HRC’s Quarter-Million Dollar Man
Holy crap! Get a load of the compensation that the membership-funded Human Rights Campaign is throwing out to its top executives. Way to go, Joe!
Joe Solmonese, Executive Director
$226,678Cathy Nelson, Development Director
$170,330Cynthia Stachelberg, Legislative Director
$161,936David M. Smith, Policy Director
$160,060Cheryl Jacques, Former Executive Director
$159,916Susanne Salkind, Management Director
$134,482Andrea Green, Treasurer
$124,933Kevin Layton, General Counsel
$118,916Elizabeth Seaton, Legal Director
$111,089Mary Breslauer, Board Member
$103,000Timothy Bahr, Major Gifts
$79,456Mark Shields, Coming Out Project
$77,269Daryl Herrschaft, Workplace Project
$76,181Matthew Bayer, Major Gifts
$72,770
Kudos to Michael Petrelis for doing the research to bring some transparency to the “Hypocrite Rights Campaign.” Although I do disagree with Michael who doesn’t take issue with the amounts. In fact, the HRC cabal’s compensation, for a non-profit, is outrageous!! There are many colleagues of mine in the private sector, that have worked for 20 years in a professional job that don’t have that kind of compensation!
And here are a couple of interesting questions to mull over:
Why on earth does HRC pay their FORMER Executive Director, Cheryl Jacques (oui! oui!) at all, much less close to $160,000? After all, Ms. Cheryl has a law practice for crying out loud.
And the HRC pays their board members?? What kind of a racket is that?!? This is a non-profit, charitable organization.
Hey, I want in on this gay ponzi scheme.
I guess we know which part of John Edwards’ “Two Americas” the HRC staff lives on. All funded by you crazy gay people who give them your money. Not I !
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
43 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
what, bitching about the american way. you a traitor.
Comment by markie — March 27, 2007 @ 2:25 pm - March 27, 2007
oh the little hate monger bitch is back
Comment by Vince P — March 27, 2007 @ 2:30 pm - March 27, 2007
And Vince, he obviously has no explanation for his rants, or even for defending the indefensible HRC.
Typical.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — March 27, 2007 @ 3:13 pm - March 27, 2007
Since when does a liberal ever debate the facts as presented??
Comment by benj — March 27, 2007 @ 3:51 pm - March 27, 2007
I will follow Mr. Petrelis on this one.
First, because the amounts are not that ridiculous for an organization with the theoretical annual “revenue” that HRC has.
Second, because if there’s one conservative principle to which I hold, it’s that if someone is stupid enough to pay you an inordinate amount for what you’re doing, it’s hard to argue that you should say no to it.
That being said, let’s look at a few points.
1. Cheryl Jacques evidently had a termination clause in her contract guaranteeing her a certain portion of income for a certain number of years were she removed before the contract was up and without “cause”.
That is perfectly legal, and not uncommon practice in the corporate world; however, by law, the fact that such an agreement that exists for top officers of public companies must be disclosed, along with its potential long-term liability.
When was HRC planning to tell its members?
2. Paying board members is an incredibly-bad breach of judgment — especially when board members like Breslauer provide HRC with vendor services or consulting. HRC should take immediate steps to remove from its board all individuals with whom it holds contracts, and should not allow board members to transact business with the organization.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 27, 2007 @ 3:57 pm - March 27, 2007
benj: better yet.. when does a liberal ever fucĸing defend this country.
Comment by Vince P — March 27, 2007 @ 4:02 pm - March 27, 2007
Generally I’d have to say I don’t think those amounts are excessive given the cost of living in Washington, D.C.. Personally, I’d rather see them pay the salaries (preferably for qualified, effective people though) than to have spent the ridiculous amount it cost to build that new and completely unnecessary building.
#6 – If you look hard enough, you’ll find a few of us liberals who do.
Comment by Mike — March 27, 2007 @ 4:33 pm - March 27, 2007
Wake up, this kind of pay is pretty common for nonprofits. In fact,
Comment by Dan — March 27, 2007 @ 5:00 pm - March 27, 2007
Don’t use the ‘less than’ sign, got it. Full message follows…
Wake up, this kind of pay is pretty common for nonprofits. In fact, 118k for a GC is downright cheap. Most entry level associates at commercial firms make 120-140k.
Executive-level salaries for non-profit organizations often seem higher than industry norms at first glance. But when you remember that these people don’t receive the bonuses/profit sharing arrangements that their for profit counterparts do, you realize that their net pay is actually much, much less.
You also need to realize that, by DC standards, this kind of pay really isn’t that much. Shit, I’m currently making 95k as a mid-level program manager here in DC and I’d consider myself thoroughly middle class.
