I understand why people want to know what entity presidents make. I do, too. If a secret email was circulating the interwebs with the salary packages and someone said I could have the password to open the email for $10, I’d probably be asking if they take PayPal or Cashapp. I am as curious as the next guy.
I have written on this topic previously and expressed my views. In my mind, my curiosity is not a sufficient reason to break protocol on confidentiality and to violate the trustee system. I do not believe that I have a legitimate claim, even as a pastor whose churches, over the last 40 years, have never given less than 10% to missions through the Cooperative Program and have led my state in Lottie Moon and Annie Armstrong giving on a regular basis.
I would love to know what these men make but I am not convinced I have a legitimate right, beyond my curiosity, to demand to know.
So, I would like to ask some simple questions of those of you, including my buddy William, who believe the hoi polloi of the SBC should have unfettered access to the salary figures of our entity heads.
1. On what basis do you make this demand?
Baptists have a unique polity, which puts the operation of our entities in the hands of trustees. We have the right to elect trustees and even to recall trustees. Remember that the motion which went down in flames at the Dallas convention to ask for the resignation of several Southwestern trustees was in order and was voted on at the convention. We govern the election of the trustees but the trustees govern the policies and procedures of the entities.
The trustees should know what the entity leaders make. I’ve heard rumors that on some trustee boards only the Executive Committee knows the president’s salary. If I were a trustee and that were the case, then I would raise a ruckus. Our trustees are elected to deal with issues like this and they should know this information.
It is hard to argue with the pathos of the “the people who give have a right to know” argument, but our polity does not say that.
So, aside from the “we who give our offerings ought to know” – an argument that is emotionally satisfying but not legally or ethically compelling, on what basis do you demand to know the salaries of the presidents of the entities?
2. On what basis do you differentiate between entity heads and others?
In Iowa, the salary of every state or local government employee is published once a year. If you are paid by the State of Iowa, a county, or a municipal government, everyone gets to know what you make. Out of curiosity, I’ve looked up the salaries of friends and acquaintances who had government jobs.
Dave Cline asked a question on the previous post that was kind of brushed off, but I think it is a good one. Is there any legitimate basis to disclose the pay of the president but not the Vice Presidents? How about team leaders? If I have the right to know what the president of LifeWay makes, shouldn’t I be able to inquire about friends of mine who work there and find out what they are making?
What is the legal or ethical logic for asking for only the entity leader’s pay numbers? Again, curiosity is not a sufficient answer. If we ask for one should not we ask for all of them?
3. Is the resulting chaos not concerning?
I will admit that I’ve heard rumors about what some of the entity leaders make. I do not begrudge them decent salaries for the work they do. Some of them likely took pay cuts if they came from megachurches, even if their salaries seem massive to us smaller church guys.
I remember a regular on Voices speaking with Papal authority that it was ungodly for anyone to make over $100,000 in God’s service. I’m guessing if he moved up the ladder and got to the point where a church was willing to pay him that, his views might change. But I was shocked to see someone set a dollar amount on the Lord’s approval.
If the information I have is correct, our entity presidents make more than $100,000. Quite a bit more.
Can you imagine the caterwauling if these were made known? How many self-appointed experts are there like the commenter who set an arbitrary cap on salaries? Would people stop giving? Would it affect our ability to attract top candidates to these jobs? These questions are all speculative, of course. But I do believe the chaos of such a move, without legal or ethical warrant, makes it an unnecessary step.
Final Thoughts
Again, I would love to know this information. If you have it, please feel free to share it with me! I haven’t shared what I’ve been told here. The simple fact is that in an organization as big as the SBC sometimes we won’t know everything.
Some will see my view as contradictory since I’ve argued for greater transparency in the operations of our entities. Perhaps I am being contradictory and I do believe that too much business at our seminaries and other boards is done in secret. I spoke to one of the new entity leaders in Alabama this year and said that I was supportive of him and his institution, but there are going to be times when we reveal what he wants kept secret. That is the bloggers dance.
This, the dollar amounts our leaders are paid, just isn’t one of the things I think needs to be public. We have a system to deal with that. We elect trustees to handle that and they need to do so.
Other than curiosity and some sort of emotional appeal to “we all should know,” I’d like to hear a reasoned case for why the salaries should be made public.
