There's been a lot of noise in the last few days about salary caps for the leaders and senior executives of charities, and CBC in particular has been hosting call-in shows to debate the topic.
My sense is that there may be some need for oversight, but that in general charities are best left alone to manage salaries as they see fit. The need for oversight and perhaps even some kind of limits is most obvious where public funds are being used in a significant way to support the charity. I'm not talking about a little Trillium grant supporting a charity, but where a large portion of your (and my) tax dollars are at work it's simply bad optics to pay sky-high salaries to leaders no matter how skilled or experienced.
That said, many charities operate with little or no government support. And they should set their own pay scales and pay bands. In fairness that's what Board and Directors do, or they delegate to a Committee. Hopefully they're mindful not only of the "bottom line" but also the public perception of what they're paying their Execitive Directior or CEO... We all remember the media frenzy a short while ago when a local large health-care charity paid a large sum to a departing CEO!
However, talent does come at a cost. And large charities in particular have learned that running their $100 million plus sized organizations is at least as demanding than similar-sized organizations in the for-profit world, so you need to obtain and retain good talent... And that requires a fair wage.
Finally, there is one other ultimate arbiter of wages for charitable leaders: their donors. While some donors may not be as informed as they should be in making their giving decisions it doesn't take too many articles or bad press to "scare off" donors, and the perception of "fat cat" leadership salaries will certainly sway donor thinking!
Thus, my contention is that in general most charities should be left to determine leadership compensation on their own.
No comments:
Post a Comment