Ibew Local 219 Afl

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
386091426
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2015
Forms available
Form 990 2015, Form 990-EZ 2010
Location
Iron Mountain, MI, USA
Phone
9067791505
Rating
41
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Labor Unions

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$198,550
Expenses
$254,435
Assets
$258,811
Liabilities
$4,725

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2015. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

9 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DAN COPPENS (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • TOM MOMCILOVIC (BUSINESS MAN): $73,323 total reported compensation
  • SUE NANNINGA (DIRECTOR JAT): $13,236 total reported compensation
  • DAN COPPENS (PRESIDENT): $1,108 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2015. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To organize all workers for their mutual benefit.

What it reported doing in 2015

Providing both initial and ungrade training designed to make employees working under the collective barg. Agreements of local 219 the most skilled, productive and best trained in their industries.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 92% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
No current program activity. The filing reports no program spending for the current year.

The verdict

MIXED - 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: 0
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 63
  • Sustainability: 25
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Program expense ratio: 0%; rating input score 0
  • 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: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 1 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 11
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -28.1%; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.02; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 52; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 35%; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: -2.4% per year; rating input score 0; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -10.5% per year; rating input score 0; 12th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 121 of 121 board members independent · 1 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments
  • Leadership: top reported pay $73K · 9 people listed
  • Consistency: 25 of 25 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2011 to 2015
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 11 filed money-flow records
  • 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 7 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 10/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 44/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 8/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 52/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.