I noticed a comment in William’s philippic (see, William, I learned a new word) yesterday that called for something that has been called for many times before – that the leaders of SBC entities should make their salary packages public to all Southern Baptists. It was recommended as an accountability measure. This has never been an issue for me. If an entity is run well I don’t care what they pay the president. If he is running it poorly, then the issue is performance, not pay.
I would make the following observations.
1. Because of Baptist polity, the “constituency” of the entities is their trustee boards and there is no inherent right for us as Southern Baptists to know salaries. We can say we think it is best or desirable, but our polity puts this into the hands of the trustees and does not give “average Southern Baptists” any right to know what entity heads make.
2. Determining a fair salary package for an entity head is not an easy task. What is the reference point? Should he be paid like the CEO of a comparable company? Should seminary presidents be paid according to the scale of similarly sized schools? What standard do we use for determining “fair compensation?” Do we want to set the standard and pay better than others or pay less?
3. My guess is that our entity heads make “more-than-comfortable” salaries – high enough that most of us pastors will never see such numbers. Again, I don’t have a problem with that, but I would guess that if salaries were published it would be a big fight in the SBC. A lot of folks struggling to pay their bills would wonder why they are giving to support entities that are paying salaries like that. I have NO idea what any entity leader makes. Not a clue. That is just a guess.
4. It is odd that most Southern Baptists consider themselves fiscal conservatives, capitalists, and pro-business, but also assume that if an entity head is highly paid there is something nefarious going on. It’s as if when convention salaries are at issue, we buy into class warfare and economic principles we’d never vote for in our national government.
5. LifeWay would probably have to be held in a different category. LifeWay is a contributor to the CP and does not receive funding from it.
My conclusions:
1. It is never going to happen. Entities are not going to share this information willingly. It would require some kind of convention action that would be opposed tooth and nail. Our polity does not demand it.
2. It isn’t that important to me. What matters is that entities are run well, not how much the leader of that entity is paid.
3. Here it goes…trust the trustees. We have to trust our trustees to be fair, generous, and responsible in crafting salary packages for the presidents, vice-presidents and other key personnel.
4. Personally, I want our entity leaders paid well, but not exorbitantly. My guess is that 97% of you would agree with that. The problem comes when we try to draw the line that defines exorbitant. I remember someone saying (in a comment on this blog) that no servant of God should make a six-figure income. There are a lot of SBC pastors making well above that amount – no, not me, but plenty. I’m told there are pastors making 7 figures, but I don’t really know. How can we say when generous pay becomes greed? We would agree that our leaders should be paid well but not overpaid, but we’d never agree about how to draw that line.
5. This tends to only become an issue when we are upset about a leader. If you like President McGillicutty you don’t care what he’s making. If you don’t like him. you want to know his salary so you can make a stink about how overpaid he is! Right?
How much is one of our entity leaders worth? We could argue all day and not come to a fixed amount.
This post will not solve this issue, but my position remains the same. It is not for us, the hoi polloi, to know how much the presidents make, but to elect trustees who will be responsible, fair, and generous with our leaders. They must exercise accountability and not simply acquiesce to everything that is demanded of them. As long as our current system is in place, “trust the trustees” is not just a slogan, but a way of life.
I am not always content with the actions of our trustees. I got into blogging because I was upset by trustee actions. When trustees act wrongly, we should speak our minds and ask them for answers. But ultimately, we have no choice but to let the trustees handle the issue of salaries for entity leaders and to continue their oversight of our entities.
For good or ill, we don’t really have a plan B.
I know the president’s of the seminaries carry a heavy responibility–raising enough money to fund their institutions. The money from the Cooperative Program only provides about 20% of their annual budgets. They maintain a heavy speaking schedule, also. So, in my view they earn their salaries, and they are welcome to all the headaches that come with the job. I was told that Jerry Rankin was elected president of the IMB, he asked to be paid the same salary as a missionary. The trustees refused, stating that would embarass the other agency heads.
Southern Baptists would be well served if all the entities would voluntarily release the salary structure of their executive leadership. Put it in a salary (plus housing allowance if paid such) range if desired.
