Bloated Payroll

We got word that the Boston Archdiocese is not going to answer our questions about the deceptive claim of a “balanced budget” in the 2011 Annual Report, and that will be the topic of an upcoming post.  In the meantime, we thought we would take a closer look at the bloated payroll, which contributed to what the Annual Report shows is a $4.2M operating loss for 2011. We also look at the slow pace of action by the new Compensation Committee.

Number of People Earning More than $150K

According to the annual report for the 2011 fiscal year (page 83), the number of people making $150K or more in that fiscal year was 17. If you compare that to the 2006 Annual Report, before outgoing Chancellor Jim McDonough arrived, you will see there were just 3 people in the Chancery paid more than $150K. So the number of people making $150K or more per year has increased by nearly 6X since 2006.

The total compensation paid to people making more than $150K has also increased by a factor of about 6X since 2006. In 2006, those three people paid over $150K per year were paid $553K in salaries.  According to the 2011 Annual Report as well as information from other sources, the 17 people at the Pastoral Center making more than $150K today in aggregate are paid somewhere close to $3.5M a year in salaries. Just to reiterate, that is about 6 times more than was paid in 2006 in $150K+ salaries vs 2006.  

Here are the six-figure salaries that were disclosed, or implicitly disclosed in the 2011 annual report (pages 76-80):

* Note: Kathleen Driscoll is reported at $38,462, but she was on the payroll for only about 2 months in that calendar year, so we extrapolated for 12 months to get $230K.

The names of the 6 other people paid $150K+ were not published in the annual report, but you can just look at the Pastoral Center directory for the high-ranking titles to get a good sense for the likely suspects:

Joseph D’Arrigo, Executive Director, Clergy Benefits
Mary Doorley, Vice President of Development
Carol Gustavson, Executive Director, Lay Benefits and Building Services
Mary Myers, Vice President of Development
Steven McDevitt, Director of IT
John Straub, Executive Director Finance and Operations, Interim Chancellor

Add it all up, and you get pretty close to $3.5M in salaries alone not counting benefits, which add another 15% or so on top of that.  If the archdiocese were to put a salary cap of $150K on all lay executives, that would cut $1M in salary expenses alone in one fell swoop!  But not much is happening to address the bloated salaries, and what is happening appears to be progressing at a glacial pace. It could also end up being just window-dressing.

Long time readers will recall that the Finance Council approved creating a Compensation Committee to look at executive compensation in November of 2010.  That was 15 months ago.  What has actually been accomplished since then?  Not much.  They hired a consultant who is working on a report.  BCI is not making this up. (More on that in a separate post).

At best, the Compensation Committee says they will have a report and recommended salary bands by June of 2012–more than 20 months after the Finance Council created the committee to look into this.  To BCI, it certainly does not seem anyone is in a big rush to act on this.

Even with what is reported, we only know that they “anticipate” the Committee will be in a position to “make recommendations” around the time of the annual performance reviews.  How about, “We are deeply troubled by the wasting of donor funds on excessive salaries and bloated payroll at 66 Brooks Drive, and we absolutely commit we will have reduced all salaries that are out of line by date Y?”

40% of parishes cannot pay their bills. Meanwhile, at the Pastoral Center, the amount and number of $150K+ salaries have grown by more than 6X over the past 5-6 years. They are paying about $3,500,000 in such salaries today vs $5533,000 in 2006–$3.1 million more to people making $150K+ a year. 

Are we really getting our money’s worth from these “best and brightest?”  Why is the Finance Council fiddling while 66 Brooks burns through precious donor funds in excessive salaries?  Does anyone really care about doing something to address this problem?

For the sake of the fiscal health of the Boston Archdiocese and ability of the diocese to continue the saving mission of Jesus Christ, we hope and pray something changes here, and quickly.  What do you think?

About these ads

49 Responses to Bloated Payroll

  1. jbq2 says:

    Not good! Take all that you have and give it to the poor! Isn’t that the Gospel? There is something sinister at work here! This is socialism pure and simple. There are also links to our socialist president and funding programs for the Catholic Church. Like it or not, there is a blending of Church and State and has direct implications for criticism of the “contraception mandate”.

  2. David S. says:

    Isn’t the Archdiocese of Boston a 501c nonprofit?

    What ever happened to the notion of charity being its own reward?

    This is obscene.

  3. Anonymous says:

    THe only real way to address this issue is to not contribute to the Annual Appeal.

    Just pick a worthy organization in the Archdioceses and contribute directly to them.

