Paul Light: What should not- for- profit leaders earn?

The American writer, academic, and author Paul Light has always been a thoughtful analyst of not-for-profit issues.

In a recent piece in the Washington Post Light explores the issue of excessive CEO compensation in the US not-for-profit and charitable sector.

Discussing the controversy over the million dollar salary paid to the CEO of a high profile, national not-for profit Light points to growing public concern over high salaries paid to CEO's and executives of not-for-profits.

The critical point Light makes is that CEO's in not-for-profits are public leaders who should be bound by a commitment to public benefit not self interest. High salaries send a message of largess and self interest inside the sector. Not-for profits, Light argues, must be diligent about maintaining a delicate balance between appropriate compensation and public concern.

In Australia more and more not-for-profit executives have a background in the private sector and government, where salaries levels are much higher. The extent to which this trend is forcing up salaries in the sector open to debate.

In Australia there is limited information available on remuneration levels in non-for profits. (Some information can be found here and here). The recent Enterprise Care Not for Profit Remuneration Report found that for the first time in nine years the average not-for-profit CEO remuneration fell, dropping nearly two per cent on 2008 figures (based on a survey nearly 1,800 positions in the not-for-profit sector during July and August of 2009).

Why we should be suspicious of corporate social responsibility

image courtsey of P.a.p-Blog

Interesting to read about the Edelman* Trust Barometer which tracks trust worldwide in institutions, including private sector industries, government agencies, the media and NGO's. The latest report found that trust in government and the private sector is low, and in many industry sectors is declining. NGOs remain the most trusted institution.

Discussing the implications of the findings, the Report authors urge the private sector to collaborate with the NGO sector to "exploit" their high levels of trust. Their conclusion is that corporations are likely to be trusted more if they partner with an NGO.

Here in a nutshell is an explanation for the growing corporate interest in "corporate social responsibility" and "community business partnerships". These are largely strategies of image management designed to overcome the poor image and reputation of corporations and business by attaching themselves to NGOs and causes.

* Edelmans is one the world's largest public relations firms

Challenging market approaches in social policy: WA perspectives

Over on one of the other blogs I edit- Challenging the Market- there are two new pieces by West Australians who write on contemporary social and political issues.

Susie Byers piece shows that a publicly run woman's prison can deliver successful outcomes in terms of rehabilitation and integration of prisoners into the community. Sarah Burnside critiques the market logic and contradictions involved in Opposition Leader Tony Abbot's plans to reform the Disability support pension.

Challenging the Market is an initiative of the WA Social Justice Network (of which I am the co-convenor) to publicize the writings of Western Australian citizens and activists who support economic, environmental, racial and social justice.

The blog provides a space for people concerned about the extension of market, corporate and business values into so many spheres of daily life with the resulting debasement of democracy, public policy, civic life and political debate. The extension of market, corporate and business values into so many spheres of daily life is detrimental to the wellbeing and social fabric of WA.

We aim to challenge the dominant market and corporate worldview. Relying on the market to solve social and environmental problems it has created is shortsighted and dangerous.

Theology as justification for government inaction: Tony Abbott on homelessness as a lifestyle choice

(images from www.2steps2com, South Queensland Council for Homeless Persons)

Last week the Opposition Leader Tony Abbott displayed his poor understanding of homelessness and then appeared to use religious theology to justify government inaction on the housing crises in Australia.

Responding to a question as to whether his Government would support the target to reduce homelessness by 50% by 2020 (as his predecessor Malcolm Turnbull did), the Opposition Leader said "no" and then went on to claim that homelessness was a lifestyle 'choice" for many people. The Opposition Leader cited the scriptures to justify his position, quoting Jesus to the effect that governments should always be careful about promising things because of "the poor that you have with you always".

Stephen Nash who is the CEO of a Melbourne homeless support agency has written a sharp rebuttal of Tony Abbott's comments. Nash argues that in 20 years working with people in housing crises he has never met a person who "choose" to be homeless. Nash argues that Abbott's comments gloss over the real problem:

"The real story hiding beneath the 'choice' furphy is that our society is failing to provide the housing and support people need to escape from homelessness... At the core of this problem is the lack of affordable housing"

In the online Catholic publication Eureka St Andrew Hamilton's concern is theological. He argues that Tony Abbott's theological argument is flawed and he has misinterpreted and taken out of context the words purported to be used by Jesus. Hamilton argues that they are not a Christian justification for government inaction.

John Falzon from St Vincent De Paul is damming. He finds the Opposition Leader's comments deeply offensive in that they blame people for being left out or pushed out. Falzon writes:

" Choices are constrained by those who have been systematically locked out of the nation's prosperity... But of course such a world view lets governments off the hook. It denies the reality of the social"

Falzon situates Tony Abbott's comments in a policy prescription he describes as the "The New Paternalism", an approach to social policy making that assumes people are largely to blame for their own marginalization. Falzon sumarises the assumptions underlying this approach as follows:

".. that people who are marginalised are naturally without power; that power rests with those who deserve it, that those with power can, at best, use their power to bring about a change in the behaviour of those without power; and that the problems experienced by people who are marginalised are their own problems, but bleed into the 'mainstream' through increased costs, increased crime, loss of productivity, market constraints and disorder"

Falzon argues that these ideas are both unproven and pernicious, and lead to people being pathologised or criminalised. His view is that:

"Nothing good can come out of these approaches. They are cursed by their lack of compassion and also by their denial of justice".

