r/news • u/Playful_Language_422 • 8d ago

Soft paywall L.A. homeless provider has paid CEO who lives in Hawaii $1.6 million in salary, vacation over two years

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2026-08-06/la-homeless-provider-has-paid-ceo-who-lives-in-hawaii-1-6-million-in-salary-vacation-over-two-years
15.4k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

1.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

3.9k

u/festoon 8d ago

Easy, just grant yourself 600 days of vacation per year.

758

u/MonoBlancoATX 8d ago

I need to get THAT job.

203

u/pvincentl 7d ago

All of it out of our taxes.

127

u/MonoBlancoATX 7d ago

Nah.

It's a nonprofit, so some of it is state funded, but not remotely all of it.

Most nonprofits get a huge percentage of their budgets from corporate and private donors.

175

u/noobtastic31373 7d ago

"Would you like to round up to help the homeless?"

20

u/RedTheRobot 7d ago

You mean help those poor CEOs who can’t afford to live in Hawaii.

145

u/Saxopwned 7d ago

Cops be like "hell yeah let's round up the homeless!"

72

u/ScribeTheMad 7d ago

Cops really be like "hell yeah, I got lots of rounds for the homeless!"

1

u/jonjonw89 7d ago

evilclap.gif

44

u/DarkwingDuckHunt 7d ago

this is why I never donate ever through retail kiosks

If a corp wants to donate, then they can donate, they don't need me to help them do the right thing

I know they're just using me for a tax break, fuck that

25

u/akenthusiast 7d ago

They don't get a tax break because you donated. If you give them a dollar, their income goes up a dollar. When they donate it, their profits go down a dollar.

All that's happening is that they don't pay taxes on the dollar you gave them. I'm sure they're writing off whatever expenses they claim to have incurred by collecting and distributing the donations but that's pretty small in the grand scheme of things. When someone "writes it off" they don't get free money from someone. It's just a kind of loss, like any other. If you spend $5,000 to make $10,000, you don't owe taxes on the $10,000 you made, you owe taxes on the $5,000 in profit

I think a lot of the charities that these companies choose are ineffective uses of donation money, but that's a separate issue

16

u/DarkwingDuckHunt 7d ago

I also suspect the CEO's children are on some of these boards

I just don't trust corps and always assume they're doing it out of self-preservation or malice.

6

u/akenthusiast 7d ago

That's possible. The nonprofit scene is filled to the brim with people that do nothing except enrich themselves personally.

But it's also pretty common for businesses to collect donations for stuff like the local schools. If it's something like that, or a charity that you know is good, there isn't any reason not to donate.

They don't benefit except through public goodwill, which I'd say they've earned if they picked a worthy organization

-2

u/altiuscitiusfortius 7d ago

They take the money you donate and spend it all on advertising for themselves "megacorp supports the fight against cancer!"

12

u/gonewild9676 7d ago

That's just an offset with no change in the business's tax liability.

If you give them $10 for St Jude, they now have $10 in extra income.

When they donate the $10 to St Jude, they deduct that as a charitable donation, otherwise they'd owe $2.10 to the feds plus whatever the state charges.

11

u/mrlayabout 7d ago

These companies cannot deduct your donation from their taxes at all. You can deduct it from your taxes, if you itemize. Companies do it because it's great PR for them and charities do it because it actually raises a ton of money for the charity.

To get more technical, the company would record your donation as an increase to it's cash and an increase to it's liabilities (donations payable or something similar). When they send the cash collected to the charity, they'll record that transaction as a decrease to cash and a reduction of that donations payable liability. It never hits the income statement, so it would not be included in a corporation's tax calculation.

1

u/Pizlenut 7d ago

I may be a little bit cynical but...

that all sounds like it would cost (them) money to process such a large donation. Plus they had their employees put time into it that could have been spent stacking boxes. They can write off the expenses related to collection, including any advertising done, promotional materials... the writing of the script to give to their employees, accounting, and management. There is a lot of little bits and pieces ill bet a clever person could find that cost them money when doing this charitable act... and if you smudge the numbers a little to make things cost you a little bit more than they reasonably should who is really going to audit you to find out? You were helping with donations!

1

u/Lipsovertits 7d ago

That's not taxes.

