• December 4, 2011

    Esaleaks would like to announce the start of the “Esaleaks Compensation Project” in which the salaries, qualifications, and performance of Esalen managers and executives is discussed. What are they being paid today, and is it commensurate with what they’re doing and what Esalen needs? Could people with better qualifications and greater resonance with Esalen history, teachings, and spirit be hired at similar salaries? Who are they? How well are the “executive team” (CEO and HR Director) performing in the context of the Institute’s goals of supporting personal and social transformation, and how does their relationship impact hiring?

    As the project proceeds, we invite thoughts about these questions, current compensation data, and many new questions being asked.

    We begin with a sampling of top salaries from Esalen’s 2009 IRS Form 990 Part VII, graciously provided by an anonymous contributor.

    Is the Board willing to admit having learned anything from the tragic and costly tenures of Harry Feinberg and David Patterson? If not, how does this bode for Esalen’s ability to evolve a successful hiring process?

    Our contributor notes:

    Please be aware that the Form 990 filing only requires disclosure of salaries for officers, board members, key employees & “highly compensated employees” (as defined by IRS). Hence, the whole tier of directors now in place at Esalen doesn’t appear here. And, I believe (I have no accurate numbers to back this up) that their compensation currently falls in th $60K-$80K range.

3 Responses to Highly compensated

  • Anonymous says:

    As the wages shown are “reportable compensation” (W2/1099) they are not necessarily total compensation since they do not reflect pretax deductions such as contributions to Eslaen’s 403b retirement plan (up to $16,500 in 2009) and IRA accounts or expense account costs (in addition to travel and hotels, think of any restaurant meal where Esalen is mentioned in conversation as being eligible to be charged as an expense, books, subscriptions and anything else that can be rationalized).

  • Anonymous says:

    The situation of “directorship” is much worse than in 2009. In addition to Gordon, Nancy and Tricia we now have directors of:

    1. Human Resources
    2. Financial Services
    3. Guest Services
    4. Operations
    5. Residential Education
    6. “Advancement”
    7. Programs (with Nancy Lunney-Wheeler as an additional, compensated, “Executive Director”)
    8. Marketing

    Each of these positions is paid from $60-$130K and carries from one to three assistants.

  • Anonymous says:

    The above is incorrect. Scott Stillinger is the Director or Human Resources and Education. So, that would make Eric Moya the Director of Residential Education, which, I suppose, is “under” Education, so we have one Director subordinate to another. Huh???? I’d like to know which is higher than which between Advancement and Marketing, since these roles also overlap. Advancement, as I understand it, includes what would traditionally be known as “Development” (which is fundraising), as well as aspects of PR, Marketing, and…Branding! And, why the FUCK do we have a Director of Financial Services instead of a CFO??? Who are we “serving” financially? We ain’t a bank. There are only two accurate titles I can imagine to describe this position, and they are: “Director of Financial Stuff” and “Someone Who Is Like a CFO, Except Without Any Actual Power Over Financial Decision Making.” I am so glad Esalen is at the forefront of corporate experimentation. We can show the business world how to make puppets out of their executives and hover excitingly near the red.