NY Times says Arthur Sulzberger Jr. took five percent pay cut in 2009

The New York Times' public relations office, taking issue with this blogger's post entitled "New York Times' Arthur Sulzberger Jr. takes huge raise; laid off staff", says Arthur Sulzberger Jr., Chairman and Publisher of The New York Times Company since 1997, and Janet Robinson, President and Chief Executive Officer of The New York Times Company, took a five percent pay cut in 2009 as did other staff members.

The NY Times PR department then kindly provided a copy of the NY Times 2010 Proxy Statement, which is linked to here so you can download a copy of it.

The NY Times Proxy Statement gives a bigger picture than what's reported, but it does not allow one, either Arthur Sulzberger Jr. or Janet Robinson, to paint a picture that they, like the rank-and-file non-executive staff, had their overall take home pay - salary and compensation - reduced. Indeed, the NY Times 2010 Proxy Statement paints an uglier picture.

A good, close read beyond this is recommended, but the basics are that in 2008 Arthur Sulzberger Jr.'s total compensation was $2,331,599 and in 2009 it was $5,986,738; that's an almost doubled increase in one year. In 2008, Janet Robinson took home $4,753,314; in 2009 (end of year) it was $6,262,755. That's over $2 million more to her in one year.

Much has been written about the compensation given for meeting performance targets such as increased revenues and profit. But the problem with the overall set of compensation targets is that not one of them gives a monetary bonus for creative ways of maintenance of staff levels. For example, compensation is given for hiring minorities, but it says nothing about firing them. Thus setting up the possible existence of a last hired (for the minority bonus), first fired (for the cost cut bonus) structure.

That's nothing to brag about.

Mr. Sulzberger and Ms. Robinson should make a bold statement and pour their compensation - or some of it - back into the New York Times Company and rehire some of the people who were let go. It would win new friends and make new fans of the New York Times Company and of the publication.

Stay tuned.