Further reading:
My thoughts on “trust the trustees”
William and I have been hammering this for a while. Here’s my former post on why I think publishing the salaries isn’t a great idea.
Personally, I see no need to reveal their salaries. As long as they are doing there job well, they demonstrate humility, and they are held accountable by the trustees the convention has put into place. This is an inside in which we should trust our trustees to do their job and if not we need to call them on it and replace them.
I tend to agree with Dave here. In addition to what he’s listed here, several entity heads have self-appointed critics who would love to have that information and use it at every opportunity, regardless of how inappropriate, to question the character of those entity heads.
Yep. The salary would derisively accompany the criticism.
“So and so is making _______________ of my money and he said/did what?!”
It’d be another bullet in their guns.
History shows that those who ask internally are often turned into insufferable critics in hindsight. True friends of the gospel trust and don’t ask, goes the thinking. That’s been constant pre-CR, CR, and post-CR.
I will second Dave’s motion at the SBC that all Trustees of an entity should be provided in writing the salary, housing allowance, other compensation and travel expenses of VPs and above, every year.
I think the resulting chaos would be short-lived if like in Iowa and South Carolina all salaries were made available to the public which includes our fellow Southern Baptists. It would quickly be seen as normal and could have positive effects. It could lead more churches to be open about staff salaries instead of lumping them together in one category. It also might shame the Trustees and Presidents if the disparity between professors and Presidents was shown. If that resulted in better pay for professors then that would be a good outcome.
Some sunshine should be healthy.
This is where I am Louis. And I know we’re to “trust the trustees,” but the trustees haven’t had a good last few years either between the IMB and the huge deficits they were running, SWBTS and the Patterson situation, EC just recently with the handling of the sex scandals. Personally, I’ve just never thought sunlight was a bad thing, especially in God’s work. Any controversy blows over quickly IMO
As someone who has served in both situations where salaries were published and one where specific salaries were withheld, I am in favor of confidentiality. I am not sure that those who would have access to those numbers would know how to interpret them, be fair with the critiques, or have the entities best interest in mind with this information. Great leadership is worth a fair wage. You don’t always get what you pay for, but rarely do you get more than you pay for. I’m all for great leaders being compensated a fair market wage.
This is a classic comment: presumes Southern Baptists are too ignorant to understand, presumes those who desire information do so amiss. Is there also a presumption that those who ask are NOT for leaders being fairly compensated? If the market is invoked for salary levels, explain it to the folks in the pews. I fear the market is ignored by trustees. Trustees may certainly make their case to the ignorant masses. Bring the reasoning down to our level.
William,
My friend that is not fair… No one has said pastors or pew members are too ignorant (or implication – stupid)…It’s just a *reality* that most of us are simply not privy to the information and details and variables that go into the setting of a entity head salary. (and shouldn’t be – lest you are suggesting Al Mohler have 10 million plus bosses ( or even several thousand at annual meeting))
Plus, we have a trustee system and unless you guys are going to turn it up on its head and change it (there are ways, as you know) You have no basis on which to demand them to do anything… Entities are autonomous.
William,
I am sorry that my comment came across as unclear. I am not in any way suggesting people are too ignorant— rather that not everyone would be aware of the metrics whereby entity heads are evaluated. Though we are talking about SBC entities, the benchmarks a seminary president are evaluated by would be greatly different than the benchmarks for the heads of the mission agencies. I would further suggest that the fair market salary could be different as well between entities. This could make comparisons between the salaries of the entity leaders seem disproportionate when they actually fall in line with fair compensation. It seems that the trustees of each agency would be privy to these indicators whereas I don’t have all that information for each entity.
Furthermore, when I stated others may not have the best interest in mind, I did not mean that I thought there would be people with ill motives, rather that their vision and opinion of job performance and salary parameters may be very different than the expectations for the entity by the trustees. Because of my confidence in the competence of Southern Baptists I am completely comfortable with those Southern Baptists serving as trustees making hard decisions and then holding people accountable when those expectations are not met. I don’t always agree with the decisions that are made, but I have to approach those decisions with the belief that godly individuals came to those conclusions because they felt that was what was best for the work of the SBC. That includes any decisions regarding executive level compensation.
Robert, you weren’t unclear. While I appreciate you expanding on it, you are implying the same thing, more or less, that folks in the pews aren’t capable of managing the information. It’s too complex. Let each entity trustee board explain their compensation arrangement. I haven’t argued for equity across the board of the dozen entities.
