Public Hearing - February 6, 2012
1 BEFORE THE NEW YORK STATE SENATE
STANDING COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATIONS AND
2 GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS
3 -----------------------------------------------------
4 PUBLIC HEARING
5 TO EXAMINE EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION AT
NOT-FOR-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS RECEIVING STATE FUNDING
6 AND THE ACTIONS NEEDED TO PREVENT STATE TAX DOLLARS
FROM BEING WASTED ON EXCESSIVE SALARIES
7
-----------------------------------------------------
8
9 Legislative Office Building
Van Buren Hearing Room A - 2nd Floor
10 Albany, New York 12247
11 February 6, 2012
11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.
12
13
PRESIDING:
14
Senator Carl L. Marcellino
15 Chair
16
17
18 SENATE MEMBERS PRESENT:
19 Senator Daniel L. Squadron (RM)
20 Senator Lee M. Zeldin
21 Senator Ruben Diaz
22
23
24
25
2
1 SPEAKERS: PAGE QUESTIONS
2 Michael Cooney 7 21
Partner
3 Nixon Peabody, LLP
4 Douglas Sauer 48 68
CEO
5 New York Council of Nonprofits
6 James Lytle 89 104
Partner
7 Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP
Testifying on behalf of:
8 Association for Community Living;
Black Agency Executives;
9 Catholic Charities of the
Archdiocese of New York;
10 Catholic Charities Neighborhood
Services, Diocese of
11 Brooklyn & Queens;
Coalition of Behavioral Health Agencies;
12 Family Planning Advocates of NYS;
Federation of Protestant Welfare Agencies;
13 Human Services Council of NY;
Long Island Coalition of
14 Behavioral Health Providers;
Mental Health Association of NYC;
15 Mental Health Association
of Westchester;
16 NYS Coalition for Children's Mental
Health Services;
17 NYS Council for Community Behavioral
Healthcare;
18 Supportive Housing Network of New York;
UJA Federation of New York;
19 United Neighborhood Houses of New York
20
Jayne Cammisa 122 127
21 Registered Nurse, Westchester County
Health Care Corp.;
22 NYS Nurses Association Union
Council Officer
23 Christine LaPerche 127
Nursing Representative
24 New York State Nurses Association
25 ---oOo---
3
1 SENATOR MARCELLINO: Good morning.
2 Can everybody hear?
3 Can you hear me in the back?
4 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Yes.
5 SENATOR MARCELLINO: Okay, that's fine.
6 My name is Senator Carl Marcellino. I am the
7 Chair of the Committee on Investigations.
8 We welcome you to the hearing on executive
9 compensation.
10 Joined with -- joining with me today are my
11 colleagues, Senator Squadron, who is a ranking
12 member; Senator Ruben Diaz; and, Senator Lee Zeldin.
13 We are here to discuss the issue of executive
14 compensation for not-for-profit organizations
15 receiving State funding, and the actions that might
16 be needed to prevent any State tax dollars from
17 being, we put in quotes the word, "wasted" on
18 excessive salaries.
19 We've all seen stories in the media regarding
20 certain groups, where the salaries and compensation
21 for executives and their families seem to outstrip
22 the amount of money that's in their budget, but
23 being used by -- and they're spending, basically,
24 State tax dollars doing it.
25 So, we want to make sure that the tax dollars
4
1 go towards the function for which they were
2 designed; and that is, to provide a service to the
3 public, to provide help to those who are in need,
4 and not to pay off school loans, or the family
5 members of some executives in various organizations,
6 as was reported recently in "The New York Times," in
7 a story.
8 So, we're just here to ask some questions.
9 Preconceived notions, we don't have.
10 We are looking for advice from you.
11 We have some speakers who have volunteered to
12 come in and testify, and I appreciate that.
13 That's good.
14 SENATOR SQUADRON: You're joined by your
15 echo.
16 SENATOR MARCELLINO: My echo has joined me.
17 My wife always says I have an alter ego.
18 [Laughter.]
19 SENATOR MARCELLINO: I'll keep talking until
20 that echo disappears, Mr. Tech?
21 Okay.
22 We have testimony that has been submitted by
23 organizations who are not here today, but they did
24 submit written testimony; one of which is the
25 New York State Rehabilitation Association, by their
5
1 CEO, Jeff Wise.
2 We have testimony submitted by -- on behalf
3 of the following organizations:
4 The Human Services Council of New York City;
5 The Lawyers Alliance;
6 Not-For-Profit Coordinating Committee of
7 New York;
8 The UJA Federation of New York;
9 And, The United Way of New York.
10 And, there was one other...
11 A group, submitted by Dan Luckens,
12 executive director of Camp Venture, Incorporated,
13 which is a not-for-profit organization serving
14 adults and children with developmental disabilities.
15 This testimony will go into the record and be
16 part of the final report of the Committee.
17 Our first speaker for today -- and each
18 speaker has been asked to limit their time to about
19 five minutes, to read, or summarize, their written
20 statement; and, we thank them in advance for those
21 who have submitted their testimony in advance, and
22 then standing for questions and answers.
23 The first speaker will be Michael Cooney,
24 partner of Nixon Peabody, LLP.
25 Mr. Cooney.
6
1 MICHAEL COONEY: Good morning, Senators.
2 SENATOR MARCELLINO: Good morning.
3 MICHAEL COONEY: It's a pleasure to be here
4 today, and I appreciate the opportunity, especially
5 after the exciting win last night.
6 It's good be a New Yorker.
7 My name is Mike Cooney. I'm a partner with
8 the law firm of Nixon Peabody, LLP, and the head of
9 its higher education and tax-exempt organizations
10 practice.
11 My work concentrates on the affairs of
12 nonprofit and tax-exempt organizations, their donors
13 and supporters.
14 And, I've had the privilege, not only of
15 doing this work with the organizations, but serving
16 as well on a number of nonprofit boards.
17 I've also have recently had the honor of
18 serving on Attorney General Eric Schneiderman's
19 Leadership Committee for Nonprofit Revitalization.
20 As one who strongly believes in the value of
21 the nonprofit sector to the people of state of
22 New York, I urge the members of your Committee to
23 evaluate and incorporate in your decision-making the
24 existing processes and structures intended to ensure
25 the fidelity of nonprofit executive compensation to
7
1 mission and performance.
2 In my personal experience, the vast majority
3 of nonprofit executives are indeed undercompensated
4 for the value that they bring to their organizations
5 and the communities that they serve.
6 Importantly, there is already a legal
7 structure in place, in practices, to assure the
8 reasonableness of their compensation.
9 What is needed in the state, in my personal
10 opinion, is a better understanding of this
11 structure, and vigorous enforcement of the laws that
12 already exist.
13 At the time of this writing, as you well
14 know, the Governor's promulgated an executive order,
15 eliminating the amount of State funding to the first
16 $199,000 of compensation to provider executives.
17 The definitions of "compensation" and
18 "executive" have been left to rule-making authority
19 of -- I believe it's at least nine different State
20 agencies.
21 The basis for the $199,000 figure is somewhat
22 unclear, and the State budget contains similar
23 limitations as conditions of funding.
24 The people of the state of New York and its
25 nonprofit providers deserve better; deserve a better
8
1 system.
2 And through legislative action, it would be
3 possible to bring greater certainty and impact to
4 the expenditure of those State funds.
5 New York law already imposes on nonprofit
6 corporate governing boards the responsibility to
7 assure that executive compensation is reasonable and
8 commensurate with the services performed.
9 New York law generally provides that officer
10 salaries must be fixed by a majority of the entity's
11 entire governing board.
12 Loans to nonprofit executives are, generally
13 speaking, prohibited.
14 And most importantly, as was demonstrated in
15 the case of Adelphi University back in 2007, the
16 State has the power to remove fiduciaries of
17 nonprofits for, among other things, approving
18 excessive compensation.
19 Currently, though, State law does not
20 delineate procedures to ensure compliance with these
21 requirements. But, those organizations that are
22 public charities, under Internal Revenue Code,
23 Section 501(c)(3), are already familiar with a
24 decade-old regime that arises under Code
25 Section 4958, which establishes reasonable
9
1 compensation.
2 That statute sets forth a process, which, if
3 used, creates a rebuttable presumption that the
4 compensation approved is reasonable.
5 That rebuttable presumption of reasonableness
6 has three core requirements, rather straightforward,
7 that create a reasonable and effective rubric for
8 setting executive comp.
9 Under the first, a group of board
10 fiduciaries, independent of the individuals who are
11 being compensated, is made responsible for dealing
12 with the issue of setting comp.
13 Commonly, this is done through a delegation
14 to a compensation committee, especially charged by
15 the board with the responsibility for monitoring and
16 overseeing the process.
17 The process is done with access to all
18 relevant financial and performance information, and
19 can be very complete and comprehensive.
20 The fiduciaries work under a compensation
21 policy, declaring that all compensation of the
22 organization must be reasonable, and setting the
23 percentiles in which the compensation arises.
24 The second prong looks to comparables,
25 because, even if you have a very independent and
10
1 thoughtful, motivated fiduciary, they need good
2 information.
3 That process requires the individuals of,
4 say, the compensation committee, to look at
5 comparable positions at comparable organizations for
6 levels of pay.
7 This information is already available because
8 of IRS reporting on Form 990. It's available
9 through the attorney general's website.
10 My kids can get to the information on
11 guidestar.org; although, I will admit their ability
12 to read the information is not as strong as one
13 would need to have.
14 The bottom line is: Through that process, or
15 even hiring compensation consultants independent of
16 the management of the organization, there is the
17 ability to get good, effective information, provided
18 under penalties of perjury on the information
19 return, in order to benchmark the executive comp for
20 your particular organization.
21 Finally, the third prong of the test under
22 the IRS rules, is that all those committee
23 deliberations need to be set forth in writing.
24 And, we work with our clients quite a bit, to
25 make sure that all of that process -- it's easy
11
1 enough to use a template -- is properly set forth,
2 that the absence of conflicts are noted, that those
3 comparables are set forth and attached; so, that, in
4 one place, an organization has somewhere to go to
5 look at the complete review of the executive's comp,
6 and, why, for this executive, at this time, and this
7 organization, it's reasonable.
8 With respect to transparency, I want to
9 emphasize that these compensation levels are not
10 hidden from public view, as one might suspect in the
11 various news reports.
12 Most charities are required to report, in
13 detail, compensation of board members, officers, key
14 employees, and others, on that IRS Form 990, which,
15 as I mentioned, is also incorporated in the filings
16 with the New York State Attorney General Charities
17 Bureau.
18 So, therefore, State regulators and the
19 public currently have ready access to information
20 for many of these entities.
21 With respect to enforcement, all of these
22 approval and reporting mechanisms are of little
23 value if the State fails to pursue a consistent and
24 vigorous enforcement path.
25 The Governor's creation of a task force in
12
1 August, this past year, occurred in the context of
2 serious questions about the million-dollar salaries
3 and benefits paid to two brothers running a
4 nonprofit.
5 Concerns about high levels of compensation at
6 that organization, however, were already well known.
7 Indeed, it appears in the press reports, that there
8 was already a corporate-integrity agreement in
9 place, with requirements for periodic reports and
10 compliance.
11 Why those compensation practices were allowed
12 to continue is a question, not only for your
13 Committee, but for all the right-minded nonprofits
14 and their boards all across the state.
15 I would simply ask that the exceptions not
16 prove the rule.
17 Finally, in conclusion: I ask the Committee,
18 respectfully, to consider the proposals emanating
19 from the nonprofit sector. Much of this work has
20 already been done through our structures already in
21 place.
22 New York law should supplement and strengthen
23 those existing federal requirements without imposing
24 significant new costs and burdens which don't inure
25 to the benefit of the people.
13
1 The nonprofit sector in New York State
2 understands the importance of demonstrating the
3 appropriate use of these scarce and, in these times,
4 precious resources entrusted to them.
5 The imposition of blanket rules or
6 limitations on executive compensation would do more
7 harm to the process than help it, to the detriment
8 of all New Yorkers.
9 And with that, I would like to thank you for
10 the opportunity to hear me out on this issue, and
11 greatly appreciate your having a hearing on it.
12 Thank you.
13 SENATOR MARCELLINO: Again, we appreciate you
14 coming, and we thank you very much for your time and
15 your testimony.
16 Just to make some clarifications, and then
17 I'll let my colleagues make statements, if they
18 would like.
19 Just to point out, that, in 2010, the
20 Division of Budget found that, at not-for-profit
21 organizations under contract with the State Mental
22 Hygiene agencies, there were 1,926 employees with
23 salaries greater than $100,000 a year.
24 That's -- their salaries totaled
25 324.6 million, in total.
14
1 The majority -- we all understand, and we
2 make the statement declaratively: The majority of
3 the over 140,000 not-for-profits providing services
4 to the State, and to our residents, that are listed
5 with the IRS, are doing a fantastic job.
6 We're not arguing with that. They do a great
7 job; they do a fine job.
8 As always, we are looking for those that are
9 abusive of the system, and we're trying to figure
10 out ways to best curtail the abuses.
11 I think that's what we're looking for.
12 We recognize the service provided by the
13 not-for-profits and the quality of their service;
14 and, as I said, 99.9 percent of the time.
15 It's that .1 percent that causes most of our
16 problems.
17 I found out, when I was teaching school, that
18 the -- 99 percent of the kids in the school were
19 there for an education. It was the 1 percent that
20 drove everybody crazy.
21 And, that's the kind of thing we're dealing
22 with, constantly, in this -- in this state.
23 As far as the $199,000 salary set by the
24 Governor for his limit, in his executive proposal,
25 it is my understanding that that came from, and I
15
1 could be wrong, but it --
2 And I don't mean to put words in his mouth.
3 He can do that for himself, quite eloquently.
4 -- but, it was my understanding that the
5 $199,000 was the top pay that any federal person,
6 who was, like, the second in command under a
7 commissioner, could make, at the federal level.
8 And, he chose that as the cut-off point for
9 his proposal.
10 So, that, I think, is where that came from;
11 so, we can bring that to a point.
12 But, now, I would like to turn it over to my
13 colleagues who might want to make some opening
14 statements.
15 Senator Squadron.
16 SENATOR SQUADRON: Thank you very much to the
17 Chair for convening this.
18 I think that, both, from the testimony we've
19 already gotten from the turnout today, this is an
20 issue that absolutely has to be dealt with, as the
21 Chair has said, and is, maybe, a little more
22 complicated than it seems at first.
23 So, the opportunity to really dig into it is
24 deeply appreciated, and, I want to thank the Chair
25 for that.
16
1 I think that one of the key questions here --
2 there's -- there are, really, going to be two
3 questions today.
4 And the first one is: Is there a problem?
5 And I think that the news reports, et cetera,
6 have shown that, clearly, there is some sort of
7 problem, but: How big is that problem? And, how do
8 we deal with that?
9 I think the second one, frankly, is: Is the
10 solution really as concerning as all that?
11 And, I think that the Governor deserves a lot
12 of credit for stepping in, in his first year, on
13 this issue, and putting something forward that is
14 going to change the status quo.
15 And I think that what we're seeing today, is
16 the way in which that change is going to have a
17 ripple effect through the nonprofit sector.
18 I think we all agree that the nonprofits in
19 this state serve an extraordinary purpose.
20 In fact, in a time of State budget austerity
21 and State cuts, they serve as critical a function as
22 ever; and, perhaps, more critical than ever.
23 And hamstrung -- to hamstrung our nonprofits,
24 to make it harder for them to serve the people in
25 this state who are in most desperate need of it,
17
1 would be just an absolute tragedy.
2 To control what happens, and ensure that
3 we're not wasting State dollars, is an absolute
4 imperative.
5 And, so, the ability to really talk through
6 this issue and understand it, as the Governor moves
7 forward on the legislative side, is something that I
8 really appreciate.
