At 12:51 PM 8/28/2008 -0500, Stephen Russell wrote: >On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 12:40 PM, Michael Madigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >wrote: > > It's not-for-profit, that's why. There's no reason a 200k salary > shouldn't be enough. > > >--------------------------------------------------- > >WTF? are you kidding? > >Why does a profit model determine pay grades? You should get paid for >what your doing and now whom you are working for. ...
No no no. You're missing the point. A charitable organization depends on "donations" from people to do perform its goals. There is no "profit" intent (or, at least, there shouldn't be). And by taking large sums of money as a salary when working for non-profits basically drains the resources without actually accomplishing any goals. Maybe you think there is some way a "really good CEO" can raise tons of money as compared to a "bad CEO." But from what I've seen, that's not the case. For non-profits CEO choice isn't nearly as important as finding a movie star to put out in front of people. As Mike said, when you go work for a non-profit (or not-for-profit), your mentality should be one of "serving" not "being served" That may be difficult for MS-heads to understand, but there are actually people out there that want to do things for others and require the absolute least amount of expense burden on the benefactors (and supporters). Those are the people you want as your CEOs and leaders of non-profits. -Charlie _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
