In a November 30th article in the Boston Herald, reporter Adam Smith (no relation, fortunately) slams Boston area nonprofit executives for "raking in pay and perks" over the past year. "As the worst recession in decades stripped thousands of Bay State workers of their jobs," he writes, "a small group of people saw greenbacks continue to fatten their paychecks: the leaders of the state's top tax-exempt organizations charged with aiding the poor, mentally handicapped, and other disadvantaged residents."
The source of Smith's data is of course the IRS 990 forms, which as I've pointed out in previous posts are measuring compensation paid mostly during pre-recession times. Particularly galling to Smith are executives who earned more than the President of the U.S., six of whom are featured in his article (two of whom, by the way, took pay cuts last year).
Why observers continue to think the $400,000 the President earns is a benchmark for anything is beyond me. The salary in no way reflects the enormous responsibilities of the position. And these compensation critics never factor in little perks the President gets, like a nice mansion to live in, chauffeured limousines everywhere, private aircraft, a bevy of personal chefs, and a $400,000 retirement benefit for life. The President's position is not an appropriate market comparison. Can you imagine a nonprofit CEO candidate saying to a Board Chair "Gee, they're offering me the Presidency, and that pays $400,000 -- what are you offering?"
I have no idea whether the CEO's Smith attacks are paid reasonably, but neither does he. It would be nice to believe that reporters approached personal subjects like this ethically, but that of course would be naive.
Smith's full article can be found here: Charity Heads Home
Comments