Am I incorrect in understanding you on this, that is, that these are varied and complex entities and ordinary Southern Baptist wouldn’t understand enough to be given a chance to have an opinion about their donations that support these entities?
Folks who pay the bills should have the information.
I agree, Robert was very clear the first time William and so glad that you pointed that out. You will be proud to know that as one of those “pew members” I understood every word you wrote.
You, Debbie, are extraordinarily bright.
I agree. The State of SC though not a paragon of good governance has published every salary for years and work gets done. There are no marches and they do not seem to have a difficult time finding people to do the jobs at the wages publicly posted.
Our public universities are open about administration, faculty salaries and all other positions. They also have trustees.
Show it all and hide nothing. Salary, retirement contribution, housing and expenses paid by the entity and trust the members of our churches.
The churches that I preach in each week all show every dime given on a week-by-week basis. Everyone seems capable of handling that information. People can handle more than some seem to think.
From a personal standpoint, in 10 years of pastoring, I was actually glad that my salary was known to the church, or at least anyone who came to the annual budget business meeting. I feel it protected me from any suspicion of indiscretion, that it reminded me that I was a servant as well as a leader. The accountability that such a thing provides cannot be a bad thing.
I wonder, can Dave, or anyone else, make a case That local pastors Should have their salaries know to their churches, but that entity leaders/employees should not? What are the substantial differences? Or do those who don’t see it as necessary also see pastoral salaries as being better in private?
Andy,
To my knowledge everyone (I know i certainly have) who has argued for continued confidentiality of exec salaries have stated personal acceptance of – and in fact argues *for* – pastors salaries being open to those to whom they are accountable… Their local church – and them only.
I have no “right” or need to know what another local church pastor makes… Nor does A member of my church have a “right to know” what the pastor of another church makes.
Salaries of denominational employees ARE in fact open and accessible to those to whom the employee is accountable… In this case the trustees and only to them.
Quoting Tarheel_Dave: “I have no “right” or need to know what another local church pastor makes… Nor does A member of my church have a “right to know” what the pastor of another church makes.”
This is a straw man argument. Each church is paying its own pastor, and the supporting funds are not coming from the other church. No one is saying that the pay for every position in every church or ministry should be available to all. What is being proposed is that those positions that are paid for by our CP dollars should not be a matter of state secret available to only those who are fortunate enough or connected enough to be elected to a trustee position. If a charity asked me to donate money but was not willing to provide complete transparency about their expenses – they would get nothing from me.
I am a long time Southern Baptist and have belonged to several churches. When I needed to find a new church home one of my first steps was to attend a business meeting or two to see how transparent that church was with their expenses. I have excluded churches from my consideration if they were not open and honest about how the members money was spent.
Given the secrecy that seems to be endemic in our convention, I am becoming reluctant to continue my unrestricted gifts and have shifted more to designated giving. If it continues, I may make ALL of my contributions as designated gifts.
“…and the supporting funds are not coming from the other church.”
Unless it is a church plant – or getting money from Namb, or the local association for revitalization or what haveya….
SO in that case should salaries and other expenditures be public information for every SBC member (in the association – or convention-wide for NAMB?) who contributes to the CP and/or association offerings?
And my answer does not change. I do have one advantage in this discussion – I was a member of a church who funded a new plant. That new church plant did provide us with full disclosure of their spending while we supported them. And that disclosure was made available to all church members in my congregation. You might be surprised to find out that this actually increased the funding provided to that church plant; people were so supportive of the way they were conducting their mission they actually gave extra offerings to help them.
Yes, if a church is being funded through any SBC source, all those who contribute to that source should be able to see how their money is being used. No exceptions. You might be surprised how Southern Baptists would respond when they are told the whole truth. I don’t think secrecy about how money from members contributions is spent serves anyone well.
This is well said and applies overall in SBC life. No one has to give to the cp. Folks (and churches) aren’t given to debating the matter like we are. They simply move on and give to those causes in which they have confidence.