Comment by Dan — March 27, 2007 @ 5:07 pm - March 27, 2007
RE: the HRC building. As has been explained in other forums, the HRC has bought their building for the same reason most people buy their homes – because it financially makes more sense than renting. When you factor in the the tax benefits of ownership and the fact that the HRC leases out the top two floors of its building, this arrangement is a financial winner. The money the HRC raised to purchase this building came from a campaign that was totally separate from their normal fundraising attempts. The people who donated money for this building donated it specifically because they wanted the HRC to have their own building. If they wanted to donate it to the general fund, they could have done just that.
Re: paying board members. It’s not as uncommon as you’d think. Those organizations that pay their board members normally have restrictions against receiving professional services from those board members. If the HRC doesn’t have this kind of restriction, then I agree we have a problem. Does anybody know the situation here?
Comment by Dan — March 27, 2007 @ 5:18 pm - March 27, 2007
“Dan” — enough already! We get it… you are an HRC apologist.
Hell… are they PAYING you, too?
Comment by Bruce (GayPatriot) — March 27, 2007 @ 5:30 pm - March 27, 2007
I’m an apologist and you’re a whiner. Whatever. Let’s stick to debating the facts here (instead of this pointless carping).
I’ll admit that the HRC lacks transparency. Thankfully, this seems to be changing (as is evidenced by the fact that you have access to this salary information).
Comment by Dan — March 27, 2007 @ 5:34 pm - March 27, 2007
OK, sorry. I thought you were interested in debating the facts here. If you’re just looking for something to carp about (facts notwithstanding), I’ll move along.
Dan (quotation marks unnecessary)
Comment by Dan — March 27, 2007 @ 5:37 pm - March 27, 2007
Congrats to Dan for trying to make me feel sorry for someone earning $200K+/yr. Poor guy.
Even though I am aware of buyout clauses in contracts (e.g., Cheryl Jacques), where can I apply to be a Former Director of the HRC? I’ll even do it for half of what they’re paying Cheryl!!!!!!!!!!!!
Comment by Tom — March 27, 2007 @ 6:00 pm - March 27, 2007
I’m delighted that HRC is so financially secure that they can indulge in these expenditures. My resources will be re-directed to GLAAD.
Comment by Jack — March 27, 2007 @ 8:25 pm - March 27, 2007
If the HRC doesn’t have this kind of restriction, then I agree we have a problem. Does anybody know the situation here?
They do not. And it is quite common for HRC Board members to be pocketing money from the organization, as well as to be working for other political groups to which HRC is expected to be subservient, such as the DNC.
And Dan, relative to their building, HRC does not need to be located on some of the most expensive real estate in the country. Assuming they even need to be in proximity to DC in the first place, given that the organization is allegedly more focused on the “national” grassroots than it is the DC cocktail circuit, there are plenty of other locations in Virginia and Maryland that are far less expensive.
Furthermore, if it could be explained to me why an organization with a paid staff of 100 or so people needs five stories worth of office space, I’d love to hear it.
What we have here is a classic case of an organization that is used as a personal piggy bank by rich gay leftists, both to fund their own businesses and to buy their way into DNC cocktail parties, and is living in a set of trophy suites — but refuses to meet even minimal financial transparency requirements for a nonprofit and grossly fudges its membership numbers.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 27, 2007 @ 8:46 pm - March 27, 2007
so full of your insolent selves. rotf
Comment by markie — March 27, 2007 @ 9:14 pm - March 27, 2007
What exactly is meant by the line “Cheryl Jacques (oui! oui!)”? Some attempt to attack her cause she’s obviously aligned with those dirty french people? puh-lease.
Lobbyists working to gain access in Washington? Boy, that’s a big shock.
Let me know when there is a conservative gay lobbyist organization working towards equal rights for LGBT folks in the legislative/government process.
Comment by Kevin — March 27, 2007 @ 9:18 pm - March 27, 2007
NDT -
With no restrictions of board member activity, I agree we have a serious problem. We should probably be focusing on issues like this rather than BS issues like membership numbers.
On the other hand, I think it’s probably a good idea to have a political group like the HRC based where all the important political decisions are made. Call me crazy.
Comment by Dan — March 27, 2007 @ 9:18 pm - March 27, 2007
I’ve never contributed anything, nor paid dues, to the HRC so I have no stake in the organization. So its affairs are none of my business. But I don’t think $226,678 for the top job in an organization that size is out of line. If anything, it seems a little low.
