I guess this is my week to raise issues which might be offensive to some. I raise this one only for the purpose of civil debate. In that vein let me first say that I am a supporter of these organizations, I wish we had had them sooner!, feel even a little guilty that I didn't try harder to do something earlier. From that perspective, I was on the Ruffed Grouse society website, and saw they were rated by , and I quote, " An Independent Charity rating company" as 4 star, which is the top of the ratings for charities. So curiosity being what it is, I went to the rating site to see how the others stack up. DU, 4 star, Pheasants Forever only 2 Star. I wondered why? Reviewing the stability, cost of fund raising, amount of funds going to the intended purpose, all looked O.K. to me, and similar to the others, like Safari Club, Trout Unlimited, DU, all of which have the highest ratings. One area I did find interesting is the amounts of executive compensation. I found that the DU executive makes $376000 per year, the Ruffed Grouse guy about 168000, and the Pheasant's forever guy in excess of 200,000. The arguement is that that's the price for that level of talent..... that is Wall Streets answer from Goldman Sachs too! What do you all think? These are Charities after all.
Charity ratings
- Thread starter oldandnew
- Start date
1pheas4
Moderator
oldandnew, you've posted some interesting stuff here. I'm really wondering why PF scores a 2 in comparison to the others especially considering most of the funds stay locally and PF is said to be amoung the most cost efficient not for profit org. When I get a chance I want to look into this more.
As far as the executive pay goes, I'm in the wrong business my friend
. I understand the cost of experience and talent but these are not for profit orgs. I suppose one could argue if these executives were working for a big corporation they would be making considerably more for what they do. Anything less ($) and maybe it just wouldn't be worthwhile for them and they'd move onto bigger and better things? I'm curious to know what percentage of gross income/funds these executives are taking. I have a feeling it's a VERY small number.
Anyhow, great post :10sign:
As far as the executive pay goes, I'm in the wrong business my friend
. I understand the cost of experience and talent but these are not for profit orgs. I suppose one could argue if these executives were working for a big corporation they would be making considerably more for what they do. Anything less ($) and maybe it just wouldn't be worthwhile for them and they'd move onto bigger and better things? I'm curious to know what percentage of gross income/funds these executives are taking. I have a feeling it's a VERY small number.Anyhow, great post :10sign:
My friend is a manager at an accounting firm that audits many non-profits all over the mid-west and in fact many of these executives are brining in a lot of the money these organizations are bringing in. The only difference between a "non-profit" and a "for-profit" company is the fact that the non-profit doesn't have any owners and there for no tax is being paid. Any successful "non-profit" runs there company much the same way any other company would operate. All organizations no mater for-profit or non-profit have stakeholders and the role of the executive is to maximize stakeholder benefit whether that's via cash or hunting opportunities. Those that do that well get paid for that work.
Very interesting thread! I like the accountability factor.
Very interesting thread! I like the accountability factor.
Additional Info
The ratings service is Charity Navigator. It lists a great number of charities, and useful info, like the Humane society is in the top 5 of donor satisfaction!!! Lord save us all, but gives you an idea of the kind of zealots we are up against, they make Al Quida look ordinary. Yes the percentages are small for executive compensation, but if they are paying the exec this much, how much are the rest of the staff making? Are we then confusing advocation with occupation? Would you work for less if you were doing it for love? It seems as maybe it's a case of getting to do what you love and not sacrifice a damn thing!!! By the way a quick run through the organizations indicate the bigger it gets money wise, the more the director/ceo gets, just like private for profit companies. Well who said you were underpaid in the natural sciences.
The ratings service is Charity Navigator. It lists a great number of charities, and useful info, like the Humane society is in the top 5 of donor satisfaction!!! Lord save us all, but gives you an idea of the kind of zealots we are up against, they make Al Quida look ordinary. Yes the percentages are small for executive compensation, but if they are paying the exec this much, how much are the rest of the staff making? Are we then confusing advocation with occupation? Would you work for less if you were doing it for love? It seems as maybe it's a case of getting to do what you love and not sacrifice a damn thing!!! By the way a quick run through the organizations indicate the bigger it gets money wise, the more the director/ceo gets, just like private for profit companies. Well who said you were underpaid in the natural sciences.
well, i sure have mixed emotions about the whole deal here......in the big city i live in i found out the local chairman for the UW was drawing over 150K per year in salary....i don't care how much this person promotes or raises for the UW, a charitable organization paying a salary like this is wasting my contribution! i prefer to make direct contributions to the charity of my choice.
united way
I'm guessing someone else decided to pay him that and for that position that is probably the market rate for someone with his experience.
