i don't know..
i mean in business terms of course it makes perfect sense.
charities have become businesses when it comes to raising money - they hire sales people and ad firms, they hire sales people and pay them huge commissions, they throw lavish parties and hire lobbyists, etc. they are become big businesses. and as such they compete for ceos with influence, connections, and experience running big businesses.
i see scam exposes regularly about charities which spend 95% of all they raise on employee perks, only spending 5% on the actual charity. so make sure if you support a charity that most of the money goes to charity spending. there are some watchdog sites that track this.
on one hand i understand the reasoning here - if the job of a charity is to do good, and doing good is entirely dependent on raising and spending money, then like any other business it pays to compete in terms of salary to hire the most powerfull ceo.
still part of me cant help but think - maybe it would be better not to have the highest power $500,000 a year salaray ceo, and sales people paid with giant commissions, and instead hire people who really believe in the cause. and if that means not being as big or raising as much money, maybe that would still be a better situation..
again this gets back to one of the ideas of this website here:
what is the goal?
is the goal to make the most money possible as fast as possible? or is it something more.
i worry that charities are morphing into a state where the goal is to make as much money as possible, as fast as possible. yes they want to help people with that money, but im not sure whats more important to them, helping people, or insuring they build a luxurious giant business.