34 top charity execs paid over $1 million a year

[GA Russell]

Is anybody else bothered by this? I remember perhaps ten years ago reading that Elizabeth Dole was paid $600,000 to head the American Red Cross.

Personally, I believe that involvement with a charity should be an act of service; and the fact of making the organization's leaders rich should call into question the nature of that organization.

http://www.latimes.com/business/money/la-fi-mo-non-profit-salaries-20130924,0,2016783.story

[Chuck Nessa]

Gun rights folks should shoot them.

[Blue Train]

First thing I check when I give is just how much actually goes to what the charity "allegedly" is about.

Many of them are just a way to funnel money to those that don't need.

http://www.tampabay.com/americas-worst-charities/

[Big Wheel]

The Boy Scouts are only nominally a "charity" and the Heritage Foundation certainly isn't. Hardly surprising that a fake think tank devoted to wingnut welfare would pay its CEO $500k - if anything I'd expect higher.

Ultimately charities still have to be managed and they compete with for-profit businesses for managers. If a development person can measurably show a record of attracting big donors, rewarding them might be the right way to manage the enterprise.

[Teasing the Korean]

If you want competent people to head charities, you have to pay them relatively competitive wages. Otherwise, they'll just go to the private sector.

C'est la vie.

[Chuck Nessa]

la vie. :-)

[Blue Train]

If you want competent people to head charities, you have to pay them relatively competitive wages. Otherwise, they'll just go to the private sector.

C'est la vie.

That's true, but many charities are paying more to those working for the charity than for what they're allegedly supposed to be about.

[medjuck]

The Boy Scouts are only nominally a "charity" and the Heritage Foundation certainly isn't. Hardly surprising that a fake think tank devoted to wingnut welfare would pay its CEO $500k - if anything I'd expect higher.

Ultimately charities still have to be managed and they compete with for-profit businesses for managers. If a development person can measurably show a record of attracting big donors, rewarding them might be the right way to manage the enterprise.

I disagree. It's a myth that you get the best people by offering the most money. One tenant of good business is never to hire someone who's just doing it for the money.

[Big Wheel]

The Boy Scouts are only nominally a "charity" and the Heritage Foundation certainly isn't. Hardly surprising that a fake think tank devoted to wingnut welfare would pay its CEO $500k - if anything I'd expect higher.

Ultimately charities still have to be managed and they compete with for-profit businesses for managers. If a development person can measurably show a record of attracting big donors, rewarding them might be the right way to manage the enterprise.

I disagree. It's a myth that you get the best people by offering the most money. One tenant of good business is never to hire someone who's just doing it for the money.

Which is why I used the words "measurably show." My point is more that rewarding fundraisers may, in some cases, have a good ROI for the charity and less that they will never be able to find any talented people if they don't approach the pay found in corporate sales.

[sidewinder]

I disagree. It's a myth that you get the best people by offering the most money. One tenant of good business is never to hire someone who's just doing it for the money.

Spot on. This trend seems to have got embedded in charities over the past decade. 'Just because we're worth it'.

Exactly the same issues over here too.

Edited September 25, 2013 by sidewinder

[GA Russell]

The Boy Scouts are only nominally a "charity" and the Heritage Foundation certainly isn't. Hardly surprising that a fake think tank devoted to wingnut welfare would pay its CEO $500k - if anything I'd expect higher.

Ultimately charities still have to be managed and they compete with for-profit businesses for managers. If a development person can measurably show a record of attracting big donors, rewarding them might be the right way to manage the enterprise.

I disagree. It's a myth that you get the best people by offering the most money. One tenant of good business is never to hire someone who's just doing it for the money.

Hey Joe, a little sleepy tonight? Shouldn't it be tenet?