If you don't agree with his salary then write a letter or donate your money somewhere else that's why this website is giving us the information.
If you don't agree with his salary then write a letter or donate your money somewhere else that's why this website is giving us the information.
pheasantaddict
New member
Agree with sloth. These guys aren't making health insurance ceo wages of $110,000.00 per hour. If you really want to make money and rake people over the coals just become a health insurance ceo and in two working days ( not manual labor working days) you will make more money than most in a lifetime.
Downtown Bang!
Member
Here is a link from this website announcing PF getting a 4-Star rating from Charity Navigator for the third straight year in 2006. I have also found other press releases indicating a 4th straight year without documented dates.
http://www.ultimatepheasanthunting....ays-pf-outperforms-most-charities-in-america/
I'm a big PF supporter but would be very interested in an answer as to why the ratings are falling since 2007.
http://www.ultimatepheasanthunting....ays-pf-outperforms-most-charities-in-america/
I'm a big PF supporter but would be very interested in an answer as to why the ratings are falling since 2007.
moellermd
Super Moderator
I looked at the rating system and have not figured out why PF is lower than others. Must be my simple SD mind.
I guess I don't understand folks begruding a person a good wage for doing a good job.
Regardless of whether or not the position is for a non-profit, folks deserve to be paid a fair wage for their work. If an executive is successfully operating an organization, it's growing and meeting it's goals, he/she should be compensated for that. You can look at different organizations and see which ones have good leadership. Those that do are growing and meeting their goals. If you want to see those organizations go downhill, put a less qualified or less capable person in charge.
I believe that you get what you pay for. As a PF/QF member, I want to see the organization led by leaders who can get it done. Not any Tom, Dick or Harry off the street can make it happen. It takes certain qualities that are not all that common.
It's up to the membership/Board of Directors to make sure that the leadership of the organization is worth what they are being paid. And if they aren't, it's their responsibility to kick 'em out and get someone in there who can get it done.
Just my 2 cents....
Regardless of whether or not the position is for a non-profit, folks deserve to be paid a fair wage for their work. If an executive is successfully operating an organization, it's growing and meeting it's goals, he/she should be compensated for that. You can look at different organizations and see which ones have good leadership. Those that do are growing and meeting their goals. If you want to see those organizations go downhill, put a less qualified or less capable person in charge.
I believe that you get what you pay for. As a PF/QF member, I want to see the organization led by leaders who can get it done. Not any Tom, Dick or Harry off the street can make it happen. It takes certain qualities that are not all that common.
It's up to the membership/Board of Directors to make sure that the leadership of the organization is worth what they are being paid. And if they aren't, it's their responsibility to kick 'em out and get someone in there who can get it done.
Just my 2 cents....
moellermd
Super Moderator
I would agree wholeheartedly.
Food for thought
I agree that you have to pay market rate for exceptional talent. I want to point out however, that while true, that compensation is set by the board of directors, those boards are selected by the management, and in reality are pretty much rubber stamps for the management's agenda. Budgets are set and passed, rarely discussed, by the board, but prepared by the management under the watchful eye of the C.E.O. People who disagree with the C.E.O. rarely survive, as employees or directors. I might add that if you look at the South Dakota post, commented on by some of you here, you will see a lively and somewhat negative post about a guy named Kessler, being appointed as national director of Pheasants Forever. I know little of this guy, limited to what I read here, a lot of you had some reservations about this guy.... guess what!!! He gets to approve executive compensation. As members of Pheasants Forever, did any of you vote to appoint this guy? If the director is so great why has the Charity navigator ranking declined dramatically for since 2007? I realize I am treading on a sacred cow, but if a correction is needed, better now. I frankly assume that Kessler can be defended to everyone's satisfaction, and there probably exists a rational explanation of the rating. If so why wouldn't Pheasants Forever say something? Should we make them aware of this? Put an end to this now.
I agree that you have to pay market rate for exceptional talent. I want to point out however, that while true, that compensation is set by the board of directors, those boards are selected by the management, and in reality are pretty much rubber stamps for the management's agenda. Budgets are set and passed, rarely discussed, by the board, but prepared by the management under the watchful eye of the C.E.O. People who disagree with the C.E.O. rarely survive, as employees or directors. I might add that if you look at the South Dakota post, commented on by some of you here, you will see a lively and somewhat negative post about a guy named Kessler, being appointed as national director of Pheasants Forever. I know little of this guy, limited to what I read here, a lot of you had some reservations about this guy.... guess what!!! He gets to approve executive compensation. As members of Pheasants Forever, did any of you vote to appoint this guy? If the director is so great why has the Charity navigator ranking declined dramatically for since 2007? I realize I am treading on a sacred cow, but if a correction is needed, better now. I frankly assume that Kessler can be defended to everyone's satisfaction, and there probably exists a rational explanation of the rating. If so why wouldn't Pheasants Forever say something? Should we make them aware of this? Put an end to this now.
Sorry Sloth, I've been on to many boards, from banks to charities, what I said is pure fact. I'm sure the checks and balances work just as effectively as political appointments with their attendent checks and balances. We all advance in our profession based solely on merit too! who do you think invites someone to be on a board anyway? and where do you want me to send your bridge? I'm just kidding you, but seriously, they really don't answer to anybody, did you watch the wall street melt down? the bond rating services rated the bogus funds, based solely on how big a fee they got to rate them! Directors as keepers of the flame, that's a laugh, they are all indemnified by law as charitable directors from any errors or omissions anyway, just like advisory boards of churches. NOBODY is watching the store, not then not now.
They may appoint them but they don't elect them. I guess I should have qualified my statement and said I don't think its perfect but there is some structure. You just made it seem like they do whatever they want... and maybe some do but that doesn't mean all of them do.
I'm just glad there are groups out there like this website that keep an eye on organizations and even these watchdog groups aren't perfect so who really knows anyways. Maybe I'm just young and foolish but I'd like to give most people the benefit of the doubt.
Thanks for the bridge.... I could use it after all the B.S. you just spewed... only kidding had to get one in at you there oldandnew.
I'm just glad there are groups out there like this website that keep an eye on organizations and even these watchdog groups aren't perfect so who really knows anyways. Maybe I'm just young and foolish but I'd like to give most people the benefit of the doubt.
Thanks for the bridge.... I could use it after all the B.S. you just spewed... only kidding had to get one in at you there oldandnew.
riddle of the rating
I have figured out why the Pheasants Forever rating has declined. It has declined because the total revenue has declined, as has the amount of funds which are spent on the actual field work, ( mission). In fact the organization is struggling to maintain it's dollar commitment to the mission, and has outspent it'a actual income on the habitat work, the last two years. Obviously this is not sustainable long term. Expenses must balance out against income eventually. I suspect that the recession has a lot to with it, since I suspect the pheasant hunting fraternity is made up of mostly grassroot type donors with smaller capacity for charitable giving, than say DU, which has always enjoyed the patronage of " captains of industry types". So the moral of the story is, give more, do more, if the success of Pheasant's Forever's mission is improtant to you. In the old days of DU, members used to acquire sensitive sites, at personal expense, turn over mangement to DU, eventually transferring ownership to DU. Now that works in reverse, DU buys the site, rehabs it, sells it with restrictive covenants. They have the luxury of 70+ years of head start, and 10 times the annual revenue. We have a long way to go! But PF has given us a hell of a good start, a start that could falter if we are all not commited.
I have figured out why the Pheasants Forever rating has declined. It has declined because the total revenue has declined, as has the amount of funds which are spent on the actual field work, ( mission). In fact the organization is struggling to maintain it's dollar commitment to the mission, and has outspent it'a actual income on the habitat work, the last two years. Obviously this is not sustainable long term. Expenses must balance out against income eventually. I suspect that the recession has a lot to with it, since I suspect the pheasant hunting fraternity is made up of mostly grassroot type donors with smaller capacity for charitable giving, than say DU, which has always enjoyed the patronage of " captains of industry types". So the moral of the story is, give more, do more, if the success of Pheasant's Forever's mission is improtant to you. In the old days of DU, members used to acquire sensitive sites, at personal expense, turn over mangement to DU, eventually transferring ownership to DU. Now that works in reverse, DU buys the site, rehabs it, sells it with restrictive covenants. They have the luxury of 70+ years of head start, and 10 times the annual revenue. We have a long way to go! But PF has given us a hell of a good start, a start that could falter if we are all not commited.