This isn’t a deal breaker for me and the SBC and certainly not any kind of issue between me and my SBCV colleagues. 1. It’s subtle but not unimportant that asking for entities to report CEO pay is labeled a “demand.” That is unfair. It’s not demand. It is a respectful request. There is a considerable difference. 2. The entire premise that salaries should be secret from all but a handful of trustees is flawed. Openness should be the policy, not secrecy. I don’t even know that such things have a consistent history of being secret. A *demand* that those asking for information should justify their requests is backwards. Insisting that SBCers don’t have a “right” to information about their entities is backwards as well. 3. I’ll brush off my old friend Dave Cline’s questions when they are trivial and irrelevant. I’m not all that interested but if it makes him happy, sure, include all executive level leadership. Again, the premise is flawed. 3. If one presumes chaos would result and uses that as an excuse for secrecy, let’s be clear that such a justification would fit any issue. “We can’t tell you because it would cause chaos.” Let the trustees justify their decisions in the open, not sequester them in the shadows. If we’re paying a leader $1 mil annually, justify it to those who give their money. 4. Entities are already required to report considerable financial data to the Executive Committee. This should be a part of that. Seminary prof pay ranges are reported. Various financial data are reported. I’d be satisfied with a range of executive level pay for the entities. 5. The trustee system is a terrible system, except for all the alternatives. One has no choice but to trust trustees even though we have had major, repeated trustee failures. Any informed Southern Baptist can list them. Trustees presume upon the goodwill of Southern Baptists too often when they make catastrophic decisions and when they are asleep at the wheel. Every failure has a price. It’s time for some changes. I don’t have great confidence in trustees. We had to implement a system that encouraged a good chunk of our overseas missions people to retire or resign because of, ultimately, a trustee failure. We paid through the nose for NAMB’s two meltdowns because of trustee failure. By the time SWBTS trustees acted, considerable damage was done… Read more »
Buddy, i expect your shrugging off and saying the premise is flawed is merely an excuse to not answer the question…
Speaking of flawed premesis though… lets look at the premise behind the demand to know executive salaries…
The premise that executives “work for us“ and “we pay the bills” as a cooperative program fund contributer – OK – BUT – also – under the premise – so does *every single solitary employee* at any of our entities no matter what “level” or their job title is.
For that matter should we know the details of every financial contract ( even down to landscaping at Alpharetta) that is entered into by an entity – After all we pay the bills.
The less light there is, the more trust will be lost. Eventually, that will impact $$$$$. And let’s face it, only a loss of $$$$$ will lead to daylight. Until giving to CP reaches a critical mass, there is no reason for change with the powers that be. Our missions giving has gone up in each of my 8 years at our current church, we’ve decreased CP the last 3, after increasing the first 5.There are just two many red flags money isnt being managed wisely. A steward is not called to give blindly
I would love to hear WHY it is flawed not just that you think it is flawed.
Those who pay the bills should know relevant information. That’s the proper premise. You can argue about what is relevant and what is not. Public corporations and charities that file Form 990s are required to report this, it being considered relevant to donors in their decision to give or not (or shareholders in their decision to invest or not). The premise that secrecy, save for a few select trustees, is the base from which we start a discussion is flawed for the reason given. It’s not complex.
But of course *you* get to determine what is relevant…yeah, that’s a robust and healthy premise here.
IF this is trully about transparency for those “paying the bills” getting detailed information about The compensation they offer to those “they pay“… Then why shouldn’t the *all* the Bill payers get to know what *everyone* they pay makes as well as a detailed accounting of every dollar?
Its not complex. It seems though that the arguerers for transparency here are only wanting *selective transparency*.
Also, your premise and use the inendiary word of “secrecy” is flawed….
The info is not secret because simply because you and whomever else you think is entitled to it don’t know it.
The fact is – the info is open and available to those who hold in trust the accountability of the employees under our system.
Again William, if you and others want to scrap, reorganize or whatever a system you feel is “terrible” – there are ways – present your ideas for a new system and they will be considered.
As a small church pastor, my salary and benefits are printed in each quarterly financial report. If a raise in salary is proposed, the church knows what the new salary will be and votes on it. That’s the way it works in small, rural churches. In contrast, the mega-churches I have been associated with do things differently. The annual budget is prepared and delivered to the church for a vote. Typically, salaries and benefits are lumped into one “salaries” category. The salaries of each staff member are not separated, thus, individual staff salaries are not reported. I can understand why this is necessary in a church of 10,000 members in contrast to my 75 member church. Neither approach is wrong, just different. I guess what I’m trying to say is if mega-churches don’t need to know who is making what, then why do we need to know on an entity level?
https://www.umnews.org/en/news/agency-employees-to-see-changes-in-pay
Anything wrong with the way the Methodist are handling this issue?
