AMC Executive Director pay

[bikehikeskifish]

I think he's saying that the rule of public good (low pay) applies to non-profit workers, it can easily be applied to teachers. With the implication (again, I think) that it's not fair to expect public school teachers to take a vow of poverty and so it's not fair to expect the same of non-profit workers.

That pretty much sums it up / restates it / clarifies it / etc.

All organizations are competing for employees. If you believe in the cause, or the benefits (you like the AMC, you like working with children, you like having summers off) then you may be willing to accept lower pay, but it does not follow that it is expected you should accept it.

Tim

 

[Billy]

..With the implication (again, I think) that it's not fair to expect public school teachers to take a vow of poverty and so it's not fair to expect the same of non-profit workers...

Where is this "vow of poverty" or "oath of poverty" stuff coming from? You're the third person to trot out this straw-man. We can agree to disagree about how much an AMC director should get paid. But let's not imply that if he made 200k instead of 300k he'd be in a one-room flat eating puppy-chow out of a can.

 

[Daniel Eagan]

I think he's saying that the rule of public good (low pay) applies to non-profit workers, it can easily be applied to teachers. With the implication (again, I think) that it's not fair to expect public school teachers to take a vow of poverty and so it's not fair to expect the same of non-profit workers.

It's still an invalid comparison. Public school teachers are just like firemen and policemen, paid by the government through tax dollars. No one expects a fireman to make a profit either, but that doesn't determine his (or her) pay. I happen to think public school teachers—and teachers in general—are criminally underpaid, but that's an issue that can be resolved through voting and legislation.

Someone who chooses to work in a non-profit area is also choosing lower pay in return for the intangible rewards of benefiting the public. This is true for public defenders, employees of public television and radio, and non-profit organizations like the Open Space Institute, the Adirondack Mountain Club, and the AMC. Some non-profits do dish out exorbitant salaries (the Barnes Foundation comes to mind) but in many cases they are competing against similar organizations.

I think the AMC director is getting way too much money, but then I no longer agree with AMC's mission or tactics. I prefer to donate to smaller organizations whose goals and methods I agree with.

 

[Neil]

But let's not imply that if he made 200k instead of 300k he'd be in a one-room flat eating puppy-chow out of a can.

Hahaha! You slay me!

He'd be able to warm it up on a hot plate and chaw it down under the faint glow of one dim light bulb. (I can see the rusted springs coiling out of the mattress.)

 

[griffin]

Someone who chooses to work in a non-profit area is also choosing lower pay in return for the intangible rewards of benefiting the public.

Too bad for those of us in the non-profit world, our expenses aren't "intangible."

If you consider the AMC's budget, the number of employees and volunteers participating, the number and variety of programs and services offered by the organization - and compare that to similarly-sized and situated FOR-profit companies, I'm not sure Falender isn't already making less than he would in the private sector.

He makes far less than the CEO of my partner's company, and they're a far less complicated outfit.

That said - the lack of response is just bad form. Since the actual salary data is already public information, you'd like to think someone's either digging up salary comps for other organizations/companies to give the OP and idea of where AF's salary falls in the grand scheme of things, but I wouldn't bet the house on it. More likely, imo, they realize a response with more than raw data is in order, but the higher-ups don't want to spend the time, and the folks lower on the food chain either don't feel empowered to respond, or don't want to say the wrong thing and get in trouble for it (or both). Still, very bad form. (now, watch them send a detailed response and prove me wrong, lol)

 

[Chip]

This is Charity Navigator's 2009 CEO Compensation Survey. Lots of good info, easy to read.

I'm sure it won't change Billy and Chomp's minds. Perhaps if he paid to run the AMC ?

If you guys approve of the work, say, that the Wildlife Conservation Society and Conservation International do: Is the compensation for their CEO's okay ?

 

[Little Rickie]

Everyone should read the "advice to doners" on pages 12 & 13.