9 I do have a question -- just two questions
10 for the current witness, and I'll go right to the --
11 SENATOR MARCELLINO: Why don't we just hold
12 the questions, and just make statements. And, then,
13 we'll all have a round of questions.
14 SENATOR SQUADRON: Great.
15 SENATOR MARCELLINO: How's that?
16 Ruben?
17 SENATOR DIAZ: No, I'm just glad that you
18 called this meeting, Mr. Chairman; but, also, I'm
19 kind of disappointed, because I don't see that any
20 member of the -- any member of the task force, who
21 are the ones who, also, are supposed to investigate,
22 and provide the Governor with whatever he wanted --
23 he intended to do.
24 I've been invited, or, I'm here today to
25 be -- to testify.
18
1 I can ask some questions for them, and I see
2 that none of them are here today.
3 SENATOR MARCELLINO: That isn't their fault.
4 That is the -- this is a Committee hearing,
5 not a task-force hearing.
6 SENATOR DIAZ: Yeah, but --
7 SENATOR MARCELLINO: The Governor's task
8 force is operating on its own time schedule.
9 I am a member of that task force. I sit on
10 it, so does Assemblyman Englebright, because we
11 chair the two Committees -- the two relevant
12 Committees, in our respective chambers.
13 But, that task force is operating on its own
14 time frame, and is under the leadership of
15 Ben Lawsky, who is the --
16 SENATOR DIAZ: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman --
17 SENATOR MARCELLINO: -- the Commissioner of
18 Financial Services.
19 SENATOR DIAZ: Excuse me, I'm talking about
20 the task force that go and inform, composed by
21 Inspector General Biben, Secretary of State
22 Cesar Perales, DRS [sic] Superintendent
23 Benjamin Lawsky, and Medical [sic] Inspector General
24 Gene Cox; that task force --
25 SENATOR MARCELLINO: That's the same task
19
1 force I just mentioned, Senator.
2 SENATOR DIAZ: So, are --
3 SENATOR MARCELLINO: They are operating under
4 Ben Lawsky's leadership, under their own time frame.
5 They're collecting data at the present time, and
6 evaluating stuff, and putting it together, so that
7 we can meet.
8 And, we've had two meetings of that task
9 force.
10 More are scheduled, so that we can understand
11 the data.
12 As I said, there are 140,000 entities that
13 we're collecting information from.
14 SENATOR DIAZ: So, we have not the
15 opportunity of asking the members of the task force
16 questions?
17 SENATOR MARCELLINO: Not today, no.
18 Senator Zeldin.
19 SENATOR ZELDIN: I just want to thank you,
20 Chairman Marcellino, for putting this together.
21 I have some specific questions for
22 Mr. Cooney, and some others. And, I'd really like
23 to get into more of the substantive part of the
24 problem that certainly exists across the state.
25 I want to echo what Senator Squadron just
20
1 said, in giving kudos to Governor Cuomo, his first
2 year in office, tackling a very complex issue.
3 And, I'm looking forward to the remainder of
4 this hearing.
5 SENATOR MARCELLINO: Thank you.
6 Like I said, we'll just go around.
7 I just have a couple of points.
8 Mr. Cooney, you mentioned in your
9 statement, the term "reasonable";
10 "New York law imposes on nonprofit corporate
11 governing boards, the responsibility to ensure that
12 executive compensation is, quote/unquote, reasonable
13 and commensurate with the services performed."
14 I -- that's one of my problems, is the
15 definition of -- and I think you mentioned it later
16 on in the statement, but, the definition of
17 "reasonable."
18 Do we have a suggested definition of what is
19 "reasonable," or should it vary from organization to
20 organization?
21 MICHAEL COONEY: My suggestion, Senator,
22 would be to use the existing definitions and the
23 regulations that the IRS has already toiled over for
24 years, and provided us with guidance on the federal
25 tax-exemption side.
21
1 It is, as you point out, something which can
2 differ from organization to organization, as to how
3 the standard gets applied.
4 But, clearly, in those cases that have been
5 cited in the press, and things that have been talked
6 about, I certainly think that the State has the
7 ability to contest those salaries; to hold those
8 boards responsible, on the basis that, perhaps,
9 amounts paid are not reasonable.
10 SENATOR MARCELLINO: I went through, and I --
11 the IRS governance of 501(c)(3) organizations.
12 And, I don't see here, and maybe I misread
13 it --
14 I'm not an attorney, so, you'll have to
15 pardon my handicap.
16 -- but, I don't see here, a specific
17 percentage, or -- it's very general. It seems very
18 broad. It leaves a lot up to the governing boards
19 of each of the entities.
20 And it's been my experience with many of
21 these governing boards, that a lot of the membership
22 is appointed by the CEOs of the organizations
23 themselves. In many way cases, they're just rubber
24 stamps. They don't necessarily have a lot of
25 independence. On paper they do; but, in fact,
22
1 they're not.
2 So, how do we get past that so that we can
3 make sure that there are some real guidances, so it
4 doesn't have to fall upon a State entity; or the
5 IRS, which is draconian, when they come down on
6 people?
7 MICHAEL COONEY: I would be happy to provide
8 you, Senator, with copies of the relevant language
9 from the IRS regulations, to the extent that it
10 might be helpful to your Committee.
11 With respect to oversight by boards, again,
12 the law contemplates the State relies on independent
13 volunteers as fiduciaries overseeing these
14 organizations.
15 I full-well understand the concern about
16 levels of independence, and the ability of those
17 individuals, for whom I would point out, the cash
18 flows all go in the other directions.
19 You know, we're making contributions. The
20 organizations we work with, we don't get paid by
21 them for board service.
22 But, in that respect as well, you're exactly
23 right; there needs to be more focus brought to the
24 role of the boards, their independence.
25 And, I think, giving them these tools, making
23
1 them better know, making them, frankly, a state
2 legal standard, would be helpful in that regard.
3 SENATOR MARCELLINO: Thank you.
4 I would appreciate copies of your points that
5 you just offered.
6 Senator Squadron, if you have any questions?
7 SENATOR SQUADRON: Thank you very much.
8 And I thank you very much for testifying
9 today, and sharing your perspective.
10 I get the sense that you agree that we need
11 to be diligent in ensuring that nonprofits are
12 fulfilling their duty, both to taxpayers and to
13 their missions; but, that the Governor's executive
14 order raises some real concerns for you.
15 MICHAEL COONEY: Well, my concern with the
16 executive order, as it stands, is that, in many
17 ways, it's not clear enough.
18 And I understand that each of the State
19 agencies, in 90 days, is supposed to provide
20 guidance to the relevant funded agencies.
21 But, my hope would be that there would be a
22 much broader discussion, with respect to these
23 compensation issues again, because we have many
24 pieces in place that we all could benefit from if
25 they were more widely known and widely used.
24
1 SENATOR SQUADRON: Right; but, most simply,
2 what do you think of a $199,000 max, across the
3 board, for executive compensation for nonprofits?
4 Does that make sense to you, or not?
5 MICHAEL COONEY: My concern is this:
6 As was noted earlier by the Chair, the whole
7 issue of, what is reasonable in a particular
8 circumstance, is something that any funder --
9 If it's not the State, it's a community
10 foundation, which I've sat on the board of. Or a
11 United Way.
12 -- any funder needs to make decisions about
13 what it's willing to fund, and what it's not willing
14 to fund.
15 In the case of the state, however, it is
16 sending a tremendously strong message to the
17 nonprofit community, of a hard stop at $199,000,
18 without definitions of, What is "comp?"
19 Is it total compensation, including benefits,
20 including deferred-compensation plans?
21 Who are the executives who are subject to it?
22 It's very hard to react to the standard in
23 the absence of broader information, to see how it
24 might be applied.
25 SENATOR SQUADRON: All right, from your
25
1 knowledge of the world, what sense do you have; what
2 fraction of nonprofits have, someone, or multiple
3 people, paid more than that?
4 MICHAEL COONEY: Certainly, this is not --
5 SENATOR SQUADRON: It's easy enough to find
6 on the website, as you said, so I assume that you
7 went through it.
8 MICHAEL COONEY: Certainly, it's not an
9 empirical study in any way, but I would say that the
10 vast majority of the executives working in
11 nonprofits are below that level.
12 SENATOR SQUADRON: So, in what sector are
13 folks above that level?
14 MICHAEL COONEY: Well, I think, in order to
15 ascertain that, you would look, really, at the
16 complexity of the organizations.
17 Certainly, in health care.
18 Certainly, in education.
19 And, in other areas, perhaps, further away.
20 Perhaps, the arts, in some context; where,
21 you have a multi-national organization that works on
22 a multi-national basis, you'll see those levels of
23 complexity, where, in order to attract good people,
24 one has to have some flexibility in order to provide
25 appropriate compensation.
26
1 SENATOR SQUADRON: Now, those culturals are
2 probably not getting the threshold of State money
3 that's --
4 MICHAEL COONEY: Precisely right.
5 Although, your question went to nonprofits,
6 generally, so --
7 SENATOR SQUADRON: So, we're probably talking
8 about the health sector -- within the nonprofit
9 sector, we're probably talking the health subsector?
10 MICHAEL COONEY: That's correct.
11 And I would say --
12 SENATOR SQUADRON: Any other?
13 MICHAEL COONEY: -- as well, there may be
14 services with respect to mental hygiene. Perhaps
15 those with respect to drug and alcohol.
16 As the organizations get larger, and there's
17 certain economies of scale in larger organizations,
18 not surprisingly, you will see the levels of
19 compensation to the executives rise to some degree.
20 There's more that they need to deal with.
21 SENATOR SQUADRON: And just to be clear: Is
22 the concern about having any cap at all?
23 If it was 499, rather than 199, would you be
24 here today, saying the same -- a similar thing to
25 what you're saying?
27
1 MICHAEL COONEY: Well, I would be here today,
2 because, a cap, if you will, that's too high is a
3 cap that's meaningless.
4 What it points out is, the need for the
5 discussion about, as the Chairman had raised
6 earlier: What is reasonable? And what should the
7 State be paying for these necessary services?
8 SENATOR SQUADRON: And just a final question,
9 because I know we have a number of other testifiers.
10 What's unreasonable, in your view?
11 MICHAEL COONEY: Unreasonable, as a level of
12 compensation?
13 SENATOR SQUADRON: For example.
14 MICHAEL COONEY: Well, in a particular
15 example, if I were to ascertain whether something
16 was unreasonable for an organization, I would look
17 at the specific position.
18 And, as you get below CEO, these can differ
19 dramatically, with respect to the requirements of
20 the position.
21 What exactly is required of this person?
22 How many hours a week are they putting into
23 that job?
24 What sources -- what resources do they need?
25 And, then, to look at the geographic area
28
1 they're in, the type of provider that they are, and
2 the comparable levels of comp.
3 SENATOR SQUADRON: Do you have any examples
4 of an unreasonable compensation, that you're aware
5 of, in the state?
6 MICHAEL COONEY: Senator, I was asked this
7 question, I believe it was by "The Wall Street
8 Journal," years ago, when our current governor, I
9 believe, was bringing an action -- I remember an
10 action was being brought against the former head of
11 the New York Stock Exchange, who was getting paid an
12 amount which seemed highly excessive to me.
13 And I was asked whether or not I thought that
14 amount was unreasonable.
15 As I recall, my answer at the time was, that
16 it certainly seemed like a lot of money to me;
17 perhaps, more than he needed to be paid.
18 Interestingly, as I recall, through the court
19 systems, he was vindicated.
20 So, I --
21 SENATOR SQUADRON: So, somewhere between,
22 199, and 100 million dollars, is the -- we find to
23 be --
24 MICHAEL COONEY: Well, again, I think it
25 really requires the organization to look very
29
1 closely, and the State to look very closely, at the
2 organization, and what they're paying for it.
3 SENATOR SQUADRON: Okay, thank you very much.
4 I really appreciate you being here, and
5 helping us untangle this issue.
6 MICHAEL COONEY: It's an honor.
7 SENATOR MARCELLINO: Just for the record,
8 that that attorney general became governor, but it
9 isn't this governor.
10 Senator Zeldin?
11 SENATOR ZELDIN: Mr. Cooney, we haven't met
12 before.
13 I just -- for background, would you mind
14 providing us a little bit of information about some
15 of the not-for-profits you've been affiliated with,
16 just for my own personal --
17 MICHAEL COONEY: Yeah, I'd be -- actually,
18 I'd be proud to.
19 I've worked for over two decades in my
20 practice, which concentrates on the affairs of
21 nonprofits, and those who love them: donors.
22 I've had the opportunity to work with the
23 largest nonprofits in the state, and, actually,
24 across the country, in health care, education,
25 social services, religious organizations, cultural
30
1 and arts organizations; all the way down to the
2 Pittsford-Mendon High School Baseball Boosters.
3 So, it's a very wide range of organizations.
4 And, I had the opportunity, as well, to work
5 throughout the state, from the very end of the tip
6 of Long Island, up to Buffalo, and into the
7 North Country, and see the effect that these
8 organizations have on the communities in which they
9 work.
10 SENATOR ZELDIN: Well, what are some of the
11 largest not-for-profits that you've been affiliated
12 with?
13 I'm just trying to get a perspective.
14 MICHAEL COONEY: Sure.
15 Well, I -- on the way here, I just walked
16 past the research foundation of the State University
17 of New York.
18 Here, locally, have the privilege of working
19 with RPI, Rensselaer, and Union.
20 I get to work with the University of
21 Rochester, for example, where my main office has
22 been for years.
23 With The United Ways, with the community
24 foundations. In Buffalo, Rochester, Utica, Albany.
25 And then, as well, with a number of
31
1 institutions Downstate, in the city, and on the
2 Island, some of the health-care providers; again,
3 community foundations, and such.
4 SENATOR ZELDIN: Now, just earlier,
5 Senator Squadron's last question was asking for, you
6 know, specific examples of abuse.
7 And, I didn't quite under- -- I didn't quite
8 connect, or understand, the answer to his question.
9 I was -- we were out of session, last June.
10 And, as we went through the months of July and
11 August and September, it seemed like, every single
12 day, like, "The New York Post," or "The Daily News,"
13 "The Times," there was some new story of some type
14 of abuse in not-for-profits.
15 And, I don't know if -- you know, where
16 they're getting all of this information from, all of
17 a sudden, but, it seems like someone, basically,
18 backed up just a truckload of material for stories.
19 And, you know, it kind of came out of
20 nowhere.
21 So, you know, for me, my intrigue with this
22 particular issue, is, you know, not knowing what I
23 don't know.
24 And that's why Senator Squadron's question
25 was really, you know, so good, because he's asking
32
1 for, you know, specific examples of stuff that we
2 may not know about.
3 Being that you serve on Attorney -- you
4 served on Attorney General's Schneiderman's panel on
5 this issue, I was just -- I was hoping -- I was
6 going to ask the same exact question, just hoping
7 that you might be able to shed light on -- on some
8 of what we don't know about not-for-profit abuses
9 out there, specific examples.
10 But, if you're ever able to supplement that,
11 I would be -- that's one of the most intriguing
12 things about this issue, for me.
13 MICHAEL COONEY: Well, Senator, I would offer
14 two things.
15 First: It's my understanding, that the
16 report that was provided to the Attorney General
17 from the Leadership Committee, will be published at
18 some point soon.
19 And, I'm sure we'll have a number of good
20 points with respect to the process. The discussions
21 were excellent that we had in that context.
22 One issue, though, I would suggest you might
23 want to consider, and something to take up, and it
24 goes to this issue of reasonableness, is what we in
25 the business, if you will, call the "Lake Wobegon
33
1 Effect"; meaning, as you well know, in Lake Wobegon,
2 all of the children are above average.