The beginning of the article referring to the average , loyal , faithful and bill pay SBC members as the hoi polloi indicates a haughty attitude toward the “masses”
or the many. A quick google search of the definition and use of the word generally is that it is used as a negative term , from the hoity-toity, if you will. In todays society it is usually to give a negative connotation to signify depreciation of the working class or the plebeians . I am sure that Dave MIller was using it as comic relief and not in the negative way. However, the top down, non transparent and non inclusive leadership of the SBC is part of the issue of pay transparency.
Just to be clear , all salaries from the janitors, the staff, the office staff , all SBC employees should be public knowledge. What if the custodians are making 85K a year and big benefits. Think the average SBC member should at least have the opportunity to know where their money is going. This is a smokescreen and in this computer age the disclosure of all salaries would not be labor intensive.
This is not a big issue now because the average SBC has no idea that the salaries are not available to the public because, silly hoi polloi’s trust their leaders . Most are also not aware of the recent financial problems and personnel issues. Do not poke the sleeping bear.
I will quit , but I really cannot wrap my head around non transparency . The United Way only released and made public CEO pay, when their donations plummeted. Not almost all non profit report pay at all levels. Why not?
Coupled with the haughty attitude of the SBC leadership at state and national level the non transparency will be a big problem.
I flat don’t care what they make or how it’s derived. The people who need to know, they know, and it’s not me.
This is a no brainer.
Just go back and read what I’ve posted before.
This is an area that the CR did not deal with, unfortunately.
From a logical standpoint, how can messengers know if the Trustees are doing a good job in the area of compensation if the messengers have no idea of the compensation being paid?
By your logic, If the Trustees of Southwestern Seminary decided to pay Paige Patterson a $2M severance package, the Convention should not have known that.
I understand an audit is being performed of SWBTS spending during some of the Patterson years. Are you saying Southern Baptists don’t need to see that audit?
If compensation is supposed to be secret, why not all business remaining secret? Are you saying only compensation is to be secret?
Should the Executive Committee close it’s annual meetings to the public?
There is a difference between the right to govern and a right to know.
The Trustees are given the right to govern the entities.
Disclosure of what they’re doing is a different matter.
The ability of the SBC messengers to evaluate how the Trustees are doing is dependent on the level of disclosure.
I personally don’t give to any nonprofits that conceal spending, including salary information.
The exception is SBC life, and that is due to a history.
People nowadays expect more from religious nonprofits. Greater disclosure would inspire confidence, unless there is something to hide.
Louis, well stated, at least to me. Of course, I am in the choir you are preaching too. However the choir is going to grow someday and force the issue.
Interesting… If salaries are exposed, chaos would break out.
Is it fair to ask why chaos would break out?
Would it be because the people paying the bills would be shocked at the amount?
Would it be because they would sense that there is more secrecy our there that would rip their hearts against supporting the CP in the future?
Would it be because they have come to think that the SBC/CP begging for churches to give more is not really about missions but about providing a luxury life for a few?
If the numbers were released and chaos broke out – it would be on the Trustees, not the people in the pews. You really would have a hard time blaming those causing a ruckus for causing the ruckus when they think they have just been robbed.
The longer the secrecy, the harder it will be to explain when exposure comes.
The, “It’s none of your business” mantra stinks.
What do we have to really be afraid of by being transparent?
That says it all.
Steve,
Thanks.
I disagree, however, about the issue being forced.
Christians are an awfully polite people. They will often endure bad management and remain silent or say nothing.
Like many issues in the SBC you really need a super majority to make changes. Right now there is an ethos in the SBC that has about a 60% block. They show up at the Convention and believe that because they can win on issues it indicates the churches like the direction of the SBC.
This is not an issue about which people will organize and vote.
You see this same pattern in local churches. The power structure is secure, and the people don’t want to start a fight, so they put up with bad leadership.
But under the surface there is a lack of confidence and energy that grows. And the organization starts to lose strength and momentum. People remain out of love and history.
That is what I fear could happen to the SBC. Not revolt or chaos. But a growing lack of confidence and enthusiasm.