 

[David Metsky]

Where is this "vow of poverty" or "oath of poverty" stuff coming from?

The "vow of poverty" is simply shorthand for saying that people working for non-profits shouldn't be earning the same as those in the commercial world. They should give up some of their earning potential for the public good. It was stated explicitly in Chomp's post earlier. It wasn't meant to be taken literally.

 

[roadtripper]

This is a little off-topic, but for those interested, guidestar.org has free registration and allows you to view the latest Form 990 (federal tax filing for non-profits) for 99% of not-for-profits. Within that form, there is typically information on the 5 highest paid employees/directors.

Also, I am an auditor of non-profit organizations, and the AMC pays far less than some of the foundations/organizations that I work with. These other organizations also have far fewer employees.

 

[--M.]

I wanna ask a question:

Does the term "non-profit" specifically denote less compensation for employees? Doesn't the term just mean that all proceeds are put back into the business (as opposed to having stockholder/owners or other recipients of profit)?

While one might think that a CEO of the AMC should take a pay-cut relative to what he would get in the private sector, is that a cultural norm? Or explicit?

I have my own opinions on this (and they're not that Mr. Falender should be getting rich off the AMC, if in fact $300k per year would do that for him), but I'm not sure I begrudge him his pay just because the AMC is a so-called "non-profit." To me, the term has a technical meaning (which I may have wrong).

I never confused the AMC with a charity; I don't have it in the same mental category as, say, the United Way (which had its own executive pay issues in the 90's).

Also, if a $300k CEO can bring in multiples of his salary, isn't it good business to pay him that as a rain-maker?

Would those with actual non-profit expertise chime in, please?

Thanks (and happy holidays),

-Mike.

 

[roadtripper]

Also, if a $300k CEO can bring in multiples of his salary, isn't it good business to pay him that as a rain-maker?

Would those with actual non-profit expertise chime in, please?

This is the argument that some of my clients make in order to pay their directors top pay. One of my clients was the Pan-Massachusetts Challenge, which raises $30M+ for the Jimmy Fund every year. The founder of the Pan-Massachusetts is paid extremely well (more than the AMC's director), but he's also grown the event from $10K/year to $30-35M/year. Without him, there would be no Pan-Mass Challenge.

There are a few dirty tricks that not-for-profits play though, like setting up management companies so that they don't have to disclose the earnings of their CEO's/directors (only the fee that they pay the management company).

After auditing not-for-profits for the last 6 years, I ONLY support a very small percentage of organizations that I am asked to. I usually like to see that administrative/management expenses of the organization are only 0-10% of their total expenses. I also like organizations that actually put their audited financial statements online. This gives you an excellent idea of what is going on, financially and operationally, at the organization. I also strongly feel that once organizations grow beyond 50 or 100 employees, they start to lose a lot of focus on controlling costs. My favorite organizations are the ones that work in run-down buildings in cheap areas, give their employees more vacation time instead of more pay and keep their general expenses from only growing a few % points every year.

As a tip to others, ALWAYS give donations/contribuitions that are "temporarily restricted" or "permanently restricted" to a specific event, cause, purpose or mission of an organization. Never give to a "general fund", since they can use the money however they see fit. If you are giving a large enough sum of money, organizations will let you restrict the money in any way you see fit (i.e. must be used as the downpayment for the purchase of conservation land, etc.)

 

[Daniel Eagan]

I wanna ask a question:

Does the term "non-profit" specifically denote less compensation for employees? Doesn't the term just mean that all proceeds are put back into the business (as opposed to having stockholder/owners or other recipients of profit)?

"specifically denote"? No. But every potential employee approaching a non-profit for a job knows that pay scales are lower than for the public sector. When my wife left newspaper journalism for public radio, she did it with the full awareness that she would have been offered a lot more to work in commercial radio. She chose public radio for a variety of reasons, but she always knew she was sacrificing a higher salary.

