Williams' Compensation revisited - Nice deal

[jkhny 10]

While many have defended Roy Williams compensation package at around $450,000 this may not be quite accurate.o

 

The Boy Scouts of America Foundation lists compensation a bit differently than the National COuncil 990's for 2003:

 

Williams

 

Salary 433,830

Auto 10,336

Excess Life Insurance Premiums 11,026

Contr. to Emp. benefits Plan 23,127

 

"Other Allowances deferred Under

Non-Qualified Retirement Plan &

Unearned Compensation (1) 434,874

 

TOTAL COMPENSATION per Form 990 $913,193

 

Seems like his real compensation is ALOT higher - double what's reported via the COuncil report though half is deferred. Roy's going to have a nice comfortable retirement.

 

In 2002 he received an additional $302,691 as "Other Allowances..." same thing for total compensation of $729,594

 

Other execs show the same proportionate payments as additions to THEIR packages.

 

Referenced footnote

"(1) The Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1993 (the "1993 Act") set the maximum income that a "qualified" retirement plan can use to calculate benefits at $200,000 for 2003. The BSA's National Executive Board approved a non-qualified, Retirement Benefit Restoration Plan ("the Restoration Plan" for the benefit of employees whose benefits would otherwise be limited by the 1993 Act. Benefits attributed under the Restoration Plan supplement those accrued under the qualified Retirement plan and payments do not commence until an employees retirement."

 

So....it appears that faced with new restrictions on what a corporation could use to contribute to an employees retirement, BSA voted paid professionals a way around those restrictions.

 

Now even a $200,000 cap on what's used to accrue retirement benefits is pretty darn good for most of us - and how many of us have to pay for our OWN retirement off far smaller salaries? But Williams is getting ANOTHER year's worth of his 2003 compensation put into HIS retirement plan to make up for limitations. I can bet that most of us affected by such changes in the law would have been told by OUR employers that we'd better pony up ourselves or start our own 401K if we "topped out" MOST companies will take any excuse they can to LIMIT benefits.

 

Sorry, but THIS is the sort of "less than transparent" financial "shennanigans" is used by executives to make sure they get well compensated - WITHOUT having "shareholders" see the actual total package.

 

AND it seems that there are SEPARATE compensation packages going to BSA officials NOT through BSA - again to keep things as hidden as possible to avoiding offending sensibilities.

 

Keep in mind that BSA total membership has been DECLINING in Scouting under Williams leadership.

 

 

 

 

[Fuzzy Bear 12]

The Roy Williams of the Dallas Cowboys and the Roy Williams of the Tar Heels makes more money than the Roy Williams of the BSA. The difference is that the Roy Williams of the BSA has improved the BSA's total budget to a half billion dollars as he has lead the 320 Councils to a stronger economic base. The decline in membership is due in part to the strengthening of the reporting procedures. His overall income is less than commensurate with other big businesses and executives that have astronomical salaries. Having a strong economic base insures the future of the BSA. So, it my contention, that the cup is half-full.

FB

[SemperParatus 1]

Nonqualified deferred comp plans have been around for decades. It is not a financial shenanigan. It is a very common business practice to ensure adequate compensation is paid to those selected and charged with the ultimate responsibility of managing large, complex business entities. Non-profits, in particular, make use of nonqualified plans since stock-based compensation options are not possible.

[Bob White 20]

Williams is a corporation director who makes a fraction of what executives of a similar size organization in a commercial company would make. If you had the skills to operate a company with thousands of employees, millions of customers, and the assets that the BSA had then you would make that much money or more.

 

Salary envy is unbecoming in a scout leader.

[Prairie_Scouter 10]

Actually, exhorbitant executive salaries, including such things as deferred compensation, are part of a laundry list of corporate problems that have led the Feds to begin demanding more independence in corporate boards and more liability on their part. In the past and in the present, to some extent, corporate boards at many companies were merely "yes" stamps for the chief executive. These problems extended to non-profits as well.

 

To that end, companies are becoming more and more transparent in their dealings and in reporting of compensation. It is becoming more the norm to report an exective's salary as not just his or her "base", but including deferred compensation as well in whatever form that might exist. Interestingly, when looking at BSA Annual Reports, there is virtually no mention of financials. Perhaps there is some other publicly available document that has this, but it's unusual for a corporation or non-profit to issue an annual report that doesn't include any information on their financial position. This is usually the beginning point for any financial audit.

 

I think that if I was on the board of a company that appeared to have a solid balance sheet, but was losing customers steadily for several years, I'd be concerned and wonder how successful the lead executives actually were. If I then heard that the branch offices of the corporation were knowingly reporting inaccurate customer numbers, I would be that much more concerned. Ultimate responsibility lies at the top.

 

Reporting a concern about a company's financial activity isn't "salary envy", it's expression of a legitimate concern. Applying various unsavory labels to individuals who would question the motives and policy of an organization is something I would expect of political operatives who have a vested interest in sustaining the status quo. The most common response in politics when your position is attacked is to attack the attacker, and not respond to the attack itself.