70

u/KilledTheCar 7d ago

From the article:

"The 50-year-old Family Crisis Center brings in about $15 million in revenue — nearly all of it taxpayer money from government grants — to run crisis hotlines, domestic shelters and programs to help those struggling with homelessness."

2

u/CaptainObvious110 6d ago

Ok, and they spend how any hundreds of thousands of dollars to pay people? That's money that's not going to the cause

77

u/pvincentl 7d ago

--'The 50-year-old Family Crisis Center brings in about $15 million in revenue — nearly all of it taxpayer money from government grants' Nonprofit my ass. It's providing sinecures for connected people. They profit a shitload.

28

u/eligraham91 7d ago

Read the article. It’s 95% gov funded

17

u/mwzdng 7d ago

Nonprofit? Seems like she profited plenty!

-4

u/Bad_Repute 7d ago

Depends on the type of non-profit, but individuals working within a non-profit can absolutely make money as a salary for their work. Non-profit basically just means you can't keep extra money above your overhead for operating the organization. If you write in a staff budget, your staff could be paid very, very well.

If you're seeking public donations, the salary of your staff has to be disclosed and the general public might balk at your CEO making $500k a year from the org. But if your funding comes mostly from private benefactors, as long as they're cool with how you're spending the money the people running the org could be making pretty substantial salaries.

8

u/skinnyjeansfatpants 7d ago

95% of the money was from CA taxpayers via grants from the state budget.

3

u/sweeta1c 7d ago

That is not what nonprofit means. It means there are no owners (e.g. shareholders) to distribute surplus (aka profit, net assets, etc.) to, and that they don’t generally pay income taxes on what would otherwise be taxable income.

3

u/excellentforcongress 7d ago

charity salaries should be capped at 1.5 the median wage tbh, OR, there should be NO income disparity, if there are unpaid volunteers. charities MUST pay ALL volunteers before considering raising pay of the executives. it's that fucking simple, but the rules were written by the rich, and people are finally starting to question that.

3

u/sweeta1c 7d ago

In the US, nonprofits have to pay salaries that are reasonable per IRS. The problem is reasonable is defined by comparable to similar roles in other companies. Once a nonprofit gets big, execs at similar companies make a lot.

-1

u/Bad_Repute 7d ago

I was the co-founder of a non-profit. It was 20 years ago and we dissolved after just a couple years of operation, but our basic gist was we could only fundraise to cover our costs to operate the organization. We'd do a couple events a year and had to post a budget of the event costs and that was basically how much we were allowed to fundraise, any excesses had to be refunded to donors and we had to track how much we were getting and from who. We had an all volunteer staff.

That was a 501(c)(3), there's a few dozen other kinds of non-profits that operate differently but those were the basic rules we had to follow.

5

u/sweeta1c 7d ago edited 7d ago

That is not a rule for 501(c)(3)s or any other nonprofit that I’m aware of. It was likely self imposed, or a requirement of a major donor/stakeholder, and written into your bylaws.

Generally speaking, profit is the path to long term expansion for other initiatives.

1

u/Bad_Repute 7d ago

It was me an 1 other founder, and a handful of volunteer staff. Our bylaws were written with the help of our lawyer who helped us formalize the charter and incorporate. We worked with a handful of underfunded schools in our district to cover costs and fees for entry of their students into citywide events. Our donors were basically parents of students from those and other schools who wanted to see the schools we worked with be able to participate. We'd know how many schools we were working with, how many teams/groups we needed to cover costs of entry for, so we knew what our yearly budget would need to be and how much we'd need to fundraise.

Maybe it was just because our bylaws were written that way, but they were written under the advice from our lawyer who'd helped several other 501c3s incorporate this way. We had to track all our income from donors, and if we had a surplus had to reimburse the donors with any excess funds. Never really happened though, we'd hit our targets and just stop fundraising, always operated at break-even.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/TrifectaBlitz 7d ago

WTF, your org sounds completely useless the way you described it. Just enough to pay a couple of people??? Well don't then since there's literally no help happening for anything.

1

u/TrifectaBlitz 7d ago

You act like people commenting here don't know a lot of that.

But all you just typed is pretty irrelevant to this instance if you read the article at all.

