ragpicker wrote:I'm actually really impressed at the low salary. That amount is entirely consistent with the bare bones administrative costs model and image they portray.
I agree. But it is a tough balancing act. One thing CAM donors can be assured of and that is that there are very few if any staff there that are in it simply for the money. And that is not a bad thing.
ragpicker wrote:I'm actually really impressed at the low salary. That amount is entirely consistent with the bare bones administrative costs model and image they portray.
Right. My employer is a similar size in terms of revenue and number of employees, and I can assure you our executive compensation is much higher.
You'd be hard-pressed to find many if any CEOs of $140 million organizations (even non-profits) who were paid only $100K, especially with the skill-set and responsibility needed to manage the fiscal, personnel, and relational realities of the position. Most donors would expect nothing less I believe.
$100k is about the going rate for a lower level administrator in a school district in a middle size town. An assistant superintendent for curriculum, or an assistant superintendent for human resources or some such. Your basic mid to upper level administrator in a public service job who supervises a large budget or a lot of people (but probably not both).
You can expect people with those kinds of skills and background to drop-in to low paid or volunteer mission work for a period of their lives and then go back to their careers at home. But you really can't expect people with those kinds of skills and training to spend their entire careers essentially volunteering their time and expertise for menial pay. Especially if they have a family, want to send their kids to college, want to retire, etc. If you do that you'll either get a revolving door or maybe somone at the end of their career who might not have the energy or creativity of someone younger in the prime of their working life.
With as many countries as CAM works in, and as many people and projects it supervises, I would expect the top jobs to basically be 24/7 jobs with very little break. You have to be a financial manager, personnel manager, fundraiser, leader, and diplomat. Someone will always be calling from somewhere in the world with a crisis or problem. And I would imagine there are constant fundraising pressures just to keep current projects moving much less any expansion. I'm guessing they more than earn their pay. And a top person in that position is probably going to earn their salary 20x over through fundraising efforts compared to someone without those skills.
I'm not trying to defend CAM. Just pointing out that an organization that size actually needs professional management and the people doing those jobs are no doubt earning their salaries several times over.
0 x
A fool can throw out more questions than a wise man can answer. -RZehr
Dan Z wrote:You'd be hard-pressed to find many if any CEOs of $140 million organizations (even non-profits) who were paid only $100K, especially with the skill-set and responsibility needed to manage the fiscal, personnel, and relational realities of the position. Most donors would expect nothing less I believe.
I get what you are saying Dan, and I don't begrudge him at all. And I don't fault them. Still for the record, I also get what Hats Off is saying. There is something that grates on a 40-50K a year person that is scraping to donate/tithe to a nonprofit and then find out the nonprofit leader is making six figures or more. (Once in another life, as a Principal and then Assistant Superintendent in the NYC DOE I experienced salaries at or above that level.) Personally, though, now as the leader of a nonprofit Christian school, I don't like the idea of making a lot more than many of those who sacrifice/give to support our work. Same goes for pastors. I know there are pastors that make six figures, but it rubs me the wrong direction if they make more than their average offering givers.
I realize it means I'll never have a "cabin" in the mountains and I'll never have a "camper" or a college fund...but I'd rather do that than live off the backs of givers.
Dan Z wrote:You'd be hard-pressed to find many if any CEOs of $140 million organizations (even non-profits) who were paid only $100K, especially with the skill-set and responsibility needed to manage the fiscal, personnel, and relational realities of the position. Most donors would expect nothing less I believe.
I get what you are saying Dan, and I don't begrudge him at all. And I don't fault them. Still for the record, I also get what Hats Off is saying. There is something that grates on a 40-50K a year person that is scraping to donate/tithe to a nonprofit and then find out the nonprofit leader is making six figures or more. (Once in another life, as a Principal and then Assistant Superintendent in the NYC DOE I experienced salaries at or above that level.) Personally, though, now as the leader of a nonprofit Christian school, I don't like the idea of making a lot more than many of those who sacrifice/give to support our work. Same goes for pastors. I know there are pastors that make six figures, but it rubs me the wrong direction if they make more than their average offering givers.
I realize it means I'll never have a "cabin" in the mountains and I'll never have a "camper" or a college fund...but I'd rather do that than live off the backs of givers.
The CAM salaries are certainly very modest in comparison to other organizations of that size. They are a sprawling worldwide organization and their budget is not a secret.
If you work with CAM or even visited their bases you may have noticed that there doesn't seem to be any shortage of money for good housing, equipment, and providing for their people. If all the money bothers you, there are lots of small organizations that operate on a shoestring that would welcome your support.
In our giving there are lots of opportunities and lots of ministries to choose from and I think it might be good to consider where your heart and burden is when you give and let that direct your giving instead of just giving to an organization like CAM because they're Mennonite and then later be disappointed.
Dan Z wrote:You'd be hard-pressed to find many if any CEOs of $140 million organizations (even non-profits) who were paid only $100K, especially with the skill-set and responsibility needed to manage the fiscal, personnel, and relational realities of the position. Most donors would expect nothing less I believe.
I get what you are saying Dan, and I don't begrudge him at all. And I don't fault them. Still for the record, I also get what Hats Off is saying. There is something that grates on a 40-50K a year person that is scraping to donate/tithe to a nonprofit and then find out the nonprofit leader is making six figures or more. (Once in another life, as a Principal and then Assistant Superintendent in the NYC DOE I experienced salaries at or above that level.) Personally, though, now as the leader of a nonprofit Christian school, I don't like the idea of making a lot more than many of those who sacrifice/give to support our work. Same goes for pastors. I know there are pastors that make six figures, but it rubs me the wrong direction if they make more than their average offering givers.
I realize it means I'll never have a "cabin" in the mountains and I'll never have a "camper" or a college fund...but I'd rather do that than live off the backs of givers.
Or: There’s something that grates about being expected to take a lower salary “for the sake of the mission” that’s being funded by some fabulously wealthy businessmen and businesses that give instead of going.
Or a little further: Being involved in a nonprofit earns a lot of social benefit for major donors and board members, especially in Mennonite circles. Is it fair to ask the actual mission workers to make sacrifices to subsidize a status symbol?
———
We like to imagine the idealized hard-scrapping sacrificially-funded nonprofit, but in reality a well-run nonprofit needs a lot of funding—and wealthy people to provide it. I think the two pictures—yours and mine—are both true and they’re in tension. And I don’t think that tension will be resolved until we decide what we really think about wealth. But this is probably another thread.
Pelerin wrote:
We like to imagine the idealized hard-scrapping sacrificially-funded nonprofit, but in reality a well-run nonprofit needs a lot of funding—and wealthy people to provide it. I think the two pictures—yours and mine—are both true and they’re in tension. And I don’t think that tension will be resolved until we decide what we really think about wealth. But this is probably another thread.
Has anyone ever seen a demographic breakdown of donors to CAM?
Average income, median income, what percent from each denomination, what percent is personal giving and what percent is corprate giving. That kind of thing? I promise you they most certainly know what these numbers look like. I just wonder if they ever make them public.
I've only been directly involved in one fundraising organization which was a local school foundation (raising extra dollars for local school grants). I was surprised what percentage of the donations were from local companies rather than individuals. I'm not sure what tax benefits they were getting and why say the wealthy owner of a car dealership might want to give through the dealership rather than personal funds. But that's what I saw happening.
Just curious if this is public information for CAM or other Mennonite organizations like MCC. And I wonder what percentage of the job of the top leaders in CAM and other organziations involves endless fundraising duties.
0 x
A fool can throw out more questions than a wise man can answer. -RZehr
