Foundation ‘Fat Cats’ Get More, but They’re Loath to Give More

To the Editor:

The ironies of life continue to amuse — and, at times, to anger. Case in point: The leaders of many private foundations (overseers of coffers that brim with Wall Street riches) are squawking about proposals to require them to pay out 6 per cent of their assets annually rather than the present 5 per cent (“Groups Put Pressure on Foundations to Increase Their Grant Making,” September 23).

“We can’t do that,” they say, getting all misty-eyed. “Such a payout rate would place our endowments in jeopardy.”

Apparently, however, the foundation directors’ salaries and perks are exempt from any deep-seated concern about conserving endowment funds. Obscene examples abound in The Chronicle’s eighth annual compensation survey (“Top Leaders See Fatter Paychecks”), published in the same issue.

According to the survey, here are a few examples of what C.E.O.’s at some “non-profit” foundations are being paid: the New York Community Trust, $362,000 plus $107,502 in benefits (must be a very tough job); the California Endowment, $268,321 plus $19,307 in benefits and an expense allowance of $22,950; the Lilly Endowment, $540,000 plus $243,000 in benefits. Next time you apply for a Lilly grant and you get a “disinclination” letter, you’ll better understand why “the needs of worthy charities exceed our resources” (or something like that).

Meanwhile, across the land there are shelters for the homeless and for abused women, as well as soup kitchens and programs for disadvantaged children, that barely manage to keep their doors open.

“Ah, but we need the best available talent to manage our resources,” comes the rejoinder. Uh-huh. Well, take a look at the Salvation Army. No one can argue with the goodness and effectiveness of the work they do. Chief executive officer Robert A. Watson’s compensation in 1998: $77,754.

I fear that the nation is becoming a junkyard filled with garbage cans full of fat cats.

Paul H. Schneiter
Consultant/Writer
Provo, Utah

* * *

To the Editor:

Calls are coming in to our office expressing deep concern over the message conveyed in your article on non-profit salaries. Though this is obviously true for the small number of elite non-profit organizations in our country, the tens of thousands of tiny, volunteer-oriented non-profits rarely even attain an overall budget in the range of the median salary cited for these top executives.

Without clearly stating the median salary of $207,990 as a median derived from what amounts to an insignificant number of the overall number of non-profits in operation across the United States, the message is sent that there is a lot of surplus around. The legitimate fear of “real world” organizations is that, among other things, fund raising will be hampered by the perception that such salaries are the norm as opposed to the exception in the non-profit arena.

For example, in the state of North Carolina there are over 2,000 arts organizations (not all non-profit), but I would be hard pressed to believe you would find an average salary here of as much as $30,000. From my experience, the vast majority of non-profit salaries are tremendously below the type of figures presented in the article, and a sigh of frustration issues forth from the “working poor” of the non-profit sector every time such material surfaces.

Though it is clear to me that this article reflects a specific strata of non-profits, it is clear from the response reaching my office that such articles send the wrong message when lacking a balanced viewpoint.

Jim White
Executive Director
ARTS North Carolina
Raleigh, N.C.