The legal requirements for nonprofits are complex. It's not true that "all proceeds are put back in the business." The Adirondack Forty-Sixers, for example, have almost no adminstrative costs, and no "business" to put its dues and donations back into. Instead, the club is mandated by law to disperse a certain percentage of its funds to appropriate venues, such as in support of trail crews, replacing lean-tos, etc.

The fact that so much of the AMC is in a sense a "business" is a warning sign to me.

Roadtripper's advice is first-rate, and I agree that administrative expenses are the hidden bane of most nonprofits.

 

[Daniel Eagan]

Are you implying that the Adirondack 46'ers is in any way comparable to the Appalachian Mountain Club?

Absolutely not. I was giving an example of a non-profit that doesn't put revenues "back into the business" as --M. asked in his post. Which was why I quoted him.

But you know it might be constructive to compare the AMC to the Adirondack Mountain Club, which runs a small lodge and a remote cabin, offers guide books and other literature, conducts trips and classes, and oversees trail crews—without charging $260 a night to stay in a Stalinist style "luxury" hotel, or charging volunteers to work on trail crews, or paying its CEO $300,000+ a year.

 

[David Metsky]

Moderator Note - Tone down the rhetoric. If you can't discuss this without resorting to insults then don't post on this subject.

without charging $260 a night to stay in a Stalinist style "luxury" hotel

 

[dentonfabrics]

....After auditing not-for-profits for the last 6 years, I ONLY support a very small percentage of organizations that I am asked to. I usually like to see that administrative/management expenses of the organization are only 0-10% of their total expenses. I also like organizations that actually put their audited financial statements online. This gives you an excellent idea of what is going on, financially and operationally, at the organization. I also strongly feel that once organizations grow beyond 50 or 100 employees, they start to lose a lot of focus on controlling costs. My favorite organizations are the ones that work in run-down buildings in cheap areas, give their employees more vacation time instead of more pay and keep their general expenses from only growing a few % points every year....

These comments remind me of a book I recently read, Two Coots In A Canoe. It's the story of two old college buddies who decide to paddle down the Connecticut River. One of them (the author, David Morine) spent much of his professional life involved with the local conservation efforts, most recently by awarding grants to the small, local green groups. He was always careful never to give grants to the groups who didnt run a tight ship, fiscally. (he names Mass. Audubon among these groups)

 

[Ed Poyer]

please clarify

These comments remind me of a book I recently read, Two Coots In A Canoe. It's the story of two old college buddies who decide to paddle down the Connecticut River. One of them (the author, David Morine) spent much of his professional life involved with the local conservation efforts, most recently by awarding grants to the small, local green groups. He was always careful never to give grants to the groups who didnt run a tight ship, fiscally. (he names Mass. Audubon among these groups)

Hi: was he classifying Mass Audubon as running, or not running, a tight ship?
Just curious.
Ed

 

[dentonfabrics]

Hi: was he classifying Mass Audubon as running, or not running, a tight ship?
Just curious.
Ed

Ed,

The author claims Mass Audubon does not run a tight ship. FWIW, that's just his opinion. I dont know the first thing about Mass Audubon.


bob

 

[Stuart]

Non-profit Information Availability

Compensation data, as well as other information, is available online on all non-profit organizations. Non-profits file an annual report with the IRS called Form 990. Go to the site Guidestar.org. You can get a free, basic membership. Search for Appalachian Mountain Club and open the link to their most recent Form 990 filed with the IRS.

 

[Paradox]

I have not read all of the previous posts but it seems to me that CEO's of non-profits are hired and compensated for their ablity to extract money from outside sources. If Falender is unable to do this, he will likely be looking for employment elsewhere. This thread did cause me to dig the dues notice from under the pile and send in my dues. For all those that benefit indirectly from the AMC, have at me.

 

[bikehikeskifish]

Like him or not, Andy Falender is retiring. You can apply for his job if you want

Tim