I was very happy to see that many folks have responded in favor of VOA, especially following the comments from those who are ignorant. I, too, am a VOA employee, and proud of it. I am not a member of the management group, but someday hope to be. I admire Jeff and his team's ability to make solid business decisions that benefit people. I know that VOA's annual budget is near $12million/year. I'd bet that if you put a $12million for profit company up for comparison, the CEO would make more than Jeff. Do you people actually expect the top three to work for less than they could make elsewhere? If that were the case, the non-profits would all die on the vine, with no way to recruit talent. The days of the non profits standing on the street corner banging a drum for quarters are long gone. The need is too great....non-profits have to be run like a business not a charity. The ones that are still in charity mode are asking to merge with the larger ones as they can't survive. Get educated!
I think some non-profits should be supported but I'm generally not supportive of Cities tapping into the State reserves. Reason being is that non-profits rely on state and federal funding for survival. Most credible non-profits do very good work and have very limited ability to raise and/or generate funding. I think it's pretty shortsighted to lump "all" non-profits into the same category and treat them all as being mis-managed and extravagant employers.
City's have the ability to tax and charge fees to create operating capital. This allows them to create their own reserve funds which are intended for rainy day expenditures if they are properly managed. Whereas non-profits don't have this same revenue generating capacity because they usually have restrictions placed on them from their funding sources.(ie; Feds,State,County) Saving money for a "rainy day" is almost never an approved expenditure within the operating perameters of not-for-profit entities. They have different guidelines from which they must operate under as opposed to those governing cities and similar agencies.
However, all non-profits are not necessarily worthy of receiving assistance. Some of them are genuinely ineffectual and a waste of taxpayer dollars. The appropriating entity needs to take a good hard look at funding applicants and only support those that are truely in need, and those that support programs thst genuinly are in the publics best interest. This isn't easy to do, but then again dispersal of tax dollars should not be easy.
"I work with a big 4 public accounting firm and I have seen dozens of non-profits during my audit career that have CEO's and Presidents with salary levels very comparable to this".
It's that kind of mentality that got these "non profits" in trouble to begin with.National news had a story about a CEO of United Way making over $1 million a year in salary and was replaced with a new ceo who is now making a little over #300k.The new ceo couldn't see why her predecessor was making $800k more a year,because her performance certainly didn't warrant it.
If a "non profit" can't make ends meet then they need to restructure and become competitive.
VOA is 95% federally funded.With Obama's stellar performance as pres.,these non profit exstensions of corporate america are looking to states for funding,because the fed is broke.
As for cities having the ability to create operating capital.Yes,it's called optional 1% and cap tax.The problem is the public isn't spending money,so none of these taxes are being generated.Yet our wonderful mayor has managed to run the city budget from $15 million a year when he took office to over $61 million in 2009.He's still hiring people to work in behalf of developers who are no longer even building anything and are generating no money for the city..
Look at the way the rest of the country has changed since the Mayor took office. Budget increases have happened all over the country so your vision of Sheridan being unique is definitely skewed by your view of the politicians.
I am not defending what has happened in Sheridan over the past 8 years, but there are some things that you can't change no matter how much you try. If you think that you can do a difference then run for office. I am sure your opinions would be vastly different after a term in office.
"Look at the way the rest of the country has changed since the Mayor took office. Budget increases have happened all over the country so your vision of Sheridan being unique is definitely skewed by your view of the politicians".
I never said sheridan was unique in the least.In fact under Kinskeys watch sheridan has followed the trends of other equally worthless politicians through out the country,which is where kinskey with his limited skills and intelligence got the ideas.
Just your typical irresponsible spending in behalf of special interests.In kinskeys case,it's developers and his prior employer Carroll Realty. At the same time you have "non profits" like forward sheridan,SHAC and SEEDA that are doing nothing but draining tax dollars and bring nothing to the community.
Did I strike a nerve? I ment no disrespect towards the mission of the VOA or any non-profit if this is what your comment is reguarding. I don't have any respect for people being payed 160K when the real work occures in the trenches! What do the volunteers make or any hourly employee? i'm sure not much above minimun? Does doing the hard dirty work in the trenches mean being payed less so the fat cat executive can go to lunch or dinners at the noprofits expense! Maybe you need to revisit your job description, rewrite it to include a pay cut and maybe serving some time in the trenches with the rest of the salt of the earth workers!
