There are some more quotes to be made:
But it's fair to ask: Is one charity automatically more worthy than another just because its leader is paid a lower salary? Not necessarily, says Charity Navigator, a Web site that evaluates and compares the financial health of charitable organizations.
Marsha Evans' salary, generous as it seems, amounts to only .15% of American Red Cross' annual expenses. By contrast, Brian Gallagher's salary is .97% of United Way's total expenses, and W. Todd Bassett's compensation amounts to .29% of the Salvation Army's annual expense budget. All these figures are well below the annual average calculated for the thousands of organizations in Charity Navigator's database, 3.4%.
I admit that $40,000,000 salaries for some CEOs are out of touch with reality, but let them have $400,000 if they do a good job! They are managing many, many people, and the bigger the organization the more fires they have to put out every single day.
Just don't look at the amount of $ they
get but also at what they
lose: many CEOs are so busy that their kids are running to mom when they return home at daylight, screaming "there's a strange man in our house!" - because they are working 80+ hours a week.
Also, you need to consider if they'd limit their salary to say $100,000 the best CEOs will probably go to some regular company instead of chosing the charity. This could lead to bad decisions, which in the end could result in attracting less donations, so the charity might lose way more than it saved in the CEO salary.
So, regarding all that, I say: let them have their $200,000, $300,000 or even $400,000 if they do a truely good job successfully managing some big charity!