Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Huffington Post)   Woman running for Congress sets up charity to get women into politics. Guess where the money goes?   ( huffingtonpost.com) divider line
    More: Obvious, D-Hawaii, Capitol in Washington, Democratic Party of Hawaii, public charities, Charity Navigator, personal bankruptcy, John Murtha, Roland Burris  
•       •       •

3875 clicks; posted to Politics » on 14 Dec 2013 at 3:00 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



71 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2013-12-14 12:48:50 PM  
It's funny how people think you should work for free just because it's a charity.
 
2013-12-14 01:57:34 PM  

edmo: It's funny how people think you should work for free just because it's a charity.


i970.photobucket.com
 
2013-12-14 02:22:03 PM  
That's the way the money goes/ Pop goes the weasel?
 
2013-12-14 02:57:25 PM  
So convert it to a PAC and keep almost  all of it.
 
2013-12-14 03:02:12 PM  

edmo: It's funny how people think you should work for free just because it's a charity.


I work for a non-profit and people ask me all the time if I get paid...
 
2013-12-14 03:05:36 PM  

edmo: It's funny how people think you should work for free just because it's a charity.


See, she's a democrat. Ergo, the right wing money laundering machine of perpetual motion is OK. So vote Republican!
 
2013-12-14 03:07:09 PM  
Well she's not out banging children.
/think of them
 
2013-12-14 03:13:56 PM  
Margolies' pay, which reached at least $116,000 from 2009 to 2012, has consistently been above the industry standard. For organizations with budgets from $1 million to $2.5 million, the median compensation for all CEO's was $94,924 (with women, as in most industries, making less than that), according to Guidestar, which tracks nonprofits.

So...slightly above median?  Are we outraged?

Or perhaps we're outraged that a charity for promoting women in politics, run by a women, isn't deliberately paying women less than men like the rest of society (seriously, WTF article?).
 
2013-12-14 03:16:51 PM  
Into fixing the cable?
 
2013-12-14 03:17:22 PM  
Chocolate?
 
2013-12-14 03:18:08 PM  
Apparently if you work for a charity, you should be paid exactly the median wage for the revenue your charity gets.
 
2013-12-14 03:23:23 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Apparently if you work for a charity, you should be paid exactly the median wage for the revenue your charity gets.


You should do it for free! Unless you are doing it for a conservative charity, then getting paid way above the median is totally okay because supply side Jesus.
 
2013-12-14 03:24:26 PM  

MFAWG: edmo: It's funny how people think you should work for free just because it's a charity.

See, she's a democrat. Ergo, the right wing money laundering machine of perpetual motion is OK. So vote Republican!


Article: Democrat likes money and likes to take a lot of it
Your comment: Stupid Republicans

See a little problem right there?
 
2013-12-14 03:27:19 PM  

Emposter: Or perhaps we're outraged that a charity for promoting women in politics, run by a women, isn't deliberately paying women less than men like the rest of society (seriously, WTF article?).


Or maybe we're outraged because the numbers make it sound like she's just skimming the cash.

She's getting $116K as the CEO. There was also an "executive director" who was making between $78K and $100K.

All to run an organization that had revenue from $700K - $2 mill. Seriously, you think that's *two* full time jobs?

They throw some awards and fundraising events, perhaps one a month or so. They might produce some educational materials, or review grant proposals. But as the article states, with revenues of this level, its usually all handled by one person.

So while the median pay to do this was about $95K, this one spends more than double that.

Sounds to me like she hired someone to do the actual work, and just took a salary for a no-show job.
 
2013-12-14 03:27:53 PM  

cman: MFAWG: edmo: It's funny how people think you should work for free just because it's a charity.

See, she's a democrat. Ergo, the right wing money laundering machine of perpetual motion is OK. So vote Republican!

Article: Democrat likes money and likes to take a lot of it
Your comment: Stupid Republicans

See a little problem right there?


Nope. Why don't you mansplain it to me.
 
