I'm confused. Why are more people not saying "let's drop his salary by $700K and give $100K to each of those employees"
If this guy hasn't put enough of his $1.1M salary into savings over the last few years to be able to withstand a few months of *only* $400K in pay then he is unquestionably not fiscally qualified to be running anything, especially not a governing body. Like maybe he should have been cutting back on those coffees and avocado toast so he had 6 months of expenses in savings... just a thought.
I get the reason people give behind high CEO salaries, let's not have that debate here, but I don't understand how you justify the CEO not being the first one to take a cut, and take the biggest cut, when they have had the opportunity to be putting away gobs of money into savings every year.