3 When one is setting executive compensation,
4 it's very important to keep in mind, as you're
5 looking at those comparables, that there is a
6 tendency, and I think it's a very human tendency, to
7 assume, that whoever is in the organization you're
8 working with, and you've been supporting so
9 strongly, is got to be above average.
10 Well, you can only imagine, Senator, what
11 happens, if everyone gets pegged at the, 60th or
12 75th percentile, over time --
13 And I think the IRS has seen some of this.
14 -- you could see a rise in salaries, just
15 because, in fact, people are doing a very good job
16 of benchmarking, but with the expectation that their
17 person is better than everyone else.
18 Is that an epidemic in the industry? I
19 would -- certainly not.
20 But, again, it's one of those very thoughtful
21 considerations that we need to take into account, as
22 we're looking at what's reasonable, and what the
23 appropriate level of compensation is for these
24 individuals.
25 I would say to you, that, in the work that
34
1 I've done, the executives I worked with have very
2 much welcomed this process; because, frankly, they
3 don't want to be in the position of having to
4 explain their levels of compensation. They're
5 already publicly available on the Form 990.
6 The ability to say, "We had an independent
7 board committee, with comparables, that set this
8 forth, and I'd like to concentrate on the business
9 of the organization, and helping out people," is a
10 much more effective place to have them.
11 SENATOR ZELDIN: What's the most amount of
12 money that you've seen not-for-profits hold on to,
13 as far as cash balances at any given time, in the
14 state?
15 MICHAEL COONEY: Cash -- days on hand, cash
16 available, varies tremendously.
17 SENATOR ZELDIN: I'm looking for the higher
18 end of that picture.
19 I can imagine -- I've seen, in, you know,
20 great not-for-profits on Long Island, unfortunately,
21 their cash balance is pretty close to zero.
22 But I'm really getting at it, you know, what
23 do we see on the other end of that spectrum?
24 MICHAEL COONEY: You know, I -- again, it
25 varies so much, even within industries.
35
1 But what I would say to you is --
2 SENATOR ZELDIN: Let's take health care, for
3 example.
4 MICHAEL COONEY: Well, in this current
5 economic state, in -- with levels of being --
6 reimbursement being what they are, and with the
7 demands being put on the systems, pretty much, every
8 one of them I could think of, is heavily reliant on
9 lines of credit, simply because there's not the
10 available cash that one would expect, and, if you
11 will, in a normal business atmosphere, to be able to
12 pay those ongoing expenses.
13 Access to that credit is hugely important in
14 getting the work of the organization done.
15 SENATOR ZELDIN: Are there organizations --
16 you know, are there organizations out there that
17 have tens of millions of dollars of, you know, cash
18 balance at any given time?
19 MICHAEL COONEY: Most certainly.
20 I mean, we're blessed in New York State of
21 having organizations with large investment funds.
22 I mean, think of, for example, in the
23 university context.
24 But, for the most part, those assets --
25 restricted, many of them; some of them,
36
1 unrestricted -- are invested for a longer term in
2 order to provide an annual cash-flow payout, in
3 order to meet those needs, including executive
4 compensation, I'm sure.
5 SENATOR ZELDIN: I mean, is -- are there
6 organizations that have hundreds of millions of
7 dollars of cash balance at any given time?
8 MICHAEL COONEY: I can't tell you that.
9 I don't know.
10 SENATOR ZELDIN: Okay.
11 My last question, I'm just trying to
12 understand this as well: If you have a
13 not-for-profit, can you -- I mean, at the end of the
14 year, essentially, you're -- the amount of money
15 that you have in revenues and expenses, you know,
16 pretty much, is supposed to equal out towards the
17 end of the year.
18 What kind of -- what kind of experience have
19 you had with seeing the individuals that run
20 not-for-profits; essentially, billing, management
21 consulting fees, from for-profits, at the end of the
22 year, and balancing out at zero?
23 Have you experienced that at all?
24 MICHAEL COONEY: I have not.
25 I have not.
37
1 To the extent that there is any amount net of
2 costs at the end of the year, more often than not,
3 that's something that has to get folded into the
4 next year; because, again, especially in this
5 environment, that is such a rarity. And, the
6 organization needs to plan for having resources
7 available to meet the needs in the next year.
8 SENATOR ZELDIN: And for sake of time, I'm
9 willing to hand it back over to our Chairman.
10 Thank you, Senator Marcellino.
11 SENATOR MARCELLINO: Thank you.
12 Go right ahead, Senator Diaz.
13 SENATOR DIAZ: Thank you, Mr. President.
14 Mr. Cooney; right?
15 MICHAEL COONEY: Yes.
16 SENATOR DIAZ: Mr. Cooney, did you consider
17 yourself a lobbiest?
18 MICHAEL COONEY: A -- I'm sorry?
19 SENATOR DIAZ: Did you consider yourself a
20 lobbiest?
21 MICHAEL COONEY: A lobbiest?
22 SENATOR DIAZ: Yeah.
23 MICHAEL COONEY: No, sir.
24 SENATOR DIAZ: You're not a lobbiest?
25 MICHAEL COONEY: No.
38
1 This is the first time I've spoken in front
2 of the legislature on, pretty much, any issue.
3 SENATOR DIAZ: So, your job is to fight for,
4 whom?
5 MICHAEL COONEY: My purpose in being here
6 today, Senator, was simply to make the members of
7 the Committee aware of the fact that we have
8 structures on the federal side in place, that are
9 intended to deal precisely with the sorts of issues
10 that you're grappling with right now.
11 SENATOR DIAZ: You represent Nixon Peabody;
12 right?
13 MICHAEL COONEY: That's correct. I'm a
14 partner with the firm.
15 SENATOR DIAZ: On the firm --
16 MICHAEL COONEY: I'm not here on behalf of
17 any client, if that's what you're asking.
18 SENATOR DIAZ: I'm asking, because, in -- on
19 August 3rd, the Governor created a task force.
20 Have you been contacted by that -- by the
21 task force?
22 Are you being questioned by the tax force?
23 Your company had been contacted by them?
24 MICHAEL COONEY: No, Senator, I haven't had
25 any contact with members of the task force.
39
1 SENATOR DIAZ: Did you know of anyone that
2 the task force has contacted?
3 MICHAEL COONEY: Well, I'm aware of the fact
4 that -- that several of our clients, as well as a
5 number of nonprofits throughout state, received a
6 questionnaire from the task force, and responded to
7 it.
8 But, that's been my level of involvement with
9 anything.
10 SENATOR DIAZ: So you don't know what the
11 task-force rules and regulations, and what are they
12 intended to do?
13 SENATOR MARCELLINO: He's not a member of the
14 task force, Senator.
15 SENATOR DIAZ: I understand, obviously.
16 Could you allow me to do my questioning,
17 Mr. --
18 SENATOR MARCELLINO: I just wanted to clarify
19 that.
20 SENATOR DIAZ: I will get to the point.
21 SENATOR MARCELLINO: Yeah, I hope so.
22 SENATOR DIAZ: But, I -- yeah. Don't put
23 the -- he's a lawyer. He know how to protect
24 himself.
25 Mr. Cooney, see, I'm trying to find out,
40
1 because, here, the task force, the Governor, in the
2 executive order, Number 38, he issued some directive
3 to the not-for-profits.
4 And one of that directive, was that they not
5 supposed to pay their executive more than $199,000.
6 Are you aware of that?
7 MICHAEL COONEY: Yes. That was the executive
8 order that came out just a few weeks ago.
9 SENATOR DIAZ: And you are saying that is not
10 enough?
11 MICHAEL COONEY: What I'm saying is, that, my
12 suggested approach, with respect to the setting
13 levels of executive compensation; in particular,
14 what the State would reimburse, should take into
15 account a number of these other benefits that are
16 out there --
17 SENATOR DIAZ: Let me read you something that
18 came in today "New York Post."
19 Mark Lane, the CEO of the Fidelis Care
20 received $1.1 million in salary, plus $864,000 in
21 benefits;
22 Patrick Frawley, the -- another one of the
23 directors of Fidelis, received $587,249 in salary,
24 plus $900,000 in benefits;
25 Anthony Watson, CEO from EmblemHealth, get
41
1 the compensation package of $8.5 million.
2 They're all getting money from the
3 government.
4 So, when the Governor says, $199,000, no more
5 than that, we are saying, is that good, or that is
6 not enough? -- according to your position.
7 MICHAEL COONEY: From my perspective, if the
8 concern of the State to be sure its dollars are well
9 spent, certainly, a dollar cap is one way of
10 approaching that issue.
11 One might ask, where the cap should be; how
12 the cap should vary; what it should apply to.
13 In fact, you have to ask those if you need to
14 know how to apply the cap.
15 My point is, simply, that there is a host of
16 other information about there, with respect to these
17 compensation levels and practices, that would be a
18 benefit to you to know about, when you're
19 considering the efficacy of a cap, as the best way
20 of making sure that State dollars are well spent.
21 SENATOR DIAZ: Did you know that, also, the
22 order of the Governor, the executive order, also
23 states, that, "Reimbursement with the State
24 financial assistance of the State authorized payment
25 should not be provided for compensation pay, or
42
1 giving to any [unintelligible]" --
2 And then he puts -- "to the extent
3 practicable."
4 Meaning, that, the Governor's saying -- and
5 then -- let me read on something else.
6 The Governor says, that, "The commissioner of
7 each agency, however, has discretion to increase
8 this salary, based on appropriate factor, and
9 subject to DOB."
10 So the Governor is saying, too much money
11 paid; but at the same time he's saying, too much
12 money -- it should not be more than $199,000.
13 But at the same time, he's saying: Okay, so
14 I'm going to give all the authority to the
15 commissioners of the agencies, and the commissioners
16 should decide, to increase, or to make it to 199.
17 So, the Governor's been saying: This is
18 final.
19 The Governor's not saying, only $199,000.
20 He's -- he's mentioning the problem, but he's
21 not curing the problem.
22 He's mentioned, this is the problem: They're
23 making too much money. It should be this kind of
24 money. But, however, the authority would be into
25 the commissioner. Well, I'll let the commissioner
43
1 decide.
2 So is that -- is that -- according to you, is
3 that is -- that would be -- that is solving the
4 problem?
5 Or, just mentioning the problem, but not
6 taking action with the problem?
7 MICHAEL COONEY: Well, I guess, Senator, one
8 point I would make out of that, and the discretion
9 given to the various State agencies, it, obviously,
10 would be of immerse help to the provider
11 organizations in the state, especially if they're
12 receiving funding from more than one State agency,
13 to have the same standards apply, so that they could
14 be properly administered, and things properly
15 accounted for, in this sense:
16 If the definition of "compensation" for one
17 State agency is one thing, and it is something else
18 for another, it creates, obviously, a level of
19 complexity within the organizations and their
20 ability to react to these things.
21 As you know, there were other issues in the
22 executive order that went beyond compensation, where
23 those could be concerns as well.
24 But, there is a strong concern, on behalf of
25 the community, that, certainly, they want to comply
44
1 with the laws, work within the limits of what's
2 there, but -- but, some level of consistency, and
3 simplicity, in the standards would be tremendously
4 helpful.
5 SENATOR MARCELLINO: Last question, Senator,
6 please.
7 SENATOR DIAZ: All right.
8 This is my problem, and my concern: The area
9 that I represent -- and not only my area -- Black
10 and Hispanic and poor areas throughout the state are
11 losing funding. Community organizations are losing
12 funding.
13 The people are suffering.
14 They have been cut -- their services have
15 been cut.
16 They have cut workfare in Medicaid. They
17 have cut education for children.
18 I mean, we have been -- we are suffering.
19 And, on the other hand, do we have -- people
20 making from the -- from this same money, such high
21 salaries: a million dollars? $8 million?
22 $3 million? -- when my people are suffering? When
23 we don't have services to our community?
24 I mean, the only -- the only problem that I
25 have, I -- I appreciate the Governor is saying, and
45
1 I need to mention the problem.
2 The only problem that I have, and the
3 Governor, who say: This is it. $199,000, this is
4 it.
5 But the Governor's not saying that.
6 The Govern's saying: It should be it, but I
7 gonna allow the commissioner to decide.
8 So that mean that the commissioner could say:
9 Oh, okay, you can go get paid whatever it is.
10 That's my only problem, and I -- that's what
11 I wanted to talk to the member of the commission,
12 because people are suffering in the state of
13 New York. Services have been cut.
14 And it's a shame, it's embarrassing, that
15 people are making so much money, when poor people
16 are suffering in this area.
17 That's my question.
18 Thank you.
19 SENATOR MARCELLINO: Thank you, Senator.
20 Mr. Cooney, the -- just one point.
21 Should we go in a slightly different
22 direction?
23 The Governor is looking at salaries.
24 And, the Senator is perfectly correct; he's
25 giving commissioners leeway to adjust the number, as
46
1 they see fit, according to the job that's being
2 done, and according to the hours being put in, as
3 you described before.
4 But, should we go a different way?
5 Should we take a look at the percent of
6 executive compensation, or any compensation, or
7 administrative costs, as being allowed to be used
8 from tax dollars?
9 Should we look at a percentage rather than a
10 specific salary?
11 If your budget is a million dollars, should
12 your administrative costs not exceed 5 percent of
13 that budget?
14 And, is that a direction we should be looking
15 at, or could be looking at, to make it a better
16 plan?
17 MICHAEL COONEY: Well, Senator, I certainly
18 think it is something that you would want to look at
19 in the context of a number of different options.
20 What I would commend you, however -- and,
21 again, this is a slightly different issue from that,
22 with respect to executive compensation -- but, the
23 whole issue of, direct-service costs versus general
24 and administrative costs, and such, those,
25 sometimes, at least in my experience, can be
47
1 somewhat hard to define, and trying to get a sense
2 of those.
3 If you're speaking about a percentage of,
4 let's say, the five highest-compensated individuals
5 of the organization, as a percentage of total
6 budget, you might find, in some of the very smallest
7 of organizations in the state, that a goodly amount
8 of their costs are compensation for the one or two
9 employees that they may have to conduct their
10 activities.
11 You know, usually, those are not
12 organizations that are contracting with the State to
13 provide services.
14 But, again, it's simply something to be aware
15 of, as you look at those numbers, and see how
16 those -- those things play out.
17 SENATOR MARCELLINO: Thank you, Mr. Cooney.
18 Appreciate your time, and appreciate your
19 testimony.
20 And, if you could submit that other stuff
21 that we talked about earlier?
22 MICHAEL COONEY: Thank you so much.
23 SENATOR MARCELLINO: Thank you, appreciate
24 it.
25
48
1 The next speaker is Doug Sauer,
2 chief executive officer of the New York Council of
3 Not-For-Profits [sic].
4 Mr. Sauer.
5 DOUGLAS SAUER: Hello, and thank you for
6 having this hearing, and --
7 SENATOR MARCELLINO: Move that -- move the
8 microphone a little closer to you, so --
9 DOUGLAS SAUER: Okay.
10 Hello, and thank you for having this hearing,
11 and inviting our organization, New York Council of
12 Nonprofits, to give testimony.
13 I'm going to try to just summarize. I don't
14 want to repeat some of the points that Michael made.
15 I know some of the other testimony you have
16 will repeat some of these points. A lot of this
17 information is readily available, and there's the
18 IRS rules, et cetera.
19 Our organization represents 30 -- over
20 3,100 community-based nonprofits of all types
21 throughout the state.
22 Our interest is the small- to moderate-sized
23 community-based organization. We don't have members
24 that are educational institutions. We don't have
25 hospitals. It's about community-based
49
1 organizations.
2 And, I appreciate the statements made at the
3 beginning, that -- about the value of
4 not-for-profits, and the services that are being
5 provided.
6 And, I can tell you that that is not the
7 message that is being relayed out into the public
8 discourse. It's not the message that my members are
9 hearing, the vast majority of whom don't even come
10 close to hitting that $199,000 in executive
11 compensation.