I think you are off on some of this post.
1. Some entities have in the past given the figure (as a range in my experience) when asked.
2. I think SBCers absolutely have an inherent right to know. We may not have a legal right to know.
3. Folks assume something nefarious when they don’t know. Let them know.
4. LifeWay doesn’t get a pass because they don’t consume CP dollars. They consume SBC church dollars. That’s sufficient.
The secrecy is corrosive. There’s no good reason not to do this, unless the salaries are exorbitant. My guess is that a couple of entities would fight tooth and nail to keep the figures away from folks that pay the bills because if the figure was known it would create a firestorm.
If the CEO of a seminary is paid $1 million annually (a number I picked out of the air, not one that I know to be an actual salary) and faculty are in the $80k range and insurance and retirement contributions are being cut, then maybe this is out of whack.
In addition to salary, entities should disclose: close relatives that are employed by the same entity; any non-salary compensation or bonuses or non-cash compensation; the provisions of any employment contract; the existence of any other forms of compensation.
I expect our leaders to be paid in line with their responsibility.
I’m all for trusting the trustees but I’d put above that axiom: trust the Lord and tell the people.
I would guess that you at least set the boundaries- between 80 000 and one million.
The thing is that folks characteristically guess high. There’s research on this. I’ve seen $700k tossed out for one entity head. I have no idea if it is true or even close. All this can be difused with disclosure.
Can you imagine , can you accept , would you join a an SBC church that ran its business meeting, its financial accountability like the SBC. The “hoi polli” are the SBC, why should the leaders have to account to the great unwashed. This is an issue that most SBC members are not aware of but it is going to come to the forefront one day. Not only the official yearly compensation but all the per diem, working on personal projects, book selling self promoting conferences all need to be on full disclosure. No charity that takes money would be allowed to operated like the SBC.
They are fully financially accountable ti their constituency- the trustees.
The SBC operates within ethical boundaries.
Most mid-sized to large churches, and not just the mega guys, do not publish salaries. The last two churches I have served (500-700 attendance) did not publish or print any salaries. Members usually can receive info. upon request. I am sure it varies with the church. So, the entities would be in line with that practice, except I assume there is no way to get the info. at all with the entities.
This does nothing to answer the ultimate question, but I’d guess more than 50% of Baptists do attend such churches.
Ultimately I believe that the issue is that we do not trust others. An atmosphere of suspicion and distrust permeates to the point where if I don’t know something it must be nefarious.
I’m calling a penalty on you here, bro. Fifteen yards for a non sequitur.
This is what I hear from anyone who wants secrecy, “You don’t trust us. Shame on you.” If the folks in the pews and pulpits can’t ask questions without being slapped as being distrustful and suspicious, who can? No. This is a perfectly legitimate question. Trustees and entity heads ought to be put in the position of either answering it or explaining why such things should be hidden from the folks who pay the bills.
Anyone can ask a question- but it is not fair to expect entities to never hold anything in confidence.
Penalty overturned on appeal
Yes, but there are enough of us whose experience in asking questions is either stone-cold silence or being stonewalled, that we’re distrustful of that answer.
One asks a trustee about this and gets no answer, emails an exec about that, and gets run back and forth to assistants…
Then one asks another trustee/another board about salaries and is told “it’s confidential.” So, the only time I actually get an answer is when there’s a confidentiality agreement/need that keeps the question from being answered…
Not all of us get responses from Trustees.
And not all trustees are Bart and willing to try to answer people’s questions. Some of them do not believe they have to explain anything to someone who is “less important” than they are—and anyone who is pastoring a smaller church or not at least an Associational Mission Strategist is “less important.”
If an entity needs to hold its salaries in confidence (and I am inclined to agree they do), that’s fine. But answer other questions; give fuller accounting of what is happening on your campus or in your entity.
Any other non-profits would have to share much more information publicly than SBC entities share with the “sole member” of their corporation. Something is broken in the system.
…and openness and transparency breed trust and confidence. Secrecy breeds distrust.