Comment by Ashley Hunter — March 27, 2007 @ 9:27 pm - March 27, 2007
Hey, at least liberals like “Dan” are also liberal with the HRC spending membership-solicited money. Consistency is good and something most liberals don’t know the definition of anymore.
As for me, I think for a gay non-profit to pay this kind of money to its former abortion rights kingpin is revolting.
But I don’t give a damn red cent to the Hypocrite Rights Campaign. I’m sorry for those of you that do waste your hard earned money by giving to them.
Comment by Bruce (GayPatriot) — March 27, 2007 @ 10:25 pm - March 27, 2007
I want to know where the people are who wnat to make sure our govt fights this war we’re in effectively and ruthlessly so that we’re not all dead in two years from WMD strike.
Gay rights? Fiddling while Rome burns.
Comment by Vince P — March 27, 2007 @ 10:55 pm - March 27, 2007
So in the effort of fairness, do you have salary rates from equivalent social advocacy agencies on the Right, especially things like think tanks and marketing organizations that specifically fight against advancement of gay rights?
I think it would be only fair to have all the information out there if you’re going to make an issue of it.
And frankly why is anyone surprised at the salaries? The top positions at not-for-profit agencies in DC run about that. A survey of chief executive salaries by the Chronicle of Philanthropy in 2004 put the median average at $291,356. Charities averaged at $286,402 while foundations averaged at $307,765.
Why should executives at gay social advocacy agencies receive any less than people at the Red Cross or the United Way, whose top people made $468,599 and $432,709 respectively in 2003?
Comment by Just a Question — March 28, 2007 @ 12:17 am - March 28, 2007
#18 Kevin- That would be Log Cabin.
Comment by BoBo — March 28, 2007 @ 12:22 am - March 28, 2007
Hey, I want in on this gay ponzi scheme.
Suck up to the right libs who make $220K/second and push for the slaughter of “potential (gay) life”, and you too can get in on it.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — March 28, 2007 @ 2:37 am - March 28, 2007
Responding to “JAQ” who said:
Why should executives at gay social advocacy agencies receive any less than people at the Red Cross or the United Way, whose top people made $468,599 and $432,709 respectively in 2003?
Because the potential donor pool is much smaller in the gay community. We are (last I checked in with the gay media) a subculture that likes it that way. It is appalling to think that hard earned gay money is being spent in the way they do at HRC.
In addition to outrageous salaries, and prime DC real estate…. those same reports that I have linked to list $500,000+ in software assets. Say WHAT?
Comment by GayPatriot — March 28, 2007 @ 10:02 am - March 28, 2007
I’m planning on leaving HRC because they are going back on their promise to be non-partisian (yes, I’m slow on the uptake on this-so sue me). Offhand, I can’t name one good piece of legislation they’re solely responsible for. I’ll put my money on more local (Maine & New England) based groups that have more to show for.
Comment by Jimbo — March 28, 2007 @ 10:24 am - March 28, 2007
$500,000K in “software assets” is actually only $31K in sofware, the remaining amount being $475K in computers. That’s directly from their depreciation statement.
HRC runs a massive website. Staff computers, the servers that run them, and the servers that run the web operations can easily add up to $475,000 in assets over time. That’s also only the cost of the assets when new. $31K in software is pretty inexpensive when you look at what licensing fees are for major database systems such as Oracle. Depreciated value of those items now is about $275k – same Form 990. That’s assets they own, not what they’re buying every year.
I’m not apologizing for the HRC – I don’t give them my money because I think they’ve become too partisan. I wish they would stick to the education and workplace advocacy, for which they tend to be a good resource. All I am saying is let’s put some context to numbers that seem to be thrown out there for no other reason than to impeach everyone in a group you will never agree with.
Comment by Mike — March 28, 2007 @ 10:50 am - March 28, 2007
Ya know, it’d be easier to respect this website if you didn’t always fall back on pathetic scare tactics that had no bearing on reality.
The HRC is seriously flawed. They are autocratic and elitist. They focus more on “brand management” than they do on getting equal rights for gay and lesbians. And, even though I’m a liberal, I don’t think it’s a good idea for them to be moving in lockstep with the democratic party. I think some more outreach to gay conservatives would serve them well.
If you focused more on these issues, we might actually have an intelligent, meaningful conversation. Instead you’re focusing on BS issues that have zero traction. Are you lazy or just stupid?
Comment by Dan — March 28, 2007 @ 11:11 am - March 28, 2007
“Dan” – I don’t know where you have been for three years, but obviously not reading what we have written here.
Comment by Bruce (GayPatriot) — March 28, 2007 @ 11:29 am - March 28, 2007
I’m referring to your current post. Focusing on issues like this on detracts from the argument and makes you look foolish.