12 They're hearing that there's -- there's
13 hostility towards not-for-profits. That, it's
14 getting harder to do their work. That, the State's
15 business practice is strangling them already.
16 And, now, there's this whole public discourse
17 that, somehow, they're doing something wrong.
18 So -- so, I'm putting a different -- a bit of
19 a different context on this, in terms of, perhaps,
20 some of the collateral damage that's being done.
21 And, perhaps, with, particularly on that
22 administrative-fee issue, what that really means.
23 I should note, our organization -- I've been
24 with our organization 32 years as executive
25 director.
50
1 We had run the State Board training
2 consortium for ten years, up until it was eliminated
3 just recently; except for, two State agencies
4 continued.
5 It was the only ongoing educational effort to
6 boards of directors on governance and management,
7 including executive compensation.
8 And, right now, that work, by and large, is
9 not continuing in this state.
10 So, part of this is, we would prefer that you
11 educate rather than regulate, and look at it from
12 that perspective.
13 I also have been the past board president --
14 the immediate past board president of
15 National Council of Nonprofits, as well as, I'm
16 currently treasurer; and I'm aware of what's
17 happening in some of the other states regarding this
18 issue.
19 I'm going to just kind of lay out -- in
20 trying to cut through some of the various
21 activities, and some of the thoughts around here,
22 I'm going to try to lay out some basic premises, and
23 then expound on them. And some of them, Michael
24 already talked about, so I'll try to go light on
25 that.
51
1 The media always asks me, that: Is there
2 excessive compensation in nonprofits?
3 My definition is, yes, there is.
4 Is there abuse? Yes, there is. It's few and
5 far between.
6 It's very elite situations, in terms of
7 larger organizations, as was being pointed out a
8 little earlier by Senator Diaz.
9 And, in some cases, it can happen with a
10 small organization; where, an organization may have
11 a $200,000 budget, and you see an executive director
12 getting $180,000 of that, and, you see family
13 members on the board of directors.
14 So, there's different ways that excessive
15 compensation occurs.
16 And, I think part of the struggle here is, is
17 that it's hard to just separate, are we talking
18 about excessive compensation, or are we talking
19 about State money?
20 It kind of straddles back and forth, and
21 that's what's partially confusing some of this
22 issue.
23 Are we talking about, is the State buying; or
24 are we talking about excessive compensation from the
25 nonprofit, irrespective whether the State's buying
52
1 anything from them or not?
2 Secondly, that, it's not a secret, and
3 Michael brought that up, these salaries, and these
4 excessive -- I will define "excessive," as, what is
5 a sticker shock.
6 What shocks your consciousness. What -- it
7 just seems outrageous, in many cases.
8 And I'm coming at it, not from an IRS
9 perspective, but a public's perspective, because
10 charitable not-for-profits exist because the public
11 has confidence that they're doing the right thing,
12 and doing it competently.
13 And I think, in that case, there can be
14 reasonable compensation if they perform.
15 But, it's when people are looking at it, and
16 says: This will affect an organization, that's --
17 if privately enuring. People are making money, in
18 some kind of -- as if they were a profit-making
19 entity off this corporation, and maybe it has
20 nothing to do with the results that they produce, in
21 the community, and the changes that they make.
22 But as I -- we had given you, just three
23 clicks, you can get salary information off of
24 guidestar.
25 I can give you my salary.
53
1 We told you what you -- we give you the
2 details, that you can pull it right out. That
3 information is readily available.
4 We have to ask the question, because the
5 information's been readily available: How much
6 money has the State spent, to date, collecting and
7 analyzing this recent survey information?
8 Are we spending hundreds of thousands of
9 dollars doing that survey?
10 Certainly, when we have had been approached
11 by our members who got this survey, saying: This is
12 going take hours and hours of our board and staff to
13 do this. And, it's going to -- we even might need
14 to consult with legal counsel, and pay legal
15 counsel, to help us fill out this survey, in a
16 defensive mode.
17 How much is it costing to find out what's
18 already out there?
19 And -- and, I think, even as a taxpayer, if
20 we're talking about taxpayer dollars, then we should
21 be able to talk about:
22 What is this whole thing costing, and is that
23 going to get the outcome that you're going to do?
24 How much time and effort does it take from
25 nonprofits to use donor money, and other money, to
54
1 be able to do this survey?
2 Do we need more bureaucracies?
3 And that's -- that's, I think our fear is,
4 we're going to create a bureaucratic process that's
5 going to cost more money, trying to go after,
6 probably, in a broad net, what is, really, an elite
7 few of abuses to go after.
8 And I want to say, and we've had our members
9 say, that: Hey, filling out this survey, and going
10 through all of these hoops, is an administrative
11 expense, that, by the way, the State doesn't pay us
12 to do.
13 And that kind of relays that, most
14 nonprofits, most small nonprofits, are totally
15 burdened by compliance issues and State issues,
16 particularly in this environment, on a day-by-day
17 basis. And those issues cost more money.
18 It's getting so, you don't want to do
19 business with the State of New York anymore; and,
20 particularly, for community-based organizations.
21 They're drowning in doing that. And nobody
22 can go out and raise money, and say: Give us money
23 so you can subsidize the State of New York's
24 administrative costs, and new regulations that
25 they're coming, that we don't have to the capacity
55
1 to fulfill.
2 Undercompensation is much more of a prevalent
3 and serious issue.
4 And that's -- I think that's where, I think,
5 from our membership's point of view, the attitude
6 is: That's not us. And, now, the public discourse
7 is about us.
8 We don't see a headline that says, you know:
9 25-year-old community-based executive director is
10 making $50,000, and doesn't have benefits. And
11 their program is a great program, either in a
12 boys' club or doing some other settlement houses, or
13 some other program.
14 And, by the way, that should be something
15 that shocks the conscience. That should be
16 something that the State of New York should be
17 concerned about. That is something that the public
18 should be concerned about.
19 So, as we go along these conversations, it's
20 very difficult for the average nonprofit to see that
21 there's a lot of legitimacy behind what's happening
22 here in policy, because:
23 They would rather see the policy being
24 focused on underpayment;
25 They'd rather see that policy being focused
56
1 on: We can't get a contract in the state of
2 New York, but we're expected to perform services;
3 Or, the State of New York is creating our
4 cash-flow problems, and starting us to go down, as
5 an organization, because payments aren't being made
6 in a timely basis, and we're going have to close our
7 doors of our community center.
8 Those are the burning issues to the average
9 sector.
10 It's not this issue.
11 I did make note, and I think this kind of
12 raises part of the issue, from our perspective:
13 Taxpayers pay for salaries of many State employees
14 and private for-profit sector businesses that are
15 not coming under this scrutiny, and I wonder why.
16 That 2010 salary that was promoted around,
17 that you had -- Mr. Chair, had indicated, has
18 thrown out the issue of six figures.
19 Now we're talking about 199,000.
20 We talked [unintelligible], and what's in the
21 public discourse, is now six figure.
22 People are talking about $100,000, not
23 $199,000.
24 Put things in perspective:
25 In the fiscal year 2010, the Legislature
57
1 provided 136 employees of salaries over $100,000; or
2 a total salary amount of over 16.5.
3 A review of the executive branch shows that
4 there's 16,000 employees paid over $100,000, where,
5 an annual cost to taxpayers, over 2.3. That's
6 salary, not compensation.
7 The top-ten-paid employees in New York State,
8 there's several that make over a million dollars.
9 The football -- or the basketball coach at
10 University of Binghamton, makes 8 -- $119,000. And
11 he has -- as we sit here today, he has a
12 0-22 record.
13 So, we're not -- what are we focusing on
14 here?
15 Are we just taking one little narrow piece,
16 and say: We're going to go over there?
17 Or, are we talking about, taxpayer dollars,
18 and what we do with taxpayer dollars?
19 What about economic-development
20 organizations, such as Global Foundries? They get a
21 billion dollars.
22 Do we know what their executives are going to
23 be paid?
24 Do we know how they're using state-taxpayer
25 dollars for those salaries?
58
1 Do we care?
2 I would argue, we should.
3 And if we're going to have a broad view about
4 this, we should look at it broadly.
5 Our point, basically, is not to malign the
6 compensation levels of the public and private
7 sectors, although, I do have to question the coach
8 with a 0-22 record.
9 It's the performance of the nonprofit sector.
10 And, we, as, both, state taxpayers, and as,
11 now, at the State of New York, really rely on
12 nonprofits to be on the ground to do the work, much
13 usually, in a much more cheaper way than public
14 employees can; and, actually, go raise other money
15 to subsidize that work.
16 So where fair, reasonable, competitive
17 compensation is an important ingredient to the
18 equation, excessive compensation is not. It hurts
19 us all as non-for-profit organizations.
20 And, we need state government to support our
21 workforce.
22 Now, when we talked about caps, for the
23 average not-for-profit organizations that gets the
24 average contract with the State of New York, it is
25 by percentages of salary.
59
1 The salary is known. It's negotiated.
2 In many cases, the State agency will say:
3 We're not going to pay more than 15 percent. We're
4 not going to pay more than 20 percent.
5 Most State contracts pay 10 percent or less
6 overhead, even though they know the overhead costs
7 might be 15 or 18 percent.
8 So, in many cases, we have losing
9 propositions.
10 In many cases, the State of New York already
11 controls salaries of a lot of nonprofits that it
12 does work for.
13 And, I think that needs to be part of this
14 picture.
15 Another perspective, is that charities in
16 New York State, and certainly Michael Cooney can
17 talk about this, we're probably the most regulated
18 in the country. And, we're one of the few states
19 that even have a not-for-profit corporation law.
20 But, unlike not-for-profit businesses --
21 we're very much like not-for-profit businesses.
22 Every single new regulation, every new reporting
23 requirement, every new unfunded mandate, costs
24 money.
25 And -- and what we're seeing, is, more
60
1 regulations, more requirements, more mandates, to be
2 able to perform a service under a contract with the
3 State of New York, and then the State of New York
4 won't pay for it; which means, we have to go out,
5 either, not provide that service, which means
6 there's not so much of an interest in what the
7 outcome might be, or, we got to go raise money from
8 donors to pay for these mandates.
9 And -- and it's going to hamper
10 not-for-profit -- it does hamper, right now, many
11 not-for-profits from being in -- as high performing
12 as they are. Whether it's compensation or it's just
13 compliance regulations, we're constantly getting
14 overregulated.
15 And I have to say, from my perspective, I'm
16 looking at this, and I'm seeing a whole nother
17 bureaucracy, a whole nother set of regulations,
18 being established.
19 It's going to apply, not to the
20 million-dollar executives. It's going to apply to
21 the organization that may have $199,000.
22 The organizations that have good accounting
23 firms that can manipulate cost accounting, because
24 that's what we're talking about -- we're not talking
25 about from the executive board, or any way, in
61
1 capping executive salaries. We're talking about,
2 how much money of State money can go into those
3 salaries.
4 That's an accounting issue.
5 Who's going to get hurt, is the
6 community-action programs, or some of the smaller
7 organizations, that don't raise a lot of money, it's
8 mostly government-funded, and there's no other
9 alternative sources to go and do that; yet, that
10 person needs to be able to be there, and to manage
11 the organization of regulation.
12 So, the larger you are, the more diverse you
13 are, the more you have endowments, the more you have
14 other sources of pots, the more you're going to be
15 able to do the same thing you were doing before.
16 And, you're going to pay the same thing before.
17 You move the pies around, in terms of the
18 state-government dollars, and everybody will feel
19 happy, but nothing has changed.
20 And the smaller organizations that are
21 heavily government-funded, usually community-based
22 organizations, are the ones that are not going to
23 have the room to manipulate the system; or, even be
24 able to provide, perhaps, the attorneys that might
25 be necessary to advise them on how to maneuver
62
1 around this.
2 Administrative costs are rising every day
3 around compliance issues, particularly at a Medicaid
4 world.
5 And what's happening is, that more and more
6 organizations are saying -- the small
7 community-based organizations -- 3, 5, even, 8,
8 10 million -- are saying: We cannot exist as a
9 small organization. We're going to have to be
10 gobbled up by a conglomerate. We're going to have
11 to form a merge with somebody else.
12 And when do you that, salaries are going to
13 up even more so.
14 And Michael had said it right: Scale raises
15 salaries.
16 Salaries are dependent upon: The level of
17 complexity; level of professionalization; number of
18 people supervised in that world; how successful you
19 are, entrepreneurially, and otherwise; and, how much
20 the budget size is.
21 That should be -- those are usually
22 predominant indicators of what the salaries are
23 going to be.
24 We believe that part of the problem here,
25 from a policy perspective --
63
1 And I also sit on the AG's Leadership
2 Nonprofit Revitalization Committee. We worked with
3 the comptroller, for several years, on their
4 reports.
5 -- everybody's working in silos. No one
6 seems to be looking at nonprofit regulations,
7 compensation in a broad way, contractural processes,
8 procurement processes, payment processes.
9 It's being done across all of the State
10 agencies differently.
11 And, actually, the way the Governor's order
12 is read, it's going to be continued to be done
13 differently, and nobody's looking at it as you would
14 look at businesses' environment, and say:
15 How do we deregulate?
16 How do we eliminate waste; pure waste?
17 How do we make sure we -- the regulations we
18 have are regulations that work, and are
19 cost-effective?
20 And, how does relate to the dollars of the
21 State contract?
22 And, how it does relate to the performance
23 we're buying?
24 None of the conversation today has been about
25 performance.
64
1 Is the State of the New York buying what
2 people are -- what you want to buy?
3 And that's, fundamentally, a question.
4 And most nonprofits will say: You're on an
5 outcome basis, and we have to -- our contracts
6 control every penny we spend, and how we can pay.
7 We can't buy our copy machine. We have to
8 lease a copy machine; but, yet, we're supposed to
9 perform all these things, and we have less and less
10 control.
11 I want to be able to say, the "reasonable"
12 question, and I come at it from a different
13 perspective: I think the IRS is unclear. It's
14 about process.
15 The IRS doesn't seem to be really enforcing
16 compensation, that's way too high, or outside. It
17 seems like it almost has to have an egregious
18 situation. It hits the media before anybody goes
19 and does anything about it.
20 You have, right across the river here, in
21 Troy, a college head that makes 1.9 million.
22 Number six or seven in the country. College isn't
23 even in the top 50.
24 Those things exist, and those things shock
25 the conscience --
65
1 SENATOR MARCELLINO: Can we consolidate?
2 Because --
3 DOUGLAS SAUER: Okay.
4 What we would like to see, is -- is,
5 actually, take a bit of a Connecticut model.
6 We would like to see a comprehensive approach
7 to reform around how the State does business with
8 nonprofits, so this all hangs together, and is
9 logical, and it's not being done in a piecemeal way.
10 State of Connecticut has appointed a liaison
11 out of the governor's office, and just created a
12 cabinet on nonprofit health and human services,
13 specifically looking at:
14 The relationship, the partnership; how it can
15 be a positive partnership;
16 How it can be productive business
17 relationship;
18 Get away -- you know, clarify waste, as well
19 as, trying to make outcomes better on -- at that
20 level.
21 So, we believe that this is the time to
22 actually invest the opportunity this presents, is to
23 really look at the State's contractual business
24 environment, and work together with the State of
25 New York in a comprehensive way, with all of the
66
1 units -- the executive branch, the comptroller, and
2 the AG's office, as opposed to separate silos --
3 with the nonprofits.
4 And this is part of the issue that we have;
5 is that, we have not been at the table to discuss
6 this.
7 We have not been at the table.
8 This is the first time, I think, in terms of
9 this issue, we've been invited.
10 The task force doesn't have not-for-profits
11 on it.
