Last year the Dodgers Dream Foundation paid its CEO $400,000 for less than a full-time job. If we are to believe the New York Times interviews, the Foundation's CEO earned this pay, disproportionately high compared to pay for similar positions at other professional Team Charities, by meeting results-focused goals around long-term development of the organization. Otherwise: this salary would have been justified for a $100 million charity, not a $1.6 million charity.
But, the Foundation argues that it is results-focused and pays accordingly.
I must say, as much as $400,000 "feels" like a lot of pay (actually, 25% of the budget), I have a hard time arguing that pay reflective of results is bad. As A matter of fact, I firmly believe that CEO pay should reflect results and this is a great way to demonstrate how compensation can achieve this goal (results that is).
But of course, there's many folks who would say that $400,000 is a lot of money for a less than full-time position conducting "charitable" work. And, it is. But if that's what it takes to produce the desired results, then what the heck! Plus the foundation's goals are long-term rather than short-term focused, a plus.
Now, the only element I miss in the article: a board. Just where are those people and why were'nt they part of the article?