Reader comments
Charity officials pay deemed 'appropriate'

Bob G | 5:14 a.m. May 31, 2008

Of the $237 million a year collected went to the charity? This is why I do not give to charity. They are all frauds. I would rather buy a homeless person a meal than fund these overpaid and fraudlent charities. Charity leaders should be limited to mimimum wage earnings at most, otherwise it is just a big organzation of leeches doing very little with a very large sum of money. Justified? He doesn't feel the least bit guilty robbing from the poor and charitable contributors thinking they could make a difference. Yeah, they made a difference, the contributors paid him very well to steal their contributions. Like they say, charity begins at home and his home was in the bank vault. Bah-hum-bug!

THAT'S THE END!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! | 6:12 a.m. May 31, 2008

Well, Children's Television Network, you can bet that is the LAST of the $$$$$$$$$$$$ you will see given to your cozy little set-up from people with ANY BRAINS. All my donations from now on are going only to that ONE GROUP who funds its operations and overhead with other money, and who uses ALL DONATIONS for actual help for those who it was donated to help--LDS Humanitarian Aid.

liberal Larry | 6:47 a.m. May 31, 2008

Call me old fashioned, or cheap, but I never give money to people who already have millions of dollars.

Comments continue below

russ | 6:51 a.m. May 31, 2008

It is truly a miracle. And filled with charity.

I am not suprised. Where can I sign up for this gig?

Charity | 7:15 a.m. May 31, 2008

While the salaries quoted are said to be in the average range for charity workers, and are considered "appropriate", my question to these CEO's and others would be, do the salaries really need to be this high? Couldn't they set an example to others in the business of charity and set salaries at a level that still permits a good living for them and their families, without putting themselves in such a high salary bracket? Part of the "rewards" of charitable work should be the deep satisfaction of making a difference in this world and helping people. Sounds as if working for a charitable organization would be a good career choice for college graduates as it currently stands.

When I am asked for a charitable contribution I ask what portion of the donation is for fundraising or administrative purposes. I want my charitable contribution (from my $30,000 annual salary) to be used directly for the people it is meant to help - not executives or professional fundraisers). My contribution from above-mentioned salary is not meant to help fund a half-million plus salary for someone!

Kudos to the Osmonds who serve without compensation in this organization which does great work.

Donations vs Compensation | 9:20 a.m. May 31, 2008

This is a great charity which does good things for children. The organization has a unique fundraising strategy which uses no public donations for salaries and compensation for executives, relying instead on corporate donations for that express purpose, and requiring hospitals who will benefit to help fund the inital effort.

However, the question remains in my mind - should working for the good of children, animals or humanitarian causes - be a $500,000+ a year career?
Would not a more reasonable annual salary - still giving a great lifestyle - result in more assistance being given to the recipients of the charitable organization? If the executives truly believe in their cause, would not that also be a reward?

Corporate donations could, and should, also be used to directly benefit the recipients of the charity, and not solely as compensation of the executives.

Sarah | 10:27 a.m. May 31, 2008

I second the kudos to the osmond family who don't take any money.

I have major issues with The Children's Miracle network which ONLY helps kids that don't have insurance, they don't help parents who are underinsured or who just have sooooo many dang hospital bills that it becomes impossible for them to pay them all and not become homeless in the process.

PCMC is more than willing to start bugging parents several hours after your child's latest surgery to start getting a payment for the hospital stay/surgery because they know you have lousy insurance and you will be footing the majority of the bill.

Jeez if maybe the CEO and the other's making an enormous amount of $$ didn't have such HUGE salaries they could use that money and help the parents that are overwhelemed by huge hospital/medical bills because there insurance stinks.

Ann | 7:38 p.m. May 31, 2008

All of the money donated by people during and before the telethon is given directly to the hospitals and none of it is used to pay the salaries of the people who work very hard to raise this money. The salaries are paid by sponsors who donate money for administrative and organizational purposes of this charitable organization. Before you chastize this wonderful organization, maybe you should do some homework and find out what really goes on. Do you work for nothing?

Read it thoroughly!!!! | 11:02 p.m. May 31, 2008

Ann has it right! These men could make way more money if they worked for a public company. Did you read the other article? All the money that is donated by the public goes directly to the hospital. The employees don't see a penny of it. The hospitals are free to use the money how they choose. CMN does not just give the money to those who do not have insurance. If this were a public company doing over $200 million in sales the CEO would be taking home well over $1 million a year. If you want to have a good organization you have to have good employees, these men are being rewarded properly. They could be elsewhere making much more. I give kudos to those who work for a good cause, not just someone who works to make a paycheck. If it weren't for CMN, childrens hospitals around the country would be missing out on billions of dollars that are saving the lives of children.