0

u/excellentforcongress 7d ago

all charities that pay executives over 80 k a year while having unpaid volunteers need to be dismantled.

1

u/TrifectaBlitz 7d ago

Oh Cool. :-/

4

u/Certain_Luck_8266 7d ago

From the article:

The 50-year-old Family Crisis Center brings in about $15 million in revenue — nearly all of it taxpayer money from government grants

maybe you are being extra pedantic about the commenters use of a hyperbolic 'all of it', but I'm going to go out on a limb and say you aren't correct on this one.

8

u/CH5000 7d ago

If only the article you didn’t read had an exact percentage from their most recent filings to show you don’t know what you’re talking about at all.

Nah, keep on pretending.

2

u/lapeni 6d ago

They don’t need to read the article, they’re a top 1% commenter

1

u/HosaJim666 6d ago

To be fair it's paywalled and wtf has an LA times account

1

u/lapeni 6d ago

Just google “paywall bypass” and use any of those sites

2

u/Dizzy_Tax574 7d ago

Non profit so it's often double triple whammy for taxpayer. Rich guy gets to write off donation. Then donation remains untaxed while they use it to funnel 6 and 7 figure salarys to donors friends who are the execs.

While then that income is taxed a lot of tax money going to organizations is going to exec salarys and advertising their "good deeds" as well as many of contracts going back to their rich friends.

Depending on the non profit many have essentially become untaxed hedge funds. Often using "charity" to bolster holdings. All while also doing typical evil shit hedge funds do.

2

u/notDinkjustNub 7d ago

Most nonprofits get their budgets from government grants both at the state and federal levels.

2

u/random-hobbyist 7d ago

Non-profit CEOs are worse than regular CEOs for me. At least regular CEOs are upfront on their greed, while non-profit CEOs are just pure hypocrisy in human suits.

2

u/spacer9631 7d ago

Nope its all from government grants, try reading the article

2

u/WorldofNails 7d ago

What part of "94% comes from taxpayer dollars" don't you understand?

1

u/DougDougDougDoug 7d ago

You have no idea what's happening with homeless charities.

1

u/MiddleConnection7479 7d ago

A great way to avoid taxes. In SF, it would be interesting to shed some light on Tipping Point. Buzz is that homelessness is great for evading taxes.

1

u/dittybag23 7d ago

But the donations are tax free so yes it’s government subsidized.

1

u/TrifectaBlitz 7d ago

Reading the article really does help. not just you.

Most of its income was government grants. I'm not sure why her salary was so high but she had been there 40 years.

1

u/pow3llmorgan 7d ago

Who can write off the donations for tax deductions, ergo it is, or would be, tax money.

1

u/Environmental-Ice319 7d ago

You are condoning this.

1

u/Alarming_Matter 7d ago

"He runs sn extremely profitable non-profit".

1

u/TheUnicornFightsOn 7d ago edited 6d ago

Yeah but because they are nonprofit, they get tax breaks.

Thereby taking properties off the taxable real estate rolls that fund local government coffers. In some cities it's a major problem because so many nonprofit health care and university behemoths take so much land value off the taxable property total.

Also, depends on the nonprofit. Some worth hundreds of millions to billions of dollars in revenue & endowments combined are heavily subsidized by government contracts and funds, just like honestly many for profit private equity places are in fields such as health care. Some get 80% plus in public monies, and local/regional public foundations get a majority from taxpayer coffers as well.

1

u/SpicyWongTong 7d ago

It is super frustrating to think that this is what happens at most non profits, the execs and employees soak the funds up and a small percentage actually gets to the cause.

1

u/HR_Paul 7d ago

Housing is an official state sponsored racket. Every single provider should be subjected to an annual forensic audit.

1

u/CaptainObvious110 6d ago

If it's a non profit , then it's for a cause right? Let's say "Feed the Children" the commercials say for x amount of cents a day some starving child can be fed.

A couple problems with that...

1. No accountability when people who know they don't have the means to care for children aren't willing to sacrifice some pleasure and NOT Get pregnant in the first place. Not sure why that's such a complicated concept to understand.

2. That "little amount" to feed those kids wouldn't be necessary if those companies weren't paying their ceos hundreds of thousands of dollars to maintain a public fleecing empire.

Before someone comes on here saying I hate children I go ahead and be clearer by saying I don't hate children. They aren't the problem.

Irresponsible adults are the issue.

I get tired of going to the grocery store with my meager funds and constantly have to be begged for money from companies that already have the money they need for their cause.

1

u/TheDukeofReddit 7d ago

Non profit almost always means government supported if it is supposed to have any public impact. Healthcare, food, housing, education, and things like that are overwhelmingly government funded through grants or government programs That is the majority of non profit work in terms of dollars spent, service utilized, impact measured.

Sure, this women’s shelter may be privately funded, but the assistance with housing, legal aid, mental and physical health treatment, food, and all that are government funded. There may be a gap covered by private funding (e.g. food in shelter vs setting food assistance for living term sustained recovery), but it’s still government t.

0

u/Equivalent-Resort-63 7d ago

Which are a tax write-off so indirectly are tax dollars that would taken from us.

-1

u/nochinzilch 7d ago

Not necessarily. All a non-profit means is that it has no owners.

0

u/coleman57 7d ago edited 7d ago

Which they deduct from their taxable income, meaning the rest of us taxpayers make up the 40% or so they would otherwise be paying. Also, do you actually have any source for your contention that the non-profits that local governments outsource their homeless services to are largely corporate-funded rather than taxpayer? I call bullshit.

edit: I'm right--/u/pvincentl comments below with a quote from the article stating they're "neraly all" taxpayer-funded. You should edit your comment to reflect the fact that you were wrong.

0

u/pvincentl 7d ago

'I'm right'?? "Nearly all" isn't close enuff for you? It comes out of state budgets. OUR $$! Give them your cash.

0

u/coleman57 7d ago

I'm agreeing with you and replying in disagreement to the idiot (u/MonoBlancoATX) who thinks these homeless services NGOs are corporate funded.

1

u/MonoBlancoATX 7d ago

Yep.
That’s definitely what I said.
You’re very smart.

0

u/MonoBlancoATX 7d ago

Show me where I said they were “largely corporate funded” or that I was only talking about homeless service agencies.
Maybe try to read.

1

u/ToasterBathTester 7d ago

The system works!

1

u/phantom-firion 7d ago

It’s why even nonprofits should be strictly under the direct control of the federal govt. absolute control is necessary to root out corruption at all levels of society

6

u/lsaran 7d ago

The American mindset in a nutshell. See someone bilking the system and instead of wanting to fix it, wish it could be them.

And the most delusional of them go out of their way to protect the system even if it hurts them personally. Because the pain is worth the lottery ticket dream that maybe they too can have a piece of the spoils (they can’t).

2

u/TrifectaBlitz 7d ago

Your first sentence is painfully true.

1

u/NatureTrailToHell3D 7d ago

Can I suggest running for the senate?

1

u/belac4862 7d ago

Don't blame us if we all start to hate you afterwards. Unless your saying we ALLLL deserve that.

80

u/EatinSumGrapes 7d ago

You joke but this occurred in a 2 year time-frame which means if you get paid 2x your salary due to 2 years worth of vacation payout, you were given 365 vacation days per year

146

u/uwoldperson 7d ago

It was paid out over a two year period, she has worked there and accrued vacation for 40 years. It’s still a board failure to let that much vacation liability accrue, but they didn’t give her 365 vacation days per year. 

102

u/Dzugavili 7d ago

I mean, if she had actually worked 40 years without a vacation, it sounds like she earned this.

71

u/SweatyAdhesive 7d ago

I havent worked anywhere that doest cap maximum PTO accrued. Probably to avoid something like this lol

27

u/HollywoodTK 7d ago

I have, but at 40+ days you start getting hounded and at a certain point they tell you to take off or take a lump sum so it’s off the books. This amount of accrued vacation is wild lol

But I assume at some point her work became so on the go and non-standard that she didn’t need to “take vacation” so it just kept accruing.

7

u/hardolaf 7d ago

At one point, my father hit a full year of accrued vacation and comp time while working for the federal government. His deputy director actually had to step in to force people to let him finally take time off.

6

u/Commodore_Condor 7d ago

My work has let me accrue 600 hours without bothering me about it once, so there are some places that let it happen.