But this information was never published and there was once a sense of trust.
I see this more as a trust issue.
Dave, I agree. It is a trust issue and that “trust” has been broken in perhaps more than a few instances. I believe William’s suggestion is on point. The old saying that “sunshine is the best disinfectant” applies well to Kingdom work.
If the entity heads’ fear of church members’ reaction in response to how much they make then it seems they are setting themselves up as arbiters of what constitutes a proper and informed response.
Indeed, I think some entity heads, and their supporting bureaucracy, have a trust issue as well. I think they don’t trust SBC members to be smart enough or reasonable enough to interpret their compensation in the “proper” way.
Trust God to lead members to appropriately interpret the data. It’s God’s job, not the job of convention employees. Will the members occasionally fail? Yes. Just like the trustees.
I agree Nathan. Great point. Trust the members, it is their CP money after all.
Yes, it’s a trust issue. Anybody ever fixed a trust issue by just saying “No, really, you can trust us” without disclosing something? Or meeting in the middle?
And I think we can be expected to understand the difference in “Salary” and “expenses.” I’ve seen it suggested that entity heads need high salaries because they travel a lot. Which is nonsense: entity heads are expensive because they travel a lot, but surely we’re not asking Dr. Mohler to pay for his travel out of his pocket, are we? Or expecting IMB leadership to buy their own tickets around the world?
If we can’t understand that difference, then we shouldn’t get the information. But the boards should simply say “you’re all too dense to understand our budgets, so we won’t disclose them.” because that’s what the excuse is.
Again, I don’t think we need line-by-line, but there are some aspects that seem fair to ask: when Thom Rainer writes a book that Lifeway sells how does that work on author royalties? Does that supplement his salary? Or does he give them away? (I’d bet most of it is given away.) What about a seminary president? What about the folks who bop around the conference circuit and get those gigs because they are entity heads of SBC entities?
I think the trust started disappearing when we encountered other organizations disclosing information like this (and finding some of them very, very mismanaged) but the SBC boards decided that none of it would be disclosed to Southern Baptists. If your response to the disclosures of exorbitant non-profit salary disclosures is to block your own disclosure, you’re not really building trust.
A clarification: if Dr. Rainer makes every dime from his books, he’s got that right.
He probably keeps none of it, which is also his right. He strikes me as the type that very quietly has arranged to support a ministry or mission somewhere (or several) with book profits and they may not even know that’s going on. Plus the sheer discount he usually has Lifeway selling his books at means there’s not a profit there anyway.
The only thing I hope he doesn’t do is give any of it to Alabama football. That would be unforgivable.
I have to leave for a speaking engagement in MO.
I was never delusional enough to believe this opinion would be popular or shared by a majority but I believe I am in line with Baptist polity. And historical precedent.
And if course – truth, justice, and the Baptist way.
Be safe in Misery.
I mean Missouri.
I personally think more harm than good comes from publicizing the entity head salaries. Trust the Trustees. That’s why we call them Trustees. It just makes them bigger targets for criticism and could open the door for comparisons on an issue which can be divisive.
For the integrity of our SBC entities and for the future of their existence (donors will go elsewhere), they need to disclose their 990’s which includes the CEO/President’s salary. Charity Navigator says it well and I quote this link: https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=content.view&cpid=1093
“We define accountability and transparency in assessing charities as follows:
Accountability is an obligation or willingness by a charity to explain its actions to its stakeholders.
Transparency is an obligation or willingness by a charity to publish and make available critical data about the organization.
We believe that charities that are accountable and transparent are more likely to act with integrity and learn from their mistakes because they want donors to know that they’re trustworthy. Generally speaking, charities that follow best practices in governance, donor relations and related areas are less likely to engage in unethical or irresponsible activities. Therefore, the risk that charities would misuse donations should be lower than for charities that don’t adopt such practices. When examining accountability and transparency, Charity Navigator seeks to answer two basic questions:
Does the charity follow good governance and ethical best practices?
Does the charity make it easy for donors to find critical information about the organization?”
I believe the entities, as well as all churches, are exempt from filing 990s.