    It’s too bad that the readership of BCI is limited so that most of the Catholic population is not aware of the issues.

  4. sheila says:

    Staggering!

    Just to reflect how staggering. Carol Gustavson’s job is worth from $60 to $75K in the private sector. In her case, she’s worth even less because she has absolutely NO knowledge of pension and benefits. Cardinal Cushing is spinning in his grave!

    • BobofNewtn says:

      Hi – A few observations:
      1. I think it a good sign, from a transparency standpoint alone, that the RCAB was so detailed in reporting those salaries and other costs. Cardinal Sean deserves some credit for it I assume (although he will never get credit from those who comment in here).
      2. I know none of those whose salaries are shown but I do note that they are all lay people and I doubt that any have taken a vow of poverty. Good for them for getting all they could from the RCAB and shame on those clergy within the RCAB who either negotiated or approved those salary expenditures.
      3. I think we all here should realize that all our protests about the way business is conducted within the RCAB fall on deaf ears because the RCAB leaders do not give one damn about what we think. It is their way or the highway. We sheeple should realize that and either take it or leave it (i.e. leave it like 86% of our fellow Catholics already have done)!

      • Little Red Hen says:

        BobofNewtn, what kind of talk is this? In reference to grossly overpaid RCAB staff, you say “good for them for getting all they could”, then you follow up by telling us all to “take it or leave it” — makes me wonder whose side you’re on…

      • Mary Reilly says:

        BobofNewtn,
        The more I read of your comments at BCI, the more I wonder if you’re even Catholic. Are you Catholic? Do you go to Mass regularly? Would you share what church you’re registered as a parishioner at?

        You’ve said you’re a Barney Frank supporter, and you’ve used language about “respecting a woman’s right to choose.” You seem to be a troll here always having some perspective that’s contrary to the greater good of the Catholic Church or sounding like its conflicts with church teachings.

        Could you let us know if you’re actually a practicing Catholic who goes to Mass regularly somewhere? It really sounds like you’re either a lapsed Catholic, or not Catholic at all. Inquiring minds want to know!

      • BobofNewtn says:

        It would be kind of revealing if we took the entire budget number and divided it by the 14% or so of RCAB faithful to arrive at a per dollar impact on those who attend Church on a regular or semi regular basis. My bet is that it is staggering!

      • Anonymous says:

        They would care is the contributions stopped.

  5. teddyballgame says:

    A perfect scenario for a union organizing campaign.
    1) Eliminate the pension plan
    2) Indiscriminate lay offs that are poorly handled
    3) Management scores big and the people who do the work are paid peanuts.

    If I were a union organizer I would go after RCAB.

  6. Just saying says:

    D’Arrigo would not be on that list. Unless his employment status has changed, he is a consultant, and not an employee of the Archdiocese.

    • “Just saying”,

      Thank you for your comment. BCI believes his employment status has indeed changed.

      According to page 16 of the 2011 Clergy Funds Annual report, “A member of management was previously a a contractor for a consulting firm used by the Clergy Funds.”

      If you look at the Clergy Funds team here, you will see that the only person who is currently a member of “management” and who was not full-time in the years 2010-2011, that would be Joe.

      http://www.careforseniorpriests.org/theneed/staff.html

      If you still believe we are mistaken, please let us know who you think is currently a “member of management” and was previously a consultant, and we will be glad to make a correction.

  7. I think it’s time we seriously petition Pope Benedict XVI for a new archbishop. Paying 17 laypeople over $150,000/yr. is just insane. They have been elevating steeply since 2006. There are more retired and disabled priests than active priests in the archdiocese, and the Clergy Fund, which is supposed to help the retired clergy, is underfunded. I don’t care if you publish the salaries, a non-profit religious organization should not be paying 17 people over six figures to shuffle paper around.

    To make matters worse, this new reconfiguration plan is not sitting well with many priests, especially pastors who will lose their positions because parishes are supposedly “to share resources.” But eventually, if this plan sits through, 40% of the current remaining parishes will be gone by 2017.

    A similar problem is going on in the neighboring Worcester Diocese, where the bishop has been closing parishes because they are not making $$$. (Most have been sold to Pentecostal groups.) If Worcester keeps it up, there will be no parishes left and perhaps no diocese (Pope surpresses it), and will be merging with Boston.

    I can’t imagine the Archdiocese of Boston being surpressed by Rome because it’s a metropolitan see, but I can see Worcester folding anytime because they’re fireselling the farm. Even if Worcester merges with Boston, it will still not address the six-figure salary fiasco at 66 Brooks Drive. If 40% of Boston’s parishes cannot break-even, 16% Mass attendance overall, and not much money is spent on evangelization then it’s about time we start over.

  8. ScotsNewBestFriend says:

    BCI, it is a little strange that you retyped the salary figures for the highest paid employees but included a lesser figure for Scot Landry. According to the report you link to, Scot actually made more than the $250,000 you note. Worse, some portion of that was over $20,000 in unused vacation which is an obscene figure in and of itself. Even without that huge payout, his salary exceeds that of the currently overpaid Chancellor ranking him the 3rd highest paid employee — and yet we know everything about the current Chancellor and nothing about Scot. Have we looked into his management and operations? What do we know about his effectiveness? How does he spend the Archdiocese resources? Can you get copies of his audit reports? How do we learn more?

    Lets share the wealth on digging into highly paid employees. Scot has been overlooked for far too long and he is rising to the top of the food chain and it needs mush more attention.

    • Michael says:

      Scott Landry and James Walsh ought to be ashamed of themselves. These two people, who claim to come from good “Catholic” families really do know better. My parents taught me not to take more than my fair share and that to do so is stealing. I guess these days one can justify just about anything. But there is no legitimate justification for this. The mere fact that they have mouths to feed at home is not enough. So do many poor bastards working for the Church and getting paid little to nothing. James and Scott … time to go get a real job in the real world.

      As for the rest, … they ought to be ashamed as well … assuming they have consciences.

    • Boston Catholic Insider says:

      ScotsNewBestFriend,
      Thank you for your comment. The presentation of the compensation numbers in the Annual Report makes it a bit difficult to compare apples and apples across individuals. The annual report covers a fiscal year (July 1, 2010 to June 30, 2011), but the compensation is recorded for the calendar year, and for part of the calendar year reflected in the report, the people making more than $250K/year had their salaries reduced by 10%. So, for example, the salary for the Chancellor is really $250K/year, but the annual report shows his 2011 compensation as being $239,480.The salary for Scot Landry is listed in the annual report note as $250K so that is why we listed it that way in our blog post, but you raise a valid point–for consistency we should have used the $261K number from the annual report table which included the payout for unused vacation time. Our graphic has been updated to reflect the $261K number.

      BCI has focused on the most overt and egregious deception, corruption, mismanagement, and misuse of donor funds, and when we learn of those situations, we blog about them and give them attention. We will take a closer look at the Catholic Media Group and BCTV audited financial results in the future. (For example, BCI hears that the new Pilot Bulletins and Pilot Printing group is losing money, but since the financials do not report out their expenses separately, it is difficult to document that). If there is something specific you feel BCI should further investigate and you have documentation you can share, please let us know.

      • Objective Observer says:

        Boston Catholic Media displays red ink across every column. Not one of the functions breaks even. This was told to me by someone whose job includes identifying sources of red ink at #66.

        Some of Catholic Media’s tactics seem like desperation.

        A large printer in the south region shared with me that the printing company trade group in New England has thought of asking the state and the IRS to strip Pilot printing of its tax exempt status because it regularly violates the IRS regulations that prohibit tax-exempts from going outside their immediate organization to compete against tax-paying companies. Parishes and 66 Brooks are part of the immediate organization (Corp Sole). But advertising to and printing for the public, and for other institutions that are not Corp Sole, is not OK according to this fellow. (After this conversation, I did notice in my own parish Bulletin that PP runs an ad with a long list of services to serve the public.) It’s an unfair business practice to undercut those who do have to pay taxes, and it is a violation of the tax rules. Printers, even large ones, are small businesses, and are having a tough enough time making a living in this digital age, without losing business to an entity that doesn’t even have to pay unemployment, local excise, property or income taxes.

        Is it possible that the head honcho of Catholic Media is overpaid and underqualified? To risk a tax-exempt status is not a good management practice, and unfair business competition has no place in the Church.

        So how much more money would they be losing if they lost their tax-exempt status? And can so much red ink be justified? Surely the salary and non-W2 income cannot be justified in the presence of consistently red ink, and the very leadership should be re-examined for engaging in unfair business practices.

      • CantSayName says:

        You are on to something BCI. Take a look at the vacation policy in the RCAB handbook. Nowhere does it allow something to collect so many vacation days that would equal the type of payout noted to Scot Landry. Do the simple math. In order to get to the figure noted he had to never take vacation (which many of us know is not true) AND he had to collect more vacation time than the policy allows. Why is he getting $20,000 checks from RCAB? It isnt supported by the policy. Just tells the rest of us that those that are close to the Cardinal can get away with something the rest of us could not — and would not. Someone has their hand too deeply planted into the collection basket. Please help put an end to this!