The compensation issue is a small issue, but it illustrates a mindset that unfortunately is not going away. The question remaining is the extent to which this mindset is having the effect I mentioned.
Here are my random thoughts on this matter. Older readers will remember Dr. T. B. Maston, who taught ethics at Southwestern Seminary. After he retired from teaching, he kept an office at the seminary. He used it for working on his writing projects. His office was near the PhD students’ study area. He told some of us that he decided to write an article on the salaries paid to the CEOs of SBC entities in contrast to what the entities’ faculty and staff and missionaries are paid. So, he wrote to all the entities and requested salary information. At least one CEO complained to SWBTS, and the seminary administration told him to kill the article or lose his office.
When Jerry Rankin was elected president of the IMB, he requested that his salary be the same as the missionaries. The trustees refused. They said that would be embarrassing to the presidents of the other SBC entities.
I have it on good authority that the job you want in the SBC is president of Guidestone. In order to hire capable vice presidents who know investment, insurance, accounting, etc., Guidestone has to pay the VPs competitive salaries. The president must be paid more than the VPs, so that is the job to seek.
My erudite colleagues and commenters should pay attention to Mark Terry on this.
Thanks for the references to Dr. Maston and Jerry Rankin. There are probably too many stories like those in SBC denominational life.
But to whom were you referring about wanting the president job at Guidestone? (It’s easy to get lost in the thread of these highly intellectual discussions!)
According to a Wall Street Journal analysis of 2017 pay for S&P 500 leaders, the top five highest-earning CEOs in 2017 were:
5. Stephen Kaufer, TripAdvisor
2017 salary: $47.9 million
4. Jeff Bewkes, Time Warner
2017 salary: $49.0 million
3. W. Nicholas Howley, TransDigm
2017 salary: $61.0 million
2. Leslie Moonves, CBS
2017 salary: $69.3 million
1. Hock Tan, Broadcom
2017 salary: $103.2 million
https://www.refinery29.com/en-us/ceo-salary
David R. Brumbelow
Some years ago the University of Louisville fired Ron Cooper, the head football coach. The university paid him one million dollars not to coach the team the next year. I wrote the newspaper to say that I was willing to not coach the team for $100,000. The university could have saved $900,000 by paying me not to coach. I do not begrudge our SBC entity presidents appropriate salaries. In my comment above I mentioned the salaries paid to vice presidents at Guidestone. I want Guidestone to pay what is necessary to get qualified people to lead those divisions. It is money well spent. Of course, that means that O. S. Hawkins is paid more. Good for him. I believe he serves well as president of Guidestone. The presidents of our entities have lots of responsibility, and they should be appropriately compensated. What troubles me is the discrepancy between what the CEOs make and what faculty, staff, and missionaries receive. Full disclosure would inform Southern Baptists about the discrepancies.
Mark, I understand your point and agree with it. However, at most major football schools the football coach is paid much more than the university president even thought the president is supposed to be the supervisor of the coach. I guess Guidestone could use a similar rule.
The trustees did raise Jerry’s salary much more than he requested. Mark, the story I have heard and you can correct me if you know differently, is that when Keith Park left his salary was fairly low and the entire staff salary structure was set in relation to the president’s salary. In order to offer a salary that would allow some of those being considered not have to take a large pay cut would have up set the entire salary schedule. Therefore, they raised Jerry’s salary enough to not have that problem in the future.
David Brumelow, how much of the salaries above come from tithes and donations from small faithful people? Why do these public traded companies make their CEO salary known? Is it because the shareholders demand it I am now going to the kitchen to compare my apples to my oranges.
For what it is worth, my opinion is that in every organization that is supported by taxes or contributions the pay package of every single employee should be a matter of public record.
Not for nothing… But to those who are arguing and equating the financial practices of churches to entities (and invoking the rural churches) – I have served in those my entire ministry… And always every single dollar is accounted for on the budget reports that are given to the church at business meetings. (and submitted for budget approval beforehand by the membership)
Money – often in line by line detail – paid to Pastors, missions, ministries, utilities, Janitors, secretaries, office supplies, cleaning supplies, maintenance, lawn care and so on…. are all reported.
But, even while using this in propping up the argument… There is still a selective demand… Only the execs. Why?