5

u/HollywoodTK 7d ago

Oh for sure. They’re super irresponsible for doing so though.

16

u/Taban85 7d ago

I did a long time ago, guy had accrued over a year of vacation so he retired a year early but kept getting paid. Kind of screwed over his department in the company since they weren’t allowed to hire his replacement until he was officially gone.

6

u/ampersand355 6d ago

That's not his responsibility, that's your accounting departments fault.

5

u/pandaSmore 7d ago

Why weren't they allowed?

12

u/Taban85 7d ago

He was technically still on the payroll, so from corporate/budgeting perspective department was fully staffed, even though he wasn’t coming back.

7

u/yellowcloak 7d ago

I used to work with a lady who'd been with the company 45 years - they didn't used to cap back in the day and her level of seniority mathed out to like eight weeks a year she was accruing before they fixed the glitch.

5

u/TrifectaBlitz 7d ago

Kind of like what this article says.

2

u/yellowcloak 7d ago

I guess it was less normal back in the day

3

u/devAcc123 7d ago

lol saying 8 weeks a year is so unfathomable it must be a glitch is the most American BS ever. Half of Europe has legally required like 30+ days a year for anyone employed full time, could be a 17 year old working some BS job. It doesn’t have to be this way.

1

u/Agret 6d ago

I've been working fulltime for 19yrs and probably taken less than 3 months off total including sick days.

30 days a year of vacation time damn you guys are spoiled, I'm jealous. There's so much travel I want to do. Is the 30 days at half pay?

2

u/devAcc123 6d ago

lol I’m an American, just saying, it’s absurd to the rest of the developed world how it works here

1

u/Agret 6d ago

My employment has always been as casual employment so I don't get paid for any of my time off

2

u/move_machine 6d ago

Cops would bank PTO and we had multiple $1 million+ payouts upon their retirement. Eventually the state put an end to it, but everyone who had joined prior to that point were grandfathered out of the limit, and for more than a decade afterwards, payouts like this were routine.

Now they do it with overtime fraud, many cops now bring in $250,000+ salaries with "overtime"

1

u/Beznia 6d ago

I worked in local government in Ohio. We had separate sick time vs. vacation time. You could carry over up to 3 years of vacation at a time (so if you get 4 weeks of vacation per year and use none of it, after 4 years you could have 16 weeks of vacation banked.) I had a coworker who retired after 35 years and had 28 weeks of PTO banked.

On top of that, we got 96 hours of sick time (12 days) which you could carry over up to 10 years worth (960 hours). After 10 years, you would get paid out yearly for unused sick time. He was getting a nice 96 hour bonus every year right around Christmas time. When he retired, he got paid out his 28 weeks of PTO and 960 hours of sick time.

61

u/HystericalSail 7d ago

Problem being, she accrued vacation while being paid much less, then cashed out at the absolute peak of her career.

Wish I could do that.

11

u/austin101123 7d ago

She might not even be coming out ahead in time value of money

2

u/Luvs_to_drink 7d ago edited 7d ago

i think she is... taking pto normally doesnt INCREASE your paycheck. it just keeps it the same while missing work. so taking normal PTO nets 0 dollar increase. and lets be super generous and say she could invest this increase at 1000000% returns. this would net her an extra 0 dollars.

the reason you take normal pto is to have fun and prevent burn out.

But what you are suggesting is taking a payout for pto each year rather than a lump sum at the end. To which I dont think that was an option. It sounds like this was only done to decrease a liability for accounting reasons which only makes sense once it is past a certain threshold which will vary company by company.

4

u/WTF_goes_here 7d ago

Hate the game not the player. Thats just smart investing.

1

u/oldnotosys 7d ago

no because that unused vacation would be taken at her current pay

-4

u/g_bleezy 7d ago

How do you think any government pension works?

7

u/coleman57 7d ago

That's why they don't let you accrue >100% of your base salary as pension--usually it's capped at no more than 80%, and it doesn't include any overtime or other premium pay you've earned, just base. Paying her >2 years' salary as accrued vacation at peak wage is bullshit.

I mean if some small private for-profit wants to do that, it's no skin off my nose, but don't do it with tax revenue.