They may be but it would be wise to be transparent and accountable by publishing it to Guidestar
Again, I think it would not be.
If their salaries were published, someone(s) somewhere wilb be outraged at their “exorbitant salaries” regardless of the amount because human beings have a tendency to believe that any salary higher than “mine” is too big. So there really is no benefit to publishing their salaries.
Yep. And trotted out by critics at every opportunity to discredit them and call their character into question. It’s good that salaries are kept confidential.
I think that’s the real issue. No matter what, it’ll be criticized.
And if you got the salary low enough to not be criticized, you’d get either: 1) he’s getting something somehow that’s not reported; 2) ah, but what does he get for interim pastorates or pulpit supply? I bet it’s scandalous.
Some of us just want a scandal.
Just a couple of points: One is how did trusting SWBTS Trustees over the past 10 years work out? (As I recall, it was not the trustees that brought focus on the mess there…).
The other point is one I read, many years ago, in a biography of Billy Graham. When his organization started gaining momentum (and income), he asked a wise friend how that should be handled. The friend’s advice was (1) Select a Board of Directors he could not control; (2) Have the Board set his pay, and: (3) Publish his salary.
Seemed like wise advice, then and now.
An issue that i would suggest is a problem with publishing salaries: let’s take Lifeway as an example. Say we find out that their new president is hired in at a cool million dollars.
Now, we say that’s too much, because after all, that money comes from SBC churches buying literature. But when you do the math, how much of a price cut would we get if we cut him in half? (Not a lot, we’d owe his widow buckets for cutting him in half.) Or his salary in half?
It probably wouldn’t be 2 cents per quarterly, if that much.
But you’d have many people aggressively attacking Lifeway’s prices because of the salary, because we just don’t do math well.
Now, there should be some form of transparency–what percent of the budget is senior executive leadership? Or how much more than a field missionary does the IMB President get? Or some form of accountability back to the whole.
I know Dave says the Trustees are the constituency, but the Trustees aren’t the ones paying the bills. When you’re sending home missionaries, how much are you taking home? How many more church planters could we fund with NAMB if we paid the NAMB president 2/3rds what he’s making now?
Trustees aren’t the ones being told to give more. Churches are. We’re being pressured to up our CP, special offerings, etc., even as our own budgets shrink. I don’t know that we need line-by-line how much each person makes, but there should be a balance somewhere that rebuilds that trust.
Because something has fractured that trust you mentioned, Dave. And it doesn’t come back simply by saying “You should trust us.” There need to be some steps by entities and trustee boards that acknowledge that, for whatever reason, there is not a strong climate of trust within the SBC between some of our vocal folks, and the boards. And the boards need to take a few steps to rebuild it.
Publishing a salary list may not be the best step, but finding some way to assure us that we’re not feathering giant nests would be a good start.
For what it is worth, I work at a state university and have for 10 years. Every year the local paper publishes the salaries and benefits of all employees there. They now have a dedicated website with a searchable database of the salaries of all employees. So, I guess you’ll have to find someone else who believes in not disclosing salaries. Mine has never been.
Overall, I think “Trust the trustees” is running a quart low for some folks. We have accreditation questions at one seminary (that are being worked out, true, and date back to a prior administration–that was hired and overseen by trustees, though), we have whatever you would characterize the last 6 months at another seminary as (again, with trustees being trusted), we have IMB’s financial issues the past decade…
That’s 3 significant problems where “trusting the trustees” sure appears to have not worked out well.
And the entire Conservative Resurgence was an exercise in demonstrating that the Trustees should not have been trusted, else there would have been no need for it.
There’s some high-profile reasons “trusting the trustees” doesn’t hold a lot of water. I think in some ways we’re to the Reagan classic of “Trust but verify.” We’re seeing at one seminary that the trustees of SWBTS are trying to rebuild that trust, partly through sharing more information than expected. (Seriously, the board encouraged both for and against a motion to have an interview with BP? That was a great call.) The other seminary has disclosed their progress and efforts–and it’s just a slow process to clear with accrediting agencies.
But in both case, information is part of the need. That’s a new chapter in board work, but the boards need to address it. There needs to be communication from boards that is not washed through the entity but is direct back to the SBC, and it needs to come more frequently than once in June in the midst of a torrent of information. Good questions don’t get asked because good information is not there to ask about. Instead, it’s just putting out brushfires and spot controversies.
Your comment deserves a more complete response than I can give now.
But I realize that “trust the trustees ” isn’t a popular sentiment.
Sometimes they have let us down.
Sometimes we think we know more than they do when we don’t.
But we have no options. The trustee system is the only system we have. And when push comes to shove they often do the right thing.
.
BTW, part of the trustee system is grassroots input. Trusting the trustees doesn’t mean you never say a word. There are some who act as if it does. My salvation and sanctification were called into question today by one angry man because we dared question the wisdom of a presidential chef.
But calling things into question is part of our system. Raising cain when things appear to be wrong is part of the system. It is not “acquiesce in silence to the trustees. ”
After I have had my say and they have done their thing I just have to trust them to do their job.
If they don’t, we can elect new ones as we did in the CR.
By the way, i think Boards are entirely too secretive. It is silly. Stuff gets out. I think they ought to be far more forthcoming on many things. Just don’t think salaries are one.
I really do agree that exact dollar salaries is not the answer. Like we discussed above, you’d never satisfy the critics with that.
And I know that we are in the era of suspicion in general: we are so used to being lied to by people we once trusted, we no longer trust anybody. The automatic response does feel like the old joke about knowing when a politician is lying: his lips are moving.
We’ve extended that, sometimes due to extrapolating from one bad incident, to the newspeople, to religious leaders (think the televangelists of the 80s/90s for starters), to every political leader, to…. who else?
It is a tragic situation that is damaging to the fabric of society. And I think we see it very clearly with the SBC: how much damage is the lack of trust doing?
But we keep operating in the exact same manner. We have no independent news source and treat outside news with suspicion. We cram all of the information back to the SBC into a burst in June and then you have 12 months to process it before you can ask a question…that will be mostly evaded anyway if not dismissed as “old.”
We are running a system fit for 1845 in 2018. It’s going to drift toward the closed system that some of us suspect it is already if we do not take a serious look at how we do business.
I think this is a space where personal experience definitely colors the perception of each of us.
For example, I have never pastored a church where my salary was not on open display for anyone. If you had visited today and picked up the budget report for this quarter, you would know my salary. And yes, there’s a stack of them in the lobby with a “Take one” sign. And if someone thinks in business meeting that I’m overpaid, all it takes is 51% of people present to cut it. Or me.
If I can pastor a church with that much information and control outside of my hands and in the hands of my critics, then I am inclined to wonder why someone can’t lead an entity without at least sharing more information.
But others of you pastor and lead churches where that information is not public knowledge, and it’s normal in your life for the church to not have all of the business/financial information. Some of you don’t even have to stand there and answer questions about why you got a check to cover reimbursing you for buying church supplies and didn’t just pay for it.
Your experience then gives you a different perspective.
Likewise with trusting the trustees. I’ve contacted trustees and entity heads about issues in the past and have *never* been treated as anything but a troublemaker. This was long before I was affiliated with troublemakers in the blog world. this was when I was simply a pastor of a church that gave 30% through the CP, but was smaller than 80.
As a result, I have never seen that the trustee system allows for grassroots input. My experience has been that trustees will return calls to the mega/famous people in their state and not to low importance people like normal-sized church pastors.
Others of you have asked trustees questions and gotten answers. You’ve emailed entity leaders and gotten answers.
And yes, I know the difference in emailing politely and waiting patiently and being a jerk. And I have not been a jerk.
So, you expect that we can trust the trustees. I see it as a small circle of people who keep passing the ability to even ask questions among just themselves, who do not want to answer questions.
I’ve been told by a trustee that it is not his job to listen to anyone who is not on the board. It’s his job to make it possible for the entity head to do what his vision is.
