03/27/2009
Paychecks of LGBT Leaders Across the Nation Revealed
The Washington Blade posted an article yesterday detailing the compensation paid to leaders of LGBT advocacy groups and AIDS-related service organizations:
"The 30 national LGBT and AIDS groups are among the thousands of
nonprofit organizations in the United States that must file annual
reports with the IRS disclosing financial information, including the
salaries of their chief operating officers. In conducting the survey, the Blade asked the 30 organizations
to disclose the salaries for their CEOs or executive directors for 2008
— the most recently completed fiscal year — as well as for the current
fiscal year of 2009. The IRS 990 financial disclosure forms for
nonprofit organizations do not become publicly available for two years,
with the 2007 IRS forms being the latest year that the disclosure forms
can be obtained by the press or public"
The Blade notes that 26 groups agreed to provide the salaries for 2008 and 2009. The 4 that declined were Gay Men’s Health Crisis of New York City, the LGBT Community Center of New York City, New York's Empire State Pride Agenda, and the Log Cabin Republicans.
Wider analysis of the findings at the Blade.
Posted 11:03 AM EST by Andy Towle in Gay Rights, News | Permalink
Like it?
Subscribe to FREE Towleroad daily headlines with our RSS feed!
RECENT STORIES:
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
Now we know what to tell them when they beg for coin. GTH
Posted by: frank | Mar 27, 2009 11:15:29 AM
Impressive what fighting for other people right can actually brin oneself...
*thinking of changing career*
Posted by: ioni | Mar 27, 2009 11:26:49 AM
@ Frank,
Yeah, tell LGBT organizations to "GTH" when they ask you to help support the work of fighting for equal rights for you.
BTW, the anti-gay organizations any one of which has far more money than the top 5 gay groups combined, have already to you to "GTH."
Posted by: Michael Crawford | Mar 27, 2009 11:31:10 AM
Interesting...but I think it'd be more insightful to know the general starting salaries of the staff that actually do the work of the organizations and see how everyone's salaries compare to those in other social and economic justice movements (and service-oriented non-profits). Otherwise it's just an interesting list with no context...
Posted by: PJK | Mar 27, 2009 12:10:18 PM
Congratulations to the BLADE for pressing disclosure of these figures. Sunshine is the best disinfectant.
That being said, with the exception of Food & Friends, I don't find the compensation for most of these directors far out of line with the scope of their responsibilities. Most have legal degrees & their mission is difficult. I'm happy they dedicate themselves on my behalf.
Each group and it's leadership should be judged on it's effectiveness. Let's see more reports on that front.
Posted by: JONNY NYNY2FLFL | Mar 27, 2009 12:24:52 PM
It's not as bad as I feared.
The important thing is to look at how much work they do and how effective the organization is at accomplishing things.
Someone may be getting 2% of their organizations budget, but not doing a damn thing for it...and maybe the org is worthless. On the other hand, someone may get 12% of the income but they work their ass off and make things happen left and right.
Posted by: paul c | Mar 27, 2009 12:25:38 PM
I understand why people are reluctant to contribute to non-profits whose top officials make far more money than most of us. But most of the salaries did not strike me as terribly unreasonable. The salaries are low in comparison to what people with similar responsibilities would earn in the for-profit business world, or what mid-level professionals in the securities industry regularly receive in bonuses. And the salaries are much lower than what many other non-profits leaders in my expensive city (NYC) receive (such as the NY Public Library and the Community Services Society). Maybe my perspective is warped, because where I live, a $100K salary, while nice, does not make you rich.
I am not uncritical of LGBT groups who pay their leaders a lot of money and deliver little (IMHO, I would cite the Human Rights Campaign as an example), but the issue is more how little they deliver than the salaries they pay. And there shouldn't be a double-standard, where it is okay for business leaders to earn as much as they can get (and for all of us to buy their products) but not okay for but non-profit leaders to be supported by contributions to do their work unless they earn as little as possible.
Posted by: Michael J | Mar 27, 2009 12:38:03 PM
I don't get the motivation behind this investigation ... its seems like someone who likes to fart as they exit an elevator ... a stink has be created and then they walk away.
Posted by: Eric | Mar 27, 2009 12:51:52 PM
Nice the HRC's Joe S took a 10% reduction in his pay - still tho he gets over $ 300K a year!! That's still A LOT OF $$$$!!! I believe that working for "your community" should not mean taking THAT much for your salary!! One should exhibit altruism to some degree because you really believe in what you are doing rather then as a meal ticket!
Posted by: alex in boston | Mar 27, 2009 1:22:02 PM
Joe Solomnese needs to GO! He is weak and ineffective. I want people with strong voices to push for our rights and end anti-gay discrimination.
The salaries are not that bad. These people live in big cities so the cost of living are higher which means they have to earn more.
Posted by: Bill | Mar 27, 2009 1:31:08 PM
Unfortunately many HRC "professional gays" have embraced the "activist lifestyle" - enjoying the PROCESS and the job security a life of inequality offers but failing to REALLY FIGHT for the PRODUCT - Full Federal Equality.
How differently many would fight if they were homeless due to H8, or lost a child they raised as their own due to H8.
THERE IS NO SUFFERING EQUALITY, and that will always hold us back. Women and blacks HAD the same level of suffering as a group; we are TOO diverse, with too many living very comfortable lives despite inequality.
Posted by: John Bisceglia | Mar 27, 2009 2:00:06 PM
It doesn't matter that if in the private sector, people who have similar positions make far more; non profit isn't about personal compensation. And trust me, the bloated salaries of executive directors in the non profit world doesn't stop at the gay rights, but is found in domestic violence, homelessness and several other non profit positions. The argument can be made--has been made by better minds than anyone who posts on these blogs--that anyone who makes more than they require to sustain themselves and their families (cost of living) and satisfy their adjusted preferences (adjusted to take into account their ability to satisfy the preferences of others) is being unethical because the extra they bank can literally be translated into human suffering and death that would be diminished and avoided if it were to go to resolving it.
Yes, the old ideology is that you need to attract people with talent in the non profit world by offering them higher pay to offbalance the lure of private money, but this is simply disgusting.
I don't care what kind of job anyone does, no one "earns" a salary of over 300k, no matter what they do...it's surreal. Do you have any idea how many people starve to death every year, that most people on this planet lead unbearably miserable lives due to things like not being able to access clean drinking water or get vaccinated against preventable diseases? It's not certainly illegal, nor should greed be illegal, but greed is the best description for it, and these people (our leaders) are greedy human beings. And this can be said of the non profit industry in this country.
Posted by: TANK | Mar 27, 2009 2:43:16 PM
I wrote that in haste, but I'm confident I was understood. Just because it's common (greed), doesn't make it okay, or give any greedy individual a pass for being greedy.
Posted by: TANK | Mar 27, 2009 3:01:47 PM
I used to work as a project officer for an American non-profit organization (with a head quarter in Newton, but I was based in a Asia regional office in Bangkok) My salary was a little over $20,000 USD, pretty low considering the grueling hours I had to put in at 11-12 hours a day. My regional director made about $100,000 USD a year though!
Posted by: Wit | Mar 27, 2009 3:02:02 PM
how much did Milk get paid annually when he was alive vs. these salaries? That would be good to know. Sometimes commitment is not expressed in dollars you make. That's all.
Posted by: David B. 2 | Mar 27, 2009 3:16:53 PM
I agree with TANK. These are greedy people masquerading as activists and community leaders. However, aren't we - LGBTI'ers - to blame for not standing up and saying enough? Aren't we to blame for not appreciating and insisting that everyone in LGBTI communities, regardless of SES and race and gender, be represented as important aspects of these diverse communities? As we fight for equality in the broader social context, we must also stop occasionally (probably frequently) to look within ourselves and our communities and ask what inequalities are we, as people demanding equality, maintaining and reinforcing.
Posted by: GMT | Mar 27, 2009 3:45:46 PM
Tank, I agree that greed is not okay. But if greed were the primary motivation of the LGBT leaders, most wouldn't be in thier current jobs. They would be looking for work in the private sector or with more established, better funded non-profits. And to lump a non-profit director who works hard and does a good job but earns $300K with an executive who gets an eight-figure golden parachute (regardless of how well they do their job) by labeling them both "greedy" is simply wrong.
Now if you are talking about an executive who does little for his or her salary, or who presides over an organization that is ineffective and/or spends a large portion or most of its budget on raising funds, that is another issue. Regardless of what that executive is paid, I would argue the non-profit who employs him or her isn't worthy of support.
Posted by: Michael J | Mar 27, 2009 4:15:02 PM
"Tank, I agree that greed is not okay. But if greed were the primary motivation of the LGBT leaders, most wouldn't be in thier current jobs."
Why not? Less competition, and salaries that are good enough to sustain a comparatively opulent lifestlye. There comes a point when people realize that the cost of making more isn't worth the effort, and are more than happy to take jobs where they'll be well compensated, but won't have to work nearly as hard, have better job security, and don't forget the PRESTIGE of fighting for what's right. So no, if it were primarily about greed, they'd be right where they are. A lot of non profit people couldn't hack it in corporate america, make no mistake (real competition); and have just enough business savvy and education to fulfill their job descriptions in non profit land. Plus, they wouldn't be lauded as civil rights pioneers, and moral warriors. That's greed, too. But you know, we can test this hypothesis by dramatically reducing their salaries, and see if they come back to work.
