The Obama Presidential Center is opening this June, but the staffing plan has raised eyebrows: the foundation is recruiting unpaid “skilled volunteers” to greet visitors while top insiders collect six-figure paychecks, including a reported $740,000 salary for the foundation’s CEO.
The center is asking for volunteers to serve as ambassadors, guides, and greeters, pitching the work as an opportunity to be part of the experience. That sounds noble on the surface, but pitching unpaid roles for front-line duties at a major public-facing institution invites scrutiny. People who need to earn a living can’t live on the promise of being part of an experience.
Meanwhile, the foundation’s leadership is compensated at rates most Americans would call extravagant. The reported $740,000 salary for the CEO is being reported alongside a broader pattern of high pay across the organization. When insiders earn that much, asking the public to step in for free looks less like community engagement and more like subsidized staffing.
The organization reportedly seeks 75 to 100 ambassadors to handle visitor-facing duties and basic operations that a paid workforce would typically manage. Recruiting volunteers for those roles increases the risk that essential work will be done without fair compensation. Communities deserve transparency about whether public interest projects are relying on unpaid labor while executives collect large salaries.
“The Obama Presidential Center is a place where the world meets the best of the city of Chicago, and our volunteers will help bring that vision to life every day.”
The pitch emphasizes service and civic duty as central values, invoking the former president’s community-organizing roots. That history of volunteerism is part of the message, but the organization also functions like any large nonprofit with a staff and payroll. When the rhetoric of community service meets six-figure compensation packages, citizens are right to ask hard questions about priorities and fairness.
“will create a welcoming and inclusive experience for visitors while representing the strength, resilience, and leadership of this community. Together, we are building something that inspires service, connection, and action far beyond our walls.”
Financial disclosures for the foundation show a sharp rise in personnel costs over recent years, with total salaries and benefits growing significantly as the staff expanded. That growth can be justified if it funds meaningful programs, but it also means more taxpayer and donor scrutiny is warranted. When charitable missions scale up, accountability about compensation and how roles are staffed should be nonnegotiable.
Local businesses near the center are understandably hopeful about a tourism boost and the economic lift visitors might bring to the South Side. A thriving local economy is a win for residents, and increased foot traffic could help restaurants, shops, and service providers. Still, economic hopes shouldn’t erase the issue that public-facing work at significant civic institutions is being pitched as unpaid labor.
There’s a broader principle at stake: Americans value volunteerism, but they also value fair wages and opportunity. For many families, unpaid roles are simply not an option, and relying on volunteers for core operational work creates a two-tiered system. That system favors those who can afford to work for free and leaves out those who cannot.
Civic projects should be able to balance community involvement with responsible employment practices, especially when executive pay is prominent and public attention is high. If a presidential center is going to serve as a model of civic life, its staffing choices should reflect both the spirit of service and basic economic fairness. Volunteers can add value, but they should not substitute for a committed, fairly compensated workforce carrying out essential duties.
Add comment