Hi,
I'm sorry but I feel that discussion is loaded and meant to create a heated debate and not provide good analysis data points.
I was surprised by your claims, so I picked one example, not giving names to not single anyone out.
First, you assume the first year is systematically a full year, it never is. And yes even if you arrive mid january, it does take a dent in your yearly compensation (it represents 5%).
Second, you voluntarily speak in numbers and not ratio, which makes all data easy to twist. The one I checked had a 4% to 6% yearly salary increase which all in all is market practice in the US (we can argue about the discrepancies but hey).
Third, even if you spot a higher increase, going into personal details about the increase is meaningless (such increases can be related to pre negotiated increase, to planned catch up on cost of living, on role change, role expansion, new responsibilities, beyond expectations achievements, a load of valid HR reasons).
If only on very specific and verifiable data points like those I can find how you distort reality to fit your narrative I can only assume you are doing the same for the rest of the discussion.
Public eye provides a safeguard for problems and financial abuses, yes (and that's why 503c are public).
But twisting those data to spread gratuitous shade on people working for the Foundation (and even naming them) is wrong and honestly shows a lack of empathy (you don't care about how people can live when their integrity is attacked while they are committed).
So I am happy to jump in Spreadsheet and discuss compensations, but if we are to do it, let's at the very least do it with a benevolent approach and minding the people whose job is talked about.
Just a bit of empathy and care goes a long way :)