"During the fiscal year that ended last April, (Bill) Marolt earned nearly $652,000 (plus access to 2 cars and first class accommodations) — more than the chief executive of the United States Olympic Committee and most other leaders of Olympic sports. Bill Marolt is the chief exec of the US Olympic Ski and Snowboard Association. $250,000 of his earnings came from a bonus which he gets based on member performance (they, members, did really, really well this last Olympics). "Marolt also oversees several related nonprofits and entities, including the United States Ski Team Foundation, which had a budget of $11 million in the fiscal year that ended in April 2008."
So, what's the "so what"? This is exactly my question. The board that oversees the nonprofits that Mr. Marolt oversees is quite satisfied with Mr. Marolt's performance, according to the New York Times, the source of this story. And, according to this story, while Mr. Marolt's earnings are actually close to those earned by "the leaders of high-profile summer sports like swimming" they exceed those of earned by the head of the US Olympic Committee, the US Hockey Team, gymnasts and soccer.
So,not everyone is totally happy with what Mr. Marolt earns but nearly everyone is satisfied with Mr. Marolt. And here's the bottom line on this too regularly introduced topic of nonprofit executive compensation which the media so likes to raise. IT's NOT ABOUT THE MONEY -- IT's ABOUT PERFORMANCE and OUTCOMES!
While I would like to tip my hat to the Times reporters for a fairly balanced article but I think that articles that focus on nonprofit exec compensation do not provide the public with the best basis for evaluating or understanding the nonprofit sector. The better focus of stories about nonprofits and even their execs should be about performance. If they perform well, there should be stories and if they perform badly, their should be stories. Such stories help better inform the public.