International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 659

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
930196211
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Central Point, OR, USA
Phone
5416640800
Rating
26
Verdict
REVIEW
Rating confidence
Moderate

Reported finances

Revenue
$5,136,618
Expenses
$4,417,573
Assets
$4,937,654
Liabilities
$39,057

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

Leadership & pay

14 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ROBERT ATKINSON (Vice President)
  • JEFF ANDERSON (President)

Highest reported compensation

  • NICHOLAS CARPENTER (FINANCIAL SEC): $222,326 total reported compensation
  • DONALD MCELROY (ASST BUSI MNGR): $208,022 total reported compensation
  • RYAN SMITH (DEV. COORDINATOR): $200,748 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The objects of the international brotherhood of electrical workers are: to organize all workers in the entire electrical industry in the local union 659 jurisdiction of the united states and canada, including all those in public utilities and electrical manufacturing, into local unions, to promote reasonable methods of work, to cultivate feelings of friendship among those of our industry, to settle all disputes between employers and employees by arbitration (if possible), to assist each other in sickness or distress, to secure employment, to reduce the hours of daily labor, to secure adequate pay for our work, to seek a higher and higher standard of living, to seek security for the individual, and by legal and proper means to elevate the moral, intellectual and social conditions of our members, their families and dependents, in the interest of a higher standard of citizenship.

What it reported doing in 2024

The organization serviced between 2,463 and 2,485 members during the year in meeting it's objective as stated in schedule o

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 96% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

The verdict

REVIEW - Revenue has grown recently. 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: 56
  • Accountability: 18
  • Sustainability: 55
  • Growth: 60

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: 90%; rating input score 90; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 39.6%; rating input score 40; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 0%; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 44
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 14%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.12; rating input score 41; 41st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 87; 87th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 28.4%; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 7.5% per year; rating input score 100; 57th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 14.9% per year; rating input score 100; 74th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 8 board members independent · 4 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment
  • Leadership: top reported pay $222K · 14 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 12 of 14 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes grants and executive pay
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 16 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 2 filed related-organization links
  • 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.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
  • High — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 8 not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 40/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 41/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 6/100.