      • RCAB_Assistant says:

        I can confirm that several of the media groups divisions are in fact losing money. I can also confirm that RCAB has been floating large sums of cash to these divisions which explains some of the missing funds from the “balanced budget.” Finally, I can also confirm that HR policy does not support the practice of a such a large vacation payout. Fr. Robert Reed can provide the details of the first two. If asked he will share the data. As for the policy, it is readily available from HR. I do not want to cut-n-paste the text as I could be accused of typing something different. I dont have a scanner, but I am sure there is a way for BCI to post the policy. Enough is enough already. Most of what we discuss on here has taken place in the past. This issue is happening now and we can stop it if we take action.

      • Do the Math says:

        Though I agree Scott Landry – and a lot of other people as well – are overpaid, if you do the math, it’s easy for someone at his comp level to earn a lot in unused vacation carried over from several years.

        He makes $250,000 a year – that’s $960/day. So, to accumulate $20,000 in unused vacation, do the math!

        That’s 21 days worth of unused vacation. He started in 2006, I think and probably had 3 weeks of paid vacation a year – 15 days a year. So, to accumulate 21 days of unused vacation over five years, that means he would have taken 11 days of vacation a year, and carried over 4 days a year for 5 years. That’s not outside the realm of possibility.

        Whether the RCAB lets people carry over 21 unused days over 5 years is something I don’t know. but from what BCI says, the RCAB functions like the bloated bureaucracy in state and federal government, so it woulnd’t surprise me if RCAB did let people carry over any unused vacation over multiple years.

      • FrRob says:

        dothemath, you are defending the indefensible. the mere fact that this payout was the equivalent of 50% of the entire annual salary of many employees that lost their job in this same year. Scot is the third highest paid employee in the Archdiocese and he took a vacation payout — something not shown by anyone else — at the same time that others took pay decreases and still others hit the unemployment lines. Your defense of this action may be perfect math — but is devoid of reality at the same time. I am sure you mean well but Scot Landry’s action feel like a slap in the face of many.

      • Facts says:

        Back in 2010, all the members of the newly formed Catholic Media Group at the Pastoral Center were “terminated” by the Archdiocese of Boston’s “Office of the Chancellor” budget and then hired by BCTV inc. to be part of the new Media Group. This included all the employees from the Pilot, the Boston Catholic Directory, the new media group, and members of the former Development office etc. All got the same benefits that any other “terminated” employee would get – which is the payout of any accrued but unused vacation. The RCAB handbook allows up to 6 weeks of vacation to be carried over from year to year and I think all of it can be paid out upon termination. Every single staff member with unused vacation time had it paid out to them at the time. If any others were paid more than $150,000, their vacation time payouts would have also been listed.

  9. c1t4c90 says:

    Sadly, I will lower my Catholic Appeal contribution once again.
    Is Scot Booras involved in these salaries?

    The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.

    • CantSayName says:

      Who is Scot Booras? I have been here a few years and do not recognize the name. Do they have “ghosts” on the payroll?

      • Anni says:

        Scott Boras (correct spelling) is a sports agent who has negotiated exorbitant contracts for increasingly mediocre baseball players. See Daisuke Matsuzaka…

  10. Anonymous says:

    Is Kevin Kiley still there? What is his inflated salary.

  11. My “Widow’s Mite,” to the Archdiocese of Boston’s Annual Fund Raiser: This is a true story. About 2001, when the Priest Pedophilia Scandal was revealed in Boston, that Spring, Cardinal Law had a large fund raiser. I wanted to send a message, so I put 2 cents in an envelope, addressed to “Cardinal Law’s Fundraiser,” and stamped it, and left it on my desk. I went out of the house for awhile, and when I returned, I had been broken into. On my desk, the letter to Cardinal Law, along with my 2 cents was opened. The thief probably read it and thought, “If this is all that poor woman can give Cardinal Law, I’m going to leave!” Nothing else was touched or taken! Proverb: It pays to give and sometimes it pays even better to only send a message with 2 cents!

  12. Mrs. G says:

    Speechless…..and the RCAB wants to merge us all into Pastoral Teams. If these salaries were realistic, perhaps the mergers wouldn’t be “needed”.

    • FrRob says:

      I agree, Mrs. G. The $20,000+ alone taken by Scot Landry could have repaired my roof or employed my RE Coordinator for an entire year.