[OldGreyEagle 5]

I dont know if this is true or not, so I ask if anyone who knows to please speak up. I once heard that Mr WIlliams has bodyguards around him 24 hours a day because of what has been deem "legitimate death threats" because of the BSA stance on issues. Can anyone confirm or deny that?

[Bob White 20]

The "attack" is not an attack at all it is a complaint, that you (and or others) think that the head of a corporation makes more than you think he or she deserves when you have little or no idea of what their resonsibilities or function in the corporation is or for that matter what and who the corporation is.

 

It's envy. If you made what the head of any similar size corporation made you would not give this topic a second thought.

 

 

[evmori 11]

You guys keep forgetting the BSA is always right! No matter what they do! Mr Williams salary is not out of line! Actually, he should make more! How can we help that happen!

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10(This message has been edited by evmori)

[Bob White 20]

You have no more ability to give him more money than you have to give him less. It is not your responsibility and likely will never be.

[Trevorum 24]

OGE,

I haven't heard that rumor and I suspect it is just smoke. I was fortunate enough to attend a reception and dinner with Mr. Williams last month and I witnessed no bodyguards. Or if there were, they all were 50+ y.o. silver beavers.

[evmori 11]

Never underestimate anyone's abilities or responsibilities!

[OldGreyEagle 5]

Anybody remember what Libby Dole made as head of the Red Cross?

[Prairie_Scouter 10]

Frankly, I don't think that this thread has anything to do with the amount of money this person makes. I could care less, really, so the whole idea of "salary envy" is baseless.

 

This thread is about "transparency". The point being that it's difficult to make a judgement about the merit of a particular salary if you can't see all of it. Put it all out there, and then let people judge based on the results that are being seen, recognizing that some salaries have little to do with results.

 

And, actually, I have reason to have a pretty good idea what the responsibilities of the chief executive of a non-profit are, as well as corporate executives, so try not to make assumptions in that area.

 

 

[jkhny 10]

Is BSA about boys or money? I doubt that most Scouters see any direct benefit from $500,0000,000 sitting in National's coffers. Why is BSA still closing camps nationwide - over the objections of membership?

 

As far as "tightening reporting" resulting in decreased numbers....

 

We WERE overstating before but now we're not? All the enrollment scandals seem to indicate otherwise. SE's are faking numbers because they CAN'T stem declines in membership. Or are we tightening things NOW? - after the media noticed?

 

The point in raising the salary issue is simple.

 

What is the philosophical reason for BSA??

 

- TO SERVE BOYS IN SCOUTING

 

Now, the District Executive is by BSA's own statements, the most important professional in providing direct support to units. Yet most will readily admit that DE's are overworked and underpaid - with a high turnover rate.

 

Faced with declining enrollments, wouldn't the most logical approach on the part of BSA be to spend money boosting DE salaries and numbers? Isn't it logical to keep Scouting support as local and close to the unit level as possible to have a healthy program?

 

Yet BSA is combining Councils and DISTANCING the paid staff even more from the units they serve, making Scouting LESS local on the paid level.

 

Do you spend your money on footsoldiers or do you spend it on generals?

 

Now a brilliant general can make up for a lack of soldiers but I don't see that here. I think BSA could use more soldiers.

 

BSA seems to be far more focused on a very well compensated upper level executive cadre in headquarters (and paying the local chiefs quite well) than focusing its efforts on the "footsoldiers" of the paid professional corps.

 

 

Many of the rangers in Camps have appalling living conditions and are paid poorly. Why? Many Scouters decry the "let it run down and sell it off" attitude towards camps in their Council (I got an e-mail on just that last night).

 

So......BSA has highly paid executives - low paid workers......

a focus on money and finances - what about supporting Scouting?

 

Oh, and if your "business" is to serve SCOUTING, why all the effort on "Learning for Life"?

 

THAT seems like a contrived program designed to solicit politically directed funds and charitable contributions that Boy SCOUTS can't get. Would it exist in a "free market" where "members" met on their own time and paid their own dues? This program seems like the type of thing a corporation sets up to get government support when its "business" is FAILING in the private sector.

 

BSA can't "grow" Scouting, so it gets politicians to grant funds to schools to sponsor LFL programs........they put charitable funding into LFL since they can't get it for BSA because of the "discrimination" issue.

 

ALL of these factors - well paid TOP execs, failing core "business", contrived secondary, peripheral "business" used to get GOVERNMENTAL funding as a "subsidy" to get you business you can't get otherwise......these are warning signs.

 

I knew someone that was almost the head of purchasing for a company called Wedtech. It was once the shining star of the Bronx. This small company was struggling as a machine shop - business was falling off UNTIL it started pursuing governemnt contracts. Then, amazing success. Political connections were built and used to get more contracts. It grew and grew. My friend interviewed this company - they needed a new purchasing head... offered the job, he turned it down. REAL good salary - the executives there all seemed OVERpaid in comparison to their workforce..... Wedtech's head was a good talker but his speil was a bit thin in substance. Some fundamentals were really weak, and there seemed to be a real lack of controls in all areas of operations. Sure enough the place imploded in scandal 6 months later.

 

Warning signs are warning signs.

[OldGreyEagle 5]

You're right, I'm wrong, woe is me, I am gonna quit scouts and go kill myself, its the only thing I can do