Keep your eyes on the ball, buddy.
Comment by Dan — March 28, 2007 @ 11:46 am - March 28, 2007
It’s funny that people who obviously hate this site and will always disagree with it bother to post comments. Brings a smile to my face but makes me feel a little bit bad for people who spend so much time on something they don’t like.
Comment by MARGO — March 28, 2007 @ 4:36 pm - March 28, 2007
Margo, these people exemplify the terms “self-loathing” and “masochistic.”
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — March 28, 2007 @ 5:30 pm - March 28, 2007
MARGO , the forces of death cant’ help but be attracted to life if only to make sure to snuff it.
Comment by Vince P — March 28, 2007 @ 6:38 pm - March 28, 2007
24: heh heh. I was hoping for that answer. would like to see their track record compared to HRC. Or how about the amount of support they receive from conservative legislators they align themselves with compared with liberal ones?
Comment by Kevin — March 28, 2007 @ 8:36 pm - March 28, 2007
Vince P, Peter, MARGO, others – have you seen this Evan Sayet speech yet?
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/017172.php
I found it worthwhile. He goes to the core of modern left-liberalism, I think.
Basically, in left-liberals, you have a bunch of people committed to the premise that making distinctions of good/bad or right/wrong is, in itself, the root of the world’s evils and suffering. Because if you make such distinctions on issues, then you end up making them on nations and people. And if you make them on nations or people, then (in the left-lib view) you are in the realm of conflict/war, poverty, and the loss of narcissistic childish “innocence”.
Thus, good is literally evil… we arrive at the Orwellian day-is-night, up-is-down, good-is-evil, evil-is-good morality and worldview of the lefties that we know so well in gay community, and on this blog. ANYONE who makes good/evil distinctions, other than themselves, is “the enemy” to modern liberals – and must be trashed or belittled or “snuffed out”. They can’t help it. Spewing hate and bile on the good, for being the good, is an inevitable consequence of their core principle.
I haven’t done Sayet’s thesis justice by a long shot – View the whole thing.
Comment by Calarato — March 29, 2007 @ 10:27 am - March 29, 2007
P.S. Sayet (or his thesis) further explains why facts and logic are so irrelevant in discussions with hardcore left-liberals.
As we see on this blog, some of them do want to believe they have the power of facts and logic on their side, so they make token efforts at arguing them – and get killed, pretty much. And it doesn’t change them a bit.
Remember, says Sayet: the most “hard core” ones are opposed to the concept of right-vs-wrong AS SUCH. So on any given issue, they don’t honestly care what the facts are: Whatever side seeks to make distinctions among people, seeks to discover and acknowledge who is in the right and who is in the wrong, etc., is always and by definition the “conservative” side and evil.
Comment by Calarato — March 29, 2007 @ 10:36 am - March 29, 2007
Correction – I should have written in #36:
because that’s how we get into their deep self-loathing, which Peter rightly noted in #33.
Comment by Calarato — March 29, 2007 @ 10:51 am - March 29, 2007
Calaratop:yes I found that video about 3 weeks ago and was posting about it many many many times here trying to get poeple to see it. I’m glad someone finally did
I thikn it describes the Leftys perfectly.
Comment by Vince P — March 29, 2007 @ 10:59 am - March 29, 2007
I also like his observation that “Everything I need to know I learned in Kindergarten” is thier operating guide.
All the positions they irrationally hold on to today are from a mentality that they haven’t matured out of . Which is why talking to them is usually so juvinile.
Comment by Vince P — March 29, 2007 @ 11:01 am - March 29, 2007
Vince, these are also the same idiots who put out indoctrination books for children, like “Why Mommy is a Democrat.”
Sigh. I fear for our future generation.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — March 29, 2007 @ 11:11 am - March 29, 2007
Guerrieor made more at LCR when he ran that org. AND after he lost a milliion dollar lawsuit after illegally dismiissing his hand picked COO He received a severace package equal to another years salary! he acdepted the job at Gill the day after the law suit wa settled. Of course the insurace company paid the 1 m settlement – LCR does not have that kind of cash …Sammon took the job as ED even though they were broke…right Shef?
Comment by not Bill Brownson — April 3, 2007 @ 8:10 pm - April 3, 2007
[...] money came from. Â At least the Hypocrite Rights Campaign has finally opened their Kremlin doors and have offered some accountability. Â When will Log [...]
Pingback by GayPatriot » Tim Gill: The Gay George Soros — November 19, 2008 @ 7:28 pm - November 19, 2008