  13. Michael says:

    It appears to me … anyone with a conscience would read this blog posting and these comments and take it upon himself to resign.

    Scott Landry?
    James Walsh?
    Mark Dunderdale?
    Mary Grass O’Niell?

    Which one of you will be the first to stand up and prove that your conscience is still intact?

    • classof1974 says:

      I am deeply troubled by what we are hearing about Scot Landry’s vacation payout and possible draining of funds for the media work. where is the accountability and transparency on this end? Why do we not see the same level of transparency as the Archdiocese always claims? Surely we can do better with transparency than this!

  14. Boston Catholic Insider says:

    To all who are troubled by the accountability and transparency here and excessive compensation, this is what we have been blogging about here at BCI since June of 2010! The fact that the current Chancellor is leaving shortly is one step in the right direction. We will cover the Catholic Media Group in a separate post.

    This post on Bloated Payroll is just one of dozens we have posted about excessive compensation. No real action has been taken to deal with these problems.

    Furthermore, there is no transparency or accountability over the state of the budget deficit, as described here:

    http://bostoncatholicinsider.wordpress.com/2012/02/08/balanced-budget-or-unbalanced-budget/

    We will return to that topic shortly.

  15. A Priest says:

    There are people who should be ashamed but it is my belief that Scot Landry and James Walsh aren’t them…These are two of the hardest working guys in the Archdiocese…I will not defend the vacation payout but the work that Scot does is important work and Jim Walsh does the work that the overpriced and overpaid Super should be doing. Look, any salary over 150K is exorbitant but these guys didn’t go in and demand it, they were given it…in the case of Jim Walsh he’s worked for the RCAB a long while and when you work somewhere a long time your salary is bound to, over time, exceed what might seem reasonable. I ask all you folks out there kicking these guys around to think what you would really do if offered these salaries…what it would mean for your families? I know people will call me out on this but I don’t care, I know what these two Catholic gentlemen are doing and I know that they are doing good work and while I won’t defend the decision to give those salaries out I think it is ridiculous on face to think that if offered it you’d say no. Let’s try and have some charity out here in the land of cyber-muscles.

    • Anni says:

      I suggest that we print out copies of the chart included in this post, make copies for our friends, and then put the copies in the envelopes for the Catholic Appeal. You can tape your two cents to the chart!

      My solicitation arrived last week. Expect them in your mailboxes soon.

    • Anonymous says:

      Who wrote ths nonsense. Sounds like a Jim Walsh piece. Anyone who worked with this guy knows the truth. He has used his so-called faith as a means to get ahead in this organization. Ask the former Chancellor about Mr. Walsh.

    • RogerCantBeRight says:

      The main problem with the “he only took what he was offered” argument above is that the same could be said for each of these employees.No one was given a blank check here.Further, to suggest that one or two get a pass because they are doing good work is also a weak argument which again could be said for many on this list. Either salaries are too high or they aren’t,

      I happen to believe they are too high and I also agree with several other commenters on here that Scot Landry’s 10% bonus payout when others were being let go is cruel — and a choice. Not just something he was offered.

    • Michael says:

      Colossians 4:1
      Masters, provide your slaves with what is right and fair, because you know that you also have a Master in heaven.

      Are Landry’s and Walsh’s salaries “right and fair?” Keep in mind this is a non-profit organization … and it is the Catholic Church … and every dime not spent on these salaries theoretically, in a just situation, would be spent on the poor, the homeless, etc.

      Proverbs 11:1
      A false balance is an abomination to the LORD, But a just weight is His delight.

      Are Landry’s and Walsh’s salaries properly “weighed?” Keep in mind this is a non-profit organization … and it is the Catholic Church … and every dime spent in a false balance on these salaries theoretically, in a just situation, would be properly distributed to another deserving employee of the Archdiocese who is “hard-working” and has mouths to feed at home as well.

      Proverbs 23:10 NLT
      Don’t cheat your neighbor by moving the ancient boundary markers; don’t take the land of defenseless orphans.

      Let’s assume, Landry and Walsh didn’t go in and demand their salaries and haven’t moved any “boundaries.” If they know the boundaries are askew, do they not have a duty to correct them? Morally, can they turn a blind eye and say to themselves, I deserve it? Like I said before, go out to the real world and attempt to make that salary. If you can, then you deserve it – out there. But do not steal that money from the Church.

      Because under no circumstances, in service to the Church, do you deserve it.