12 The input was, more: What are you doing, and
13 how are you doing it; and what's your ideas?
14 And I think, us, as a sector, we have a stake
15 in this, because it affects us as an entire sector.
16 And from our perspective, we're very
17 concerned. And, we want that good policy that
18 works.
19 And we've really asked that this be done:
20 that we're at the table.
21 I want to take a minute -- just a brief
22 minute -- and say, that, there are things, you know,
23 that hasn't been touched here, in terms of executive
24 compensation; is that, New York State not-for-profit
25 corporation law allows executive directors and
67
1 CEOs to be voting members of the board of
2 directors.
3 So, I can be the boss, and I can be an
4 employee.
5 And that intent that inherently pro -- is a
6 conflict of interest, from our perspective.
7 And there's a lot of arguments about why it
8 should happen, and it's okay.
9 But, you -- we have -- you know, we have
10 things -- processes are set up, that I can do that.
11 Process is set up, I can have family members on our
12 board.
13 So when we talk about independence, and those
14 kind of things, we're adding regulations on top of,
15 perhaps, laws that need to be changed,
16 fundamentally, to begin with, to avoid these
17 circumstances for happening.
18 So, there's my brief testimony.
19 SENATOR MARCELLINO: Thank you.
20 And, I do appreciate your being here and
21 taking the time to do this.
22 These are -- as you well know, these are
23 tough times.
24 The public, as my colleague Senator Diaz
25 said, they're suffering.
68
1 They're suffering economically. They're
2 suffering in a whole bunch of different ways.
3 People are worried about their jobs. They're
4 worried about what's going on in the next minute.
5 It becomes incumbent upon us to look at
6 everything -- and I mean "everything" -- as to how a
7 tax dollar is being spent, and is being used. And,
8 is the taxpayer getting a bang for a buck?
9 We have an obligation to do that.
10 We will, and are, looking at every level of
11 government. Every level of government has received
12 across-the-board cuts.
13 I'm not going to go through the litany of
14 cuts, and reduction in personnel, and everything
15 else, including the Legislature, and including the
16 legislative salaries, and including legislative
17 personnel.
18 All have been reduced/cut over the years in
19 response to fact that the State simply doesn't have
20 enough money to cover a lot of the costs.
21 So, these are tough times.
22 I would just say this to the not-for-profits:
23 As I said at the beginning, we recognize,
24 99 percent, doing a great job.
25 And I don't say that lightly.
69
1 You're doing a great job, and it's
2 appreciated.
3 However, we have an obligation, and we must
4 look at, and for, the 1 percent who are not, who
5 give us all a bad name.
6 I hate it when I see a colleague go to jail.
7 One of my colleagues gets brought up on
8 charges, I don't like it, because it makes me look
9 bad.
10 The public says: Oh, there's another crooked
11 politician. Ha ha ha!
12 I don't like that.
13 I work hard, and so do my -- the colleagues
14 up here. We all work hard; we try to do the best we
15 can.
16 One rotten apple can bring us all down. We
17 all know that.
18 So, we're looking, and we're out there trying
19 to check.
20 So, my message back to your colleagues and --
21 who are working hard in the field: Don't take it
22 personal, because it isn't.
23 We're just doing what we have to do to make
24 sure that we're spending the taxpayers' money
25 appropriately, and making sure that the functions
70
1 that are supposed to be performed, are being
2 performed by the entities who are taking the money
3 to do that.
4 That's our job.
5 To that end: Do members of your
6 organizations, the organizations that you represent,
7 do they have a written policy?
8 Are there written policies for your -- for
9 compensation of executives?
10 Or does it --
11 DOUGLAS SAUER: I think most of them have,
12 because we do a lot of training, and we emphasized
13 that for a number of years.
14 I mean, this -- some of them just laugh at
15 it, and say, you know:
16 What are we going to do, evaluate a person,
17 and whether they're comparable, to find out that we
18 aren't providing benefits, only to say, we don't
19 have the money to provide benefits?
20 So, do we need to go through all these hoops,
21 when we know what we have, in terms of the poor
22 agencies, and the agencies that really are
23 struggling?
24 I'd say, probably, in terms of, maybe
25 40 percent has written policies. 60 to 70 percent
71
1 follows policies.
2 For some of these organizations, it's tough
3 to even --
4 SENATOR MARCELLINO: 40 percent have
5 policies --
6 DOUGLAS SAUER: Yeah. And --
7 SENATOR MARCELLINO: -- and, about, 60 to
8 70 percent follow?
9 DOUGLAS SAUER: -- 60 to 70 follow -- follow.
10 They have practices.
11 SENATOR MARCELLINO: Okay.
12 DOUGLAS SAUER: But they -- again, you talk
13 to a lot of organizations, that: You're talking
14 about documentation, and writing up policies, and,
15 when are we going to be able to do that?
16 You know, because everybody wants written
17 policies.
18 And, most of them practice well, but don't
19 necessarily have all the written documentation on
20 what they do and how they do it.
21 However, I want to say, that, those boards of
22 directors are eager to learn this stuff, and are
23 dying for that information, and dying for assistance
24 on how to do it right.
25 An extraordinary number want to do it right.
72
1 These are volunteers, and boards, that are,
2 just, they're trying to get their organization
3 alive, and trying to raise money at the same time.
4 And, they're looking -- from their
5 perspective, they're looking more behind their back
6 than they're looking forward to solving problems in
7 the community.
8 And that's causing people not to want to
9 serve on these boards anymore.
10 That's a whole other problem.
11 SENATOR MARCELLINO: Do State agencies that
12 you deal with, do they ask for these documents?
13 These policy statements?
14 DOUGLAS SAUER: Some of them do.
15 I mean, there's different accreditations,
16 there's different licensing requirements.
17 I mean, it's all over the place, in terms of,
18 it's not one State agency, Department of Health.
19 And there's a hundred different ways that things are
20 done by the funding stream.
21 And -- but some of them do ask for that.
22 Some of them require that; some of them don't.
23 SENATOR MARCELLINO: Do you feel, in general,
24 that not-for-profits are meeting the IRS
25 requirements?
73
1 DOUGLAS SAUER: By far, yes.
2 SENATOR MARCELLINO: Okay.
3 If you know, what is the -- what would be the
4 average administrator's pay for your association on
5 this?
6 DOUGLAS SAUER: $60,000. $65,000.
7 SENATOR MARCELLINO: In the, sixty,
8 sixty-five thousand dollar range?
9 DOUGLAS SAUER: Yeah, yeah.
10 MICHAEL COONEY: Okay.
11 Can your association members meet the
12 25 percent administrative cost cap?
13 DOUGLAS SAUER: Most of our association
14 members would love to get 15 percent.
15 [Laughter.]
16 And I want to go back to this: That most
17 don't get that.
18 So, again, we're kind of looking at it
19 from -- as if, somehow, it's a luxury.
20 So, a lot of them would like it at
21 15 percent.
22 The only -- Michael mentioned the research
23 foundation.
24 Research foundation gets 40 to 50 percent
25 overhead off State dollars and federal dollars.
74
1 And -- you know, and we look at that.
2 I don't know how much overhead the State of
3 New York takes out of federal dollars when it comes
4 down to the federal -- State -- New York State
5 agencies, and then goes out to not-for-profits.
6 I'll bet you the State of New York takes more
7 than 15 percent for their overhead on that.
8 So, 25 percent is pretty healthy for most
9 [unintelligible].
10 I mean, if you look at what -- and, again,
11 overhead is dependent upon your sophistication in
12 doing cost accounting.
13 The smaller the organization is, the more
14 it's community-based; the less infrastructure it has
15 to do sophisticated cost accounting.
16 Like, they don't allocate space, and it all
17 just goes to overhead rather than our program; or,
18 they take the executive director, who may be
19 spending 30 percent of their time, or 50 percent, on
20 program, but they'll just say, it's 100 percent. --
21 because they aren't sophisticated in doing it.
22 So some of this is going to be an accounting
23 game. And those that can play it, that have the
24 infrastructure, are going to be able to show it, and
25 the smaller organizations may not.
75
1 SENATOR MARCELLINO: Thank you.
2 DOUGLAS SAUER: Uh-huh.
3 SENATOR MARCELLINO: Senator?
4 SENATOR SQUADRON: Thank you very much, and
5 thank you for testifying.
6 And, I want to echo what Chairman Marcellino
7 said; that -- to the extent to which you feel that
8 all of your members are being painted with too broad
9 a brush, to the extent to which we in government are
10 not grateful enough for folks who work in the
11 nonprofit sector, serving their communities every
12 day.
13 I think that's an incredibly important point,
14 as you point out, the average compensation is in the
15 $60,000 range.
16 I do think -- and, then, it's an important --
17 a very important point.
18 I think the other side is true, too.
19 And, you know, I think, at some point you
20 said today, concerns me a little bit, because I'm
21 hearing that there's no problem at all.
22 And I think we need to acknowledge the vast,
23 vast majority of organizations (a) are so small that
24 this threshold would never affect them, or cut in
25 half, (b) are doing everything they can in the most
76
1 precise, responsible way possible.
2 I got to tell you, though, looking at
3 articles -- Senator Diaz raised one earlier, it's
4 been out -- it seems to me there is a problem --
5 DOUGLAS SAUER: There is --
6 SENATOR SQUADRON: -- and there's been a
7 problem. And there's a lot of dollars associated
8 with that problem.
9 It's -- if -- absolutely, a small number of
10 individuals, and even organizations, but, we agree
11 there's a problem?
12 DOUGLAS SAUER: Oh, yeah, I totally agree.
13 I started that off; there a problem that
14 needs to be eliminated.
15 I don't think a $199,000 cap to State
16 investments, what you're going to buy out of a
17 salary, does that, because, is the problem excessive
18 compensation?
19 SENATOR SQUADRON: What level cap does?
20 DOUGLAS SAUER: Huh?
21 SENATOR SQUADRON: What level of cap does?
22 DOUGLAS SAUER: Well, it's -- we're talking
23 about two different things.
24 We're talking about, what somebody gets paid
25 versus how much the State wants to pay towards that.
77
1 There is nothing that I've seen, that says
2 you want to go after overall salaries of nonprofits.
3 And it's -- so, I could still make
4 $1.5 million, and, as long as I account, that, less
5 $199,000 of State monies, I can still make the
6 1.5 million.
7 So, is the issue the -- is the issue:
8 The sticker shock from, Wow, that's a lot of
9 money for a health-care company?
10 Or is the issue, is, Well, we're just
11 limiting what we pay for it?
12 SENATOR SQUADRON: Well, in your view,
13 what --
14 DOUGLAS SAUER: So, perhaps --
15 SENATOR SQUADRON: -- in your view, what's
16 the issue?
17 The overall -- you would say, the overall
18 compensation?
19 DOUGLAS SAUER: I think the overall is more
20 of a problem than how much State should say -- the
21 State should buy what it wants to buy.
22 SENATOR SQUADRON: So, the overall --
23 DOUGLAS SAUER: And [unintelligible] comes
24 attached to that.
25 So I think it's less about, how much the
78
1 State is buying, because you make that decision
2 through a procurement process, what you want to buy.
3 And I think the issue, from a public's
4 perspective is, some of these salaries are just
5 outrageous, and --
6 SENATOR SQUADRON: So what's a good cap on
7 salaries, in your view?
8 DOUGLAS SAUER: What's a good cap at
9 salaries?
10 Uhm...
11 I think, if -- this is my personal opinion,
12 and, certainly, from a legal perspective, they'll
13 say --
14 SENATOR MARCELLINO: We won't tell anybody.
15 DOUGLAS SAUER: -- [unintelligible] --
16 Pardon?
17 SENATOR MARCELLINO: We won't tell anybody.
18 DOUGLAS SAUER: Well, I'll tell you, if
19 somebody's making a million dollars, I think you
20 really got to stand back and look at it.
21 And to be honest with you, if somebody's
22 making $500,000, I think you really got to step back
23 and look at it.
24 I'd rather focus on that, than too broad a --
25 establish a whole bureaucracy that's looking at a
79
1 much more broader map.
2 SENATOR SQUADRON: So, in some ways, your
3 concern with the executive order, is it gives too
4 much flexibility?
5 That, it protects, sort of, the State dollar,
6 but it doesn't actually deal with the issue --
7 DOUGLAS SAUER: The issue --
8 SENATOR SQUADRON: -- in your view?
9 DOUGLAS SAUER: The issue that you we have
10 with outside establishments, it doesn't deal --
11 again, what's the issue that we're talking about?
12 But I -- I am confident that a lot of the
13 higher-paid ones are still going to continue in
14 their same processes, and it's just matter of
15 getting a waiver.
16 There is some e-mails that went out, right up
17 to -- the day after the executive order, out to
18 certain executives, saying -- from some trade
19 association, saying: Don't worry about this.
20 You're going to get a carve-out.
21 It's like everything else: The strong lobby
22 groups get carve-outs on these things; and the ones
23 that aren't -- don't have much of a voice in the
24 halls, don't.
25 So, I don't -- I wonder if it's going to
80
1 solve anything.
2 I think a lot of larger ones are still going
3 to get by.
4 SENATOR SQUADRON: I don't want to speak for
5 the Governor, but it seems to me, reading the
6 executive order, that its goal is to protect State
7 dollars.
8 In a time where there's not a lot of State
9 dollars, it's to protect State dollars, and not to,
10 sort of, overdefine a sector that, you know, as
11 we've heard from the previous witnesses, as we're
12 hearing from you, is so diverse, in terms of, the
13 size of organizations, source of funding, services
14 they provide.
15 So, you know, I think that the focus -- and
16 we could talk about whether this is the one that you
17 think is wise -- is the focus, is, not spending
18 State dollars on wildly high compensations.
19 DOUGLAS SAUER: But how much money are you
20 spending on trying to find that out?
21 And what's going to be the end result of what
22 you change?
23 SENATOR SQUADRON: Well, certainly, a
24 fraction of some of the high --
25 DOUGLAS SAUER: And who's evaluating that?
81
1 So, I'm wondering whether that's a solution
2 that's being proposed; whether you -- really, is
3 going to be it; because, all they got to do is,
4 manipulate how much money's coming into my salary
5 from the State government.
6 SENATOR SQUADRON: Right.
7 DOUGLAS SAUER: That's all you gotta do.
8 So, I'm going to still make -- I'm still
9 going to be the CEO making $1.5 million.
10 What have you changed?
11 You've spent tax dollars, kind of, going
12 after an issue that you really probably won't
13 change.
14 And, it's probably the smaller ones that are
15 gonna put up a lot of money that they don't have,
16 trying to deal with the regulation; much less, have
17 multiple State agencies, have waivers, and they all
18 establish their own criteria, and they have their
19 own influences.
20 And if I have an OASIS bud- -- funds, and I
21 have OMH funds, and OMRDD funds, I got three
22 different State agencies now I got to go through
23 regulatory waivers that have different criteria.
24 I mean, it's bureaucracy.
25 SENATOR SQUADRON: And I -- just in the
82
1 interest of time, look, I think that the concerns
2 you raised, especially relative to some of the
3 smaller organization, some of the
4 less-handsomely-paid administrators and executives,
5 as -- you know, you have a very sympathetic hearing
6 here.
7 A lot of the work that I've done in the
8 Senate has been supporting such organizations.
9 We need to have a solution, though.
10 DOUGLAS SAUER: Uh-huh.
11 SENATOR SQUADRON: And I would love to hear a
12 solution coming from your organization.
13 I think I might have heard, a $500,000 hard
14 cap, rather than this formed one, which I think is
15 one that we should, you know, seriously consider,
16 and look at.
17 DOUGLAS SAUER: If you -- yeah, I --
18 SENATOR SQUADRON: But, again, the simple
19 fact that there's going to be gaming;
20 There's going to be -- you know, that any
21 solution, when you try to increase flexibility
22 increases the ability to game the system, that's
23 just life, I don't think is a reason to leave the
24 status quo.
25 Because, I got to tell you, when I look at
83
1 some of the compensation levels, some of these
2 organizations that are nonprofits in name, but, in
3 fact, are 97 percent, 99 percent, funded by taxpayer
4 dollars.
5 You know, it's funny, we have 2,500 State and
6 City employees -- New York City and New York State
7 employees -- who make more than 2,500 -- make more
8 then $200,000 a year.
9 2,500 of them.
10 And, so, there's certainly a case, that, when
11 you're doing good work, and you're doing public
12 service, you should make money.
13 Of course, one of them is the golden
14 parachute for the former coach at SUNY Binghamton.
15 But, even that aside, you have 2,499.
16 And -- the question, though, is: Why these
17 folks should be making in the range of 200 to 500,
18 200 to 300, while you have folks who are, basically,
19 essentially, State-funded, making in the millions.
20 DOUGLAS SAUER: And are we --
21 SENATOR SQUADRON: And that has to be solved,
22 and we need a solution for that.
23 DOUGLAS SAUER: Are we talking about
24 for-profits, too, in this?
25 Are we talking about for-profits that
84
1 contract with the State of New York?
2 Or, because you're a for-profit, and you can
3 make money -- you can much, much money off the state
4 taxpayers as you want?
5 Are we including those?
6 SENATOR MARCELLINO: Actually, the Governor's
7 executive order was slightly vague on that.
8 It does reach into the for-profits. And,
9 that is a situation that has to be looked at as
10 well.
11 Do we want to or not? That's another
12 question.
13 The other point, though, here, is, the tax
14 dollars, and how it's being spent.
15 And I think that's where we want to focus
16 ourselves on, on that; and whether or not the
17 Governor's executive order goes, I think, a little
18 bit further than he might want it to.
19 That's something we have to look at.
20 DOUGLAS SAUER: Let me --
21 SENATOR SQUADRON: And, again, we -- and,
22 just -- and I'm gonna just -- I've taken up too much
23 time.
24 But, again, I do appreciate what I heard
25 might have been a proposal, to just have the hard
85
1 $500,000 cap.
2 That's a different direction than the
3 Governor went, but, that's what this hearing is for.
4 We have a problem. We all need to agree we
5 need a solution. And, there are probably different
6 ways to make that happen.
7 DOUGLAS SAUER: Just --
8 SENATOR SQUADRON: Thank you very much.
9 DOUGLAS SAUER: Yeah, I would just like to
10 make one comment about the for-profit, because that
11 needs to be considered.
12 I know this Senate has passed, and it didn't
13 get signed, L3C legislation: Social-responsible
14 for-profit corporations.
15 And, there's a whole talk about
16 entrepreneurs, and all that, and diverting money
17 from charitable organizations over these for-profits
18 that do social re- -- that don't have to report
19 their compensation, because making money means they
20 can be more successful.
21 So, if we look at this, I think, if it's
22 about take State -- State tax dollars going towards
23 buying, what, and is it worth it? -- it doesn't
24 matter if it's for-profit or nonprofit.
25 If that's what this is about.
86
1 SENATOR SQUADRON: And just as a note: That
2 "benefit corporation" bill was my bill, and there's
3 no tax benefit. So, those corporations are paying
4 taxes, which --
5 DOUGLAS SAUER: Well, they don't have to
6 report their compensation.
7 SENATOR SQUADRON: But, yes -- but they pay
8 taxes.
9 DOUGLAS SAUER: Yeah, but they do not report
10 compensation.
11 SENATOR SQUADRON: That's correct.
12 DOUGLAS SAUER: And we're talking about
13 compensation.
14 SENATOR MARCELLINO: Senator Zeldin?
15 SENATOR ZELDIN: Well, two points.
16 First of all, great presentation.
17 Thanks for being here.
18 And I would agree, that you should -- should
19 have a seat at the table, especially representing so
20 many small- and medium-sized not-for-profits.
21 So, I'm glad Senator Marcellino invited you
22 to be here to testify.
23 It sounded like you have a lot of very
24 specific ideas of the way that the State can be more
25 friendly towards all those not-for-profits doing the
87
1 right thing.
2 My office happens to be 802, the LOB. And
3 I -- you know, we all have offices that probably
4 would love to see, specifically, some of your
5 thoughts, because, you started getting into a lot of
6 them. For the sake only time, can't get into all of
7 them with the sufficient amount of details.
8 So, my first is just a request to please
9 provide me with the details of what you're referring
10 to.
11 The second part, the -- there is a problem.
12 And, you know, Senator Squadron, really, you
13 know, he just hit on it, really, that that was --
14 really, that was where I was going with it as well.
15 Just because you have so many members that
16 are doing the right thing, I -- what happened over
17 the summer, as we were just watching, just every
18 single day, all of these seven-figure abuse stories
19 coming out, the legis- -- we have to do something.
20 DOUGLAS SAUER: Thank you.
21 SENATOR ZELDIN: I mean, you hear -- I mean,
22 one of the stories, you know, hundreds of millions
23 of dollars of one, you know, overbilling, Medicaid.
24 "Hundreds of millions of dollars."
25 So, it's -- it's a problem.
88
1 And I think that, maybe, even your members
2 should want us to tackle that larger problem,
3 because it would help make the public discourse one
4 that would be more beneficial to the entire
5 industry.
6 DOUGLAS SAUER: I totally agree.
7 SENATOR MARCELLINO: Thank you.
8 Thank you, Doug. We'll be talking.
9 DOUGLAS SAUER: Thank you.
10 [Senator Diaz leaves the hearing room.]
11 SENATOR MARCELLINO: The next speaker is
12 James Lytle, who is a partner in Manatt Phelps &
13 Phillips, LLP, who will be testifying on behalf of:
14 The Association for Community Living;
15 Black Agency Executives;
16 Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of
17 New York;
18 Catholic Charities Neighborhood Services,
19 Diocese of Brooklyn and Queens;
20 Coalition of Behavioral Health Agencies;
21 And, several others, including UJA Federation
22 of New York, just to keep it balanced.
23 JAMES LYTLE: Fair enough.
24 Thank you very much, Senator Marcellino, and
25 members of the Committee.
89
1 I do appreciate the opportunity to testify
2 today on behalf of what's, actually, 17 associations
3 and coalitions of not-for-profit entities.
4 And I can understand why you spared all of us
5 the entire list.
6 These organizations represent hundreds of
7 not-for-profit organizations that contract with
8 New York State and provide essential services.
9 We, obviously, appreciate why we're here.
10 And, the concerns that have been raised over
11 these issues, and believe that there are steps that
12 could be taken to address the concerns that have
13 been raised.
14 We do believe, however, that even
15 well-intentioned proposals to address these issues
16 could have some unintended consequences, and make it
17 very difficult for legitimate not-for-profit
18 organizations to recruit the leadership that they
19 need, to meet their mission, and to meet the
20 purposes for which the State's contracted with them.
21 We -- I really have just four objectives.
22 And thanks to, both, the passion that
23 Mr. Sauer offered and the expertise that
24 Mr. Cooney offered, I can narrow down my points to
25 the things that I think I can really emphasize.
90
1 The first is, really, to emphasize the role
2 that the not-for-profit sector plays in New York, at
3 least briefly.
4 Not-for-profit entities are a significant
5 part of this state's economy: Provide employment
6 with a million New Yorkers; provide the lion's share
7 of health and mental health and other human services
8 to all New Yorkers; and, are irreplaceable parts of
9 the safety net that we provide for our most
10 vulnerable citizens.
11 There are tens of thousands, obviously, of
12 not-for-profits in the state, many of whom have
13 total revenues less than $199,000, and are,
14 obviously, not going to be seriously affected by the
15 cap.
16 There are others that receive over
17 a billion dollars in State support, and are,
18 obviously, in a different situation with respect to
19 the level of complexity of the operations that
20 they're entrusted with, with handling.
21 22,000 active State contracts exist with
22 not-for-profits, according to the State
23 Comptroller's Office.
24 And I think, if you've seen one of those
25 22,000 State contracts, you've probably seen one of
91
1 those 22,000 State contracts. They run the gamut of
2 services, from meals for the elderly, housing for
3 the homeless. Everything, from prenatal care, to
4 hospice care, community residences for disabled
5 individuals, daycare services.
6 Over 1.2 million people in New York are
7 employed in not-for-profit organizations.
8 Of the top twenty employers in New York,
9 nine are not-for-profit; four of the number within
10 the top ten of employees [sic].
11 And, on Long Island alone, for Senator Zeldin
12 and Senator Marcellino, 11 percent of all employment
13 on Long Island, public and private, are with -- are
14 in not-for-profit organization.
15 Overall payroll on Long Island, according to
16 the Long Island Association for this sector, is
17 6.4 billion. And they generate, in addition, in
18 other jobs in the for-profit sector, an additional
19 132,000 -- I'm sorry -- another 88,000 jobs in the
20 for-profit sector.
21 The economic contributions in the
22 not-for-profit sector are, obviously, not why
23 they're here.
24 They're here to perform essential public
25 services at the express urging of New York State.
92
1 They are the private part of the
2 public-private partnership that is often talked
3 about. And they've been contracted by the State
4 because the State's come to the conclusion that they
5 can do it more cost-effectively, and at, generally,
6 higher quality than the State can provide these
7 services itself.
8 Just like every other sector of the economy,
9 the not-for-profit sector's also been hit by the
10 recession. Deep cuts in governmental support, as
11 Doug has indicated, compounded by reductions in
12 charitable giving, have put a lot of not-for-profit
13 organizations in significant financial distress.
14 Mr. Cooney made my second point, which is,
15 that not-for-profit corporations are already subject
16 to very close and careful scrutiny, not only by the
17 Attorney General's Office, but by the
18 Internal Revenue Service.
19 And, I don't think I need to reiterate those
20 requirements, except to say, that the most sensible
21 approach, in our judgment, is to build on what
22 exists, in terms of the existing regulatory
23 structure, and strengthen it, to make it even
24 clearer that not-for-profit boards ought to be held
25 accountable for the decisions they make, with
93
1 respect to executive compensation, administrative
2 costs, and the balance of issues that they have to
3 address.
4 I should point out, that on the
5 administrative-cost side in particular, as I think
6 Mr. Sauer mentioned, just about every State agency
7 has an approach to try to limit the amount it pays
8 for overhead. It varies all over the lot, and it
9 does -- it makes sense to vary, to some degree,
10 because the nature of the services being provided
11 are different.
12 Overhead in one agency is probably not going
13 to be comparable to another, dependent on the nature
14 of the services that are being provided.
15 So, turning to the proposals that the
16 Governor advanced through the budget and through the
17 executive order, what they would do is subject every
18 entity that contracts with the State to a
19 "one size fits all" limitation, both on executive
20 compensation and on administrative expense, that
21 don't take into account the unique nature of the
22 contracting entities, would seriously damage, we
23 believe, the recruitment of qualified executive
24 leadership in the sector, and would, we think, be
25 ultimately unworkable, and probably unfair responses
94
1 to a problem that I think, as the other witnesses
2 have indicated, prob- -- and as you have conceded,
3 probably requires more of a surgical-laser approach
4 than a sledgehammer.
5 Again, we know why we're here: abuses have
6 occurred.
7 No evidence has been advanced, by anyone so
8 far, that suggests that these abuses are either
9 widespread or particularly unpunished when they have
10 occurred.
11 A single statewide cap on administrative
12 expenses and executive compensation, we don't think
13 is the answer.
14 The "one size fits all" approach, basically,
15 to address the compensation and administrative
16 spending practice of tens of thousands of
17 not-for-profit organizations, really won't
18 effectively curb excessive compensation by a handful
19 of offending entities, and will do harm to an
20 already fragile not-for-profit sector.
21 Rather than focusing limited enforcement and
22 regulatory resources on all of the entities that
23 contract with New York, I think, if a proposals
24 could be developed that would target the abusers --
25 those individuals, those organizations -- that have
95
1 clearly exceeded the standards that have already
2 existed in law for a decade or more, and would hold
3 those organizations under account.
4 The problems with the proposals that are
5 before the legislature, and contained in the
6 executive order, are, among others:
7 They fail to recognize the vast disparities
8 in the contracting entities, and very significant
9 variations among them, including, their size, the
10 complexity, their location, where costs obviously
11 vary, and, the nature of the services that they
12 render;
13 They ignore the specialized expertise and
14 experience that may be required to lead those
15 organizations.
16 It's been mentioned, for example, on the
17 behavioral-health world, that there have been
18 allegations of excessive compensation, some of them
19 justified.
20 But, you have a situation, where you're
21 hiring a child psychiatrist to oversee an important
22 program, one has to take into account the -- what
23 the market is for persons with those sorts of
24 specialized expertise, you would deprive
25 not-for-profit organizations of the ability to
96
1 compete for the best executive leadership.
2 Maybe more than anything else, it's our view
3 that it's -- the proposal, as advanced, again,
4 well-intentioned and courageous effort to put down a
5 marker on this issue, is, ultimately, unworkable.
6 If it means, as you were discussing,
7 Senator Squadron, that this is a hard cap on
8 not-for-profit corporation, or, if were modified to
9 be such, it would almost surely, first of all, be
10 subject to a challenge by one or more of the larger
11 not-for-profits -- universities, health-care
12 systems, et cetera -- that would contend that they
13 may have, first of all, contractual obligations to
14 their executive leadership. But most importantly,
15 they would argue that they're using other resources
16 to supplement these salaries that may be beyond the
17 State's ability to limit.
18 So, if -- if even the largest not-for-profits
19 were then subject to a hard cap on compensation, you
20 would almost certainly result in a host of waivers
21 and exceptions, implemented by the various State
22 agencies, that would question whether this proposal,
23 in fact, is fair and even-handed in its approach.
24 On the other hand, if it only affects those
25 organizations that receive, all, or most, of their
97
1 money from State resources, it would
2 disproportionately impact on those organizations
3 that primarily serve the most disadvantaged
4 New Yorkers; and as a result, have to rely more on
5 State support than anything else.
6 So, if, on the one hand, the for-profit and
7 not-for-profit entities that have a lot of other
8 revenues and can supplement compensation, can
9 effectively continue to exceed the compensation cap,
10 and not worry about the administrative-cost
11 limitation, you would be left with a proposal that
12 treats one set of organizations one way; other
13 organizations that have to rely more on State
14 resources, differently.
15 And, I don't think any proposal that
16 particularly targets the organizations that serve
17 the most disadvantaged New Yorkers should be
18 entertained.
19 One of the dilemmas of this, it seems to me,
20 is that it goes counter to some other important
21 State policies as we try to aggregate organizations;
22 whether they're school districts, State agencies, or
23 not-for-profit organizations, to make them more
24 cost-effective, and more efficient in providing
25 services.
98
1 I know, I'm currently representing a number
2 of entities in this community, and elsewhere, that
3 are merging, to form larger, ultimately, more
4 efficient, cost-effective organizations that serve
5 the public interest.
6 It is hard to imagine, that if you have two
7 organizations, each of which, under this proposal,
8 can properly pay their executives $199,000; or, say,
9 you have three or four such organizations that
10 decide to merge, to become more cost-effective, that
11 you're gonna pay the executive, at the end of the
12 day, of this merged organization, the same amount,
13 not withstanding the increase in complexity, and the
14 increased responsibilities that that larger
15 organization would have to fulfill.
16 As I noted, there are a multitude of already
17 existing requirements that try to limit overhead
18 costs and administrative costs, because everyone
19 agrees that getting direct services to the people
20 who need them, Senator Diaz noted in his comments
21 earlier, is the key.
22 The problem is, that by taking a -- an across
23 the board approach about what that level of
24 administrative expense should be, you ignore very,
25 very different circumstances in different agencies.
99
1 I was told, for example, that, for people who
2 provide residential services for children with
3 serious emotional disturbances, heat and food are
4 included within the calculation of the
5 administrative expenses.
6 It -- other organi- -- other State agencies
7 define "administrative expenses" in different ways.
8 To then have, across the board, the
9 administrative expenses have to equal or be less
10 than some threshold is just simply not going to
11 work.
12 There's a lot that, obviously, remains to be
13 defined from the executive order and the
14 legislation.
15 I understood, from discussions with the
16 members of the Executive Chamber, that maybe
17 benchmarks will be used, to try to set cat- -- set
18 salaries in different kinds of organizations, to
19 take into account the complexity of this task, and
20 the fact that some organizations, as I say, may
21 receive $50,000 in State support, and others receive
22 in excess of a billion dollars of State support.
23 The problem is, it's hard to imagine the
24 bureaucracy that will have to be established to make
25 all of the benchmarks for all of the different kinds
100
1 of entities that are being funded out there, to
2 update them, presumably, from time to time.
3 It seems like an overwhelmingly complicated
4 task, and not something, frankly, that government is
5 probably very good at.
6 Two examples of how government seems to be --
7 SENATOR MARCELLINO: We're very good at
8 bureaucracy.
9 [Laughter.]
10 JAMES LYTLE: Well, not to make a point
11 that's close to home, but, the legislature has
12 struggled, for example, with how to deal with
13 judicial compensation;
14 And, has struggled how to compensate its own
15 members.
16 And I don't think either of those examples
17 demonstrate that the State typically does a very
18 good job of making compensation decisions that are
19 fair, and that recognize the value of people's
20 services.
21 So, what do you do instead of all of this?
22 Instead of injecting some sort of
23 bureaucratic approach to try to set up salaries that
24 range the limit from the size and complexity of
25 these various organizations, I think there's a
101
1 better way to make sure that not-for-profit boards
2 of directors understand what their obligations are,
3 and are held to them, along the lines that
4 Mr. Cooney also suggested.
5 If we take the IRS guidelines, and enshrine
6 them in the not-for-profit corporation law, and make
7 them even clearer, to the extent they need to be, so
8 that compensation policies have to be adopted across
9 the board by not-for-profit entities, and they have
10 to be prepared to defend the compensation decisions
11 they make, I think we would go a long way to
12 improving the current situation.
13 And, second: Authorize the attorney general
14 to investigate and enforce those requirements.
15 It's the Attorney General's Office that's
16 been given this responsibility in New York State, to
17 oversee the charities. The Charities Bureau has
18 been aggressive in doing so.
19 If a not-for-profit refuses to comply, and
20 doesn't meet -- doesn't -- can't demonstrate that it
21 meets these standards, the contract with that
22 not-for-profit could be terminated, and the board of
23 that organization could be held accountable.
24 It may be necessary to provide additional
25 resources to the Attorney General's Office to
102
1 undertake this task. And I think efforts could be
2 made to identify those resources through reasonable
3 fees on the not-for-profit sector, if necessary.
4 And, finally: Require State agencies to
5 adopt reasonable administrative-costs limitations,
6 as, frankly, most of them already have, but make
7 sure that they meet the State's need, to make sure
8 that dollars end up at the people with services to
9 the people who require them.
10 It might even be worth considering -- I hate
11 to suggest yet another commission to address an
12 issue -- but, the -- and, perhaps, one could build
13 on the existing task force, Senator, that you serve
14 on -- to study this issue, and give it the care and
15 consideration that it requires.
16 It doesn't need to take a very long time to
17 come to those conclusions, but some serious look at
18 the best way to approach these issues, I think is
19 necessary.
20 As you said, Senator, taking a broad brush
21 towards this industry, and coming up with an
22 across-the-board solution, would be like a
23 characterizing the legislature in an unfair way for
24 the misdeeds of a very small minority of its
25 members.
103
1 I -- as far as we know, the data that was
2 submitted to the task force has still not been
3 analyzed. There's been no report from the task
4 force.
5 At least, we should get the benefit of that
6 that analysis and that guidance before we proceed to
7 adopt some sweeping new rules, that I think will do
8 more harm to the prudent, compliant, not-for-profit
9 organizations, and not sufficiently target the
10 actual wrongdoers.
11 So, I appreciate your consideration of my
12 testimony, and the hearing today, and I certainly
13 would be happy to answer any questions.
14 SENATOR MARCELLINO: Thank you very much.
15 It's my understanding, with the task force,
16 they're still in receiving data.
17 One of things I think that has slowed that
18 down is the volume, and the extent of the
19 questionnaire, which, as you -- as has been pointed
20 out before, was quite expensive.
21 JAMES LYTLE: Yes.
22 SENATOR MARCELLINO: The Governor, when he
23 was AG, recommended, and it became law, a
24 consolidation law.
25 We recognize there are 140,000 not-for-profit
104
1 entities.
2 The Governor points out, when he was AG, that
3 there are, literally, thousands of taxing entities
4 in this State, and felt that there were, perhaps,
5 too many, and, it was worth taking a hard look and
6 consolidating them, and providing a procedural
7 mechanism for consolidation.
8 Hence this, the law.
9 For record, I voted against that law.
10 Are there too many not-for-profit
11 organizations out there?
12 Should there be consolidation within the
13 fields?
14 JAMES LYTLE: I think it is incumbent on
15 every not-for-profit organization to ask itself that
16 question: Are there ways in which we could perform
17 the mission that we're asked to perform in a way
18 that would be more cost-effective, more efficient,
19 more powerful, in terms of its ultimate impact, if
20 we linked up with some other organization and did
21 it?
22 I don't know with the right number is.
23 I suspect that that is called for.
24 And the reality is, that's exactly what the
25 not-for-profit world has been doing. There has been
105
1 a substantial amount of consolidation.
2 And, again, I think it ultimately runs in the
3 wrong direction of the -- this executive order runs
4 in the wrong direction; will actually discourage
5 that from happening.
6 But, I do think there are some efficiencies.
7 And I -- as I say, I'm in midst of helping
8 four different organizations, in two different
9 transactions, bring their work together, here in
10 this community.
11 And, it's happening all across the state.
12 SENATOR MARCELLINO: I mentioned before, the
13 idea of making administrative costs, somehow
14 defining them, and then making them a percentage, or
15 capping them at a percentage, of the overall budget.
16 If you're going to use tax dollars, making
17 them a percentage of the overall budget.
18 What do you think about that?
19 JAMES LYTLE: Well, I think, as -- as
20 Mr. Cooney said, I think that is one of the
21 factors that could be taken into account.
22 If, actually, I think, as he suggested,
23 certainly, I would make the point that that could
24 result -- if it was used for compensation purposes;
25 that compensation should be no more than a certain
106
1 percentage, it could result in very excessive
2 compensation in some of these large organizations,
3 and insufficient compensation in some of the smaller
4 ones.
5 But, it is a factor. It, certainly -- there
6 is, among the different things that should be
7 considered, it seems to me, a legitimate factor.
8 The complicating fact -- or, the complicating
9 nature of this issue, is that there's a lot of other
10 issues that have to be consider as well.
11 Perhaps most significantly: What does it
12 take to recruit someone, looking at the for-profit
13 and not-for-profit world, to lead an organization of
14 the sort that we're discussing? -- whether it's a
15 university; a comp -- comprehensive health system
16 that may extend over an entire region, have a number
17 of hospitals as part of it; or some other equally
18 complex organization.
19 And I think that is the other missing element
20 to take into account, which is what the IRS
21 guidelines are intended to do.
22 So, what is it that it takes to hire a
23 qualified person to perform these responsibilities,
24 taking into account, if there's some specific
25 professional licensure, or other requirements that
107
1 the job, essentially, entails?
2 I take the risk of responding on behalf of an
3 organization that hasn't asked me to, that was the
4 subject of the story that Mr. Diaz -- that
5 Senator Diaz mentioned in today's "New York Post."
6 The organization receives in excess -- I
7 think it is -- it's certainly in excess of a billion
8 dollars, it may be more than a billion dollars, to,
9 basically, provide health-care services to Medicaid
10 recipients all across New York State.
11 By every evidence, over the last ten years or
12 so, the Department of Health has been convinced that
13 this organization, and organizations like it, have
14 done that in a way that's saved the State
15 significant amounts of money, and has provided a
16 better quality of health care for the people who
17 receive those benefits.
18 If you weren't going to hire that
19 organization, and that CEO, to run the -- to provide
20 those benefits, about -- one of the few other
21 options the State would have, would be the contract
22 with a commercial, maybe a national publicly traded
23 health insurance company to do the same thing; some
24 of whom are also in the same business, and they pay
25 their executives a lot more than he's being paid.
108
1 And, now, it's very difficult, under these
2 circumstances, and given what Senator Diaz
3 mentioned, to feel comfortable with levels of
4 compensation that are over a certain level.
5 But the reality is, you could not recruit
6 somebody to have a job like that.
7 No similar health plan in the country pays
8 $199,000 to someone to perform that service.
9 SENATOR MARCELLINO: Go ahead.
10 SENATOR SQUADRON: Thank you very much for
11 your thoughtful testimony, and I do have to say,
12 that some of, I think, the most important
13 organizations in the state, you're here on behalf of
14 today.
15 So, I appreciate that.
16 And as I said a couple of times today, you
17 know, I think, that as you look at this list, our
18 state would be bereft without them.
19 So, it's an important point.
20 I also appreciate that you did
21 proposal alternatives here.
22 It sounds like the hard-cap proposal that
23 came up in the last witness's testimony, or
24 answering questions, was not one that you think
25 makes a lot of sense, at whatever level it's at.
109
1 Is that fair to say?
2 JAMES LYTLE: I don't think so, Senator.
3 SENATOR SQUADRON: So here's the challenge,
4 though, and I think you lay it out well:
5 I think you lay out some of the real
6 challenges for the hard cap;
7 I think you lay out some of the real
8 challenges with, sort of, the structure of the
9 current executive order;
10 And you then lay out a third option.
11 I think one of the problems with the third
12 option, is, as you point out in your testimony,
13 there are 27,000 of these organizations in the
14 state.
15 You know, the attorney general, we've seen
16 over the last couple of administrations, not the
17 current one, extraordinarily effective, but with
18 really limited resources.
19 And as we know, the Charities Bureau really
20 is empowered to deal with some of these IRS
21 regulations, if they so chose; or to deal with
22 executive compensation during a number of other
23 provisions of State law that allowed them to oversee
24 nonprofits.
25 So, the issue here isn't really changing
110
1 State law, to give the attorney general power they
2 don't have.
3 The problem is, none -- so we're going to
4 have three solutions on the table, none of which get
5 at the problem here.
6 You also -- and I appreciate this --
7 acknowledge there is a problem.
8 So, it's a little bit of a pickle.
9 JAMES LYTLE: I agree.
10 And I don't -- and I think, if there's one
11 message I'm attempting to leave, is that this issue
12 is a lot more complicated than -- than maybe -- that
13 some of the conversations in the news media would
14 suggest.
15 But I think the -- and the notion that we
16 give, both, resources, and some sort of an
17 enforcement mechanism to the Attorney General's
18 Office, to get involved in overseeing this in a more
19 effective way, is worth pursuing.
20 I'm not -- I leave it to the
21 Attorney General's Office to give us a sense of what
22 that would take.
23 It's worth noting, that the attorney general
24 already plays have very important role in approving
25 State contracts in New York. It's something which
111
1 the not-for-profit community sometimes complains
2 about, because of the delays that are encountered in
3 the -- along the way through the various approvals,
4 but, they have that ability.
5 If issues are raised, and the -- and, so,
6 they have that ability.
7 The information about the compensation levels
8 of every executive in the not-for-profit sector is,
9 as we've already heard, easily available.
10 So, if there is a concern about that level of
11 compensation, when that contract arrives at the
12 attorney general's desk, it doesn't strike me as
13 unreasonable to imagine a situation where the
14 attorney general then asked that organization to
15 provide it with the information -- to provide the
16 Office the information that supports that
17 compensation, determination that demonstrates that
18 the appropriate procedure was followed.
19 And, the attorney general doesn't approve the
20 contract if he or she isn't satisfied with the
21 answers to those questions.
22 SENATOR SQUADRON: Right, and I think we're
23 talking about, potentially, emptying the ocean with
24 a bucket, is one of the concerns; right?
25 JAMES LYTLE: Uh-huh.
112
1 SENATOR SQUADRON: And, again, you know, when
2 you look at the compensation, just of State
3 employees, whether the presidents of a -- of public
4 hospitals, or the major public authorities, or real
5 experts who work either in the SUNY system, or the
6 CUNY system, or in medical education, you know, you
7 certainly do see that even the State has
8 compensations over the 199 level.
9 You don't see -- you see some very, very
10 high-quality people working for the State, and you
11 don't see these levels that are so extraordinarily
12 high.
13 And, again, as I pointed out earlier, some of
14 these nonprofits you're talking about, being funded,
15 not, you know, at a significant level with State
16 dollars, but, essentially, every dollar coming from
17 the State.
18 And, just so I understand: It's your view
19 that, for these non-profits that are paying well
20 above what any State employee makes, including the
21 very high-level State employees that run very
22 complex, large organizations, or entities, and with
23 a great deal of expertise, that what they're doing
24 is so different, and the -- the competitive
25 environment for talent is so different, than what we
113
1 see at the State, that folks should be making,
2 six, seven, eight times what the same State employee
3 would be making, still being funded, you know, at
4 least, 98 percent with State dollars? 97 percent
5 with State dollars?
6 JAMES LYTLE: I think it's very difficult to
7 draw clear comparisons between these roles.
8 As someone who spent much of my prior life in
9 both the public sector and the not-for-profit
10 sector, there is a degree to which people assume
11 there is a sacrifice in doing so, as you all have,
12 obviously, also made that commitment.
13 And, it is not unreasonable to therefore
14 assume that people in either the public or
15 not-for-profit sector are not going be making the
16 same amount that they might make in other sectors.
17 I -- it's very hard, I think, to compare this
18 position to that position.
19 I think each compensation decision should be
20 very carefully scrutinized, but, on the merits of
21 that particular position.
22 And with, then, one of the questions being --
23 maybe not only one -- but one of the questions being
24 asked, is: What does it take in the broader
25 marketplace, for people who have the skills
114
1 necessary to do that job, to hire someone for that
2 role?
3 And, in the not-for-profit sector, if you're
4 going make a determination to pay someone a high and
5 competitive salary to do that, it's under the
6 assumption that, somehow, they're bringing such
7 competent leadership to the organization that it
8 will pay dividends to the organization.
9 And, you know, in the classic case of the
10 college president who ends up raising more money
11 than they're possibly with being paid, or, building
12 an institution that provides the kind of education
13 and stature that the trustees have asked this person
14 to do, is -- you know, in some general sense, is
15 worth the money that they're being paid for.
16 SENATOR SQUADRON: And the "exception"
17 provision here doesn't answer that?
18 JAMES LYTLE: Well, I think I worry about
19 having a situation where, 199, or some other number,
20 is the norm; and, then, everyone lines up with their
21 request for why they deserve something more than
22 that.
23 The risk is, again, not withstanding the best
24 intentions of the folks who have to make those
25 decisions, is that the best connected, most powerful
115
1 interests will end up getting the waiver granted;
2 that organizations that may not be quite as well
3 connected, won't. That there won't be clear
4 criteria about how those determinations are being
5 made.
6 And, then, it just brings the State in a
7 position, I think, of micromanaging a situation
8 which, again, for the most part, we respectfully
9 would submit, isn't as broken as these proposals
10 would suggest.