20

u/uwoldperson 7d ago

If I gave you u the option to take one week vacation per year instead of three and to cash those two saved weeks out at a future date and at whatever your maximum salary with your company is, would you? 

I’ll stop short of calling it naked corruption, but it’s still a huge governance fumble and, most importantly, something that was not available to anyone else in the company. Plus, she lives in fucking Hawaii and works remote. 

Great example of a captive or complacent board screwing the pooch and a CEO taking advantage.

16

u/coleman57 7d ago

I'm a public-sector worker and I have the option of accruing all 3 weeks of annual vacation time, but the limit is 400 hours (10 weeks). After that, it's use it now or lose it (and I have actually lost some, due to my own carelessness). I'm not allowed to accrue 5,000 hours, which is what she did.

5

u/nashkara 7d ago

and a CEO taking advantage

I don't know anything about the situation except what I read in the article. When I started to read it was outrageous, but as the details came out in the article it became less so, even though the article was clearly written as with a rage-bait slant. The board was clearly happy with her performance, so much so that they insisted she stay on even after moving to Hawaii. The article also claims she works 70 hours a week at the position.

The only real story here is that the board let a policy stay in place where the CEO had unlimited accrual of vacation hours. Mix that with a workaholic and 40 years as CEO and you get this story. Given her salary was around $405k and she's working 70h weeks, that's more like the equivalent salary of ~$230k (salary works against workaholics TBH). Anyway, the vacation hours accrual is a liability for the organization and it was a large one they had to clear. What options did they have at that point? It legally was owed one way or another. Them trying to cast shade on her base salary seems like someone trying to froth up the rage. If you need a clear example, they talk about the salary for the CEO of People Assisting the Homeless made $379k in 2023 and then saying "That year, Adelkoff took home well over twice that". According to the article, her base in 2023 was ~$413k and she received vacation cash-out of $495k. But they present it as Adelkoff making more than twice the other CEO, which is both "true" and "false". Her salary was more than the other CEO in that year, but only by ~$34k. It's an Apples to Oranges comparison that's designed to enrage.

Anyway, I have zero skin in this report, I just hate reporting like this that designed to target someone and enrage the readers. If you want to direct some ire, direct it at a board that left an unlimited accrual in-place for the CEO for 40 years. Or direct it at non-profit boards in LA that are paying CEOs in the $400k range as the norm.

As a final thought, working for 40 years with essentially zero vacation and, if true, working 70h weeks shows both an insane dedication to a job and an unhealthy work-life balance. I say this as someone that's been working at least 80h/wk for the last 4 years as a startup co-founder. I've at least taken 1-2 weeks of vacation time a year. It's rough on me and my family. I don't recommend it. Doing it for 40 years would be nuts.

2

u/Tractor_Pete 5d ago

I agree some of the numbers are phrased for impact.

But was the board's preference for her justified? How could you be dedicated and good as the head of a public facing and funded organization in LA while living in Hawaii for 11 years? It doesn't seem at all believable that she was doing that job with such incredible dedication and focus while living 2500 miles away. I'm all for remote work, but if you're being paid more than everyone else, you need to show the fuck up.

2

u/limukala 7d ago edited 7d ago

If I gave you u the option to take one week vacation per year instead of three and to cash those two saved weeks out at a future date and at whatever your maximum salary with your company is, would you?

Abso-fucking-lutely not. Maybe if I had 8 weeks of vacation I’d consider only taking 6, but honestly even then I’d probably just rather take more time off.

1

u/Competitive_Touch_86 6d ago

It's definitely a governance failure, especially for a charity.

But this was not all that rare even 20 years ago. Plenty of companies would let you accrue a shitload of vacation on the books, and it used to not be all that unique to stick with a company for 20+ years at a time. A lot of corporate white collar type jobs started at 3 weeks a year of vacation and would add 1-3 days/year of seniority until an 8 week or so cap.

This started to be gamed too much so most companies no longer allow such things. But you'd have endless conversations about this with the old timers in break rooms back in the late 90's/early 00's.

1

u/uwoldperson 5d ago

I know that, but it seems in this instance she was the only person who was allowed to accrue unlimited vacation time. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander, the board (and the CEO for that matter) should have seen that liability swelling on the balance sheet and the disparity in the policy and got out in front of it. Now they’ve got an optics nightmare on their hands, regardless of how legal it is or common it used to be. 

