Lawmakers Seeking Cuts Look at Nonprofit Salaries

[Raggz]

Source: NY Times

State and federal officials are starting to take their knives to the pay of leaders of nonprofit groups they do business with to help share the pain of tighter budgets.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/27/us/27nonprofit.html?hpw

---

Sure, cut their pay as well...

[ProSense]

1. Sounds like hyping Republicans

A provision in New Jersey’s recently passed budget, for example, includes a limit on what nonprofit groups can pay their chief executives if they are providing social services under state contracts. The cap, based on a formula that also applies to for-profits providing such services on behalf of the state, is part of a broader effort by Gov. Chris Christie to rein in salaries on state workers.

<...>

On Capitol Hill, four senators this spring refused to approve a $425 million package of federal grants for the Boys & Girls Clubs of America after staff members looked at the organization’s tax forms as part of a routine vetting process and were surprised to learn that the organization paid its chief executive almost $1 million in 2008 — $510,774 in salary and bonus and $477,817 in retirement and other benefits.

They don't want to cut CEO pay, but want to cut the non-profit CEO's salaries?

[snot]

6. Actually, I'm not so sure I have a total problem with this, if it's evenly applied --

Many formerly great nonprofits have been recognized by 'cons as "cash cows" and taken over -- the American Red Cross is a prime e.g. Some time ago, they laid off most of their actual employees, imposed new rules making it more difficult for people to qualify for assistance, and I wouldn't be surprised if they jacked up compensation to the new execs they installed. The ARC used to be a big help; but by the time of Katrina, they'd become more of a hindrance; and Haiti's done nothing to dispel that impression.

In sum, I think we need more details.

[Lance_Boyle]

13. What Bobdoleswife did to the the ARC was unconscionable.

That she was paid so handsomely to do it reflects a serious problem with executive compensation at nonprofits. They are not, after all, called "nonprofits for everyone but our executives."

[PSPS]

2. "Lawmakers" should "look at lawmakers' salaries"

Don't they want to "help share the pain of tighter budgets?"

[Andy823]

3. I couldn't agree more!

Most in congress are millionaires so why not take away the salary of those who are, no medical for the millionaires, no retirement, etc. Take away all their benefits and let them live off the "BRIBE" money they get from big corporations. Tax payers should not have to pay the bills for millionaires who are bought and paid for by corporate america!

[TheMadMonk]

7. If we paid lawmakers comensurately with the tasks and responsibilities...

...they undertake, there might be less inclined to go looking for bribes and other sources of income.

[atreides1]

9. That was sarcasm, right?

[TheMadMonk]

10. No not really. Back in the day when CEO to worker sallaries...

...ran at 25-50:1 and there wasn't an entire entirely quasi-legal industry built around kiting cheques (Proles like you and I need not apply to participate.) it' ludicrous that the head of state is paid a very average executive's wage and office holders not much more than a top level personal assistant. Yes they get other perks, travel, pensions, medical, etc. but because they are perks, they are also points of contention with the public.

Assuming we can engineer a return to those Halcyon days, would it not make more sense, to pay a decent wage $1-2m to a senator $750k-1m for a general representative, $2-3 for an office holder and $5 for prez. Out of that they pay market rates, for anything not job related. Top up where applicable for security reasons, but they pay market rates for level of service. Maybe even deny all sitting polies the right to raise campaign funds. Once they have their bum in the seat they have to fight for it out of their own pocket.

Newcommers can finance themselves or through full disclosure donation, raise funds. Affidavits that donations are not on behalf of a third party must accompany all monies. Or better still simply set a ceiling on spending.

They are paid enough to live a fairly decent facsimilie of the Life of Reily, they are insulated somewhat from undue influence, and while full monetary equality in campaigning, is almost certainly not possible, the playing field can certainly be levelled a little.

And let companies have their "personhood". If they get a seat in the senate or house, every vote they make is first put to every single employee. CEO gets exactly the same influence as the bloke who scrubs the bogs. (Muggins. LOL)

[Downwinder]

4. Going to limit the bonuses, too? I've heard that one before.

[patrice]

5. In some non-profits, like long-term care, it is the lowest paid staff who do the work without which

no one else in the place would be making a paycheck at all.

[w4rma]

8. A Good Start! (nt)

[bemildred]

11. You know, unless they are going to "rein in" the compensation of for profit providers too ...

this is horseshit. There is no reason to single out non-profits over executive pay.

[Lance_Boyle]

14. Well, aside from the whole 'non-profit' thing.

There is no excuse for allowing nonprofits to be cash cows for their executives. For profit companies need to rein in executive compensation, too, no doubt, but excessive executive compensation is particularly abhorrent in the context of a nonprofit organization.

[bemildred]

15. "excessive executive compensation is particularly abhorrent" period.

There is no more reason to tolerate executives of for-profit entities using them as personal cash-cows and private fiefdoms than in any other case. CEOs are employees in the service of the enterprise, whatever it is, not feudal lords owning all they survey.

[Lance_Boyle]

16. Yes, and when the enterprise is not intended to generate profit,

excessive executive compensation is *particularly* odious.

[bemildred]

17. We disagree, I think blatant greed and corruption are worse.

Although I still remember that weasel running United Way who was paying himself so well, and I never gave them a nickel after that, and its not like I want to overlook the hypocrisy of compassion whores when it is real.

[Lance_Boyle]

18. I think that blatant greed and corruption under the guise of doing public good is worse.

Nobody thinks for-profit CEOs are in it for anything but the money. To see the heads of charity groups reaping millions is utterly reprehensible.

[bemildred]

19. I think $200,000,000.00 is way the heck worse than $800,000.00.

How it is spun has nothing to do with it.

[Lance_Boyle]

20. Nobody's spinning.

It is unseemly to grow wealthy by heading a charitable organization. People expect the CEO of GE to be a billionaire. Right or wrong, that's what's expected. It is NOT expected of heads of nonprofits.

For the record, I think we're largely in agreement - excessive executive compensation sucks regardless of the nature of the enterprise said executives head. But it is MORE unseemly in nonprofits than in for-profit companies. Look at it this way - are you more disturbed by a false imprisonment charge against Joe down the street, or your local chief of police? Is graft more bothersome when your local butcher does it, or your mayor?

[bemildred]

21. So we agree its all bad, we just disagree about the relative badness or something.

I can live with that.

[No Elephants]

12. "Starve" the beasts of government and not for profits; feed for profits.

Let's make our priorities crystal clear.