11 SENATOR SQUADRON: Right; and, again, just
12 using the State payroll, and -- included in the
13 associated entities, and the City's payroll, as an
14 example: You have 2,500 people making more than
15 this threshold, in effect; you have 38 people making
16 over half a million dollars. -- in 2010.
17 So, it just seems to me -- and, again, I
18 would urge you, and everything we've heard here
19 today -- that, having a cap that has certain
20 exceptions that are pretty tightly defined, makes
21 sense here.
22 And, the reluctance to do it, I fear, is
23 about what are a very small number of organizations
24 that are paying well above what that cap would be,
25 or don't have a hard justification for it.
116
1 And I understand that -- you know, that,
2 sometimes, the role is to -- is to argue for the way
3 things are. And, the largest organizations,
4 obviously, have a role there.
5 But, it -- I really appreciate what you've
6 said, in terms of the concerns about recruiting
7 talent; about the ability of certain organizations
8 to overcome this, and not others.
9 I don't think that this idea that, suddenly,
10 the Charities Bureau's going to be able to look at
11 every piece of executive compensation, in detail,
12 without specific guidelines.
13 I don't think that quite passes the
14 "red face" test, although I do appreciate that it
15 was a proposal presented.
16 I think that what we see here, is, the
17 Governor's executive order sets a threshold, has an
18 "exception" provision.
19 What I've heard from you, and from others
20 today, is: Perhaps that threshold should be a
21 little bit higher, perhaps that "exception"
22 provision should be more clearly defined, but, that
23 that framework, actually, could make some sense.
24 So, I really appreciate your adding to the
25 record on this, and helping us really understand
117
1 this issue.
2 Thank you.
3 JAMES LYTLE: Well, just to respond, briefly:
4 I don't believe a cap, at any level, ultimately is
5 workable.
6 Not because it doesn't -- it would certainly
7 satisfy the concerns raised about certain
8 organizations, but I don't think, at the end of the
9 day, it works, that government is in a position to
10 be monitoring this question on a year-by-year basis,
11 in an effective and thoughtful way.
12 And that, ultimately, it actually, neither,
13 would provide, I think, the benefit that we're
14 seeking, or target the areas that there is the
15 greatest concern.
16 I don't think it would require -- the good
17 news is, because there aren't very many
18 not-for-profit organizations that have broken their
19 trust, I don't think the Charities Bureau would be
20 overtaxed in performing that responsibility.
21 And, there would be a -- but I do agree with
22 you, that they should -- there ought to be very
23 clear guidelines about how that ought to be done,
24 how compensation decisions are made. Make it easier
25 for both the not-for-profit world and the enforcers
118
1 to hold people accountable for making those
2 decisions properly.
3 SENATOR MARCELLINO: Thank you.
4 Senator Zeldin.
5 SENATOR ZELDIN: Mr. Lytle, you were
6 referring to the one ordinance -- one organization
7 that gets about a billion dollars in State support.
8 And one of the issues with having a --
9 possibly, a for-profit handle that, is that their
10 executives would get paid even more.
11 I have a very specific question that I would,
12 just from the sake that you would even raise the
13 point, you might be able to answer.
14 Is it possible that -- that the State, by
15 using a for-profit in that particular situation,
16 despite the fact that they're paying an executive
17 more, that for-profit may do it -- may do the
18 service more efficiently so there would be a lower
19 cost to the State?
20 JAMES LYTLE: It's a very specific question;
21 and I --
22 SENATOR ZELDIN: I understand.
23 I was referring to that one example you
24 brought up.
25 JAMES LYTLE: Right.
119
1 I -- you know, the evidence is -- I am
2 familiar with the field that we're talking about
3 here, in terms of, which is, essentially,
4 managed-care organizations that have accepted, and
5 operated programs on behalf of the State for
6 Medicaid beneficiaries.
7 I think the evidence is, that the
8 not-for-profit entities that are performing those
9 functions have --
10 And I should say, by -- in the interest of
11 full disclosure, and not for the purposes of this
12 testimony, but we do represent a group of those
13 not-for-profit plans, for other purposes.
14 -- that they've actually demonstrated that
15 they have done it more cost-effectively and at
16 higher quality than their colleagues in -- on the
17 for-profit side.
18 But that -- again, it's -- I think the
19 reality is, that there is a -- what is sort of also
20 ironic about the Governor's direction, I think --
21 And it gets to Senator Marcellino's point,
22 about the need to consolidate, generally.
23 -- the Governor's also been moving, very
24 dramatically, in the direction of having every
25 Medicaid recipient enrolled in these plans.
120
1 That's the direction of the Governor's
2 Medicaid Redesign Team, over a number of years.
3 So, you're going to have larger and larger
4 organizations out there that are going to accept
5 larger and larger amounts of the State Medicaid
6 dollar to perform these services, and, bear enormous
7 responsibility, to make sure that that's -- those
8 care and services are provided appropriately.
9 SENATOR ZELDIN: And just so I understand
10 your -- the answer to the question:
11 Are you stating, that, overall, that
12 not-for-profit companies going to be handling the
13 service more efficiently at lower cost to the State
14 than a for-profit would?
15 Or, are you saying that there are specific
16 components that they do more efficiently?
17 JAMES LYTLE: I think it's hard to
18 generalize, to be honest with you, in terms of an
19 answer to that question.
20 I think it's been demonstrated, that, and I
21 think the State, for good reason, has felt
22 comfortable, sometimes contracting with
23 not-for-profit mission-driven organizations, even to
24 perform things that a for-profit organization is
25 qualified, and often provides, and quite properly.
121
1 But, sometimes, I think the State properly
2 decides that having a mission-driven, often
3 provider-sponsored, not-for-profit organization to
4 perform those services is a better judgment call, in
5 the long run, to make sure that the patients' needs
6 are being adequately met.
7 But I -- I don't know that it's possible to
8 compare, across the board, whether not-for-profit
9 organizations are more or less efficient in doing
10 that than for-profits.
11 I think they've shown themselves to be quite
12 efficient in doing so.
13 I'm just not sure what the -- you know, what
14 the comparison would ultimately tell us.
15 SENATOR ZELDIN: Thank you.
16 SENATOR MARCELLINO: Thank you very much,
17 Mr. Lytle.
18 JAMES LYTLE: Thank you.
19 SENATOR MARCELLINO: Appreciate your time;
20 appreciate you coming down.
21 Our next, and final, speaker will be,
22 Jayne Cammisa, who is a registered nurse.
23 JAYNE CAMMISA: Hello.
24 SENATOR MARCELLINO: Good afternoon.
25 JAYNE CAMMISA: My name is Jayne Cammisa, and
122
1 I represent --
2 SENATOR MARCELLINO: Could you please move
3 the microphone closer to you so that everybody in
4 the back can hear you.
5 JAYNE CAMMISA: Sure.
6 My name is Jayne Cammisa, and I represent a
7 different group.
8 I represent the employees of the
9 not-for-profits; and I have a very different
10 perspective than the eloquent speakers that spoke
11 before me.
12 I am a registered nurse at
13 Westchester Medical Center, and I am also a proud
14 member of the New York State Nurses Association.
15 And I really thank you for allowing me this
16 opportunity to speak in regards to the exorbitant
17 executive salaries in some of the New York State
18 hospitals and nursing homes.
19 According to the 2009 financial reports:
20 Westchester Medical Center Chief Executive
21 Officer Michael Israel was paid $1.2 million;
22 Our chief operating officer, Gary Brudnikie,
23 was paid $738,000;
24 While 36 other executives were paid between
25 128,000 and 530,000 dollars.
123
1 Wouldn't some of this money be better spent
2 on cultivating a stable RN workforce to provide
3 quality patient care; the very patients, the very
4 members, that all these nonprofits serve?
5 In the middle of our contract negotiations
6 this past October, the Nursing Association received
7 notice that the facility would be eliminating
8 250 RN positions. An estimated 139 of these
9 positions were nurses who work at the bedside.
10 I work at the bedside. I've worked at the
11 bedside for 25 years.
12 Other planned layoffs will affect direct-care
13 providers, such as, nurse practitioners, clinicians,
14 specialists, and physicians, that provide support,
15 such as, manager, supervisors, coordinators, and the
16 entire education department of our facility.
17 We are a Level I Trauma teaching hospital.
18 This is a staggering 19 percent cut to the
19 direct-care nursing workforce at Westchester Medical
20 Center, and it is simply too much for the remaining
21 staff to bear.
22 RNs are already reporting that they're
23 working short-staffed, and many have been doing so
24 since the layoffs at the medical center in 2003 and
25 2004.
124
1 Staffing levels are an issue of concern
2 because studies have linked poor staffing with
3 higher incidents of adverse patient outcomes.
4 My colleagues and I cannot comprehend why
5 those at the bedside are being sacrificed while some
6 executives continue to line their pockets at
7 taxpayer expense.
8 The executives of our facilities need to do
9 the right thing.
10 The executives of every nonprofit health-care
11 organization have to do the right thing.
12 What kind of message does this send, not only
13 to the whole staff, but to the patients we serve,
14 and the community as a whole.
15 Even in current contract negotiation,
16 Westchester Medical Center management is
17 aggressively seeking cuts to nurses' benefits and
18 wages, while refusing to commit to severe cuts in
19 management salaries and benefits, or to discuss
20 millions spent on outside contracts.
21 Our negotiating committee, which I serve on,
22 offered $9 million in various givebacks to our
23 employer, only to be told we didn't work hard enough
24 on our proposal.
25 Westchester Medical Center faces the same
125
1 dilemma as many health-care facilities in
2 New York State; yet, others haven't made cuts to
3 this magnitude.
4 Westchester Medical Center has the highest
5 case-mix index in the country, and is the only burn
6 unit between New York City and the Canadian Border.
7 It is also the only Level I Trauma Center --
8 Sorry.
9 -- between New York City and Albany,
10 supporting patients from seven counties.
11 Having committed high-quality, high-credible
12 nurses at the bedside is vital to the survival of
13 the patients, and to this important institution.
14 Layoffs at my facility will severely impact
15 the safety and delivery of quality care, not only in
16 Westchester, but the entire Hudson Valley.
17 Recently, Governor Cuomo said the
18 not-for-profits that provide services to the poor
19 and needy, which we do, must work to prevent public
20 funds from being diverted to excessive compensation
21 and unnecessary administrative costs.
22 The Governor issued an executive order that
23 would cap both executive compensation and
24 administrative costs by paid by the State to
25 nonprofits and for-profit service providers.
126
1 My colleagues and I at Westchester Medical
2 Center and the New York State Nurses Association
3 applaud the Governor, and this Committee, for
4 working to keep nonprofit executives accountable for
5 their salaries, and better align themselves for the
6 not-for-profit missions.
7 I really thank you for letting me speak.
8 SENATOR MARCELLINO: We thank you for coming,
9 and we thank you for the message that you're
10 delivering.
11 There are a number of proposals out there to
12 cap executive salaries at hospitals.
13 Is there any particular one that your
14 association supports?
15 JAYNE CAMMISA: Is there one that we support?
16 Christine LaPerche is here, from the thing.
17 I support the nurses that do the work.
18 I support anything that keeps with the
19 mission statement.
20 CHRISTINE LA PERCHE: Basically, we support
21 the present --
22 SENATOR MARCELLINO: Can you move the
23 microphone closer to you.
24 CHRISTINE LA PERCHE: What we're saying is,
25 there needs to be a start, somewhere; and this cap
127
1 is the start.
2 So, we're in support of there being a cap.
3 Can we speak to the capped amount?
4 I think the 199 is a good beginning.
5 SENATOR MARCELLINO: I have -- what you're
6 saying about the administrative salaries, I have a
7 bill that we're currently looking at, towards
8 education, dealing with capping administrative costs
9 as a percentage of the overall school district's
10 budget.
11 Same question I've asked of some of the other
12 speakers: How do you feel about that, with respect
13 to not-for-profits?
14 Administrative costs; instead of capping an
15 individual's salary per se, but capping overall
16 administrative costs as a percentage of your budget,
17 that the State could live?
18 How about that?
19 JAYNE CAMMISA: I think we'd support that.
20 CHRISTINE LA PERCHE: We agree.
21 SENATOR MARCELLINO: Thank you very much.
22 Senator?
23 SENATOR SQUADRON: Thank you very much for
24 being here, and for your testimony and perspective.
25 Just, do you know the starting salary for a
128
1 nurse at Westchester Medical Center?
2 JAYNE CAMMISA: $60,000.
3 SENATOR SQUADRON: Sixty.
4 And do you know the average?
5 JAYNE CAMMISA: If you're there for 25 years,
6 you average about $100,000. But, you have to give
7 25 years to the front line to get to that cap.
8 SENATOR SQUADRON: And --
9 SENATOR MARCELLINO: Is that a four-year
10 degree or a two-year degree, the starting salary?
11 JAYNE CAMMISA: It could be either.
12 But, our institution is, majorily [sic],
13 they're hiring a four-year degree, bachelor of
14 nurses.
15 SENATOR SQUADRON: Right, so somewhere
16 between -- 60,000, and after 25 years of service,
17 you may break into six figures at the very end of
18 your career?
19 JAYNE CAMMISA: Yes, uh-huh, but that's after
20 25 years. Not after --
21 Mr. Israel makes 1.2 million after
22 four years.
23 SENATOR SQUADRON: And I -- I'm aware of
24 this, and, certainly, very grateful with what nurses
25 do, but, I just want to sure, for people who are
129
1 thinking about it every day, we still have a nursing
2 shortage in the state, and in this country; right?
3 JAYNE CAMMISA: I believe there still is a
4 nursing shortage, but, they just laid off
5 139 experienced nurses, that are out of a job.
6 Nursing students, I precept, and I mentor,
7 students from the area colleges. They can't get a
8 job.
9 They can't get a job. They have to wait for
10 someone to retire.
11 It's harder and harder for nurses to enter
12 the field of nursing.
13 SENATOR SQUADRON: Great, so, we have a
14 situation, where we have the salary level, we have
15 sort of a national nursing shortage, and, we have
16 well-trained folks who are currently laid off and
17 don't have a job --
18 JAYNE CAMMISA: Yes.
19 SENATOR SQUADRON: -- at the same time.
20 I really appreciate this perspective, and I
21 think it helps bring everyone down to earth a little
22 bit, about what we're really talking about here.
23 And, of course, just the final question:
24 I know that you work at Westchester Medical
25 Center, and stuff, but, you do pay taxes; right?
130
1 We're talking about --
2 JAYNE CAMMISA: I am --
3 SENATOR SQUADRON: -- your tax dollars
4 funding your boss?
5 JAYNE CAMMISA: I am -- have been a
6 Westchester County resident for my whole married
7 life: 23 years. And, before that, Putnam.
8 I've lived in New York State my entire life.
9 I pay my taxes.
10 I -- I speak for the taxpayers: I think this
11 is outrageous, how much money they make.
12 SENATOR SQUADRON: Well, I thank you for your
13 perspective, both, as a front-line worker at a
14 New York nonprofit, and also as a taxpayer.
15 Thank you very much.
16 SENATOR ZELDIN: Thank you. Great testimony.
17 SENATOR MARCELLINO: Thank you very much,
18 ladies.
19 That closes the Committee hearing.
20 The Committee will review all testimony that
21 was given today, and a written report will be issued
22 shortly, on the issue of the State to reform
23 compensation oversight.
24 And, we want to thank the Senators for
25 attending;
131
1 The camera crew for working here, and the
2 technical people;
3 The Committee staff, Beth Keliher [ph.] and
4 Rob Parker.
5 And, once again, for all of those who
6 attended, and those who participated with testimony,
7 written, and all.
8 Thank you.
9 Meeting adjourned.
10
11 [Whereupon, at 1:09 p.m., the public
12 hearing, held before the New York State Senate
13 Standing Committee on Investigations and
14 Government Operations, concluded.]
15
16 ---oOo---
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25