2013-12-14 03:29:18 PM  

MFAWG: cman: MFAWG: edmo: It's funny how people think you should work for free just because it's a charity.

See, she's a democrat. Ergo, the right wing money laundering machine of perpetual motion is OK. So vote Republican!

Article: Democrat likes money and likes to take a lot of it
Your comment: Stupid Republicans

See a little problem right there?

Nope. Why don't you mansplain it to me.


Article: Democrat. You: Republican.

Must I have to explain this anymore?
 
2013-12-14 03:29:33 PM  

It's widely touted as a trib-
But could it just be a big fib?
The dame's received offers
Now fill up her coffers-
And all thanks to our women's lib!

 
2013-12-14 03:29:41 PM  

Emposter: So...slightly above median?  Are we outraged?


Slightly above median...for an organization that earns in the upper quarter of the income bucket from which the median was generated.
 
2013-12-14 03:31:15 PM  

MisterRonbo: Emposter: Or perhaps we're outraged that a charity for promoting women in politics, run by a women, isn't deliberately paying women less than men like the rest of society (seriously, WTF article?).

Or maybe we're outraged because the numbers make it sound like she's just skimming the cash.

She's getting $116K as the CEO. There was also an "executive director" who was making between $78K and $100K.

All to run an organization that had revenue from $700K - $2 mill. Seriously, you think that's *two* full time jobs?

They throw some awards and fundraising events, perhaps one a month or so. They might produce some educational materials, or review grant proposals. But as the article states, with revenues of this level, its usually all handled by one person.

So while the median pay to do this was about $95K, this one spends more than double that.

Sounds to me like she hired someone to do the actual work, and just took a salary for a no-show job.


This.
 
2013-12-14 03:31:20 PM  

cman: MFAWG: cman: MFAWG: edmo: It's funny how people think you should work for free just because it's a charity.

See, she's a democrat. Ergo, the right wing money laundering machine of perpetual motion is OK. So vote Republican!

Article: Democrat likes money and likes to take a lot of it
Your comment: Stupid Republicans

See a little problem right there?

Nope. Why don't you mansplain it to me.

Article: Democrat. You: Republican.

Must I have to explain this anymore?


Yes, you must. Because I really don't see what your point is. As someone up above pointed out the ACTUAL problem is that she's a figurehead for a charity that doesn't really exist for any reason other than to provide her with extra income above her salary as a legislator.
 
2013-12-14 03:32:43 PM  

MFAWG: cman: MFAWG: cman: MFAWG: edmo: It's funny how people think you should work for free just because it's a charity.

See, she's a democrat. Ergo, the right wing money laundering machine of perpetual motion is OK. So vote Republican!

Article: Democrat likes money and likes to take a lot of it
Your comment: Stupid Republicans

See a little problem right there?

Nope. Why don't you mansplain it to me.

Article: Democrat. You: Republican.

Must I have to explain this anymore?

Yes, you must. Because I really don't see what your point is. As someone up above pointed out the ACTUAL problem is that she's a figurehead for a charity that doesn't really exist for any reason other than to provide her with extra income above her salary as a legislator.


You are acting like Fox News who takes any thing it gets to bash the left. Thats the problem. This isn't about right versus wrong, this is about right versus left for you.
 
2013-12-14 03:35:01 PM  
And buried 6 paragraphs down is the little tidbit that she's Chelsea Clinton's mother-in-law.
 
2013-12-14 03:35:44 PM  

cman: MFAWG: cman: MFAWG: cman: MFAWG: edmo: It's funny how people think you should work for free just because it's a charity.

See, she's a democrat. Ergo, the right wing money laundering machine of perpetual motion is OK. So vote Republican!

Article: Democrat likes money and likes to take a lot of it
Your comment: Stupid Republicans

See a little problem right there?

Nope. Why don't you mansplain it to me.

Article: Democrat. You: Republican.

Must I have to explain this anymore?

