I'm looking at this issue from a few angles.
1. If an initial employment contract has a provision that employees who
voluntarily resign and provide X amount of notice will be paid out
something like their accrued vacation time (I believe that some
jurisdictions require this) and a certain amount of medical coverage
(ranging from the remainder of a month to 6 months), and no restrictions on
free speech are involved, I think this would be fine.
2. If there is a payoff of WMF funds to employees in exchange for them
agreeing to speech restrictions, I would question whether that's an
appropriate use of donor funds and also whether placing conditions on
employee speech is appropriate for an organization that is supposed to be
strongly aligned with values of freedom of expression.
3. I think that there should be more transparency about how WMF funds are
used in general, and this includes employment matters for both WMF and
affiliates. Government agencies in the US disclose a lot of information
about their employees, almost always including compensation, and in many
jurisdictions disciplinary records are also public records. It seems to me
that WMF should strive to have at least the same standard for transparency
of government agencies. Among other problems that arise when compensation
levels are opaque, it's very difficult to do a thorough job of evaluating
WMF and affiliate budgets without knowing how employees are compensated so
that the appropriateness of that compensation can be evaluated. IEG
grantees already have our compensation published, and it seems to me that
this practice should be extended to the other grants programs and to WMF.