This paper examines the growing controversy surrounding executive compensation in both government and nonprofit organizations. Drawing on examples from Texas judicial pay disputes and high-profile nonprofit accounting scandals—including irregularities at universities and the Nature Conservancy—the paper argues that the absence of market forces and independent oversight allows salaries and perks to inflate unchecked. The author builds on Jonathan Turley's 2004 analysis to argue that applying Sarbanes-Oxley-style regulations to nonprofits would promote financial transparency, curb unethical practices, and improve executive accountability across sectors.
Debates over the appropriate compensation of public officials and nonprofit executives have intensified in recent years. Nationwide, different groups are becoming an increasingly vocal opposition to large government salaries. Executive compensation in both the public and nonprofit sectors has drawn scrutiny from citizens, legislators, and watchdog organizations alike. In light of recent scandals in corporate accounting — most notably Enron and WorldCom — nonprofit and government salaries are coming under significant public scrutiny, and many are asking whether the same accountability demanded of for-profit corporations should apply equally to publicly funded and tax-exempt organizations.
Recent events in Texas have inspired significant discussion about the pay of public officials. State representative Terry Keel, claiming to be cutting expense corners, announced that he would block a bill to increase the pay of Texas judges. In an as-yet-unresolved conflict of accounts, Houston representative Rodney Ellis has ties to a scandal regarding this proposed legislation, in which the Chief Justice of the Texas Supreme Court allegedly threatened political retribution if judges were not given a pay raise (see, for example, "Judge pay hits Houston pols in purse" by Rick Casey, Houston Chronicle, June 1, 2005). Organizations such as Citizens Against Government Waste regularly cite examples of ineffectual and even corrupt elected and appointed officials receiving pay raises, reflecting a growing grassroots opposition to unchecked government compensation.
Nonprofit executives' pay is no less controversial. In an organization without shareholders — or even, as in government, constituents who may vote in a replacement — the salaries of directors and executives have become an increasingly debatable topic.
One recent article addressing this issue notes the increased examination and accountability required in for-profit organizations and observes that many of the same types of wage inflation and exorbitant bonus structures also exist in the realm of universities, foundations, and other nonprofit groups (Turley, 2004). Turley documents stories of university leaders being provided luxury apartments and cars, personal loans, and other perks. He also describes more egregious violations at the Nature Conservancy, a $3.3 billion environmental nonprofit, "ranging from hiding the personal income of employees to sweetheart land deals for favored parties to using not-for-profit funds to give a $1.5 million loan to a board member" (Turley, 2004).
These types of nonprofit accounting discrepancies are due, Turley argues, to a lack of government regulation in nonprofits as well as the absence of a system of checks and balances such as that which exists in a corporate or even a governmental environment (Turley, 2004). Turley further notes that even though performance metrics have declined in many instances, those same underperformers in the educational and nonprofit realm have increased the salaries of their directors, presidents, and other senior leaders. This lack of accountability results in salaries and benefits being inflated, and in individuals such as university presidents — who hold significant influence over a university's board of directors — essentially controlling their own compensation and perks (Turley, 2004).
"How unregulated nonprofits enable unethical compensation practices"
"Applying corporate regulations to nonprofit accountability"
You’re 65% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.