Yes, you must. Because I really don't see what your point is. As someone up above pointed out the ACTUAL problem is that she's a figurehead for a charity that doesn't really exist for any reason other than to provide her with extra income above her salary as a legislator.

You are acting like Fox News who takes any thing it gets to bash the left. Thats the problem. This isn't about right versus wrong, this is about right versus left for you.


FWIW, HuffPo has been all over this for several days. If she was GOPPer it would be expected and not worth the trouble to report.

Does that clear things up?
 
2013-12-14 03:37:54 PM  

MFAWG: cman: MFAWG: cman: MFAWG: cman: MFAWG: edmo: It's funny how people think you should work for free just because it's a charity.

See, she's a democrat. Ergo, the right wing money laundering machine of perpetual motion is OK. So vote Republican!

Article: Democrat likes money and likes to take a lot of it
Your comment: Stupid Republicans

See a little problem right there?

Nope. Why don't you mansplain it to me.

Article: Democrat. You: Republican.

Must I have to explain this anymore?

Yes, you must. Because I really don't see what your point is. As someone up above pointed out the ACTUAL problem is that she's a figurehead for a charity that doesn't really exist for any reason other than to provide her with extra income above her salary as a legislator.

You are acting like Fox News who takes any thing it gets to bash the left. Thats the problem. This isn't about right versus wrong, this is about right versus left for you.

FWIW, HuffPo has been all over this for several days. If she was GOPPer it would be expected and not worth the trouble to report.

Does that clear things up?


You are completely missing the point, dude.

No where do Republicans enter the picture. Absolutely no where. There is a Democratic lady who makes a decent bit of change from her charity, and you go bashing Republicans. Does that clear things up?

I aint saying she is guilty, all I am saying is that, Jesus, layoff the hyperpartisanship for a bit
 
2013-12-14 03:38:04 PM  

Emposter: Margolies' pay, which reached at least $116,000 from 2009 to 2012, has consistently been above the industry standard. For organizations with budgets from $1 million to $2.5 million, the median compensation for all CEO's was $94,924 (with women, as in most industries, making less than that), according to Guidestar, which tracks nonprofits.

So...slightly above median?  Are we outraged?

Or perhaps we're outraged that a charity for promoting women in politics, run by a women, isn't deliberately paying women less than men like the rest of society (seriously, WTF article?).


$164K in 2011, which would be 73% above the median.

This is the woman who lost her seat because she campaigned on being a fiscal moderate and then was practically dragged bodily to the House well by the House leadership to vote to pass the '93 Clinton tax increase, something she had promised never to do. That toxic bill led to the '94  purge of the Democrats. The Dems are about to see a rerun in 2014 as a result of the Obamacare disaster.
 
2013-12-14 03:39:13 PM  

cman: MFAWG: cman: MFAWG: cman: MFAWG: cman: MFAWG: edmo: It's funny how people think you should work for free just because it's a charity.

See, she's a democrat. Ergo, the right wing money laundering machine of perpetual motion is OK. So vote Republican!

Article: Democrat likes money and likes to take a lot of it
Your comment: Stupid Republicans

See a little problem right there?

Nope. Why don't you mansplain it to me.

Article: Democrat. You: Republican.

Must I have to explain this anymore?

Yes, you must. Because I really don't see what your point is. As someone up above pointed out the ACTUAL problem is that she's a figurehead for a charity that doesn't really exist for any reason other than to provide her with extra income above her salary as a legislator.

You are acting like Fox News who takes any thing it gets to bash the left. Thats the problem. This isn't about right versus wrong, this is about right versus left for you.

FWIW, HuffPo has been all over this for several days. If she was GOPPer it would be expected and not worth the trouble to report.

Does that clear things up?

You are completely missing the point, dude.

No where do Republicans enter the picture. Absolutely no where. There is a Democratic lady who makes a decent bit of change from her charity, and you go bashing Republicans. Does that clear things up?

