[mistrial9]

Amusing to see some of the viewpoints today, dollar-talk about dollars.. as a person with an arts background, I can say that philantropy is obvious -- certain activities that people want to do, cannot be done without some kind of backing.. It is a matter of enabling activity that just could not happen otherwise. Some of the participants were vaguely aware that a "CEO" was being paid somewhere, but what was important was the programs. Who cares about the CEO. It is the other money counters that cared most, not participants. Similarly with "who is running this"/socal dominance.. the other dominance people cared.. so what? On the other hand, the amount of random friction, surprising attitude moments and personal instability with cat-herding dynamics, is notable. Surviving the year is a real concern.

Most of the comments here are more aligned with the problems of "Cancer Inc" or "Red Cross" sorts of non-profits, where the mission is real but the massive insititution is decades old and owns a lot of property and equipment, and the executive branch really is in a different world, and people are hired to do boring jobs.

Lastly, it is famously true that huge, huge groups are non-profits, where a lot of money changes hands.. and those kinds of setups are closed to your questions, e.g. hospitals and big league sports. ok one more - the "royalty" of those like the Bishop Museum or the Playboy Golf Championship in the 1980s, which both devolved into giant, serious scams where people actually, eventually went to jail. have fun with your non-profits! others did...