Last week Slate had a short article about how young people are underpaid in relation to their productivity whereas older folks are overpaid in proportion to what they produce.
At the same time, Adaptistration cited an article in San Francisco Classical Voice that revealed the salaries of musicians and administrators in the Bay area.
As I look at the fact that the SF Opera’s Musical Director makes $600,000 and the concert master makes $126,000, I first have to wonder if he is really about five times more productive each year than she is. I don’t know their respective ages or education and experience levels, but I can’t believe that the difference is in direct proportion to the gap in their salaries.
It leads to the question of what it is that is valued in the arts. I know Drew McManus has bemoaned the disparity between executive compensation and musician salaries so I won’t tread upon that ground.
It is easy as a person not earning that much to cast aspersions upon those who do. I can’t say that by some strange twist of fate I won’t end up making a large amount of money before the end of my career. I can honestly say that I have a hard time believing I will ever be worth that much to an organization.
I certainly feel that my value will grow as I become wiser about addressing challenges and planning prudently, but I don’t know that I will become so adept I will be worth $600,000. (This is coming back to haunt me at some future salary negotiation. I can feel it.)
Now in comparison with some corporate CEO salaries and benefit packages, this sort of pay scale is downright parsimonious. Those guys may be brokering billion dollar deals, but it is the masses who are responsible for that sort of valuation. In this context, it seems only right that the leadership of a large non-profit be well-compensated.
But what about the mission of a non-profit? Is the community well served by a senior person making that much money? If the opera had hired someone as music director who would accept $200,000, would the quality suffered significantly? Perhaps the fundraising would be more difficult with a lesser name at the helm and instead of saving $400,000, there would only be a $100-$200,000 surplus. But if that money could be sunk into the productions, outreach programs or low cost ticketing, wouldn’t the organization mission be better served?
It is very easy to spend other people’s money to be sure. The opera’s business is its own and it seems to be doing fairly well. If the board and the community is happy and feels the opera is fulfilling its role, more power to them and more money to their administrators. (Don’t want to burn any potential bridges 😉 )
This isn’t really about the opera, but about the industry at large. I just want to send a question or two rattling around people’s minds about whether there is a point where people are too well compensated to the detriment of the organization’s mission.
And harkening back to the Slate article, are they being paid out of proportion to what they produce for the organization. It could be argued that if someone attracts $1 million in donations to the organization, they are worth a percentage of that. In theory, the money was solicited to benefit the mission of the organization so the percentage granted as a bonus in one form or another really needs to be scrutinized.
It is the high percentage of a donation that goes to administrative costs that tends to be the main point of criticism for charities like the United Way. Arts groups don’t need that to become the story for them.