July 02, 2009
New York Pastor Resigns
The Rev. Brad R. Braxton, senior pastor of Riverside Church, in New York, resigned this week after less than a year on the job, in part because of a controversy about his compensation, reports the City Room, a New York Times blog.
The church fight is the latest in a series of incidents in which the public has expressed concern about a nonprofit leader’s pay; some charity experts expect such scrutiny to grow during the recession.
The Rev. Braxton was appointed in September to lead the church, but some congregants objected to his annual compensation of $600,000, including a $250,000 salary and a housing allowance. According to experts on American churches, the compensation was well above average but within the range for senior leaders of similar-size churches in other big cities, writes Times reporter Paul Vitello.
To be sure, the reverend’s pay was only part of the dispute, with some members of the church arguing that the new leader would move River Side away from its progressive activist roots.
Given the economic tough times, many nonprofit executives at large organizations feel pressure to limit their pay, and some have opted to forgo bonuses or have their salary reduced, according to a Chronicle article.
What do you think? Does it seem there is more public concern about nonprofit compensation? Should charity executives reduce their pay during the recession?
Comments
Commenting is closed for this article.
Previous: Aid Groups Spending More Money on Security, Survey Finds
Next: Dueling Research on the True Beneficiaries of Foundation Grants
I honestly think that executives should have considered pay reductions LONG ago, not just because of the economic times. When your workers “in the trenches” are so poorly paid that they could almost qualify for your services, it’s time to take a look at sharing the wealth. Yes, leaders should be paid well for leading, but there needs to be a balance. No ED should be pulling in 6 figures when his or her case workers are having to apply for food stamps – or worse yet, make $5/month too much to qualify for assistance.
— Amanda Jul 2, 11:13 AM #
The question of executive compensation is a loaded one. When heading an organization the responsibility stops at the top and executive should be fairly compensated.
Just like a puzzle piece, the compensation should fit into its place in the puzzle for a total picture to be created. If it’s too big then the end result can never happen. Its simple compensation should not hurt the rest of the reason for the existence of the non-for- profit or any company. There is a certain ethical responsibility to others, which need to be respected.
— Chris Demarco Jul 2, 11:01 PM #
On the face of it, such compensation for a member of the clergy seems outrageous, but uninformed judgments and blanket statements are irresponsible. What is owed all stakeholders (the taxpayers who subsidize tax-exempt organizations, as well as the congregants), however, is absolute transparency.
There is no rationale for religious organizations to receive preferential treatment by not being subject to the same IRS reporting requirements as other tax-exempt organizations.
— Jeff Steele Jul 2, 11:34 PM #
Given the presumed motivations for entering the clergy, does it really seem reasonable to anyone that any pastor should be receiving $600,000 per year in compensation? No one expects these men and woman to be “poor as a church mouse,” but this level of remuneration seems antithetical to a profession based almost entirely on spiritual values and the pursuit of non-materialistic enlightenment. Having worked for many years in a faith-based organization, I know that a good many pastors are retiring as millionaires (even from small churches). The tax breaks enjoyed by these individuals and the churches that employ them are lucrative enough to garner the envy of the greediest Wall Street baron. (How interesting that wealthy clergy find it easy to dismiss Matthew 19:24, Mark 10:25, and Luke 18:24.)
The problem of nonprofit CEO pay in general is indicative of the dysfunctional mindset imported into the third sector from the private arena. The notion that the “buck stops” at the top is a fairy tale promoted by the people seeking the large salaries. Most CEOs (regardless of sector) are extremely adept at finger pointing and scapegoating. They take token pay cuts (if even that) and represent them as some grandiose sacrifice. The real problem is the huge and unjustifiable discrepancy between executive nonprofit pay and that of the actual rank & file service providers. This paradigm must change, and it must do so now, or the nonprofit world will reflect an internal system of social inequity as it strives to reverse social injustice in the world at large. There is a growing tide of public mistrust of nonprofits, and if CEOs are really going to lead, then it’s about time they do something substantial to demonstrate that they aren’t just in it for the money.
We’re waiting.
— Benton Carson Jul 7, 02:42 PM #
Riverside Church has both rich and poor members. If the pastor cannot live in the neighborhoods that congregants live in, it can affect the pastor-member relationships.
Also, “Pastor” at Riverside requires a strong administrative talent. When service for God demands that the servants always be too poor to participate in the same activities their congregants take for granted, I believe the congregations is asking for too much and putting in too little.
— Liz on Long Island Jul 8, 09:09 AM #