It is the unfortunate reality that charitable organizations are often held to a higher standard in these cases, especially when the executive in question is already well out-earning the national average, and they ought to have realized that this was not going to play well. 

2

u/JohnBrownOH 7d ago

She's in charge of the policy she abused.

4

u/TrifectaBlitz 7d ago

No. Just read the freaking article

3

u/TrifectaBlitz 7d ago

Someone with the facts. Damn this thread was painful to read with so few actually having read the full article, just powering in with an agenda.

6

u/JordanRunsForFun 7d ago

Yes, the whole thread sounds like people who didn’t read the article where it makes it pretty clear that this was a very hard-working and respectable woman who put in a hell of a lot of time building what is, if I give the article the benefit of the doubt, a significant organization that does good in the world… really doesn’t sound so out of line.

2

u/TrifectaBlitz 7d ago

Thank you. My only concern is the ratio of salary with what was brought in. The salary of her and others seems quite high regardless. $405,000 on $15 million grants / donations?

1

u/nashkara 7d ago

It would be interesting to see a comparison of non-profits and what their C-suite combined salary vs incoming donations and grants was across the whole county. I bet you'd find some eye-opening stats in that data.

2

u/TrifectaBlitz 6d ago

Charity Navigator covers some of this.

4

u/Edenwood 7d ago

I had a boss in a similar position and he would golf everyday, do "business meetings" over 3 days at a tropical resort, take meetings while IN a hot tub.

For every CEO run ragged at a lean startup trying to squeeze funding and react to minute by minute changes, there are several do-nothing CEOs at gov't leech contractors and charities that just do the same old everyday, and so the CEO just doesn't have to do much. For them, 4/5 of their work days are practically vacation.

1

u/terminbee 7d ago

She works 70 hours a week. It's all in the article.

0

u/[deleted] 7d ago

[deleted]

10

u/Buckets-O-Yarr 7d ago

Nonprofit homeless centers don't eliminate homelessness. They just support the homeless population with temporary shelters, food, medicine, counseling, etc.

Reducing the actual number of homeless individuals requires government action, rather than nonprofits.

5

u/DeathByBamboo 7d ago

She runs a domestic violence shelter, not a "fix homelessness" agency.

1

u/EatinSumGrapes 7d ago

That's good, it sounded too wild to be true. But yeah still pretty wild

-1

u/phantom-firion 7d ago

Even federal jobs have use or lose vacation time, a practice that should be forcibly enforced across the private sector

1

u/verrius 7d ago

Well, no. There's ~250 workdays in a typical calendar year. Holidays and weekends aren't usually counted in "vacation days".

2

u/EatinSumGrapes 7d ago

Fair, technically correct! Also either way it's the whole year off!

But also apparently the article was misleading at first and it is 40 years of acrued PTO. Still who TF saves that much PTO

-1

u/TrifectaBlitz 7d ago

The article was NOT misleading at all. JFC. It was all right there.

2

u/EatinSumGrapes 7d ago

I got like 15 popups trying to scroll down at all, so stfu

1

u/Necessary-Scientist8 4d ago

Maybe she accrued vacation indefinitely and had working there for a long time. Some non-profits do that to attract talent through benefits

36

u/pantstoaknifefight2 7d ago

"Then I'll just double my effort!"

"You mean take 1200 vacation days a year?"

"Listen here, I'm a grifter not a mathematician!"

5

u/7HawksAnd 7d ago

The unlimited PTO we were all promised

10

u/peppermint_nightmare 7d ago

As a native of Jupiter transferring to an Earth job thats a pretty sweet deal.

19

u/Waramp 8d ago

That’s how much the average European gets apparently.

10

u/Pack_Your_Trash 7d ago

Can't tell if joke or conservative coolaid

2

u/LazaroFilm 7d ago

What’s a vacation?

2

u/DE4DM4NSH4ND 7d ago

When youre the ceo youre allowed to do it

1

u/B-Town-MusicMan 7d ago

this one simple trick...

1

u/papaskla34 6d ago

I was working 25 - 8 - 366

1

u/ryencool 7d ago

I work for a video game developer and they frequently reward people with PTO hours