Posted by Old Town Paly Resident, a resident of the Old Palo Alto neighborhood, on Jul 10, 2012 at 4:21 pm
m2 you remind me of the cynical critic sitting in a corner looking down is nose at something....sorry for ya....Fact: INN VISION AND SHELTER NETWORK are needed agencies and have helped many many people and families in need. YOU have no idea the amount of folks it takes to run and maintain shelter facilities so please, please...keep your negativity to yourself. These two agencies are nothing but POSITIVE influences for our community......read into their services, maybe some of the goodness will rub off on ya. Thank goodness for this merger so that both agencies can continue to support both Santa Clara and San Mateo County. Thank you God!
Posted by DDee, a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Jul 10, 2012 at 5:51 pm
If we assume, which I do, that virtually ALL non-profits provide necessary, even crucial, services that either the individual cannot provide for themself or the government programs are insufficiently designed to cover, then I think we can agree that ALL not-for-profit service agencies are important.
HOWEVER... Compensation, especially executive compensation, should not be a measure of how much an agency is valued, or even how much iot pulls in as donation or grant, but should be a function of a solid and publicized scale that values ALL of the staff and tries to guarantee them a decent living within the service region insofar as doing so does not drain too much away from programs and initiatives for the clients.
For example, it is obscene for the CEO of non profit health providers to make multi 7 figures, while a direct service provider within the organization has to scramble to make ends meet, or so much of the work these days gets farmed to unpaid interns.
It is almost as obscene for one full-time staff person in an office or location to receive a generous full ride compensation and benefit-wise, while other staff are cut to half time with no benefits at all.
We assume that because someone works for, or is on the board of, a non-profit, that they are socially conscious and fair, but since non-profit and other similar work became a "career" instead of a calling back in the 70s and 80s (Our generation is really a disappointment, all those enlightened values gone to naught!), screwing over the workforce in order to enhance the prestige and pay of the people at the top has followed identical trends as in the for profit sector.
Hey, that sounds like what happened to boards and top earners in public service too! Another 20% hike on students in the UC system!
20%+10%+20%+15% and now another 20%? Why don't they just come out and say:"Hey, if I were the dean (or the chancellor, etc) at Yale, I'd be making 3 times the paltry amount ($970,000 + oodles of perks last time I bothered to make myself furious by checking) I make here. This is such a sacrifice for me and since I am definitely the "best and the brightest" you have to do better so I am basically privatizing the system and making it one based on money and access. Tough if that undoes the entire raison d'etat of the system when founded."
My response, and that of so many Californians would be: "Hey you, best and brightest over there. Don't let the exit door hit ya where the good Lord split ya! We will get rid of the current board, make the seats renewable by public vote or at least votes by students and faculty, and pay your successor a decent wage based upon the state or local medium salary, with the same benefits that all the staff get, and save bonuses for actual student outcomes and faculty research outcomes etc. And, if people like you don't want the job, oh well, I am sure we will find some quality educators (you know, people who have actually spent most of their years in the classroom with actual students) who will."
Neither Fox nor any other Goodwill officials would discuss the departure of Kent other than to say they had accepted the resignation of the executive who ran Goodwill for the past five years and whose annual compensation was more than $300,000.
Seems a bit excessive .. for a small, non-profit. This article dates back to 2008, so this guy's salary, or his replacement, is no doubt seeing close to $400K by now.