"They would be looking for work in the private sector or with more established, better funded non-profits."
And many do. But alas, no, that's pure speculation in the absence of any actual facts--like salaries I'm relying on in evaluating character, or, in this case, the lack of it. Not total lack...it's not as simple as that...but there's some significant character flaws of these so called leaders that aren't just "moral" but unethical.
"And to lump a non-profit director who works hard and does a good job but earns $300K with an executive who gets an eight-figure golden parachute (regardless of how well they do their job) by labeling them both "greedy" is simply wrong."
Why? IN both cases, they make more money than most people on this planet see in several lifetimes. Because the executive in the private sector makes more? There comes a point when more simply ceases to matter to the evaluation of greed, and 300k is as good a point as any other. I am not denying that they make more--never did--and I'm similarly not condoning it.
"Now if you are talking about an executive who does little for his or her salary, or who presides over an organization that is ineffective and/or spends a large portion or most of its budget on raising funds, that is another issue."
I don't care how hard someone works or how effective they are at their job--no one "deserves" or "earns" 300k in salary. No one given current cost of living.
Posted by: TANK | Mar 27, 2009 4:42:38 PM
Siiick. I agree with Tank for once. Nasty.
I would like to add that some of the responsibility lies on dumbass donors who don't bother to check out which gay orgs they donate to. Who in their right mind would donate to the HRC? $300k is RIDICULOUS. Yes, it's so hard to hand awards to Tyra Banks and Lance Bass and shit. This money isn't coming out of anyone's pocket unless they choose to give it, so you can also blame the donors who can't take two seconds to see that the money they're giving is actually helping something, instead of just throwing it away and anticipating the latest warm-fuzzy newsletter.
Posted by: Ugh | Mar 27, 2009 5:38:30 PM
All but one is white. Imagine that....
Posted by: Shocked I Tell You | Mar 27, 2009 6:45:25 PM
That's across the board in non profit, shocked. The leadership is mostly all white, not just in gay rights non profit, and so are the boards that they supposedly answer to, but never do. The ED's tokenize, especially in whiter states, like you wouldn't believe. They're some of the most backward, racist people you'd never think would hold those positions...made worse because they think they're being inclusive and progressive by tokenizing. Of course no one wants to be critical of the non profit industry because they hide behind the victims.
Posted by: TANK | Mar 27, 2009 7:04:08 PM
Assuming that these individuals are doing a competent job, I think that they should be compensated appropriately. If a professional baseball player can make tens of millions of dollars a year, if an investment banker can make millions, and the list could go on ... then a strong, intelligent, talented leader of a non-profit organization should be able to earn 6 figures without a concern. Yes, I get the non-profit, helping people, charitable drift but I think we in this country have our priorities in the wrong place. Madonna concerts sell out in a day with huge ticket prices .... yet, some people at The Blade have a problem paying talented leaders a good salary.... I don't get it.
Boycott Madonna, Boycott the Yankees baseball team but do not boycott GLBT organizations.
Posted by: Kevan Truman | Mar 27, 2009 7:25:49 PM
Without addressing a particular leaders effectiveness, as someone who works in the movement, I can't figure out the reason for this article. It seems designed to spark outrage in the community over what are seen as exorbitant salaries. So far, no one on here or the Blade's website has address how UNDERPAID some movement leaders are. The simple fact is that the movement needs smart, savvy and effective leaders and operatives. In order to attract and retain those people, they need to be compensated in a reasonable way.
Anyone who owns or runs a business as large as HRC or the LA Center, I can assure you is receiving much more compensation than Solmonese or Jean.
As I said, I work in the movement and am very good at what I do. Putting aside the current economic downturn, I am certain I could earn FAR more at either a larger nonprofit or in the private sector. Simply put, while I am happy to earn less to do what I love and what helps my community, if we want to win and protect our rights, I at least expect to paid a reasonable wage.
Posted by: Movement Guy | Mar 27, 2009 8:50:46 PM
I think this is sidestepping the real issue, which I believe is the duplication of services offered by non-profits (especially those who receive gov't funding). It's enormously inefficient and God help you if you bring it up at any of their meetings. There's nothing like a pack of angry, self-entitled Lesbians to drown out any voice of reason.
Posted by: chasmader | Mar 29, 2009 9:03:30 AM