I work for VOA and know the facts and you all are wrong, wrong, wrong! I do not know Jeff as an individual very well but I do know that his best interest is in the programs we have and making sure they are ran well to serve the people. I make above the minimum wage and am treated with respect at VOA. The CEO and top administrative members went without bonuses and raises this past year to ensure that our programs could thrive and that the employees could still be rewarded with bonuses and raises. Because of this selfless act we got more this past year then most while our country is in the state that it is economically. Yes Jeff does make more then the average Non-Profit CEO but he also oversees ALL of our programs here in Wyoming and part of Montana. Do you know how many services we provide? They are not just in Sheridan. Jeff and his team have to make decisions for all of the programs. They have to handle client issues, employees, pay, grants, seeking funds, and informing others on what our mission is and how we accomplish it all. I am blessed to work for VOA! By not educating yourself on our programs and by getting mad that the CEO makes too much money in your opinion, you are only punishing the people that we serve. One day you may need our help or know somebody that does. We save lives!!!!
You have these supposed "nonprofits" that have inflated their upper management salaries,largely by sponging off of local municipalities. A prime example is Forward Sheridan.Their director is pulling down $100K a year,which just so happens to be what the city of sheridan gives them every year.Of course this year sheridan is giving them an additional $100k,plus the county gives them $20k yearly.Now they're trying to merge with SEEDA so they can screw the taxpayer out of even more money.
Who was the founding CEO of Forward Sheridan? Kinskey.
What has Forward Sheridan ever done for sheridan? Absolutely nothing,besides sponge tax dollars.
Who hired a Washington DC based attorney to allow Powder River Energy the right to provide power within the city limits of sheridan? Kinskey.In return PRE joined forward sheridan with a $10k membership fee.About 1/5 of what kinskey paid the Washington DC attorney.
VOA,RENEW etc.are but a fraction of "non profits" that have local politicians bleeding your tax dollars.Now that the country is in depression,these leeches are in distress and they now want the state to support them.
One think that you need to think about is the fact that people are definitely not going to be in charge of any group be it non-profit or for-profit for free or a small salary.
Like it or not people like to make money and the skills that are required to be the CEO or President of anything if this magnitude are something that only a select few have. If the salary wasn't close to 100k then these people would definitely not do this sort of work.
I work with a big 4 public accounting firm and I have seen dozens of non-profits during my audit career that have CEO's and Presidents with salary levels very comparable to this.
I am happy to see that others in this community can recognize the value in non-profits. I am also very happy to see people pay attention to the salaries within non-profits. Unfortunately, only the top three executives are typically paid so well, while staff are paid minimally because their hearts are in the job. The VOA is an outstanding example of doing good work (in some areas, not all) and having good people work with individuals that need it. The executive director of the VOA is living a contradiction. Anybody paying attention to what is spent on lunches, alcoholic drinks, "extras" despite the economy, and running an organization that does good work for people in need, including adults with drug and alcohol problems? A self centered director making $160K each year, while staff that actually provide direct care live pay check to pay check? So many things about this man, and the VOA, baffle my mind. If it was a for profit company, by all means make an outstanding living...just don't do it on the tax payers dime! Awareness is a great thing...the next best thing is follow through! Good job Sheridan!
Sounds like someone is taking their resentments out on something they can't control. The daycare was a joke. It needed to be closed. Trust me, I know this first hand. I work for VOA and am rewarded with good pay. And no I dont work at Admin. VOA saves lives! DOnt take your anger out on VOA because you think a hard working man makes too much money. If you dont like Jeff thats fine, you are entitled to that, but dont put down VOA. There is alot more to us then Mr. Holsinger.
If Mr. Holsinger is such a good director how come the Day Care program was such a joke? Ever think of it that way. Of course they do good to some but over all it is about the money. If they would concentrate on fixing the programs they have for a year or two instead of spreading themselves so thin for the sake of growth they might not be resented by so many in the community. There are a lot of good people that work at VOA but most are not allowed a voice. There is no open door policy. That door is closed most of the time with 3 people controling everything.
It is good to see that some people are aware of the VOA directors practices. Whoever wrote this is in the know, thank you for pointing it out because I also know the truth. It's time the community became aware of what is really going on. I wouldn't give 5 cents to VOA. The best program they have it the homeless shelter and the program manager there is doing a wonderful job. However, most of the money VOA takes in is not directed to the homeless shelter. They run on a shoestring and the top three executives really don't care. If the program is not making money it is shelved. Just like the day care was. You can't tell me that there is not a need for daycare in Sheridan.
VOA management is all about the profits and their bonuses. Of course it's a non profit corporation, at the end of June when their fiscal year is up, they divide up what's left and give it to the top 3 people and therefore have no profit at the year end. Hence a non-profit corp.
That daycare was a joke!
No, the state should not be using the rainy funds, for non profit organizations unless the organization presents their books for the public to see. After all it is our money we should be able to see how the organization is going to use our funds. The organization should also have present a business plan, explaining how, where these funds will be used, (running of the organization [housing, food, clothing shelter], not CEO's or directors or administrative staff salaries, benefits,etc) and when they will pay back the funds at what interest. All of this information should be present to the public. And a committe appointed to make sure the organization is STICKING to plan. I agree that most directors, CEO's need to have their salaries and benefits cut.
I know from first hand experience what good alot of non-profit organizations due for our community and state. I know that it will the clients and "rank and file" workers that will suffer if something isn't done to help.
I think that it should be considered on a case by case basis. If the State has a contract with a provider where funding is threatened, then the State has an obligation to look at the value of the service and decide accordingly. If the funding shortfall affects a City or County, then the same assessment should be made. I agree with the comment above that the Governor has done a good job addressing cuts where needed, and we have entrusted him to make solid decisions for citizens of Wyoming.
Folks....let's wake up. I follow the articles in the paper on non-profits and I've never seen where VOA is asking for the State to dip into its rainy day coffers. VOA did experience cuts with the last fiscal year contracts, like most non-profits did. Voa is a well run organization. I also receive their annual report that indicates that their administrative costs are around 12%, lower than many non-profits. I am also aware that they only rent the office building they currently occupy.
After reading all of your comments, I have to wonder if you all are aware of just how much the VOA does for our community. It runs the only homeless shelter within 131 miles of Billings, it operates the juvenile facility here in town where delinquents are sent to learn how to straighten out their lives and many other operations within our community to make it as good as it is. Before you cut them down, find out what you're disrespecting and think about how different this community would be without the VOA...I think we'd all miss it greatly.
J. S. Luckjohn
Do you think the public should be dipping into a RAINY DAY ACCOUNT to keep paying the salaries of these bloated big-wigs! Come on $160K per year to run a non-profit? These people put the P in PUKE! Do you know of anyone else other that maybe a coal mine executive or banker who makes that kind of coin? The people of Sheridan County as well as other Wyomingites are being taxed out of there homes and you want to dip into savings to save these peoples jobs and salaries! Houston we have a problem and its called stupidity! Wake up and vote these idiots out who propose such stupid ideas! Cut $100k from these jokers jobs and see if they are still all smiley in the paper! Cut 120k a year and see if they can live there fat-cat life style with the combined income of the rest of the county residents!
I logged in to only see that you wrote what I was thinking ...... but non-profits will also be be taking money for "administrative fees" to fund Haiti too. How many burgers could one buy for Haitians if someone were to take a $60,000 pay cut.
Their are non profit organizations in town that really do need more funding. The problem is that their are groups like VOA that give a bad name to the rest. I think it is extremely offensive to the public that the Director makes $160,000.00 for that position. In the past, they have cancelled good programs for the reason of not making a profit for that program. Go and take a look at the money they spent on their new Office, then tell me that they need more public funds!!!!
Why should the State of Wyoming utilize its funds to help the cities when it is the State Departments who have cut their budgets and cut their budgets again so lay offs and furloughs don't happen. The Governor has done a great job in times of economic downfall to protect his employees and programs from what other businesses and cities have not. Maybe the mayors and other top executives should stop and learn from him.
To give you a better idea of local mayors and their current performance.Kinskey is averaging $150k in monthly shortfalls and those numbers aren't going away.He'll have the city millions of dollars in the hole by summer and no way to get out of it..
You people really make me sick...all you talk of is the directors and advisor's pay....what you're not thinking about is what's going to happen to the disabled people in our community that they assist! For some of them, RENEW is the only home they know so that they have some independence for living on their own, not to mention the only way that some of these people have been able to get jobs so that they can support themselves! GET OFF OF YOUR HIGH HORSES, YOUR SOAP BOXES AND STOP BEING SO SELFRIGHTOUS! Think of the people this is going to effect first before putting down non-profit organizations! Personally I think you all should be ashamed.
