Compensation Escalation Cycle
Compensation Escalation Cycle
Compensation Escalation Cycle Market Archetype Mechanical Natural
Tier
Priority Review
Trajectory Thumbprint

Compensation Escalation Cycle

"Delivers diverse arts programming to enrich communities in the Twin Tiers, exemplified by large-scale events like their Fall Festival."

— Statement of Program Service Accomplishments

What does this mean?

Revenue grows modestly, but top officer compensation grows consistently for 5 years, breaching danger zones. The executive is negotiating aggressive raises against a compliant board.

The Path Forward

The Steward

Re-establishes board supremacy over executive extraction. It freezes compensation and mandates that all future financial rewards be tied strictly to verifiable mission expansion.

The Steward
The Steward

Demonstrated Impact

  • Attendance: 2000+ (Fall Festival)
Institutional Health Scores
5-yr trend: Compensation Escalation Cycle ↓
Overall
38
Score
Governance
42
Score
Financial
40
Score
Program
45
Score

Institutional Epochs

2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
Financial Era
Governance Era
Trajectory Era
Compensation Escalation

Historical Performance

Year Revenue Top Comp Comp % Rev Score Phase Label Outlook Details
2025 Hidden Hidden — — Unknown —
2024 Hidden Hidden — — Unknown —
2023 Hidden Hidden 28.4% 38 Governance-Stressed Gov Risk
2022 — — 21.3% 40 Fragile Gov Risk
2021 — — 34.8% 39 Governance-Stressed Gov Risk
2020 — — 20.1% 42 Governance-Stressed Gov Risk
2019 — — 14.5% 47 Fragile Gov Risk
2018 — — 6.5% 49 Fragile Recovery
2017 — — 19.6% 44 Fragile Recovery
2015 — — 16.4% 41 Fragile Gov Risk
2014 — — 5.7% 50 Fragile Stable Watch
2013 — — 6.4% 50 Fragile Recovery
2012 — — 9.6% 46 Fragile Decline Risk
2011 — — 7.5% 50 Fragile Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2025

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
Darren Litz Executive Dir. 29.8% of Rev
Darren Litz Executive Dir. 28.4% of Rev
Allison Ambrose Board Member —
Brittany Keck Board President —
Brad Preston Board Member —
Connie Shanks Board Member —
Lori Huber Treasurer —
Claudia Quinn Board Member —
Wayne Mead Board Member —
Tina Vinelli Secretary —
Lorna Smith Board Member —
Colette Rosessler Board Member —
Pat Ryan Board President —
Allison Ambrose Board Member —
Brittany Keck Board President —
Fred Feightner Board Member —
Andrew Wilson Board Member —
Brad Preston Board Member —
Connie Shanks Board Member —
Peggy Leonard Treasurer —
Claudia Quinn Board Member —
Wayne Mead Board Member —
Tina Vinelli Secretary —
Lorna Smith Board Member —
Colette Rosessler Board Member —
Pat Ryan Board President —

Tax year 2023

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
Allison Ambrose Board Member —
Brittany Keck Secretary —
Steve Kresge Board Member —
Fred Feightner Board President —
Brad Preston Board Member —
Connie Shanks Board Member —
Lori Huber Treasurer —
Claudia Quinn Board Member —
Liz Dippold Board Member —
Tina Vinelli Board Member —
Lorna Smith Secretary —
Pat Ryan Board President —
Darren Litz Executive Dir. —

Tax year 2022

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
Darren Litz Executive Dir. 17.0% of Rev
Allison Ambrose Board Member —
Brittany Keck Board Member —
Steve Kresge Board Member —
Fred Feightner Board President —
Brad Preston Board Member —
Connie Shanks Board Member —
Lori Huber Treasurer —
Claudia Quinn Board Member —
Bernie Picklo Board Member —
Tina Vinelli Board Member —
Lisa Esch Secretary —
Pat Ryan Board President —

Tax year 2021

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
Lauren Ball Board Member —
Brittany Keck Board Member —
Lisa Esch Secretary —
Fred Feightner Board President —
Nathan Lawyer Board Member —
Connie Shanks Board Member —
Lori Huber Treasurer —
Dan Lang Board Member —
Terri Leven Secretary —
Tina Vinelli Board Member —
Brandon Means Board Member —
Pat Ryan Board President —
Lauren Marshall Executive Dir. —
Officer contact details, exact compensation figures, and active litigation are available to verified members.
Request access
Score breakdown

Score breakdown

Financial resilience
40 / 100
weight 40%
Governance risk
42 / 100
weight 40%
Program scale
45 / 100
weight 20%
Overall
38 / 100
Priority Review

The three components combine into a single 0–100 score weighted as shown. Full methodology →

Peer comparison

Compared to 461 other orgs in PA with NTEE prefix A6.

Most-divergent component: governance score sits 21 points below the peer median (42 vs. 63).

5-year trend: Compensation Escalation Cycle

Revenue grows modestly, but top officer compensation grows consistently for 5 years, breaching danger zones. The executive is negotiating aggressive raises against a compliant board.

What's driving this score

What would change this score

The two changes that would most improve this score:

  1. Reduce top-officer compensation from 28.4% to under 22% of revenue — would move governance score by ~13 points.
  2. Separate signing authority from fundraising authority when both are held by one person — removes the concentration penalty (~12 points).

Improving governance is a board decision. These are the levers.