@skyoverme I mean “optics” as…“Should I donate to this charity?” If you feel it’s being mismanaged, the answer is no. Even the NFL cares about optics, since it could impact advertising revenue (and heaven forbid, it could even threaten it’s status as a non-profit…)
In the Boy Scouts case (using them as an example), it’s not the base salary ($391K) that seems high, it’s the $1.3 million in deferred payments. Should the CEO of the BSA be earning close to $1.8M a year? Maybe, but it does make me question how much of that popcorn $ goes to the local troop vs. Mr. Mazzuca’s bank account.
Paying salaries like that, it’s no wonder that every year the non-profit NFL shows it makes no profit, and therefore should be allowed to keep its non-profit status.
FWIW, there is increasing clamor for the government to rescind it.
I personally have no problem with the head of a major university making $1M per year.
On the contrary, If I found out that someone in the position was making $200K, I would thoroughly vet their finances and quality of their teaching staff before sending my child there.
Anyone should be able to earn as much as possible as long as they are doing their job well and their salary fits the organization’s budget. If you start paying one guy, or large groups of people “too much”, then over time your organization will consume itself and cease to exist.
But the people who set these parameters for executives should carefully consider whether they’re getting the best deal possible. In for-profit situations, the owners are able to decide that. In not-for-profits, its the board, but the board really doesn’t report to anyone.
I agree that overpaying top people at non-profits could affect donations.