I am not knowledgeable on the interworkings of charitable organizations, but it has always been my understanding from limited experience the head of a non-profit has their annual pay tied to the amount of money raised through fundraising efforts.
I've spent most of my professional career dealing with those innerworkings.
Sure, a non-profit can't live beyond its means when it comes to CEO salary. It can't bleed red ink for long so that the CEO can earn a princely sum. I get that, but that's not the case with the IHSA.
Unless the IHSA has suddenly shifted its policies to include fundraising as a method to increase revenue, I think over $300,000 is, well, a bit of an overpayment.
Why? Are you drawing a distinction between for-profit and non-profit? Both types of entities need employees. Both are subject to limited pools of qualified candidates to fill their available positions. Both are subject to job market forces.
Society wants its non-profits to run well. To do that, those non-profits need to hire and retain employees who produce those desired results. They need to COMPETE in the job market with for-profit employers for the same talent. But, society has acquired a mindset that non-profit employees should be paid less than for-profit employees. That's a double standard if I ever saw one.
Being as close to the non-profit world as I am, I am very aware of the standard that many people hold non-profits to when it comes to what they pay their executives and to solely measuring a non-profit's efficacy by how little they spend on administrative overhead. I firmly believe that this standard, although rooted in a sense of altruism, serves to hinder non-profit organizations more than it helps them.
There's an old adage that says, "You get what you pay for." What kind of CEO talent will be attracted to work for the IHSA if s/he is paid far less than what s/he might make leading an $11 million business in the for-profit sector? What kind of bottom line results is society willing to accept from non-profits, as a whole, if it expects the leaders of those organizations to work for substantially less pay than what they could make in the corporate sector?
Society has little quarrel with for-profit enterprises promoting their products and services and applying tried-and-true, market based decision making to the running of those enterprises. Corporate America invests heavily to produce greater long term results. Companies incur debt. They sometimes plan to spend far more than they bring in because they believe that they WILL be profitable eventually if they do so. They take RISKS. Why, then, does society get their collective knickers in a twist when charitable organizations apply those same principles to their organizations?
What should matter more than anything else, including revenue generated, is bottom line impact -- measurable and positive results that are sustained. Is the organization doing a good job of what it is supposed to be doing? Is it progressing or regressing?
You know that I am the last person who could be labeled a knee-jerk apologist for the IHSA. Both you and I are quick to point out IHSA shortfalls. There's a lot not to like with the IHSA, especially
That said, look at what the IHSA does day in and day out. Under the auspices and regulation of the IHSA, how many high school athletic activities happen every single day during the school year? The answer is in the THOUSANDS. Of those thousands, how many come off without a hitch? The VAST majority. Upwards of 99.9%, I would have to say. On the most macro of levels, I think that the IHSA does a pretty good job.
The Executive Director of the IHSA is there to implement the policies established by the Board of Directors. He or she is not there to establish those policies. The kind of change that you and I want relative to the IHSA starts at the board level, not the CEO level. We may not like the volunteer and administrative leaders, and we may not like certain IHSA policies, but I believe that disdain/dislike should be separate from what IHSA administrative leaders deserve to be paid to carry out the mission of the organization, as established by the board, in an efficient and effective way.