That’s not a trustworthy system, and if that’s what the training/guidance to SBC entity trustees is, then the failures are not isolated incidents. The failures (like the post about spending or recent seminary troubles) are guaranteed.
The trustee system may be all we have, but we need to look long and hard about how we get trustees, how we train trustees, and how we develop communications channels between trustees/entities and the 44,000 “other” churches in the SBC that don’t get inside the system.
Respectfully… and I do mean respectfully… Dave, I disagree. Trust has to not only be earned, but it has to be maintained. Openness and accountability are the hallmarks of a trust-based relationship and the secrecy surrounding the income of entity heads works against that trust in my opinion and leads only to (often unwarranted!) speculation, suspicion, and cynicism among the ranks. I’ve said this for years and I say it with none of the above-mentioned suspicion or maliciousness… these salaries (and royalties, per-diem numbers, etc…) should be publicized. As a pastor, my salary is public knowledge and I am accountable for every credit-card charge, expense, and reimbursement, even though my salary is “higher” than the average church member that I serve. Also, I hear what you are saying about “Baptist polity” but to me, that’s like appealing to Robert’s Rules of Order in a business meeting. When questionable issues are at stake, the ultimate arbiter for the people of God is not a parliamentary guide, or historical precedent, or even our own evolved “polity”… the ultimate arbiter is the Word of God. And every financial principle I see set forth in the Word of God calls us to accountability, openness, and integrity in all of our dealings. Just my opinion. Maybe not a popular one, but it’s mine. 🙂
Wrote a reply and it disappeared. I disagree but appreciate the comment.
I cant help thinking about the recent post on hiring, and some of the comments there about how people hire those they know or those known by those they trust.
Otherwise known as the good old boys network.
It was and probably is practiced in secular hiring but due to social conscience it is probably done much less than before.
And it seems that many businesses in seeking to diversify their leadership have also opened up their accounting. At least somewhat. Of course corporations have to give account to their stockholders. Publicly traded companies also have similar responsibilities. And when the public hears about secret golden parachutes for the CEO, they are outraged.
Still I imagine there is a lot John Q Public will never find out.
But as we have seen other denominations have a myriad of problems, some financila, some not, I dont see why we woud want to hide info from the people.
Dave says the presidents people are the trustees. But the trustees are responsible to who, no one?
besides God, I mean.
And yet more money is asked every year.
Many things should be naked and open, with proper justification for salaries, costs, sources of revenus, expenses, so that the people can elect a person who woud state he would clean up any improper spending. Who knows, maybe he doesny even know himself. Or maybe the boat is too big to rock. But pride goes before the fall.
Here are actual numbers from the 2010 IMB budget as printed on about six sheets and passed out at the Plenary Session of the IMB Board of Trustees. I don’t know how to average person in the pews could get this. I got it because the BoT meetings — at least the IMB Plenary Session is public. The committee meetings of the IMB are not public but if you ask to attend and the committee chairman gives you permission to attend you can.
This is an excerpt from the 2010 IMB budget as printed and distributed at the IMB Trustee meeting and approved by the Trustees during the plenary session.
OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
Administrative TOTAL $710,420
under administrative are Travel – Trustee Meetings $500,000
Travel local $59,600
Professional Services legal $58,000
Other Expense $34,200
Membership Dues $26,700
Food $15,000
Telecommunications $13,920
Supplies $ 3,000
As you can see there is no line item for salary, medical, social security, retirement contribution etc. under OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
But if we look in OFFICE OF GLOBAL PERSONNEL then we see what looks like to salary for the whole of the IMB broken down into the following buckets
ADMINISTRATIVE– [i.e. not overseas] TOTAL 32,500,368
Salary 23,206,025
Medical USA 4,201,445
Social Security 1,411,000
Retirement Contribution 1,380,120
Travel . . .
Life Insurance . . .
Staff Development . . .
Combined Accounts 1,109,103
OVERSEAS — many line items totaling 186,398,075
I talked with Treasurer David Steverson personally at the 2010 BoT meeting. He answered every question I asked him regarding finances. I didn’t ask him how much he made or how much anyone else made. David has since retired. I personally don’t think I want to know, or need to know anyone’s salary. It is a open secret that IMB missionaries make about $20K a year as salary — not including travel, housing, training expenses, etc. I think that all field missionaries make the same salary. I could be wrong.
