There's a bit of a hub-bub going on in LA where the Exec of the Los Angeles County Museum of Art is being criticized for having an annual $1 million salary and benefits package. According to the LA Times, "One reason the LACMA board of trustees decided to pay top dollar for a director is that it wanted somebody to raise the museum's profile." While the hub-bub on the surface is about the size of the pay, a more central issue is that the Museum is making some program cuts and/or not filling some vacancies and this is of course what got someone to get the press' attention. Plus, there's some public money involved (not a whole lot though).
Now, the article does note that a $1 million package is actually not that unusual in the "big" museum business. It may be a bit high for the grandness of this museum but in reality, this is apparently the going rate for big fundraising types who run museums. What I really scratch my head about is why this is indeed the going rate. Why are execs like this considered so "valuable" and necessary to their trustees? There are after all lots of other nonprofits where the exec has to proportionately raise lots and lots of money and they aren't paid this handsomely. And, in these times, aren't the trustees raising any money?
Well, way more questions than answers but on the surface, it doesn't seem fair. And yet, it is the "best" practice.
Comments