I aint saying she is guilty, all I am saying is that, Jesus, layoff the hyperpartisanship for a bit


I'm pretty comfortable with the idea that she's gaming the system and there is nothing to be 'Guilty' of.
 
2013-12-14 03:41:07 PM  

MFAWG: cman: MFAWG: cman: MFAWG: cman: MFAWG: cman: MFAWG: edmo: It's funny how people think you should work for free just because it's a charity.

See, she's a democrat. Ergo, the right wing money laundering machine of perpetual motion is OK. So vote Republican!

Article: Democrat likes money and likes to take a lot of it
Your comment: Stupid Republicans

See a little problem right there?

Nope. Why don't you mansplain it to me.

Article: Democrat. You: Republican.

Must I have to explain this anymore?

Yes, you must. Because I really don't see what your point is. As someone up above pointed out the ACTUAL problem is that she's a figurehead for a charity that doesn't really exist for any reason other than to provide her with extra income above her salary as a legislator.

You are acting like Fox News who takes any thing it gets to bash the left. Thats the problem. This isn't about right versus wrong, this is about right versus left for you.

FWIW, HuffPo has been all over this for several days. If she was GOPPer it would be expected and not worth the trouble to report.

Does that clear things up?

You are completely missing the point, dude.

No where do Republicans enter the picture. Absolutely no where. There is a Democratic lady who makes a decent bit of change from her charity, and you go bashing Republicans. Does that clear things up?

I aint saying she is guilty, all I am saying is that, Jesus, layoff the hyperpartisanship for a bit

I'm pretty comfortable with the idea that she's gaming the system and there is nothing to be 'Guilty' of.


I doubt what she is doing is illegal as well.

But dude, bashing Republicans in this instance where Republicans aren't a part of the situation is ludicrous.
 
2013-12-14 03:41:57 PM  

cman: MFAWG: cman: MFAWG: cman: MFAWG: cman: MFAWG: cman: MFAWG: edmo: It's funny how people think you should work for free just because it's a charity.

See, she's a democrat. Ergo, the right wing money laundering machine of perpetual motion is OK. So vote Republican!

Article: Democrat likes money and likes to take a lot of it
Your comment: Stupid Republicans

See a little problem right there?

Nope. Why don't you mansplain it to me.

Article: Democrat. You: Republican.

Must I have to explain this anymore?

Yes, you must. Because I really don't see what your point is. As someone up above pointed out the ACTUAL problem is that she's a figurehead for a charity that doesn't really exist for any reason other than to provide her with extra income above her salary as a legislator.

You are acting like Fox News who takes any thing it gets to bash the left. Thats the problem. This isn't about right versus wrong, this is about right versus left for you.

FWIW, HuffPo has been all over this for several days. If she was GOPPer it would be expected and not worth the trouble to report.

Does that clear things up?

You are completely missing the point, dude.

No where do Republicans enter the picture. Absolutely no where. There is a Democratic lady who makes a decent bit of change from her charity, and you go bashing Republicans. Does that clear things up?

I aint saying she is guilty, all I am saying is that, Jesus, layoff the hyperpartisanship for a bit

I'm pretty comfortable with the idea that she's gaming the system and there is nothing to be 'Guilty' of.

I doubt that she is breaking any laws with what she is doing.

But dude, bashing Republicans in this instance where Republicans aren't a part of the situation is ludicrous.


Fixt for clarification.
 
2013-12-14 03:44:23 PM  

cman: cman: MFAWG: 
I'm pretty comfortable with the idea that she's gaming the system and there is nothing to be 'Guilty' of.

I doubt that she is breaking any laws with what she is doing.

But dude, bashing Republicans in this instance where Republicans aren't a part of the situation is ludicrous.

Fixt for clarification.


So we agree that people that are running charities that really don't serve any purpose other than to enrich themselves is a bad thing. That's nice.
 