All IMB missionaries receive the same base salary. Every five years missionaries receive a seniority raise. Missionaries also receive Field Parity Supplement. This was formerly called the Cost of Living Allowance.Allowance. The purpose of this is to equalize buying power from country to country. Our COLA in the Philippines was much lower than the amount the missionaries in Japan received, as the cost of living is higher in Japan. The IMB provides housing and transportation and pays for medical and dental services. The IMB helped pay our Social Security. The IMB contributes to the missionaries’ Guidestone accounts each month. The IMB also provides a college scholarship benefit, but it is not enough to pay for everything. I always felt the IMB took good care of us. Serving with the IMB is like serving in the military; the salary is not much, but lots of expenses are covered. One financial advantage missionaries have is that the IRS does not tax the first $80,000 of income while one lives overseas. So, when we were overseas, we did have to pay income tax.
I should have specified that what I wrote is true for career missionaries. Journeymen, who serve for 2 years, and other categories receive less.
Mark:
Thanks for the information from a person, like yourself, who knows what is happening based actual experience as well as your position as a Professor of Missions.
I personally have no problem with the salary of employees of the agencies being “secret” or at least kept under wraps. But if there is a growing movement to have agency leaders’ salary published then there is a prototype for the type of work need to make this happen. Those wanting to make this happen have to organize like minded people and then attend the annual SBC meeting and bring up motions to the floor. You have to work behind the scenes and also overtly to change Boards of Trustees. It wouldn’t hurt to attend trustee meetings personally. Who can guess if such an effort would be successful?
Another approach would be to sit down with several agency heads [and I mean person to person in a meeting] and ask them to consider publishing their salary. Many, maybe most, would do this if there was a growing consensus to do so.
The prototype I am speaking about is a miniature version of the organized effort taken during the CR by Patterson and Pressler. I don’t think people, like myself, kicking the can on a blog like this is going to cut it.
If I wanted to do this, the first thing I’d do is schedule IN PERSON meetings with the chairman / chairwomen of the BoT of the various agencies. You have to pay airfare and or drive to wherever they are. It could be that out of the six seminaries and the IMB, NAMB, and Lifeway several chairmen would say, “You are right it is about time we took this step, in view of our desire for more openness and transparency. I agree with you that publishing salaries is something whose time has come”. If this is the case then the result will be that within three to five years publishing salaries for top brass will be a fait accompli. I don’t know why I am thinking this but it seems that the Seminaries would be the place to start followed by the NAMB and the IMB.
To me Lifeway is a special case. They are running a self supporting business — albeit wholly “owned” by the SBC. However, publically traded companies reveal the compensation of top officers. So even with Lifeway there is an approximate prototype suggesting that compensation be published in what would be the non-profit “equivalent” of a 10K statement.
As a first step someone needs to setup a meeting with the Chairman of the BoT of Southwestern. My guess is that he would listen and give the idea serious consideration and consult with the administration / management of the school to work out the particulars. I am not calling for salary disclosure but I’ll buy dinner for up to 20 people at BBQ joint of your choosing anywhere in the state of OK or TX for anyone who sucessfully engineers the task of having salaries disclosed.
Just about every year, the LMCO information gives what it costs to keep a missionary “unit” on the field so that churches can use it as a goal.
And it’s pretty clear that the number is not salary but all of the ministry work as well. So that’s out there.
The cost of keeping a missionary family on the field includes children’s schooling, rent, medical, travel to and from the field, local trasportation, ministry expenses (Bibles and tracts), and many other things. I cannot speak about other agencies, but the IMB operates frugally. We missionaries always had to give a careful accounting of money spent.
“close relatives that are employed by the same entity”
Shouldn’t even be allowed. Nepotism is nearly fatal to the rest of us.
Dave, I am paid a 7 figure salary as a pastor. (You are including the two numbers to the right of the decimal, correct?)