In its story about New York's High Line Park (a former industrial rail line) New York Times' SERGE F. KOVALESKI focuses on the salary of the Executive and co-founder/development director. And maybe this focus is appropriate as we learn that while the board has set a salary it believes is appropriate (for the work and results) and comparable (to similar positions), there are facts the suggest that maybe the board isn't all that objective. Specifically:
At the outset, he and Mr. David formed a board with several other supporters, and they elected a chairman, who served in that position until early May this year.
Four of the original board members, along with the rest of the board, have been involved in approving Mr. Hammond’s compensation over the years. The Friends of the Highline said Mr. David and Mr. Hammond recused themselves from involvement in each other’s compensation. Gifford Miller, the former City Council speaker, who became friends with Mr. Hammond when the two were students at Princeton, sits on the board, too.
So, the board is the product of the exec but salaries are set without the two "in the room". Is this great nonprofit governance? Are these "hand picked" folks fulfilling their duty of care to the max? Mr. Kovaleski certainly leads me to wonder whether the answer to these and other good governance questions is yes. And, this really is a good case study around what is good nonprofit governance.
Regarding salary though, even if the board is "suspect" the donors in the end will really place the deciding vote.