[pct-l] ED compensation

[Timothy Nye]

I think my point is that the issue of executive compensation is really just
a tree that obscures the forest of the professionalization of the PCTA
as the Association  transitions away from being a primarily volunteer
organization.

The biggest downside of this change from my perspective is the potential
creation of a structural deficit given the supplemental funding the
Association has received from the stimulus.  A structural deficit is
what resulted here in California when the state received a windfall of
temporary increased income during the technology boom.  The state used this
income to fund permanent ongoing financial programs.  When the boom ended
the financial commitments remained.  As a result, there is now a disconnect
in California between what is spent and what is received that has yet to be
resolved.

The original posting that started these threads showed the PCTA's spending
on overhead as a percentage of income was quite good.  However, it's
unclear to me that this chart includes the temporary stimulus funding
received by the PCTA over the last couple of years.  Those funds have been
used to fund in turn at least five two year positions that the PCTA
describes as being temporary; at the same time the Association has been
adding other positions such as outreach, etc so that the amount of overhead
is clearly increasing separate and apart from the executive director's
compensation.  The question is whether those positions are in fact truly
temporary, or whether other funding sources or existing funding will be
used to continue them.

As noted, Liz's background is in fund raising.  She is likable.  OK, at any
rate I like her, and clearly a number of other members of this list do as
well.  In a fund raiser, likability is an important and positive attribute
and therefore opinions supporting her on that basis shouldn't be
discounted.  Her salary as reported is really appropriate for the
Sacramento area and her level of responsibility.  We should bear in mind
that the PCTA also goes to DC once a year and interacts with various
governmental entities.   Presenting well is important in a political
environment.

The real issue for me is this: Does the increase in overhead through the
increase in personnel costs, including office expenses, benefits and salary
mean that the Associations future baseline expense year over year has been
increased; possibly to such an extent that less funding is left for the
trail itself and that residual funding is only available after the
increased administrative expenses have been met?  If so, any decrease in
funding in the future is going to be disproportionately borne by those
funds left over for trail maintenance and improvements.  This is the larger
issue as far as I'm concerned; that is, whether the PCTA will maintain
control over it's funding priorities so that the percentage of it's income
that is devoted to it's staffing doesn't begin  to offset the amount of the
funding available for the trail itself.

Are these changes ones that are in effect a fait accompli?

If funding becomes principally driven by large donors what effect, if any,
will that have?  If funding becomes dependent on government grants will the
independence of the PCTA be compromised?

As a member driven organization I believe that these are all valid
questions for the membership as a whole.  At the very least, the discussion
is informative not only for members of the list, but also the PCTA.

Just few more thoughts.

Gourmet