In a thoughtful though not necessarily convincing piece from The Motley Fool, Dick Grasso's pay while at the NYSE is defended based on the length of his tenure and the success of the exchange during his leadership (as well as other, more obscene pay packages):

If you've worked at the world's largest and best-known stock exchange for 35 years -- during eight of which you were the CEO, including after 9/11, when you provided unparalleled leadership -- you think you'd be entitled to end your tenure nicely compensated for a job well done.

Here's what's important in Grasso's case:

• The NYSE was a private organization when the dispute arose.
• Grasso had been CEO for eight years before he left, during which time the NYSE earned more than $900 million.

Heck, if Grasso ran a hedge fund, he'd practically be eligible for food stamps [given his paltry $190 million payday]. His retirement package is equivalent to what hedge-fund manger John Paulson made every two and a half weeks last year. Grasso worked hard. He benefited the company. He deserves his pay.

After four of the six charges against former NYSE Chairman Dick Grasso were thrown-out by the New York Supreme Court, yesterday the remaining two were also dismissed by an appeals court.

As The Washington Post reports, "New York Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo yesterday dropped his case challenging the nearly $190 million compensation package of former New York Stock Exchange chairman Dick Grasso, hours after a state appeals court dismissed the two remaining claims.

Cuomo's decision not to proceed marked the end of a high-profile attempt by state regulators to reel in big-ticket executive payouts. Grasso's compensation, which included an immediate lump-sum payment of $139.5 million in 2003 and an additional $48 million payable over four years was challenged by state prosecutors as excessive and in violation of state law."

The nation's most popular newspaper by circulation, The USA TODAY, features an article on the highly charged political environment in Europe surrounding excessive, American-style CEO pay:

Luxembourg Prime Minister Jean-Claude Juncker, who chairs meetings of eurozone finance ministers, has called rising corporate pay a "social scourge" and wants higher taxes on what he calls "golden goodbyes." Fifteen nations use the euro as their currency.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy is urging debate on European-wide pay limits when France takes over the European Union's rotating executive presidency Tuesday.

Behind the threats is growing public and shareholder ire with multimillion-dollar compensation packages that are starting to rival American CEO pay at the same time European economies and financial markets are sagging.

CEOs in Europe have traditionally earned less than their U.S. counterparts, says Vicente Cuñat, who analyzes CEO compensation at the London School of Economics. But in the past 15 years, he says, "Europe is catching up."

As in the USA, Guay says, CEO pay becomes a hot-button issue when the economy isn't doing well. It cools when times get better. Over time, he says, public outcries have rarely had a big effect on either side of the Atlantic. "It really hasn't altered the path of pay over the last 15 years," Guay says. "We still see pay rising. I think it will continue."

A The Motley Fool article points out American Axle & Manufacturing's (NYSE: AXL) hypocrisy in pushing huge pay cuts on workers while giving management huge bonuses, not to mention these bonuses may have been partially bankrolled by General Motors (NYSE: GM):

American Axle & Manufacturing ended a strike by persuading workers to accept a contract that includes significant pay cuts. A month later, management announced its decision to give bonuses to executives, including a multimillion-dollar award for the CEO.

The parts supplier whose strike caused its largest customer, General Motors, to idle around 30 plants because of parts shortages, filed a notice with the SEC on Friday that it had granted lavish bonuses to its top executives, including $8.5 million for CEO Richard Dauch.

In contrast, the contract the workers got stuck with includes cuts that slashed most of their wages from $28 an hour to somewhere between $14.35 to $18.50. One of the primary reasons the deal got done was because GM kicked in $18 million on top of the $200 million it was contributing for buyouts and such.

From the Centre Daily Times, on The Conference Board's look at 2007 executive compensation:

According to The Conference Board study, the utilities industry and the food and tobacco industry top the list of median CEO compensation. The highest median CEO total compensation was $3.9 million for the utilities industry and $3.8 million for the food and tobacco industry. Because of the broad-brush classification that includes many smaller "commercial banks" along with the larger banks and "nonbanking financial services" companies, the ranking of financial services is at the bottom of the median CEO compensation list with $734,000. While on average larger companies pay higher salaries, the fraction of total compensation that is delivered by base salary is lower as companies get larger. The smallest 10 percent of companies deliver 57 percent of their total compensation in salary, whereas the largest 10 percent of companies deliver only 12.5 percent as salary.

The New York Supreme Court threw out four chargers against former New York Stock Exchange Chairman Dick Grasso, who made headlines in 2003 for his $190 million pay package. The Washington Post reports:

[Attorney General] Spitzer brought suit in 2004, a year after Grasso was removed from his post, claiming that the compensation package was exorbitant for the executive of a not-for-profit corporation. According to court documents, Spitzer contended that the compensation was not justified by the work performed by Grasso and therefore a violation of the Not-For-Profit Corporation Law. The suit also alleged that Grasso handpicked the NYSE board members who decided his package and they had ignored the board's system for calculating compensation.

The four claims against Grasso that have been tossed out were not based on specific state laws, but Spitzer argued that as attorney general he had the right under common law to act in the public interest. By contrast, the two remaining charges are based on state statutes regarding unlawful transfer of corporate assets and breach of fiduciary duty.

"It's more complex in the sense that they have to prove more than they otherwise might," said Richard Schulman, counsel at Bryan Cave who specializes in securities and business fraud litigation.

The Albany court's decision yesterday is being viewed by some legal and financial experts as a blow to attempts to rein in executive compensation.

"I think that this ruling clearly indicates that a court is going to be very skeptical in overruling an internal compliance committee in their determination so far as what is fair and reasonable compensation," said Steven Caruso, a partner at Maddox Hargett & Caruso.

An article from DowJones Online Financial News reports that investment bank CEO pay fell 43% last year - good news for those concerned about pay for performance given that it was a rough year for many investment bank shares. However, even after that 43% drop, pay averaged a staggering $27 million.

Interestingly, some executives at firms were paid more than their CEOs, such as two Goldman Sachs Group (NYSE: GS) co-presidents who earned more than $71 million compared to CEO Lloyd Blankfein's paltry $70.3 million.

From a The New York Times' article "How Big a Payday for the Pay Consultants?":

Compensation consultant biases can arise when a company’s board uses the same consulting firm for pay design as well as other services such as human resources management and outsourcing advice. Because the fees earned by consultants for compensation work are far less than what they make on other business, there is a risk that compensation gurus will put together cushy pay packages in order to snare more lucrative gigs elsewhere in the corporate empire.

Here’s an easy fix: Require companies to detail in proxy statements all fees paid to consultants they hire, for compensation design and all other services.

When the Securities and Exchange Commission rewrote the laws on executive compensation disclosure last year, it didn’t require public companies to detail consultants’ fees. This was a mystifying mistake.