Doak (Register): CIETC director and most CEOs have quite a bit in common

<http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060416/OPINION03/604160330/1035/OPINION>

The crime committed in the CIETC scandal — if there was a crime — is that director Ramona Cunningham seems to have had the ability to all but set her own salary and didn't hesitate to accept far more than the job was worth.

So here's the question: How is that any different from what the average corporate CEO does? Cunningham raked in nearly $800,000 in pay and bonuses over a 30-month period for running a public job-training agency. CEO Ralph Hake presided over the demise of the Maytag Corp. and was rewarded with a package worth $19 million.

Which is the bigger outrage?

My comments:

There are a lot of people in our society making much more than they are worth. I am conflicted on the CIETC scandal - I do not agree with the salaries, but it does not appear that the salaries were ever considered excessive under the law during a state audit, a federal audit, and a special audit. Maybe the main players should be fired, but is there anything left in the scandal but politiking?

Now I see that the muckraker Sen. Mary Lundby is hoping to prop up this scandal and try to save republican hide-ends in this next statewide election. Since the senate republicans are in freefall I suppose this is her only hope. I guess the days of Sen. Lundby as the "respected", "moderate" republican are over. Any chance to give her a run for her money in her CR district now that her days of being a "moderate" are over?

Mary Lundby is highly respected in our area -- from people of both parties. I fear she would have to do something very eye-catching and significant (to the voters/taxpayers) before she could be considered "oustable."

May I ask something? Most everyone here knows that I'm a previous republican. While I'm a staunch liberal on social issues, I still trend conservative on economic issues. So...

What is really wrong with CEOs or other corporate higher-ups being paid very well? I do understand the conflict in certain cases. For instance, when I consider the Exxon executive being paid in excess of $400 million when the company has refused to take care of their oil spill problems, I get extremely angry. I also see the problem when a corporation or agency has been set up with the explicit purpose of helping others, yet funnels a majority of its funding to administrative salaries. In the case of Wal-Mart, I understand the conflict between executives making millions while their average employees don't even bring home a living wage, must rely on public assistance and so-forth.

It seems to me that many liberals are against highly paid executives -- even for companies which do take care of their employees, help in their communities and, in general, do good works. I guess I just don't get it.

on social issues (mainly because I have a child w/a disability).

My issue w/CEOs making enormous salaries while subordinates make substandard pay is the question WHY? How much is enough to compensate a person for heading up a business? Would they miss a spare million or two if that money went to people farther down the ladder to pay for health care or an extra dollar an hour? At what point does a salary get so large that eventually all you are doing is adding zeros? Couldn't that money go to making the entire business 'family' more successful? I do think that CEOs should be higher paid as they carry the emotional and professional weight of the business on their shoulders, but I also think there must be a time for them to look behind them and ensure that everyone is doing okay.

:shrug: just my two cents.

Does that make them okay? When is it okay to waste tax-payer dollars? We bitch about Halliburton and no-bid contracts, about the Pentagons $400.00 hammers. We demand repayment of credit card charges at strip clubs - all of these the waste of tax-payer dollars. But we're not supposed to be pissed off about this? If all those audits didn't catch it there is a much bigger problem than Ms. Cunningham and her fellow employees. There is the apathy of all who are supposed to be active in oversight.

The $200,000 that would have been 'lost' if not spent that very day would not have been 'lost' just 'lost' to CIETC. That money would have been returned to it's originator and re-issued somewhere where it was needed rather than used to double or triple a few people's annual income.

Sure the republicans are going to make a big deal about it (or already have) but we should also be asking questions about oversight. About responsible use of tax-payer dollars. About a plan to use grant money when it is received or let it go (I do understand that if grant money is not used it will be a cold day in hell it will ever be handed out again - but shouldn't there be a plan in place for the money? Why ask for money if you don't know how it's going to be used?)

How do we keep people in state government if the salary is not at all comparable to the private sector? Do we just use second rate leaders and staff who will accept less compensation?

I have a hard time with the excessive salaries when the marketplace really does not sustain the corporations that the CEO's are given. Most stockholders have no say in salaries. If they did, do you really think we would be paying Maytag's guy millions for the "work" he did?

Our Governor made $107,000 in 2005 and Mike Blouin made almost twice that with $181,000 (and that's ignoring his 'travel and incidental expenses' of $77,000). WHAT? the leader of our state - the person who had to fight to get the job made half of what a person appointed to the position made? How many more people are making twice what our Governor makes so that we can have the 'best' people in their position (and what does that say for Vilsack since he's supposed to be the best person for the job?).

Do we keep raising salaries with tax-payer dollars and raising taxes as well so that the executives of the State of Iowa can have comparable salaries to those at Principal and Wells Fargo (companies who also received and exorbitant amount of Iowa taxpayer dollars).

What? Do all of us exist just to make a few people wealthy?

Public service will never equal private industry for money to be made - and yet we still see very bright and intelligent people desiring to work in public service in order to give back to society. Why make it a greed-based employment?

and most other public employees as well outside of Des Moines where all the "gravy" jobs seem to be (but not for teachers). Also enormous private sector salaries have an insidious effect on all areas. CIETC or whatever it is is only one example. University presidents or coaches might be another.

will be paid a higher salary. Bringing in students - who spend money, other teams - who spend money, businesses - who spend money. That is a sought-after attribute in a government employee :eyes: