International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local Union 60

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
740706082
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
San Antonio, TX, USA
Phone
2103371741
Rating
79
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Reported finances

Revenue
$8,917,584
Expenses
$5,225,697
Assets
$25,870,265
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

12 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • HENRY ORTIZ (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • DAVID ARIAS (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • GARY AIKEN (FINANCIAL SECTOR TREASURER): $139,771 total reported compensation
  • LEE KODY (EXEC BOARD & BA): $122,522 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Operation of ibew local union #60. Representing members and the local union represents employees working under the collective bargaining agreement within the jurisdiction of ibew local 60. The local works to promote and protect the interests of its members with regard to working conditions, promotes higher standards of skilled labor, promotes & secures employment of its members, conductes labor and wage negotiation, and grevience hearings. The local provided services to approximately 3,125 members during the year.

What it reported doing in 2025

Operation of ibew local union #60. Representing members and the local union represents employees working under the collective bargaining agreement within the jurisdiction of ibew local #60. The local works to promote and protect the interests of its members with regard to working conditions, promotes higher standards of skilled labor, promotes & secures employment of its members, conductes labor and wage negotiation, and grevience hearings. The local provided services to approximately 3,125 members.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 91% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 62% for direct work, 34% for affiliated organizations, and 4% for member benefits.

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 reported officer compensation is a large share of total spending, which may reflect staffing concentration.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 56
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 83
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 48.7%; rating input score 49
  • Program expense ratio: 85.7%; rating input score 86
  • 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: 8 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 41.4%; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 4.95; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 96; 96th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 5%; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 12.9% per year; rating input score 100; 70th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 9.5% per year; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 7.2% per year; rating input score 100; 45th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 48.7% of revenue deployed · 85.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 12 of 12 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $4.5M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $140K · 12 people listed
  • Consistency: 25 of 25 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2011 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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 — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 57/100.