  16. Is "Objective Observer" really objective? says:

    The comment from the “Objective Observer” about Pilot printing above has been shopped by an extremely disgruntled ex-RCAB, ex-SJS staff member for months who was told that she needed to bid work to Pilot Printing and other providers to get the best price instead of continuing with sweetheart and non-transparent bidding. Obviously her friend who was in the printing business didn’t like the fact that they had to compete with a lower-overhead printer whose business is to support the mission of the church instead of the profits of old “connected” printers. Nearly all of Pilot Printing’s work is for parishes, pastoral center ministries and Church organizations – all non-profits.

    It is possible that “Objective Observer” isn’t “objective” at all and is probably the disgruntled ex-employee herself…

    • nicholas says:

      Sounds to me like some are getting both defensive and personal which means someone is hitting close to home with these facts. With BCi and its readers help, we are going to get to the bottom of this one. Maybe even in time to put a halt to the wasteful spending and poor investments being made. If nothing else, we have seen that high salaries don’t always guarantee maturity and great business sense.

      BCI readers dont stop now, we are uncovering something important here which will help address high salaries and bad practices at the same time. There is a light at the end of this tunnel!

  17. Jack O'Malley says:

    It seems these bastards at 666 Brooks are robbing both Peter and Paul to pay La Grassa O’Neill and her fellow gorgers in the trough.

    BCI should format these figures for printing on a 8 1/2 x 11 sheet of paper. Readers should print them out and place a stack in every vestibule. Hell, nail them to the church door and wake the pew puppies up.

    Would it work? Naah. The only ones left are the sheep who enjoy being fleeced.

    Écrasez l’infâme!

    P.S. Why is there some kitchen clown in a video on this site?

    P.P.S. Never mind. I just watched the first 10 seconds. It’s a bloody advert. BCI has gone as mercenary as O’Malley. Maybe BCI could post a link to my home-brew better-than-Guinness stout. I use a cardinal (the bird, they’re at least decent critters) as the logo: The Cardinal’s Stout. (That is not intended as a double-entendre.)

    • Jack (and other readers), We apologize for the advertisements, but rest assured, BCI has not gone mercenary! We use the free version of WordPress, and the consequence of that is we have to tolerate ads placed on the blog by WordPress. A paid upgrade to WordPress Pro would eliminate the ads, but BCI has opted to not go that route in order to protect our identities. Sorry about that–we also wish the ads were gone.

      • Carolyn says:

        The best irony of all is that as I clicked on this blog topic about the huge amount of money being sucked up by these people, the ad was for a vacuum cleaner.

        BCI has some very clever graphics, but the vacuum cleaner illustrated the point so well, if inADvertently.

    • Jack O'Malley says:

      Apologies, BCI. My faith in the integrity of the blogging human race is restored! :-)

      Still, you want to advertise my stout? If all goes according to he business plan, we could buy out Corp Sole!

      Just think, the only archdiocese in the world owned by a brewery in someone’s kitchen.

  18. surprised says:

    Reading all of this after a long weekend is disturbing You think you know someone and you learn you really don’t.

    Shame.

  19. Clem Kadiddlehopper says:

    Mr. McDonough is retiring from the RCAB management penthouse, but the minions in place are not going anyplace. The culture change is complete. McDonough’s work is finished.

  20. Angry Parish Council Member says:

    Isn’t Marsha, I mean, Martha Coakley, the Attorney General supposed to have oversight over non-profits and public charities to make sure they don’t over-pay their executives? Why is she keeping her head in the sand regarding this whole thing? Why doesn’t the Boston Globe report on this, like they do the state government and Chelsea Housing Authority?

    I’ve stopped giving to the Catholic Appeal. I wish others would too, and tell them exactly why. The people who keep giving to the appeal, especially the big donors who have their photos taken with the Cardinal at the fundraisers, are the biggest enablers. At some point, BCI, maybe you should post the names of the enablers so they realize they’re the ones contributing to this problem continuing.

  21. [...] obviously struck a raw nerve with our last post, “Bloated Payroll” about the 17 people earning more than $150K a year.  We continue today with a brief recap [...]

  22. Mack says:

    I second Anni’s comment above, about printing out these stats, passing them around to everyone you know, and putting them in the Catholic Appeal instead of money. I would also send a copy to the Cardinal. O’Malley needs to be overwhelmed with enough mail from the good people of the archdiocese who are sick and tired of this nonsense.
    I’m not giving a penny to the Catholic Appeal.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 602 other followers

%d bloggers like this: