Compensation and Governance at the US Holocaust Museum

After the criticism of the Smithsonian for its CEO's compensation, a comparison raises doubts about the reasonableness of another institution's top salary.

There has been some buzz in the Washington Post (Nora Boustany) and elsewhere about the link up between Google Earth and the US Holocaust Memorial Museum (EIN 52-1309391 Form 990) that provides high resolution photographs of the crisis in Darfur, Sudan.  There's even been some backlash, like the commentary by humanitarian air worker Conor Foley in the UK Guardian (Googling Genocide) that claims that the presentation oversimplifies the situation and could encourage an ill considered response (think Iraq). 

But of course my interest is in charities and so I took a closer look at the museum's Form 990, especially after seeing the video presentation of the Darfur project by museum director Sara J. Bloomfield.  Because of the recent resignation of the head of the Smithsonian over issues of compensation, I took a look at how the Holocaust Museum compared in terms of scale of operations and top staff salaries.

	Smithsonian	Holocaust Museum
2005 Attendance	17.4 million	1.6 million
Contributions	$163,732,721	$32,213,545
Total Revenue	$540,766,562	$84,891,793
Staff	6,200	383
Investments	$850,054,964	$149,796,686
Board Members	17	65 voting
Director	Lawrence Small	Sara Bloomfield
Compensation 2005	$840,778	$427,694

In every main measure of size, the Holocaust Museum is one-fifth (contributions) to one-fifteenth (staff) the size of the Smithsonian.  But in terms of salary, Ms. Bloomfield receives one-half of the salary of Mr. Small, which was successfully branded as excessive. 

It's not to say that Ms. Bloomfield isn't doing a great job.  There is an annual Performance and Accountability Report that shows a highly detailed listing of goals and measurements against those goals.  The point is that Lawrence Small had an impressive record, too, especially in the area of fund raising.  That was not enough to justify the salary, which Sen. Charles Grassley compared it to that of the President of the United States (currently $400,000).  So it would seem the same comparison is applicable here:  no matter how good a job she does, how can the head of the Holocaust Museum command the same salary as the President? 

Just as with the Smithsonian and the Red Cross, the board structure also raises concerns.  There are sixty-five voting members of the board, including ten sitting members of the House and Senate, plus three ex officio, non-voting members representing the departments of State, Education, and Interior.  A board that size has proven unmanageable for the Red Cross and the NAACP, leading to a revolving door in the executive. 

This board avoids similar difficulties most likely because Ms. Bloomfield has been with the organization since 1986, long before it opened its doors in 1993.  She became director in 1999.  As a quasi-founder, Ms. Bloomfield can manage the current board.  So in this case, the more pressing issue and concern is whether the board can provide any meaningful oversight over someone who has known the organization's operations for decades and yet is probably a long way from retirement (she's in her mid-50s).  I'll venture that attracting and nurturing the next generation of leadership will be the most critical problem for this organization.

Comments

[Ira Kaminow]

There is no way to judge the appropriateness of anyone's salary without research into market conditions and performance. Surely, comparison with POTUS's (president of the US) salary is no more approriate than comparison with the multi-millions earned by private-sector CEOs. Evaluation of CEO salaries involve questions like these: Does the board have solid procedures to set the CEO's salary? Does the compensation committee look at comparable salaries? Does it undertake a thorough and frequent evaluation of the CEO's contribution to the organization? Does it get advice from compensation specialists? Does it establish clearly stated performance criteria in advance?

[Cheap Hats]

Many thanks for the article. I will have a link back to this information from our fresh blog.
http://cheaphatsstore.com
http://mvpcaps.org
http://caps2011.com
http://hats-club.com

[バーバリーマフラー]

東京都で処理を受け入れた岩手県宮古市の東日本大震災の災害廃棄物（がれき）第１便約３０トンが３日、貨物列車でＪＲ東京貨物ターミナル駅（品川区）に到着し、７トン積みコンテナ計６個が都内３カ所の中間処理施設に運び込まれた。震災のがれきが東北以外で受け入れられたのは初めて。
２日夜に盛岡市を出たコンテナは３日午前、相次いで東京貨物ターミナル駅に到着。フォークリフトでトラックに積み替えられ、各地の処理施設に向かった。このうちコンテナ１個が搬入された大田区の処理施設では、重機や手作業で金属などの不燃物が分けられ、可燃物は燃やしやすいように破砕された。がれきには、木材や木くずに加え、布団やネクタイ、ぬいぐるみなど、津波で流されたとみられるさまざまな生活の品が泥にまみれて交ざっていた。

[ティンバーランド]

ティンバーランド１２日に判明した政府の社会保障分野の一体改革素案（骨子案）は、来年の法案提出を検討してきた受診時定額負担制度の見送りを容認するなど、負担増を先送りしようとする民主党の主張に大幅に譲歩する内容となった。公務員の特権に切り込むことが期待された被用者年金一元化でも、公務員の優遇措置の存続に道を開く文言が盛り込まれた。「公平な負担」を旗印とした社会保障改革の看板は大きくゆがみつつある。

　ティンバーランド骨子案は、病院を訪れるたびに患者が１００円を上乗せして支払う受診時定額負担制度について「（導入見送りを掲げた）民主党ワーキングチームの報告を踏まえる」と記した。７０～７４歳の窓口負担の２割への引き上げでは「平成２４年度の対応については調整」と、その後の引き上げに含みを残したが、党側の猛反発で撤回に追いやられるのは確実な情勢だ。