Civil society protesting the Winter Olympics

(image courtesy of the Vancouver Olympic Resistance Network)

As the Australian media ramps up coverage and commercial hype about the Winter Olympics, another story goes untold here in Australia. In Vancouver there is growing heat on the streets as more residents and civil society groups express anger at the negative impact of the Winter Olympics on their City.

In a recent piece my favourite sports journalist Dave Zirin cites surveys that suggest up 70% of Vancouver residents feel that too much is being spent on the Olympics and 30 % believe that the impact will be largely negative. Civil society concerns are many, namely:

1. The massive and growing cost of the Olympics is adding billions of dollars of future debt to the public purse. This debt grows daily due to the rising cost of the massive security presence and emerging problems, such as the need to helicopter snow to the venues.
2. The commercialization and corporate control of the Olympics is so pervasive and is largely driven by the desire to increase corporate profits.
   
3. Public spending is being redirected to the Olympics away from social programs and poverty reduction programs.
4. Billions is being spent on security, resulting in the "overt militarization of Vancouver" including visible troops in the street, huge increase in police, helicopters and jet flights over the City. private security firms operating everywhere and enclosure of large parts of public lands and public space.
5. The negative environmental impact of the Games including mountain blasting, clear cutting, road construction, expanded infrastructure for for mining and logging interests.
6. The crackdown on dissent and protest and erosion of civil liberties which has seen independent journalists detained and deported and attempts to suppress anti-Olympics protest.
7. The exploitation of the native title rights of Indigenous Canadian people.
8. Damage to communities resulting from rise in real estate prices, unaffordable housing, movement of homeless and poor people off the streets, profiling and lock downs of certain groups and communities.
   

The Vancouver Olympic Resistance Network which was was formed to highlight the real costs of the Games lays out its concerns here. The concerns of First Nations people can be read here.

To coincide with the opening ceremony and start of the Games a People's Summit and public protests are planned in Vancouver this weekend.

Australia Day hypocrisy

The Barnett Government has just wasted millions of dollars to stage "Australia's largest fireworks display" over the Perth CBD. They can find money for fireworks but not to compensate a community or hold someone accountable for a death in custody.

Two years after the death* of distinguished Aboriginal elder and community leader Mr Ward in the back of a government owned prison van, the Barnett government has still failed to compensate the family and has taken no action to hold anyone accountable for the death. The Government's response has been to delay action at every stage. The Attorney General Christian Porter has continually prevaricated and avoided action and indicated that compensation and government action is subject to "budgetary constraints". (you can read the Attorney General's letter to the WA Deaths in Custody Watch Group here. The letter took him nearly 3 months to reply)

Despite a scathing coroner's report no charges have been bought against the corporation that ran the prisoner transport system, or the officers involved. In fact the corporation involved has been rewarded with a contract extension here in WA and has been awarded a new contract to run prisoner transport in Victoria.

The WA Deaths in Watch Custody Group continues to campaign for justice for Mr Ward's family and to ensure accountability for the death. You can read more about forthcoming events and actions here. or follow what is happening on their Facebook page. Please support them

* Two years ago Mr Ward, an Aboriginal elder from Warburton in outback WA, died in the back of a prisoner transport van. At the time he was in the custody of the WA police and prisoner transport company GSL (now G4S). In the words of the Coroner, Alistair Hope, who examined Mr Ward’s death, Mr Ward ‘suffered a terrible death which was wholly unnecessary and avoidable’.

As a result of his horrific death, a campaign was initiated by the Deaths in Custody Watch Committee (DICWC) to demand justice for Mr Ward, and to ensure that changes are made to the corrective services system to ensure that this can never happen again.

Economic Audit Commitee Report and the WA NGO sector

The Barnett Government has just released the final report of its Economic Audit Committee which was established soon after the Liberal National Government came to power. The Report "Putting the Public First: Partnering with the Community and Business to Deliver Outcomes" is available here and a summary here.

This will be a significant document for the not for profit, non-government sector in Western Australia and it will be interesting to see the sector's response over coming months. The Report proposes a radical process of privatization and outsourcing of public services to the private and not for profit sector, and the introduction of market and business practices to the delivery of public and human services. The Report has a vision to make NGO's more business like and run as social enterprises.

On the surface this will be attractive to many NGO's, particularly the larger corporate NGO's, who have long argued that they should provide more services on behalf of government, and see plenty of opportunities in the new landscape.

But there is much to be concerned about in this Report and it should be a cause for great concern, particularly among the medium sized and smaller community based NGO's who make up the bulk of human service providers in WA. A longer analysis of the Report will appear on this blog in 2010.