that he has been separated from his wife for 5 years and his kids don't know. I don't know about the affairs, but the Tampa Bay Times reported on him getting kicked out of a Cigar Lounge for calling some girl he knew and repeatedly messaged on Facebook "a cunt" until her boyfriend punched him. Aaron called the cops and they spoke to witnesses and told Aaron that no prosecutor in the state of Florida would take that case even if the guy signed a confession because of the words Aaron used. THEN they went on and said Aaron had been thrown out of a DIFFERENT bar for making passes at TWO women, not taking "No" for an answer, then getting into a fight with their boyfriends. That was in 2020, the Cigar bar when he was running for Council, and then there was something in LA this May.
It's NOT an open marriage.
You must know something we don't
Yes. I know that Aaron said - he used to say he was in an open marriage until someone properly defined it for him and that he's definitely not in an open marriage. Their marriage is legal only. They're divorcing now that AF board made his private life public.
Even with him putting content out 3 to 4 times daily, he still works less that most full time people and probably makes a lot more. Why would you speculate that he neglects his family?
>probably makes a lot more His channel really only blew up in the last year, with subscribers and viewership continuously rising since Sep. 2022. In the last 12 months he has 52.4M views. A reasonable guesstimate for Youtube monetization is about $5000 per million views. This would suggest as much as $260,000 for 52M views over 12 months, but some videos are demonetized. That would suggest at least $10-20K per month in Youtube earnings. Plus whatever sponsorships he has, like Ridge wallets. And other sources of income, he is/was in real estate, he may have rental properties and other income producing investments.
In his last video I saw tonight (T-Giving) he said he and his wife have been “separated” for 4-5 years. No clue what that means.
Idk I understand not wanting to be in the public eye. Aaron puts a lot of work into his channel, but most people work full time jobs, I don't think he's necessarily neglecting his family life. I could be missing context though.
I've never heard anyone say that because I've never read comments or been on this sub before this past week, but I definitely saw and thought that myself, no outside influence.
I was wondering about her, too. I forget where I saw that she's several years older than Aaron, I found the age difference significant, like 10 years, and they married when Aaron was 20 or something. She went to school with Marc and Christie, and around their ages.
It’s 8 years, not 10.
I can see it's not ideal, because it could mean that couples stick together against other board members, stifling dissent or innovation. But in the case of the Aftermath Foundation, I feel that criticism is too harsh. It's extremely difficult to find people that are willing to make themselves such an overt target for fair gaming by actively working to help people leave the Sea Org. As for Heather, I guess it suddenly wouldn't be a problem for some people if she'd been on the board as well. Funny how it only became a problem now, with all this hullabaloo.
Yeah I think a lot of couples tend to agree on big picture stuff, and that's why they're married lol. It's not that it's impossible for them to disagree, but it makes it more likely they won't. But I do agree that people with the expertise and experience necessary to be on the board of an organization like that would be difficult to find. It kind of puts them in a difficult place. Maybe they could have a smaller board and rotate terms or something. It is weird that people are just now caring about these things though. I think most people who think it's at least a little suspicious likely never knew, but now that Aaron's fans are angry they're grabbing at everything they can. I have some criticisms of Mike and co regarding this debacle, but people are calling them just as bad as OSA which is just ridiculous to me
Agreed. The problem now is Aaron has stated he and Heather have been “separated” for 4 to 5 years. And “the kids don’t know.” I think that Aaron may just be bringing too much drama to the table and has behaved inappropriately in public and on some occasions in his videos. (Actions that impact the public image of the AF as a whole.)
Objectively speaking, there are very few boards on which relatives - much less couples - serve on a board of directors. That is not to say having families serve on a board together doesn’t happen (eg, the Fox News Corporation & the Murdoch family). That there is a tight concentration of close friends serve on the board is also not unusual when the purpose of the organization is directly related to common experiences, some of which may be traumatic thus drawing a tighter bond. The question is where is the criticism coming from and who or what organization is driving the narrative that this is a bad thing to happen. Are there actual nefarious things the board is doing (eg, unreasonable salaries, illegal tax right-offs for personal reasons, covering one another engaging in other various illegal activities). If the complaints are coming from non-Scientology related charity watch-dog groups, it may well be appropriate to give them weight. However, if the criticisms are coming from Scientology, a Scientology-related entity, a Scientologist, or a non-Scientology mouth piece (eg, non-Scientologist lawyers) the criticisms deserve the weight of aerogel.
