Cuyahoga County Library Union

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
341456128
IRS 990 coverage
2021–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2020
Location
Parma, OH, USA
Phone
2167499402
Rating
64
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$16,778
Expenses
$25,611
Assets
$635,673
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JOEY SALCEDO MARQUEZ (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • MIKE NIEDERHAUSEN (PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • SCOTT BARBOUR (EAST LEAD DELEGATE 2)
  • KEVIN DEAN (BRANCH LEAD DELEGATE 2)
  • BETHANY FORSBERG (CORRESPONDING SECRETARY)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The purpose of the cuyahoga county library union is to work on behalf of its members to: (1) work for the welfare of the bargaining unit members and the improvement of their working conditions; (2) develop and promote the adoption of such ethical (continued on schedule o) practices and personnel policies as benefit library employees; (3) enable members to speak with a common voice on matters pertaining to their employment, and to present their individual and common interests before the administration and the board of trustees of the cuyahoga county public library; and (4) enable members to further their education, attend union-related programs, and enhance their job skills through the cuyahoga county library union's educational awards.

What it reported doing in 2024

Cuyahoga county library union provides educational award scholarships to members of our union who choose to take college courses to enrich themselves or their careers.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 100% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 45
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 64
  • Sustainability: 53
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 49.3%; rating input score 49
  • Program expense ratio: 51.8%; rating input score 52
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 97%; rating input score 97; 57th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 1 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 14
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -52.6%; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 24.82; rating input score 83; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 60; 60th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 0.6% per year; rating input score 100; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -0.5% per year; rating input score 0; 58th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 10.9% per year; rating input score 100; 81st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 49.3% of revenue deployed · 51.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 12 of 12 board members independent · 1 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $13K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 11 people listed
  • Consistency: 16 of 16 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules · includes grants
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2021 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Grant readiness: Federal tax and exclusion status, award history, and grant-maker relationships.
  • People: Everyone the filings name, and which of them the filings identify by more than a name.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 49/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 52/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 28/100.