Tarheel Dave, Where do you get the premise that most of us only want the pay of the leaders of the SBC made public but all , repeat all, who receive their compensation from SBC donated money. Full disclosure means full disclosure. Not a burden in our computerized world. Total compensation, period. Top to bottom. Where do you get the opinion only that those for transparency are only asking for executive pay? Everyone public disclosure ? Why not?
You’re apparently more consistent than others making the argument.
Suppose Dave Brumbelow is priming us for the disclosure that his old pal PP was paid a paltry few mil per year. Peanuts compared with Fortune 500 CEOs.
My guess is that PP has a very comfortable retirement even without a severance.
But remember, Dave, it’s only a guess. You’ll never know.
“ I guess what I’m trying to say is if mega-churches don’t need to know who is making what, then why do we need to know on an entity level?“
I would reply that in the last 10, 15, + years, we have seen numerous megachurch pastors’ downfall…pastors whose salaries were unknown…I’m not saying that was the primary problem in every case, but lack of accountability didn’t seem to help them, and likely contributed to their disconnect from their servant role.
Is there a salary too high for our entity heads? What figure would be too much and cause you to think that the Trustees are not being wise?
Let’s say CP dollars go to pay one of our entity heads $500,000.00 plus. How many missionaries could we send if the number was a fair livable wage of $125,000.00?
Is this ministry or business?
Someone may have already suggested this (I’ve skimmed the comments but may have missed it):
What if the SBC published compensation ranges for different types of positions? That would be a compromise that affords some more openness while maintaining the privacy of precise salary info.
That would be fine with me. It won’t happen because,if truthful, it would necessarily include the highest amount.
Lol. Problem solved!
I have it on extremely good authority that the following Range identifies the salaries/compensation of SBC entity leadership :
More than $24,000/yr. to less than $47,000,000,000,000,000/yr.
Nice one, Dave. 🙂
Jeff Johnson, transparency is transparency. Why play the game of hide the ball from the masses? Would the range only be salary ? Would it include vacation time, sick leave benefits, health benefits, dental benefits, travel per diem pay and any money paid out to the individual. The salary range many times is a dodge as the low salary is seldom the true salary. It would really be confusing, what if the range were low $300,000 annually with a high of &750,000. This is not that hard , Employee gets paid $500,000 annual salary with total compensation package worth 720,000. including all benefits? Is the fear that a lot of the raised eyebrows will be stuck in place like our Mothers use to warn us when we made cross eyes or funny faces? I predict the main reaction when the unwashed masses learn the salary and benefit structure will be shock at the pay structure. I believe many SBC execs make more than the POTUS , certainly more than U.S. Senators.
Steve,
I guess my suggestion (though I haven’t spent too much time pondering it) might be for the trustees of each entity to publish a compensation grid showing the minimum and maximum compensation for each basic type of position. When there is an opening, you know the successful candidate is going to make something within that range. Use total compensation package rather than just straight salary. That way, messengers know the basic types of compensation the trustees have approved for different types of employees. As Dave pointed out above, of course, the range would have to be specific enough to be meaningful.
There was a time when the salaries of SBC entity heads, seminaries, colleges, agencies, and mission boards, was not secret. I am so thankful for the Conservative Resurgence! I really am. In 1990 or so, I could tell you what the Chancellor/President of Southwest Baptist University, the Seminary Presidents, and the Foreign Mission Board President made in salary. It was out in the open. I understood it and it all made sense to me. That info did not disgruntle me one bit. Those leaders did not tell me directly what they made. This all used to be common knowledge. Why the change?
One of the main reasons salaries of entity heads, and employees, should be part of what trustees report openly is because of transparency and honesty. The income to pay them comes from churches which decide how much they are going to give to the Cooperative Program. A group of trustees being the only ones who know looks like there is something to hide. There shouldn’t be anything to hide, so there is no reason this information can’t be published.
I hear at lot about “trust the trustees.” That is not as easy as it sounds. It is very difficult to hold a trustee board accountable. The rules put the power of appointment into the hands of a very small, elite, exclusive group of people who have a history of being swayed as they make their choices by friends of candidates lobbying for them and making sure that entity heads are insulated from critics. In several cases, entity heads have been able to exert significant influence over who gets on their entity board and made sure that their close friends who will protect them no matter what they do are in the majority. Keeping salaries secret just makes it look like the denominational leadership has something to hide. The record of trustee accountability in the SBC isn’t good.