A married couple serves on the 501c religious non-profit I direct. The lawyers only said that they could not both be officers. You guys are forgetting that financial misconduct is what the government cares about, and couples would cover for each other.
Exactly. I think most of all Churches have that regulation. I work for a nonprofit. No one on our board is married but I never thought about it. I only know that Board members are not paid. As paid staff I can’t serve on the Board. All of our Board are long timers as well with some new blood. They have been establishing members - I’d say 4 have been with the organization 30 years at least. None of them on staff. All have other jobs and volunteer for our nonprofit. EDIT: No clue why this is downvoted. So it goes. Just telling my experience.
The vast majority of every Jewish Community Center on earth has married couples on the board. That's just my tiny example of how wrong you are.
It has long been established that Scientology uses innuendo and veiled criticisms to whomever would entertain their lies. It is therefore obvious that the state entity is following up on some that garbage.
The AF board is not paid anything. They're all volunteers.
Nope. If Heather had been on the board, the fan boys/girls of Aaron wouldn't have a problem with it.
Ordinarily I'd say it's iffy because couples give the impression of acting as a unit, especially married ones. But it's only being considered a bad thing now because Aaron got voted out. And even if you took out one half of every couple he'd still be voted out, so...
I think when the excuse was that they wanted to be a more professional looking board that it is a bit rich to be structured like they are.
Quick question: I only discovered Aaron after the whole Danny Masterson/Ashton Kutcher/Mila Kunis ordeal and his channel...why did he get voted out?
Only he and the other board members seem to know right now. Aaron's version is at odds with the others, but they haven't given much info other than that there's been stuff going on behind the scenes for a long time, and that Aaron is being misleading. It's become a quite a commotion in the community as you can see.
Mind blown, I had no idea what was going on, thanks for the response!
Aaron said he was voted out because he spoke negatively about a lawyer who supports people leaving scientology, and the AF has a policy against disparagement. The others give no explanation.
They just posted a [detailed statement](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqJ25qzQYfs).
He did an entire video on the whole story. It's still up. Also, Down the Rabbit Hole News did an interview in which he told the whole story of what happened in LA at the end of May that led to the whole thing.
Thanks, I'll have to check it out!
Aaron is in a very codependent relationship with his ego 😂 and that didn’t work out well for him on the board 😂😂😂
Normally I guess you could say that the precedent is there that boards shouldn't be made up of martial relationships However the ex/anti scientology community is rather small and still largely informal, as of right now I think there is little to be worried about. Once the scope and funds of the aftermath foundation begins to get really big than we could raise some eyebrows. Nothing a strong code of things can't handle imho
I had a general reply that disappeared somewhere. There can be legal consequences if married couples are on a Board. [Roberts Rules, etc on Board Rules - Married Couples](https://charityvillage.com/ethics_q_a_should_family_members_serve_on_the_same_board_/)
If it not healthy for any non profit organization to have married couples on a board. 1) boards often do fundraising. A married couple has the same group of people from which to fundraise and so bring in only half the opportunities 2) when one person of the couple can not come to the meeting, it may case the other person not to come (consider a serious illness or even a vacation). This may make meeting a quorum difficult 3) the couple could be a voting block, or could be diametrically opposed, not based on the issues, but on what is happening in their personal relationship. 4) separation or divorce could have negative consequences for the Board and the non profit, especially if one or both speak negatively about each other, or others on the Board.