2013-12-14 03:46:17 PM  
Chelsea Clinton's Mum-in-Law is in the news again? What for this time?

She runs a charity she set up to help get more women elected globally and in that regard she makes a slightly larger than median salary and she has has a separate executive director position alongside her position as president?

[itsanoutrage]
 
2013-12-14 03:52:44 PM  
Margolies' pay, which reached at least $116,000 from 2009 to 2012, has consistently been above the industry standard. For organizations with budgets from $1 million to $2.5 million, the median compensation for all CEO's was $94,924 (with women, as in most industries, making less than that), according to Guidestar, which tracks nonprofits.

Are people really outraged by this?

/DNRTFT
 
2013-12-14 03:55:36 PM  

cman: But dude, bashing Republicans in this instance where Republicans aren't a part of the situation is  ludicrous Fark Politics.


Fixed
 
2013-12-14 04:00:06 PM  

theknuckler_33: Margolies' pay, which reached at least $116,000 from 2009 to 2012, has consistently been above the industry standard. For organizations with budgets from $1 million to $2.5 million, the median compensation for all CEO's was $94,924 (with women, as in most industries, making less than that), according to Guidestar, which tracks nonprofits.

Are people really outraged by this?

/DNRTFT


No, here's the parts that add up to something fishy:

"[It's] unusual to have both a president and an executive director for a charity as small as this," said Miniutti, noting that typically, both positions are filled by the same person.

Margolies' pay and benefits fluctuated between 2009 and 2011, hitting a low of roughly $116,000 in 2010 and a high of $164,000 in 2011 -- on top of what the charity paid a full-time executive director. Former Executive Director Kerri Kennedy made between about $78,000 and $100,000 from 2009 to 2011, according the charity's filings to the IRS.

...and for every dollar the charity took in that year, nearly 30 cents went to pay either Margolies' or Kennedy's compensation, the filings state. Another 40 cents on the dollar went to other salaries and benefits, leaving less than 30 cents on every dollar given going toward the intended beneficiaries of the charity.


A charity with 70% overhead and only 30% spend on program.  To pick a couple of random examples for comparison, Children's International and the American Red Cross both have CEOs making around half a million a year, but the former spends 82% on program, the latter 92%.
 
2013-12-14 04:03:04 PM  

Zeb Hesselgresser: cman: But dude, bashing Republicans in this instance where Republicans aren't a part of the situation is  ludicrous Fark Politics.

Fixed


The tangential relationship to the Clintons doesn't seem to be an overly important part of the story, but The Usual Suspects made damn sure to point it out.
 
2013-12-14 04:04:17 PM  

MisterRonbo: theknuckler_33: Margolies' pay, which reached at least $116,000 from 2009 to 2012, has consistently been above the industry standard. For organizations with budgets from $1 million to $2.5 million, the median compensation for all CEO's was $94,924 (with women, as in most industries, making less than that), according to Guidestar, which tracks nonprofits.

Are people really outraged by this?

/DNRTFT

No, here's the parts that add up to something fishy:

"[It's] unusual to have both a president and an executive director for a charity as small as this," said Miniutti, noting that typically, both positions are filled by the same person.

Margolies' pay and benefits fluctuated between 2009 and 2011, hitting a low of roughly $116,000 in 2010 and a high of $164,000 in 2011 -- on top of what the charity paid a full-time executive director. Former Executive Director Kerri Kennedy made between about $78,000 and $100,000 from 2009 to 2011, according the charity's filings to the IRS.

...and for every dollar the charity took in that year, nearly 30 cents went to pay either Margolies' or Kennedy's compensation, the filings state. Another 40 cents on the dollar went to other salaries and benefits, leaving less than 30 cents on every dollar given going toward the intended beneficiaries of the charity.

A charity with 70% overhead and only 30% spend on program.  To pick a couple of random examples for comparison, Children's International and the American Red Cross both have CEOs making around half a million a year, but the former spends 82% on program, the latter 92%.


