Re: Executive salaries
Ronald W. Fox (ronfox@MINDSPRING.COM)
Tue, 22 Sep 1998 22:33:29 -0500
At 02:28 PM 9/21/98 -0400, Habib Boukari wrote:
>I just can't believe that you are saying that 450K is OK for him to get.
When someone asks me how much money I make, I tell them what my salary is,
not the sum of my salary, benefits and company pension contributions. What
do you tell people when they ask you how much money you make?
>And I do mean "get". I would seriously doubt that he earns it.
This is an interesting assertion. On what basis do you doubt that Jere
earns his money? I presume, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary,
that he works pretty hard. Otherwise, the BSA's directors aren't doing
THEIR jobs. Chief Scout Executive is a big job, and carries a personal
burden. Personal indiscretions that wouldn't be noticed on someone else's
part could cost him his job.
>He is not known to be the most moral guy. Need I mention the Airport Incident?
Carrying a loaded gun into an airport is pretty dumb, but how is it immoral?
He didn't use it, had no intent to use it, nor was it exposed to someone
else's use. Given no reports to the contrary, I am presuming he was
licenced to carry it. This seems to have been an honest mistake, not a
deliberate attempt to flout law or morality.
>Why do we have to pay an executive this amount of money?
This is a legitimate question, regardless of your other statements. I would
say that we have to pay an executive this amount of money if the BSA can't
get someone else who is 1) equally or more competent, 2) whose personal life
can hold up to the special public scrutiny that the head of the BSA will
get, 3) who believes in the values and principles of Scouting, and 4) will
do the job for less money. It's the job of the BSA's directors (I don't
know what body exercises the functions of a public corporation's board of
directors for the BSA) to answer these questions. Adam Smith said that the
worth of a thing is the price it will bring, and that's how it works in our
>I think we also need to look at what we are talking about. Non-Profit--NOT
If it was for profit, my guess is that he'd make a lot more, given the size
and prominence of the organization and the level of risk he assumes.
By the way, non-profits ARE corporate, with the same structures, levels of
risk and responsibilities that for-profit corporations have. In fact,
non-profit corporations can, and usually must, make a profit. What they
cannot do is distribute a portion of those profits to investors. All
profits that a not-for-profit organization makes must be plowed back into
the program it conducts. Thus, if you intend to maintain your camps and
other properties, or have a contigency fund to handle legal or other
emergencies, or expand your programs, you better make a profit. Generally,
a non-profit (past a certain size) that doesn't operate very similarly to a
for-profit will usually go out of business, quickly.
>This guy isn't working for IBM, Microsoft, Tide, Nabisco. He is working for
>you and me and all of the other scouters.
If I may quibble here, he's working for the Scouts, as are all the rest of us.
>I don't think he earns that amount of money.
I don't think you (or I) have enough information to make that judgement. If
you think you do, please describe his duties.
>I really don't want to offend anybody, but I want to make sure I get my
No offense taken. It's a legitimate question, but the answer should be
based on facts, not feelings.
Scoutmaster, Troop 69, Des Plaines Valley Council (W&SW Chicago Suburbs)
Pachsegink Lodge 246 | >>>------> |
"... and a good old Eagle, too" (C-19-96)
Terry Howerton Sakima Group, Inc. SCOUTER Magazine Kansas City