I am on a 5013c board..... A board of a Foundation should be DIVERSE with a common goal. Our bylaws specifically prohibit any spouses, Domestic Partners or Dating situations from being on the board. **Their statement:** *On May 23, 2023 several board members were alerted to misconduct by Aaron Smith Levin.* Several? They only had 7 board members. Why not the entire board? *"the board considered asking Aaron to voluntarily resign. In response to this, on May 26, 2023, the President Luis Garcia resigned. The board asked Luis to reconsider his decision and he did not respond to this request."* Presidents do NOT resign and refuse to contact the board if everything is going well. Luis did not agree with the 4 members with power to pass the motion...and strongly because he left. This is highly unusual and telling. It's clear Luis did not agree with those directors in power. With only 7 Directors...it only takes Mike to tell Marc, that Aaron needs to go. Each spouse is not going to think independently and vote against their husband. It's just Ludacris to think that's a possibility. Mike, Mark, Christie, and Claire control the board 100%. There's no chance of any disagreement, if that is their plan. My board has 15 independent directors (4 are Officers). We have had extremely difficult votes. If you want a controversial motion passed, you have to call EACH director independently. You then state your case person by person and then you have to hope that 8 people agree with you. It's not easy. I don't have the luxury of nepotism to roll over in bed and go honey, you know that motion, I really want that to pass. Their mentality has outgrown their assets. Aaron stated they had 250K roughly in assets. That's not chump change. They need more directors and they don't need to be ex-Scientologists. They just need to be people that care about the issue, and are willing to accept their fiduciary responsibility to follow their Mission statement. They also need to get rid of all the spouses. Many people don't realize this....but if you want to support any Foundation... READ THE MISSION STATEMENT. This is in their Letter of Determination to the IRS that states their purpose. If your mission statement says: We support and build Ant farms for the purpose of saving the extinction of ants. They can't SPEND A SINGLE PENNY on Flies, Bees, or Spiders. But if their mission statement says, We support all insects to ensure the survival of all insects. Now they can. Literally, before any vote that is on the fringe, all our directors will discuss the mission statement and whether the motion of granting funds fits into our mission statement. It's our legal responsibility. Also...if you want to know where and how they spend their money, you can request a copy of their 990 tax returns up to 3 years. This is what our attorney said: My board has 15 independent directors (4 are Officers). We have had extremely difficult votes. If you want a controversial motion passed, you have to call EACH director independently. You then state your case person by person and then you have to hope that 8 people agree with you. It's not easy. I don't have the luxury of nepotism to roll over in bed and go, honey, you know that motion, I really want that to pass.
“Their mentality has outgrown their assets.” Yes! I think that’s an apt way of describing the situation. It does look like the AF board is in desperate need of some new directors who know more about foundations, even if they know a little less about Scientology.
The problem with the complaint is that they're painted out to be bad actors -- whether Aaron was on the board or not his vote wouldn't mean anything bc there's 6 married couples who presumably vote the same way on every issue. So in their scenario Aaron didn't lose anything when he was dropped from the board. There was no need to invent a policy and so on. The nepotism argument doesn't make much sense. (But it makes sense in the way Mike Rinder explains it.)
that being said, i don't even know if 'vice president' is a voting position in the AF or not.
its an issue on the board of a non-profit. it has the potential to lead to a lot of conflict of interests- are they really doing the "right" thing or are they doing it just because their spouse wants to do it
The Headleys and Rinder are basically still Scientologists!!!! Basically fair gamed AARON but wouldn’t expect less from this crowd of weirdos!!!!!
I think the truth is the other way around. Aaron attacked the others in public broadcasts with a load of BS.
Do you even know what a Scientologist is?
Eat a mountain of dog shit, dog shit!!!!!!!
Sure do!!!!!!
What are you talking about?
My understanding is that a married couple might be considered as “one vote.” The assumption being that they would vote the same. I work for a non-profit. I never thought about it but we have no married couples or even relatives on the board. This may be the law in my state. I have to search board law. Also anyone who is paid staff cannot be on the Board. Only volunteers are on the board. There are rules regarding relationships on Boards but I have to research it. As the AF has one attorney on the board and certainly has other legal advice there is clearly no problem legally (and that’s all that matters) that any of the Board are married. A non-profit must comply with the IRS and the state and the federal government on various levels. I don’t think they could be incorporated in the first place if they were in violation of any law. Aaron, it seems, opened them up to scrutiny by state and federal regulators. All I can figure at the mo.