Yes - I read it thoroughly! | 11:28 p.m. May 31, 2008

At least two of the comments above made it clear that NO public donations were used to pay administrative costs or salaries. There were two main questions asked - one - why was it necessary that corporate donations and the beneficiary hospitals had all their money used to pay the high salaries and administrative costs, and two - working for a charitable organization should not make someone rich, and shouldn't be equated with a corporate entity being judged on profits! Surely working for a great cause like this is much more satisfying than making huge profits in, say, the oil business, real estate, automobile etc.

The commentators above ('Charity' and 'Donations vs Compensation') both mentioned that this is a great charity which does much good. The public can be assured that their donations are given directly to benefit the children. More money could be channeled to the children if the corporate sponsors' money was not earmarked soley for overhead and salaries. Sounds reasonable to me.

I will continue to donate to this organization, but would like to express my surprise that it is such a profitable career choice!

Get a Clue People | 11:52 p.m. May 31, 2008

You know, when you think of it, most corporations have to pay many developers, packagers, marketers, etc to produce a single widget that someone in the world will pay good money for - and the CEO will be paid a part of that overall effort. With a charity, you have to convince people that the cause you represent is a good one - so there is no return for the money donated to charity as there is when you buy a widget - afterall, you get the widget, which you usually buy for a specific purpose. So, don't go slamming on the management of a charity as they don't have the luxury of a solid product to sell. I agree, the salaries seem kind of high, but when you think of it, you are paying just over 2% of the gross charitable collections to the CEO. Heck, I broker commercial loans to clients who desperately need their projects funded - and I get 2% every time...even if it's just for a phone call to a good bank. The charity would not do as well without the CEO - doesn't that count for something? It should...the CMN helps millions.

Rachel | 12:09 p.m. June 1, 2008

Some of you need to re-read the articles. Children's MIracle Network is one of the ONLY charities that do not use fundraising dollars to pay for operations. To Sarah: The other article stated that Children's MIracle Network provides un-restricted funds to the hospitals. The hospitals get to choose how they use it, many use it for under-insured children, but many hospitals use the funds for neccessary equipement, child life programs, and more. It does not ONLY help kids without insurance, and turn parents away. Children's MIracle Network does not tell PCMC how to use the funds- so the CEO's salary has nothing to do with it.

Rachel | 12:13 p.m. June 1, 2008

You can go to charitynavigator.com and see the salaries of other executive officers of other non profits. Every non-profit executive officers make the same amount, if not more than Children's Miracle Network.

Randy Jernigan | 2:47 p.m. June 1, 2008

You say that neither Marie Osmond or Donny Osmond take a salary for what they do in support of the CMN--but their financial rewards come in other ways. When Marie or Donny or John Schnyder tour these hospitals they are given quite a large expense account to work with. They fly first class and they stay in 5 star hotels. They eat at the best resturants and drive the best rental cars. Oh yeah, and their staff are paid for too. Not to mention their expensive clothing budgets. C'mon--lets get real. The publicity they garn from doing such charity work also make them more 'bankable.' Dont let'm fool ya--they're in it for the money.

3 Billion | 10:34 p.m. July 22, 2008

CMN raised 3 billion dollars since its conception giving 100% of the donations to the children. The corporations that donate to CMN's operating costs with no tax benefits or related pr glory probably do their homework and are confident that their money is being used appropriately.

Randy Jernigan... | 2:48 a.m. Aug. 22, 2008

What did Marie do to you? Boy, you really have it in for her (and I guess her family).

You expect me to believe that Marie and the Osmonds use charity money to pay their staffs and meals when they go to hospitals? Yeah, right. But yes, I don't doubt they fly first class. Is it at the expense of the charity? No way I believe it. Too many tax and charity declaration requirements. They're in it for the money?! Give me a break. You're the one trying to profit off Marie's life instead of your own original work. I think we know who's "in it for the money."

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.

Story graphic

Children's Miracle Network

Follow us on facebook

Follow us on Twitter

Reader comments
Charity officials pay deemed 'appropriate'

Add your comment

Letters: 'Liberal conceit'

Conservatives rally against reform

Prep swimming rankings

DC votes to legalize gay marriage

Conservatives rally against reform

Conservatives rally against reform

Daughters spur pair to write novel

Conservatives rally against reform

Cougar seniors see a new Bronco

Conservatives rally against reform

Reader comments Charity officials pay deemed 'appropriate'

Add your comment

Reader comments
Charity officials pay deemed 'appropriate'