What is your position regarding the compensation and perks of an Aramony, relative to the many times greater compensations of for-profit executives? How could CEO compensation be curbed?

At the time of criticisms of United Way’s Aramony, a controversy began mounting over multi-million-dollar annual compensations of corporate executives. For example, in 1992, the average annual pay of CEOs was $3,842,247; the 20 highest-paid ranged from over $11 million to a mind-boggling $127 million for Thomas F. Frist Jr., of Hospital Corporation of America.9 Pay of corporate executives has continued to climb robustly since 1992; these figures would be modest today.
Activist shareholders, including some large mutual and pension funds, began protesting the high compensations, especially for top executives of those firms that were not even doing well. New disclosure rules imposed in 1993 by the Securities & Exchange Commission (SEC) spotlighted questionable executive-pay practices. In the past—and still not uncommon today—complacent boards, themselves well paid and often closely aligned with the top executives of the organization, condoned liberal compensations. A major argument supporting high executive compensations is that their salaries are modest compared to some entertainers’ and athletes’ salaries, but their responsibilities are far greater. Another argument for high top-executive compensation is that pay incentives are needed to lure top talent, and that the present executive-pay system “has contributed to positive U.S. economic performance.”
Institutional investors think a lot differently. Only 22 percent thought the pay system has helped the economy; over 90 percent saw top executives as “dramatically overpaid.”
In light of the for-profit executive compensations, Aramony’s salary was modest, and results were on his side: He made $369,000 in basic salary while raising $3 billion; Lee Iacocca, at the same time, made $3 million while Chrysler lost $795 million. Where is the justice?
As head of a large for-profit organization, Aramony undoubtedly could have earned several zeros more in compensation and perks, with no raised eyebrows. But isn’t the situation different for a nonprofit? Especially when revenues are derived from donations of millions of people of modest means? This is the controversy. On one hand, shouldn’t a charity be willing to pay for the professional competence to run the organization as effectively as possible? But how do revelations of high compensation affect the public image and fund-raising of such nonprofit organizations?