Yea, I guess I should have read the rest of TFA.
 
2013-12-14 04:15:31 PM  

edmo: It's funny how people think you should work for free just because it's a charity.


I only donate to charities that pay salaries in the amount of $0.

I volunteer for free too.
 
2013-12-14 04:23:03 PM  
You know what really stinks about this? A large chuck of the donations come from the government via the Defense Department, the State Department and USAID.
 
2013-12-14 04:31:37 PM  

MFAWG: Zeb Hesselgresser: cman: But dude, bashing Republicans in this instance where Republicans aren't a part of the situation is  ludicrous Fark Politics.

Fixed

The tangential relationship to the Clintons doesn't seem to be an overly important part of the story, but The Usual Suspects made damn sure to point it out.


+1
 
2013-12-14 04:35:32 PM  

MisterRonbo: A charity with 70% overhead and only 30% spend on program.


Well, in context, that was for one year - a non-election year where revenues were dampened by the economy.  Political charities tend to swing wildly in their program spending depending on whether it's an election year or not.  As you probably expect, non-election years tend to be mostly focused on fundraising (which is not counted as program spending) and then election years swing to program spending.
 
2013-12-14 04:47:02 PM  

MisterRonbo: theknuckler_33: Margolies' pay, which reached at least $116,000 from 2009 to 2012, has consistently been above the industry standard. For organizations with budgets from $1 million to $2.5 million, the median compensation for all CEO's was $94,924 (with women, as in most industries, making less than that), according to Guidestar, which tracks nonprofits.

Are people really outraged by this?

/DNRTFT

No, here's the parts that add up to something fishy:

"[It's] unusual to have both a president and an executive director for a charity as small as this," said Miniutti, noting that typically, both positions are filled by the same person.

Margolies' pay and benefits fluctuated between 2009 and 2011, hitting a low of roughly $116,000 in 2010 and a high of $164,000 in 2011 -- on top of what the charity paid a full-time executive director. Former Executive Director Kerri Kennedy made between about $78,000 and $100,000 from 2009 to 2011, according the charity's filings to the IRS.

...and for every dollar the charity took in that year, nearly 30 cents went to pay either Margolies' or Kennedy's compensation, the filings state. Another 40 cents on the dollar went to other salaries and benefits, leaving less than 30 cents on every dollar given going toward the intended beneficiaries of the charity.

A charity with 70% overhead and only 30% spend on program.  To pick a couple of random examples for comparison, Children's International and the American Red Cross both have CEOs making around half a million a year, but the former spends 82% on program, the latter 92%.


"Revenue collapsed from about $2 million to about $700,000 in the wake of the financial crisis, and for every dollar the charity took in that year, nearly 30 cents went to pay either Margolies' or Kennedy's compensation, the filings state. Another 40 cents on the dollar went to other salaries and benefits, leaving less than 30 cents on every dollar given going toward the intended beneficiaries of the charity."

Any particular reason you decided to chop this part of the quote?

Then the update:
"wci's 990s are publicly available from 2011 back to 2002; 2012 was provided by wci to the reporter. marjorie's compensation for these years is as follows:
2002: 54,962
2003: 58,440
2004: 58,440
2005: 121,395
2006: 59,895
2007: 59,895
2008: 107, 252
2009: 125,008
2010: 116,017
2011: 164,159
2012: 109,678
2013: 0
an analysis of ALL the publicly available wci 990's - shows that marjorie's average compensation over a twelve year period was $89,603-- $5,321 BELOW the $94,924 median income for non-profit ceo's according to guidestar as cited in the article."


I think we're back to this being not a big deal.
 
2013-12-14 04:51:05 PM  
DSW?
 
2013-12-14 05:04:55 PM  
Um... 100k$ is pretty standard pay for the primary manager/executive of a 2-3 million dollar nonprofit, not really excessive at all.

It does sound like the charity was a bit poorly managed (redundant positions and all), but "poorly managed" is also pretty typical for nonprofits, and it's not at all the same thing as fraud.
 
2013-12-14 05:05:52 PM  

asimplescribe: an analysis of ALL the publicly available wci 990's - shows that marjorie's average compensation over a twelve year period was $89,603-- $5,321 BELOW the $94,924 median income for non-profit ceo's according to guidestar as cited in the article."


Excellent digging, thanks for doing that.

But I still get hung up on the part where they have two people with full time salaries to do what is usually the job of one person. Suggests the "executive director" does the actual work, while the "CEO" is collecting a paycheck for being  a figurehead.

I also find it curious that the peak pay years don't correlate to election years.
 
2013-12-14 05:13:21 PM  

Zeb Hesselgresser: MFAWG: Zeb Hesselgresser: cman: But dude, bashing Republicans in this instance where Republicans aren't a part of the situation is  ludicrous Fark Politics.

Fixed

The tangential relationship to the Clintons doesn't seem to be an overly important part of the story, but The Usual Suspects made damn sure to point it out.

+1


I hope you're not talking about me.

I hate nepotism and cronyism in politics, regardless of party & ideology.  We're not supposed to have an aristocracy in this country, and rewarding people for being brown-nosing glad-handers is counterproductive.
 
2013-12-14 05:17:34 PM  

asimplescribe: an analysis of ALL the publicly available wci 990's - shows that marjorie's average compensation over a twelve year period was $89,603-- $5,321 BELOW the $94,924 median income for non-profit ceo's according to guidestar as cited in the article."

I think we're back to this being not a big deal.


So... selective outrage is selective?

Who'da thunk it?

Nice post.
 
2013-12-14 05:19:19 PM  
Further proof that democrats are corrupt to the bone and that the democrat party should be outlawed so that God's Official Party, the Republicans, can run this country correctly.
 
2013-12-14 05:47:20 PM  
Grift has no  party affiliation? Shocking.
 
2013-12-14 05:52:17 PM  
Did she break any laws?  She's a politician so we know she's slimy.  I'm really surprised Huffpo reported something not flattering about a democrat.  Maybe there is hope for them.
 
2013-12-14 07:13:46 PM  
All the corruption in DC to aim for and Huffpo takes a swing at this woman for really not that much by comparison? I'm guessing there's a personal grudge involved...
 
2013-12-14 07:37:28 PM  

MisterRonbo: theknuckler_33: Margolies' pay, which reached at least $116,000 from 2009 to 2012, has consistently been above the industry standard. For organizations with budgets from $1 million to $2.5 million, the median compensation for all CEO's was $94,924 (with women, as in most industries, making less than that), according to Guidestar, which tracks nonprofits.

Are people really outraged by this?

/DNRTFT

No, here's the parts that add up to something fishy:

"[It's] unusual to have both a president and an executive director for a charity as small as this," said Miniutti, noting that typically, both positions are filled by the same person.

Margolies' pay and benefits fluctuated between 2009 and 2011, hitting a low of roughly $116,000 in 2010 and a high of $164,000 in 2011 -- on top of what the charity paid a full-time executive director. Former Executive Director Kerri Kennedy made between about $78,000 and $100,000 from 2009 to 2011, according the charity's filings to the IRS.

...and for every dollar the charity took in that year, nearly 30 cents went to pay either Margolies' or Kennedy's compensation, the filings state. Another 40 cents on the dollar went to other salaries and benefits, leaving less than 30 cents on every dollar given going toward the intended beneficiaries of the charity.

A charity with 70% overhead and only 30% spend on program.  To pick a couple of random examples for comparison, Children's International and the American Red Cross both have CEOs making around half a million a year, but the former spends 82% on program, the latter 92%.


To randomly choose multibillion dollar operations and wonder why the CEO would have a smaller percentage of the overall income... I'm sure you're sampling method is beyond reproach.
 
Displayed 50 of 71 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.

In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report