It seems that most nonprofits are more than happy to give themselves great wages and benefits. What I don't understand is that if they really are concerned about those patients, why are they not caring enough to actually lower their wages and benefits in lean times and keep fully staffed, or at least close, and continue giving the needed care? If they honestly cared, they would/could sacrifice. If they honestly don't care and won't sacrifice, let them go under.
Most nonprofit directors do not receive the huge salaries you read about in the paper. Some have second jobs to make their own ends meet, and still be able to help their nonprofits provide services to stakeholders. The enormous salaries made by the larger, more 'corporate' nonprofits are shocking and egregious - particularly those for trustees of foundations who maybe spend an hour a week on foundation activities. Public outcry over those salaries is appropriate - but don't paint all nonprofits and their staffs with the same brush. Most nonprofit employees aren't in it for the money - they do it to serve their community.
Another thing to consider - kind of the other side of the coin - is that nonprofits need to be viewed as offering professional services, which requires hiring professionals to manage the various programs and services. You also get what you pay for in terms of making sure that donations are managed honestly and appropriately. This includes being transparent with their books. An appropriately populated and paid staff will be - hopefully - less inclined to feel entitled to misappropriation of funds. The term 'nonprofit' would indicate that the organization is not supposed to make money or pay staff. What it actually means is that board members are not to enure profit from the activity of the program. Nonprofits are businesses, and the ones that provide the best service and are accountable to their stakeholders are run like businesses.
I have learned that the board of directors are the ones who approve the salaries and big bonuses that these crackers make. The boards consist of our community leaders who feel a need to satisfy their own conscience. Most do not take a wage, and some are honorable people, but they don't really know the top execs that are running these non profit organizations. They spend a couple of hours a month at the board meetings, some are wined and dined at the golf courses and favorite fishing holes, by the directors and believe what is said by the top admin who bring the reports to the tables. They don't really know what is truly going on. They need to dig a little deeper into the workings of the organization, stand in the sidelines and check out what really goes on and how the people on the bottom, who do all the work, are treated by the big shots. Take time to interview a few of the working staff and find out what is really happening within the programs. I think they would be appalled. There eyes would be opened big time. What goes on in the board room is not a true picture of how the company is run. A caring director would not be raping the tax payer and shorting the needy clients of the help they deserve. Knock $100,000 off the top of their salaries and spend it on the programs to help the clients. Keep the unlimited expense accounts to a per diem and see what happens. Share the wealth with the bottom staff and the whole picture would change. Board members need take their heads out of the sand and wise up. How can they justify salaries like these in Sheridan. No, we should not allow more money for programs that are not run correctly. Non profits should be more accountable for the dollars they spend before any more money is appropriated.
I think it's appropriate to ask the question about tapping into the state's rainy day account; after all, that's why the accounts exist. I am not sure the funding should be used for the non-profits but should be used for cities, schools and the like. Maybe the question should be: what are these funds appropriate for?
While I see that a lot of nonprofits certainly benefit our community in a lot of ways, I agree that the salaries of the higher-ups are too high. How'd that happen?
Why is there no regulation on wages for top executives in non profit corporations? This is tax payer dollars supposedly going for services to the people who need it most. I know first hand how much they make at VOA and if the public knew how that place was run, they would surely lose support of the community and the dollars that are donated would shrink. How many more services could they provide if they donated some of "their" wages for the cause. I think that RENEW is probably run the same way, because the executive director of VOA used to work for the executive director of RENEW. Funny how backs are scratched in Sheridan and probably every other non-profit community. Too bad the needy have to suffer for the greed of the few and Volunteers of America calls themselves a church.
I think they call those people poverty pimps. Lots of non profits have high paid executives. Non profit never means no one is profiting just the business entity isn't :)
Poverty pimps, I like that, good analagy.
Maybe there wouldn't be such a shortage in the "non-profit" coffers if the directors and top admin staff, especially, VOA, didn't make such a ridiculus amount of money. The salary for those people should be reduced before any more tax payer dollars is given to their programs. Wouldn't it be too bad if they didn't get their big bonuses this year. Maybe they should focus more on giving "quality services" instead of "quantity dollars" in the big shots pockets. Shame on those people.
I agree with you 100%.
Why should the state take a hit,because kinskey
and council are to incompetent to balance their own budget.
As for non profits,they're anything but non profit,their management makes a huge profit in wages and that's the reason they're in this financial mess.
Maybe the Director should take a huge cut in pay. Making over $100,000 a year like the Director's of VOA/WYSTAR for non-profits is not a good thing, especially when they are loosing money.