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

Compensation Escalation Cycle

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
Institutional Health Scores
5-yr trend: Compensation Escalation Cycle ↓
Overall
43
Score
Governance
42
Score
Financial
65
Score
Program
30
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 — — 32.4% 43 Governance-Stressed Gov Risk
2022 — — 36.0% 43 Governance-Stressed Recovery
2021 — — — 41 Fragile Decline Risk
2020 — — 3.7% 54 Fragile Recovery
2019 — — 16.1% 46 Fragile Decline Risk
2018 — — — 55 Fragile Recovery
2016 — — — 43 Fragile Decline Risk
2015 — — — 45 Fragile Decline Risk
2014 — — — 47 Fragile Stable Watch
2013 — — — 47 Fragile Stable Watch
2012 — — — 47 Fragile Recovery
2011 — — — 43 Fragile Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2026

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
SUSAN OLSON Board Member 13.5% of Rev
CRYSTAL OLSON Secretary 10.6% of Rev
ZACH SONNEK Board Member 6.5% of Rev
ROBB WENDT Board Member 3.3% of Rev
ALYSSA SURRETT OPERATIONS MGR 0.3% of Rev
BEN BARTUSEK Board Member —
SERGIO SALGADO Board Member —
MAGGIE MAES Board Member —
MURPHY GROTEWOLD Board President —
LAURA JANS Treasurer —
SARAH OLSON Board President —
LAUREN ATCHLEY Board Member —
AARON STUVE Board Member —
CALLIE SONNEK Board Member —
KEITH STEINKE Board Member —
JAMES VAN OORT Board Member —

Tax year 2025

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
SUSAN OLSON Board Member 22.8% of Rev
ZACH SONNEK Board Member 8.1% of Rev
MICHELLE PARSNEAU Board Member 1.6% of Rev
BEN BARTUSEK Board Member —
SERGIO SALGADO Board Member —
MAGGIE MAES Board Member —
MURPHY GROTEWOLD Board President —
LAURA JANS Treasurer —
SARAH OLSON Board President —
LAUREN ATCHLEY Board Member —
CALLIE SONNEK Board Member —
KEITH STEINKE Board Member —
CRYSTAL OLSON Secretary —
JAMES VAN OORT Board Member —

Tax year 2023

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
SUSAN OLSON Board Member 18.8% of Rev
LEANNE STEINKE OPS MGR 7.2% of Rev
MAGGIE MAES Board Member 5.9% of Rev
JUSTIN DANIELSON Board Member 3.9% of Rev
ZACH BOLLAND Board Member 2.5% of Rev
JOSHUA PERRY Board Member —
MURPHY GROTEWOLD Board President —
LAURA JANS Treasurer —
SARAH OLSON Board President —
LAUREN ATCHLEY Board Member —
KENDRA BRAUNGER Board Member —
CALLIE SONNEK Board Member —
KEITH STEINKE Board Member —
CRYSTAL OLSON Secretary —
JAMES VAN OORT Board Member —

Tax year 2021

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
SUSAN OLSON Board Member 8.5% of Rev
MAGGIE MAES Board Member 3.3% of Rev
SUSAN OLSON Board Member 3.0% of Rev
JUSTIN DANIELSON Board President —
SARAH TETZLOFF Board President —
GINA ANDERSON Secretary —
MURPHY GROTEWOLD Board Member —
JUSTIN DANIELSON Treasurer —
SARAH TETZLOFF Board President —
GINA ANDERSON Board Member —
MAGGIE MAES Board Member —
MURPHY GROTEWOLD Board President —
LAURA JANS Secretary —
SARAH ASP OLSON Board Member —
Officer contact details, exact compensation figures, and active litigation are available to verified members.
Request access
Score breakdown

Score breakdown

Financial resilience
65 / 100
weight 40%
Governance risk
42 / 100
weight 40%
Program scale
30 / 100
weight 20%
Overall
43 / 100
Priority Review

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

Peer comparison

Compared to 256 other orgs in MN with NTEE prefix A6.

Most-divergent component: governance score sits 19 points below the peer median (42 vs. 61).

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 32.4% to under 22% of revenue — would move governance score by ~21 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.